Karl Manheim
I don’t know Scott Malsin, I presume he’s a nice guy and cares about Culver City. But I’m worried that he’s pulling a fast one (or three) on the voters.
First, Scott seems to be doing an end-run around our term-limits law by running a third consecutive time for a Council seat. I’m not a fan of term limits, but I’m less a fan of a candidate who manipulates the law by resigning mid-way through his second term so as to be eligible for a 3rd consecutive term. It may be technically legal (due to the poorly-worded City Charter section on term limits), but it surely goes against the intent of that provision. Indeed, re-electing Scott will set a precedent for candidates who want to serve indefinitely. All they have to do is skip out half way through a term and, presto, they can run an unlimited number of times. It is an insult to the voters to even try that prank.
Second, Scott seems to have divided loyalties. He resigned in December, apparently because “his first priority is to his wife and daughter.” I cannot fault Scott for choosing his family over civic obligations (as many politicians ultimately do); that’s definitely his call to make, and I respect it. But, all of a sudden, he’s discovered that he can once again be a councilmember without jeopardizing that “first priority.” I hope other voters are as skeptical about that as I am. We deserve a City Council that puts Culver City as it’s “first priority.”
Third, Scott resigned in December just before a change in the law affecting health benefits for councilmembers. Had he served out his term, he would have been ineligible BOTH to run for reelection and for the health benefits he’s now receiving. To be sure, Scott voted against the benefits change (the only councilmember to do so). I presume he voted that way for policy reasons and not because he was self-interested in the outcome. But he still figured out a way to game the system, by “retiring” before the change date, and then seeking to be “re-hired” by the voters. That way he gets to keep health benefits that were intended for actual retirees. It’s sort of like insider trading. Again Scott’s ploy may be legal, but it’s hardly ethical.
In short, Scott Malsin is thumbing his nose at the voters, saying that the rules don’t really apply to him. It’s not merely that he’s treating us as fools, he’s costing us money; money that could be better spent on improving our City.
Karl Manheim is a Former Member of the Culver City Ad Hoc Committee on Signs in the Public Right of Way and a Professor of Law at Loyola Law School.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Monday, January 30, 2012
School District Staff Requests Relief from the Rising Cost of Health Benefits
Debbie Hamme
Now that our school board election is behind us, and we are beginning to return to some sense of normalcy, we find ourselves at that time of year when bargaining proposals are addressed. The Association of Classified Employees—Culver City attempts each year to find ways in which to find solutions to the problems and concerns of our members, while being cognizant of the financial challenges the district faces.
This year we are hopeful that we can overcome the adversarial dynamic that has existed in the past and replace it with a joint spirit of camaraderie and compromise in an effort to find long-term solutions that will benefit all stakeholders.
As you will note when reading our proposal, the teachers and the support staff have different priorities. The challenge will be to find solutions to the issues of both bargaining units and the district in a way that is do-able for the board.
We firmly believe that this can be done and are anxious to get to work.
There are a few sections of our contract in which the language is vague or open to several interpretations. In an effort to clarify language so that all ambiguity is eliminated, the following articles will be addressed and none of these issues have a negative financial impact to the district.
Article 4--A.C.E. Rights
Article 12—Transfers
Article 15—Holidays (discussing that members of certain departments are paid for their negotiated holidays differently than others)
Article 16—Vacation Accumulation and Vacation Carry-Over Language
Additionally, we will be discussing these issues:
Article 31—Health and Welfare
The conversation regarding medical benefits for employees has been in the media for a long time, and we have heard it argued from a variety of perspectives. However, in these uncertain times, it is only natural that employees would want to protect medical benefits for themselves and their families. When I started working for CCUSD 17 years ago, benefits were covered 100%. This was a way for the district to attract quality employees to our district. In the last several years, the district has asked us to absorb every annual increase, and today, district employees are paying roughly 50% of their own annual premiums.
Of course, one could say that this is a better alternative to paying 100% or having no insurance at all, but the reality is that this is a significant pay cut for us. Add that to unpaid furlough days and having had no raise since 2007, and the result is members of our unit that cannot make ends meet.
To improve this situation, we are proposing the possibility of adding additional carriers for medical benefits or finding a provider other than CalPers in an effort to reduce premiums across the board. While we want to investigate these possibilities, if it is not feasible to reduce medical benefit premiums through a change in providers, then we will want to discuss raising the district cap (the amount the district pays toward the annual premium).
This is not something the certificated unit has proposed, so the solution to this issue may prove complicated. In the past, the district has not liked to negotiate something with one unit that the other has not proposed.
We are also asking that the district use VSP Vision coverage in place of MES Vision coverage for employees. The district has provided Medical Eye Services coverage for their employees at no expense to the employee for years and we are asking for the switch because VSP provides better coverage that is accepted by more providers.
We are also requesting that the district replace US Life disability coverage (which the employee pays for), with coverage from American Fidelity, which provides more comprehensive coverage for about the same monthly premium.
Lastly, we will be discussing the addition of a salary step under Article 32—Wages.
If any member of the community has any questions or concerns about our proposal; please do not hesitate to comment on the blog and I will be happy to respond.
Debbie Hamme is the President of the Association of Classified Employees and the Secretary at El Rincon Elementary School.
Now that our school board election is behind us, and we are beginning to return to some sense of normalcy, we find ourselves at that time of year when bargaining proposals are addressed. The Association of Classified Employees—Culver City attempts each year to find ways in which to find solutions to the problems and concerns of our members, while being cognizant of the financial challenges the district faces.
This year we are hopeful that we can overcome the adversarial dynamic that has existed in the past and replace it with a joint spirit of camaraderie and compromise in an effort to find long-term solutions that will benefit all stakeholders.
As you will note when reading our proposal, the teachers and the support staff have different priorities. The challenge will be to find solutions to the issues of both bargaining units and the district in a way that is do-able for the board.
We firmly believe that this can be done and are anxious to get to work.
There are a few sections of our contract in which the language is vague or open to several interpretations. In an effort to clarify language so that all ambiguity is eliminated, the following articles will be addressed and none of these issues have a negative financial impact to the district.
Article 4--A.C.E. Rights
Article 12—Transfers
Article 15—Holidays (discussing that members of certain departments are paid for their negotiated holidays differently than others)
Article 16—Vacation Accumulation and Vacation Carry-Over Language
Additionally, we will be discussing these issues:
Article 31—Health and Welfare
The conversation regarding medical benefits for employees has been in the media for a long time, and we have heard it argued from a variety of perspectives. However, in these uncertain times, it is only natural that employees would want to protect medical benefits for themselves and their families. When I started working for CCUSD 17 years ago, benefits were covered 100%. This was a way for the district to attract quality employees to our district. In the last several years, the district has asked us to absorb every annual increase, and today, district employees are paying roughly 50% of their own annual premiums.
Of course, one could say that this is a better alternative to paying 100% or having no insurance at all, but the reality is that this is a significant pay cut for us. Add that to unpaid furlough days and having had no raise since 2007, and the result is members of our unit that cannot make ends meet.
To improve this situation, we are proposing the possibility of adding additional carriers for medical benefits or finding a provider other than CalPers in an effort to reduce premiums across the board. While we want to investigate these possibilities, if it is not feasible to reduce medical benefit premiums through a change in providers, then we will want to discuss raising the district cap (the amount the district pays toward the annual premium).
This is not something the certificated unit has proposed, so the solution to this issue may prove complicated. In the past, the district has not liked to negotiate something with one unit that the other has not proposed.
We are also asking that the district use VSP Vision coverage in place of MES Vision coverage for employees. The district has provided Medical Eye Services coverage for their employees at no expense to the employee for years and we are asking for the switch because VSP provides better coverage that is accepted by more providers.
We are also requesting that the district replace US Life disability coverage (which the employee pays for), with coverage from American Fidelity, which provides more comprehensive coverage for about the same monthly premium.
Lastly, we will be discussing the addition of a salary step under Article 32—Wages.
If any member of the community has any questions or concerns about our proposal; please do not hesitate to comment on the blog and I will be happy to respond.
Debbie Hamme is the President of the Association of Classified Employees and the Secretary at El Rincon Elementary School.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Council Candidates Weigh In On Entrada Project
NOTE: This is the second in a series of Culver City Progress election articles detailing the role of former Councilmembers and the views of the challengers on the important issues in Culver City. View the previous article here.
Would you support a maximum height limit for buildings in Redevelopment Agency areas? How tall should that height limit be? If you do not believe in a height limit in Redevelopment areas, what criteria would you use for determining the height maximum?
Jim Clarke:Since redevelopment agencies are going away, I assume this is one of those decisions which will have to be revisited. I don't support a one size fits all maximum height limit. I believe there could be a maximum height limit but feel the height limit for a specific project should be based on what is suitable for the area surrounding the project. I do believe, however, that a height limit should be set early on in the process using an open public process and then allow a developer to work within that limitation. I oppose trying to scale back a project once it has been designed. Establishing the height limit early on would be most beneficial to all parties.
Stephen Murray: Building height and area limits, as well as setback requirements, are zoning heuristics used so that all parties have an idea about the expectations of how a property can be used. Ultimately they are arbitrary restrictions- a guideline of 56 ft or "no taller than the tallest tree" still wouldn't guarantee that the wrong building isn't built. Adequate resolution of EIR, traffic, viability/occlusion issues and how the look and size fits into the neighborhoods are the real criteria that communities should care about.
Meghan Sahli-Wells: Culver City voters passed a 56 feet height limit ballot initiative. That limit should clearly be our guideline. Even though the initiative made an exemption for redevelopment areas, those exemptions should be slight and few. I would certainly consider differences of a few feet under certain circumstances, however an extreme height increase is unacceptable. A building like Entrada is a clear departure from the will of the people of Culver City, who know that a key to our success as a community is our comfortably modest size. Culver City has character; Entrada goes against it.
Should Council members vote on controversial items shortly after a City Council election has been held, but the members have not been installed?
Jim Clarke:Council members are elected to demonstrated leadership and make tough decisions whether it is their first vote or their last vote.� As an incoming Council member I would appreciate it if a Council made a decision after it has extensive subject rather than kicking the can down the street for a new member to decide. I would appreciate having the decks cleared but I know that is not realistic and there will be issues carried over. Let us assume that a majority of the Council were up for reelection and were not reelected. Then I would think it would not be appropriate for them to make decisions on important issues right before going out of office. But in many instances the new Council could overturn the decision.
Stephen Murray: The council should be allowed to exercise its office without restriction throughout its entire term, but during the lame duck session some modicum of courtesy should be expected. The council's decision to vote as it did was a particularly egregious break of faith with the cities residents.
Meghan Sahli-Wells: This type of last-minute decision for a project so big, controversial and unpopular creates a distinct feeling of distrust among residents. For every project, but especially those which benefit from public (redevelopment) dollars, there needs to be a thorough public vetting process, not a hasty decision between councils. The entire city suffers from a poor process: case in point, Entrada was subject to a costly lawsuit. This is not good governance.
If you were a newly elected Council member and asked to agendize the Entrada Project in order to reconsider the decision, what would you have done?
Jim Clarke:I would first have to do more research on the subject so I know more than I know now so I can't tell you what I would do.
Stephen Murray: I would have supported agendizing this project.
Meghan Sahli-Wells: I would have welcomed the chance to vote against Entrada.
Would you support a maximum height limit for buildings in Redevelopment Agency areas? How tall should that height limit be? If you do not believe in a height limit in Redevelopment areas, what criteria would you use for determining the height maximum?
Jim Clarke:Since redevelopment agencies are going away, I assume this is one of those decisions which will have to be revisited. I don't support a one size fits all maximum height limit. I believe there could be a maximum height limit but feel the height limit for a specific project should be based on what is suitable for the area surrounding the project. I do believe, however, that a height limit should be set early on in the process using an open public process and then allow a developer to work within that limitation. I oppose trying to scale back a project once it has been designed. Establishing the height limit early on would be most beneficial to all parties.
Stephen Murray: Building height and area limits, as well as setback requirements, are zoning heuristics used so that all parties have an idea about the expectations of how a property can be used. Ultimately they are arbitrary restrictions- a guideline of 56 ft or "no taller than the tallest tree" still wouldn't guarantee that the wrong building isn't built. Adequate resolution of EIR, traffic, viability/occlusion issues and how the look and size fits into the neighborhoods are the real criteria that communities should care about.
Meghan Sahli-Wells: Culver City voters passed a 56 feet height limit ballot initiative. That limit should clearly be our guideline. Even though the initiative made an exemption for redevelopment areas, those exemptions should be slight and few. I would certainly consider differences of a few feet under certain circumstances, however an extreme height increase is unacceptable. A building like Entrada is a clear departure from the will of the people of Culver City, who know that a key to our success as a community is our comfortably modest size. Culver City has character; Entrada goes against it.
Should Council members vote on controversial items shortly after a City Council election has been held, but the members have not been installed?
Jim Clarke:Council members are elected to demonstrated leadership and make tough decisions whether it is their first vote or their last vote.� As an incoming Council member I would appreciate it if a Council made a decision after it has extensive subject rather than kicking the can down the street for a new member to decide. I would appreciate having the decks cleared but I know that is not realistic and there will be issues carried over. Let us assume that a majority of the Council were up for reelection and were not reelected. Then I would think it would not be appropriate for them to make decisions on important issues right before going out of office. But in many instances the new Council could overturn the decision.
Stephen Murray: The council should be allowed to exercise its office without restriction throughout its entire term, but during the lame duck session some modicum of courtesy should be expected. The council's decision to vote as it did was a particularly egregious break of faith with the cities residents.
Meghan Sahli-Wells: This type of last-minute decision for a project so big, controversial and unpopular creates a distinct feeling of distrust among residents. For every project, but especially those which benefit from public (redevelopment) dollars, there needs to be a thorough public vetting process, not a hasty decision between councils. The entire city suffers from a poor process: case in point, Entrada was subject to a costly lawsuit. This is not good governance.
If you were a newly elected Council member and asked to agendize the Entrada Project in order to reconsider the decision, what would you have done?
Jim Clarke:I would first have to do more research on the subject so I know more than I know now so I can't tell you what I would do.
Stephen Murray: I would have supported agendizing this project.
Meghan Sahli-Wells: I would have welcomed the chance to vote against Entrada.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Update on Summer Concert Series: More Questions than Answers
Tom Camarella
As many readers know, the revenue of the state of California has been hard-hit by the international recession/depression during the last several years. Consequently, the legislature and the Governor have been slashing the state budget and these cuts have had a domino effect on many local programs in counties and cities throughout the state. The latest hit came with the demise of redevelopment agencies in, set to go into effect on Wednesday. Our Culver City Redevelopment Agency has had to be dissolved, since no more funds would be forthcoming. Since the agency was the largest funder of our Culver City Music Festival (the Summer series at City Hall), it has placed the festival in dire jeopardy. The future of the Festival was placed on the Council Agenda on Jan. 9 and continued for 2 weeks to allow staff to research potential funding options. Many residents continue to contact the City Council, asking that this well-attended, popular and good-will cultural mainstay of the city not be discontinued.
Consequently, an item was placed on the Culver City Council Agenda on January 23, 2012 (Monday night) to consider:
1. A conceptual proposal by Boulevard Music to produce a music series in lieu of one produced by the city; and
2. A conceptual proposal by Boulevard Music to produce one city-sponsored 2012 summer concert.
Gary Mandell (the owner of Boulevard Music) could not be too specific regarding how many concerts could be funded, since it depended on how many dollars could be fundraised and how much the in-kind services would be worth from the city or others.
Prior to the Council discussion, residents at the podium mentioned how important it was to continue the cultural benefits to the city, that the quality of the events should remain high and that more proposals should have been solicited through a Request for Proposals.
In a wide-ranging discussion, Councilman Weissman mentioned that there was more time to make a decision than originally thought, so this could be given to an Ad Hoc Committee of the Cultural Affairs Commission for further fleshing out of proposals and ways to proceed.
Councilman Cooper was concerned about what type of performers could be available, how much lead time it would take to book them and how much each concert might cost.
Councilman Armenta brought up whether there were any available dollars in the Council’s Discretionary Fund. When city staff said that there was $10,000 available, Mr. Armenta requested a $7,500 allocation from that account to help fund the concerts.
The discussion then went into specifics regarding the costs of last summer’s concerts for artists, marketing production, sound, etc. and it was quickly realized that there were not enough specifics available and this needed to be fleshed out more with a representative of the City and Mr. Mandell. However, the Council was willing to direct $ 7,500 of available funds to the Summer Festival to be used by Mr. Mandell in furtherance of the limited festival that would happen this summer.
Last, but not least, the fundraising would be referred to the Cultural Affairs Ad-Hoc Sub-committee to garner as much financial support as possible, so the Culver City Music Festival might continue at a high level into the future.
Tom Camarella is the former Chair of the Fiesta La Ballona Committee, the former President of the Culver City Democratic Club, and a former Member of the Culver City Charter Review Committee.
As many readers know, the revenue of the state of California has been hard-hit by the international recession/depression during the last several years. Consequently, the legislature and the Governor have been slashing the state budget and these cuts have had a domino effect on many local programs in counties and cities throughout the state. The latest hit came with the demise of redevelopment agencies in, set to go into effect on Wednesday. Our Culver City Redevelopment Agency has had to be dissolved, since no more funds would be forthcoming. Since the agency was the largest funder of our Culver City Music Festival (the Summer series at City Hall), it has placed the festival in dire jeopardy. The future of the Festival was placed on the Council Agenda on Jan. 9 and continued for 2 weeks to allow staff to research potential funding options. Many residents continue to contact the City Council, asking that this well-attended, popular and good-will cultural mainstay of the city not be discontinued.
Consequently, an item was placed on the Culver City Council Agenda on January 23, 2012 (Monday night) to consider:
1. A conceptual proposal by Boulevard Music to produce a music series in lieu of one produced by the city; and
2. A conceptual proposal by Boulevard Music to produce one city-sponsored 2012 summer concert.
Gary Mandell (the owner of Boulevard Music) could not be too specific regarding how many concerts could be funded, since it depended on how many dollars could be fundraised and how much the in-kind services would be worth from the city or others.
Prior to the Council discussion, residents at the podium mentioned how important it was to continue the cultural benefits to the city, that the quality of the events should remain high and that more proposals should have been solicited through a Request for Proposals.
In a wide-ranging discussion, Councilman Weissman mentioned that there was more time to make a decision than originally thought, so this could be given to an Ad Hoc Committee of the Cultural Affairs Commission for further fleshing out of proposals and ways to proceed.
Councilman Cooper was concerned about what type of performers could be available, how much lead time it would take to book them and how much each concert might cost.
Councilman Armenta brought up whether there were any available dollars in the Council’s Discretionary Fund. When city staff said that there was $10,000 available, Mr. Armenta requested a $7,500 allocation from that account to help fund the concerts.
The discussion then went into specifics regarding the costs of last summer’s concerts for artists, marketing production, sound, etc. and it was quickly realized that there were not enough specifics available and this needed to be fleshed out more with a representative of the City and Mr. Mandell. However, the Council was willing to direct $ 7,500 of available funds to the Summer Festival to be used by Mr. Mandell in furtherance of the limited festival that would happen this summer.
Last, but not least, the fundraising would be referred to the Cultural Affairs Ad-Hoc Sub-committee to garner as much financial support as possible, so the Culver City Music Festival might continue at a high level into the future.
Tom Camarella is the former Chair of the Fiesta La Ballona Committee, the former President of the Culver City Democratic Club, and a former Member of the Culver City Charter Review Committee.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
The Entrada Project – Despite Massive Opposition, Outgoing City Council Approved Monstrosity, Incoming Council Refused to Reconsider
Gary Silbiger
NOTE: This is the first in a series of Culver City Progress election articles detailing the role of former Councilmembers and the views of the challengers on the important issues in Culver City. A Scorecard for each issue is included at the end of the articles.
On April 14, 2008, one of the most complex development projects in Culver City’s history – the Entrada Project – was quickly fast tracked to the City Council agenda for a vote. The big developers knew they had 4 of the 5 Councilmembers on board, but 3 new Council members – a majority - had just been elected 6 days earlier, and were to be officially sworn in on April 28. Unlike the then-current 4 Council member majority, the soon-to-be-elected members had each spoken critically about the massive and complicated Entrada Project.
On February 20, 2008, the Culver City Planning Commission had compliantly agreed to the 13 story office building and parking lot next to the then Radisson hotel. This then led the United Neighbors of Westchester, the residents closest to the project, to appeal the decision to the City Council and Redevelopment Agency. All the stars were aligned.
Yet it wasn’t until April 9 – 5 days before the Council meeting – that the thousands of pages of technical material in support of the City staff’s agenda report recommending full approval of the project as suggested by the developer first became available to the public.
That fateful night of April 14, 2008, the Carlyle Group, a super-wealthy national developer, requested its project, at the Centinela Avenue Radisson Hotel property, now owned by the Doubletree Hotel, be approved by the City Council and Redevelopment Agency. This approval required an Environmental Impact Report, a height exception (the 56 foot height limit approved by a ballot initiative could only be increased in a Redevelopment Agency area by a vote of the Council), a Design for Development, and a Tentative Map (splitting the parcel into 2). Culver City staff found the EIR to have “4 significant and unavoidable impacts” – air quality, archaeological resources, construction noise, and traffic – which could be reduced, but not eliminated. Given the massive amount of materials, the extremely short period of time to prepare for this vote, the 5 days maximum for the public to prepare, the technical nature of these issues, and the recently discovered issues of methane gas in the area and Native American concerns, I asked for a short extension of time to investigate and research the breadth of this development. Not one Councilmember gave either the public or me the common courtesy of allowing us to properly prepare for the vote. This is not the way people should be treated.
At the meeting, the community was clear in their view – 46 individuals spoke and 54 wrote comments in opposition to the Project totaling 100 opponents, while only 5 spoke and 1 wrote comments in support of the Project totaling 6 supporters. 100 to deny and 6 to approve. At the middle of the night, the Council voted to postpone the meeting until the following evening.
On April 15, 2008, Scott Malsin made the successful motion, seconded by Alan Corlin, denying the United Neighbors appeal and approving all parts of the Planning Commission’s decision, including the permission to build a 176 foot building. The damage was done, the people ignored, big business rewarded.
But, there was still another opportunity to keep Culver City’s small town feel. On the April 28, 2008 night of the changing of the guard, then-newly elected Councilmember Christopher Armenta made a request to agendize a discussion about reconsidering the Entrada Project vote of April 15. I agreed, but not one other Councilmember (Scott Malsin, Micheal O’Leary, or Andy Weissman) voted to even agendize the discussion. This exact same scenario repeated itself at the May 12, 2008 City Council meeting. It was clear that the new City Council had the authority to reconsider the topic and vote in a different manner, both City Attorney Carol Schwab and Redevelopment Agency Counsel Murray Kane agreed. Yet the new council did not even offer us an opportunity to review and correct the many mistakes made by the prior council.
The United Neighbors appealed the decision to the California courts and lost, relying primarily on their misinterpretation that the height limitation ballot initiative had precluded the Council from approving a building more than 56 feet high in a redevelopment area.
This is hardly the only time a bad development project was approved by the Council. However, due to its massive size, community rejection, and unfairness of the Council procedures, it ranks high in showing the damage that a few elected officials can cause. The lesson learned is to listen closely to campaign promises and make certain that we hold those elected officials to those promises they made to get elected.
ENTRADA DEVELOPMENT SCORECARD
April 15, 2008 Vote to Approve Entrada Development
Micheal O'Leary: N/A
Scott Malsin: F
Andrew Weissman: N/A
April 28, 2008 and May 12, 2008 Vote to Agendize Reconsideration
Micheal O'Leary: F
Scott Malsin: F
Andrew Weissman: F
Gary Silbiger is the Co-Editor of the Culver City Progress Blog and the Former Mayor of Culver City.
NOTE: This is the first in a series of Culver City Progress election articles detailing the role of former Councilmembers and the views of the challengers on the important issues in Culver City. A Scorecard for each issue is included at the end of the articles.
On April 14, 2008, one of the most complex development projects in Culver City’s history – the Entrada Project – was quickly fast tracked to the City Council agenda for a vote. The big developers knew they had 4 of the 5 Councilmembers on board, but 3 new Council members – a majority - had just been elected 6 days earlier, and were to be officially sworn in on April 28. Unlike the then-current 4 Council member majority, the soon-to-be-elected members had each spoken critically about the massive and complicated Entrada Project.
On February 20, 2008, the Culver City Planning Commission had compliantly agreed to the 13 story office building and parking lot next to the then Radisson hotel. This then led the United Neighbors of Westchester, the residents closest to the project, to appeal the decision to the City Council and Redevelopment Agency. All the stars were aligned.
Yet it wasn’t until April 9 – 5 days before the Council meeting – that the thousands of pages of technical material in support of the City staff’s agenda report recommending full approval of the project as suggested by the developer first became available to the public.
That fateful night of April 14, 2008, the Carlyle Group, a super-wealthy national developer, requested its project, at the Centinela Avenue Radisson Hotel property, now owned by the Doubletree Hotel, be approved by the City Council and Redevelopment Agency. This approval required an Environmental Impact Report, a height exception (the 56 foot height limit approved by a ballot initiative could only be increased in a Redevelopment Agency area by a vote of the Council), a Design for Development, and a Tentative Map (splitting the parcel into 2). Culver City staff found the EIR to have “4 significant and unavoidable impacts” – air quality, archaeological resources, construction noise, and traffic – which could be reduced, but not eliminated. Given the massive amount of materials, the extremely short period of time to prepare for this vote, the 5 days maximum for the public to prepare, the technical nature of these issues, and the recently discovered issues of methane gas in the area and Native American concerns, I asked for a short extension of time to investigate and research the breadth of this development. Not one Councilmember gave either the public or me the common courtesy of allowing us to properly prepare for the vote. This is not the way people should be treated.
At the meeting, the community was clear in their view – 46 individuals spoke and 54 wrote comments in opposition to the Project totaling 100 opponents, while only 5 spoke and 1 wrote comments in support of the Project totaling 6 supporters. 100 to deny and 6 to approve. At the middle of the night, the Council voted to postpone the meeting until the following evening.
On April 15, 2008, Scott Malsin made the successful motion, seconded by Alan Corlin, denying the United Neighbors appeal and approving all parts of the Planning Commission’s decision, including the permission to build a 176 foot building. The damage was done, the people ignored, big business rewarded.
But, there was still another opportunity to keep Culver City’s small town feel. On the April 28, 2008 night of the changing of the guard, then-newly elected Councilmember Christopher Armenta made a request to agendize a discussion about reconsidering the Entrada Project vote of April 15. I agreed, but not one other Councilmember (Scott Malsin, Micheal O’Leary, or Andy Weissman) voted to even agendize the discussion. This exact same scenario repeated itself at the May 12, 2008 City Council meeting. It was clear that the new City Council had the authority to reconsider the topic and vote in a different manner, both City Attorney Carol Schwab and Redevelopment Agency Counsel Murray Kane agreed. Yet the new council did not even offer us an opportunity to review and correct the many mistakes made by the prior council.
The United Neighbors appealed the decision to the California courts and lost, relying primarily on their misinterpretation that the height limitation ballot initiative had precluded the Council from approving a building more than 56 feet high in a redevelopment area.
This is hardly the only time a bad development project was approved by the Council. However, due to its massive size, community rejection, and unfairness of the Council procedures, it ranks high in showing the damage that a few elected officials can cause. The lesson learned is to listen closely to campaign promises and make certain that we hold those elected officials to those promises they made to get elected.
ENTRADA DEVELOPMENT SCORECARD
April 15, 2008 Vote to Approve Entrada Development
Micheal O'Leary: N/A
Scott Malsin: F
Andrew Weissman: N/A
April 28, 2008 and May 12, 2008 Vote to Agendize Reconsideration
Micheal O'Leary: F
Scott Malsin: F
Andrew Weissman: F
Gary Silbiger is the Co-Editor of the Culver City Progress Blog and the Former Mayor of Culver City.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Culver City Teachers Request Smaller Class Sizes, Raise, and a Better Relationship with the District
David Mielke
Now that Culver City’s two new school board members, Nancy Goldberg and Laura Chardiet, have been seated, the Culver City Federation of Teachers has kicked it into high gear on two fronts:
CCFT 2011-2012 Bargaining Proposal
Article 32: Wages
• The five-year waiting period to qualify for K-12 longevity steps shall be eliminated.
• One new longevity step shall be added to the K-12 and OCD salary schedules.
• Longevity steps shall be developed for Adult School teachers
• The stipend schedule shall be revised and updated to include extra-duty assignments at elementary sites.
• One new stipend, at 20% of full-time pay, shall be established for elementary combination classes.
• An across-the-board salary increase shall be funded if CCUSD’s ending balance exceeds the mandated 3% reserve.
Article 31: Health and Welfare
• Annual premium increases shall be divided equally between CCUSD and bargaining unit members.
• The annual maximum dental benefit shall be increased from $1,500 to $2,500.
• Cash in lieu of medical insurance shall be increased from $3,000 to $4,000.
• Sick leave balances shall be posted on the Subfinder site.
Article 26: Class Size
• The current calculation of class size limits by departmental and grade level averages shall be replaced by “semi absolute” maximums for individual classrooms.
• State caseload maximums for specialists and special education teachers shall be added to the collective bargaining agreement to facilitate in-house dispute resolution.
• Caseload maximums shall be established for specialists serving at multiple sites and for school nurses.
Article 25: Hours of Work
• Additional preparation time shall be established for all elementary classroom teachers.
• Additional preparation time shall be established for special education teachers at elementary sites.
• District-called meetings shall be held on minimum days and shall be limited to 3 meetings per month.
Finally, we’re hoping to discuss with CCUSD the current reimbursement structure regarding release time for union business.
David Mielke is the President of the Culver City Federation of Teachers, a Member of the CCUSD Community Budget Advisory Committee, and a Teacher at Culver City High School.
Now that Culver City’s two new school board members, Nancy Goldberg and Laura Chardiet, have been seated, the Culver City Federation of Teachers has kicked it into high gear on two fronts:
- Negotiations
- Laying the foundation for a labor/management “partnership” focused on student achievement.
Starting with negotiations, CCFT bargains each year with CCUSD. Multi-year deals would be great, but since our revenues change every year depending on what’s going on in Sacramento, talks must be held each year. To put this year’s negotiations into context, teachers in Culver City are taking 4 unpaid furlough days this year after taking 5 unpaid days last year. CCUSD asked us for our help in a crisis and your teachers stepped up-saving CCUSD over one million dollars. According to the most recent data from the Los Angeles County Office of Education, though, Culver City teachers rank just 42nd of the 47 unified districts in the county in terms of maximum salary.
Our last salary increase was bargained in 2007-a 1% raise. It’s been even longer since we’ve seen an increase in CCUSD’s contribution toward our health care costs which, as I’m sure you know, go up every year. So as salaries have stayed flat and health care costs have increased, teachers’ standard of living has decreased.
But when we surveyed our members this fall prior to developing our bargaining proposal, salary was not the #1 concern. Health care costs? No. Furlough days? No. The primary concern for Culver City teachers: class size limits. If you want to make a teacher angry, make it tough for us to be effective. Larger classes do just that. Currently, there are no hard contractual maximums regarding class size. Over the years, CCUSD has done a good job of keeping our classes under control, but as the financial crunch has continued it has been harder for them to hold the line.
Using my own classes as an example, the smallest of my Psychology classes at CCHS has 30 students; the largest has 37. As classes get larger, the student experience changes. It’s easier for any of them to fall through the cracks. It’s harder for us to develop the kind of relationships we want with all our students. The amount of written work we assign decreases. After all, how many nights would you want to spend correcting 175 essays?
A public hearing will be held at Tuesday night’s school board meeting so that the community can give input on our proposal (The entire proposal appears below). I’ll explain to the board that teachers need real class size limits; we need help with rising health care costs; and we’re concerned that substandard salaries prevent us from attracting and keeping the best and brightest teachers. If these are your concerns, please get up and share them on Tuesday night or at any other board meeting. My experience (I’ve been teaching here since 1979) is that school boards listen more carefully to parents and community members than they do to teachers (Although I have high hopes for this new board!). CCUSD has yet to present us with their proposal, but we expect it-and a public hearing on their proposal-within the next month.
Whew-If you’re still with me, the best is yet to come. Our national affiliate organization, the American Federation of Teachers, has been working with local unions around the country to help them develop real, meaningful and equal educational partnerships with district administrators to address student achievement. One of the best examples of such a partnership is ABC Unified in Orange County. They’ve experienced a new, collaborative spirit throughout their district and have seen a steady increase in student achievement.
I met two weeks ago with Superintendent Patti Jaffe, Human Resources Director Leslie Lockhart, Kevin Cronin of our state organization, CFT, and Joan Devlin from the AFT headquarters in Washington D.C. to start the process here. I think I can safely say that each of these people is 100% on board. I’m confident that this new board will support this effort as well. We’re such a small district ( with relationships which have grown strong over the years ) that this kind of collaborative relationship should have been put in place years ago. But better late than never! So stay tuned. Bargaining is tough in these tough times, but the concerns about class size and competitive compensation are real. And the steps toward a deeper “partnership” give many of us optimism for our future. As Patti Jaffe said to me, “Dave, before you and I retire, let’s put something together to benefit those who follow us.”
CCFT 2011-2012 Bargaining Proposal
Article 32: Wages
• The five-year waiting period to qualify for K-12 longevity steps shall be eliminated.
• One new longevity step shall be added to the K-12 and OCD salary schedules.
• Longevity steps shall be developed for Adult School teachers
• The stipend schedule shall be revised and updated to include extra-duty assignments at elementary sites.
• One new stipend, at 20% of full-time pay, shall be established for elementary combination classes.
• An across-the-board salary increase shall be funded if CCUSD’s ending balance exceeds the mandated 3% reserve.
Article 31: Health and Welfare
• Annual premium increases shall be divided equally between CCUSD and bargaining unit members.
• The annual maximum dental benefit shall be increased from $1,500 to $2,500.
• Cash in lieu of medical insurance shall be increased from $3,000 to $4,000.
• Sick leave balances shall be posted on the Subfinder site.
Article 26: Class Size
• The current calculation of class size limits by departmental and grade level averages shall be replaced by “semi absolute” maximums for individual classrooms.
• State caseload maximums for specialists and special education teachers shall be added to the collective bargaining agreement to facilitate in-house dispute resolution.
• Caseload maximums shall be established for specialists serving at multiple sites and for school nurses.
Article 25: Hours of Work
• Additional preparation time shall be established for all elementary classroom teachers.
• Additional preparation time shall be established for special education teachers at elementary sites.
• District-called meetings shall be held on minimum days and shall be limited to 3 meetings per month.
Finally, we’re hoping to discuss with CCUSD the current reimbursement structure regarding release time for union business.
David Mielke is the President of the Culver City Federation of Teachers, a Member of the CCUSD Community Budget Advisory Committee, and a Teacher at Culver City High School.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
City Council Meeting Preview
On Monday, January 23, 2012, the City Council meets at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 9770 Culver Boulevard. The agenda includes:
- Destroying the City Council's popular Culver City Summer concert series. With waste galore and priorities upside down, the City Council, at its January 9, 2012 meeting, tried to convince the public of the necessity for ending the funding of its music program as a prelude to terminate all art, culture and music in Culver City. Will you let our representatives get away with this? If not, then join us by showing up to this meeting and expressing yourself.
- A second reading of a proposed ordinance to add a section to Mobile Home Park Resident Protection
- Distribution of Culver City's Community Development Block Grant award from the federal government for fiscal year 2012-2013. The approximate $212,000 for this fiscal year is a significant decreased from last year's amount. The money is proposed to be spent on the repayment for the Senior Center, the City's disability services specialist, and sidewalk repair. What do you think this money should be spent on?
Saturday, January 21, 2012
School Board Meeting Preview
On Tuesday, January 24th, the School Board meets at 7:00 at City Hall (9770 Culver Boulevard). The agenda will include:
- Public Hearings on the Initial Collective Bargaining Proposals for both the Culver City Federation of Teachers and the Culver City Association of Classified Employees
- Principals Christine Collins (La Ballona) and Maryanne Turner (Culver Park High School) will present on instructional practices used to support student learning and achievement
- District auditors will present on 2010-2011 audit results
- 2 presentations on special education programs in Culver City (1 from “Culver City Citizens for an Ethical School Board” and 1 from Special Education Director Jo-Anne Cooper)
- A review of the board policy on intradistrict open enrollment (Culver City families who want their kids to go to a school other than their home school)
- Action on a board policy on Meeting Conduct that relates to the brown act and other open meeting regulations (covered by Gary Silbiger in a previous posting here)
- Action on a board policy related to homework which includes sections on the amount of homework that students receive and how it should be counted as part of their grades
- Recommendations related to the capital improvement projects (covered by Karlo Silbiger here and here and Jon Barton here) as proposed by ACE Community and the Superintendent
The meeting will also be broadcast live on channel 35 and streamed at www.culvercity.org. The entire agenda and reference materials can be found here.
Culver City Must Take a Stand Against Corporate Personhood
Sylvia Moore
Should Culver City residents or corporations decide how to run Culver City? Most would say residents, but under the doctrine of corporate personhood, Culver City residents don’t necessarily have the final word. Two years ago this Saturday, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizen’s United vs. FEC cemented into law the idea that corporations have the same rights under the Constitution as human beings. It’s an absurd notion, but one that has dire consequences for the quality of life of communities like Culver City.
Belonging in the Supreme Court’s “Hall of Shame” along side such greatest misses as Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson and Bush v. Gore, Citizens United reaffirmed the notion that money equals speech, and granted corporations and unions the right to raise unlimited funds on behalf of political candidates. The decision paved the way for the creation of independent, and often secretive, expenditure groups, who have raised millions of dollars to buy radio and television advertising to influence local, state and federal elections. Citizens United was the endgame in a long history of Supreme Court caselaw that led to the elevation of corporate power over our democracy.
So how could corporate constitutional rights adversely affect Culver City? Under the First Amendment, developers could raise unlimited campaign funds on behalf of a pro-development City Council candidate who pledges to support a construction project opposed by a majority of residents. That candidate’s poorly funded rival wouldn’t have a fair chance. Suspicious that a company is poisoning local groundwater or violating local health ordinances? Under the Fourth Amendment, polluters would be protected from search without a warrant. Want to keep a certain big box retailer or a cell phone tower out of Culver City? Under the Fourteenth Amendment, firms wanting to build unpopular projects could sue the city, claiming discrimination. In short, if Culver City adopts regulations protecting the community’s environment, workers and health, corporations with the same legal rights as people could try to block those regulations they believe cut into their profits.
The Citizens United decision sparked such massive public outrage, that nearly 80% of Americans want it overturned. This shows the issue crosses party lines; a majority of Democrats, Republicans and Independents support a constitutional amendment reversing Citzens United. A national movement to amend the Constitution to dismantle corporate constitutional rights is now underway. Several proposed amendments have been introduced by congressional lawmakers. Grassroots organizations such as Common Cause, Move to Amend, People for the American Way, and Public Citizen are rounding up public support in favor of an amendment.
I am a member of the Los Angeles chapter of Move to Amend, a coalition of groups dedicated to passing a constitutional amendment that would restrict constitutional rights to human beings, and expressly state that money is not equal to speech. Such an amendment would give Congress the authority to limit how much corporations can spend on elections, allow communities to enact laws establishing public financing of campaigns, and empower citizens to stop corporate abuses.
In December, our chapter successfully lobbied the city of Los Angeles to become the largest munipality in the country to pass a resolution in support of our proposed language for a constitutional amendment. Los Angeles followed Berkeley, Richmond and Oakland, CA, Missoula, MT, Boulder, CO, Madison and Dane County, WI, and Albany, NY in affirming that constitutional rights are for humans only. This month, Petaluma, CA, New York City, Duluth, MN, and Portland, OR, passed similar resolutions. Culver City should also join the effort by lobbying its City Council for a resolution. If Culver City can get an anti-corporate personhood ballot initiative passed, that would make an even more powerful statement. Move to Amend believes in a bottom up effort to overturn Citizens United, and is encouraging communities to start their own local chapters. If Culver City residents would like to establish a Move to Amend chapter, information on how to get started is available at http://movetoamend.org
Sylvia Moore is the Vice President of the Culver City Democratic Club, the Blog Editor for California One Care, and a Delegate from the 47th Assembly District to the California Democratic Party.
Should Culver City residents or corporations decide how to run Culver City? Most would say residents, but under the doctrine of corporate personhood, Culver City residents don’t necessarily have the final word. Two years ago this Saturday, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizen’s United vs. FEC cemented into law the idea that corporations have the same rights under the Constitution as human beings. It’s an absurd notion, but one that has dire consequences for the quality of life of communities like Culver City.
Belonging in the Supreme Court’s “Hall of Shame” along side such greatest misses as Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson and Bush v. Gore, Citizens United reaffirmed the notion that money equals speech, and granted corporations and unions the right to raise unlimited funds on behalf of political candidates. The decision paved the way for the creation of independent, and often secretive, expenditure groups, who have raised millions of dollars to buy radio and television advertising to influence local, state and federal elections. Citizens United was the endgame in a long history of Supreme Court caselaw that led to the elevation of corporate power over our democracy.
So how could corporate constitutional rights adversely affect Culver City? Under the First Amendment, developers could raise unlimited campaign funds on behalf of a pro-development City Council candidate who pledges to support a construction project opposed by a majority of residents. That candidate’s poorly funded rival wouldn’t have a fair chance. Suspicious that a company is poisoning local groundwater or violating local health ordinances? Under the Fourth Amendment, polluters would be protected from search without a warrant. Want to keep a certain big box retailer or a cell phone tower out of Culver City? Under the Fourteenth Amendment, firms wanting to build unpopular projects could sue the city, claiming discrimination. In short, if Culver City adopts regulations protecting the community’s environment, workers and health, corporations with the same legal rights as people could try to block those regulations they believe cut into their profits.
The Citizens United decision sparked such massive public outrage, that nearly 80% of Americans want it overturned. This shows the issue crosses party lines; a majority of Democrats, Republicans and Independents support a constitutional amendment reversing Citzens United. A national movement to amend the Constitution to dismantle corporate constitutional rights is now underway. Several proposed amendments have been introduced by congressional lawmakers. Grassroots organizations such as Common Cause, Move to Amend, People for the American Way, and Public Citizen are rounding up public support in favor of an amendment.
I am a member of the Los Angeles chapter of Move to Amend, a coalition of groups dedicated to passing a constitutional amendment that would restrict constitutional rights to human beings, and expressly state that money is not equal to speech. Such an amendment would give Congress the authority to limit how much corporations can spend on elections, allow communities to enact laws establishing public financing of campaigns, and empower citizens to stop corporate abuses.
In December, our chapter successfully lobbied the city of Los Angeles to become the largest munipality in the country to pass a resolution in support of our proposed language for a constitutional amendment. Los Angeles followed Berkeley, Richmond and Oakland, CA, Missoula, MT, Boulder, CO, Madison and Dane County, WI, and Albany, NY in affirming that constitutional rights are for humans only. This month, Petaluma, CA, New York City, Duluth, MN, and Portland, OR, passed similar resolutions. Culver City should also join the effort by lobbying its City Council for a resolution. If Culver City can get an anti-corporate personhood ballot initiative passed, that would make an even more powerful statement. Move to Amend believes in a bottom up effort to overturn Citizens United, and is encouraging communities to start their own local chapters. If Culver City residents would like to establish a Move to Amend chapter, information on how to get started is available at http://movetoamend.org
Sylvia Moore is the Vice President of the Culver City Democratic Club, the Blog Editor for California One Care, and a Delegate from the 47th Assembly District to the California Democratic Party.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Unless We Act Now, Summer Concerts Will Be Cut
Ronnie Jayne
A formerly straight-ahead City Council agenda item concerning approval of the Cultural Affairs Commission’s recommendation for the 2012 Summer Music Festival, changed drastically after the elimination of State Redevelopment Agency money. Suddenly (and I mean, SUDDENLY) the January 9th meeting item changed from who would produce our 18th Annual Festival to whether there would be a Festival at all. The Culver City Redevelopment Agency has funded most of our Cultural Affairs events, as well as a large percentage of our Cultural Affairs staff salaries for a number of years. In the Staff Report City Manager, John Nachbar recommended that the Festival not be given any General Fund dollars, and therefore be cancelled for 2012. I delivered the following remarks when the issue was called:
“Good evening, Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency. My name is Ronnie Jayne, Culver City resident and current member of the Cultural Affairs Commission for the past 7 ½ years. I speak tonight as a private citizen, but with the knowledge gained from serving for at least 4 years on the Commission’s Festivals and Events subcommittee,
It’s election season (Isn’t it always?!), and Culver City citizens will be divided over candidates and issues. But the Culver City Music Festival is an issue where there is much unity. We LOVE this Festival. It’s an opportunity for people of different ages, ethnicities, economic means and musical tastes to get together, … enjoy Culver City, … enjoy each other’s company, … enjoy 8 evenings of excellent music, … and all of it , Free to all who come here.
I know that the Redevelopment Agency is funding the $ 75,000 per year to produce this Festival, and that the Redevelopment money is slated to disappear But $ 75,000 for 8 high-quality concerts is an amazing “bang for the buck – great music, good will, cultural enrichment, and a higher profile for Culver City. Over the years, there have been many discussions and struggles on how to reap the economic advantages from the Music Festival, implied by its funding by Redevelopment money.
Now that that money is leaving, perhaps we should realize the REAL purpose of the Festival – as a benefit that the City of Culver City gives to its citizens. There is a real value to this. When there is a rich cultural life in a city, it thrives. People want to buy houses here, shop here, eat here, live here. Our property values remain stable in an otherwise unstable market, partially due to our rich cultural life.
I get it – We need to find the $ 75,000 to pay for this. All the things we’d like to have add up. To quote the late Senator Everett Dirksen, …’A billion here, a billion there, … pretty soon we’re talking real money’ I get it. But, I believe we need to do a little more work to save this incredibly successful and popular program.
I know, … ‘Time is of the essence’. But, I recall that the last year’s decision on who would produce the Festival was at a City Council meeting on February 7, 2011 -- Using last year’s judgment, that would be 4 weeks from now!
We need to look at other cities – Many pay for their concert series from the General Fund. Again, we’re talking about $ 75,000 for 8 high-quality concerts.
Let’s take a few weeks to figure this out, and not decide from a position of panic. We’re smart people. If we want to do this, we can. If you can’t figure out how to fund this Festival now, .. give it a few weeks, do some research (I’ll help, if needed.), and let’s make it happen.”
After hearing from many members of the public, supporting the continued funding of the Music Festival, it was time for the Council members to speak. All of them voiced their love of the Festival, but there were differing ideas on how to proceed. Councilmember Cooper was on one end of the spectrum – making a motion to deny funding effective immediately, (and I paraphrase) so as not to prolong the inevitable conclusion that the City has no money to fund this project. Councilmember Armenta was on the other end of the spectrum – stating that the City should find a way to get funding for this important annual service to the citizens of Culver City. The other 2 were somewhere in between, although both Councilmembers Weissman and Mayor O’Leary explained that they did not support funding the Festival through the City’s General Fund.
Ultimately, the vote (Armenta, O’Leary and Weissman voting “Aye”, and Cooper voting “No”) gave the Commission, Staff, Agency, City Council and Culver City citizens 2 weeks to try to find a way to save the Festival. At our upcoming City Council meeting on January 23 the issue will come up again.
Since the January 9 Council meeting, I’ve received calls from many Culver City citizens, expressing their disappointment that this signature series could be cancelled. Some have offered dollars of various amounts, fundraising efforts and potential benefactors they have contacted. All have expressed dismay that this process is moving so quickly, … that these efforts take time to reach fruition.
I sincerely hope that our City Council sees these efforts on the part of Staff and Citizens as a step in the right direction, and will agree to accept a package that might include additional Sponsorships, Grants, Donations and some money from the General Fund.
We’re a creative town with very creative people. Culture is the life-blood of our town, and we need to keep “Culture City” alive and thriving. Preserving our Summer Music Festival is an important part of this package.
If you have an opinion and/or possible solution , please let your voice be heard. Come to the City Council Meeting on Monday, January 23. I’ll see you there.
Ronnie Jayne is a member of the Culver City Cultural Affairs Commission, the former Chair of the Fiesta La Ballona Committee, and the former President of the Culver City Democratic Club.
A formerly straight-ahead City Council agenda item concerning approval of the Cultural Affairs Commission’s recommendation for the 2012 Summer Music Festival, changed drastically after the elimination of State Redevelopment Agency money. Suddenly (and I mean, SUDDENLY) the January 9th meeting item changed from who would produce our 18th Annual Festival to whether there would be a Festival at all. The Culver City Redevelopment Agency has funded most of our Cultural Affairs events, as well as a large percentage of our Cultural Affairs staff salaries for a number of years. In the Staff Report City Manager, John Nachbar recommended that the Festival not be given any General Fund dollars, and therefore be cancelled for 2012. I delivered the following remarks when the issue was called:
“Good evening, Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency. My name is Ronnie Jayne, Culver City resident and current member of the Cultural Affairs Commission for the past 7 ½ years. I speak tonight as a private citizen, but with the knowledge gained from serving for at least 4 years on the Commission’s Festivals and Events subcommittee,
It’s election season (Isn’t it always?!), and Culver City citizens will be divided over candidates and issues. But the Culver City Music Festival is an issue where there is much unity. We LOVE this Festival. It’s an opportunity for people of different ages, ethnicities, economic means and musical tastes to get together, … enjoy Culver City, … enjoy each other’s company, … enjoy 8 evenings of excellent music, … and all of it , Free to all who come here.
I know that the Redevelopment Agency is funding the $ 75,000 per year to produce this Festival, and that the Redevelopment money is slated to disappear But $ 75,000 for 8 high-quality concerts is an amazing “bang for the buck – great music, good will, cultural enrichment, and a higher profile for Culver City. Over the years, there have been many discussions and struggles on how to reap the economic advantages from the Music Festival, implied by its funding by Redevelopment money.
Now that that money is leaving, perhaps we should realize the REAL purpose of the Festival – as a benefit that the City of Culver City gives to its citizens. There is a real value to this. When there is a rich cultural life in a city, it thrives. People want to buy houses here, shop here, eat here, live here. Our property values remain stable in an otherwise unstable market, partially due to our rich cultural life.
I get it – We need to find the $ 75,000 to pay for this. All the things we’d like to have add up. To quote the late Senator Everett Dirksen, …’A billion here, a billion there, … pretty soon we’re talking real money’ I get it. But, I believe we need to do a little more work to save this incredibly successful and popular program.
I know, … ‘Time is of the essence’. But, I recall that the last year’s decision on who would produce the Festival was at a City Council meeting on February 7, 2011 -- Using last year’s judgment, that would be 4 weeks from now!
We need to look at other cities – Many pay for their concert series from the General Fund. Again, we’re talking about $ 75,000 for 8 high-quality concerts.
Let’s take a few weeks to figure this out, and not decide from a position of panic. We’re smart people. If we want to do this, we can. If you can’t figure out how to fund this Festival now, .. give it a few weeks, do some research (I’ll help, if needed.), and let’s make it happen.”
After hearing from many members of the public, supporting the continued funding of the Music Festival, it was time for the Council members to speak. All of them voiced their love of the Festival, but there were differing ideas on how to proceed. Councilmember Cooper was on one end of the spectrum – making a motion to deny funding effective immediately, (and I paraphrase) so as not to prolong the inevitable conclusion that the City has no money to fund this project. Councilmember Armenta was on the other end of the spectrum – stating that the City should find a way to get funding for this important annual service to the citizens of Culver City. The other 2 were somewhere in between, although both Councilmembers Weissman and Mayor O’Leary explained that they did not support funding the Festival through the City’s General Fund.
Ultimately, the vote (Armenta, O’Leary and Weissman voting “Aye”, and Cooper voting “No”) gave the Commission, Staff, Agency, City Council and Culver City citizens 2 weeks to try to find a way to save the Festival. At our upcoming City Council meeting on January 23 the issue will come up again.
Since the January 9 Council meeting, I’ve received calls from many Culver City citizens, expressing their disappointment that this signature series could be cancelled. Some have offered dollars of various amounts, fundraising efforts and potential benefactors they have contacted. All have expressed dismay that this process is moving so quickly, … that these efforts take time to reach fruition.
I sincerely hope that our City Council sees these efforts on the part of Staff and Citizens as a step in the right direction, and will agree to accept a package that might include additional Sponsorships, Grants, Donations and some money from the General Fund.
We’re a creative town with very creative people. Culture is the life-blood of our town, and we need to keep “Culture City” alive and thriving. Preserving our Summer Music Festival is an important part of this package.
If you have an opinion and/or possible solution , please let your voice be heard. Come to the City Council Meeting on Monday, January 23. I’ll see you there.
Ronnie Jayne is a member of the Culver City Cultural Affairs Commission, the former Chair of the Fiesta La Ballona Committee, and the former President of the Culver City Democratic Club.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Solar Incentives: Helping Education and the Environment
Todd Johnson
Can the installation of solar energy help pay teachers and directly support our children’s education? According to a recent report by CCUSD’s Environmental Sustainability Committee (ESC), the answer is a clear yes! The report, titled “Leveraging Solar Incentives,” examines how using California Solar Initiative funding to bring solar energy to Culver City’s schools not only benefits the environment, but will add millions of dollars to the District’s unrestricted general fund, which can be used for teacher salaries and other educational expenses.
The district faces significant budget cuts, which affect the quality of educational services and teacher pay. However, the district has access to capital improvement funds, which can only be used for construction-related capital projects. Solar energy is one of those capital investments, but one that will generate additional funding for the district, through energy cost savings and rebates that comes with a legally binding performance guarantee so we can be assured savings, which can then be allocated to the unrestricted general fund.
Many California school districts already benefit from solar energy. In order to assess the merits and drawbacks of solar energy use at CCUSD, The Environmental Sustainability Committee sought the assistance of KyotoUSA’s HELiOS Project website which has a wealth of information on how California school districts can benefit from solar projects. This non-profit organization helps schools reduce their carbon footprint and lower greenhouse gases.
According to the Committee’s report, key benefits of solar energy at CCUSD include: 1) in the first five years, electricity cost savings to the District of over $900,000; 2) approximately $2 million in solar incentives which are paid in cash to the general fund in the first 5 years; and 3) a projected $7.5 to $9.3 million savings from incentives and reduced electrical bills over the typical life of 25-30 years. An independent analysis by Southern California Edison has confirmed these potential savings.
Other schools have proven that solar energy has strong educational and leadership benefits as well. It is common to incorporate the real-time, web-based energy production data into math and science classes. School districts are also now requiring that solar vendors provide an educational component in their offers so that learning opportunities can be provided across the district. Some installers have started paid internships for students interested in a career in this growing industry. The entire district can participate in activities and demonstrations related to solar energy.
The report points out that solar energy does have drawbacks, for example, the annual production of solar energy may not be consistent due to cloudy days. Even so, the production guarantees provided by the solar vendor take historic weather conditions into consideration so the guarantee should provide an accurate estimate of how much electricity the PV system will generate. Also, any construction project in schools requires the approval of the state architect (DSA), a process that can be lengthy and slow.
A major concern in installing solar panels in schools involves roofing. Roofs on some schools may need to be reinforced or repaired before panels can be installed, so a thorough structural analysis must be completed before hand. Solar panels can also be damaged, so they must be insured.
CCUSD has already submitted the $20,000 application deposit for the California Solar Initiative (CSI) program. The district must now complete the solar project within 18 to 36 months. CSI funding is limited and most regions now have waiting lists. The opportunity to utilize this funding to benefit education may be lost if a final decision is not made by the District and the Board immediately.
The financial benefits of installing solar are clear. We all know the environmental benefits of installing solar energy are clear. As a public educational institution, CCUSD has a responsibility to demonstrate that a sustainable society can be achieved. This means that all actions must be environmentally sound, economically feasible and socially just and equitable. Installing solar energy meets all three of these criteria. The solution is clear: with solar, our kids’ education, our teachers, and the environment win.
Look here to see the full report including the costs & benefits analysis, sources and FAQs.
To download a spreadsheet with the SoCalEdison analysis data, click here.
Please post any questions you might have.
Todd Johnson is the Chair of the Culver City Unified School District's Environmental Sustainability Committee.
Can the installation of solar energy help pay teachers and directly support our children’s education? According to a recent report by CCUSD’s Environmental Sustainability Committee (ESC), the answer is a clear yes! The report, titled “Leveraging Solar Incentives,” examines how using California Solar Initiative funding to bring solar energy to Culver City’s schools not only benefits the environment, but will add millions of dollars to the District’s unrestricted general fund, which can be used for teacher salaries and other educational expenses.
The district faces significant budget cuts, which affect the quality of educational services and teacher pay. However, the district has access to capital improvement funds, which can only be used for construction-related capital projects. Solar energy is one of those capital investments, but one that will generate additional funding for the district, through energy cost savings and rebates that comes with a legally binding performance guarantee so we can be assured savings, which can then be allocated to the unrestricted general fund.
Many California school districts already benefit from solar energy. In order to assess the merits and drawbacks of solar energy use at CCUSD, The Environmental Sustainability Committee sought the assistance of KyotoUSA’s HELiOS Project website which has a wealth of information on how California school districts can benefit from solar projects. This non-profit organization helps schools reduce their carbon footprint and lower greenhouse gases.
According to the Committee’s report, key benefits of solar energy at CCUSD include: 1) in the first five years, electricity cost savings to the District of over $900,000; 2) approximately $2 million in solar incentives which are paid in cash to the general fund in the first 5 years; and 3) a projected $7.5 to $9.3 million savings from incentives and reduced electrical bills over the typical life of 25-30 years. An independent analysis by Southern California Edison has confirmed these potential savings.
Other schools have proven that solar energy has strong educational and leadership benefits as well. It is common to incorporate the real-time, web-based energy production data into math and science classes. School districts are also now requiring that solar vendors provide an educational component in their offers so that learning opportunities can be provided across the district. Some installers have started paid internships for students interested in a career in this growing industry. The entire district can participate in activities and demonstrations related to solar energy.
The report points out that solar energy does have drawbacks, for example, the annual production of solar energy may not be consistent due to cloudy days. Even so, the production guarantees provided by the solar vendor take historic weather conditions into consideration so the guarantee should provide an accurate estimate of how much electricity the PV system will generate. Also, any construction project in schools requires the approval of the state architect (DSA), a process that can be lengthy and slow.
A major concern in installing solar panels in schools involves roofing. Roofs on some schools may need to be reinforced or repaired before panels can be installed, so a thorough structural analysis must be completed before hand. Solar panels can also be damaged, so they must be insured.
CCUSD has already submitted the $20,000 application deposit for the California Solar Initiative (CSI) program. The district must now complete the solar project within 18 to 36 months. CSI funding is limited and most regions now have waiting lists. The opportunity to utilize this funding to benefit education may be lost if a final decision is not made by the District and the Board immediately.
The financial benefits of installing solar are clear. We all know the environmental benefits of installing solar energy are clear. As a public educational institution, CCUSD has a responsibility to demonstrate that a sustainable society can be achieved. This means that all actions must be environmentally sound, economically feasible and socially just and equitable. Installing solar energy meets all three of these criteria. The solution is clear: with solar, our kids’ education, our teachers, and the environment win.
Look here to see the full report including the costs & benefits analysis, sources and FAQs.
To download a spreadsheet with the SoCalEdison analysis data, click here.
Please post any questions you might have.
Todd Johnson is the Chair of the Culver City Unified School District's Environmental Sustainability Committee.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Malsin Flaunts Utter Disrespect For Voter-Approved Term Limits
Karlo Silbiger
In 1994, a seemingly simple ballot measure went before the voters of Culver City in what became section 601 of the City Charter:
“No person shall serve more than two consecutive full terms as a Council Member. If a person serves a partial term in excess of two years, it shall be considered a full term for the purpose of this provision. Nothing in this provision shall act to bar service as a Council Member after at least two years have elapsed from the Council Member’s last full term.”
Even though 40% of the sitting city council and both of the candidates who won office in that same election opposed the measure, the voters spoke loud and clear: 8 years on the council is enough.
The issue was first raised in Culver City back in 1988, when then new Council Member Steve Gourley pushed for a 2 term limit, suggesting that serving for too many years often breeds arrogance and distance from the voters. This was not an academic issue for Culver City 24 years ago, as Gourley served on a council with 3 colleagues (Richard Alexander, Dr. Jim Boulgarides, and Paul Jacobs) who each served 16 years on the council before eventual retirement. A majority of Gourley’s colleagues voted against him and the issue lied dormant for 6 years.
There is no question that term limits are controversial, both here in Culver City and at every level in which they have been attempted. Those who support them argue that given the built in benefits that incumbents have in elections, term limits provide some balance in helping new candidates win office and lowering complacency. Those who oppose them argue that they limit institutional memory and take away valuable options from the voters.
While that is an interesting debate, it is not the topic for today’s posting. It is also not worth discussing whether former Council Member Scott Malsin is breaking the law by resigning his seat only 20 months after winning a second consecutive 4-year term only to run again 4 months later. The law cited above is quite clear and easy to interpret, even for a non-lawyer like me. Here are the facts:
In 1994, a seemingly simple ballot measure went before the voters of Culver City in what became section 601 of the City Charter:
“No person shall serve more than two consecutive full terms as a Council Member. If a person serves a partial term in excess of two years, it shall be considered a full term for the purpose of this provision. Nothing in this provision shall act to bar service as a Council Member after at least two years have elapsed from the Council Member’s last full term.”
Even though 40% of the sitting city council and both of the candidates who won office in that same election opposed the measure, the voters spoke loud and clear: 8 years on the council is enough.
The issue was first raised in Culver City back in 1988, when then new Council Member Steve Gourley pushed for a 2 term limit, suggesting that serving for too many years often breeds arrogance and distance from the voters. This was not an academic issue for Culver City 24 years ago, as Gourley served on a council with 3 colleagues (Richard Alexander, Dr. Jim Boulgarides, and Paul Jacobs) who each served 16 years on the council before eventual retirement. A majority of Gourley’s colleagues voted against him and the issue lied dormant for 6 years.
There is no question that term limits are controversial, both here in Culver City and at every level in which they have been attempted. Those who support them argue that given the built in benefits that incumbents have in elections, term limits provide some balance in helping new candidates win office and lowering complacency. Those who oppose them argue that they limit institutional memory and take away valuable options from the voters.
While that is an interesting debate, it is not the topic for today’s posting. It is also not worth discussing whether former Council Member Scott Malsin is breaking the law by resigning his seat only 20 months after winning a second consecutive 4-year term only to run again 4 months later. The law cited above is quite clear and easy to interpret, even for a non-lawyer like me. Here are the facts:
- Section 601 of the Culver City Charter defines a full council term as any portion of a term exceeding 2 years. Mr. Malsin served for the entirety of his first term (from April 2006 to April 2010) and for the first year and 8 months of his second term (from April 2010 to December 2011). Therefore, he has served for one full term and one partial term.
- Section 601 of the Culver City Charter specifies that Council Members can only serve for 2 consecutive full terms before they must leave the council. However, since Mr. Malsin only served one full term and one partial term, there is nothing (besides his own conscience and sense of morality) that precludes his for running again in this April’s election.
- Section 601 of the Culver City Charter states that once a council member is term limited after 2 consecutive full council terms, they can run once again for the position after at least 2 years have elapsed. However, since Mr. Malsin has not served 2 consecutive full terms (but instead one full term and one partial term) and was never term limited, he can not only run in April (only 4 months after his resignation), but could conceivably serve for another 8 years. Should that happen, Mr. Malsin could take advantage of a loophole in a law intending to limit council members to a maximum of 8 consecutive years of service, and himself legally serve for 14 years with only a 4 month hiatus in the middle.
Again, nothing really to discuss there, the law is quite clear. The really interesting question that will be presented to the voters of our community over the coming months is whether Scott Malsin has so broken the spirit of the voter-approved 1994 charter amendment that he deserves to be automatically disqualified from serving on the council in the future. There is no love lost between Mr. Malsin and myself. I did not support him during either of his campaigns and he was the only council member to deny me an endorsement 2 years ago. I would likely not support him for any office, regardless of the circumstances. But in this election, I am of the belief that even long time supporters of Mr. Malsin’s will deny him support given the self-centered way that he has ignored the intent of this law.
Voters were quite clear with their beliefs on term limits back in 1994: they wanted an 8 year maximum. The only reason for the full term / partial term distinction is that they did not want to punish those who joined the council midway through a term to take over a vacated seat. For example, say a member of the council had to leave 1 year early because they left the city (while it has never happened in our community, nearby Santa Monica has resignations on a somewhat regular basis). If the council were to appoint an interim member to fill the remaining year, it would not be fair to count that 1 year as a full term, thereby holding that new council member to a maximum of 5 years. That was an important consideration by those who authored this law and should remain. However, Mr. Malsin has found a loophole wherein council member can exploit the full term / partial term definition by leaving after just 5 and a half years of service and, potentially serve forever. While Mr. Malsin has every right to take advantage of this loophole, voters generally do not look highly upon those who openly ignore the intent of the laws, especially those that were voter-approved.
Former Mayor Paul Jacobs summed up the argument against term limits best, saying that every time a council member seeks reelection, voters have the option of removing him or her from office. Let’s hope that Culver City voters remember that on April 10th and send a message to those who might attempt to play with the intent of the voters.
Karlo Silbiger is the Co-Editor of the Culver City Progress Blog, the President of the Culver City School Board, and the Former President of the Culver City Democratic Club.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
R.I.P Redevelopment Agency
Michael Miller
There has been, and no doubt will continue to be, much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the demise of the Culver City Redevelopment Agency and what it portends for our city and the people who work and live here.
But what became abundantly clear at the January 9th meeting of the Culver City Council is that nothing is clear and that the waters will remain muddy for months, if not years, to come.
As things stand, the Redevelopment Agency will become dead, deceased, morte, on February 1st unless a delay of four to six weeks is granted, which will probably do little more than extend the death throes. However, there are hopes that contracts for such projects as Parcel B and others in the pipeline can be signed before the plug is pulled, thus passing the “obligation of fulfillment” to the “successor agency” in the form of the city council.
The end of the RDA, and roughly 400 similar entities in California, began last summer when the State Legislature passed Assembly Bills 26 and 27. Appeals against these bills by redevelopment agencies were rejected by the California Supreme Court earlier this month.
State Controller John Chiang in a recent audit report, blasted redevelopment agencies for their lack of accountability and transparency, saying they are "a breeding ground for waste, abuse, and impropriety."
Other critics have called the agencies “a honey pot for developers,”
siphoning off badly needed funds for essential services.
At Monday’s Council Meeting, and in a subsequent statement, City Manager John Nachbar gave a confused and not very detailed report saying the fiscal impact of losing the Redevelopment Agency would be $7.5 million a year currently received from the state, of which $3.2 million accounted for expenditures on RDA and Housing Agency Staff and a “plethora of services” provided by the agency.
The idea behind California Governor Jerry Brown’s closure of state RDAs was to redirect tax dollars back to the state for spending on schools and law enforcement. Some of that money will find its way to Culver City, but just how much is not known.
During the debate on whether the City Council should designate the city council to become the “successor agency” Councilman Andrew Weisman said it was “just the first step down the very confusing and complicated path that will take years to sort itself out.”
But do the people of Culver City care about, or even fully understand, the implications? It appeared not. Before a vote on establishing a new Housing Authority as the successor agency – a 4-0 vote in favor, not a single member of the public attending the meeting wanted to address the issue.
In contrast, Mr. Nachbar became, in the eyes of some observers, the “Grinch who stole summer” when he recommended that funding for the popular series of summer music concerts, previously a function of the RDA, be dropped and not be passed on to any other city agency. The RDA had spent $75,000 annually on the series which operates for eight Thursdays each year.
Eight speakers wanted to address this issue, a significant number, given that Mr. Nachbar’s proposal had only been posted on the City’s Website 72 hours earlier.
Gary Mandel, who has produced the series for 14 years, said there was no reason that corporate sponsors such as downtown restaurants should not foot the bill, given the amount of trade the concerts generate, not to mention putting Culver City on the map as a destination.
Karlo Silbiger, a member of the Culver City School Board queried whether the $75,000 could not come from the city’s General Fund, as it amounted to only one tenth of one percent of that fund’s coffers.
Former Mayor Gary Silbiger commented, “These are cherished concerts,” joining his son in arguing that there was money available.
Goran Eriksson, chairman of the Culver City Chamber of Commerce, said the Chamber was willing to work with the city to keep the concerts alive.
While some Council members railed against the California legislature, Governor Brown, and the Supreme Court, blaming them for the predicament that could shut down the concerts, Councilman Weissman, repeating remarks he made during the discussion, said in an email to the author:
“In the long run, it may be that we are better for redevelopment's elimination, however, that remains to be seen. We are not entirely blameless insofar as the way in which tax increment from redevelopment has been used toward city services that benefit the redevelopment project areas. And now we have to adjust to a curtailment of that tax increment.
“That has to mean some level of sacrifice on the local level because regardless of finger pointing by us at the legislature, the governor and the courts, the reality is that less money will be coming in starting February 1 than before. We just don't know how much less or what the service and human implications will be.”
However, he seconded a motion by Councilman Chris Armenta that the discussion on funding the summer concerts be continued until the next council meeting on January 23rd.
The motion was passed with only Councilman Cooper, who wanted the funding ended immediately, dissenting.
More to the point, perhaps, is what the RDA did not do during its 20-year life: build affordable housing, one of its main mandates.
Former Mayor Silbiger pointed out that the agency owes the city $45 million in affordable housing funds that it never spent, quite a slush fund in hard economic times!
The size of the fund was acknowledged by the head of the agency, Sol Blumenfeld, who said the RDA had 10 years to repay the funds to the Housing Authority.
My question is how can an entity that no longer exists be given 10 year to repay $45 million? Shouldn’t the money be immediately transferred to the new Housing Authority on February 1st, when it can start to be used for the purpose it was intended?
Michael Miller is a 22 year resident of Culver City and a retired journalist. He is also a co-founder of the Culver City Downtown Neighborhood Association.
There has been, and no doubt will continue to be, much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the demise of the Culver City Redevelopment Agency and what it portends for our city and the people who work and live here.
But what became abundantly clear at the January 9th meeting of the Culver City Council is that nothing is clear and that the waters will remain muddy for months, if not years, to come.
As things stand, the Redevelopment Agency will become dead, deceased, morte, on February 1st unless a delay of four to six weeks is granted, which will probably do little more than extend the death throes. However, there are hopes that contracts for such projects as Parcel B and others in the pipeline can be signed before the plug is pulled, thus passing the “obligation of fulfillment” to the “successor agency” in the form of the city council.
The end of the RDA, and roughly 400 similar entities in California, began last summer when the State Legislature passed Assembly Bills 26 and 27. Appeals against these bills by redevelopment agencies were rejected by the California Supreme Court earlier this month.
State Controller John Chiang in a recent audit report, blasted redevelopment agencies for their lack of accountability and transparency, saying they are "a breeding ground for waste, abuse, and impropriety."
Other critics have called the agencies “a honey pot for developers,”
siphoning off badly needed funds for essential services.
At Monday’s Council Meeting, and in a subsequent statement, City Manager John Nachbar gave a confused and not very detailed report saying the fiscal impact of losing the Redevelopment Agency would be $7.5 million a year currently received from the state, of which $3.2 million accounted for expenditures on RDA and Housing Agency Staff and a “plethora of services” provided by the agency.
The idea behind California Governor Jerry Brown’s closure of state RDAs was to redirect tax dollars back to the state for spending on schools and law enforcement. Some of that money will find its way to Culver City, but just how much is not known.
During the debate on whether the City Council should designate the city council to become the “successor agency” Councilman Andrew Weisman said it was “just the first step down the very confusing and complicated path that will take years to sort itself out.”
But do the people of Culver City care about, or even fully understand, the implications? It appeared not. Before a vote on establishing a new Housing Authority as the successor agency – a 4-0 vote in favor, not a single member of the public attending the meeting wanted to address the issue.
In contrast, Mr. Nachbar became, in the eyes of some observers, the “Grinch who stole summer” when he recommended that funding for the popular series of summer music concerts, previously a function of the RDA, be dropped and not be passed on to any other city agency. The RDA had spent $75,000 annually on the series which operates for eight Thursdays each year.
Eight speakers wanted to address this issue, a significant number, given that Mr. Nachbar’s proposal had only been posted on the City’s Website 72 hours earlier.
Gary Mandel, who has produced the series for 14 years, said there was no reason that corporate sponsors such as downtown restaurants should not foot the bill, given the amount of trade the concerts generate, not to mention putting Culver City on the map as a destination.
Karlo Silbiger, a member of the Culver City School Board queried whether the $75,000 could not come from the city’s General Fund, as it amounted to only one tenth of one percent of that fund’s coffers.
Former Mayor Gary Silbiger commented, “These are cherished concerts,” joining his son in arguing that there was money available.
Goran Eriksson, chairman of the Culver City Chamber of Commerce, said the Chamber was willing to work with the city to keep the concerts alive.
While some Council members railed against the California legislature, Governor Brown, and the Supreme Court, blaming them for the predicament that could shut down the concerts, Councilman Weissman, repeating remarks he made during the discussion, said in an email to the author:
“In the long run, it may be that we are better for redevelopment's elimination, however, that remains to be seen. We are not entirely blameless insofar as the way in which tax increment from redevelopment has been used toward city services that benefit the redevelopment project areas. And now we have to adjust to a curtailment of that tax increment.
“That has to mean some level of sacrifice on the local level because regardless of finger pointing by us at the legislature, the governor and the courts, the reality is that less money will be coming in starting February 1 than before. We just don't know how much less or what the service and human implications will be.”
However, he seconded a motion by Councilman Chris Armenta that the discussion on funding the summer concerts be continued until the next council meeting on January 23rd.
The motion was passed with only Councilman Cooper, who wanted the funding ended immediately, dissenting.
More to the point, perhaps, is what the RDA did not do during its 20-year life: build affordable housing, one of its main mandates.
Former Mayor Silbiger pointed out that the agency owes the city $45 million in affordable housing funds that it never spent, quite a slush fund in hard economic times!
The size of the fund was acknowledged by the head of the agency, Sol Blumenfeld, who said the RDA had 10 years to repay the funds to the Housing Authority.
My question is how can an entity that no longer exists be given 10 year to repay $45 million? Shouldn’t the money be immediately transferred to the new Housing Authority on February 1st, when it can start to be used for the purpose it was intended?
Michael Miller is a 22 year resident of Culver City and a retired journalist. He is also a co-founder of the Culver City Downtown Neighborhood Association.
Friday, January 13, 2012
A Time for Change: From Scout Hut to Community Hut
Roberta Sergant
An opportunity presents itself. A change is eminent for the Culver City Scout Hut, located on Culver Boulevard on property owned by the City of Culver City. A nonprofit organization called the Friends of the CC Scout Hut has offered the City $120,000 to update the facility that is primarily shared by the Boy Scouts and the CC Rock and Mineral Club. Our CC City Council is interested in accepting these funds and continuing their ongoing relationship with these organizations, and the other renters who will meet/store equipment in this City owned facility.
According to the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act of Title IX of the No Child Left Behind law, it is illegal for any school facility to deny access (specifically) to the Boy Scouts of America. Within this law it states that this also precludes denying access "including denying such access or opportunity or discriminating for reasons based on the membership or leadership criteria or oath of allegiance to God and country of the BSA or of the youth group." Interesting. Educational institutions have been prohibited from the exclusion of the BSA from meeting in schools, and yet, the BSA national policy maintains its right to exclude homosexuals from leadership in their organization.
This leads me to ask: Isn't it time for the City of Culver City to minimize their complicity with this policy? Yes, the BSA does great work with the heterosexual male youngsters in their organization. Yes, I was a Committee Chairperson and my husband was a Den Leader for our son's Pack/Troop and we were supporters of this work. But awareness has grown, and times have changed, and, hopefully, Don't Ask, Don't Tell has gone the way of other anti-civil rights laws.
Yet, in 1994 BSA policy stated: "We do not allow for the registration of avowed homosexuals as members or as leaders of the BSA."
In 2004 the BSA adopted a Youth Leadership Policy that stated: "Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. The conduct of youth members must be in compliance with the Scout Oath and Law, and membership in Boy Scouts of America is contingent upon the willingness to accept Scouting's values and beliefs. Most boys join Scouting when they are 10 or 11 years old. As they continue in the program, all Scouts are expected to take leadership positions. In the unlikely event that an older boy were to hold himself out as homosexual, he would not be able to continue in a youth leadership position."
Scouting for All is an organization that advocates the maintenance of a relationship with the BSA, while requiring adherence to the same non-discriminatory policies that our city maintains. In other words, our local BSA chapter must disavow their national mandate to screen out male scouts and male and female leaders who are homosexuals.
I have been assured by former Culver City Parks and Recreation Director Bill La Pointe that "currently the City of Culver City is in the Process of evaluating its rental fees and agreements. An aspect of this evaluation is to ensure that all entities and persons are treated fairly and equally. Of course, this will be true regarding any agreement that is negotiated with the Boy Scout(s)." I very much look forward to a public/open airing of this agreement, prior to it becoming "fait accompli."
Only one of our Councilmen took the time to respond to my request for acceptance of non-discrimination policies by all renters of the Hut. Councilman Cooper is willing to take a second look at the lease renewal. He and I agree that the Scouts do a great job with the boys who join/participate. I reminded him to consider those who are excluded, as well. We could start by calling this facility the Culver City Community Hut.
Roberta Sergant is a teacher at the El Marino Language School.
An opportunity presents itself. A change is eminent for the Culver City Scout Hut, located on Culver Boulevard on property owned by the City of Culver City. A nonprofit organization called the Friends of the CC Scout Hut has offered the City $120,000 to update the facility that is primarily shared by the Boy Scouts and the CC Rock and Mineral Club. Our CC City Council is interested in accepting these funds and continuing their ongoing relationship with these organizations, and the other renters who will meet/store equipment in this City owned facility.
According to the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act of Title IX of the No Child Left Behind law, it is illegal for any school facility to deny access (specifically) to the Boy Scouts of America. Within this law it states that this also precludes denying access "including denying such access or opportunity or discriminating for reasons based on the membership or leadership criteria or oath of allegiance to God and country of the BSA or of the youth group." Interesting. Educational institutions have been prohibited from the exclusion of the BSA from meeting in schools, and yet, the BSA national policy maintains its right to exclude homosexuals from leadership in their organization.
This leads me to ask: Isn't it time for the City of Culver City to minimize their complicity with this policy? Yes, the BSA does great work with the heterosexual male youngsters in their organization. Yes, I was a Committee Chairperson and my husband was a Den Leader for our son's Pack/Troop and we were supporters of this work. But awareness has grown, and times have changed, and, hopefully, Don't Ask, Don't Tell has gone the way of other anti-civil rights laws.
Yet, in 1994 BSA policy stated: "We do not allow for the registration of avowed homosexuals as members or as leaders of the BSA."
In 2004 the BSA adopted a Youth Leadership Policy that stated: "Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. The conduct of youth members must be in compliance with the Scout Oath and Law, and membership in Boy Scouts of America is contingent upon the willingness to accept Scouting's values and beliefs. Most boys join Scouting when they are 10 or 11 years old. As they continue in the program, all Scouts are expected to take leadership positions. In the unlikely event that an older boy were to hold himself out as homosexual, he would not be able to continue in a youth leadership position."
Scouting for All is an organization that advocates the maintenance of a relationship with the BSA, while requiring adherence to the same non-discriminatory policies that our city maintains. In other words, our local BSA chapter must disavow their national mandate to screen out male scouts and male and female leaders who are homosexuals.
I have been assured by former Culver City Parks and Recreation Director Bill La Pointe that "currently the City of Culver City is in the Process of evaluating its rental fees and agreements. An aspect of this evaluation is to ensure that all entities and persons are treated fairly and equally. Of course, this will be true regarding any agreement that is negotiated with the Boy Scout(s)." I very much look forward to a public/open airing of this agreement, prior to it becoming "fait accompli."
Only one of our Councilmen took the time to respond to my request for acceptance of non-discrimination policies by all renters of the Hut. Councilman Cooper is willing to take a second look at the lease renewal. He and I agree that the Scouts do a great job with the boys who join/participate. I reminded him to consider those who are excluded, as well. We could start by calling this facility the Culver City Community Hut.
Roberta Sergant is a teacher at the El Marino Language School.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Culver City Redevelopment: Lifeblood of the Community or Subsidizer for Big Developers?
Gary Silbiger
Last year on January 15, while Culver City was sponsoring its popular annual Martin Luther King, Jr. celebration, the City Council was busy holding an “emergency” special meeting about the relationship between its Redevelopment Agency and the City in order to create a Cooperation Agreement so that the City would be responsible for 17 ongoing projects if the Redevelopment Agency went belly up. On a Saturday? With 1 day notice? Without the facts about those redevelopment projects? Is this the way to receive public input on such a crucial topic? Nothing is noted in the agenda to justify that the meeting qualified as “special,” which is likely a Brown Act violation. Interestingly, the only City Council minutes missing on the City’s website is for that January 15 meeting.
In numerous subsequent City Council meetings, including last Monday's, both the Culver City Council and city employees rushed full-steam ahead – faster than the upcoming Exposition Light Rail train – passing every possible proposal to save the Redevelopment Agency, never concerned with the participation of the community or providing the facts about its Redevelopment Agency. To this day, most Culver City Redevelopment Agency financial disclosures have not seen the light of day. The City talks about only the positive aspects of redevelopment rather than taking a complete look at the broken system. It would be simple for the City to list each redevelopment project and itemize the amount of money spent by the Agency and City for the land, staff time, city improvements, etc. and at the same time list the money received by the Agency and City for the land, permits, taxes, etc. Then, each project should include a yearly detailed list of income for the owners, including the property tax (the increment tax) so the public will know the amount of property tax lost to the city.
We see the product of redevelopment in Culver City – City Hall, the Fire Station, housing, mixed use developments and more. Certainly, development has existed since structures first needed to be built. And even with Culver City’s extremely large Redevelopment Agency covering most of the commercial areas, some developers choose to build without the assistance of the redevelopment agency. The way some elected officials speak, you would think the wealthy developers will immediately close their businesses on February 1st to become waiters. Developers and the many related businesses will continue to build to make their profit. They will not disappear.
The state of California has been in a continuing disastrous financial crisis for reasons too numerous and complex to be covered in this article. As the State was searching for ways to pay for education and city services, the possibility of looking at redevelopment agencies as a solution became likely. The immediate controversy began in the summer of 2011 when the California Legislature passed 2 measures intended to stabilize school funding by reducing or eliminating the diversion of property taxes from school districts to redevelopment agencies. Assembly Bill 26 bars redevelopment agencies from engaging in new business and provides for their windup and dissolution. Assembly Bill 27 offers an opportunity for redevelopment agencies to exist if the local governments agree to make payments into funds benefiting California’s schools and special districts.
Quickly, the California Redevelopment Association, along with the League of California Cities and 2 named cities, sued Ana Matosantos, the director of the California Department of Finance, and John Chiang, the California State Controller. Then, on December 29, 2011, the Redevelopment Agency’s bubble burst when the California Supreme Court decided California Redevelopment Association v. Ana Matosantos, which includes the 2 major issues of Assembly Bills 26 and 27.
The first issue in the California Redevelopment Association case resulted in a unanimous decision by the court ruling that the Legislature has the power to create redevelopment agencies and therefore has the right to dissolve them – a concept that most law students learn in their first year of law school. Thus, Assembly Bill 26 is lawful and the Legislature has the authority to get rid of all redevelopment agencies.
The second issue of the California Redevelopment Association case, resulting in an overwhelming 6 to 1 majority vote, found Assembly Bill 27 invalid because the California Constitution forbids the Legislature from requiring redevelopment agencies to make payments to the State benefiting schools and special districts.
Therefore, the Redevelopment Agencies, based on their 2-prong law suit, lost both parts and now must lobby the Legislature to pass a law to permit new redevelopment.
How does Redevelopment work? Culver City has one of almost 400 local redevelopment agencies in California. Redevelopment agencies are intended to revitalize blighted areas and create affordable housing. The agencies buy parcels of land and sell it to developers at a bargain basement amount. The city continues to receive property tax based on the assessed value of the property prior to the effective date of the redevelopment agency area. Whenever the property tax assessed value goes up, all of that increase goes directly to the redevelopment agency. Culver City gets nothing from that additional property tax. The City should inform the public of the amount of property tax lost to the Redevelopment Agency during its 4 decades of existence.
As the Los Angeles Times January 6, 2012 editorial reads, “By allowing so-called tax increment money to finance projects, [redevelopment agencies] blocked that money from going to the state government or schools. And the lure of redevelopment was such that private developers sometimes got deals that smacked of favoritism rather than sound government policy. As Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky said, redevelopment ‘evolved into a honey pot that was tapped to underwrite billions of dollars’ worth of commercial and other for-profit projects’”.
With no facts given, both the Culver City News article on January 5, 2012 and the Culver City Observer article of the same day said the state will take all of Culver City’s redevelopment properties. “While it seems unconscionable, apparently the state will take those valuable properties, acquired with local funds and administered by local elected officials away from the people of Culver City” blares the Culver City News article by Gary Walker. Likewise, Stephan Hadland, publisher of the Culver City Observer, claims the State would acquire everything from the Kirk Douglas theater to the Expo Line Train Station. The readers are never told the legal basis for the taking of properties that are based on valid contracts. Likewise, the Council members rhetorically blame the State government for destroying Culver City, while Councilmember Jeff Cooper at the January 9, 2012 meeting actually singled out our State Senator and State Assemblymember for his unfounded allegation of damage to our city. The Councilmembers should look closely at the many redevelopment problems right here in their own backyards.
What are some of the reforms that should be instituted if the Legislature gives redevelopment agencies a second chance?
- Only truly blighted areas - defined as parcels having significant health or safety concerns – could be developed
- The 20% received by redevelopment agencies for affordable housing, as well as the remaining housing money from the past, must be fully allocated and spent for each project within a reasonable specified period from its receipt
- All redevelopment agency areas must have a democratically elected board of residents who are officially informed of all major aspects of each redevelopment project and give input to the elected officials
- An independent watchdog organization must have full disclosure from each redevelopment agency to be certain all projects are lawful and expenditures are free of corruption and abuse
- All developments must pay its fair share to improve local infrastructure, safety services, schools, and parks based on the effect the development will have on these entities
- All developments must be publicly bid so no favoritism or corruption takes place
- Redevelopment Agencies should consist of either elected or appointed members apart from its City Council members in order to have 5 independent individuals make those tough decisions
We need all the facts, both positive and negative, about redevelopment, thus allowing the public to weigh its worth and decide its value. Culver City should sponsor a well-publicized forum to hear the suggestions and opinions of the public about the importance of redevelopment to our community and the needed reforms. For this dialogue to be effective, the City should open up its records of its redevelopment agency in order for an objective evaluation of what changes are necessary. Without this information and a process for discussing this complex issue, it looks to me like there’s a lot being hidden from us.
Gary Silbiger is the Co-Editor of the Culver City Progress Blog and the Former Mayor of Culver City.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Culver City’s MLK Celebration—It’s All in the Eyes of the Beholder
Rebecca Rona-Tuttle
We don’t really celebrate President Washington’s and President Lincoln’s birthdays any longer—unfortunately. And now that we’re more informed about Christopher Columbus’s history, we don’t celebrate him either. But in Culver City and throughout the country, we can look forward to honoring and celebrating a great hero, Dr. Martin Luther King.
A side note: I am not an unbiased reporter—anything but. In fact this is the seventh year that we’ve held the celebration as an official city event, and the seventh year I’ve served on the MLK planning committee. I’m an unabashed champion of this event. Some years we focus more on delightful music, other years more on fascinating speakers or significant movies or intriguing plays. But whatever the program entails, when the event is over, our audience always leaves feeling informed, entertained, inspired, further connected to the community and—simply put—good about having honored Dr. King, one of our greatest heroes.
This coming Sunday, January 15--Dr. King’s actual birthday—we will open wide the doors of the Culver City Senior Center (Overland Ave. at Culver Blvd.) for a full day’s worth of activities for adults and children, from 11 a.m. until 7 p.m. Visitors may arrive at any time, refreshments will be served, and all activities are free.
Although we will feature certain non-Culver City participants--such as UCLA history professor Scot Brown; our emcees, actor John Marshall Jones and news reporter Beverly White; the playwright Christina Harley and actors Margaret “Shug” Avery and Art Evans—most of our presenters and performers hail from Culver City. And so this event is a wonderful opportunity to celebrate some of Culver City’s treasures.
Rev. Leon Campbell of the Culver City-based Agape International Spiritual Center will present the invocation and personal remarks.
Panelists responding to this year’s theme, Have We Achieved Dr. King’s Dream?”, will include former Congresswoman Diane Watson, who represented Culver City; Culver City Mayor Micheal O’Leary, Saundra Davis, former president of the Culver City School Board; and Daniel Lee, a community activist and member of this year’s Martin Luther King Celebration Committee. Also on the panel will be Anthony Samad. Dr. Patricia Siever--member of the CCUSD school board, history professor at West Los Angeles College and program subcommittee chair of this year’s Celebration—will moderate.
Our audience will take part in an interactive presentation entitled “Stepping Up to the Dreamer,” a creation of the poet Charlotte Sista C. Ferrell, a longtime member of Culver Palms United Methodist Church and founder of its Mustard Seed Ministries program.
Playwright Christina Harley, who’s award-winning, delightful and thought-provoking play “The Dreamers” will be given a staged reading by some exceptional actors, has been named an unofficial Culver City resident. Not long after attending a meeting or two to pitch her play, she found herself serving on both the programming and publicity subcommittees and accepting a variety of Celebration assignments.
Audience members often report they’re fondest of the young winners of the Martin Luther King Student Speech contest, and this year might be no exception. In the fall, nearly 100 students from the CCUSD wrote essays, in December 18 of these students auditioned and three were selected to present their speeches: a fifth grader, a middle schooler and a high school student.
The majority of our musicians also hail from Culver City (or Culver City Adjacent): the Culver City High School Jazz Combo, the Culver City High School Choral Singers and the West Los Angeles College Jazz Ensemble. So too does Dr. Luther Henderson, music professor at LA City College, who coordinated the day’s musical presentations.
Dr. Larry Earl will describe the holdings of the Mayme A. Clayton Library and Museum, a Culver City institution that contains one of the largest collections of African American documents and other memorabilia in the nation.
The Mayme A. Clayton Library and Museum exhibit and children’s activities will run concurrently with the remainder of the program.
Martin Luther King Celebration Committee members are Rupert Francisco, chair; Yavonna Blackmon, Dr. Patricia Siever, Bill Wynn, David Morse, Daniel Lee and Rebecca Rona-Tuttle. Also contributing to this year’s event is former committee member Jasmine Hailey.
If you’d like more information, please visit the city website: www.culvercity.org or phone (310) 253-6675.
CC Martin Luther King Celebration Schedule
11 a.m. Doors open
11:30 a.m. Welcome, opening program
12 p.m. Historical overview--Dr. Scot Brown
12:15 p.m. Panel discussion with Q&A
1:30 p.m. “Stepping Up to the Dreamer,” interactive event with poet Charlotte Sista C. Ferrell
2:30 p.m. Mayme A. Clayton Library and Museum—words from Dr. Larry Earl, director
2:45 p.m. CCHS Jazz Combo (and refrshments)
3:30 p.m. Invocation and remarks—Rev. Leon Campbell of Agape Spiritual Center
3:45 p.m. Winning speeches by three CCUSD students
4:15 p.m. CCHS Choral Singers
4:45 p.m. “The Dreamers,” a staged reading of Christina Harley’s play
6 p.m. West Los Angeles College Jazz Ensemble
6:40 p.m. Closing remarks
Rebecca Rona-Tuttle is a member of Culver City's Martin Luther King Celebration Committee and the Director of Together.
We don’t really celebrate President Washington’s and President Lincoln’s birthdays any longer—unfortunately. And now that we’re more informed about Christopher Columbus’s history, we don’t celebrate him either. But in Culver City and throughout the country, we can look forward to honoring and celebrating a great hero, Dr. Martin Luther King.
A side note: I am not an unbiased reporter—anything but. In fact this is the seventh year that we’ve held the celebration as an official city event, and the seventh year I’ve served on the MLK planning committee. I’m an unabashed champion of this event. Some years we focus more on delightful music, other years more on fascinating speakers or significant movies or intriguing plays. But whatever the program entails, when the event is over, our audience always leaves feeling informed, entertained, inspired, further connected to the community and—simply put—good about having honored Dr. King, one of our greatest heroes.
This coming Sunday, January 15--Dr. King’s actual birthday—we will open wide the doors of the Culver City Senior Center (Overland Ave. at Culver Blvd.) for a full day’s worth of activities for adults and children, from 11 a.m. until 7 p.m. Visitors may arrive at any time, refreshments will be served, and all activities are free.
Although we will feature certain non-Culver City participants--such as UCLA history professor Scot Brown; our emcees, actor John Marshall Jones and news reporter Beverly White; the playwright Christina Harley and actors Margaret “Shug” Avery and Art Evans—most of our presenters and performers hail from Culver City. And so this event is a wonderful opportunity to celebrate some of Culver City’s treasures.
Rev. Leon Campbell of the Culver City-based Agape International Spiritual Center will present the invocation and personal remarks.
Panelists responding to this year’s theme, Have We Achieved Dr. King’s Dream?”, will include former Congresswoman Diane Watson, who represented Culver City; Culver City Mayor Micheal O’Leary, Saundra Davis, former president of the Culver City School Board; and Daniel Lee, a community activist and member of this year’s Martin Luther King Celebration Committee. Also on the panel will be Anthony Samad. Dr. Patricia Siever--member of the CCUSD school board, history professor at West Los Angeles College and program subcommittee chair of this year’s Celebration—will moderate.
Our audience will take part in an interactive presentation entitled “Stepping Up to the Dreamer,” a creation of the poet Charlotte Sista C. Ferrell, a longtime member of Culver Palms United Methodist Church and founder of its Mustard Seed Ministries program.
Playwright Christina Harley, who’s award-winning, delightful and thought-provoking play “The Dreamers” will be given a staged reading by some exceptional actors, has been named an unofficial Culver City resident. Not long after attending a meeting or two to pitch her play, she found herself serving on both the programming and publicity subcommittees and accepting a variety of Celebration assignments.
Audience members often report they’re fondest of the young winners of the Martin Luther King Student Speech contest, and this year might be no exception. In the fall, nearly 100 students from the CCUSD wrote essays, in December 18 of these students auditioned and three were selected to present their speeches: a fifth grader, a middle schooler and a high school student.
The majority of our musicians also hail from Culver City (or Culver City Adjacent): the Culver City High School Jazz Combo, the Culver City High School Choral Singers and the West Los Angeles College Jazz Ensemble. So too does Dr. Luther Henderson, music professor at LA City College, who coordinated the day’s musical presentations.
Dr. Larry Earl will describe the holdings of the Mayme A. Clayton Library and Museum, a Culver City institution that contains one of the largest collections of African American documents and other memorabilia in the nation.
The Mayme A. Clayton Library and Museum exhibit and children’s activities will run concurrently with the remainder of the program.
Martin Luther King Celebration Committee members are Rupert Francisco, chair; Yavonna Blackmon, Dr. Patricia Siever, Bill Wynn, David Morse, Daniel Lee and Rebecca Rona-Tuttle. Also contributing to this year’s event is former committee member Jasmine Hailey.
If you’d like more information, please visit the city website: www.culvercity.org or phone (310) 253-6675.
CC Martin Luther King Celebration Schedule
11 a.m. Doors open
11:30 a.m. Welcome, opening program
12 p.m. Historical overview--Dr. Scot Brown
12:15 p.m. Panel discussion with Q&A
1:30 p.m. “Stepping Up to the Dreamer,” interactive event with poet Charlotte Sista C. Ferrell
2:30 p.m. Mayme A. Clayton Library and Museum—words from Dr. Larry Earl, director
2:45 p.m. CCHS Jazz Combo (and refrshments)
3:30 p.m. Invocation and remarks—Rev. Leon Campbell of Agape Spiritual Center
3:45 p.m. Winning speeches by three CCUSD students
4:15 p.m. CCHS Choral Singers
4:45 p.m. “The Dreamers,” a staged reading of Christina Harley’s play
6 p.m. West Los Angeles College Jazz Ensemble
6:40 p.m. Closing remarks
Rebecca Rona-Tuttle is a member of Culver City's Martin Luther King Celebration Committee and the Director of Together.
City Council Meeting Preview
On Monday, January 9, 2012, the City Council meets at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 9770 Culver Boulevard. If you are unaware of this meeting, it may be due to the agenda’s late public posting on Friday evening, January 6, 2012, although the policy is to have it posted by the Wednesday before the meeting. Considering the last City Council meeting took place December 12 – 4 weeks ago –Monday’s important agenda should have easily been made available to the public and elected officials at least one week prior to this meeting. The agenda includes:
- A presentation by City Manager John Nachbar regarding future plans in response to the recent California Supreme Court case, California Redevelopment Association vs. Matosantos, which concluded in dissolving Redevelopment Agencies in California, such as Culver City’s. John Nachbar is recommending a resolution to name Culver City as the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency.
- City staff is recommending the discontinuation this year of Culver City’s most popular cultural event, the summer Culver City Music Festival. The agenda report claims the $75,000 funding from the Redevelopment Agency no longer exists and it is not a priority to fund through the City’s general fund, as it had until 2004. The 8 summer Thursday evening concerts bring together close to 1,000 people weekly to enjoy the eclectic and exciting live music.
- Based on the Redevelopment Agency’s eventual demise (unless the State Legislature and Governor pass another law), Culver City is proposing the creation of a Culver City Housing Authority to receive the housing assets and perform the housing functions. The Housing Authority members will be the City Council members. This agenda report details the sad lack of Culver City’s responsibility to help those in need by not increasing “the supply of low and moderate income affordable housing units for low income, special needs and homeless families in more than 10 years”. Recently, 3 affordable housing projects have been approved. In addition, the Culver City Housing Fund is currently owed approximately $45,400,000 by the Redevelopment Agency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)