Patricia G. Siever
In 1926 Carter G. Woodson initiated the celebration of Black History Week in February which corresponded to the February birthdays of both Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. In 1976, the celebration of Black History expanded to Black History Month.
CULVER CITY: PAST
As a Professor of History, I will start from the past that I know regarding Culver City and will end with a few recommendations for the future.
Being born and raised in Los Angeles, when I was a teen, I was cautioned that Culver City was one city where African Americans were not welcomed and that we should “just drive through, because it was parochial and racist." So, as teenagers, when we were going to the Santa Monica beach, we took Washington Boulevard and absolutely did not stop in Culver City.
After completion of my education at UCLA, in 1973, my family moved to Blair Hills, Culver City which was, and still is, an integrated and beautiful community. The neighbors were intelligent, active and wonderful. I became active in the Linda Vista Elementary school as Vice President of the PTA, and later became Membership Chair of the Blair Hills Home Owners Association. My four children received a very good education within the Culver City Unified School District: they were active in athletics, the marching band, the school newspaper and other school clubs and organizations.
As an activist and community organizer in Los Angeles, I wanted to get involved in Culver City. Well, shortly, I learned that the City was not “ready” for an African American female activist, so I became politically active in the Los Angeles Community College District – and, in statewide organizations in Sacramento; wherein, two Governors (Pete Wilson and Gray Davis) appointed me to the California Community Colleges’ Board of Governors. (See: Abbreviated Biography on the CCUSD website).
CULVER CITY: PRESENT
How far has Culver City come in regards to realistically embracing, engaging and utilizing the intellect and talent of its rich politically diverse ethnic communities? Well, let’s take a quick inventory:
“Congratulations” go to Bill Wynn who will become the first African American elected as President to the Culver City Democratic Club. Bill has worked hard for Culver City, volunteering his time and energy to causes and organizations, like the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Celebration Committee. Commendations are definitely in order to the Democratic Club for electing such a wonderful humanist as Bill Wynn.
Another first for the City and for African Americans was the election of Saundra Davis, for two terms (8 years) as a Board member for the CCUSD. Saundra worked hard for the children of Culver City and has, permanently, left her grace and her dynamic imprint upon the CCUSD and Culver City.
In regards to Culver City’s growth in the area of “diversity and inclusion,” the Culver City Council has made meaningful strides by:
• Appointing several African Americans to various City Commissions & committees: Marcus Tiggs, Dr. Luther Henderson, MaryAnn Green and Vernon Taylor.
• Supporting , over the last eight years, the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Celebration Committee, which has, annually, celebrated the legacy of Dr. King.
• Housing the illustrious and expansive Mayme Clayton Museum in Culver City. This Museum houses the largest collection of rare and qualitative African American films, books, art, original documents and manuscripts in the entire Western United States. The Museum has the potential of eventually being equal to New York’s world famous Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture .
CULVER CITY: FUTURE
“How can Culver City increase the participation of its diverse multi-ethnic population in the political and cultural arenas of Culver City Affairs?”
1. Instead of some people and politicians saying that “…there’s no need to go to Fox Hills or Blair Hills, because they don’t vote…” there should be a realistic and concerted commitment to effectively communicate ( newspapers, meetings, public hearings and recruitment…) recruit, and get involvement from communities such as Blair Hills, Fox Hills and other diverse communities. All of the aforementioned could bring a new, globally diverse, intellectually strong and broadly effective political voice to Culver City affairs.
2. Our officially elected and unofficial (“the old Guard…”) leaders should be in the forefront of a well organized, public crusade to ensure that all of our committees, organizations and official events reflect the demographic diversity of Culver City. One way of getting people involved is to keep them informed and let them know that they are welcome to participate within Culver City affairs. For example, since Culver City has such a large Spanish speaking community, all civic meetings, hearings and such, should have an interpreter (perhaps a teacher or a student proficient in Spanish) who would translate the events in Spanish to these residents. “If the people won’t go to the Mountain, bring the Mountain to the People…”
3. The Culver City political and community “Old Guard” should realize and embrace the fact that there are new and diverse generations continually moving into Culver City who are not, nor will they be, programmed to parochial ways and thinking. Much of our new generation brings to Culver City an expansive and inclusive view of the world - as a global neighborhood, not just the narrow, parochial neighborhood view. This is an opportunity for our “leaders” to rethink and evaluate their own political “modus operandi." They should listen to (and speak with) the new generation and encourage them to become active in Culver City, after all, “… the train has certainly, left the station…”
In closing, I understand that the “status quo” adherents fear change for economic, political and social reasons. Positive change will be prevalent in Culver City’s future. Culver City can be the shining exemplary beacon of equity and diversity. And yes, it will be the modern “City Upon a Hill.”
Patricia G. Siever is a Member of the Culver City School Board, the Former Chair of the Culver City Martin Luther King Planning Committee, and a Professor of History of West Los Angeles College.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Sunday, February 26, 2012
The "Boogeymen" (and Women and Children) Come to Culver City
Gary Silbiger
NOTE: This is the seventh in a series of Culver City Progress election articles detailing the role of Councilmembers and the views of the challengers on the important issues in Culver City. View the previous articles here, here, here, here, here and here.
“We are doing our share with these problematic uses in [the Culver West] neighborhood. We all don’t need to worry about anybody coming in and making problems for us because we’ve already got them. We are bearing enough of a burden right now for me to say that there must be a better location. But I know one thing for certain, that is not the proper use for that neighborhood. We need to bring the neighborhood up."
It was January 14th, 2008 and Former Councilmember Scott Malsin had just listed the above problems that were coming to his neighborhood if his colleagues voted to let the "boogeymen" in. He went on to talk about camper people in the area, an Alcoholic Anonymous program, Venice High School, and problems on Wade Street and Culver West Park. We all knew that this was serious, Culver City had to be protected.
What possible negative influence could cause then-Councilmember Malsin to be so terrified? A gun shooting range? A local branch of the mafia? An illegal drug distribution center? No, it was the Upward Bound House transitional housing center for mainly homeless single moms with children under 8 years old.
Is there a need for emergency family housing? In 2008 in Los Angeles County, on any given night, there were 14,000 homeless children. At Upward Bound, these highly motivated residents – not the chronic homeless – had a safe place to sleep in their own bed.
Upward Bound House, a successful Santa Monica nonprofit provider of homeless services, spotted the perfect place for their next emergency family shelter in 2007 – a run-down Culver City motel on Washington Boulevard, which has now been converted both inside and out with love and care. This family shelter provides the previously-absent full range of services to children on the Westside. Although any homeless shelter could run afoul to NIMBYs ("not in my back yard") and fear laden residents and business owners, certainly a shelter for young children and their families would be a slam dunk, even for elected officials who had tried almost everything to deny most services to the homeless in our fair city. It all was resolved on January 14, 2008 when by the slimmest of votes – 3 to 2 – the City Council majority demonstrated a side of humanitarianism that would beneficially change the lives of countless people. After all, providing help to those most in need is a major part of local government. Those voting in favor of the family transitional housing facility were Carol Gross, Steve Rose, and me, while those opposed were Scott Malsin and Alan Corlin.
The proposal was to have 18 rooms in a newly converted transitional housing facility for parents and their minor children – not older than 16 - who were homeless, with a maximum total of 60 in the House. A family could only live at Upward Bound for 90 days and then move to a more permanent location. Rules include an enforced curfew from 9:00 p.m to 6:00 a.m. and 24 hour a day security cameras. A thorough screening process, including drug testing and a background test, are required. Each resident must read and agree with Upward Bound House's 7 page Code of Conduct. Well trained on-site managers are present at all times. Every resident must meet daily to receive intensive counseling with his or her case manager. Written permission must be received for guests to visit. Drinking alcohol is forbidden. Landscaping has been improved. And Upward Bound has to submit yearly reports on the facility’s operations and compliance with the City’s conditions of approval.
With the current criticisms of ending the Redevelopment Agencies in California, Upward Bound took no City or Redevelopment money, and was able to provide quality affordable housing in a city that refused to spend money allocated for this purpose.
When the Planning Commission approved Upward Bound by a 3 to 1 score, Michael Feeney, a resident of Culver City, appealed the granting of a Conditional Use Permit to the City Council. At the overflow January 14, 2008 City Council meeting, residents of Culver City and Los Angeles and business owners spoke (and submitted written comments) pro and con about the Upward Bound House proposal. Those speaking in favor of Upward Bound House included the Student Body President of Farragut Elementary School, a Culver City principal, the pastor of Culver Palms Methodist Church, former residents of Upward Bound’s first shelter, the Chair of Culver City’s Homelessness Committee and many others while an equal number of opponents spoke against the proposal.
Booker Pearson, the Board President of Upward Bound House, explained that they had searched for a location for 3 years. They had discovered several successful homeless shelters located in former motels. He explained that it would take 2-3 years minimum to find another place for this emergency family shelter. By opening Upward Bound House on Washington Boulevard, at least 100 children per year would have safe housing, rather than be homeless living on the streets. Certainly Culver City should do its part and continue to provide additional services – including housing – for those in need. As Phil Ochs wrote, “There But For Fortune Go You and I."
Although the opponents often phrased their opposition as “not the right place," for some there never is “the right place." But for the vulnerable children and their parents, “the right time” is always now. Councilmember Malsin expressed strong negative opinions of Upward Bound House at the Council meeting and created a vision of negativity in West Culver City that simply was untrue. A leader is one with vision to make his/her city the very best.
Towards the ending of his presentation, former Councilmember Malsin warned, “I wish all the people who have spoken in favor of Upward Bound House would come to that area and see the feces in the alley ways and the gang graffiti on the walls, and the graffiti, graffiti, grafitti all over the place." This exaggeration of West Culver City was part of the justification for Malsin’s vote opposed to the wonderful heartwarming Upward Bound House.
At the official opening of Upward Bound House, all of the rooms had been remodeled, repaired, and painted and the outside of the building made me proud to be a resident of Culver City. Thank goodness we did not have one more Councilmember voting to keep kids homeless on the unsafe streets of Los Angeles County.
UPWARD BOUND HOUSE SCORECARD
Scott Malsin F
Micheal O’Leary N/A
Andrew Weissman N/A
Gary Silbiger is the Co-Editor of the Culver City Progress Blog and the Former Mayor of Culver City.
NOTE: This is the seventh in a series of Culver City Progress election articles detailing the role of Councilmembers and the views of the challengers on the important issues in Culver City. View the previous articles here, here, here, here, here and here.
“We are doing our share with these problematic uses in [the Culver West] neighborhood. We all don’t need to worry about anybody coming in and making problems for us because we’ve already got them. We are bearing enough of a burden right now for me to say that there must be a better location. But I know one thing for certain, that is not the proper use for that neighborhood. We need to bring the neighborhood up."
It was January 14th, 2008 and Former Councilmember Scott Malsin had just listed the above problems that were coming to his neighborhood if his colleagues voted to let the "boogeymen" in. He went on to talk about camper people in the area, an Alcoholic Anonymous program, Venice High School, and problems on Wade Street and Culver West Park. We all knew that this was serious, Culver City had to be protected.
What possible negative influence could cause then-Councilmember Malsin to be so terrified? A gun shooting range? A local branch of the mafia? An illegal drug distribution center? No, it was the Upward Bound House transitional housing center for mainly homeless single moms with children under 8 years old.
Is there a need for emergency family housing? In 2008 in Los Angeles County, on any given night, there were 14,000 homeless children. At Upward Bound, these highly motivated residents – not the chronic homeless – had a safe place to sleep in their own bed.
Upward Bound House, a successful Santa Monica nonprofit provider of homeless services, spotted the perfect place for their next emergency family shelter in 2007 – a run-down Culver City motel on Washington Boulevard, which has now been converted both inside and out with love and care. This family shelter provides the previously-absent full range of services to children on the Westside. Although any homeless shelter could run afoul to NIMBYs ("not in my back yard") and fear laden residents and business owners, certainly a shelter for young children and their families would be a slam dunk, even for elected officials who had tried almost everything to deny most services to the homeless in our fair city. It all was resolved on January 14, 2008 when by the slimmest of votes – 3 to 2 – the City Council majority demonstrated a side of humanitarianism that would beneficially change the lives of countless people. After all, providing help to those most in need is a major part of local government. Those voting in favor of the family transitional housing facility were Carol Gross, Steve Rose, and me, while those opposed were Scott Malsin and Alan Corlin.
The proposal was to have 18 rooms in a newly converted transitional housing facility for parents and their minor children – not older than 16 - who were homeless, with a maximum total of 60 in the House. A family could only live at Upward Bound for 90 days and then move to a more permanent location. Rules include an enforced curfew from 9:00 p.m to 6:00 a.m. and 24 hour a day security cameras. A thorough screening process, including drug testing and a background test, are required. Each resident must read and agree with Upward Bound House's 7 page Code of Conduct. Well trained on-site managers are present at all times. Every resident must meet daily to receive intensive counseling with his or her case manager. Written permission must be received for guests to visit. Drinking alcohol is forbidden. Landscaping has been improved. And Upward Bound has to submit yearly reports on the facility’s operations and compliance with the City’s conditions of approval.
With the current criticisms of ending the Redevelopment Agencies in California, Upward Bound took no City or Redevelopment money, and was able to provide quality affordable housing in a city that refused to spend money allocated for this purpose.
When the Planning Commission approved Upward Bound by a 3 to 1 score, Michael Feeney, a resident of Culver City, appealed the granting of a Conditional Use Permit to the City Council. At the overflow January 14, 2008 City Council meeting, residents of Culver City and Los Angeles and business owners spoke (and submitted written comments) pro and con about the Upward Bound House proposal. Those speaking in favor of Upward Bound House included the Student Body President of Farragut Elementary School, a Culver City principal, the pastor of Culver Palms Methodist Church, former residents of Upward Bound’s first shelter, the Chair of Culver City’s Homelessness Committee and many others while an equal number of opponents spoke against the proposal.
Booker Pearson, the Board President of Upward Bound House, explained that they had searched for a location for 3 years. They had discovered several successful homeless shelters located in former motels. He explained that it would take 2-3 years minimum to find another place for this emergency family shelter. By opening Upward Bound House on Washington Boulevard, at least 100 children per year would have safe housing, rather than be homeless living on the streets. Certainly Culver City should do its part and continue to provide additional services – including housing – for those in need. As Phil Ochs wrote, “There But For Fortune Go You and I."
Although the opponents often phrased their opposition as “not the right place," for some there never is “the right place." But for the vulnerable children and their parents, “the right time” is always now. Councilmember Malsin expressed strong negative opinions of Upward Bound House at the Council meeting and created a vision of negativity in West Culver City that simply was untrue. A leader is one with vision to make his/her city the very best.
Towards the ending of his presentation, former Councilmember Malsin warned, “I wish all the people who have spoken in favor of Upward Bound House would come to that area and see the feces in the alley ways and the gang graffiti on the walls, and the graffiti, graffiti, grafitti all over the place." This exaggeration of West Culver City was part of the justification for Malsin’s vote opposed to the wonderful heartwarming Upward Bound House.
At the official opening of Upward Bound House, all of the rooms had been remodeled, repaired, and painted and the outside of the building made me proud to be a resident of Culver City. Thank goodness we did not have one more Councilmember voting to keep kids homeless on the unsafe streets of Los Angeles County.
UPWARD BOUND HOUSE SCORECARD
Scott Malsin F
Micheal O’Leary N/A
Andrew Weissman N/A
Gary Silbiger is the Co-Editor of the Culver City Progress Blog and the Former Mayor of Culver City.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Council Candidates Weigh In On LGBT Rights
NOTE: This is the sixth in a series of Culver City Progress election articles detailing the role of Councilmembers and the views of the challengers on the important issues in Culver City. View the previous articles here, here, here, here, and here.
Does the City of Culver City have a role to play in protecting the civil rights of minority groups like the LGBT community? How?
Jim Clarke: All Culver City residents are entitled to the full protection of the law. To that end the City should ensure that there is no overt or covert discrimination against any or our residents. This applies equally to our City departments and the businesses and organizations that operate in the City. The City should lead by example and ensure (I assume we do) that we have a clear non-discrimination policy for City employees along with regular training programs. Instances of alleged discrimination within the City should be dealt with promptly and resolved quickly to avoid further problems. Where necessary, instances of discrimination should be referred to proper authorities for prosecution.
Stephen Murray: All branches of government have a primary duty to uphold the principle of equality before the law. This equality needs to be exercised regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, age or physical disability. Tip O'Niell once said that "All politics is local" for it is the social and economic relationships of individuals, families, neighbors and our environment that make up our community. Culver City absolutely has to protect both individual and collective civil rights of our citizens- it is the sworn duty of Council Members to do so. By upholding hate-crime and anti-discrimination laws will be the most formal means of protecting individuals civil rights. Additionally, communicating with civility and tolerance, treating people as individuals first and not as classes of people or minorities will help to create a culture of acceptance within our community.
Is it appropriate for the Council, at times, to pass resolutions in support or opposition of legislation or potential legislation at the county, state or federal levels? When?
Jim Clarke: Where issues have a direct impact on Culver City, such as the state legislation to dissolve the redevelopment agencies, the Council should take a position and be in contact with our county, state and federal elected officials to make that position well-known. As there is strength in numbers we should be open to joining with other cities or working through organizations such as the California League of Cities or U.S. Conference of Mayors to leverage our position. In issues of national or international policy that don't directly impact Culver City, it may be worthwhile for the Council to facilitate a community dialogue to help educate our residents but I would be wary about the Council taking a position on such issues unless there was an overwhelming (and there probably would not be) support or opposition for a position.
Stephen Murray: Our City Council is the most immediately accessible form of participative democratic government for most of our citizens. Anyone can step up and speak before the Council on their interests, concerns and needs. Unfortunately as one scales the government hierarchy, individuals power and voice decreases. It is supremely appropriate for Council Members to represent upward on any legislation or other activities which negatively impact any constituent group of our City or our shared interests. A City doesn't exist as an island and City Council has an important role to not only represent it's interests upward but also to help contextualize how distant decisions and policy affects the City. Resolutions are one way to visibly express opinion and may be a way to send an urgent message to our more distant governing bodies. They can give a satisfying sense of making ones voice heard but it's only a partial solution. I think a more effective method is to use ones influence and work through relationships with our neighboring and overlapping governing representatives: our County Government, State Assembly and Senate and our Congressional Representatives and offices to seek change.
Had you been on the council, would you have supported a resolution in support of gay marriage in 2004 and a resolution in opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2008?
Jim Clarke: My sense is that many of our residents in Culver City are directly impacted by the result of legislation restricting same-sex marriage and I would want to take that into account as it would trigger the first part of my answer above. However, if there was not a significant impact and the result of taking a position would be to create division within the City and among our residents, I would prefer to not take a position but instead promote education through a community dialogue.
Stephen Murray: Resolutions are largely ceremonial and have no binding effect. Rather than attempting to urge an outcome over which I have no authority I prefer to act in a manner in concert with my resources. In 2004 I actively supported legislation that would allow all couples access to equal protection under the law. If I had been on City Council at that time it's very likely that I would have supported an ordinance mandating equal protection, not a resolution. Resolutions are reasonable fallbacks when creating an ordinance is too difficult, the council is unable to come to an agreement or when all that is needed is a vote of support or displeasure. For instance My opposition to the various iterations of the FMA had a number of reasons: It would have been the only active constitutional amendment to restrict civil rights and not expand them. In addition the intrusion of federalism into Family Law -a states province would usurp meaningful policy debate throughout the 50 states and set a terrible precedent. FMA seems to have been born out of fear as a piece of ceremonial legislation. For these reasons I think a resolution in 2006 & 2008 would have been the most appropriate response and I would have eagerly put forth a resolution.
Candidate Meghan Sahli-Wells was invited to also comment for this posting.
Does the City of Culver City have a role to play in protecting the civil rights of minority groups like the LGBT community? How?
Jim Clarke: All Culver City residents are entitled to the full protection of the law. To that end the City should ensure that there is no overt or covert discrimination against any or our residents. This applies equally to our City departments and the businesses and organizations that operate in the City. The City should lead by example and ensure (I assume we do) that we have a clear non-discrimination policy for City employees along with regular training programs. Instances of alleged discrimination within the City should be dealt with promptly and resolved quickly to avoid further problems. Where necessary, instances of discrimination should be referred to proper authorities for prosecution.
Stephen Murray: All branches of government have a primary duty to uphold the principle of equality before the law. This equality needs to be exercised regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, age or physical disability. Tip O'Niell once said that "All politics is local" for it is the social and economic relationships of individuals, families, neighbors and our environment that make up our community. Culver City absolutely has to protect both individual and collective civil rights of our citizens- it is the sworn duty of Council Members to do so. By upholding hate-crime and anti-discrimination laws will be the most formal means of protecting individuals civil rights. Additionally, communicating with civility and tolerance, treating people as individuals first and not as classes of people or minorities will help to create a culture of acceptance within our community.
Is it appropriate for the Council, at times, to pass resolutions in support or opposition of legislation or potential legislation at the county, state or federal levels? When?
Jim Clarke: Where issues have a direct impact on Culver City, such as the state legislation to dissolve the redevelopment agencies, the Council should take a position and be in contact with our county, state and federal elected officials to make that position well-known. As there is strength in numbers we should be open to joining with other cities or working through organizations such as the California League of Cities or U.S. Conference of Mayors to leverage our position. In issues of national or international policy that don't directly impact Culver City, it may be worthwhile for the Council to facilitate a community dialogue to help educate our residents but I would be wary about the Council taking a position on such issues unless there was an overwhelming (and there probably would not be) support or opposition for a position.
Stephen Murray: Our City Council is the most immediately accessible form of participative democratic government for most of our citizens. Anyone can step up and speak before the Council on their interests, concerns and needs. Unfortunately as one scales the government hierarchy, individuals power and voice decreases. It is supremely appropriate for Council Members to represent upward on any legislation or other activities which negatively impact any constituent group of our City or our shared interests. A City doesn't exist as an island and City Council has an important role to not only represent it's interests upward but also to help contextualize how distant decisions and policy affects the City. Resolutions are one way to visibly express opinion and may be a way to send an urgent message to our more distant governing bodies. They can give a satisfying sense of making ones voice heard but it's only a partial solution. I think a more effective method is to use ones influence and work through relationships with our neighboring and overlapping governing representatives: our County Government, State Assembly and Senate and our Congressional Representatives and offices to seek change.
Had you been on the council, would you have supported a resolution in support of gay marriage in 2004 and a resolution in opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2008?
Jim Clarke: My sense is that many of our residents in Culver City are directly impacted by the result of legislation restricting same-sex marriage and I would want to take that into account as it would trigger the first part of my answer above. However, if there was not a significant impact and the result of taking a position would be to create division within the City and among our residents, I would prefer to not take a position but instead promote education through a community dialogue.
Stephen Murray: Resolutions are largely ceremonial and have no binding effect. Rather than attempting to urge an outcome over which I have no authority I prefer to act in a manner in concert with my resources. In 2004 I actively supported legislation that would allow all couples access to equal protection under the law. If I had been on City Council at that time it's very likely that I would have supported an ordinance mandating equal protection, not a resolution. Resolutions are reasonable fallbacks when creating an ordinance is too difficult, the council is unable to come to an agreement or when all that is needed is a vote of support or displeasure. For instance My opposition to the various iterations of the FMA had a number of reasons: It would have been the only active constitutional amendment to restrict civil rights and not expand them. In addition the intrusion of federalism into Family Law -a states province would usurp meaningful policy debate throughout the 50 states and set a terrible precedent. FMA seems to have been born out of fear as a piece of ceremonial legislation. For these reasons I think a resolution in 2006 & 2008 would have been the most appropriate response and I would have eagerly put forth a resolution.
Candidate Meghan Sahli-Wells was invited to also comment for this posting.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Superintendent Resigns, Addresses Misunderstanding at Tuesday's School Board Meeting
Jim Province
Volunteers in Schools/Adjuncts
CCUSD Superintendent Patricia Jaffe began by addressing what was clearly the issue of the night for many of those in attendance (a rather large crowd of some 50 parents, teachers and adjunct staff), something she reluctantly identified as a “misunderstanding” that led some parents in the district to believe that the use of parent volunteers in the classroom was in danger of being phased out throughout the District.
Saying “that is simply untrue,” Superintendent Patricia Jaffe told the group of concerned and vocal parents that “some misunderstandings” seem to have sprung from a discussion about the status of parent-supported adjuncts at El Marino Language School - an issue that has yet to be discussed by the Board of Education and the collective bargaining units.
"I felt, I should say we all felt, it was important to straighten out some of the misinformation that has been flying around," Jaffe said. "The most important message from us is that parent volunteers are not included in any of this. We love parent volunteers. We want parent volunteers. They are not going to be replaced by District employees." Jaffe followed by saying the issue of the adjuncts will be addressed only when and if the Classified Employees union, ACE, actually makes a proposal. (This seemed to do little however to soothe the concerned group of parents, teachers and adjunct staff who later followed offering their comments, with several from a group called “Parents Have Rights” referring to what they saw as a “power grab” by a union that “cares more for itself than for the students”.)
Jaffe's Retirement
Jaffe then followed with what was arguably the biggest news of the evening, announcing that she would be stepping down from her position as Superintendent, effective June 30, 2012.
"I have been advised this is the year to retire before pension reform undermines retirement benefits," Jaffe added "It breaks my heart after all the support I have received from the community, and I will always be at CCUSD in spirit” Many in the crowd were shocked, as it was just a little over a year ago when some in the District were making the argument that, unlike many of her predecessors, Jaffe was more likely to stay for some time.
Solar Consultant
Board-member Silbiger asked to agendize a discussion with the district's solar consultant to begin planning the solar piece of the capital projects and set a timeline for the project's completion. Because of the California Solar Initiative rules, the district's project would have to be completed within the next 16 months in order for us to get the state rebates.
Green 5 Campaign Launch
The Green 5 Campaign, in conjunction with the District, the District's Environmental Sustainability Committee and the group Community Sustainability USA, was launched today as a pilot project at Linwood E. Howe Elementary. The goal of the Campaign is to demonstrate and build awareness of environmental sustainability in Culver City schools. Assemblies were held to kick off the campaign that is expected to go district-wide quite soon. Visit the website www.ccusd.org/sustainability for more info on this interesting and exciting effort.
Capital Improvement Project
The final item of discussion for the evening was the forming of a Committee ot oversee the long awaited Capital Improvements Project. Board Member Patricia Siever voiced her concerns about “ad-hoc committees” giving direction to the Board and suggesting that any Capital Project Committee should perhaps therefor be a sub-committee of the Community Budget Advisory Committee (CBAC). Alan Elmont then spoke for CBAC to say that a Capital Project Committee would be, by nature, a Project Management effort and that CBAC should not be involved in Project Management. Mr. Elmont pointed out that CBAC membership is “set” and that fact alone precludes the recruitment of experts required to oversee such a project.
The board then agreed to agendize the following:
The makeup of the Capitol Project Committee
A timeline for the projects
Discussion of the Project Manager position
Board-member Siever pointed out that the board needs to see some goals and objectives for the project and suggested that the board consult with El Segundo School District about how they handled a similar capitol effort, to which all the board seemed to agree.
More to come at the next Board of Education meeting, 7 p.m. on Tuesday, February 28 in the Mike Balkman Council Chambers at Culver City City Hall, 9770 Culver Blvd.
Jim Province is a Culver City High School Parent.
Volunteers in Schools/Adjuncts
CCUSD Superintendent Patricia Jaffe began by addressing what was clearly the issue of the night for many of those in attendance (a rather large crowd of some 50 parents, teachers and adjunct staff), something she reluctantly identified as a “misunderstanding” that led some parents in the district to believe that the use of parent volunteers in the classroom was in danger of being phased out throughout the District.
Saying “that is simply untrue,” Superintendent Patricia Jaffe told the group of concerned and vocal parents that “some misunderstandings” seem to have sprung from a discussion about the status of parent-supported adjuncts at El Marino Language School - an issue that has yet to be discussed by the Board of Education and the collective bargaining units.
"I felt, I should say we all felt, it was important to straighten out some of the misinformation that has been flying around," Jaffe said. "The most important message from us is that parent volunteers are not included in any of this. We love parent volunteers. We want parent volunteers. They are not going to be replaced by District employees." Jaffe followed by saying the issue of the adjuncts will be addressed only when and if the Classified Employees union, ACE, actually makes a proposal. (This seemed to do little however to soothe the concerned group of parents, teachers and adjunct staff who later followed offering their comments, with several from a group called “Parents Have Rights” referring to what they saw as a “power grab” by a union that “cares more for itself than for the students”.)
Jaffe's Retirement
Jaffe then followed with what was arguably the biggest news of the evening, announcing that she would be stepping down from her position as Superintendent, effective June 30, 2012.
"I have been advised this is the year to retire before pension reform undermines retirement benefits," Jaffe added "It breaks my heart after all the support I have received from the community, and I will always be at CCUSD in spirit” Many in the crowd were shocked, as it was just a little over a year ago when some in the District were making the argument that, unlike many of her predecessors, Jaffe was more likely to stay for some time.
Solar Consultant
Board-member Silbiger asked to agendize a discussion with the district's solar consultant to begin planning the solar piece of the capital projects and set a timeline for the project's completion. Because of the California Solar Initiative rules, the district's project would have to be completed within the next 16 months in order for us to get the state rebates.
Green 5 Campaign Launch
The Green 5 Campaign, in conjunction with the District, the District's Environmental Sustainability Committee and the group Community Sustainability USA, was launched today as a pilot project at Linwood E. Howe Elementary. The goal of the Campaign is to demonstrate and build awareness of environmental sustainability in Culver City schools. Assemblies were held to kick off the campaign that is expected to go district-wide quite soon. Visit the website www.ccusd.org/sustainability for more info on this interesting and exciting effort.
Capital Improvement Project
The final item of discussion for the evening was the forming of a Committee ot oversee the long awaited Capital Improvements Project. Board Member Patricia Siever voiced her concerns about “ad-hoc committees” giving direction to the Board and suggesting that any Capital Project Committee should perhaps therefor be a sub-committee of the Community Budget Advisory Committee (CBAC). Alan Elmont then spoke for CBAC to say that a Capital Project Committee would be, by nature, a Project Management effort and that CBAC should not be involved in Project Management. Mr. Elmont pointed out that CBAC membership is “set” and that fact alone precludes the recruitment of experts required to oversee such a project.
The board then agreed to agendize the following:
The makeup of the Capitol Project Committee
A timeline for the projects
Discussion of the Project Manager position
Board-member Siever pointed out that the board needs to see some goals and objectives for the project and suggested that the board consult with El Segundo School District about how they handled a similar capitol effort, to which all the board seemed to agree.
More to come at the next Board of Education meeting, 7 p.m. on Tuesday, February 28 in the Mike Balkman Council Chambers at Culver City City Hall, 9770 Culver Blvd.
Jim Province is a Culver City High School Parent.
Monday, February 20, 2012
We The (Straight) People: Forgetting the Gay Residents of Culver City
Karlo Silbiger
NOTE: This is the fifth in a series of Culver City Progress election articles detailing the role of Councilmembers and the views of the challengers on the important issues in Culver City. View the previous articles here, here, here, and here.
No one believes me when I say that Culver City has as progressive a voting populace on gay rights issues as does Santa Monica or West Hollywood. We don’t get adequate credit for our electorate’s tolerant views on issues of equality and civil rights. In 2008, 67% of Culver City’s voters supported marriage equality by voting against the “h8ful” proposition 8. A year later, those same voters elected the first 2 openly gay elected officials in Culver City history to our school board in myself and my colleague, Kathy Paspalis. While other school districts were dealing with homophobic bullying that led to a rash of suicides, our high school students showed great maturity when they elected a transgendered classmate to be homecoming king in 2010. We live in a wonderfully diverse and supportive community, and we should be proud.
Earlier this month, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a decision by Judge Walker that proposition 8 was unconstitutional since it took away basic rights from a minority group with no legitimate governmental purpose. Member of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community in Culver City and throughout the state rejoiced as our basic civil rights were protected from the political whims of the voting majority. Our allies were also happy as they realized that this decision not only protected their friends, neighbors, and family members, it also protect their own rights since it sets legal precedent for them to fight back should a majority of the voters someday turn against them.
One of the things that I have quickly learned as an elected official in our community over the past 2+ years is that my job extends far beyond the immediate task of working with my board colleagues to set policy for our district. As an elected leader who swore to “uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California,” I have a solemn obligation to protect the residents of Culver City and especially the students in our school district from illegal and unconstitutional laws that are imposed (or attempted) at all levels of government. When T Mobile attempted to put a cell tower across the street from one of our elementary schools, I convinced my colleagues on the board to unanimously approve of a letter sent to the Mayor and City Council asking for careful consideration of the health and safety of our students. Did the school board have an official say in the ultimate decision on this issue? Of course not. But as leaders within the community we needed to take a stand to support the people who elected us to lead. We could not sit back and be silent observers.
As I read the coverage of this landmark court decision, I was reminded of 3 times within the last 8 years that our City Council members, who swore that same oath mentioned above, were given an opportunity to take a stand in support of the LGBT community in Culver City and in protecting the civil rights of all their constituents. Their record is, unfortunately, mixed in terms of how they reacted in times when leadership was required.
In July of 2004, at my urging, the council considered taking an official position on a simple statement: “the City of Culver City opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment and urges the City’s representatives in Washington D.C. to vote accordingly.” Massachusetts, where I was then living and going to school, had just legalized gay marriage as a civil rights requirement under their state constitution, and as a result, President Bush and his conservative friends in Congress were trying to pass a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to 1 man and 1 woman throughout the country. I knew that this issue impacted the lives of hundreds of residents in our community, not to mention state and local government rights under the concept of federalism, and I hoped that our council would serve as our collective voice in protecting the rights of our residents. 32 members of the public spoke on this issue, most in support of action. However, while then Council Member Alan Corlin made the motion and Council Member Gary Silbiger seconded that motion, they could not find a third vote. Mayor Steve Rose and Council Members Albert Vera and Carol Gross all had many reasons why the important work of running the local government precluded them from passing a 1 sentence statement to take a stand for civil rights.
Unfortunately, the voters of California did not vote in lockstep with the voters of Culver City. By a margin of 52% to 48%, they removed the right to marry from a minority group, an act that was both inequitable and completely consequential to a segment of our community. Once again, I went to the council asking that we take a stand. A movement was building for then Attorney General Jerry Brown to fight this decision on the grounds that it conflicted with other parts of the state and federal constitutions. I wanted to make sure that our city went on record as supporting our Attorney General in his quest to protect minority rights and the rights of our residents. Again, I asked for a 1 sentence statement in support. However, the new and improved council which supposedly was more open to the public refused to even discuss the issue as had their predecessors. Council members Mehaul O’Leary, Scott Malsin, and Andy Weissman refused to even put it on the agenda. They said this was not a pertinent issue for the council to discuss, a truly sad sign for the gay and lesbian constituents who were seeing their basic rights eliminated.
LGBT rights were raised yet again just days after the 2009 election of Kathy Paspalis and me. In my victory speech on election night, I mentioned the pride that I felt at being part of a community who would elect such a diverse (in every respect of the word) school board. My mention, in the context of a long list, that there would now be 2 members of the LGBT community on the board elicited a response from a resident named Dee Seehusen, then a council appointed member of the Landlord-Tenant Mediation Board, where she castigated Kathy and I for not disclosing our sexual orientation before the election and said that the voters of Culver City might have voted differently had they known. The city council acted swiftly to remove Ms. Seehusen from her appointed position, unanimously arguing that a person who is helping to negotiate between landlords and tenants must not have any perceived bias as it relates to the LGBT community that may come before that body.
As voters head to the polls in just 7 weeks to elect 4 members of our council, I am under no illusion that these votes or this issue will be paramount on anyone’s mind (mine included). We have very serious issues within the confines of our little community. Times are tough and we need council members with the ideas and leadership necessary to address the everyday needs of our city government. However, I hope that we also expect to have a council made up of those who see their role more broadly, who thrive in serving as our collective voice in defense of the civil rights of our populace. That is a quality hard to find, but essential if we really expect them to live by the words in their oath office to defend a Constitution that begins with “We The People.”
LGBT RIGHTS SCORECARD
December 1, 2008 Vote Against Agendizing Support for Jerry Brown's Suit in Opposition to Proposition 8
Mehaul O'Leary: F
Scott Malsin: F
Andrew Weissman: F
December 14, 2009 Vote to Remove Dee Seehusen from the Landlord-Tenant Mediation Board for Discriminatory Comments
Mehaul O'Leary: A
Scott Malsin: A
Andrew Weissman: A
Karlo Silbiger is the Co-Edtor of the Culver City Progress Blog, the President of the Culver City School Board, and the Former President of the Culver City Democratic Club.
NOTE: This is the fifth in a series of Culver City Progress election articles detailing the role of Councilmembers and the views of the challengers on the important issues in Culver City. View the previous articles here, here, here, and here.
No one believes me when I say that Culver City has as progressive a voting populace on gay rights issues as does Santa Monica or West Hollywood. We don’t get adequate credit for our electorate’s tolerant views on issues of equality and civil rights. In 2008, 67% of Culver City’s voters supported marriage equality by voting against the “h8ful” proposition 8. A year later, those same voters elected the first 2 openly gay elected officials in Culver City history to our school board in myself and my colleague, Kathy Paspalis. While other school districts were dealing with homophobic bullying that led to a rash of suicides, our high school students showed great maturity when they elected a transgendered classmate to be homecoming king in 2010. We live in a wonderfully diverse and supportive community, and we should be proud.
Earlier this month, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a decision by Judge Walker that proposition 8 was unconstitutional since it took away basic rights from a minority group with no legitimate governmental purpose. Member of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community in Culver City and throughout the state rejoiced as our basic civil rights were protected from the political whims of the voting majority. Our allies were also happy as they realized that this decision not only protected their friends, neighbors, and family members, it also protect their own rights since it sets legal precedent for them to fight back should a majority of the voters someday turn against them.
One of the things that I have quickly learned as an elected official in our community over the past 2+ years is that my job extends far beyond the immediate task of working with my board colleagues to set policy for our district. As an elected leader who swore to “uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California,” I have a solemn obligation to protect the residents of Culver City and especially the students in our school district from illegal and unconstitutional laws that are imposed (or attempted) at all levels of government. When T Mobile attempted to put a cell tower across the street from one of our elementary schools, I convinced my colleagues on the board to unanimously approve of a letter sent to the Mayor and City Council asking for careful consideration of the health and safety of our students. Did the school board have an official say in the ultimate decision on this issue? Of course not. But as leaders within the community we needed to take a stand to support the people who elected us to lead. We could not sit back and be silent observers.
As I read the coverage of this landmark court decision, I was reminded of 3 times within the last 8 years that our City Council members, who swore that same oath mentioned above, were given an opportunity to take a stand in support of the LGBT community in Culver City and in protecting the civil rights of all their constituents. Their record is, unfortunately, mixed in terms of how they reacted in times when leadership was required.
In July of 2004, at my urging, the council considered taking an official position on a simple statement: “the City of Culver City opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment and urges the City’s representatives in Washington D.C. to vote accordingly.” Massachusetts, where I was then living and going to school, had just legalized gay marriage as a civil rights requirement under their state constitution, and as a result, President Bush and his conservative friends in Congress were trying to pass a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to 1 man and 1 woman throughout the country. I knew that this issue impacted the lives of hundreds of residents in our community, not to mention state and local government rights under the concept of federalism, and I hoped that our council would serve as our collective voice in protecting the rights of our residents. 32 members of the public spoke on this issue, most in support of action. However, while then Council Member Alan Corlin made the motion and Council Member Gary Silbiger seconded that motion, they could not find a third vote. Mayor Steve Rose and Council Members Albert Vera and Carol Gross all had many reasons why the important work of running the local government precluded them from passing a 1 sentence statement to take a stand for civil rights.
Unfortunately, the voters of California did not vote in lockstep with the voters of Culver City. By a margin of 52% to 48%, they removed the right to marry from a minority group, an act that was both inequitable and completely consequential to a segment of our community. Once again, I went to the council asking that we take a stand. A movement was building for then Attorney General Jerry Brown to fight this decision on the grounds that it conflicted with other parts of the state and federal constitutions. I wanted to make sure that our city went on record as supporting our Attorney General in his quest to protect minority rights and the rights of our residents. Again, I asked for a 1 sentence statement in support. However, the new and improved council which supposedly was more open to the public refused to even discuss the issue as had their predecessors. Council members Mehaul O’Leary, Scott Malsin, and Andy Weissman refused to even put it on the agenda. They said this was not a pertinent issue for the council to discuss, a truly sad sign for the gay and lesbian constituents who were seeing their basic rights eliminated.
LGBT rights were raised yet again just days after the 2009 election of Kathy Paspalis and me. In my victory speech on election night, I mentioned the pride that I felt at being part of a community who would elect such a diverse (in every respect of the word) school board. My mention, in the context of a long list, that there would now be 2 members of the LGBT community on the board elicited a response from a resident named Dee Seehusen, then a council appointed member of the Landlord-Tenant Mediation Board, where she castigated Kathy and I for not disclosing our sexual orientation before the election and said that the voters of Culver City might have voted differently had they known. The city council acted swiftly to remove Ms. Seehusen from her appointed position, unanimously arguing that a person who is helping to negotiate between landlords and tenants must not have any perceived bias as it relates to the LGBT community that may come before that body.
As voters head to the polls in just 7 weeks to elect 4 members of our council, I am under no illusion that these votes or this issue will be paramount on anyone’s mind (mine included). We have very serious issues within the confines of our little community. Times are tough and we need council members with the ideas and leadership necessary to address the everyday needs of our city government. However, I hope that we also expect to have a council made up of those who see their role more broadly, who thrive in serving as our collective voice in defense of the civil rights of our populace. That is a quality hard to find, but essential if we really expect them to live by the words in their oath office to defend a Constitution that begins with “We The People.”
LGBT RIGHTS SCORECARD
December 1, 2008 Vote Against Agendizing Support for Jerry Brown's Suit in Opposition to Proposition 8
Mehaul O'Leary: F
Scott Malsin: F
Andrew Weissman: F
December 14, 2009 Vote to Remove Dee Seehusen from the Landlord-Tenant Mediation Board for Discriminatory Comments
Mehaul O'Leary: A
Scott Malsin: A
Andrew Weissman: A
Karlo Silbiger is the Co-Edtor of the Culver City Progress Blog, the President of the Culver City School Board, and the Former President of the Culver City Democratic Club.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Measure X: Not a Mystery
Frances Talbott-White
Measure 'X' will appear on the April 10 ballot in Culver City. Its name makes it sound a bit mysterious, but in fact it is called 'X' simply because it follows Measure 'W' (Utility User Tax Modernization) which appeared on our ballots in the municipal election of 2008. Measure 'EE' (CCUSD's successful parcel tax measure) seemingly went out of sequence in November 2009.* But enough of this trivia! You want to know more about Measure X than how it got its name.
Measure X asks voters whether they want to increase Culver City's Hotel Tax from 12% to 14%, thus raising city revenues by an estimated $510,000 per year. This money would go into the City's General Fund, which means that it would not be earmarked for any particular purpose. Currently 3.8% or $3.08 million of our General Fund revenues come from the 12% Hotel Tax.
The official Argument in Favor of Measure X was signed by all five of our City Councilmembers in November 2011. In a nutshell, it states that a 14% Hotel Tax rate will:
- keep us competitive with neighboring cities vying for hotel and visitor business
- help defray the cost of city services used by visitors to Culver City
- maintain Culver City's quality of life by supporting our "police, fire, paramedics, parks and recreation, environmental protection and after-school programs" and
- provide revenue that cannot be taken away by the State of California.
No official Argument Against Measure X has been submitted. However, if I were writing an official League of Women Voters Pros and Cons document, I would be required to extrapolate a Con argument to counter each of the Pro arguments above. This is not an official document, but I feel that it is incumbent on every voter to consider both sides. Thus I imagine oponents saying:
- our proximity to the airport already gives our hospitality industry a leg up on those of Beverly Hills and Santa Monica
- there is no way to predict the net cost of city services used by visitors (think of a head-on collision between hotel guests at the corner of Centinela and Sepulveda, and then think of a hotel guest speaking gratis at a civic function)
- $510,000 is a drop in the bucket when it comes to maintaining our quality of life, especially if funds are skimmed off the top to pay for services to visitors and
- given California's fiscal history, do we really trust the State to keep its hands off municipal budgets?
Official League Pros and Cons would also include a short list of individuals and groups who support Measure X, and those who oppose Measure X. If this were an official LWV publication, I would fill in the list of opponents by going to the Libertarian Party and/or the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
Perhaps more thoughts on Measure X will emerge as comments on this blog post. I hope so.
- - - - - -
*CCUSD elections (held in November of odd-numbered years) are administered by the L.A. County Registrar of Voters' office, which has different rules for the naming of ballot measures.
Frances Talbott-White is a Culver City resident since 1975 and the Southern California Liaison for the League of Women Voters' SmartVoter project (smartvoter.org). As such, she is personally not at liberty to support or oppose any candidate or ballot measure. Her writing for Culver City Progress, or any other on-line or print publication, does not imply endorsement of that publication's policies or positions.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Culver City's Shame: Our History With Affordable Housing
Michael Miller
The new Culver City Housing Authority has the unenviable, perhaps Herculean and unachievable, task of erasing Culver City’s shame: that while the city’s businesses and outside developers thrived and grew rich under the Redevelopment Agency, the very people who that agency was set up to help, the poor and the struggling middle class, were ignored.
Affordable housing in Culver City is a joke, a very sad joke. There are currently almost 2,000 people waiting for housing in the city, yet not a single affordable housing unit has been built in more than 10 years. It hasn’t been for lack of money, the Redevelopment agency has been sitting on more than $45 million, designated for affordable housing, all that time.
But wait, there’s more, as they say in the TV commercials. While the Redevelopment Agency bureaucrats and the City Council members, who also acted as the RDA board, were sitting on their collective hands for more than a decade, those who were fortunate enough to receive affordable housing vouchers were given just 90 days to find their way out of the mire and into a home. Then, puff! The vouchers expired.
So it was OK for the city to dawdle over building sufficient units, but the unfortunates were given just 90 days to find these non-existent dwellings. Shame on the RDA and shame on the Council.
Let us put this in perspective. Culver City is one of the most expensive rental areas in Los Angeles County, it is also one where rental units are most scarce – in fact, according to the 2008-2014 Culver City Housing Element, the rental vacancy rate is just 2.1%.
So we lose a Redevelopment Agency and we gain a Housing Authority. How did that happen, in particular how did it happen with a minimum of discussion and a large rubber stamp wielded by the Culver City Council?
No real intrigue there; it was already written into law. On April 29 last year the California Supreme Court upheld Assembly Bill 26, freezing redevelopment activity and dissolving community redevelopment agencies throughout the state. At the same time, the court struck down Assembly Bill 27, which would have allowed cities to continue to operate redevelopment agencies.
AB 26 was the brainchild of California Governor Jerry Brown, who said RDA’s were a boondoggle and vowed to turn over the money the state had been paying them to education and law enforcement. Oddly enough, Governor Moonbeam said in January of this year, less than a month before the RDA’s were forced to shut up shop, that he was cutting the state’s education budget by $5 billion. Go figure.
But back to the Housing Authority. California Health and Safety Code requires that every county and city has a dormant public body identified as a housing authority. Counties and cities may declare that there is a need for Housing Authority to function to ensure safe and sanitary housing for persons of low income.
But the city must justify awakening this sleeping giant. And here comes the shame and the scorn heaped on Culver City, ironically, by the people who run it.
I quote now from the staff report to the Council prior to its January 9th adoption of the resolution activating the Housing Authority. This report was approved by the four heads of department of the relevant city agencies, some of whom may have been involved with the affordable housing debacle, and some of whom may not. They were Sol Blumenfeld of RDA, City Attorney Carol Schwab, Jeff Muir of Finance, and recently appointed City Manager John Nachbar.
What they approved was a condemnation of the appalling history of affordable housing in Culver City. “In order to establish a housing authority the city must find that either insanitary or unsafe dwellings exist within the city or that there is a shortage of sanitary and safe dwellings for persons of low income at affordable rents within the city. The unmet demand for affordable, safe and sanitary housing units is exemplified by the city’s experience with two programs administered by the city’s Housing Division.
“The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program: There are currently 762 applicants actively waiting for rental assistance through Section 8. Some applicants have been on the list since 1998, a waiting period of 14 years. Once an applicant receives a Section 8 voucher they are given 90 days to locate a unit in Culver City. Due to a lack of available, affordable, decent, safe and sanitary units, many voucher holders exhaust the 90-day time period and are forced to seek units outside of Culver City. These forced relocations can result in the loss of jobs and the removal of children from their schools.”
The staff report goes on to the subject of the the Rental Assistance Program, which assists extremely low and up to moderate income households to subsidize their housing through RAP. “There are currently 1,062 applicants on the waiting list. Some applicants have been on this waiting list since 1990, a waiting period of twelve (12) years (sic)”
OK, so either they got the year wrong (most probable) or they got the math wrong. It matters not. Twelve years or 22 years is an unconscionable period of time to have to wait for an affordable housing unit when you are living on the edge of poverty.
By the way, the average search time given to RAP voucher holders ranges from 60 to 90 days before the voucher expires. Back to relocation, loss of jobs, loss of schools for kids.
The staff report goes on: “Based on the low vacancy rate the limited number of affordable rental units available, this shortage of affordable units makes it extremely difficult for Section 8 and RAP families to utilize their vouchers for rental assistance in the city."
An additional cause of the shortage of affordable, decent, safe and sanitary housing units is the lack of housing production. Culver City has not increased the supply of low and moderate income affordable housing units in more than 10 years. With the recent approval of the Irving, Tilden Terrace and Globe housing projects, Culver City will produce affordable housing units for the first time in over 10 years.
The now defunct RDA currently owes the city, or more appropriately the new Housing Administration, $45.4 million, which it should have spent on affordable housing. Of this, $10.5 million came from the state’s SERAF and ERAF (Supplemental Education Revenue Augmentation Fund and the Education Augmentation Revenue Fund) Don’t you just love Sacramentese! Anyway, this can sit in the coffers of a defunct agency until June, 2015, when it has to be handed over.
The remaining $34 million, representing housing funds that were deferred (i.e. never spent) between 1985 and 1996, can be repaid “in future years” according to the staff report. Blumenfeld clarified that at the January 9th Council meeting as 10 years. But again the question arises. Is this a shell game where valuable funds sit dormant while they could be spent on valuable affordable housing projects?
The question remains; how many affordable housing units can be built for $45.4 million? And how many could have been built at 1985-1996 prices. The city is obligated to build 71 more units by 2014. If the Irving Place figures are anything to go by, at today’s prices a single affordable housing unit costs $500,000 to build. Last year the city agreed to give the developers of 4043 Irving Place $6 million to include 12 affordable living units in their 28 apartment complex, in the form of a $3.36 million loan over 30 years at 1.5 percent (try getting that on your mortgage!) with the remaining $2.44 million a “gift” in the form of a forgivable loan.
So with no money coming into the Housing Authority until 2015 (remember the SERAF/ERAF repayment) that $45.4 million does not come into play, and those much touted units at Irving, Tilden and Globe are nothing more than raindrops in a very dry barrel.
Michael Miller is a Staff Writer for the Culver City Progress Blog and the Co-Founder of the Culver City Downtown Neighborhood Association.
The new Culver City Housing Authority has the unenviable, perhaps Herculean and unachievable, task of erasing Culver City’s shame: that while the city’s businesses and outside developers thrived and grew rich under the Redevelopment Agency, the very people who that agency was set up to help, the poor and the struggling middle class, were ignored.
Affordable housing in Culver City is a joke, a very sad joke. There are currently almost 2,000 people waiting for housing in the city, yet not a single affordable housing unit has been built in more than 10 years. It hasn’t been for lack of money, the Redevelopment agency has been sitting on more than $45 million, designated for affordable housing, all that time.
But wait, there’s more, as they say in the TV commercials. While the Redevelopment Agency bureaucrats and the City Council members, who also acted as the RDA board, were sitting on their collective hands for more than a decade, those who were fortunate enough to receive affordable housing vouchers were given just 90 days to find their way out of the mire and into a home. Then, puff! The vouchers expired.
So it was OK for the city to dawdle over building sufficient units, but the unfortunates were given just 90 days to find these non-existent dwellings. Shame on the RDA and shame on the Council.
Let us put this in perspective. Culver City is one of the most expensive rental areas in Los Angeles County, it is also one where rental units are most scarce – in fact, according to the 2008-2014 Culver City Housing Element, the rental vacancy rate is just 2.1%.
So we lose a Redevelopment Agency and we gain a Housing Authority. How did that happen, in particular how did it happen with a minimum of discussion and a large rubber stamp wielded by the Culver City Council?
No real intrigue there; it was already written into law. On April 29 last year the California Supreme Court upheld Assembly Bill 26, freezing redevelopment activity and dissolving community redevelopment agencies throughout the state. At the same time, the court struck down Assembly Bill 27, which would have allowed cities to continue to operate redevelopment agencies.
AB 26 was the brainchild of California Governor Jerry Brown, who said RDA’s were a boondoggle and vowed to turn over the money the state had been paying them to education and law enforcement. Oddly enough, Governor Moonbeam said in January of this year, less than a month before the RDA’s were forced to shut up shop, that he was cutting the state’s education budget by $5 billion. Go figure.
But back to the Housing Authority. California Health and Safety Code requires that every county and city has a dormant public body identified as a housing authority. Counties and cities may declare that there is a need for Housing Authority to function to ensure safe and sanitary housing for persons of low income.
But the city must justify awakening this sleeping giant. And here comes the shame and the scorn heaped on Culver City, ironically, by the people who run it.
I quote now from the staff report to the Council prior to its January 9th adoption of the resolution activating the Housing Authority. This report was approved by the four heads of department of the relevant city agencies, some of whom may have been involved with the affordable housing debacle, and some of whom may not. They were Sol Blumenfeld of RDA, City Attorney Carol Schwab, Jeff Muir of Finance, and recently appointed City Manager John Nachbar.
What they approved was a condemnation of the appalling history of affordable housing in Culver City. “In order to establish a housing authority the city must find that either insanitary or unsafe dwellings exist within the city or that there is a shortage of sanitary and safe dwellings for persons of low income at affordable rents within the city. The unmet demand for affordable, safe and sanitary housing units is exemplified by the city’s experience with two programs administered by the city’s Housing Division.
“The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program: There are currently 762 applicants actively waiting for rental assistance through Section 8. Some applicants have been on the list since 1998, a waiting period of 14 years. Once an applicant receives a Section 8 voucher they are given 90 days to locate a unit in Culver City. Due to a lack of available, affordable, decent, safe and sanitary units, many voucher holders exhaust the 90-day time period and are forced to seek units outside of Culver City. These forced relocations can result in the loss of jobs and the removal of children from their schools.”
The staff report goes on to the subject of the the Rental Assistance Program, which assists extremely low and up to moderate income households to subsidize their housing through RAP. “There are currently 1,062 applicants on the waiting list. Some applicants have been on this waiting list since 1990, a waiting period of twelve (12) years (sic)”
OK, so either they got the year wrong (most probable) or they got the math wrong. It matters not. Twelve years or 22 years is an unconscionable period of time to have to wait for an affordable housing unit when you are living on the edge of poverty.
By the way, the average search time given to RAP voucher holders ranges from 60 to 90 days before the voucher expires. Back to relocation, loss of jobs, loss of schools for kids.
The staff report goes on: “Based on the low vacancy rate the limited number of affordable rental units available, this shortage of affordable units makes it extremely difficult for Section 8 and RAP families to utilize their vouchers for rental assistance in the city."
An additional cause of the shortage of affordable, decent, safe and sanitary housing units is the lack of housing production. Culver City has not increased the supply of low and moderate income affordable housing units in more than 10 years. With the recent approval of the Irving, Tilden Terrace and Globe housing projects, Culver City will produce affordable housing units for the first time in over 10 years.
The now defunct RDA currently owes the city, or more appropriately the new Housing Administration, $45.4 million, which it should have spent on affordable housing. Of this, $10.5 million came from the state’s SERAF and ERAF (Supplemental Education Revenue Augmentation Fund and the Education Augmentation Revenue Fund) Don’t you just love Sacramentese! Anyway, this can sit in the coffers of a defunct agency until June, 2015, when it has to be handed over.
The remaining $34 million, representing housing funds that were deferred (i.e. never spent) between 1985 and 1996, can be repaid “in future years” according to the staff report. Blumenfeld clarified that at the January 9th Council meeting as 10 years. But again the question arises. Is this a shell game where valuable funds sit dormant while they could be spent on valuable affordable housing projects?
The question remains; how many affordable housing units can be built for $45.4 million? And how many could have been built at 1985-1996 prices. The city is obligated to build 71 more units by 2014. If the Irving Place figures are anything to go by, at today’s prices a single affordable housing unit costs $500,000 to build. Last year the city agreed to give the developers of 4043 Irving Place $6 million to include 12 affordable living units in their 28 apartment complex, in the form of a $3.36 million loan over 30 years at 1.5 percent (try getting that on your mortgage!) with the remaining $2.44 million a “gift” in the form of a forgivable loan.
So with no money coming into the Housing Authority until 2015 (remember the SERAF/ERAF repayment) that $45.4 million does not come into play, and those much touted units at Irving, Tilden and Globe are nothing more than raindrops in a very dry barrel.
Michael Miller is a Staff Writer for the Culver City Progress Blog and the Co-Founder of the Culver City Downtown Neighborhood Association.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
The 2 Most Interesting Questions at the Democratic Club Candidates' Forum
Patricia Levinson
On Wednesday, the Culver City Democratic Club (CCDC) held the first Candidates Forum for this election cycle. All five Democratic candidates participated: Jim Clarke (JC), Scott Malsin (ScM), Stephen Murray (StM), Meghan Sahli-Wells (MSW) and Andrew Weissman (AW).
As Recording Secretary for the CCDC, one key question from moderator, Gary Walker, reporter for the Culver City News, jumped out at me to make an impression of the differences among the candidates. This question referred to the loss of Redevelopment funds and what each candidate would do, if anything, to maintain cultural events (Mr. Walker used the term “sacred cows”) in CC. In the order of candidates called:
MSW stated that funds “needed to be leveraged.” She’d utilize individual donations, foundations, indicating that the “arts are not a soft economy." She stated, “The public needs to be invited to weigh in on the matters of choice and solutions.”
StM threw out that “everything is up for grabs.” He stated that that included the arts, parks and other services. He wouldn’t “turn away an art project” perhaps “wouldn’t kill it, but fund it less.”
JC suggested that we find partnerships and to ask the wealthy in the region to assist. They could make donations to foundations that would provide tax deduction incentives.
ScM stated, “The cultural events are absolutely intransigent to our city.” He “wouldn’t chop it one piece at a time.”
AW indicated that he supports the summer concerts and that [and other events] add to the city’s cultural and program diversity.” Discussions are needed to determine what the community wants from services, revenues, social problems, etc.
So this tells me what? Two candidates actually advocated having the community weigh in (MSW, JC). One candidate indicated “discussions," but didn’t say with whom those discussions needed to be held (AW). Two candidates inferred that some modifications needed to be made but didn’t offer suggestions (StM, ScM). So what else is new? Be specific. Don’t politicians know that we are looking for solutions? You had to have known that that questions would be out there.
As a community member I WANT INPUT into this process. I want ALL the cultural events to remain in effect. I KNOW that that is an unreasonable attitude. But then, I’M NOT RUNNING AS A CANDIDATE! As Gary Walker wrote in his article in the CC News, about the demolition of the graphic “Syncopation” designed and created by Ed Massey at the Culver Plaza building complex, “CC has lost a signature visual landmark.” Okay, the property wasn’t owned by the city. I know that there is an Arts Commission. But the chopping of government-run cultural affairs programs piece by piece seems to have started. Please, candidates, let the community weigh in on the solutions!
The other question of note was queried during the “audience participation” part of the evening. Basically a number of questions addressed the fringe benefits that Council Members receive since they are considered part time employees yet have received benefits “for life.”
David Mielke, President of the CC Teachers’ Assn., mentioned that the school district gives benefits to only those Board Members who don’t have them in their “real” jobs, since being a Board Member is not a full-time job [my paraphrasing].
ScM uttered some wording about PERS and their “unfortunate” rules and wanted to see some “working moms” [I think he meant on the City Council].
StM stated that after a person is off the Council, benefits should cease. I happen to agree.
MSW agreed with Mr. Mielke that benefits needed to be cut for those who already receive benefits. I also agree with this.
JC mentioned, as an aside, that he already receives benefits and pensions from at least [my words] two other entities and wouldn’t need them from Culver City [again my paraphrasing]. I’m jealous. Damn, if he’s not married, could I share in those benefits? I wont even get Social Security…
AW agreed with MSW but stated that although “we are considered as employees, we are volunteers” including that being a Council Member is a “terribly time-consuming enterprise.” As an aside he mentioned the many hours he dedicates [not in hours, per se, but in time]. He stated, “I question the wisdom of providing life-time benefits to part-time employees.”
So what does all this mean? I was truly upset by AW’s glib answer about how many hours he dedicates despite the inference of little or no pay. I was a teacher and school district employee for over 38 years. I, too, found the enterprise “terribly time-consuming.” And, before you say anything, I will tell you I did receive benefits WHILE I WORKED. And I worked many hours, probably 55-75 not the 35 I was required to put in as a teacher and probably 60 – 80 not the 40 I was required to put in as a district employee, not in the classroom. I DID NOT GET LIFE-TIME BENEFITS! I’m not sorry. That was my choice. It’s AW’s choice to work whatever hours he deems necessary to get the job done. Don’t cry about it being time-consuming therefore you might really “earn” full-time benefits. You serve at the pleasure of the electorate – at least those who vote. If you ran for office to get full-time health benefits, then your priorities are misguided. Take the $30,000 (?) you might be spending on the campaign and put it in an IRA account or wait until the single-payer health care that you and ScM mentioned you favored, comes to fruition. (I favor it, too.) You stated that you, “question the wisdom of providing full-time benefits for part-time employees,” but you don’t stand against it. You didn’t even offer to present that as an item on the City Council agenda while you are currently a member.
If you all want to get serious about serving the Community of Culver City, ask the community to weigh in at Council Meetings. Don’t roll your eyes and dismiss us. Our questions are valid and deserve both answers and action.
Patricia Levinson is the Recording Secretary of the Culver City Democratic Club, the former President of the Friends of the Culver City Youth Health Center, the a long time leader in Culver City political campaigns.
On Wednesday, the Culver City Democratic Club (CCDC) held the first Candidates Forum for this election cycle. All five Democratic candidates participated: Jim Clarke (JC), Scott Malsin (ScM), Stephen Murray (StM), Meghan Sahli-Wells (MSW) and Andrew Weissman (AW).
As Recording Secretary for the CCDC, one key question from moderator, Gary Walker, reporter for the Culver City News, jumped out at me to make an impression of the differences among the candidates. This question referred to the loss of Redevelopment funds and what each candidate would do, if anything, to maintain cultural events (Mr. Walker used the term “sacred cows”) in CC. In the order of candidates called:
MSW stated that funds “needed to be leveraged.” She’d utilize individual donations, foundations, indicating that the “arts are not a soft economy." She stated, “The public needs to be invited to weigh in on the matters of choice and solutions.”
StM threw out that “everything is up for grabs.” He stated that that included the arts, parks and other services. He wouldn’t “turn away an art project” perhaps “wouldn’t kill it, but fund it less.”
JC suggested that we find partnerships and to ask the wealthy in the region to assist. They could make donations to foundations that would provide tax deduction incentives.
ScM stated, “The cultural events are absolutely intransigent to our city.” He “wouldn’t chop it one piece at a time.”
AW indicated that he supports the summer concerts and that [and other events] add to the city’s cultural and program diversity.” Discussions are needed to determine what the community wants from services, revenues, social problems, etc.
So this tells me what? Two candidates actually advocated having the community weigh in (MSW, JC). One candidate indicated “discussions," but didn’t say with whom those discussions needed to be held (AW). Two candidates inferred that some modifications needed to be made but didn’t offer suggestions (StM, ScM). So what else is new? Be specific. Don’t politicians know that we are looking for solutions? You had to have known that that questions would be out there.
As a community member I WANT INPUT into this process. I want ALL the cultural events to remain in effect. I KNOW that that is an unreasonable attitude. But then, I’M NOT RUNNING AS A CANDIDATE! As Gary Walker wrote in his article in the CC News, about the demolition of the graphic “Syncopation” designed and created by Ed Massey at the Culver Plaza building complex, “CC has lost a signature visual landmark.” Okay, the property wasn’t owned by the city. I know that there is an Arts Commission. But the chopping of government-run cultural affairs programs piece by piece seems to have started. Please, candidates, let the community weigh in on the solutions!
The other question of note was queried during the “audience participation” part of the evening. Basically a number of questions addressed the fringe benefits that Council Members receive since they are considered part time employees yet have received benefits “for life.”
David Mielke, President of the CC Teachers’ Assn., mentioned that the school district gives benefits to only those Board Members who don’t have them in their “real” jobs, since being a Board Member is not a full-time job [my paraphrasing].
ScM uttered some wording about PERS and their “unfortunate” rules and wanted to see some “working moms” [I think he meant on the City Council].
StM stated that after a person is off the Council, benefits should cease. I happen to agree.
MSW agreed with Mr. Mielke that benefits needed to be cut for those who already receive benefits. I also agree with this.
JC mentioned, as an aside, that he already receives benefits and pensions from at least [my words] two other entities and wouldn’t need them from Culver City [again my paraphrasing]. I’m jealous. Damn, if he’s not married, could I share in those benefits? I wont even get Social Security…
AW agreed with MSW but stated that although “we are considered as employees, we are volunteers” including that being a Council Member is a “terribly time-consuming enterprise.” As an aside he mentioned the many hours he dedicates [not in hours, per se, but in time]. He stated, “I question the wisdom of providing life-time benefits to part-time employees.”
So what does all this mean? I was truly upset by AW’s glib answer about how many hours he dedicates despite the inference of little or no pay. I was a teacher and school district employee for over 38 years. I, too, found the enterprise “terribly time-consuming.” And, before you say anything, I will tell you I did receive benefits WHILE I WORKED. And I worked many hours, probably 55-75 not the 35 I was required to put in as a teacher and probably 60 – 80 not the 40 I was required to put in as a district employee, not in the classroom. I DID NOT GET LIFE-TIME BENEFITS! I’m not sorry. That was my choice. It’s AW’s choice to work whatever hours he deems necessary to get the job done. Don’t cry about it being time-consuming therefore you might really “earn” full-time benefits. You serve at the pleasure of the electorate – at least those who vote. If you ran for office to get full-time health benefits, then your priorities are misguided. Take the $30,000 (?) you might be spending on the campaign and put it in an IRA account or wait until the single-payer health care that you and ScM mentioned you favored, comes to fruition. (I favor it, too.) You stated that you, “question the wisdom of providing full-time benefits for part-time employees,” but you don’t stand against it. You didn’t even offer to present that as an item on the City Council agenda while you are currently a member.
If you all want to get serious about serving the Community of Culver City, ask the community to weigh in at Council Meetings. Don’t roll your eyes and dismiss us. Our questions are valid and deserve both answers and action.
Patricia Levinson is the Recording Secretary of the Culver City Democratic Club, the former President of the Friends of the Culver City Youth Health Center, the a long time leader in Culver City political campaigns.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Council Candidates Weigh In On Funding for Victims of Domestic Violence
NOTE: This is the fourth 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 articles here, here, and here.
If you are elected to the City Council, what will you do about this issue of domestic violence?
Jim Clarke: Domestic violence is a prevalent and serious issue everywhere and we in Culver City are not immune from it. As such, we need to work in partnership with the County and our surrounding cities to address the issue and to learn best practices from each other. First and foremost we must ensure that our first responders, both police and fire, have been well trained to recognize and deal appropriately with witnessed instances or alleged instances of domestic violence whenever they respond to calls for aid. There are federal funding opportunities available to assist in providing such training. Secondly, we should be aware of and ensure there are an adequate network of service providers and non-profit organizations to respond quickly when needed to remove a violence victim from a living situation and provide shelter and counseling services. Third, we need to utilize our City's service organizations to help educate our residents of the signs of domestic violence and the referral services that are available. Lastly, we need to work closely with the District Attorney's office to ensure they enforce a "zero tolerance" policy on domestic violence offenders.
Stephen Murray: 1 in 4 people are effected by domestic violence every year and Culver City, like many small cities, does not have a victim services department or a hotline. Effectively we rely on external organizations such as Legal Aid to provide these services for our community. These organizations have to raise their own funds. Only the cities where Legal Aid has offices: Los Angeles, Long Beach, Santa Monica and LA County, have given to Legal Aid.(Legal aid is laying off 15 employees this year due to insufficient funding.) In addressing our Domestic Violence I would look to how we handle our homeless services. We have a committee on homelessness, a homeless info hotline, a web page of resources on culvercity.org and the CDC has created a resource guide with referrals. Awareness of resources of where and how to get help should be the initial components of a domestic violence program.
Meghan Sahli-Wells: Domestic violence is a real problem that affects one of every two families in the United States. According to the LAPD, "each year, more than two million women are victims of domestic violence, and one million children are physically abused." Prevention programs are vital tools for cities to reach and help victims before abuse has started, as well as after it has occurred, in order to break the cycle of violence that perpetuates from generation to generation. In tough economic times, domestic violence has a tendency to rise, due to additional stresses on families. It is therefore imperative to support domestic violence organizations, despite any potential strain on the city budget. It is the correct moral stance, and it is a good investment in our future, as crimes committed cost the society as a whole.
Many groups request money or services from Culver City. What method will you use to prioritize these requests?
Jim Clarke: As federal and state funding reductions continue to occur, more and more worthwhile organizations will come to the City to appeal for financial assistance. Unfortunately, our own financial situation will preclude us from helping most. Therefore, we will need to prioritize those requests. There is not a single formula that I would apply but there are several conditions that I would take into account in making a determination to support a funding request. Those would include the amount of the request; efforts undertaken by the organization to raise the funds on their own; the ability of the organization to leverage City funding to obtain additional funding from private or other public sources; whether other organizations are providing similar services and if efforts were made to work together with those organizations; the number of clientele (Culver City residents) being served by the organization and whether our residents can receive those services from other organizations; and the performance and financial track record of the organization to meet its service commitments and goals.
Stephen Murray: It will always be faster and easier to raise money through individuals and business before being able to get anything from the city. The City takes time. The City's funds are are mostly tied up and we are currently looking at imminent lay-offs. On the other hand, the City Council has a very small discretionary fund. The city can offer discounted meeting and event space as well as prioritizing how, where and when services are distributed throughout the city. I would always try to help fund where people are most needy- in the case of Legal Aid I would have offered something. The way to get prioritized funding support from the city is to get it in the budget- then you will almost always get paid. But, by far the best way is to elect council-members who share your progressive priorities. As a progressive I am looking forward to your vote on April 10.
Meghan Sahli-Wells: It is time to stop looking at funding programs on a case-by-case basis, but rather, set out our budget priorities as a whole, making sure the public has ample opportunity to weigh-in. The Council's discretionary fund should be used to support projects and programs that contribute to Culver City resident's health, welfare, and quality of life.
If you are elected to the City Council, what will you do about this issue of domestic violence?
Jim Clarke: Domestic violence is a prevalent and serious issue everywhere and we in Culver City are not immune from it. As such, we need to work in partnership with the County and our surrounding cities to address the issue and to learn best practices from each other. First and foremost we must ensure that our first responders, both police and fire, have been well trained to recognize and deal appropriately with witnessed instances or alleged instances of domestic violence whenever they respond to calls for aid. There are federal funding opportunities available to assist in providing such training. Secondly, we should be aware of and ensure there are an adequate network of service providers and non-profit organizations to respond quickly when needed to remove a violence victim from a living situation and provide shelter and counseling services. Third, we need to utilize our City's service organizations to help educate our residents of the signs of domestic violence and the referral services that are available. Lastly, we need to work closely with the District Attorney's office to ensure they enforce a "zero tolerance" policy on domestic violence offenders.
Stephen Murray: 1 in 4 people are effected by domestic violence every year and Culver City, like many small cities, does not have a victim services department or a hotline. Effectively we rely on external organizations such as Legal Aid to provide these services for our community. These organizations have to raise their own funds. Only the cities where Legal Aid has offices: Los Angeles, Long Beach, Santa Monica and LA County, have given to Legal Aid.(Legal aid is laying off 15 employees this year due to insufficient funding.) In addressing our Domestic Violence I would look to how we handle our homeless services. We have a committee on homelessness, a homeless info hotline, a web page of resources on culvercity.org and the CDC has created a resource guide with referrals. Awareness of resources of where and how to get help should be the initial components of a domestic violence program.
Meghan Sahli-Wells: Domestic violence is a real problem that affects one of every two families in the United States. According to the LAPD, "each year, more than two million women are victims of domestic violence, and one million children are physically abused." Prevention programs are vital tools for cities to reach and help victims before abuse has started, as well as after it has occurred, in order to break the cycle of violence that perpetuates from generation to generation. In tough economic times, domestic violence has a tendency to rise, due to additional stresses on families. It is therefore imperative to support domestic violence organizations, despite any potential strain on the city budget. It is the correct moral stance, and it is a good investment in our future, as crimes committed cost the society as a whole.
Many groups request money or services from Culver City. What method will you use to prioritize these requests?
Jim Clarke: As federal and state funding reductions continue to occur, more and more worthwhile organizations will come to the City to appeal for financial assistance. Unfortunately, our own financial situation will preclude us from helping most. Therefore, we will need to prioritize those requests. There is not a single formula that I would apply but there are several conditions that I would take into account in making a determination to support a funding request. Those would include the amount of the request; efforts undertaken by the organization to raise the funds on their own; the ability of the organization to leverage City funding to obtain additional funding from private or other public sources; whether other organizations are providing similar services and if efforts were made to work together with those organizations; the number of clientele (Culver City residents) being served by the organization and whether our residents can receive those services from other organizations; and the performance and financial track record of the organization to meet its service commitments and goals.
Stephen Murray: It will always be faster and easier to raise money through individuals and business before being able to get anything from the city. The City takes time. The City's funds are are mostly tied up and we are currently looking at imminent lay-offs. On the other hand, the City Council has a very small discretionary fund. The city can offer discounted meeting and event space as well as prioritizing how, where and when services are distributed throughout the city. I would always try to help fund where people are most needy- in the case of Legal Aid I would have offered something. The way to get prioritized funding support from the city is to get it in the budget- then you will almost always get paid. But, by far the best way is to elect council-members who share your progressive priorities. As a progressive I am looking forward to your vote on April 10.
Meghan Sahli-Wells: It is time to stop looking at funding programs on a case-by-case basis, but rather, set out our budget priorities as a whole, making sure the public has ample opportunity to weigh-in. The Council's discretionary fund should be used to support projects and programs that contribute to Culver City resident's health, welfare, and quality of life.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Weissman Says Fixing Potholes More Important Than Providing Funding for Victims of Domestic Violence
Gary Silbiger
NOTE: This is the third 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 articles here and here. A scorecard for each issue is included at the end of the articles.
On August 25, 2008, the City Council had the opportunity to decide whether to grant $10,000 for a year of excellent legal representation by the Santa Monica office of Legal Aid for Culver City’s victims of domestic violence. We know Legal Aid for being in the forefront of providing legal assistance in various areas of civil law to low income people. Susan Millmann came to the City Council meeting that night for the umpteenth time, but what made this date unique was that the request for funds for the Domestic Violence Clinic she directs had finally made it on the Council’s agenda.
Millmann explained that the Domestic Violence Clinic helps victims of violence complete the many complicated documents needed to file in court, including a declaration for a Temporary Restraining Order, accompanies them to court, and provides referrals to social service agencies and counselors. Each client has a lawyer or paralegal spend 2 to 4 hours preparing both the documentation and the victim. Legal Aid has been representing an average of 50 Culver City residents per year – totaling 10% of its caseload - never having received a penny from the City for its services. Twelve percent of its Culver City clients are seniors, disabled, or both. The other cities in the Legal Aid program – Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, and Santa Monica – paid their fair share. Only Culver City was having a free ride.
After Susan Millmann and Lee Welinsky, a long time Culver City volunteer in the Domestic Violence Clinic, spoke it was time to get down to business and certainly approve this worthy Culver City program. As a councilmember I made the motion for the City to pay $10,000 (averaging only $200 per Culver City client) to Legal Aid for their yearly assistance and Councilmember Chris Armenta quickly seconded it. Then came an unexpected response from the other 3 Councilmembers: we have no money. Never mind that these same Councilmembers have funded countless community activities, consultants, and the like, before and after this issue, and even on the night of August 25, 2008. After all, budget decisions are all about priorities, and this one obviously was not valued.
Councilmember Andy Weissman began by saying it was not the time to debate the role, if any, that local government should play addressing social problems. After weaving through a myriad of justifications for ignoring government’s responsibility to deal with “social problems," Weissman said the City should not spend any money on funding a Domestic Violence Clinic because the City might need the money for fixing potholes or trimming trees. Councilmembers Micheal O’Leary and Scott Malsin agreed the program was unworthy of financial support. The vote for issuing the $10,000 failed 2 to 3. Legal Aid, bless their big hearts, have continued to represent Culver City residents and pay for all expenses from their own sources.
This lack of City Council support for low income women trying to prevent violence shows several things about our council.
First, the majority vote is financially foolish. When victims of violence receive legal protection through the granting of a temporary restraining order, and the abuser is served a copy, it provides a measure of safety for the victim thus decreasing the visits of the police and medical personnel from the fire department, and lessens the inevitable court proceedings. The City saves money through this legal deterrent.
Second, the Councilmembers claim to be strong supporters of safety in our City, but only for certain people. Where is the City support for low income women, many of whom are seniors and disabled? “Safety” becomes a word that the public loves to hear from politicians, but words are meaningless unless they are backed up with actions.
Third, this vote showed the lack of ethics and morality on behalf of the majority because it is inhumane to turn our backs on any group in our community. We must insist that everyone is worthy of respect and assistance. Women historically have been victims of domestic violence and regularly get ignored by the elected officials and government employees, who often are men.
Culver City residents are compassionate, forward thinking people. We volunteer our time for numerous causes that improve the lives of those less fortunate. When federal, state, and county elections occur, Culver City selects the most progressive and humane candidates, for instance, Karen Bass, Curren Price, Holly Mitchell, and Mark Ridley Thomas. Yet we allow our City officials to regularly make backwards decisions that negatively affect both our community and our reputation.
FUNDING OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CLINIC SCORECARD
August 25, 2008 Vote to Approve Domestic Violence Clinic Funding
Scott Malsin: F
Micheal O’Leary: 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 third 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 articles here and here. A scorecard for each issue is included at the end of the articles.
On August 25, 2008, the City Council had the opportunity to decide whether to grant $10,000 for a year of excellent legal representation by the Santa Monica office of Legal Aid for Culver City’s victims of domestic violence. We know Legal Aid for being in the forefront of providing legal assistance in various areas of civil law to low income people. Susan Millmann came to the City Council meeting that night for the umpteenth time, but what made this date unique was that the request for funds for the Domestic Violence Clinic she directs had finally made it on the Council’s agenda.
Millmann explained that the Domestic Violence Clinic helps victims of violence complete the many complicated documents needed to file in court, including a declaration for a Temporary Restraining Order, accompanies them to court, and provides referrals to social service agencies and counselors. Each client has a lawyer or paralegal spend 2 to 4 hours preparing both the documentation and the victim. Legal Aid has been representing an average of 50 Culver City residents per year – totaling 10% of its caseload - never having received a penny from the City for its services. Twelve percent of its Culver City clients are seniors, disabled, or both. The other cities in the Legal Aid program – Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, and Santa Monica – paid their fair share. Only Culver City was having a free ride.
After Susan Millmann and Lee Welinsky, a long time Culver City volunteer in the Domestic Violence Clinic, spoke it was time to get down to business and certainly approve this worthy Culver City program. As a councilmember I made the motion for the City to pay $10,000 (averaging only $200 per Culver City client) to Legal Aid for their yearly assistance and Councilmember Chris Armenta quickly seconded it. Then came an unexpected response from the other 3 Councilmembers: we have no money. Never mind that these same Councilmembers have funded countless community activities, consultants, and the like, before and after this issue, and even on the night of August 25, 2008. After all, budget decisions are all about priorities, and this one obviously was not valued.
Councilmember Andy Weissman began by saying it was not the time to debate the role, if any, that local government should play addressing social problems. After weaving through a myriad of justifications for ignoring government’s responsibility to deal with “social problems," Weissman said the City should not spend any money on funding a Domestic Violence Clinic because the City might need the money for fixing potholes or trimming trees. Councilmembers Micheal O’Leary and Scott Malsin agreed the program was unworthy of financial support. The vote for issuing the $10,000 failed 2 to 3. Legal Aid, bless their big hearts, have continued to represent Culver City residents and pay for all expenses from their own sources.
This lack of City Council support for low income women trying to prevent violence shows several things about our council.
First, the majority vote is financially foolish. When victims of violence receive legal protection through the granting of a temporary restraining order, and the abuser is served a copy, it provides a measure of safety for the victim thus decreasing the visits of the police and medical personnel from the fire department, and lessens the inevitable court proceedings. The City saves money through this legal deterrent.
Second, the Councilmembers claim to be strong supporters of safety in our City, but only for certain people. Where is the City support for low income women, many of whom are seniors and disabled? “Safety” becomes a word that the public loves to hear from politicians, but words are meaningless unless they are backed up with actions.
Third, this vote showed the lack of ethics and morality on behalf of the majority because it is inhumane to turn our backs on any group in our community. We must insist that everyone is worthy of respect and assistance. Women historically have been victims of domestic violence and regularly get ignored by the elected officials and government employees, who often are men.
Culver City residents are compassionate, forward thinking people. We volunteer our time for numerous causes that improve the lives of those less fortunate. When federal, state, and county elections occur, Culver City selects the most progressive and humane candidates, for instance, Karen Bass, Curren Price, Holly Mitchell, and Mark Ridley Thomas. Yet we allow our City officials to regularly make backwards decisions that negatively affect both our community and our reputation.
FUNDING OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CLINIC SCORECARD
August 25, 2008 Vote to Approve Domestic Violence Clinic Funding
Scott Malsin: F
Micheal O’Leary: F
Andrew Weissman: F
Gary Silbiger is the Co-Editor of the Culver City Progress Blog and the former Mayor of Culver City.
Monday, February 6, 2012
CCUSD Special Education Is Not So Special
Susan Levy
When I attended the January 24, 2012 CCUSD School Board Meeting, I had no intention of taking a turn at the podium. Although I have a lot to say on a range of topics, I am rather timid when it comes to sharing my ideas in an open forum; however, on this particular occasion, presentations related to CCUSD Special Education helped me find my voice.
I have spent the past six years obtaining and keeping the appropriate special education services for my child. Despite legal requirements that input from several sources should be given consideration during a special education assessment, I never felt the parents’ contribution was given much weight. That attitude does not take into account that we probably know our offspring better than anyone else.
I believe the most significant driving force behind CCUSD’s Special Education services is saving money, not spending it appropriately. The services are mandated by law, but times are tough, and despite the district’s core values that children come first, there are many parents who view this belief as self-serving. If a child is given the usual battery of tests and passes, he/she is considered not to need special services despite other information to the contrary from teachers, counselors, parents and a host of other professionals.
Our child passed the above-mentioned tests and was denied special education services despite the fact that we adopted him when he was a pre-teen. When children are adopted after the age of two, the State and the Federal Government give these children “special needs” status, which makes their adoptive parents eligible for additional funding for future psychological and medical needs. CCUSD obviously does not view “special needs” in the same light as the State and/or the Federal Government.
After being denied services, we regrouped and requested another meeting, at which time our child was given an IEP (Individualized Education Program) for an “Emotional Disturbance.” This was not an easy task because we had to bring in several outside people, test results and letters to persuade CCUSD that our child required Special Education services. I suspect we were luckier than most parents because of our affiliation with a UCLA Program called “Ties for Adoption,” which provided the free assistance used to convince the district of our child’s obvious needs. We had access to neuropsychiatric testing (provided report), family and child counselors (attended meeting), a child psychiatrist (provided diagnosis and recommendation), a special education consultant (attended meeting), and a private tutor (attended meeting). The above people and/or their reports, as well as my child’s two parents, outnumbered the district’s personnel at the second IEP meeting.
We were pleased with the District’s level of commitment and services at Culver City Middle School; unfortunately, services at Culver City High School have been meager and not very effective. I have asked that my child receive better service, but to no avail. Although there is something called an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and Due Process Complaint (if the ADR proves ineffective), none of us want to endure any more of this nonsense. It would be more cost/time effective for CCUSD and everyone else if my child could leave high school with six additional weeks of speech therapy (he has lapsed into some of his old habits, possibly due to recent emotional upheavals). I know this would cost a few hundred dollars, but I thought the District cared about its students’ well-being. I guess CCUSD prefers to waste several hundred thousand dollars litigating against the children it is supposed to protect.
Susan Levy is a parent of a student at Culver City High School.
When I attended the January 24, 2012 CCUSD School Board Meeting, I had no intention of taking a turn at the podium. Although I have a lot to say on a range of topics, I am rather timid when it comes to sharing my ideas in an open forum; however, on this particular occasion, presentations related to CCUSD Special Education helped me find my voice.
I have spent the past six years obtaining and keeping the appropriate special education services for my child. Despite legal requirements that input from several sources should be given consideration during a special education assessment, I never felt the parents’ contribution was given much weight. That attitude does not take into account that we probably know our offspring better than anyone else.
I believe the most significant driving force behind CCUSD’s Special Education services is saving money, not spending it appropriately. The services are mandated by law, but times are tough, and despite the district’s core values that children come first, there are many parents who view this belief as self-serving. If a child is given the usual battery of tests and passes, he/she is considered not to need special services despite other information to the contrary from teachers, counselors, parents and a host of other professionals.
Our child passed the above-mentioned tests and was denied special education services despite the fact that we adopted him when he was a pre-teen. When children are adopted after the age of two, the State and the Federal Government give these children “special needs” status, which makes their adoptive parents eligible for additional funding for future psychological and medical needs. CCUSD obviously does not view “special needs” in the same light as the State and/or the Federal Government.
After being denied services, we regrouped and requested another meeting, at which time our child was given an IEP (Individualized Education Program) for an “Emotional Disturbance.” This was not an easy task because we had to bring in several outside people, test results and letters to persuade CCUSD that our child required Special Education services. I suspect we were luckier than most parents because of our affiliation with a UCLA Program called “Ties for Adoption,” which provided the free assistance used to convince the district of our child’s obvious needs. We had access to neuropsychiatric testing (provided report), family and child counselors (attended meeting), a child psychiatrist (provided diagnosis and recommendation), a special education consultant (attended meeting), and a private tutor (attended meeting). The above people and/or their reports, as well as my child’s two parents, outnumbered the district’s personnel at the second IEP meeting.
We were pleased with the District’s level of commitment and services at Culver City Middle School; unfortunately, services at Culver City High School have been meager and not very effective. I have asked that my child receive better service, but to no avail. Although there is something called an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and Due Process Complaint (if the ADR proves ineffective), none of us want to endure any more of this nonsense. It would be more cost/time effective for CCUSD and everyone else if my child could leave high school with six additional weeks of speech therapy (he has lapsed into some of his old habits, possibly due to recent emotional upheavals). I know this would cost a few hundred dollars, but I thought the District cared about its students’ well-being. I guess CCUSD prefers to waste several hundred thousand dollars litigating against the children it is supposed to protect.
Susan Levy is a parent of a student at Culver City High School.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Culver City's Own Culture Clash
Karlo Silbiger
"Principal M, we need to offer more music classes. The kids want to sign up for them, they are an important part of the state curriculum, and it is a great learning opportunity for our students. We want them to be well-rounded, right?
"I'm sorry, Karlo, but this is a college preparatory school and we just can't afford to put music ahead of academics."
This true snippet from a conversation that I had with my principal not too many years ago went running through my head on Monday, January 9th, as I sat patiently listening to our City Council Members discuss whether to fund the Culver City Summer Concert Series in 2012. I have been musically inclined for my entire life, beginning lessons at age 3, going to high school where I could focus on my music curriculum at age 14, taking college level music theory at age 15, and majoring in music while studying with a member of the Boston Symphony Orchestra at age 17. Music is what makes my life enjoyable, it is one of the ways that I express myself, and it is one of the primary ways that I understand both the current world that I live in and past events that led us to our current realities. I am trying not to oversell my connection, but it is palpable.
When I had this conversation with my principal, I sat in utter disbelief, not even knowing how to respond to someone who argued that increasing the music curriculum would somehow remove our school from the "college preparatory" designation, even though people (like me) can go to college to major in music! That utter disbelief returned at this particular city council meeting while watching 3 of our council members (Jeff Cooper, Micheal O'Leary, and Andy Weissman) each in succession say, in essence, that the city council cannot afford to pay for the concerts since they needed to focus on funding "core city services." If the arts are not a core service in our society, especially in a community with our storied film history, then that is a damn shame.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the key to prioritizing core city services is to ask about each and every program 3 key questions:
- To what extent is the government legally obligated to provide the service?
- To what extent do the residents expect the service to be provided?
- What are the service's direct and indirect impacts on residents?
You have to give those San Franciscans credit. Rather than cutting whole programs with no real discussion or analysis, the Chronicle recommends that we actually think before we act rashly. To my knowledge, there are very few city services that we are legally obligated to provide. Most municipalities, especially charter cities like ours, have a lot of leeway in the way that we provide services and prioritize our financial obligations. The expectation of services, it would seem to me, would be affected by the length of time that the service has been provided and the number of people who benefit directly by it. The concert series has been in place for decades and attracts thousands of people each week during the summer. It helps the local economy, provides recreation for families and seniors, and makes our community more interesting and livable. The impact is unquestionably positive.
But the same could be said for nearly every city service. Our community would not be the same without parks, police, fire, code enforcement, housing, public works, a senior center, and so much more. How is cultural affairs so different from the rest of the core services listed above? The answer is that it isn’t different, but it is the only one being eliminated by our council. The intelligent way to handle difficult budget cuts is to look through each cost systematically to prioritize funding and see if there are ways to trim unnecessary parts of each program rather than amputate entire segments of society. A small city with no redevelopment funding and an international recession might have to cut some cultural programs. But to cut the entire department with no debate or discussion of alternatives shows a lack of understanding of the nature of our populace.
Actually, there is one more difference between the arts and other city services: the arts contribute greatly to the legacy of our society. People may not remember policing techniques or the new type of trees that were planted at a specific park or when the roads were newly paved, but all of us understand that a society without culture is no society at all. Last month I went to see “The Night Watcher,” an incredible play at the Kirk Douglas Theater detailing the role that all people in society have in helping to raise kids and induct them positively into society. It is moving and inspirational, helping me to grasp the difficult circumstances that befall kids without the safety net of true community. This play was housed on property owned by the Culver City Redevelopment Agency and leased (basically for free) to a theater group. Had our past councils not seen the value of the arts, they may have leased this space to a developer or business and this life-altering message could have been lost to Culver City.
The council is asking individuals within the community to pay for the concert series should we want it continued, which I find insulting. As a music teacher and school board member, I often hear that the arts are “extra-curricular” and should be used to supplement the rest of the educational program. When budgetary times were tough in Culver City 2 years ago, my colleagues had no problem cutting our music program by an unimaginable 25%, much more than any other program district-wide. By asking the community to pay for our artistic experiences, we are treating them as add-ons rather than the core part of life that they really are.
In the words of Craig Johnson from the Center for Dance, “…behind every creative endeavor exists a more profound concept without which a Community shrivels up and dies: the arts remind us of our power to innovate. The act of creation is the essence of our purpose and is essential to our progress as a humanity. Imagine what the world would be like if we just stopped creating…” If our city council has their way, we in Culver City may soon find out just how quickly we shrivel.
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.
"Principal M, we need to offer more music classes. The kids want to sign up for them, they are an important part of the state curriculum, and it is a great learning opportunity for our students. We want them to be well-rounded, right?
"I'm sorry, Karlo, but this is a college preparatory school and we just can't afford to put music ahead of academics."
This true snippet from a conversation that I had with my principal not too many years ago went running through my head on Monday, January 9th, as I sat patiently listening to our City Council Members discuss whether to fund the Culver City Summer Concert Series in 2012. I have been musically inclined for my entire life, beginning lessons at age 3, going to high school where I could focus on my music curriculum at age 14, taking college level music theory at age 15, and majoring in music while studying with a member of the Boston Symphony Orchestra at age 17. Music is what makes my life enjoyable, it is one of the ways that I express myself, and it is one of the primary ways that I understand both the current world that I live in and past events that led us to our current realities. I am trying not to oversell my connection, but it is palpable.
When I had this conversation with my principal, I sat in utter disbelief, not even knowing how to respond to someone who argued that increasing the music curriculum would somehow remove our school from the "college preparatory" designation, even though people (like me) can go to college to major in music! That utter disbelief returned at this particular city council meeting while watching 3 of our council members (Jeff Cooper, Micheal O'Leary, and Andy Weissman) each in succession say, in essence, that the city council cannot afford to pay for the concerts since they needed to focus on funding "core city services." If the arts are not a core service in our society, especially in a community with our storied film history, then that is a damn shame.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the key to prioritizing core city services is to ask about each and every program 3 key questions:
- To what extent is the government legally obligated to provide the service?
- To what extent do the residents expect the service to be provided?
- What are the service's direct and indirect impacts on residents?
You have to give those San Franciscans credit. Rather than cutting whole programs with no real discussion or analysis, the Chronicle recommends that we actually think before we act rashly. To my knowledge, there are very few city services that we are legally obligated to provide. Most municipalities, especially charter cities like ours, have a lot of leeway in the way that we provide services and prioritize our financial obligations. The expectation of services, it would seem to me, would be affected by the length of time that the service has been provided and the number of people who benefit directly by it. The concert series has been in place for decades and attracts thousands of people each week during the summer. It helps the local economy, provides recreation for families and seniors, and makes our community more interesting and livable. The impact is unquestionably positive.
But the same could be said for nearly every city service. Our community would not be the same without parks, police, fire, code enforcement, housing, public works, a senior center, and so much more. How is cultural affairs so different from the rest of the core services listed above? The answer is that it isn’t different, but it is the only one being eliminated by our council. The intelligent way to handle difficult budget cuts is to look through each cost systematically to prioritize funding and see if there are ways to trim unnecessary parts of each program rather than amputate entire segments of society. A small city with no redevelopment funding and an international recession might have to cut some cultural programs. But to cut the entire department with no debate or discussion of alternatives shows a lack of understanding of the nature of our populace.
Actually, there is one more difference between the arts and other city services: the arts contribute greatly to the legacy of our society. People may not remember policing techniques or the new type of trees that were planted at a specific park or when the roads were newly paved, but all of us understand that a society without culture is no society at all. Last month I went to see “The Night Watcher,” an incredible play at the Kirk Douglas Theater detailing the role that all people in society have in helping to raise kids and induct them positively into society. It is moving and inspirational, helping me to grasp the difficult circumstances that befall kids without the safety net of true community. This play was housed on property owned by the Culver City Redevelopment Agency and leased (basically for free) to a theater group. Had our past councils not seen the value of the arts, they may have leased this space to a developer or business and this life-altering message could have been lost to Culver City.
The council is asking individuals within the community to pay for the concert series should we want it continued, which I find insulting. As a music teacher and school board member, I often hear that the arts are “extra-curricular” and should be used to supplement the rest of the educational program. When budgetary times were tough in Culver City 2 years ago, my colleagues had no problem cutting our music program by an unimaginable 25%, much more than any other program district-wide. By asking the community to pay for our artistic experiences, we are treating them as add-ons rather than the core part of life that they really are.
In the words of Craig Johnson from the Center for Dance, “…behind every creative endeavor exists a more profound concept without which a Community shrivels up and dies: the arts remind us of our power to innovate. The act of creation is the essence of our purpose and is essential to our progress as a humanity. Imagine what the world would be like if we just stopped creating…” If our city council has their way, we in Culver City may soon find out just how quickly we shrivel.
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.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Shoes for the Homeless: Engaging the Local Community to Empower Those In Need
Christopher Patrick King
NOTE: This is the fourth in a series of Culver City Progress Blog articles highlighting local community groups doing good work in Culver City. Please see the postings on the Culver City Sister City Committee here and here and on the Martin Luther King Planning Committee here.
Miracles do happen here in Culver City.
Our community ought to be known not just for its vibrant social life, excellent school district and close neighborhood ties. We also are home to some wonderfully resilient individuals and many dedicated citizens who care about improving the lives of others.
I will highlight the above points with a true story: one that happened just a month ago right here in Culver City.
"John" is a man who has been homeless for the last three years. He has been living in one of Culver City’s temporary shelters geared toward those actively seeking permanent, supportive housing. He is also looking for employment, or at least he was until about three weeks ago. And, as if the current labor market in Los Angeles County were not difficult enough to navigate, "John" also faces the challenge of being an amputee and having only one arm. Again, this is a true story.
"John" meets consistently with his case worker at the shelter at which he lives. She advises him on resources available to him for his health and housing needs. She also tries to help him identify employment opportunities that will enable him to afford his own place to live. One particular day that "John" enters her office, she looks down at his feet and notices his shoes. The dirty tennis shoes are worn, contain holes and are clearly a size or two too big for his feet. She sighs to herself with the ambivalence knowing that the job interview that she has lined up for him, while exciting news, will be a difficult one for him to land with the less-than-professional attire that he wears.
But it is "John's" lucky day. Thanks to a new, Culver-City-based non-profit organization, Shoes for the Homeless, "John" is about to be outfitted with a beautiful new pair of dress shoes.
Shoes for the Homeless founder, Dr. Ira Diamond, is a local podiatrist. And fortunately for many local shelters that serve homeless and poor individuals, he decided to channel his professional life into an organization that transforms the lives of others. The mission of Shoes for the Homeless is to provide gently used and new shoes free of charge to the homeless. To do this, Dr. Diamond and his fellow board members (Rosalind La Briola and Christopher Patrick King) reach out to local shelters, identify need and set up shoe deliveries to these organizations with the only stipulation being that they give them out to their clients at no charge. Dr. Diamond and the Board also organize shoe drives and reach out to generous community members at gyms, schools, churches and synagogues in order to collect these gently used and new shoes. The community response has been tremendous, and Shoes for the Homeless has accumulated literally thousands of pairs of shoes in the last 6 months.
Thankfully for "John," the day before his visit to the social worker, Dr. Diamond had also reached out to her and created a partnership. Having looked at his disheveled shoes that day, she knew just who to call.
“'John' needed size 9 men’s dress shoes,” Dr. Diamond recalls. And he needed shoes that would be easy to put on due to his having only one arm. Dr. Diamond went to the organization’s supply of shoes, dug through them to find a clean pair of men’s black size 9s, noticed that they were slip-ons, and drove them over to "John's" social worker.
And then the miracle happened. "John" showed up for his job interview in his new pair of dress shoes. He walked in with confidence, having adequate attire. And he got the job. Dr. Diamond still gets chocked up when he recalls the phone call from "John's" social worker telling him that "John" landed the job.
If most of us looked in the forgotten corners of our closets, we would probably find small stockpiles of shoes, many probably lightly worn, if at all. These, to those of us at Shoes for the Homeless, are like nuggets of gold. Be they tennis shoes, dress shoes, high heels or children’s shoes, there is need for any and all of them. Throughout Los Angeles County, we have over 50,000 homeless. This includes people who may live in temporary shelters, in vehicles, with friends and relatives or on the streets. Some need shoes just to keep their fee dry. Some, like "John," need a nice pair to land that critical interview that will change their lives and enable them to achieve a sustainable lifestyle. Items that many of us so often forget can literally be life-changing to some of our brothers and sisters.
We appreciate anyone who would like to donate shoes. Additionally, if you are interested in starting a shoe drive as a charity event through an organization in which you may be involved, we welcome your help and support. Together, the small acts of many can create wide-spread change. For more information, please feel free to call me, Christopher Patrick King, on my cell phone at 831-682-5647.
(Please note, while we fully expect that Shoes for the Homeless will have its application for non-profit status granted by the IRS, and while we have had our non-profit identification number issued, we are still awaiting final confirmation of approval from the IRS)
Christopher Patrick King is a leader of Shoes for the Homeless.
NOTE: This is the fourth in a series of Culver City Progress Blog articles highlighting local community groups doing good work in Culver City. Please see the postings on the Culver City Sister City Committee here and here and on the Martin Luther King Planning Committee here.
Miracles do happen here in Culver City.
Our community ought to be known not just for its vibrant social life, excellent school district and close neighborhood ties. We also are home to some wonderfully resilient individuals and many dedicated citizens who care about improving the lives of others.
I will highlight the above points with a true story: one that happened just a month ago right here in Culver City.
"John" is a man who has been homeless for the last three years. He has been living in one of Culver City’s temporary shelters geared toward those actively seeking permanent, supportive housing. He is also looking for employment, or at least he was until about three weeks ago. And, as if the current labor market in Los Angeles County were not difficult enough to navigate, "John" also faces the challenge of being an amputee and having only one arm. Again, this is a true story.
"John" meets consistently with his case worker at the shelter at which he lives. She advises him on resources available to him for his health and housing needs. She also tries to help him identify employment opportunities that will enable him to afford his own place to live. One particular day that "John" enters her office, she looks down at his feet and notices his shoes. The dirty tennis shoes are worn, contain holes and are clearly a size or two too big for his feet. She sighs to herself with the ambivalence knowing that the job interview that she has lined up for him, while exciting news, will be a difficult one for him to land with the less-than-professional attire that he wears.
But it is "John's" lucky day. Thanks to a new, Culver-City-based non-profit organization, Shoes for the Homeless, "John" is about to be outfitted with a beautiful new pair of dress shoes.
Shoes for the Homeless founder, Dr. Ira Diamond, is a local podiatrist. And fortunately for many local shelters that serve homeless and poor individuals, he decided to channel his professional life into an organization that transforms the lives of others. The mission of Shoes for the Homeless is to provide gently used and new shoes free of charge to the homeless. To do this, Dr. Diamond and his fellow board members (Rosalind La Briola and Christopher Patrick King) reach out to local shelters, identify need and set up shoe deliveries to these organizations with the only stipulation being that they give them out to their clients at no charge. Dr. Diamond and the Board also organize shoe drives and reach out to generous community members at gyms, schools, churches and synagogues in order to collect these gently used and new shoes. The community response has been tremendous, and Shoes for the Homeless has accumulated literally thousands of pairs of shoes in the last 6 months.
Thankfully for "John," the day before his visit to the social worker, Dr. Diamond had also reached out to her and created a partnership. Having looked at his disheveled shoes that day, she knew just who to call.
“'John' needed size 9 men’s dress shoes,” Dr. Diamond recalls. And he needed shoes that would be easy to put on due to his having only one arm. Dr. Diamond went to the organization’s supply of shoes, dug through them to find a clean pair of men’s black size 9s, noticed that they were slip-ons, and drove them over to "John's" social worker.
And then the miracle happened. "John" showed up for his job interview in his new pair of dress shoes. He walked in with confidence, having adequate attire. And he got the job. Dr. Diamond still gets chocked up when he recalls the phone call from "John's" social worker telling him that "John" landed the job.
If most of us looked in the forgotten corners of our closets, we would probably find small stockpiles of shoes, many probably lightly worn, if at all. These, to those of us at Shoes for the Homeless, are like nuggets of gold. Be they tennis shoes, dress shoes, high heels or children’s shoes, there is need for any and all of them. Throughout Los Angeles County, we have over 50,000 homeless. This includes people who may live in temporary shelters, in vehicles, with friends and relatives or on the streets. Some need shoes just to keep their fee dry. Some, like "John," need a nice pair to land that critical interview that will change their lives and enable them to achieve a sustainable lifestyle. Items that many of us so often forget can literally be life-changing to some of our brothers and sisters.
We appreciate anyone who would like to donate shoes. Additionally, if you are interested in starting a shoe drive as a charity event through an organization in which you may be involved, we welcome your help and support. Together, the small acts of many can create wide-spread change. For more information, please feel free to call me, Christopher Patrick King, on my cell phone at 831-682-5647.
(Please note, while we fully expect that Shoes for the Homeless will have its application for non-profit status granted by the IRS, and while we have had our non-profit identification number issued, we are still awaiting final confirmation of approval from the IRS)
Christopher Patrick King is a leader of Shoes for the Homeless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)