were employed for at least twelve months;Part of a common site for Neighborhood Councils and Homeowners groups of the San Fernando Valley and information concerning the Valley issues Information about the November 5, 2002 election
A joint project of Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy and UCLA Center for Labor Research and Education
Full report in original format
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
Section One Introduction
Section Two: A Closer Look at Poverty:
Section Three: Charter vs. General Law Cities:
Section Four: Lost in Transition? (Part I): The major Los Angeles
City ordinances protecting low-income workers and residents, and what
will happen to them upon a new city’s incorporation.
The Living Wage
Service Contractor Worker Retention
Equal Benefits
Contractor Responsibility
Rent Stabilization
Code Enforcement
The Fate of City Ordinances Under Secession
Section Five: Lost in Transition? (Part II): The impact of
tightened restrictions on municipal funding; the new cities’ ability
to finance services; and imperiled city programs that serve low- and
fixed-income residents.
Financing City Services Under Secession
Endangered City Programs
Seniors and the Disabled
Social and Health Services
Housing and Homeless Services
Youth
Redevelopment Under Secession
Section Six: A Good Job Is Hard to Find:
In the second largest city in the country, with more than one-fifth of its population living in poverty, Los Angeles City government has long recognized its responsibility to provide a baseline level of economic security for its residents. The city has enacted numerous ordinances and programs aimed at fighting poverty and protecting low-income workers. Some ordinances use the city’s regulatory power toward those ends, while others move policy through the city’s billions of dollars in annual spending. Following are some of the most critical city ordinances that provide protections for low-income workers and residents—laws and programs that would expire in the new cities under secession. To index
In 1997, Los Angeles enacted its living wage law. {20} Recognizing that federal and state minimum wage levels are insufficient to keep working families out of poverty, Los Angeles mandated that city employees, as well as workers of employers receiving large city contracts and financial assistance, be paid a "living wage" substantially higher than existing minimum wage levels. The city’s Living Wage Ordinance expresses the principles that full-time workers shouldn’t be living in poverty, and that city taxpayers shouldn’t be funding poverty-level wages.
Los Angeles’ Living Wage Ordinance currently requires that covered employees be paid $9.52 per hour if they do not receive health benefits, and $8.27 per hour if they do. The ordinance also requires that covered workers be given at least twelve compensated days off per year for sick leave, and ten days of unpaid leave to care for sick family members. The law’s intention is to benefit businesses as well as workers, by helping employers attract and retain workers and maintain a healthy workforce. To index
Clara Moreno was struggling to make ends meet on minimum wage when the city’s Living Wage Ordinance went into effect at Castle Park, the city-owned miniature golf course where she works as a cashier. Moreno, who now makes $9.52 per hour, was able to buy a car last spring, a purchase that has meant more time with her two daughters, ages 10 and 12, and less time commuting. The 35-year-old single mother says she used to wait as long as an hour for the bus that takes her to her job in Sherman Oaks, time that is now spent helping her children with their homework or cooking them dinner at their Van Nuys home. Because she receives two weeks of paid vacation, instead of the one week of vacation she had before the ordinance went into effect over two years ago, she now has time to visit her family in Durango, Mexico, every year. "I like this job," says Moreno, who has worked at Castle Park for the past eight years. "Now that I make more money, I like it more." To index
Los Angeles has set up an effective administrative structure to implement the ordinance— affecting many aspects of the city’s contracting process—as well as a comprehensive enforcement structure. The city reviews payroll records and conducts field audits to ensure compliance. Employers that violate their living wage commitments incur substantial penalties, and individual workers have the right to bring legal actions to enforce the living wage law.
Through these mechanisms, the Living Wage Ordinance leverages the city’s millions of dollars of annual contracts and grants into a powerful poverty-fighting force, guaranteeing over 12,000 workers a living wage. {21} And because of the inclusion of municipally funded economic development projects in the city’s living wage policies, an additional 5,000 workers will be covered in the next 3-5 years, greatly improving their families’ standard of living. To index
In 1996, Los Angeles adopted its Service Contractor Worker Retention Ordinance, establishing crucial job protections for low-income workers employed on city-funded projects. {22} The ordinance requires that a successor city contractor (taking over a city service contract from another business) retain low-income workers who:
were employed for at least twelve months;
work primarily on city-related work; and
are paid less than $15
per hour.
The ordinance requires the new contractor to retain the long-term workers for a 90-day period, except when an individual employee provides just cause for termination. In addition to contractors, the ordinance covers recipients of financial assistance from the city, such as grantees and beneficiaries of tax credits.
The Worker Retention Ordinance aims to improve performance on city contracts by ensuring a stable workforce. It was also implemented to reduce the likelihood of labor disputes, preserving continuity of city services. Most importantly, however, the ordinance protects low-income workers from sudden unemployment based on factors beyond their control, creating a measure of financial stability for vulnerable workers and their families. To index
In 2000, Los Angeles adopted its Equal Benefits Ordinance, which forbids city contractors from discriminating against employees with domestic partners when providing employee benefits. {23} The law requires that whenever a contractor provides benefits related to employees’ spouses, the contractor must provide similar benefits related to employees’ domestic partners.
To qualify for the protection of the ordinance, workers must have formally registered their domestic partnership status, which generally requires the partners to have committed to financial interdependence. The ordinance requires that nondiscrimination language be part of every city contract worth over $5,000. The City Administrative Officer enforces the Equal Benefits Ordinance, working in conjunction with city departments that award contracts. The protection of the ordinance applies to all of a contractor’s employees within Los Angeles, and to those located outside Los Angeles but working on the city contract.
The Equal Benefits Ordinance prevents discrimination against workers who are in serious, committed relationships, but who have chosen not to marry or, as is more common, cannot legally do so. Los Angeles has joined San Francisco and other cities in ensuring that city dollars do not subsidize discrimination in employee benefits. Low-income workers are always the most vulnerable to employer discrimination, and they are also in greatest need of employee benefits, such as health insurance. To index
Los Angeles enacted its Contractor Responsibility Program in 2000. {24} The program requires the city to determine whether prospective contractors are responsible prior to awarding a contract. The ordinance’s definition of "responsible" includes compliance with laws related to worker health and safety, labor organizing, and other employee protections. In this way, Los Angeles has incorporated into its contracting process the entire range of laws protecting workers. Those laws are of particular importance to low-income workers, who are the most vulnerable to discrimination and exploitation by employers.
Los Angeles has developed a structured system for administration of this program. Under penalty of perjury, bidders must provide information relevant to the responsibility review. Contractor information is posted on the internet for 14 days, during which time the public can bring appropriate information to the city’s attention. A contract cannot be awarded to any business for which a responsibility investigation is underway. After a review process that safeguards affected businesses, irresponsible contractors can be designated as such by the city, and can be debarred from receipt of city contracts for up to five years.
By reviewing compliance with worker protection laws during the contracting process, Los Angeles makes every effort to ensure that tax dollars will not subsidize exploitation of workers and illegal working conditions. To index
In 1979, Los Angeles enacted its Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO). {25} The RSO is an attempt to safeguard tenants from excessive rent increases, while allowing landlords to make a reasonable return on their investments.
Recognizing the economic hardship and social disruption that excessive rent increases can cause, the RSO strictly limits rent increases on properties built before 1979. The ordinance explicitly emphasizes the severe hardship that rent increases can inflict on senior citizens and low-income households.
In addition to limiting rent increases, the RSO restricts the grounds on which landlords can evict tenants, and requires landlords to pay a certain amount of interest on security deposits. The RSO also requires landlords to pay relocation assistance to tenants lawfully evicted for certain reasons, such as the desire of the landlord to rent the unit to a family member, or to remove the unit from the rental market. Tenants who attempt to enforce those laws are protected from retaliation by landlords. To index
Rent control provides an important source of financial security for residents in the Valley and Hollywood. Nearly one-third of the 1.4 million tenants who live in rent-controlled units citywide live in the two proposed secession areas. An estimated 44% of Hollywood residents (over 80,000 tenants) and 25% of Valley residents (over 333,000 tenants) live in rentcontrolled units. To index
Administration and enforcement of the RSO is extremely complex. The Los Angeles Housing Department, in conjunction with a seven-member Rent Adjustment Commission, is charged with those functions. Together, the administrative bodies hold hearings and appeals on the many complex adjustments to the allowable rents for particular properties, determine which rental properties in the city are covered by the RSO, resolve disputes about evictions and security deposits, and register and track rental properties throughout the city. Those functions require a substantial staff, many hearing officers, and regular commission meetings.
Because of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance and the system that administers it, tenants in rent-protected properties can make financial decisions with the knowledge that any rent increases will be reasonable, and that they will only be evicted for a good reason. To index
Los Angeles has developed several innovative programs that help ensure safe and healthy residences for renters. Each of those programs assists in the city’s enforcement of the Housing Code, the Building Code, and various other laws aimed at ensuring safe and habitable residences. City programs include the following:
The Systematic Code Enforcement Program: A
Los Angeles ordinance requires the city’s Housing Department to inspect
each multi-unit rental property at least once every three years. {26}
The city enacted this requirement in 1999 to beef up its inspection
practices. Over the past two years, the city has inspected more than
280,000 rental units through this program. {27} More than 94,000
units that have undergone inspections are located in the Valley secession
area, and nearly 27,000 inspected units are located in Hollywood. {28}
Rent Escrow Account Program and Rent Reduction
Orders: Another Los Angeles ordinance allows tenants to pay some or all
of their rent to the city rather than to their landlord when the landlord
has failed to address violations of health or safety laws. {29}
The
rent money is then held in escrow until complaints are resolved. In
addition, once a property is brought into the Rent Escrow Account Program,
the city can order a reduction in the amount of rent owed by tenants, in
proportion with the severity of the illegal conditions. The programs act as
a powerful incentive to landlords to maintain their properties in a safe
condition.
Habitability Enforcement Program: Los Angeles has established a comprehensive system for investigation of tenant complaints regarding safety of rental units. {30} Tenants can submit complaints by phone, in person, or through the internet. The city's telephone complaint program receives more than one thousand calls per day. {31} While Los Angeles forbids landlords from retaliating against tenants who lodge complaints, the city will nonetheless investigate complaints that are submitted anonymously. The Housing Department attempts to investigate all tenant complaints within 72 hours. Almost 20 percent of tenant complaints in Los Angeles come from the Valley, and almost 10 percent come from Hollywood.
Rental Units That Have Undergone Systematic Code Enforcement Inspections Between July 2000 and 2002: Percentage by Location
Compliance Deadlines and Enforcement Techniques: Whether
an investigation arose out of the Systematic Code Enforcement Program or a
tenant complaint, landlords will be given a deadline to address any
problems. Los Angeles law gives landlords only 48 hours to fix conditions
that "pose a present, imminent, extreme and immediate hazard or
danger to life or limb, health or safety." {32} Landlords
have 14 days to address conditions that, while not posing an extreme or
immediate hazard, nonetheless present "serious risk to the health or
safety of occupants or the public." {33} Other code
violations must be addressed within 30 days, a deadline that may be
extended if the landlord can show significant progress toward fixing the
problem. {34}
Once a code enforcement order is entered against a landlord, the property’s tenants fall under the eviction and rent increase protections of the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance, even if the property was built after 1979. {35} Landlords that fail to address problems within the deadlines may have their property placed in the Rent Escrow Account Program and have their rental income reducing according to the severity of the violation. Serious violators may also face criminal charges and civil penalties under Los Angeles law. The city collects over $10 million per year in code enforcement fees, almost 40 percent of which comes from the secession areas.
The above aggressive and creative city programs make up a comprehensive system for enforcement of health and safety codes in rental properties. Millions of low- and middle-income renters benefit from those programs, both because of affirmative enforcement actions taken by the city, and because of the deterrent effect of the system. To index
Under secession, Los Angeles City ordinances will remain in effect for no more than 120 days following a new city’s incorporation (which would occur on July 1, 2003). After that time, the new city will fall under the state’s general laws, and the ordinances enacted by the City of Los Angeles to protect its residents and workers will expire.
Worse, the two secession areas may not be able to re-enact Los Angeles’ poverty-fighting measures. Because the new cities would be general law cities, they would face serious legal obstacles in attempting to adopt ordinances similar to those of Los Angeles. The new cities would be subject to the complex web of state laws governing every aspect of their contracting processes, zoning codes, code enforcement procedures, and so forth. Although many of the relevant legal issues have not been tested in court, some attorneys have questioned whether general law cities have the power to duplicate the city’s anti-poverty programs.
For example, the City of Oxnard, a general law city, is currently debating whether it has the power to adopt all aspects of a living wage law patterned after that of Los Angeles. The City Attorney has publicly questioned whether the state Labor Code permits Oxnard to enact certain provisions that Los Angeles treats as integral to its living wage law. Whether a living wage law like that of Los Angeles is consistent with the state Public Contract Code is likewise undetermined.
In fact, California’s Public Contract Code might well prohibit the new general law cities from duplicating several of Los Angeles’ ordinances relating to city contracts: the Service Contractor Worker Retention, Equal Benefits, and Contractor Responsibility programs. The "lowest responsible bidder" provisions of state law have in the past been held to prohibit similar contracting programs aimed at advancing social goals. Although Los Angeles’ programs haven’t been tested under the state’s general law, one thing is clear: the legal problems are potentially prohibitive.
Another open legal question is whether Los Angeles’ slate of code enforcement programs comports with state law. Los Angeles’ power as a charter city gives it flexibility in this area, which it has used to great advantage. The panoply of code enforcement programs described above are all creative and effective uses of the city’s broad legal powers, aimed at ensuring safe and habitable rental units.
State law, however, may not permit the new cities to duplicate Los Angeles’ systems. The Rent Escrow Account Program, as well as the practice of orders reducing rents based on substandard conditions, may not be options for general law cities. The new cities would have to fight off arguments that they lack the legislative authority to enact those programs, and that the programs are preempted by existing state laws.
Even if the new cities were found to have the ability to adopt those various poverty-fighting ordinances, there is no guarantee that there would be the political will to do so—or to do so in short order. Many of Los Angeles’ ordinances were enacted after years of community organizing and advocacy efforts, which garnered the support of the public and elected officials after assiduously hammering out the language of the ordinances. Similar years of effort await advocates and legislators in the secession areas.
So, for example, the fledgling cities might have the intention of passing living wage policies, but are unlikely to do so promptly. Opposition from the business community has meant that movements to establish living wage policies in large cities take years to build. Worker advocates in Los Angeles won the battle after a multi-year campaign that was intensive and expensive. Considering the myriad of pressing issues with which new city councils in the secession areas would be faced, it is unlikely that reenacting those protections for low-income workers will be a high priority for the new cities. Even if the process was successful, however, and a living wage ordinance was adopted, it would take years before the new cities could approach the expertise Los Angeles has developed in administration and enforcement of its ordinance. Los Angeles has fine-tuned its administration over the years, changing its designated enforcement agency, amending its ordinance, and adapting regulations, forms, and processes.
Similarly, rent-control activists have faced bitter and well-funded opposition by property owners and their advocates in elected office. Although candidates for public office in Hollywood and the Valley, under considerable pressure by tenants’ rights groups, have recently declared support for rent-control programs, many of the secession movement’s leaders have long histories of supporting laws that limit renter protections and increase profit for apartment owners. And despite their candidates’ stated support, there is no guarantee that the new cities would enact rent control laws that measure up to Los Angeles’ standards.
In sum, serious obstacles—legal, political, and practical—would face the new cities in attempting to re-enact Los Angeles’ poverty-fighting ordinances. To the extent that the new cities have the legal ability to do so, they may not have the will. And they certainly will not have the experience Los Angeles does in operating these complex programs. Expiration of Los Angeles’ anti-poverty ordinances would create significant hardship for low- and fixed-income residents of the secession areas, as hard-won, sophisticated protections would lapse—their replacement a distant and uncertain possibility. To index
Jim Malinda has been living in the same two-bedroom, rent-controlled apartment in the heart of Hollywood for some 35 years, soon after he left a firefighting job in the city of New Orleans to try to make a living in the entertainment industry. Now 60 and retired on a Screen Actors Guild pension, Malinda spends a good deal of time fixing up his apartment and helping with maintenance on the 50-yearold, eight-unit building. “I like where I live,” says Malinda. “It's very comfortable. I've spent a lot of money on this apartment to keep it up, to make sure that it was livable and clean. I don't ask the landlord for anything.” Nonetheless, the landlord, with whom he has a good relationship, tried to evict him three years ago in order to fix up the building and increase rents. The landlord had first offered the building's tenants money to move. All but Malinda acquiesced. When the landlord took him to court, the judge immediately dismissed the case. Malinda is grateful for the evictions and rent protections provided by the City of Los Angeles. “I'm appreciative of rent control. Without it, I would lose this place.” To index
Redevelopment Under Secession
Community redevelopment agencies are independent legal entities, with special legal authority to assist in the redevelopment of "blighted" urban areas. The agencies are funded primarily through "incremental" property taxes, a portion of the property taxes collected in a redevelopment area following the date of the project’s adoption.
Los Angeles established its Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) in 1948. Since then, it has established 33 redevelopment areas around the city, and has helped spur economic development in hundreds of individual projects.
Redevelopment can be a powerful tool for revitalization of distressed neighborhoods—but it can also be a driving force in gentrification, disrupt communities, and distort taxation systems. Because of those potential negative effects, the state legislature has placed numerous safeguards in the state redevelopment law, such as affordable housing requirements and the responsibility to relocate displaced residents.
Los Angeles’ CRA has supplemented state law with many practices encouraging fairness to the residents and communities affected by redevelopment. While not yet a formal agency policy, the CRA currently asks that developers and their contractors pay living wages to employees, and that projects target jobs to local residents.
Most notably, the CRA has been in the forefront of a new practice: encouraging developers and community groups to negotiate community benefits agreements. Those agreements spell out the community benefits a project will contribute, above and beyond those the law requires. A community benefits agreement might provide, for example, that the developer will incorporate a child care center into the project, make the project more environmentally friendly, or ensure that all employers (and not just the developer) in the project pay living wages.
The CRA recently approved the NoHo Commons redevelopment project, which incorporated a comprehensive community benefits agreement. The 16.7-acre development project located in North Hollywood includes residential, retail, and office space. It will receive more than $31 million in public subsidies and loans. The project’s community benefits agreement was signed in 2001 by the developer and by the Valley Jobs Coalition, a coalition of community groups led during negotiations by LAANE. The agreement includes a customized job training program, expanded living wage and local hiring commitments by the developer, and dedication of space for a child care center. Those benefits help make the project an excellent example of community-friendly redevelopment.
If the secession initiatives pass, the new cities would have to establish their own - redevelopment agencies. The CRA’s years of experience would no longer be available to the secession areas, and current negotiations over new redevelopment projects would likely be disrupted. The new redevelopment agencies would have new board members and staff, and thus new priorities. Therefore, there is a distinct threat that the new agencies will place less emphasis on ensuring fairness for workers and communities in redevelopment project areas than does the City of Los Angeles. To index
In 1978, California voters passed Proposition 13, the "taxpayer revolt" which sharply restricted local governments’ ability to raise property taxes, the bread and butter of local government finance. The ballot measure also specified that any local tax imposed to pay for specific governmental programs—a "special tax"—must be approved by two-thirds of the voters. {36}
Overnight, Prop. 13 reduced local governments’ property tax revenues by approximately $6.1 billion. {37} It was reinforced by anti-tax Propositions 62 (1986) and 218 (1996), closing any loopholes for local governments—whether under general or charter law—seeking to raise revenues through increased taxes or property-related fees, assessments or charges. To index
"Proposition 13 was only the beginning of a longer-term process of increasing fiscal pressure. Local governments have been squeezed in a tightening fiscal vise, constrained by voter initiatives on the one hand and by the state and federal governments on the other." Silva and Barbour, The State-Local Fiscal Relationship in California , 1999 {38} To index
While California cities juggled their resources and looked to find alternate means of financing services, they received an even worse blow by President Ronald Reagan’s policy of federal devolution, which caused a precipitous decline in federal funding for municipal programs. {39} At the same time, the cities’ problems with their fiscal authority were exacerbated by other state ballot measures and actions taken by the legislature to constrain not just how local governments raise revenues but also how they use them.
Los Angeles, like cities across the state, was forced into looking for other sources to fund programs, including the creation of redevelopment agencies (see page 18) and big-box retail developments that bring in sales tax revenues. Both methods have often conflicted with community desires by making potential revenue growth the driving force of a city’s land-use decisions, rather than housing, industry, environmental, recreational, or schooling needs. The city also increasingly came to rely on licenses, permits, fees and fines, as well as "debt financing." By the late 1990s, twenty years after the passage of Prop. 13, "non-essential" municipal services—libraries, cultural centers and programs, parks and recreation, and public works programs—had been significantly reduced, fueling voter discontent. {40} To index
There is never enough money in municipal government. In the shadow of Proposition 13 and subsequent anti-tax measures, need is the continuum. And yet despite severe revenue are not the result of inadequate represent constraints, Los Angeles City government controlled for most of the past 30 years by a progressive council and mayor, is undoubtedly responsive to the issues of its low- and fixed- income populace The city funds a wide gamut of social service and job programs that promote the well-being of the city’s disadvantaged, from free meals and domestic violence services, to summer youth and jobs programs, to the modest humanity of day laborer sites. To index
"The reality is that most of the complaints of inadequate services are not the result of inadequate representation; they are the product of insufficient money." — Erwin Chemerinsky, Commentary,Los Angeles Times; August 7, 2002 To index
Secession raises important questions about which city programs will be preserved for residents in the San Fernando Valley and Hollywood, not just because of potential changes in policy decision making but also because of financial resources. Will the new cities have the money and the financial flexibility to keep these programs going?
"Fiscal viability" is a determining legal factor in whether an area can secede from a city or county’s jurisdiction. State law requires that the proposed city be expected to have revenues sufficient to provide public services and facilities and a reasonable reserve during the three fiscal years following incorporation. {41} The process does not determine the level or breadth of services, however. And in the end, the analysis involves a lot of guess work about which and how much revenues will be available, and how much services and administration will cost. Even budgeting with emergency reserves (which in the two secession proposals are quite small; state law does not determine the level required), the fiscal viability analyses for Hollywood and the Valley are contingent on everything going right, including the economy. (Two years ago, no one would have guessed that the state budget, fattened by a record $12 billion surplus, would now be sinking into a record $24 billion deficit.) The size of the proposed secession areas’ estimated reserves suggest that they expect no serious or protracted litigation, no natural or manmade disasters, and no unforeseen needs that would require a substantial outlay of resources.
In none of the numerous documents analyzing the viability of the Valley and Hollywood as independent cities is there a plan laying out exactly what services the new cities will offer, at what level they will offer them, how they will administer them, and how they will fund them. None of the fiscal analyses provides a vision of how the administration of municipal services will pass from the City of Los Angeles to the new cities. And yet a driving force for secession is that the new cities will allegedly offer improved services.
For example, Hollywood’s preliminary fiscal analysis, funded by secession activists, had achieved financial viability by eliminating the commissions on Children, Youth and their Families and the Status of Women, as well as the departments of Aging, Sanitation, Street Lighting, Disability,Emergency Preparedness, Environmental Affairs, Transportation, Neighborhood Empowerment (overseeing the neighborhood councils, which would be disbanded in a general law city) and—ironically, in the "Entertainment Capitol"—Cultural Affairs. In the Final Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Hollywood secession proposal, funded by the Local Agency Formation Commission (the regulatory agency deciding its viability), it was determined that the new city would have to impose $10 million in service reductions to offset revenue losses that occurred as a result of the area’s independence. "[T]he new city may immediately face an operating deficit that will require cost reductions in order that it can achieve a reasonable level of reserves," warn the analysts. The new city was expected to begin operations with just 11 staff members to perform administrative functions, monitor the provision of contract and in-house services (most services would continue to be supplied by the City of Los Angeles for a not-yet-determined period), support its elected officials, and address the needs of Hollywood’s 184,000 residents. Similarly, the new Valley city would begin with 19 staff members to serve 1.35 million residents. There were no substantive allowances or additional resources to pay for the development of either city’s new municipal structure, including facilities, equipment, and professional and administrative support costs. And the new cities—functioning under the state’s general law codes—would have even greater restrictions on their revenue-raising abilities than the city currently has under its charter authority. {42} To index
This report provides examples of some of the diverse city programs that may be lost to or reduced for the lower-income residents of the Valley or Hollywood if the areas break off. The list is by no means exhaustive. The programs were chosen based on their funding sources and the threat to their continuation. When budgets are tight or in any way restricted, social services in particular—primarily those that assist the most disenfranchised and disadvantaged constituents—are often the first programs to be cut.
The following programs are funded either through the city’s own General Fund (GF) revenues, which means that the city has elected to pay for the services, or through the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) entitlement grants that the city applies for and is awarded based on criteria such as population size, poverty, housing needs, and other demographic indicators. City programs funded through HUD grants were chosen because HUD provides the main source of funding for municipal programs that specifically target low-income residents. The HUD grants include:
"Few other cities in the state have lobbying resources equal to those of the City of Los Angeles." — Claremont Research Institute, Coping with Loss of Fiscal Autonomy; 1998. To index
Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG)—the main source of federal funding for affordable housing and social
service programs.
Housing Opportunities for
People with HIV/AIDS (HOPWA)—a grant program which is awarded to the largest
city in an eligible county. Thus, a new Hollywood or Valley city would have to
apply through the City of Los Angeles funding process.
Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG)—funding
for homeless services and prevention, and for the rehabilitation or conversion
of buildings into homeless shelters.
Home Investments Partnership Act
(HOME)—provides funds to expand the supply of decent, safe, sanitary and
affordable housing, with the primary focus on rental housing.
NOTE: Funding levels below are rounded-off citywide figures for fiscal year 2002-03. To index
Adult Day Support Centers (ADSC): Offer a planned program that includes a variety of health, social, and support services in a protective setting during daytime hours. (There are five ADSCs located in the Valley and one in the Hollywood area.) Services include: social and recreational activities, case management, personal care, housekeeping, transportation, consumer and legal services, information on and links to available services and programs, and chore services (including cooking and shopping). ADSC is a community-based service that is designed to meet the individual needs of older adults who have physical, emotional, or mental impairments, and who require assistance and supervision. The program also provides respite for caregivers of older frail adults. Services are for: (1) persons who require assistance with personal activities of daily living activities; and (2) persons who may live independently, at home with a care provider, in a community care facility or in a health facility, but do not require a medical level of care during the day. funding: General Fund: $1.1 million; CDBG: $1.5 million
Home Delivered Meals for Seniors: Supplies approximately 843,000 home-delivered meals to seniors per year. The city augments funds primarily provided by the Older Americans Act.0 funding: General Fund: $1.6 million; Older Americans Act:$3 million; USDA: $600,000
Home Secure Program: Installs security and safety devices in the homes or apartments of the disabled and seniors and other eligible recipients. funding: CDBG: $600,000
Kinship Care: Provides social and support services to assist older individuals who are raising relative children. Services target seniors with the greatest economic and social needs, especially low-income minorities. Services include counseling and support groups, information referral, and case management. funding: CDBG: $175,000
For Los Angeles City programs funded through entitlement grants, a number of questions arise in regard to the new cities’ ability to provide services for low-income residents:
1. The application process for federal funds such as the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) is complex, requiring voluminous paperwork, expertise (including legal and financial) and administrative resources. Assuming the new cities even apply for the grants, would they do so quickly enough to maintain a continuity of services?
2. Would the new cities have the political clout to garner federal (and state) funds for their human services delivery system, and would the funds be equal to what the areas now receive?
3. CDBG funding guidelines, for example, do not require that any of the grant is spent on social services {43}, nor do they specify how much funding should be allocated to housing needs rather than "economic development" (which can be used to gentrify an area rather than provide resources that are specifically targeted toward low-income communities or residents). In the city’s 2002-03 Consolidated Plan, which outlines how the HUD entitlement grants are spent, of $108 million in total CDBG funds, the city is spending nearly $37 million on social services programs, and $25 million on housing and related programs {44}. What is the likelihood that elected officials in the new cities would make similar decisions to the City of Los Angeles about the expenditures of grants for social services and housing that meet the needs of their low- and fixed-income residents?
4. Would the new cities not only have the administrative capacity— including oversight—but the infrastructure to ensure the best uses of federal (and state) grants to serve needy residents?
Legal Services: Are available citywide to seniors 55 years of age and older with the greatest economic or social need. The legal services provided are geared toward public entitlement, housing-related law, legal aid, landlord/tenant disputes, government benefits, health law, consumer debt or protection, nursing home law, powers of attorney and other health issues, institutionalized advocacy and conservatorships, and wills. Appointments may be scheduled at any of the 16 multipurpose senior centers throughout the city. funding: CDBG: $281,000 To index
Day Laborer Sites and Services: Are found in four fixed hiring sites (including North Hollywood and Hollywood) where persons who participate in the casual labor force can congregate and be matched with potential employers seeking temporary workers. Also provide outreach and information services designed to bring the day laborers and employers to the site, coordinate with the businesses that attract the day laborers, and work with community members and organizations to address local issues and concerns related to the presence of day laborers. Basic amenities such as water, coffee, bread, sanitary facilities, a trailer are provided on-site with budgeted funds. funding: General Fund: $330,000; CDBG: $830,000
Domestic Violence Centers: Provide funding for services to battered women and their children, including counseling and assistance with housing, food, medical and legal matters. Additionally, the city provides financial assistance to nonprofit organizations to develop emergency and transitional shelter housing facilities for victims of domestic violence. funding: CDBG: $2.5 million
Family Development Networks: Offer one point of access for residents who need subsidized assistance in: family counseling; medical, mental or dental health services; child care and early childhood development services; mentoring and other programs for at-risk youth; immigration and naturalization counseling; consumer and credit counseling. The goal of the networks is to promote self-sufficiency through an integrated, seamless system of information and referral. funding: CDBG: $10.4 million
Fresh Foods Access Program (Community Gardens and Farmer’s Markets): Works to expand access to fresh produce and other goods for low- and very-lowincome persons. Also promotes the establishment of community gardens. funding: CDBG: $155,000
Los Angeles Free Clinic: The city helps support this community-based, nonprofit health and human services provider. The Free Clinic has three sites—one of which is based in Hollywood—that provide free legal, dental, mental health, medical, family planning and youth services. funding: General Fund: $100,000
Neighborhood Action Program: Is the city’s broad human-services delivery program provided by contracted community-based organizations throughout the city. Services include everything from child care to legal assistance, substance abuse treatment to counseling, cultural programs to computer skills training, literacy training to mentoring for at-risk youth, domestic violence services to HIV early intervention. funding: CDBG: $3.4 million
Pet Sterilization: Assists low-income animal owners, including seniors and the disabled, to sterilize their animals. The program also has a mobile spay and neuter clinic that travels the city providing free services.~funding: General Fund and Animal Spay and Neuter Trust Fund: $825,000
Valley Family Technology Center: Provides funding for bilingual technology project teaching low-income, limited English proficient children, their families and teachers about computers, the internet, and computer employment skills.~funding: General Fund: $50,000
Youth and Family Centers: Offer a comprehensive array of human services, either onsite or through referrals to local service providers. The eight centers are city-run and are located in high-need, economically disadvantaged communities, including Hollywood and Pacoima. Services include: family support and stabilization; housing assistance; coordination with the L.A. Bridges youth program; and employment referrals. ~funding: CDBG: $2.5 million To index
Affordable Housing Trust Fund: Established by mayor and city council in June 2000 to fund proposed affordable housing developments. Funds are used for the purpose of acquiring, developing, constructing and rehabilitating single-family and multi-family housing developments.With total resources of $53 million for fiscal year 2002-03, the trust fund’s goal is to reach a total of $100 million through annual budget increases. ~funding: General Fund: $15 million; CDBG: $5.5 million; Other Funds: $32.5 million
Fair Housing: Funds the Southern California Fair Housing Congress to provide public education and information, discrimination counseling, conciliation, referral and follow-up for fair housing compliance and redress. ~funding: General Fund: $50,000
Handyworker: Provides free minor home repairs available to low- or moderate-income homeowners who are senior citizens or physically disabled. Emergency repairs that directly affect the health and safety of occupants are also provided to other low- or moderate-income homeowners. ~funding: CDBG: $4.1 million
Homeless Services, Shelters and Access Centers: Provide the city’s homeless population with comprehensive assistance. Access centers (including North Hollywood and Hollywood) provide intervention, including food, clothes, sanitary facilities and other resources, and needs assessments and referrals. The Winter Shelter Program opens additional emergency beds during cold and wet weather; provides hotel vouchers for individuals and families for whom mass shelter is inappropriate. One-time only rental assistance may be granted to prevent homelessness due to unforeseen (and not continuing) expenses. Job placement and training services help homeless persons find and retain full-time employment by offering job hunting and case management services, bus fare, practice interviews, and appropriate interview clothing. Mobile services visit encampments to try to connect the homeless with available services. Finally, contracted community-based shelters offer temporary housing and case management and services to assist the homeless with housing, medical and other social service needs.~funding: CDBG and ESG: $5.5 million
Homeownership Assistance: Is designed to increase homeownership opportunities for low- and moderate income persons and first-time home buyers. The program provides a wide array of services and loan packages. ~funding: HOME: $9.4 million
Housing Opportunities for Persons with HIV/AIDS (HOPWA): Arranges funds to be leveraged with other funding sources for the acquisition, predevelopment, construction and permanent financing to meet the housing needs of low-income persons living with HIV/AIDS, and their families. Also provides up to 24 months of rental subsidy assistance for eligible individuals and their families; short-term rent, mortgage and utility assistance; and a wide range of supportive services, including counseling, food and emergency shelter vouchers, meal preparation and delivery, pet care, etc. ~funding: HOME and HOPWA: $12.9 million
Multi-family Rental Housing Program: Aims to revitalize neighborhoods, remove blight, and create affordable housing in the city. The program provides for the acquisition and rehabilitation of existing structures, and for the financing of new construction of multi-family housing. Housing units funded under this program require long-term affordability covenants. ~funding: CDBG: $10.6 million; HOME: $16.7 million
Neighborhood Preservation Program: Offers low interest home improvement rehabilitation loans to single-family homeowners with incomes at or below 80 percent of the County median income, and to apartment building owners whose units are occupied by low-income persons.. ~funding: CDBG: $6.7 million; HOME: $12.3 million
Targeted Neighborhood Initiative Home Improvement Grants: Focus resources of the public and private sector to revitalize twelve designated neighborhoods. ~funding: CDBG: $776,000 To index
Arts: The Cultural Affairs Department spends millions of General Fund and CDBG dollars in arts programs all over the city, such as at the Junior Arts Center in Hollywood and the Canoga Park Youth Arts Center, which have low-cost (or no-cost) arts instruction for children ages 5-17.
Additionally, Youth Arts and Education Grants are provided to organizations and individuals who lead cultural and art-based programs within low-income and at-risk communities around the city.~funding: General Fund: $104,000; CDBG: $80,000
Clean and Green Job Program: Provides funding for the Los Angeles Conservation Corps, which recruits junior and high school students to participate in citywide beautification projects.~funding: General Fund: $1.5 million; CDBG: $1 million
L.A.’s Best: Offers a safe and supervised after-school education, enrichment and recreation program for elementary school children ages 5-12 in schools throughout the city. Children receive, for example, nutrition, tutoring, and homework assistance, and participate in arts and sports activities. ~funding: CDBG: $2 million
L.A. Bridges: Targets middle school children and their families in an effort to prevent gang involvement through enrichment activities, including extended school, recreation and sports programs. Also offers an array of services designed to strengthen families, such as: counseling, mentoring, tutoring, parenting classes, employment opportunities and skills training. ~funding: General Fund: $10.8 million; Other Funds: $1.6 million
L.A. Kids: Provides free recreational opportunities for children ages 6-18 from low- to moderate- income families. Year-round sports academies and clinics, fine arts, and a mobile recreation program consisting of six vans that provide recreation activities at parks where there are no facilities or recreation staff. ~funding: CDBG: $1.55 million
Off-Track Youth Nutrition and Enrichment: Offers free nutrition, education and recreation programs for school-age children off-track from school. Drop-in program provides lunch and play in supervised setting each weekday from 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. ~funding: CDBG: $1.2 million
Summer Youth Employment: Provides minimum wage employment to youths ages 14-19 during non-school periods. An estimated 1,600 participants are placed in various city departments where they will receive training and work experience. ~funding: General Fund: $2 million
Youth Opportunities—Pacoima: Assists young people in the northeast San Fernando Valley to gain work skills, employment and career preparation. Last year, the city invested $500,000 in CDBG funds for start-up costs.~funding: Workforce Inv. Act: $400,000; Councilmember Alex Padilla’s office: $200,000
Zoo Camp: The Los Angeles Zoo provides 330 scholarships to low- to moderate-income children in inner-city neighborhoods. The week-long summer day camp educates children about nature, wildlife and the environment. ~funding: CDBG: $111,000 To index
The Water and Power War and It's Casualties
Los Angeles is a city cobbled together by a single asset: water. When in 1908 the city began work on the Los Angeles Aqueduct, plundering the Owens Valley for the rich runoff of Mount Whitney s snowmelt, the city had no source of water other than groundwater and the mercurial Los Angeles River.
Designed by the Irish-born engineer William Mulholland, the 233-mile aqueduct unleashed its cascade of water to the city of Los Angeles via a sluiceway into the San Fernando Valley on November 5, 1913. Sixteen months later, vast portions of the San Fernando Valley were annexed to the City of Los Angeles. ( Hollywood was annexed in 1910, also to gain access to the city s water supply. )
In this semi-arid landscape, water acquisition has again become a defining issue of cityhood. The provision of both water and power in the Valley and Hollywood under secession has become one of the most contentious points in the divorce settlements with the city. The DWP infrastructure was designed for an integrated city. It would require extensive study and investment to create two or three independent systems the cost of which would be borne by the seceding cities and which they could not shoulder. There is no consensus between secession proponents and the city about how the system would function if the DWP remains integrated. There are, however, threats of litigation on all sides, costly lawsuits that would be tied up in the courts for years and would drain municipal resources away from needed public services.
The implications of these battles bode ill for residents with limited or fixed incomes. LAFCO, the regulatory agency which decides on the viability of an area s secession proposal, indicated that, in order to raise revenues, a new city can charge Los Angeles a franchise fee to provide DWP services to its customers, while at the same time requiring that the agency charge them the same rates as L. A. City customers. ( The city disputes LAFCO s ability to require that DWP charge customers outside city boundaries the same rates as residents. ) Because the city would potentially incur a budget loss from such a franchise fee agreement, the DWP might be forced to raise rates for all of its customers. Also, under tightening revenue constraints, the city has increasingly relied on surplus DWP earnings to augment discretionary revenues. In 2001-02, the city transferred $ 181.4 million from the DWP to its General Fund 3.8% of total city revenues. The secession areas would not have access to those funds, leaving them with fewer discretionary dollars to provide services to their residents.
Community redevelopment agencies are independent legal entities, with special legal authority to assist in the redevelopment of "blighted" urban areas. The agencies are funded primarily through "incremental" property taxes, a portion of the property taxes collected in a redevelopment area following the date of the project’s adoption.
Los Angeles established its Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) in 1948. Since then, it has established 33 redevelopment areas around the city, and has helped spur economic development in hundreds of individual projects.
Redevelopment can be a powerful tool for revitalization of distressed neighborhoods—but it can also be a driving force in gentrification, disrupt communities, and distort taxation systems. Because of those potential negative effects, the state legislature has placed numerous safeguards in the state redevelopment law, such as affordable housing requirements and the responsibility to relocate displaced residents.
Los Angeles’ CRA has supplemented state law with many practices encouraging fairness to the residents and communities affected by redevelopment. While not yet a formal agency policy, the CRA currently asks that developers and their contractors pay living wages to employees, and that projects target jobs to local residents.
Most notably, the CRA has been in the forefront of a new practice: encouraging developers and community groups to negotiate community benefits agreements. Those agreements spell out the community benefits a project will contribute, above and beyond those the law requires. A community benefits agreement might provide, for example, that the developer will incorporate a child care center into the project, make the project more environmentally friendly, or ensure that all employers (and not just the developer) in the project pay living wages.
The CRA recently approved the NoHo Commons redevelopment project, which incorporated a comprehensive community benefits agreement. The 16.7-acre development project located in North Hollywood includes residential, retail, and office space. It will receive more than $31 million in public subsidies and loans. The project’s community benefits agreement was signed in 2001 by the developer and by the Valley Jobs Coalition, a coalition of community groups led during negotiations by LAANE. The agreement includes a customized job training program, expanded living wage and local hiring commitments by the developer, and dedication of space for a child care center. Those benefits help make the project an excellent example of community-friendly redevelopment.
If the secession initiatives pass, the new cities would have to establish their own - redevelopment agencies. The CRA’s years of experience would no longer be available to the secession areas, and current negotiations over new redevelopment projects would likely be disrupted. The new redevelopment agencies would have new board members and staff, and thus new priorities. Therefore, there is a distinct threat that the new agencies will place less emphasis on ensuring fairness for workers and communities in redevelopment project areas than does the City of Los Angeles.