Monthly Archives: August 2017

Business Improvement Districts, Los Angeles City Council

CD9 Rep Curren Price Requires Developers Of South LA Honda Dealership To Contribute $50,000 Towards Consultant Fees For The Formation Of A New Business Improvement District As Condition Of Approving Development Agreement

Leave a comment
Alleged bigamist and CD9 rep Curren Price to developers: Want to build a car dealership? Gimme $50,000 to pay for another damn business improvement district!
Maybe you’ve heard about the impending move of Honda of Downtown Los Angeles to a gigantic new five story building on Martin Luther King Blvd. at Hoover. Building projects of this size don’t happen in Los Angeles without a lot of involvement of the relevant Council District, which in this case is CD9, repped by Alleged bigamist Curren Price.1 The various negotiations and agreements are typically formalized in a development agreement between the City and the developer, and this is no exception. You can read the whole thing here, although it’s a heavyweight 35MB PDF download, so click with care.

And one of the typical elements of these development agreements is a statement of the public benefits that are expected to result from the project. These typically include financial contributions to this or that cause favored by the Councilmember, introduced by the phrase “Additionally, as consideration for this Agreement, Developer agrees to provide the following…” In this case, there are two of these (found on page 7 of the agreement, here’s a PDF of just the relevant page, also find a transcription after the break).

The first is $100,000 for present and future employees of Honda of DTLA to attend LA Trade Tech.2 The other contribution to the putative public benefit is $50,000 to pay a BID consultant for the formation of a new business improvement district in CD9. CD9 presently has three BIDs, which are the Figueroa Corridor BID, the Central Avenue Historic District BID, and the shadowy South Los Angeles Industrial Tract BID, so this would make a fourth.

Originally I thought that this new dealership would be located in the Figueroa Corridor BID, but a glance at their map reveals that the north side of MLK is the BID’s southern boundary, which is why, I suppose, that a new BID is necessary. Anyway, there’s no real moral to this story, although I admit it’s pretty jarring to see the formation of yet another damn BID pitched as a public benefit.

That principle, however, is even written into the Property and Business Improvement District Act of 1994, specifically e.g. at §36601(e), which claims implausibly that ” Property and business improvement districts formed throughout this state have conferred special benefits upon properties and businesses within their districts and have made those properties and businesses more useful…” so I guess it’s no surprise that Curren Price thinks BIDs are good. Anyway, it is always useful to have more information about how and why the LA City government forms new BIDs and pays its BID consultants. Turn the page for a transcription of the relevant parts of the development agreement.
Continue reading CD9 Rep Curren Price Requires Developers Of South LA Honda Dealership To Contribute $50,000 Towards Consultant Fees For The Formation Of A New Business Improvement District As Condition Of Approving Development Agreement →

Share
Announcements, Municipal Ethics

Ethics Commission To Hold Three Meetings Starting Next Week (September 7, 9, 13) To Gather More Input On Revision Of Municipal Lobbying Ordinance — Please Come To Comment!

Leave a comment
City Hall is always being built and rebuilt, and we might as well lend a hand. Never forget that the stone that the builder rejected is become the head of the corner!
Maybe you recall that the Policy Staff of the City Ethics Commission is in the process of proposing revisions to the Municipal Lobbying Ordinance. The proposals were discussed at length at the Commission’s August 15 meeting and, after a bunch of self-serving and mostly mendacious public commentary from a bunch of lobbyists, the Commissioners basically, disgracefully, took the position that even though the staff had been seeking input on the proposals for 18 months, the lobbyists needed even more time to weigh in.

So in furtherance of this ridiculous but nevertheless not-to-be-ignored directive from the Commission, the Policy staff, led by the heroic and long-suffering Arman Tarzi, has scheduled three so-called interested persons meetings to gather even more input. If you were at the meeting you’ll have noticed that mostly only lobbyists commented.3 The Policy staff sent out an email tonight announcing these meetings, and here they are, along with instructions for attending:

  • Thursday, September 7, 2017. 1:30pm – 3:30pm. City Hall, Room 1060 — This meeting is for a general discussion of the Municipal Lobbying Ordinance.
  • Saturday, September 9, 2017. 9:25am – 12:00pm. (Precise time & room TBD) — This meeting is also for a general discussion of the MLO. It is being held as part of the Congress of Neighborhood Councils and it is necessary to register for it separately.
  • Wednesday, September 13, 2017. 10:00am – 12:00pm. City Hall, Room 1070. — This meeting is to focus on input from the nonprofit community.

The Policy staff request that you RSVP for any of these meetings you plan to attend at ethics.policy@lacity.org. If you can’t attend a meeting you can also email your comments to the same address.

I hope to attend the first two, and I really hope that you and/or your friends can too. These revisions of the MLO are essential for improving government transparency and accountability in the City of Los Angeles, and if we let the lobbyists obstruct or eviscerate them, we’ll all be the worse for it. Turn the page for some links to and brief discussions of some of the essential issues.
Continue reading Ethics Commission To Hold Three Meetings Starting Next Week (September 7, 9, 13) To Gather More Input On Revision Of Municipal Lobbying Ordinance — Please Come To Comment! →

Share
Cory Spencer v. Lunada Bay Boys

Lunada Bay Boys Magistrate Judge Rozella Oliver Schedules Telephonic Hearing To Determine How To Proceed On The Manifold Motions Regarding Discovery Disputes Sent Over By Judge Otero For September 5, Orders, To The Delight Of Everyone Who Has To Pay PACER Fees, That No Further Briefs Be Filed Unless Requested

Leave a comment

For background take a look at this excellent article from the Times on this lawsuit.ames Also see here to download all pleadings in this case.

NOTE: Because I was asked, I thought I’d just announce that I’m sorry for the lack of cartoons. For the next week I’m forced to use a substandard computer. The cartoons will return on or about September 5 if all goes as planned.

Yesterday Judge James Otero bestowed sufficient authority upon Magistrate Judge Oliver to decide all the pending motions relating to discovery shenanigans on the parts of the various defendants, including the plaintiffs’ monumental motion for administrative relief. Well, Oliver is no slacker — today the Magistrate Judge issued an order scheduling a telephonic hearing on all the pending discovery matters for September 5. The purpose of this hearing, it seems, isn’t to decide the issues, but to agree on what further briefs and proceedings will be necessary to decide the issues. As always, there’s a transcript after the break.
Continue reading Lunada Bay Boys Magistrate Judge Rozella Oliver Schedules Telephonic Hearing To Determine How To Proceed On The Manifold Motions Regarding Discovery Disputes Sent Over By Judge Otero For September 5, Orders, To The Delight Of Everyone Who Has To Pay PACER Fees, That No Further Briefs Be Filed Unless Requested →

Share
Lawsuits

City of Los Angeles Files Unconvincing Response To Carol Sobel’s Opposition To City’s Motion For Clarification Of Judge Otero’s Preliminary Injunction Against Confiscation Of Homeless People’s Property In Skid Row, Basically Ask Court To Allow Them To Confiscate Incident To Arrest Even If There’s A Third Party To Take Property Cause Cops Don’t Have Time To Do The Right Thing

Leave a comment

See Gale Holland’s excellent story in the Times on Mitchell v. LA as well as our other stories on the subject for the background to this post. See here to download most of the papers filed in the case.

Last week it came out that ongoing settlement talks in Mitchell v. City of Los Angeles had broken down, leading to the plaintiffs filing an opposition to the City’s motion for clarification of Judge Otero’s April 2016 preliminary injunction against the City. Yesterday the City filed a reply to Sobel’s opposition (PDF, transcription after the break).

The City’s argument is based on the highly dubious assertion that “Throughout all of its efforts, the City strives to balance the need of all of the City’s residents to have clean, sanitary, and accessible public areas, including sidewalks, with the needs of “the City’s large and vulnerable homeless population” and they just need clarification “…to ensure that its employees who are responsible for protecting the health, safety, and welfare of every person living or working in the Skid Row area clearly understand, and are in a position to successfully implement, the terms of the Court’s Order.”

Of course, it’s much, much more likely that the City’s goal is to harass homeless people so mercilessly that they all leave, freeing up the valuable real estate of Skid Row for the Downtown developers who hungering so fiercely for it. And I apologize that I can’t go into more detail, but, as I said, there’s a transcription after the break.
Continue reading City of Los Angeles Files Unconvincing Response To Carol Sobel’s Opposition To City’s Motion For Clarification Of Judge Otero’s Preliminary Injunction Against Confiscation Of Homeless People’s Property In Skid Row, Basically Ask Court To Allow Them To Confiscate Incident To Arrest Even If There’s A Third Party To Take Property Cause Cops Don’t Have Time To Do The Right Thing →

Share
Cory Spencer v. Lunada Bay Boys

Lunada Bay Boys Judge Otero Kicks Plaintiffs’ Motions For Administrative Relief, Sanctions Against Charlie, Frank Ferrara, Sang Lee, Back To Magistrate Judge Oliver For Decision, Stays Decision On All Other Pending Motions, Continues Trial Date To December 12

Leave a comment

For background take a look at this excellent article from the Times on this lawsuit. Also see here to download all pleadings in this case.

Earlier this month the Lunada Bay Boys plaintiffs filed a motion for administrative sanctions asking Judge Otero to deny all the various and sundry motions for summary judgment filed by the defendants. The argument was that the astonishing level of discovery-related obstructionism displayed by the defendants, which has already resulted in some sanctions and will probably result in many more, makes it impossible for the plaintiffs reply effectively to the flurry of motions. Additionally, the plaintiffs filed other motions for discovery-related sanctions against alleged Bay Boys Charlie and Frank Ferrara and Sang Lee with Magistrate Judge Rozella Oliver, who subsequently ruled that the authority to rule rested solely with Otero.

On Friday Judge Otero ruled that the motion for administrative relief could be handled without a hearing, and yesterday he issued an order granting Magistrate Judge Oliver the authority to rule on that motion and also on the motion for sanctions against Charlie and Frank Ferrara and Sang Lee. He also postponed decisions on all other pending motions until Oliver decides on these two. Finally, he also moved the trial date to December 12 at 9 a.m. You can read a transcription of the whole order after the break.
Continue reading Lunada Bay Boys Judge Otero Kicks Plaintiffs’ Motions For Administrative Relief, Sanctions Against Charlie, Frank Ferrara, Sang Lee, Back To Magistrate Judge Oliver For Decision, Stays Decision On All Other Pending Motions, Continues Trial Date To December 12 →

Share
Cory Spencer v. Lunada Bay Boys

Lunada Bay Boys Magistrate Judge Rozella Oliver Orders Defendants Charlie And Frank Ferrara’s Lawyers Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara To Pay Monetary Sanctions To Plaintiffs Because Of Unjustified Failure To Comply With Discovery Order

Leave a comment

For background take a look at this excellent article from the Times on this lawsuit. Also see here to download all pleadings in this case.

A couple weeks ago the plaintiffs in the Lunada Bay Boys case asked Magistrate Judge Rozella Oliver to order defendants Charlie and Frank Ferrara and their lawyers, Bremer, Whyte, Brown, & O’Meara, to pay more than $32,000 in sanctions for their failure to abide by various discovery orders. On Tuesday the defense filed its opposition and on Wednesday a telephonic hearing was held.4

Yesterday, Rozella Oliver filed a minute order denying the plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions against the Ferraras themselves, but granting it with respect to sanctions against the lawyers. Since not everyone has to pay the plaintiffs don’t get all the money they asked for, and they’re required to recalculate what they’re owed based on this order and brief the judge on it by September 7. Turn the page for a transcription of the order.
Continue reading Lunada Bay Boys Magistrate Judge Rozella Oliver Orders Defendants Charlie And Frank Ferrara’s Lawyers Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara To Pay Monetary Sanctions To Plaintiffs Because Of Unjustified Failure To Comply With Discovery Order →

Share
Fashion District BID, Municipal Ethics, Venice Beach BID

President Tara Devine Begged Fashion District To Hire Her For BID Consulting At $72,000 But They Hired UPC At $55,000 Instead Even Though Estela Lopez Really Loves President Devine And Steve Heumann Had “Front Row Seat” To President Devine’s Work In “Impossible” Venice — President Devine Admits Against Interest That Purpose Of BID Consulting Is To “Effectuate Approval” Of Municipal Legislation

Leave a comment

As you may recall, I’ve been studying the relationships between BIDs and the consultants they hire to guide them through the process of establishing or renewing their BIDs. As part of this work I discovered, e.g., that the Fashion District BID is paying $55,000 to FDBID Executive Directrix Rena Leddy’s former employer Urban Place Consulting for renewal services. But before the Board hired UPC they, acting as the fiscally responsible grownups they are, for whatever reason, presumed to be, solicited proposals from the City’s various BID consultants.

And, although it’s probably not such a surprise given how few BID consultants there are in this City, it turns out that famously shadowy BID consultant Tara Devine submitted a proposal! She didn’t get the job, though, possibly because her bid was almost $20,000 higher than UPC’s. And there are many things to be learned from this document, not least of which is the fact that Tara Devine, utilizing the grammatical voice known technically as “unhinged third person,” refers to herself throughout as “President Tara Devine.”5

The most important information in the document, though, has to do with the scope of services, which contains crucial information for my ongoing project of turning BID consultants in to the Ethics Commission for failing to register as lobbyists. One necessary element of the registration requirement, found in the Municipal Lobbying Ordinance,6 is that a lobbyist be employed “…for the purpose of attempting to influence municipal legislation on behalf of any person.”7

BID renewal requires the City Council to pass two distinct ordinances,8 and this fact is a key element of my my general argument that BID consulting is lobbying. But how much more effective than me arguing for this position to just have President Tara Devine admit herself, in her own words, that when a BID hires her as a consultant they are hiring her to get some legislation passed. Given this admission against interest, she’ll have a hard time arguing that she’s not a lobbyist:

Coordination with City Clerk, HCED Chair, Council President, and Council District 14 to effectuate scheduling and approval of:
o Ordinance of Intention
o Ordinance of Establishment
o Prop 218 Ballot Issuance

Anyway, the whole document is well worth your time to read, although most of it’s merely mockable rather than substantial. Turn the page for transcriptions of some selections, including a bunch of risible testimonials from President Tara Devine’s cronies in BIDlandia and their comments, as filtered through her considerable third-person ego, about her work in Venice and elsewhere.
Continue reading President Tara Devine Begged Fashion District To Hire Her For BID Consulting At $72,000 But They Hired UPC At $55,000 Instead Even Though Estela Lopez Really Loves President Devine And Steve Heumann Had “Front Row Seat” To President Devine’s Work In “Impossible” Venice — President Devine Admits Against Interest That Purpose Of BID Consulting Is To “Effectuate Approval” Of Municipal Legislation →

Share
Cory Spencer v. Lunada Bay Boys

Lunada Bay Boys Judge Otero Announces That He Can Decide All Eleventy-Jillion Motions For Summary Judgment, Administrative Relief, Et Damn Cetera, Without Oral Arguments, Cancels September 5 Hearing

Leave a comment

For background take a look at this excellent article from the Times on this lawsuit. Also see here to download all pleadings in this case.

Remember all those eleventy-jillion motions everyone in this “over-pled”9 behemoth of a case has filed over the last weeks? Like first every single defendant filed motions for summary judgment:

Then the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss all those motions because, they plausibly claimed, they were prevented from making an adequate response by the manifold discovery shenanigans perpetrated by the defense. Then all the defendants opposed that motion and of course the plaintiffs subsequently replied to that opposition. And arguments over every last jot and tittle of this stack of claims, counter-claims, cross-counter-claims, and so on and on and on, were scheduled to be heard on September 5.

Well, just this afternoon, Judge Otero announced that he will be deciding all of these motions, oppositions to these motions, replies to oppositions, etc., without oral argument. He therefore cancelled the hearing, and that, I suppose, is that. There’s no PDF associated with this kind of announcement, but you can read the whole thing after the break anyway.
Continue reading Lunada Bay Boys Judge Otero Announces That He Can Decide All Eleventy-Jillion Motions For Summary Judgment, Administrative Relief, Et Damn Cetera, Without Oral Arguments, Cancels September 5 Hearing →

Share
Business Improvement Districts, Municipal Ethics

How I Reported Shadowy BID Consultant Tara Devine To The City Ethics Commission For Failing To Register As A Lobbyist Based On Her Work For The South Park BID In 2017

Leave a comment

So you may recall that I’ve been working on establishing the fact that BID consulting constitutes lobbying as defined in the Municipal Lobbying Ordinance. I kicked off this project in February with shadowy BID consultant Tara Devine, whom I reported to the Ethics Commission for working as a lobbyist but failing to register as a lobbyist. Meanwhile, if you have no idea what I’m talking about, here is a reasonable introduction to the concepts of both BID consultancy and why it’s almost certainly the kind of thing for which registration with the Ethics Commission is required.

My theory gained some credibility with the discovery that some BID consultants in Los Angeles do register as lobbyists. Since February I’ve been collecting evidence against Ed Henning for his work with the San Pedro BID and also against Urban Place Consulting for their work on Fashion District BID renewal and also Media District BID renewal.

And, of course, against Tara Devine for her ongoing work with the South Park BID. Finally, a few weeks ago I completed a generic argument10 that BID consultancy constitutes lobbying. And this morning I’m pleased to announce that, despite the twisted CPRA-defying machinations of South Park BID director of operations11 Katie Kiefer and her less-than-competent lawyers,12 I have submitted yet another complaint to the Ethics Commission against Tara Devine, this time for her BID consulting for South Park. You can read the whole complaint here.

And turn the page for a technical discussion of an interesting issue which came up while I was putting this complaint together. Note that I discussed this same issue the other day, so if you read that post, you might want to just skip the rest of this one.
Continue reading How I Reported Shadowy BID Consultant Tara Devine To The City Ethics Commission For Failing To Register As A Lobbyist Based On Her Work For The South Park BID In 2017 →

Share
Municipal Ethics

In Defense Of Detailed Reporting Of Contacts Between Lobbyists And City Officials

Leave a comment

On August 15 the City Ethics Commission met and discussed proposed changes to the Los Angeles Municipal Lobbying Ordinance. The Commissioners with one notable exception were disgracefully deferential to the trumped-up concerns of a bunch of lobbyists. You can read the full set of staff recommendations as well.

I hope everyone who cares about government ethics in Los Angeles will write comments to the Commission. I’m currently working on a series of my own positions, to be compiled and submitted as public comment. This post is the second in the series, and the previous item was In Defense of a Compensation-Based Registration Threshold for Lobbyists.

Today I’m defending the proposed change to a requirement that lobbyists report individual contacts with City officials by name and title. Right now there’s a super-minimal reporting requirement which is essentially ineffectual. As always, if you have no idea what I’m talking about, you’re not alone. Turn the page for an introduction to the issue and arguments in favor of making the change.
Continue reading In Defense Of Detailed Reporting Of Contacts Between Lobbyists And City Officials →

Share