Presented by Clifford M. Reston, A.M.D.P.‘02 Harvard University Graduate School of Design July 2002
History of the San Fernando Valley
History of the City of Los Angeles
Political Background of Los Angeles
Background of Disenchantment in the Valley
CHANGES TO THE POLITICAL STRUCTURE
Department of Neighborhood Empowerment
Appendix I Charter Language For DONE
Appendix II Enabling Ordinance For DONE
Appendix III City Wide DONE Plan
Appendix IV “Greater” Northridge Community NC Bylaws
Appendix V
APPENDIX VI
Appendix VIII
APPENDIX VIII
It took less than one hundred years for the San Fernando Valley to transform from an Agrarian based backwater into a mature urban cityscape, always subsuming its identity through the political and social cover of the City of Los Angeles . This control over the financial and political aspects of the expanding city by a small group of downtown elites has been the dominating shadow that the San Fernando Valley has operated under until recently.
For disgruntled San Fernando Valley residents, the 1999 Charter Reform called for two key changes that would appease Valley sentiment of being the forlorn stepchild, without any input into local area matters. The first reform eliminated the downtown controlled Zoning Appeals Board (ZAB) and was replaced by seven regional Local Area Planning Commissions (APCs). The APCs make determinations of fact and has final jurisdiction on some planning matters, though others may still be appealed to the City Planning Commission or the City Council. By all accounts, the revised Charter-formed APCs has created some devolution in central control of localized planning concerns and is widely considered a success.
The second major reform created the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE). DONE was formed to create advisory Neighborhood Councils (NC) throughout the City. Its goal is to create public participation in government and make it more responsive to local needs.
Is the formation of Neighborhood Councils, created by the current City Charter, a viable form of municipal governance as now instituted?
In conducting research on the formation of Neighborhood Councils I was most interested in how they are evolving and how they are conforming to the vision of the city establishment as well as that of the secession movement. My research included a complete overview of the operations of the City of Los Angeles ’ Planning Department and Department of Neighborhood Empowerment. I also had the opportunity to it in on a variety of City public hearings. I conducted interviews with participants representing all sides of the issues. To put this into a localized perspective, we can look at the community of Northridge in the Northwest San Fernando Valley . Long a hotbed of secessionist fervor, Northridge epitomizes all that is represented in the suburban life of Los Angeles .
Northridge has spawned two council applications. The very small “Old” Northridge NC represents a nascent, grassroots community group with no experience and little background in activism, but could assemble and be recognized by the City as representing a diverse and distinctively “historic” neighborhood. Their leader had come late to activism in a roundabout way. His unique methods have produced positive and tangible results, reaching out to a traditionally under-represented and disaffected community. It is the emergence of local governance at its most basic form.
The other applicant, representing “Greater” Northridge is the paradigm of established community activism. Their leader is a savvy populist who is able to marshal forces heard by area politicians and local media. They operate a fairly sophisticated web site for their well-informed constituency. But this group, all secessionists at heart, want to test the city’s view of local control. Its Board has the vision of creating a NC in the style of a classic “Town Hall”. Their careful review of the laws appears to allow it. DONE disagrees and the application remains “Off Agenda”. While 85% of the Northridge community has no official representation, the DONE Board of Commissioners refuses this group an appeal to the City Council.
What of the budding “Old” Northridge Council? The DONE tutored application sailed by an effusive Board, one of its early certifications! The self appointed “Kapuna” of this officially minted Neighborhood Council reports that the City’s total interaction since certification has consisted of one group photo-op of the all certified NC leaders with the Mayor at the Lakers victory celebration. He also advises that in the opinion of those attending, the city is using them as mere “window dressing” to show responsiveness to the needs of local neighborhoods. The consensus among this group of community leaders is that the City is actually an impediment to organizing any meaningful advisory aspect to its mission.
The once promised funding to the newly created Councils is now by the wayside. The General Manager of DONE now contemplates tutoring the new NCs in applying for specific grant monies, not the original intention to allow NCs to spend $50,000 annual allocations as they see fit. The advisory aspect of the councils now wallows in the bureaucratic haze of false starts and lagging promises.
Long time Valley politicians from both sides of the political spectrum are approving of the concept, but not in its application.
Former Congresswoman Bobbi Fiedler (R-Northridge) sees certification as a welcome step to “officially” empowering a group of citizens, though she does not believe that the imprimatur of City recognition will necessarily insure much of anything. Ms. Feidler argues that the city establishment harps on the NCs role as a political necessity in concept, but not in practice.
Long serving Democrat, former Councilwoman Joy Picus is also supportive of the concept of the NCs, though she does not see them working either. “No elected politician is going to cede any power that they possess to a neighborhood group, no matter how good their intentions.” Ms. Picus does not see what benefit the currently configured NCs can provide.
Certification has not brought any tangible benefits. The City has yet to act on any of their promises. No effective unifying with other NCs. No promised funds for its exclusive use. No assistance in bringing together the NC with their elected Councilperson. No interaction with the local Area Planning Commission. All the good intentions will not survive without the strong hand of the City to open doors and connect the dots. The term “advisory” is meaningless if there is no one to listen to the advice. The General Manager of DONE argues that it is a long process to certify NCs throughout the City and over time, these Councils will grow strong. But time is not on their side, what with the siren call of secession clearly being heard.
In our other example, the “Greater Northridge” group consists of engaged, knowledgeable residents with their own voice outside the current structure. They are pushing their not so benevolent government to accept and certify their vision of representative democracy, but to no avail.
In regards to the implementation of DONE, they are crippled from the start. The “advisory” qualifier condemns them to a superfluous status. DONE Managers and Commissioners believe in Neighborhood Councils, they just do not know how to make them work. Who would listen to the Councils? Without responsibility, money or a collective voice, they have no power. DONE stands as a monument to the avarice of those in power and are not prepared to give any of it up. The failure of the City to provide the tools for local neighborhood empowerment is not necessarily dead. But until such time that the City is prepared to confer some authority to The Neighborhood Councils, similar to the power vested to the local Area Planning Commissions, there appears to be no reason for DONE’s existence. to index
The San Fernando Valley was annexed to the City of Los Angeles in 1915 [1]. It was a classic land swindle disguised as a political payoff that helped secure a public utility, namely water. It created incredible development and unspeakable wealth. Not just to the landed gentry who had arrived in Southern California after the Civil war, but through three amazing development eras, the arrival of the railroads until World War II, post WW II through the Vietnam War and the prosperity of the Reagan years. [2]
When the San Fernando Valley was first brought into the city’s fold, it acted like its backyard. Then, the Valley was primarily orchards and ranches of downtown oligarchs and Hollywood royalty. The film industry long looked to the Valley as its backlot. Neighborhoods like Studio City, North Hollywood, Universal City and Burbank became the manufacturing and assembly sites for much of Hollywood’s output. With the advent of World War II, the Valley’s industrial base increased with a huge expansion of military spending; much of it geared toward aircraft and later aerospace development.
The post-war Valley quickly became L.A.’s bedroom as American veterans soon became the post-war city’s workforce. Its relaxed lifestyle and economic prosperity also brought waves of young married professionals in need of well sized housing and quality schools for their burgeoning families. It took two full generations to create a fully urbanized Valley.
Valley industry re-engineered into a more sophisticated economic mix of specialized, value-added manufacturing with lower paid and a decidedly non-union workforce. It adapted like zoned development to rebuild factory sites into clean assembly facilities and warehousing spaces. The Valley’s growing bourgeois class of business folks relied more on an array of Valley based professionals. They in turn steadily priced middle-income workers out of the San Fernando Valley housing market. The inability to raise their children and live in a homogenous society at an affordable cost pushed them closer to the increasing realities of urbanization. This led to the suburbanization of surrounding Conejo, Simi and Santa Clarita Valleys. To this generation of residents unable to stop these changes, they effectively voted with their feet. [3]
America’s Cold War victory became a defining moment in the Valley’s ascendancy to what Joel Kotkin refers to as a Midopolis [4]. As the Valley became its own self-supporting economic engine, it transformed Los Angeles’ ex-burbs into the Valleys’ own suburbs. Even the Porn industry, centered in the San Fernando Valley began to rely on recruiting from these new Valley suburbs.
It took less than one hundred years for the San Fernando Valley to transform from an Agrarian based backwater into a mature urban cityscape always subsuming its identity through its political and social cover of the City of Los Angeles.
The San Fernando Valley is physically separated from the Los Angeles basin to its south by the Santa Monica Mountains, though relatively accessible by seven natural passes, three of which became post-WW II Freeways, the Golden State (U.S. Interstate 5), the Hollywood (State Highway 101) and the San Diego (U.S. Interstate 405). It exponentially increased a Valley population who invariably went “over the hill” to go to work. The past 20 years lessened the dependence of Valley homeowners on the basin for jobs as more opportunities for employment and business increasingly based themselves in the San Fernando Valley. As their professional and home lives became more Valley-centric, so too was the importance of how they were governed. to index
Los Angeles at the turn of last century was a thriving, though smallish mid-size American city whose national profile was regularly eclipsed by a brash and cosmopolitan San Francisco. The film industry put L.A. on the map, but its doings were more fodder for the Society pages than the Editorial page. Its glamour and money did not control or necessarily participate in the City’s political or financial underpinnings until the 1960’s.
The city fathers of Los Angeles had in one form or another co-opted all Hispanic dominance which had reined until American Settlers under the flag of the California Republic defeated Mexican troops in a decisive battle in January 1847at Campo de Cahuenga in the San Fernando Valley. California was ceded by the Mexican Government in 1848 to the United States by the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo and formally became part of the Union in 1850.
The City’s establishment grew from schemers and dealers who morphed into pillars of the community. Real Estate Development, Banking, Insurance and the Press all seemed to rise from mid-western transplants with colorful histories and wide-eyed opportunism. The Southern Pacific and Santa Fe Railroads held the keys to the riches that lay ahead. Completing their links to Los Angeles in the 1880’s, this opened Southern California agrarian markets to export and allowed for an unprecedented sales job on Midwesterners to come west for a piece of the Southern California lifestyle.
Well organized downtown interests created a business organization, the Merchants and Manufacturers Association, that was cold and calculating in their singular ability to marshal forces and create a healthy and buoyant economy and keep Los Angeles decidedly non-union. These downtown interests carved up the greater Los Angeles region into vast developable tracts and monopolized the subdivision of the San Fernando Valley. Manipulating water politics as well as the city’s malleable government, welded these once confrontational and competing powers into the a unified ruling class who kept the peace by sharing with each other the super-profits of Los Angeles’ upcoming boom.[5]
This control of the financial and political aspects of the expanding city by a small group of downtown elites has been the dominating shadow that the San Fernando Valley has operated under until today. to index
L.A.’s first modern charter reform was approved in 1925 and was amended hundreds of times and governed the City until 1999.htm# ftn6">[6] It created a strong council/weak mayor political structure to lessen the ability of a corrupt mayor (of which Los Angeles had many) to fully control the political agenda. The city was divided into 15 geographical councilmanic districts. The mayor appointed five-member boards of volunteer commissioners to ostensibly oversee the general manager of each city department and its civil service employees, though the commissioner’s decisions could be overridden by a simple majority of the Council. Meanwhile each council member became the de facto mayor of his own district. Fellow councilmen were loath to vote against another councilman’s favorite project, especially if it did not impact his district. He would expect the same courtesy for projects within his district.
[6] By 1960, a booming post war San Fernando Valley was becoming increasingly agitated by the highhanded attitude that downtown interests had toward the Valley constituencies. When the Valley’s own Sam Yorty became mayor in 1961; many Valleyites felt they had an ear to the Valley’s growing problems. The new mayor’s agenda definitely had more spending for Valley infrastructure at the top of its list, subverting a nascent group of Valley business association’s early studies of breaking away from the City. But any ideas of Valley control on land use or budgets were not part of the mayor’s plan. The issue of local control for Valley residents did not have enough political juice to muster much political heat in the corridors of power, firmly entrenched in the corridors of City Hall or the steam rooms of the downtown business clubs. to index
In 1975, a group of Valley residents formed a Committee to investigate Valley independence. Polls showed wide Valley acceptance for secession. In 1978, secession supporters’ launched a petition drive for the Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO), the county agency responsible to review municipal boundary issues, to study the proposal. City leaders subsequently killed the burgeoning breakaway drive by convincing state lawmaker to give Los Angeles City Council veto power over secession. This effectively made any secession plan moot and the efforts remained dormant until 1996. [7]
In 1996, a diverse group of Valley interests formed Valley Voters Organized Toward Empowerment (Valley VOTE) to re-explore the viability of breaking away from the City of Los Angeles. Many leaders of this group had been hardened by years of entrenched political warfare in the fight to reduce property taxes. Those efforts culminated in the delivery of the statewide property tax initiative, Proposition 13 that limited property taxes collected to 1% of total valuation, much to the chagrin of liberal political officials. The breakthrough came in 1997 when a group of Valley based state legislators successfully passed a bill to remove the City’s veto power over secession. In 1998, Valley VOTE submitted over 200,000 signatures of registered voters; enough to trigger a LAFCO study. to index
While this “urban divorce” Another reform would eliminate a downtown controlled Zoning Appeals Board (ZAB) that would be replaced by seven regional Local Area Planning Commissions (APCs). This Commission would be appointed (and removed) at the discretion of the Mayor. The APCs would have final jurisdiction on some planning matters, though for others it would be a mid-level appeal, still subject to review by the City Planning Commission or the City Council. [10]
As with most political ventures, everybody got something, but nobody was left happy. In the end, the City Council refused to endorse the final Charter Reform proposal. Suprisingly, the leaders of Valley VOTE supported the Reform and in 1999, voters overwhelmingly supported the initiative. Though acquiescing to the political need to support the watered down reforms, Valley VOTE had successfully birthed the LAFCO study (and its necessary financing) and was hell-bent on bringing secession to a vote. to index
For disaffected San Fernando Valley residents, the two most important Charter reforms are in the creation of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE) and the changes in planning review. Both are designed to allow for a more localized view of issues to be heard. By all accounts, the revised Charter-formed Area Planning Commissions (APC) has created some devolution in central control of localized planning concerns and is widely considered a success. The reason for its success lies in the power written into the Charter for the performance of each commission’s duties; [11] For many matters before it, the APCs are the final avenue of redress to an applicant. Not all issues that they rule on are appealable to the full Planning Commission and/or the City Council. Regardless, their determinations are not advisory for another level of government, but determination of fact. Its structure is similar to a judicial decision, and for some issues, not subject to appeal. Some land use attorneys feel that the restructured Planning Commission still does not get the process over quickly enough. [12] Fred Gaines, President of the Valley Industry and Commerce Assn and a Land Use Attorney opines that APCs still have too much discretionary power and not enough streamlining has occurred. He sites the example of quick lube shops that dot Ventura Blvd, a main artery of the Valley. “There is no level of consistency. Of the 20 shops along Ventura Blvd. (an approximate 11 mile section through six Los Angeles City designated neighborhoods) each site has its own set of conditions for its Use permit (CUP).
“Each CUP application begins with a 90 day review by City Planning who makes a written decision and then takes 30 to 180 days to appear at an Area Planning Commission hearing. They can take up to 90 days to make a decision. [Adding it all up], it can take as long as a year for this business to even know if it can operate at the location.” Mr. Gaines believes that maybe a neighborhood council with real authority should be instituted. “There still needs to be a clearer set of rules. At least it would get the process over very quickly.” Mr. Gaines also feels that smaller governmental entities will make it harder for the lawyers and expediters to lobby the more engaged commission members. “The (downtown based) City Planning Department does not care what happens at Victory & Woodman [an undistinguished intersection in the San Fernando Valley]” to index
With the city in the throes of a pending secession vote for the San Fernando Valley as well as the Hollywood portion of the city, many civic leaders are clamoring for another possibility. Some have called for the City to propose a borough style government for the City of Los Angeles. There have been at least nine different proposals in the last century to reconfigure the City of Los Angeles into a borough style of governance [13] The current proposals have garnered little support among the current City Council, the Mayor and their allies. Most of the discussion of borough proposals centers on aspects of the Neighborhood Councils being the first level of city government. [14] The zeitgeist of Los Angeles political thought is supportive of the concept of Neighborhood Councils. David Fleming; [15], a longtime Valley leader and advisor to a legion of Los Angeles politicians believes that the City of Los Angeles “only got its toes wet” with the last Charter Reform. If the City really wanted to “do the right thing” it would institute a borough system, using existing neighborhood groups as its backbone. Robert Hertzberg (D-Sherman Oaks), Speaker Emeritus of the California State Assembly recently unveiled a complete borough plan that he believes the Los Angeles City Council would be wise to place on the November 2002 ballot alongside the ballot issue for Secession. [16] His plan specifically respects the boundaries of existing neighborhood councils. [17] to index
Is the formation of Neighborhood Councils, created by the current City Charter, a viable form of municipal governance as now instituted?
Accordingly, I have chosen in this study to see how the formation of Neighborhood Councils are evolving and how they conform to the vision of the city establishment as well as that of the secession movement. My research consisted of a review of academics in the field, an overview of the operations of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, a close following of the issues in the local media, attendance at city public hearings and personal interviews with representative participants on all sides of the issues. To give this a localized perspective, I have chosen to highlight the community of Northridge in the Northwest San Fernando Valley. Long a hotbed of secessionist fervor, Northridge epitomizes all that is good (and bad) in the suburban life of Los Angeles. to index
Don Larson was born in Northridge in 1951. His family had come west in 1920 and settled in this northwest San Fernando Valley community, just a train stop in the middle of an agricultural oasis of citrus. Farming was the Larson family enterprise and the young Don watched the neighborhood grow up in the 50’s much as he did. As the citrus groves and ranch houses gave way to residential subdivisions, the family undertook development of their property. In 1958, San Fernando Valley State College (later renamed California State University, Northridge) was founded just north of the Larson’s land holdings. This institution became the largest university in the San Fernando Valley and became the focal point of the entire community. Don was educated there in the 70’s and became and took a job in the pharmaceutical industry. Life in middle class Northridge was the idyllic suburban dream that so many people craved. Ranch style homes with backyard patios fulfilled the desires of so many baby boomers. The access of good public schools and easily available commercial services on the major thoroughfares of Reseda and Nordhoff Boulevards provided residents a sense of comfort and well being deep in the heart of the Valley, 20 miles away from the Los Angeles city center. And all Don had to do was be born into it. But changes were occurring. The southern end of the community below the School allowed for multifamily housing, which made it less desirable for the professional classes, but a bonanza for developers who were happy to supply cheap and affordable apartments for both the adjacent University’s burgeoning student body as well as an increasing influx of Mexican, then Central American and finally Chinese blue collar workers desperate for housing for their large families, close to public transit and near available jobs.
Don was mildly oblivious to the demographic changes around him until a fateful winter morning in 1994. At 4:31 am on January 17th, the Northridge earthquake violently woke up all of Southern California. To Don, sitting literally atop the epicenter and shocked by the devastation of so much around him, opened his eyes to the changed community around him. People filled the streets and embraced like family, though just the day before did not even exist in their conciousness. What was once the harmonious suburban village that enveloped him was now a teaming multicultural polyglot of what Los Angeles had become. His neighborhood had changed and his outlook was about to. Don made a deliberate decision to fully embrace the new diversity that grew around him. He quit his job and decided that it was time to take stock in himself. He always felt an artistic bent within him. Now was the time to explore it. He decided that he would re-create the family’s staid three story 37-unit apartment building that sat caddy-corner to the family residence into a Bauhaus style art house. Its central interior courtyard where apartments looked over an underused swimming pool would now be covered over as a stage, with the open hallways above forming a Romanesque forum. The individual apartment units would be reconfigured into unconventional housing units ranging from single rooms to multi-connected suites of apartments. All were welcome to live and enjoy a new, communal living arrangement with residents and neighbors welcome to display their artistic endeavors through out the complex. Don removed the interior walls of some of the ground floor apartments to create a clubhouse opening up to the courtyard and stage area. It was unconventional and City Inspectors were suspect, but in time, grew to accept the communal style. When an Inspector, concerned that fire hose boxes would be visually lost in the new clutter, Don appeased the City by having a local artist paint large red and orange flames on the white stucco walls to highlight each fire box, a visual aesthetic that was more obvious than any stenciled “FIRE” sign would communicate.
Don decided to take on the neighbors next. The high density that the area had become created littered streets and an unruly parking situation. Don started to wash and broom the sidewalks around the apartment building. People would stop him and asked him what he was doing. He would tell them that he was just doing his part in making the neighborhood nicer and would invite all to his community home. Suddenly, neighbors began to follow his example and a satisfied Don began to export his sidewalk cleaning throughout the area. He called it “Sidewalk to Sidewalk”. Don would walk the neighborhood and extol the virtues of cleaning the streets, and by leading by example created a small army of volunteers pitching in and making a difference.
The high density also created parking chaos on the surrounding streets. Don thought that what his new immigrant neighbors needed was some simple rules of parking etiquette. After getting nowhere with the city’s Street Services Division, he took it upon himself to paint the streets with stenciled parking brackets. The Parking Control Officers told him that they could not enforce their use, but they thought that it was a grand idea and brought calm to the parking mayhem in the neighborhood! .
Don wanted to find more ways to connect with the neighborhood. He contacted the County Registrar and made his building available as an election polling station. But Don wanted to connect with everyone in the community, not just registered voters. He came up with a Community Artwalk, an extension of his “ArtHaus”. He paid for the city permits to temporarily close the streets around the Arthaus and walked the streets promoting the event. It was a rousing success. It made inclusive a formerly estranged and disparate people who could be unified by a middle-aged, portly boomer with a buzzcut and an unruly beard with a penchant for artistic expression and an open mind as to how one relates to his neighbors. to index
In 2001, under the City’s newly formed Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE), Don immediately applied for his “community project” to become a Neighborhood Council. DONE had also received a second application from a combined group of homeowner and chamber types headed by Walter Prince, a lanky Northridge area businessman and one of the leaders of the valley secession movement. Walter’s application was for the entire neighborhood that was considered “Greater Northridge”, eight times the geographical size of Don’s proposed area. Walter Prince is a savvy populist, who for many years has been an outspoken critic of Los Angeles City government. As a resident of adjacent Chatsworth and an owner of rental property in nearby Sherman Oaks, Walter could easily claim “stakeholder” status in three different Neighborhood Council formations, as per the language of the formation of DONE. But Walter has always had his political base firmly established in Northridge and had always been the area’s de facto spokesman when it came to an outrage over some city policy or vocalizing Valley breakaway efforts.
Walter envisioned a comprehensive Neighborhood Council representing its well-informed constituency of stakeholders. The formation process for a NC came quickly; following on the heels of many co-operative efforts in that community to marshal forces that were heard by the area politicians and the local media. Quickly, a sophisticated web site was established. Walter’s group took the moniker Northridge Community Council, (which for ease of identification, I will call “Greater Northridge”) and began the city application process to be certified as such. With an excellent understanding of the machinations of government process, “Greater Northridge” quickly provided all the paperwork that the city required. But Walter and his group, all secessionists at heart, wanted to test the city’s view of local control. The new City Charter called for the development of Neighborhood Councils to be the local voice of the people in a democratic process. The City Council through its right to pass legislation for the orderly administration of the process created a series of ordinances that created some uniformity in the formation and certification of the NCs. Walter had a vision of creating a NC in the style of a classic town hall; whereby everybody in attendance had their say on all matters before it and more importantly, all people present at the meeting had a vote. A careful reading of the laws appeared to allow it.
Walter was well versed in the rules and ordinances and their application of such. What he despised most was that the Neighborhood Board of Commissioners and the City Attorney that guided them would enforce some of the rules when it fit their vision of implementation and ignore others when it didn't. To Walter, this was just another example of how ineffective the whole effort of Neighborhood Councils really was in representing the interest of the citizenry. Here was a fully established neighborhood group who truly represented a community and was not shy to voice its feelings. In their view, they were well within their rights to organize as they saw fit, but the City would not accept them. [20] to index
The Department of Neighborhood Empowerment was a new concept that needed to be fleshed out. Upon the new City Charter enactment, the Mayor appointed a seven member volunteer commission to create a plan and oversee a General Manager responsible for the day-to-day operation of the department and its staff. Its first Manager, a career mid-level city employee appeared beholden to the Mayor and though well meaning in her approach, did not have the political wherewithal to lead this new department, least of all in dealing the City Council, who were drafting ordinances on how the new department would operate. Upon the city elections of 2001, the new Mayor, Mr. James Hahn replaced her with Greg Nelson. A politically savvy city functionary, Greg supposedly had the political gravitas to effectively challenge the entrenched political establishment, be it the mayor (formerly the City Attorney who vetted the new Charter), the City Council (where Mr. Nelson worked as a Chief Deputy to a highly respected Valley Councilman) or the City Attorneys office.
The new Mayor had good reason to make the change. With the San Fernando Valley revolting over the established downtown domination of how it was governed, the Mayor was determined to see not only the success of the creation of this new city department, but for it to shine. It became an imperative of the new Mayor to be able to highlight the effectiveness of the new empowerment system. It was one of the few tools under his control that could form a counterweight to the secession movement.
A plan to create and certify the new Neighborhood Councils was vetted and adopted by the Council and made law. It established a flexible system for formation of the councils. It also required minimum standards as to represent all stakeholders, conduct fair and open meetings and that they would be financially accountable.
The ordinance gave wide flexibility to DONE in the implementation of Neighborhood Councils. But the department required each proposed Neighborhood Council to have a board, voted on by all its stakeholders. There was good reason for this. Upon certification, each new Neighborhood Council would become an official part of Los Angeles city government, regardless of its limited say and small appropriation of money. The city would be liable for the NCs actions. It requires NC officials to adhere to the City’s ethics rules and disclosure statements required of any elected city official. At the same time, specific ordinances seemed to be ignored by the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners when they are not convenient to their administration of the Department. One example is DONE’s disregard to issues of timeliness and not allowing certification disagreements be appealed to the City Council. [22]
Greg Nelson [23] had a difficult job. His mandate was to help certify as quickly as possible councils in formation and make some news, an early measure of success for the department and the Mayor himself. There had been quite a bit of sniping by the secessionists that not only was the concept of advisory councils ineffective, but their lack of formation laughable. In certifying the “Greater Northridge” group, DONE would be able to point to a great success of bringing into the city process an established group of city critics and dyed in the wool secessionist leaders. But getting the “Greater Northridge” to agree to the city-established format was not the only problem. “Old Northridge” did not wish to be associated with the politicized “Greater Northridge”. DONE had established a minimum size of a NC to be at least 20,000 residents. There was an exception that could be made if the proposed area represented an historic, identifiable neighborhood. Don Larson felt that he could demonstrate that his small region should stand alone as a neighborhood council; that it represented the “Old” Northridge in its pre World War II sense. DONE had to reconcile the two group’s boundaries. It did that by carving out an area approximately 50% larger than Don’s proposed area. This helped raise the total population of “Old Northridge” to about 13,000 individuals. Coupled with the designation of an historic neighborhood, DONE blessed the two proposed NC boundaries as resolved. “Old Northridge” utilized the services of DONE’s project coordinators to quickly finish their paperwork and get in front of the Commissioners to be certified. It was just as important for DONE to certify this small fledging Council. The Old Northridge NC represented the nascent, grassroots community group with no experience and little background in community activism that could assemble and be recognized by the City as representing a community. It was local governance at its most basic form. But the question remained, would anybody listen?
As for “Greater” Northridge NC its application with DONE is still active, but “Off Agenda”. Until it conforms to DONE’s rules, it will stay tabled, away from DONE Commissioners and away from an embarrassing appeal to the City Council. to index
Bobbi Fiedler (R-Northridge), the former U.S. Congresswoman from the Northridge area had her political beginnings as the founder of BUSTOP, which opposed court-ordered busing of Los Angeles area schoolchildren for the purpose of racial desegregation. Many parents, not only in the leafy provinces of the San Fernando Valley, but many in the grittier neighborhoods of South Central and East Los Angeles were eager to keep their school age children in neighborhood schools. Many were resentful of long distance busing and saw it as a poor remedy to improve their children’s schooling. Bobbi entered the school board race against the liberal incumbent who supported busing and overwhelmingly won the election with a campaign stressing local control. Her election to Congress in 1980 over a longtime liberal incumbent solidified Valley residents’ belief that they had one of their own In Washington. She is considered an icon for local control. Though she was an early and current supporter of secession, she broke from Valley Vote over tactics and leadership. She still carries great political muscle and looks disapprovingly at the city’s current formation of Neighborhood councils. [24]
As a supporter of Don Larson, she sees the certification of the Old Northridge NC as a welcome step to “officially” empowering a group of citizens to take steps toward bettering their community. Though she does not believe that the imprimatur of City recognition will necessarily enhance what Don Larson had started. The City created, as part of the Charter reform, the Neighborhood Council system as a way of proving their bonafides toward local empowerment. Ms. Feidler argues that the city establishment and the Valley secessionists both harp on the Neighborhood Council role as a political necessity, in concept but not in practice. The City’s vision has advisory Councils with some discretionary funding giving recommendations to an eagerly contemplative City Council and Mayor. The reality is much darker. The once promised $50,000 annual funding for each certified NC is now by the wayside. The General Manager of DONE now contemplating tutoring the new councils in applying for specific grant monies, not the original intention to allow Councils to spend as they see fit. The advisory aspect of the councils now wallows in the bureaucratic haze of false starts and laggin promises.
At a recent photo-op with the Mayor of Los Angeles, extolling the virtues of his Neighborhood Councils, the presidents of the currently certified councils spoke openly to one another after the Mayor’s departure. In near unanimity, the heads of the city NC’s felt that the city is using them as window dressing to show that the city is responsive to the needs of local neighborhoods. They point to the “City Alliance” meetings, which are nothing but remedial workshops on how to organize. The promise for a “Congress of Neighborhood Councils” has yet to materialize. The consensus among this group of leaders is that the City is becoming an impediment to organizing any meaningful advisory aspect to its mission. [25]
Joy Picus (D-Woodland Hills) served for 16 years as a liberal member of the Los Angeles City Council from the West San Fernando Valley. She is a virulent opponent of the secession movement and feels that the form of government is much less important than the people who operate from within its structure. [26] She can readily site examples of popular politicians who upon review of their records succeeded in re-election but failed their constituencies in delivering the goods. “The key to successful governance is the quality of the leadership. ” Though she is supportive of the concept of the Neighborhood councils, she does not feel that they will work. “No elected politician is going to cede any power that they possess to a neighborhood group, no matter how good their intentions. A good councilperson will utilize their field deputies to be the community organizers.” Ms. Picus cannot see what benefit the NCs can provide. Besides, she comments, “There is a lot of bitterness among these leaders (heads of the NCs) in the way Los Angeles City government operates.” She does not see this group pacified by this advisory network. to index
The concept of Neighborhood Councils allows for the ultimate devolution of municipal governance to serve the citizens it represents. The livability issues that people confront daily, especially in an urban environment, need to serve the individual in an honest and forthright manner. When municipal government operates in a top-down model, the individual citizen is not empowered to engage the system. Municipalities have a collective requirement to govern in a fair manner for the benefit of all its citizenry. The application of laws and ordinances must encompass all people so as to allow the orderly conduct of all forces that inhabit its paradigm: to allow its residents to live in a safe and open environment, allow commerce to operate fairly and prosper and to fairly collect taxes for the delivery of services. Residents must abide to the rules that apply to all. They must also rely on the structure of the government to afford them the right to be heard in a democratic fashion. When the governing authority is large, like the City of Los Angeles (approx. population 3.7 million) [27] and a citizens’ elected representative represents nearly 250,000 persons, that citizen does not have a fair and effective voice in the outcome of democracy as it pertains to the standards of livability. Municipalities deliver the most localized form of services that government can provide. It becomes incumbent on municipal government to assure that an individual has reasonable input in how those services are delivered and that an individuals voice is heard.
How loud must that voice be? The smaller the governing unit, the louder the voice grows.
The City of Los Angeles created an “advisory” Neighborhood Council system as part of the rewrite of the City Charter enshrining them as an official part of city government. Wide latitude was given in its formation and certification of these councils. In the examples of this study, two widely divergent councils have formed in the community of Northridge. The fully certified “Old Northridge NC” is an example of newly found empowerment where none grew before. The opportunity to create a voice of the community, encouraged by a benevolent government to make it heard at a higher level engages formerly uninvolved citizens. But certification does not bring any tangible benefits. The City has yet to act on any of their promises. No effective unifying with other Neighborhood Councils. No promised funds for its exclusive use. No assistance in bringing together the NC with their elected Councilperson. No interaction with their local Area Planning Commission. Old Northridge NC president advises that DONE has done absolutely nothing since their certification. This group, with all their good intentions will not survive without the strong hand of the City to open doors and connect the dots. The term “advisory” is meaningless if there is no one to listen to the advice. The City will argue that it is a long process to certify NCs throughout the City and over time, these Councils will grow strong. But time is not on the side of “Old Northridge NC”.
The other example, “Greater Northridge NC” has a group of engaged, knowledgeable residents who have a loud voice outside the current structure. They are pushing their not so benevolent government to accept and certify their vision of representative democracy. The City demands that “Greater Northridge” comply with the ordinances that they have established for certification even though the original Charter language appears to contravene them. The Board of Neighborhood Commissioners also seems to ignore many of the ordinance requirements themselves.
The restructure of the City’s Planning Department to allow for seven local Area Planning Commissions appears to be quite successful. This success is derived by the authority that is vested in them. By allowing the APCs specific local control over certain land use and planning matters, there is a presumption that fairness has entered that planning system and the local populace has voice in its actions.
In regards to the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, they are crippled from the starting gate. The “advisory” qualifier condemns them to a superfluous status. The Department Managers and Commissioners believe in the Neighborhood Councils, they just do not know how to make them work.
Who would listen to the NCs? With no responsibility, no money, no collective voice, no power to do anything, they stand as a monument to the avarice of those in power and are not prepared to give any of it up.
The failure of the City to provide an avenue for local neighborhood empowerment is not necessarily dead. But until such time that the City is prepared to confer some authority to the level of Neighborhood Councils, there is really no reason for its being and the efforts of hundreds of City employees and thousands of its residents will be for naught. to index
Appendix I Charter Language For DONE
Appendix II Enabling Ordinance For DONE
Appendix III City Wide DONE Plan
Appendix IV “Greater” Northridge Community NC Bylaws
Appendix V City Wide Neighborhood Council Map
Appendix
VI Northridge Area
N
Appendix VII Old Northridge NC Arthaus
|
|
|
Epstein, Matt, South Valley Area Planning Commissioner, November 15, 2001
Fiedler, Bobbi, Former United States Congresswoman, June 14, 2002
Fleming, David, Ethics Commission, City of Los Angeles, January 29, 2002
Gaines, Fred, Chairman, Valley Industry and Commerce Association, January 16, 2002
Grobstein, Michael, Commissioner, South Valley Area Planning Commission, City of Los Angeles, April 24, 2002
Hertzberg, Robert, Speaker Emeritus, California State Assembly, March 1, 2002
Keller, Kevin, Planning Deputy, City of Los Angeles, April 25, 2002
Larson, Don, "Kapuna", Old Northridge Neighborhood Council, May 16, 2002 and June 11, 2002
Lucente, Tony, Commissioner, Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, City of Los Angeles, December 1, 2001
Nelson, Greg, General Manager, Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, City of Los Angeles, May 23, 2002
Peterson, Paul, Director, Taubman Center For State and Local Govt., Harvard University, October 25, 2001
Picus, Joy Former Los Angeles City Councilwoman, June 14, 2002
Prince, Walter, President, Northridge Community Council, April 15, 2002 and May 14, 2002
Shabsis, Eric, Former Political Director, Andrei Cheney for Assembly, January 11, 2002
City Planning Commission Meeting, April 11, 2002
Department of Neighborhood Empowerment Meeting, City of Los Angeles, March 19, 2002
Historic Preservation Overlay Zone Board Meeting, City of Los Angeles, April 18, 2002
Los Angeles Area Chambers of Commerce Debate on Secession, November 15, 2001
Los Angeles Redistricting Commission Hearing, December 19, 2001
Northridge Community Council Meeting, April 17, 2002
Parcel Map Hearing, City of Los Angeles, April 25, 2002
Planning Review Board, Ventura Blvd. Specific Plan, City of Los Angeles, May 7, 2002
South Valley Area Planning Commission Meeting, April 25, 2002
Streetscape Plan Hearing, City of Los Angeles, May 23, 2002
Cardenas, Jose, “Artists Colony, Neighborhood at Odds Over New Local Councils”, Los Angeles Times, October 21, 2001
Chien, Ginny, “Art History Is Moving to the Suburbs”, Los Angeles Times Magazine, April 21, 2002
Editor, “Power to the People”, Los Angeles Daily News, January 24, 2002
Edwards, Holly, “Planning Shuffle Stirs Ire”, Los Angeles Daily News, February 2, 2002
Edwards, Mary, “We Must Take Special Care So Special Interests Don’t Hijack Councils”, Los Angeles Daily News, January 28, 2002
Feuer, Mike, “Let’s Accent the Positives on Retaining the Valley in L.A.”, Los Angeles Times, February 22, 2002
Haefele, Marc, “Commissars in the ‘Hood, L.A. Weekly, June 5, 1998
Hahn, James K., “Councils are changing the face of democracy”, Los Angeles Daily News, April 11, 2002
Kayden, Xandra, “No More Reform, Please”, Los Angeles Times, June 16, 2002
McGreevy, Patrick, “Few Neighborhoods Request Councils, Los Angeles Times, November 12, 2002
McGreevy, Patrick, “Hertzberg to Pursue Peace in the Valley”, Los Angeles Times, January 14, 2002
McGreevy, Patrick, “Political Map Redrawn for Independent Valley, Los Angeles Times, January 19, 2002
Murray, Bobbi, Voices in the Hood: Not Easy Getting City Hall’s Attention, L.A. Weekly, July 28, 2000
Schockman, H. Eric,”L.A. boroughs plan is a viable way to go”, Los Angeles Daily News, June 16, 2002
Sheppard, Harrison, Valley’s Historic Rift, Secession sentiment a constant presence”, Los Angeles Daily News, May 12, 2002
Sonenshein, Raphael, “L.A.’s a Step Away From a Borough Plan”, Los Angeles Times, May 24, 2002
Stewart, Jill, “Fair Play”, New Times Los Angeles, June 10, 1999
Waldie, D.J., “The Dark Side of Good Government”, Los Angeles Times, February 17, 2002
City of Los Angeles, Board of Neighborhood Commissioners, “Plan for a Citywide System of Neighborhood Councils”, December 14, 2000
City of Los Angeles, New City Charter, Article IX, Approved June 8, 1999
City of Los Angeles, Ordinance 174006
City of Los Angeles Proposed Old Northridge Community Council Neighborhood Council Certification Application, File Number 01-013, Ratified March 19, 2002
Davis, Mike, “City of Ecology”, Vantage Press, 1999
Davis, Mike, “City of Quartz”, Vantage Press, 1992
Fischel, William A., “Homevoter Hypothesis: How Home Values Influence Local Government Taxation, School Finance and Land-Use Policies”, Working Paper, March 2000
Fischel, William A., “Why Are There NIBMYs?", Land Economics”, January 2000
Fischel, William A. Fischel, “Public Goods and Property Rights: Public Goods, Economics and Law of Property Rights conference, May 15, 2000
Hertzberg, Robert, “Recapturing the Vibrancy of Los Angeles”, June 2002
Howell, Anne V., History and Description: Los Angeles City Government (1781-1998), Revised June 1998
Howell, Anne V., City Planning Department, Los Angeles: Description and Programs, Revised June 1998
Husock, Howard, “Let’s Break up the Big Cities”, City Journal, Winter 1998
Kotkin, Joel, “Older Suburbs: Crabgrass Slums or Urban Frontiers, RPPI, October 2001
Northridge Community Council Bylaws Adopted and Amended, September 19, 2001
Northridge Community Council Bylaws Proposed Changes, April 17, 2002
Old Northridge Community Council Application Form, November 8, 2001
Old Northridge Community Council By Laws, March 25, 2002
Scott, Robert L., Editor, “Rightsizing Local & Regional Government: Methods and Models for Representative Local Governance”, Economic Alliance of the San Fernando Valley, February 2001
Shabsis, Eric L., “Keeping Los Angeles Together: Alternatives to San Fernando Valley Secession”, Kennedy School of Government, April 1999
Schockman, H. Eric, Editor, Rethinking Los Angeles, Sage Pub., 1996
Starr, Kevin, A Borough System for Los Angeles, Transcript of Bollen-Rice Lecture Series, UCLA, May 7, 2002
Tiebout, Charles M., A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures, Journal of Political Economy, 1956
Vartanian, Martin, Web Editing for this Study, June 2002
[1] History & Description: Los Angeles City Govt., revised 1998
[3] Charles Tiebout, Pure Theory of Local Expenditures, 1956
4] Joel Kotkin “Older Suburbs: Crabgrass Slums or Urban Frontier” RPPI, Oct. 2001
[5] Mike Davis, City of Quartz, 1992
[6] History & Description, Los Angeles City Government June 1998
[7] Los Angeles Daily News Research, 2002
[8] Eric Shabsis, Keeping Los Angeles Together, April 1999
[9] H. Eric Schockman, “Is Los Angeles Governable?”, Rethinking Los Angeles Ch.5, 1996
[10] Interview with Matt Epstein, former APC Commissioner, 2001
[11] Interview with Michael Grobstein, April 2002
[12] Interview with Fred Gaines, Jan 2002
[13] Robert Hertzberg, “Recapturing the Vibrancy of Los Angeles”, June 2002
[14] Xandra Kayden, “No More Reform, Please” Los Angeles Times, June 2002
[15] Interview with David Fleming, Jan 2002
[16]Interview with Robert Hertzberg, Mar 2002
[17] H. Eric Schockman, “L.A. boroughs plan is a viable way to go” Daily News June 2002
[18] Interviews with Don Larson, 2002
[19]Interviews with Walter Prince
[20] Interview with Walter Prince
[21] Interview with Tony Lucente, City Commissioner Dec 2001
[22] Interview with Walter Prince, April 2002
23] Interviews with Greg Nelson 2002
[24] Interview with Bobbi Fiedler, June 2002
[25] Interview with Don Larson
