Todd Johnson
Can the installation of solar energy help pay teachers and directly support our children’s education? According to a recent report by CCUSD’s Environmental Sustainability Committee (ESC), the answer is a clear yes! The report, titled “Leveraging Solar Incentives,” examines how using California Solar Initiative funding to bring solar energy to Culver City’s schools not only benefits the environment, but will add millions of dollars to the District’s unrestricted general fund, which can be used for teacher salaries and other educational expenses.
The district faces significant budget cuts, which affect the quality of educational services and teacher pay. However, the district has access to capital improvement funds, which can only be used for construction-related capital projects. Solar energy is one of those capital investments, but one that will generate additional funding for the district, through energy cost savings and rebates that comes with a legally binding performance guarantee so we can be assured savings, which can then be allocated to the unrestricted general fund.
Many California school districts already benefit from solar energy. In order to assess the merits and drawbacks of solar energy use at CCUSD, The Environmental Sustainability Committee sought the assistance of KyotoUSA’s HELiOS Project website which has a wealth of information on how California school districts can benefit from solar projects. This non-profit organization helps schools reduce their carbon footprint and lower greenhouse gases.
According to the Committee’s report, key benefits of solar energy at CCUSD include: 1) in the first five years, electricity cost savings to the District of over $900,000; 2) approximately $2 million in solar incentives which are paid in cash to the general fund in the first 5 years; and 3) a projected $7.5 to $9.3 million savings from incentives and reduced electrical bills over the typical life of 25-30 years. An independent analysis by Southern California Edison has confirmed these potential savings.
Other schools have proven that solar energy has strong educational and leadership benefits as well. It is common to incorporate the real-time, web-based energy production data into math and science classes. School districts are also now requiring that solar vendors provide an educational component in their offers so that learning opportunities can be provided across the district. Some installers have started paid internships for students interested in a career in this growing industry. The entire district can participate in activities and demonstrations related to solar energy.
The report points out that solar energy does have drawbacks, for example, the annual production of solar energy may not be consistent due to cloudy days. Even so, the production guarantees provided by the solar vendor take historic weather conditions into consideration so the guarantee should provide an accurate estimate of how much electricity the PV system will generate. Also, any construction project in schools requires the approval of the state architect (DSA), a process that can be lengthy and slow.
A major concern in installing solar panels in schools involves roofing. Roofs on some schools may need to be reinforced or repaired before panels can be installed, so a thorough structural analysis must be completed before hand. Solar panels can also be damaged, so they must be insured.
CCUSD has already submitted the $20,000 application deposit for the California Solar Initiative (CSI) program. The district must now complete the solar project within 18 to 36 months. CSI funding is limited and most regions now have waiting lists. The opportunity to utilize this funding to benefit education may be lost if a final decision is not made by the District and the Board immediately.
The financial benefits of installing solar are clear. We all know the environmental benefits of installing solar energy are clear. As a public educational institution, CCUSD has a responsibility to demonstrate that a sustainable society can be achieved. This means that all actions must be environmentally sound, economically feasible and socially just and equitable. Installing solar energy meets all three of these criteria. The solution is clear: with solar, our kids’ education, our teachers, and the environment win.
Look here to see the full report including the costs & benefits analysis, sources and FAQs.
To download a spreadsheet with the SoCalEdison analysis data, click here.
Please post any questions you might have.
Todd Johnson is the Chair of the Culver City Unified School District's Environmental Sustainability Committee.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Malsin Flaunts Utter Disrespect For Voter-Approved Term Limits
Karlo Silbiger
In 1994, a seemingly simple ballot measure went before the voters of Culver City in what became section 601 of the City Charter:
“No person shall serve more than two consecutive full terms as a Council Member. If a person serves a partial term in excess of two years, it shall be considered a full term for the purpose of this provision. Nothing in this provision shall act to bar service as a Council Member after at least two years have elapsed from the Council Member’s last full term.”
Even though 40% of the sitting city council and both of the candidates who won office in that same election opposed the measure, the voters spoke loud and clear: 8 years on the council is enough.
The issue was first raised in Culver City back in 1988, when then new Council Member Steve Gourley pushed for a 2 term limit, suggesting that serving for too many years often breeds arrogance and distance from the voters. This was not an academic issue for Culver City 24 years ago, as Gourley served on a council with 3 colleagues (Richard Alexander, Dr. Jim Boulgarides, and Paul Jacobs) who each served 16 years on the council before eventual retirement. A majority of Gourley’s colleagues voted against him and the issue lied dormant for 6 years.
There is no question that term limits are controversial, both here in Culver City and at every level in which they have been attempted. Those who support them argue that given the built in benefits that incumbents have in elections, term limits provide some balance in helping new candidates win office and lowering complacency. Those who oppose them argue that they limit institutional memory and take away valuable options from the voters.
While that is an interesting debate, it is not the topic for today’s posting. It is also not worth discussing whether former Council Member Scott Malsin is breaking the law by resigning his seat only 20 months after winning a second consecutive 4-year term only to run again 4 months later. The law cited above is quite clear and easy to interpret, even for a non-lawyer like me. Here are the facts:
In 1994, a seemingly simple ballot measure went before the voters of Culver City in what became section 601 of the City Charter:
“No person shall serve more than two consecutive full terms as a Council Member. If a person serves a partial term in excess of two years, it shall be considered a full term for the purpose of this provision. Nothing in this provision shall act to bar service as a Council Member after at least two years have elapsed from the Council Member’s last full term.”
Even though 40% of the sitting city council and both of the candidates who won office in that same election opposed the measure, the voters spoke loud and clear: 8 years on the council is enough.
The issue was first raised in Culver City back in 1988, when then new Council Member Steve Gourley pushed for a 2 term limit, suggesting that serving for too many years often breeds arrogance and distance from the voters. This was not an academic issue for Culver City 24 years ago, as Gourley served on a council with 3 colleagues (Richard Alexander, Dr. Jim Boulgarides, and Paul Jacobs) who each served 16 years on the council before eventual retirement. A majority of Gourley’s colleagues voted against him and the issue lied dormant for 6 years.
There is no question that term limits are controversial, both here in Culver City and at every level in which they have been attempted. Those who support them argue that given the built in benefits that incumbents have in elections, term limits provide some balance in helping new candidates win office and lowering complacency. Those who oppose them argue that they limit institutional memory and take away valuable options from the voters.
While that is an interesting debate, it is not the topic for today’s posting. It is also not worth discussing whether former Council Member Scott Malsin is breaking the law by resigning his seat only 20 months after winning a second consecutive 4-year term only to run again 4 months later. The law cited above is quite clear and easy to interpret, even for a non-lawyer like me. Here are the facts:
- Section 601 of the Culver City Charter defines a full council term as any portion of a term exceeding 2 years. Mr. Malsin served for the entirety of his first term (from April 2006 to April 2010) and for the first year and 8 months of his second term (from April 2010 to December 2011). Therefore, he has served for one full term and one partial term.
- Section 601 of the Culver City Charter specifies that Council Members can only serve for 2 consecutive full terms before they must leave the council. However, since Mr. Malsin only served one full term and one partial term, there is nothing (besides his own conscience and sense of morality) that precludes his for running again in this April’s election.
- Section 601 of the Culver City Charter states that once a council member is term limited after 2 consecutive full council terms, they can run once again for the position after at least 2 years have elapsed. However, since Mr. Malsin has not served 2 consecutive full terms (but instead one full term and one partial term) and was never term limited, he can not only run in April (only 4 months after his resignation), but could conceivably serve for another 8 years. Should that happen, Mr. Malsin could take advantage of a loophole in a law intending to limit council members to a maximum of 8 consecutive years of service, and himself legally serve for 14 years with only a 4 month hiatus in the middle.
Again, nothing really to discuss there, the law is quite clear. The really interesting question that will be presented to the voters of our community over the coming months is whether Scott Malsin has so broken the spirit of the voter-approved 1994 charter amendment that he deserves to be automatically disqualified from serving on the council in the future. There is no love lost between Mr. Malsin and myself. I did not support him during either of his campaigns and he was the only council member to deny me an endorsement 2 years ago. I would likely not support him for any office, regardless of the circumstances. But in this election, I am of the belief that even long time supporters of Mr. Malsin’s will deny him support given the self-centered way that he has ignored the intent of this law.
Voters were quite clear with their beliefs on term limits back in 1994: they wanted an 8 year maximum. The only reason for the full term / partial term distinction is that they did not want to punish those who joined the council midway through a term to take over a vacated seat. For example, say a member of the council had to leave 1 year early because they left the city (while it has never happened in our community, nearby Santa Monica has resignations on a somewhat regular basis). If the council were to appoint an interim member to fill the remaining year, it would not be fair to count that 1 year as a full term, thereby holding that new council member to a maximum of 5 years. That was an important consideration by those who authored this law and should remain. However, Mr. Malsin has found a loophole wherein council member can exploit the full term / partial term definition by leaving after just 5 and a half years of service and, potentially serve forever. While Mr. Malsin has every right to take advantage of this loophole, voters generally do not look highly upon those who openly ignore the intent of the laws, especially those that were voter-approved.
Former Mayor Paul Jacobs summed up the argument against term limits best, saying that every time a council member seeks reelection, voters have the option of removing him or her from office. Let’s hope that Culver City voters remember that on April 10th and send a message to those who might attempt to play with the intent of the voters.
Karlo Silbiger is the Co-Editor of the Culver City Progress Blog, the President of the Culver City School Board, and the Former President of the Culver City Democratic Club.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
R.I.P Redevelopment Agency
Michael Miller
There has been, and no doubt will continue to be, much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the demise of the Culver City Redevelopment Agency and what it portends for our city and the people who work and live here.
But what became abundantly clear at the January 9th meeting of the Culver City Council is that nothing is clear and that the waters will remain muddy for months, if not years, to come.
As things stand, the Redevelopment Agency will become dead, deceased, morte, on February 1st unless a delay of four to six weeks is granted, which will probably do little more than extend the death throes. However, there are hopes that contracts for such projects as Parcel B and others in the pipeline can be signed before the plug is pulled, thus passing the “obligation of fulfillment” to the “successor agency” in the form of the city council.
The end of the RDA, and roughly 400 similar entities in California, began last summer when the State Legislature passed Assembly Bills 26 and 27. Appeals against these bills by redevelopment agencies were rejected by the California Supreme Court earlier this month.
State Controller John Chiang in a recent audit report, blasted redevelopment agencies for their lack of accountability and transparency, saying they are "a breeding ground for waste, abuse, and impropriety."
Other critics have called the agencies “a honey pot for developers,”
siphoning off badly needed funds for essential services.
At Monday’s Council Meeting, and in a subsequent statement, City Manager John Nachbar gave a confused and not very detailed report saying the fiscal impact of losing the Redevelopment Agency would be $7.5 million a year currently received from the state, of which $3.2 million accounted for expenditures on RDA and Housing Agency Staff and a “plethora of services” provided by the agency.
The idea behind California Governor Jerry Brown’s closure of state RDAs was to redirect tax dollars back to the state for spending on schools and law enforcement. Some of that money will find its way to Culver City, but just how much is not known.
During the debate on whether the City Council should designate the city council to become the “successor agency” Councilman Andrew Weisman said it was “just the first step down the very confusing and complicated path that will take years to sort itself out.”
But do the people of Culver City care about, or even fully understand, the implications? It appeared not. Before a vote on establishing a new Housing Authority as the successor agency – a 4-0 vote in favor, not a single member of the public attending the meeting wanted to address the issue.
In contrast, Mr. Nachbar became, in the eyes of some observers, the “Grinch who stole summer” when he recommended that funding for the popular series of summer music concerts, previously a function of the RDA, be dropped and not be passed on to any other city agency. The RDA had spent $75,000 annually on the series which operates for eight Thursdays each year.
Eight speakers wanted to address this issue, a significant number, given that Mr. Nachbar’s proposal had only been posted on the City’s Website 72 hours earlier.
Gary Mandel, who has produced the series for 14 years, said there was no reason that corporate sponsors such as downtown restaurants should not foot the bill, given the amount of trade the concerts generate, not to mention putting Culver City on the map as a destination.
Karlo Silbiger, a member of the Culver City School Board queried whether the $75,000 could not come from the city’s General Fund, as it amounted to only one tenth of one percent of that fund’s coffers.
Former Mayor Gary Silbiger commented, “These are cherished concerts,” joining his son in arguing that there was money available.
Goran Eriksson, chairman of the Culver City Chamber of Commerce, said the Chamber was willing to work with the city to keep the concerts alive.
While some Council members railed against the California legislature, Governor Brown, and the Supreme Court, blaming them for the predicament that could shut down the concerts, Councilman Weissman, repeating remarks he made during the discussion, said in an email to the author:
“In the long run, it may be that we are better for redevelopment's elimination, however, that remains to be seen. We are not entirely blameless insofar as the way in which tax increment from redevelopment has been used toward city services that benefit the redevelopment project areas. And now we have to adjust to a curtailment of that tax increment.
“That has to mean some level of sacrifice on the local level because regardless of finger pointing by us at the legislature, the governor and the courts, the reality is that less money will be coming in starting February 1 than before. We just don't know how much less or what the service and human implications will be.”
However, he seconded a motion by Councilman Chris Armenta that the discussion on funding the summer concerts be continued until the next council meeting on January 23rd.
The motion was passed with only Councilman Cooper, who wanted the funding ended immediately, dissenting.
More to the point, perhaps, is what the RDA did not do during its 20-year life: build affordable housing, one of its main mandates.
Former Mayor Silbiger pointed out that the agency owes the city $45 million in affordable housing funds that it never spent, quite a slush fund in hard economic times!
The size of the fund was acknowledged by the head of the agency, Sol Blumenfeld, who said the RDA had 10 years to repay the funds to the Housing Authority.
My question is how can an entity that no longer exists be given 10 year to repay $45 million? Shouldn’t the money be immediately transferred to the new Housing Authority on February 1st, when it can start to be used for the purpose it was intended?
Michael Miller is a 22 year resident of Culver City and a retired journalist. He is also a co-founder of the Culver City Downtown Neighborhood Association.
There has been, and no doubt will continue to be, much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the demise of the Culver City Redevelopment Agency and what it portends for our city and the people who work and live here.
But what became abundantly clear at the January 9th meeting of the Culver City Council is that nothing is clear and that the waters will remain muddy for months, if not years, to come.
As things stand, the Redevelopment Agency will become dead, deceased, morte, on February 1st unless a delay of four to six weeks is granted, which will probably do little more than extend the death throes. However, there are hopes that contracts for such projects as Parcel B and others in the pipeline can be signed before the plug is pulled, thus passing the “obligation of fulfillment” to the “successor agency” in the form of the city council.
The end of the RDA, and roughly 400 similar entities in California, began last summer when the State Legislature passed Assembly Bills 26 and 27. Appeals against these bills by redevelopment agencies were rejected by the California Supreme Court earlier this month.
State Controller John Chiang in a recent audit report, blasted redevelopment agencies for their lack of accountability and transparency, saying they are "a breeding ground for waste, abuse, and impropriety."
Other critics have called the agencies “a honey pot for developers,”
siphoning off badly needed funds for essential services.
At Monday’s Council Meeting, and in a subsequent statement, City Manager John Nachbar gave a confused and not very detailed report saying the fiscal impact of losing the Redevelopment Agency would be $7.5 million a year currently received from the state, of which $3.2 million accounted for expenditures on RDA and Housing Agency Staff and a “plethora of services” provided by the agency.
The idea behind California Governor Jerry Brown’s closure of state RDAs was to redirect tax dollars back to the state for spending on schools and law enforcement. Some of that money will find its way to Culver City, but just how much is not known.
During the debate on whether the City Council should designate the city council to become the “successor agency” Councilman Andrew Weisman said it was “just the first step down the very confusing and complicated path that will take years to sort itself out.”
But do the people of Culver City care about, or even fully understand, the implications? It appeared not. Before a vote on establishing a new Housing Authority as the successor agency – a 4-0 vote in favor, not a single member of the public attending the meeting wanted to address the issue.
In contrast, Mr. Nachbar became, in the eyes of some observers, the “Grinch who stole summer” when he recommended that funding for the popular series of summer music concerts, previously a function of the RDA, be dropped and not be passed on to any other city agency. The RDA had spent $75,000 annually on the series which operates for eight Thursdays each year.
Eight speakers wanted to address this issue, a significant number, given that Mr. Nachbar’s proposal had only been posted on the City’s Website 72 hours earlier.
Gary Mandel, who has produced the series for 14 years, said there was no reason that corporate sponsors such as downtown restaurants should not foot the bill, given the amount of trade the concerts generate, not to mention putting Culver City on the map as a destination.
Karlo Silbiger, a member of the Culver City School Board queried whether the $75,000 could not come from the city’s General Fund, as it amounted to only one tenth of one percent of that fund’s coffers.
Former Mayor Gary Silbiger commented, “These are cherished concerts,” joining his son in arguing that there was money available.
Goran Eriksson, chairman of the Culver City Chamber of Commerce, said the Chamber was willing to work with the city to keep the concerts alive.
While some Council members railed against the California legislature, Governor Brown, and the Supreme Court, blaming them for the predicament that could shut down the concerts, Councilman Weissman, repeating remarks he made during the discussion, said in an email to the author:
“In the long run, it may be that we are better for redevelopment's elimination, however, that remains to be seen. We are not entirely blameless insofar as the way in which tax increment from redevelopment has been used toward city services that benefit the redevelopment project areas. And now we have to adjust to a curtailment of that tax increment.
“That has to mean some level of sacrifice on the local level because regardless of finger pointing by us at the legislature, the governor and the courts, the reality is that less money will be coming in starting February 1 than before. We just don't know how much less or what the service and human implications will be.”
However, he seconded a motion by Councilman Chris Armenta that the discussion on funding the summer concerts be continued until the next council meeting on January 23rd.
The motion was passed with only Councilman Cooper, who wanted the funding ended immediately, dissenting.
More to the point, perhaps, is what the RDA did not do during its 20-year life: build affordable housing, one of its main mandates.
Former Mayor Silbiger pointed out that the agency owes the city $45 million in affordable housing funds that it never spent, quite a slush fund in hard economic times!
The size of the fund was acknowledged by the head of the agency, Sol Blumenfeld, who said the RDA had 10 years to repay the funds to the Housing Authority.
My question is how can an entity that no longer exists be given 10 year to repay $45 million? Shouldn’t the money be immediately transferred to the new Housing Authority on February 1st, when it can start to be used for the purpose it was intended?
Michael Miller is a 22 year resident of Culver City and a retired journalist. He is also a co-founder of the Culver City Downtown Neighborhood Association.
Friday, January 13, 2012
A Time for Change: From Scout Hut to Community Hut
Roberta Sergant
An opportunity presents itself. A change is eminent for the Culver City Scout Hut, located on Culver Boulevard on property owned by the City of Culver City. A nonprofit organization called the Friends of the CC Scout Hut has offered the City $120,000 to update the facility that is primarily shared by the Boy Scouts and the CC Rock and Mineral Club. Our CC City Council is interested in accepting these funds and continuing their ongoing relationship with these organizations, and the other renters who will meet/store equipment in this City owned facility.
According to the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act of Title IX of the No Child Left Behind law, it is illegal for any school facility to deny access (specifically) to the Boy Scouts of America. Within this law it states that this also precludes denying access "including denying such access or opportunity or discriminating for reasons based on the membership or leadership criteria or oath of allegiance to God and country of the BSA or of the youth group." Interesting. Educational institutions have been prohibited from the exclusion of the BSA from meeting in schools, and yet, the BSA national policy maintains its right to exclude homosexuals from leadership in their organization.
This leads me to ask: Isn't it time for the City of Culver City to minimize their complicity with this policy? Yes, the BSA does great work with the heterosexual male youngsters in their organization. Yes, I was a Committee Chairperson and my husband was a Den Leader for our son's Pack/Troop and we were supporters of this work. But awareness has grown, and times have changed, and, hopefully, Don't Ask, Don't Tell has gone the way of other anti-civil rights laws.
Yet, in 1994 BSA policy stated: "We do not allow for the registration of avowed homosexuals as members or as leaders of the BSA."
In 2004 the BSA adopted a Youth Leadership Policy that stated: "Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. The conduct of youth members must be in compliance with the Scout Oath and Law, and membership in Boy Scouts of America is contingent upon the willingness to accept Scouting's values and beliefs. Most boys join Scouting when they are 10 or 11 years old. As they continue in the program, all Scouts are expected to take leadership positions. In the unlikely event that an older boy were to hold himself out as homosexual, he would not be able to continue in a youth leadership position."
Scouting for All is an organization that advocates the maintenance of a relationship with the BSA, while requiring adherence to the same non-discriminatory policies that our city maintains. In other words, our local BSA chapter must disavow their national mandate to screen out male scouts and male and female leaders who are homosexuals.
I have been assured by former Culver City Parks and Recreation Director Bill La Pointe that "currently the City of Culver City is in the Process of evaluating its rental fees and agreements. An aspect of this evaluation is to ensure that all entities and persons are treated fairly and equally. Of course, this will be true regarding any agreement that is negotiated with the Boy Scout(s)." I very much look forward to a public/open airing of this agreement, prior to it becoming "fait accompli."
Only one of our Councilmen took the time to respond to my request for acceptance of non-discrimination policies by all renters of the Hut. Councilman Cooper is willing to take a second look at the lease renewal. He and I agree that the Scouts do a great job with the boys who join/participate. I reminded him to consider those who are excluded, as well. We could start by calling this facility the Culver City Community Hut.
Roberta Sergant is a teacher at the El Marino Language School.
An opportunity presents itself. A change is eminent for the Culver City Scout Hut, located on Culver Boulevard on property owned by the City of Culver City. A nonprofit organization called the Friends of the CC Scout Hut has offered the City $120,000 to update the facility that is primarily shared by the Boy Scouts and the CC Rock and Mineral Club. Our CC City Council is interested in accepting these funds and continuing their ongoing relationship with these organizations, and the other renters who will meet/store equipment in this City owned facility.
According to the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act of Title IX of the No Child Left Behind law, it is illegal for any school facility to deny access (specifically) to the Boy Scouts of America. Within this law it states that this also precludes denying access "including denying such access or opportunity or discriminating for reasons based on the membership or leadership criteria or oath of allegiance to God and country of the BSA or of the youth group." Interesting. Educational institutions have been prohibited from the exclusion of the BSA from meeting in schools, and yet, the BSA national policy maintains its right to exclude homosexuals from leadership in their organization.
This leads me to ask: Isn't it time for the City of Culver City to minimize their complicity with this policy? Yes, the BSA does great work with the heterosexual male youngsters in their organization. Yes, I was a Committee Chairperson and my husband was a Den Leader for our son's Pack/Troop and we were supporters of this work. But awareness has grown, and times have changed, and, hopefully, Don't Ask, Don't Tell has gone the way of other anti-civil rights laws.
Yet, in 1994 BSA policy stated: "We do not allow for the registration of avowed homosexuals as members or as leaders of the BSA."
In 2004 the BSA adopted a Youth Leadership Policy that stated: "Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. The conduct of youth members must be in compliance with the Scout Oath and Law, and membership in Boy Scouts of America is contingent upon the willingness to accept Scouting's values and beliefs. Most boys join Scouting when they are 10 or 11 years old. As they continue in the program, all Scouts are expected to take leadership positions. In the unlikely event that an older boy were to hold himself out as homosexual, he would not be able to continue in a youth leadership position."
Scouting for All is an organization that advocates the maintenance of a relationship with the BSA, while requiring adherence to the same non-discriminatory policies that our city maintains. In other words, our local BSA chapter must disavow their national mandate to screen out male scouts and male and female leaders who are homosexuals.
I have been assured by former Culver City Parks and Recreation Director Bill La Pointe that "currently the City of Culver City is in the Process of evaluating its rental fees and agreements. An aspect of this evaluation is to ensure that all entities and persons are treated fairly and equally. Of course, this will be true regarding any agreement that is negotiated with the Boy Scout(s)." I very much look forward to a public/open airing of this agreement, prior to it becoming "fait accompli."
Only one of our Councilmen took the time to respond to my request for acceptance of non-discrimination policies by all renters of the Hut. Councilman Cooper is willing to take a second look at the lease renewal. He and I agree that the Scouts do a great job with the boys who join/participate. I reminded him to consider those who are excluded, as well. We could start by calling this facility the Culver City Community Hut.
Roberta Sergant is a teacher at the El Marino Language School.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Culver City Redevelopment: Lifeblood of the Community or Subsidizer for Big Developers?
Gary Silbiger
Last year on January 15, while Culver City was sponsoring its popular annual Martin Luther King, Jr. celebration, the City Council was busy holding an “emergency” special meeting about the relationship between its Redevelopment Agency and the City in order to create a Cooperation Agreement so that the City would be responsible for 17 ongoing projects if the Redevelopment Agency went belly up. On a Saturday? With 1 day notice? Without the facts about those redevelopment projects? Is this the way to receive public input on such a crucial topic? Nothing is noted in the agenda to justify that the meeting qualified as “special,” which is likely a Brown Act violation. Interestingly, the only City Council minutes missing on the City’s website is for that January 15 meeting.
In numerous subsequent City Council meetings, including last Monday's, both the Culver City Council and city employees rushed full-steam ahead – faster than the upcoming Exposition Light Rail train – passing every possible proposal to save the Redevelopment Agency, never concerned with the participation of the community or providing the facts about its Redevelopment Agency. To this day, most Culver City Redevelopment Agency financial disclosures have not seen the light of day. The City talks about only the positive aspects of redevelopment rather than taking a complete look at the broken system. It would be simple for the City to list each redevelopment project and itemize the amount of money spent by the Agency and City for the land, staff time, city improvements, etc. and at the same time list the money received by the Agency and City for the land, permits, taxes, etc. Then, each project should include a yearly detailed list of income for the owners, including the property tax (the increment tax) so the public will know the amount of property tax lost to the city.
We see the product of redevelopment in Culver City – City Hall, the Fire Station, housing, mixed use developments and more. Certainly, development has existed since structures first needed to be built. And even with Culver City’s extremely large Redevelopment Agency covering most of the commercial areas, some developers choose to build without the assistance of the redevelopment agency. The way some elected officials speak, you would think the wealthy developers will immediately close their businesses on February 1st to become waiters. Developers and the many related businesses will continue to build to make their profit. They will not disappear.
The state of California has been in a continuing disastrous financial crisis for reasons too numerous and complex to be covered in this article. As the State was searching for ways to pay for education and city services, the possibility of looking at redevelopment agencies as a solution became likely. The immediate controversy began in the summer of 2011 when the California Legislature passed 2 measures intended to stabilize school funding by reducing or eliminating the diversion of property taxes from school districts to redevelopment agencies. Assembly Bill 26 bars redevelopment agencies from engaging in new business and provides for their windup and dissolution. Assembly Bill 27 offers an opportunity for redevelopment agencies to exist if the local governments agree to make payments into funds benefiting California’s schools and special districts.
Quickly, the California Redevelopment Association, along with the League of California Cities and 2 named cities, sued Ana Matosantos, the director of the California Department of Finance, and John Chiang, the California State Controller. Then, on December 29, 2011, the Redevelopment Agency’s bubble burst when the California Supreme Court decided California Redevelopment Association v. Ana Matosantos, which includes the 2 major issues of Assembly Bills 26 and 27.
The first issue in the California Redevelopment Association case resulted in a unanimous decision by the court ruling that the Legislature has the power to create redevelopment agencies and therefore has the right to dissolve them – a concept that most law students learn in their first year of law school. Thus, Assembly Bill 26 is lawful and the Legislature has the authority to get rid of all redevelopment agencies.
The second issue of the California Redevelopment Association case, resulting in an overwhelming 6 to 1 majority vote, found Assembly Bill 27 invalid because the California Constitution forbids the Legislature from requiring redevelopment agencies to make payments to the State benefiting schools and special districts.
Therefore, the Redevelopment Agencies, based on their 2-prong law suit, lost both parts and now must lobby the Legislature to pass a law to permit new redevelopment.
How does Redevelopment work? Culver City has one of almost 400 local redevelopment agencies in California. Redevelopment agencies are intended to revitalize blighted areas and create affordable housing. The agencies buy parcels of land and sell it to developers at a bargain basement amount. The city continues to receive property tax based on the assessed value of the property prior to the effective date of the redevelopment agency area. Whenever the property tax assessed value goes up, all of that increase goes directly to the redevelopment agency. Culver City gets nothing from that additional property tax. The City should inform the public of the amount of property tax lost to the Redevelopment Agency during its 4 decades of existence.
As the Los Angeles Times January 6, 2012 editorial reads, “By allowing so-called tax increment money to finance projects, [redevelopment agencies] blocked that money from going to the state government or schools. And the lure of redevelopment was such that private developers sometimes got deals that smacked of favoritism rather than sound government policy. As Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky said, redevelopment ‘evolved into a honey pot that was tapped to underwrite billions of dollars’ worth of commercial and other for-profit projects’”.
With no facts given, both the Culver City News article on January 5, 2012 and the Culver City Observer article of the same day said the state will take all of Culver City’s redevelopment properties. “While it seems unconscionable, apparently the state will take those valuable properties, acquired with local funds and administered by local elected officials away from the people of Culver City” blares the Culver City News article by Gary Walker. Likewise, Stephan Hadland, publisher of the Culver City Observer, claims the State would acquire everything from the Kirk Douglas theater to the Expo Line Train Station. The readers are never told the legal basis for the taking of properties that are based on valid contracts. Likewise, the Council members rhetorically blame the State government for destroying Culver City, while Councilmember Jeff Cooper at the January 9, 2012 meeting actually singled out our State Senator and State Assemblymember for his unfounded allegation of damage to our city. The Councilmembers should look closely at the many redevelopment problems right here in their own backyards.
What are some of the reforms that should be instituted if the Legislature gives redevelopment agencies a second chance?
- Only truly blighted areas - defined as parcels having significant health or safety concerns – could be developed
- The 20% received by redevelopment agencies for affordable housing, as well as the remaining housing money from the past, must be fully allocated and spent for each project within a reasonable specified period from its receipt
- All redevelopment agency areas must have a democratically elected board of residents who are officially informed of all major aspects of each redevelopment project and give input to the elected officials
- An independent watchdog organization must have full disclosure from each redevelopment agency to be certain all projects are lawful and expenditures are free of corruption and abuse
- All developments must pay its fair share to improve local infrastructure, safety services, schools, and parks based on the effect the development will have on these entities
- All developments must be publicly bid so no favoritism or corruption takes place
- Redevelopment Agencies should consist of either elected or appointed members apart from its City Council members in order to have 5 independent individuals make those tough decisions
We need all the facts, both positive and negative, about redevelopment, thus allowing the public to weigh its worth and decide its value. Culver City should sponsor a well-publicized forum to hear the suggestions and opinions of the public about the importance of redevelopment to our community and the needed reforms. For this dialogue to be effective, the City should open up its records of its redevelopment agency in order for an objective evaluation of what changes are necessary. Without this information and a process for discussing this complex issue, it looks to me like there’s a lot being hidden from us.
Gary Silbiger is the Co-Editor of the Culver City Progress Blog and the Former Mayor of Culver City.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Culver City’s MLK Celebration—It’s All in the Eyes of the Beholder
Rebecca Rona-Tuttle
We don’t really celebrate President Washington’s and President Lincoln’s birthdays any longer—unfortunately. And now that we’re more informed about Christopher Columbus’s history, we don’t celebrate him either. But in Culver City and throughout the country, we can look forward to honoring and celebrating a great hero, Dr. Martin Luther King.
A side note: I am not an unbiased reporter—anything but. In fact this is the seventh year that we’ve held the celebration as an official city event, and the seventh year I’ve served on the MLK planning committee. I’m an unabashed champion of this event. Some years we focus more on delightful music, other years more on fascinating speakers or significant movies or intriguing plays. But whatever the program entails, when the event is over, our audience always leaves feeling informed, entertained, inspired, further connected to the community and—simply put—good about having honored Dr. King, one of our greatest heroes.
This coming Sunday, January 15--Dr. King’s actual birthday—we will open wide the doors of the Culver City Senior Center (Overland Ave. at Culver Blvd.) for a full day’s worth of activities for adults and children, from 11 a.m. until 7 p.m. Visitors may arrive at any time, refreshments will be served, and all activities are free.
Although we will feature certain non-Culver City participants--such as UCLA history professor Scot Brown; our emcees, actor John Marshall Jones and news reporter Beverly White; the playwright Christina Harley and actors Margaret “Shug” Avery and Art Evans—most of our presenters and performers hail from Culver City. And so this event is a wonderful opportunity to celebrate some of Culver City’s treasures.
Rev. Leon Campbell of the Culver City-based Agape International Spiritual Center will present the invocation and personal remarks.
Panelists responding to this year’s theme, Have We Achieved Dr. King’s Dream?”, will include former Congresswoman Diane Watson, who represented Culver City; Culver City Mayor Micheal O’Leary, Saundra Davis, former president of the Culver City School Board; and Daniel Lee, a community activist and member of this year’s Martin Luther King Celebration Committee. Also on the panel will be Anthony Samad. Dr. Patricia Siever--member of the CCUSD school board, history professor at West Los Angeles College and program subcommittee chair of this year’s Celebration—will moderate.
Our audience will take part in an interactive presentation entitled “Stepping Up to the Dreamer,” a creation of the poet Charlotte Sista C. Ferrell, a longtime member of Culver Palms United Methodist Church and founder of its Mustard Seed Ministries program.
Playwright Christina Harley, who’s award-winning, delightful and thought-provoking play “The Dreamers” will be given a staged reading by some exceptional actors, has been named an unofficial Culver City resident. Not long after attending a meeting or two to pitch her play, she found herself serving on both the programming and publicity subcommittees and accepting a variety of Celebration assignments.
Audience members often report they’re fondest of the young winners of the Martin Luther King Student Speech contest, and this year might be no exception. In the fall, nearly 100 students from the CCUSD wrote essays, in December 18 of these students auditioned and three were selected to present their speeches: a fifth grader, a middle schooler and a high school student.
The majority of our musicians also hail from Culver City (or Culver City Adjacent): the Culver City High School Jazz Combo, the Culver City High School Choral Singers and the West Los Angeles College Jazz Ensemble. So too does Dr. Luther Henderson, music professor at LA City College, who coordinated the day’s musical presentations.
Dr. Larry Earl will describe the holdings of the Mayme A. Clayton Library and Museum, a Culver City institution that contains one of the largest collections of African American documents and other memorabilia in the nation.
The Mayme A. Clayton Library and Museum exhibit and children’s activities will run concurrently with the remainder of the program.
Martin Luther King Celebration Committee members are Rupert Francisco, chair; Yavonna Blackmon, Dr. Patricia Siever, Bill Wynn, David Morse, Daniel Lee and Rebecca Rona-Tuttle. Also contributing to this year’s event is former committee member Jasmine Hailey.
If you’d like more information, please visit the city website: www.culvercity.org or phone (310) 253-6675.
CC Martin Luther King Celebration Schedule
11 a.m. Doors open
11:30 a.m. Welcome, opening program
12 p.m. Historical overview--Dr. Scot Brown
12:15 p.m. Panel discussion with Q&A
1:30 p.m. “Stepping Up to the Dreamer,” interactive event with poet Charlotte Sista C. Ferrell
2:30 p.m. Mayme A. Clayton Library and Museum—words from Dr. Larry Earl, director
2:45 p.m. CCHS Jazz Combo (and refrshments)
3:30 p.m. Invocation and remarks—Rev. Leon Campbell of Agape Spiritual Center
3:45 p.m. Winning speeches by three CCUSD students
4:15 p.m. CCHS Choral Singers
4:45 p.m. “The Dreamers,” a staged reading of Christina Harley’s play
6 p.m. West Los Angeles College Jazz Ensemble
6:40 p.m. Closing remarks
Rebecca Rona-Tuttle is a member of Culver City's Martin Luther King Celebration Committee and the Director of Together.
We don’t really celebrate President Washington’s and President Lincoln’s birthdays any longer—unfortunately. And now that we’re more informed about Christopher Columbus’s history, we don’t celebrate him either. But in Culver City and throughout the country, we can look forward to honoring and celebrating a great hero, Dr. Martin Luther King.
A side note: I am not an unbiased reporter—anything but. In fact this is the seventh year that we’ve held the celebration as an official city event, and the seventh year I’ve served on the MLK planning committee. I’m an unabashed champion of this event. Some years we focus more on delightful music, other years more on fascinating speakers or significant movies or intriguing plays. But whatever the program entails, when the event is over, our audience always leaves feeling informed, entertained, inspired, further connected to the community and—simply put—good about having honored Dr. King, one of our greatest heroes.
This coming Sunday, January 15--Dr. King’s actual birthday—we will open wide the doors of the Culver City Senior Center (Overland Ave. at Culver Blvd.) for a full day’s worth of activities for adults and children, from 11 a.m. until 7 p.m. Visitors may arrive at any time, refreshments will be served, and all activities are free.
Although we will feature certain non-Culver City participants--such as UCLA history professor Scot Brown; our emcees, actor John Marshall Jones and news reporter Beverly White; the playwright Christina Harley and actors Margaret “Shug” Avery and Art Evans—most of our presenters and performers hail from Culver City. And so this event is a wonderful opportunity to celebrate some of Culver City’s treasures.
Rev. Leon Campbell of the Culver City-based Agape International Spiritual Center will present the invocation and personal remarks.
Panelists responding to this year’s theme, Have We Achieved Dr. King’s Dream?”, will include former Congresswoman Diane Watson, who represented Culver City; Culver City Mayor Micheal O’Leary, Saundra Davis, former president of the Culver City School Board; and Daniel Lee, a community activist and member of this year’s Martin Luther King Celebration Committee. Also on the panel will be Anthony Samad. Dr. Patricia Siever--member of the CCUSD school board, history professor at West Los Angeles College and program subcommittee chair of this year’s Celebration—will moderate.
Our audience will take part in an interactive presentation entitled “Stepping Up to the Dreamer,” a creation of the poet Charlotte Sista C. Ferrell, a longtime member of Culver Palms United Methodist Church and founder of its Mustard Seed Ministries program.
Playwright Christina Harley, who’s award-winning, delightful and thought-provoking play “The Dreamers” will be given a staged reading by some exceptional actors, has been named an unofficial Culver City resident. Not long after attending a meeting or two to pitch her play, she found herself serving on both the programming and publicity subcommittees and accepting a variety of Celebration assignments.
Audience members often report they’re fondest of the young winners of the Martin Luther King Student Speech contest, and this year might be no exception. In the fall, nearly 100 students from the CCUSD wrote essays, in December 18 of these students auditioned and three were selected to present their speeches: a fifth grader, a middle schooler and a high school student.
The majority of our musicians also hail from Culver City (or Culver City Adjacent): the Culver City High School Jazz Combo, the Culver City High School Choral Singers and the West Los Angeles College Jazz Ensemble. So too does Dr. Luther Henderson, music professor at LA City College, who coordinated the day’s musical presentations.
Dr. Larry Earl will describe the holdings of the Mayme A. Clayton Library and Museum, a Culver City institution that contains one of the largest collections of African American documents and other memorabilia in the nation.
The Mayme A. Clayton Library and Museum exhibit and children’s activities will run concurrently with the remainder of the program.
Martin Luther King Celebration Committee members are Rupert Francisco, chair; Yavonna Blackmon, Dr. Patricia Siever, Bill Wynn, David Morse, Daniel Lee and Rebecca Rona-Tuttle. Also contributing to this year’s event is former committee member Jasmine Hailey.
If you’d like more information, please visit the city website: www.culvercity.org or phone (310) 253-6675.
CC Martin Luther King Celebration Schedule
11 a.m. Doors open
11:30 a.m. Welcome, opening program
12 p.m. Historical overview--Dr. Scot Brown
12:15 p.m. Panel discussion with Q&A
1:30 p.m. “Stepping Up to the Dreamer,” interactive event with poet Charlotte Sista C. Ferrell
2:30 p.m. Mayme A. Clayton Library and Museum—words from Dr. Larry Earl, director
2:45 p.m. CCHS Jazz Combo (and refrshments)
3:30 p.m. Invocation and remarks—Rev. Leon Campbell of Agape Spiritual Center
3:45 p.m. Winning speeches by three CCUSD students
4:15 p.m. CCHS Choral Singers
4:45 p.m. “The Dreamers,” a staged reading of Christina Harley’s play
6 p.m. West Los Angeles College Jazz Ensemble
6:40 p.m. Closing remarks
Rebecca Rona-Tuttle is a member of Culver City's Martin Luther King Celebration Committee and the Director of Together.
City Council Meeting Preview
On Monday, January 9, 2012, the City Council meets at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 9770 Culver Boulevard. If you are unaware of this meeting, it may be due to the agenda’s late public posting on Friday evening, January 6, 2012, although the policy is to have it posted by the Wednesday before the meeting. Considering the last City Council meeting took place December 12 – 4 weeks ago –Monday’s important agenda should have easily been made available to the public and elected officials at least one week prior to this meeting. The agenda includes:
- A presentation by City Manager John Nachbar regarding future plans in response to the recent California Supreme Court case, California Redevelopment Association vs. Matosantos, which concluded in dissolving Redevelopment Agencies in California, such as Culver City’s. John Nachbar is recommending a resolution to name Culver City as the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency.
- City staff is recommending the discontinuation this year of Culver City’s most popular cultural event, the summer Culver City Music Festival. The agenda report claims the $75,000 funding from the Redevelopment Agency no longer exists and it is not a priority to fund through the City’s general fund, as it had until 2004. The 8 summer Thursday evening concerts bring together close to 1,000 people weekly to enjoy the eclectic and exciting live music.
- Based on the Redevelopment Agency’s eventual demise (unless the State Legislature and Governor pass another law), Culver City is proposing the creation of a Culver City Housing Authority to receive the housing assets and perform the housing functions. The Housing Authority members will be the City Council members. This agenda report details the sad lack of Culver City’s responsibility to help those in need by not increasing “the supply of low and moderate income affordable housing units for low income, special needs and homeless families in more than 10 years”. Recently, 3 affordable housing projects have been approved. In addition, the Culver City Housing Fund is currently owed approximately $45,400,000 by the Redevelopment Agency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)