You may recall that between 2008 and 2010 the CEC tried to get this unwieldy definition changed to one whose details I won’t go into here, but which would have been far easier to enforce. For whatever reason, Carol Schatz, Kerry Morrison, and a few less luminous lights of the BID world including the perennially mockable Downtown Russell Brown decided for reasons known only to them and their therapists that this was going to destroy the very foundations of Los Angeles. As is their wont, they proceeded to get really fussy and scratch at their own faces till mom made them put their mittens on soon Eric Garcetti, at that time chair of the Rules and Elections Committee, smothered the whole baby in its bed for no discernible reason other than to please his darling BID-babes Kerry and Carol.
So now the staff of the CEC, whose Executive Director is the same Heather Holt who got tarred, feathered, and mocked by Garcetti over this very same issue in 2010, has prepared a new proposed revision of the definition of lobbyist. The Commissioners will be discussing it at their upcoming meeting on August 9, 2016. The new proposal owes some debts to the last proposal, but its central point is quite different. It’s a change to a compensation-based rather than a time-based definition, which is fairly standard around the rest of the country:
We recommend returning to a compensation-based definition and that “lobbyist” be defined as an individual who is entitled to receive $2,000 or more in a calendar year for attempting to influence a City matter on behalf of another person. The attempt to influence would include a direct communication with a City official or employee, and compensation could be either monetary or non-monetary.
Continue reading City Ethics Commission Prepares to Revamp Lobbying Laws; Proposal Builds, Improves on Version Torpedoed in 2010 by Unholy Threesome Consisting of Kerry Morrison, Carol Schatz, and Eric Garcetti
All posts by Mike
An Open Letter to Mitch O’Farrell Regarding Signal Box Art in the Hollywood Entertainment District
See here and here for the background to this post.
Dear Councilmember O’Farrell,
As you may already be aware, the Hollywood Property Owners Alliance is presently holding a competition to choose artwork to adorn signal boxes in the Hollywood Entertainment District, which they contract with the City of Los Angeles to administer. As you know, the L.A. Department of Transportation requires your approval for this project to move forward. I am writing to ask you to withhold your consent from the HPOA’s plan pending a revision of their stated rules which, regardless of the intent, have the effect of significantly lowering the chance that Latino artists working in some of our most vibrant local traditions will be chosen for this honor.
The problem is that the BID’s stated requirements for submissions include the proviso that “NO Cartoon Images or Graffiti work of any kind will be considered.”1 Graffiti art and cartoon styles are associated in L.A. with Latino, especially Mexican-American artists. Work by Los Angeles artists in these genres has brought world renown, not just to the artists themselves, but to our City. Thus it’s hard to understand why it’s not good enough to appear on the signal boxes of Hollywood. The mystery only deepens when one considers that the HPOA’s requirements also state that “Text Art” will be given full consideration, as if Graffiti art were not also “Text Art.”
Continue reading An Open Letter to Mitch O’Farrell Regarding Signal Box Art in the Hollywood Entertainment District
Further Indication of Lack of Seriousness: City of Los Angeles Sends Attorney to Read Aloud Rather Than Argue its Motion to Dismiss in Venice Justice Committee Case; Judge Pregerson Seems Skeptical
You may recall that the City is claiming that linking speech restrictions on the Boardwalk to the time the sun sets is accomplishing some rational purpose. First amendment jurisprudence allows such restrictions, but the purpose must be accomplished by the least restrictive means necessary. Thus it doesn’t portend well for the City, or at least for the fate of the motion to dismiss, that Pregerson repeatedly questioned Ugaz on how using the time of sunset could possibly be the least restrictive means. He mentioned that it occurs at different times during different seasons, for instance. This prompted Ugaz to claim that the City wants to clear the view of the ocean at sunset and that “people are coming home then.”2 The judge noted again that the sun sets at widely varying times, so how does anyone know when people are coming home. This prompted Ugaz to admit that “perhaps that wasn’t the best reason.”
Continue reading Further Indication of Lack of Seriousness: City of Los Angeles Sends Attorney to Read Aloud Rather Than Argue its Motion to Dismiss in Venice Justice Committee Case; Judge Pregerson Seems Skeptical
BID Patrol Officer Mike Coogle Proposes to Cite Homeless Man Repeatedly So That Department of Mental Health Can Hold Him Involuntarily Even Though He Fails To Meet 5150 Criteria
Here’s the story. There’s this homeless man in Hollywood, RM, that the BID has been after forever. For instance, between January 2007 and December 2015 they had arrested him more than 40 times.4 They also pushed for him to be involuntarily treated for mental illness for years. As of August 2015 they had succeeded in getting him conserved5 but in October 2014 they were still trying.
Continue reading BID Patrol Officer Mike Coogle Proposes to Cite Homeless Man Repeatedly So That Department of Mental Health Can Hold Him Involuntarily Even Though He Fails To Meet 5150 Criteria
How is this Even Legal? BID Patrol Attacks a Sitting Man, Forcibly Handcuffs Him, and Then, With Full Cooperation of LAPD, Arrests Him for Kicking one of Them During Putative “Arrest”
Soon all four of them are piled on top of him and trying to put handcuffs on him. Coogle claimed that the man kicked him during this episode, and ultimately they didn’t even arrest him for violating LAMC 41.18(d). Instead they arrested him for battery for kicking Coogle. When LAPD officers Adams (#34837) and Galicia (#41404) showed up and accepted the man into custody with the approval of their supervisor, LAPD Sgt. Chuck Slater. You can read the full story in the arrest report, although it doesn’t answer the main question I have about this incident: How did the LAPD decide to arrest Jones for battery rather than the BID Patrol officers?
Now, I have heard repeatedly that these BID Patrol officers have no arrest powers beyond those that every private citizen has. Kerry Morrison has even said this to me in person while schoolmarmishly waggling her finger in my face. If this is true, and I think it probably is, then there are two possibilities. Either these BID Patrol officers are breaking the law on camera here or else it’s actually legal in the City of Los Angeles for private citizens to form up into gangs of four people, physically jump on top of anyone they see sitting on the sidewalk, and force them into handcuffs. In fact, Ms. Kerry Morrison has confessed in print to violating LAMC 41.18(d) but neither got arrested by her own BID patrol nor got jumped on and handcuffed by a gang of vigilantes.
Continue reading How is this Even Legal? BID Patrol Attacks a Sitting Man, Forcibly Handcuffs Him, and Then, With Full Cooperation of LAPD, Arrests Him for Kicking one of Them During Putative “Arrest”
CD13 Staff Organizes On-Demand Homeless Encampment Cleanup for Benefit of Bryan Kim of “Scumbag” Cat-Kicking Koreatown Slumlords Kim and Casey, Subsequently Personally Invite Him to Support LAMC 56.11 in Council
Bryan Kim is a partner in Koreatown based property management company Kim and Casey, which doesn’t seem to have a website.7 They do, however, have a Yelp page. This is notable for having uniformly one star reviews, which include comments like:8
They would tell me I was picky about the filth they’d promised to clean up before I moved in but never took care of it. They wouldn’t accept responsibility and blamed everyone and everything else until they were legally forced to take control of the growing sludge and cesspool that had been forming for I don’t know how many weeks .
Or, even more colorfully:
I had my sink drain burst and when I asked them to fix it they said “NO”. The reason they gave me was that I had a bathroom sink to use and I dint really need the one in my kitchen. … What kind of management company is this? Also, one day as I was looking out my window, I saw one of the three guys who were walking the property from Kim and Casey Kick my neighbors cat at he was walking down the path way. It was the middle aged guy of the three that were walking the property. I don’t know his name and don’t care to know such a scumbag.
So that’s Bryan Kim according to Yelp; K-Town slumlord and associate of cat-kickers if not a cat-kicker himself. The other correspondent is CD13 field deputy Aram Taslagyan, whose bio you can read for yourself. The whole thing evidently began with a disconnected phone call from Kim to CD13 intern Sean Starkey, which resulted in this email:
Continue reading CD13 Staff Organizes On-Demand Homeless Encampment Cleanup for Benefit of Bryan Kim of “Scumbag” Cat-Kicking Koreatown Slumlords Kim and Casey, Subsequently Personally Invite Him to Support LAMC 56.11 in Council
City of Los Angeles Files Singularly Unconvincing Response in Support of its Own Motion to Dismiss Venice Justice Committee Lawsuit; (Sarcastically?) Suggests Protestors Would be Better Off Speaking at Neighborhood Council than Leafletting on Boardwalk
This makes the City’s repeated assertion throughout tonight’s filing that the Boardwalk is a public park particularly galling. If it’s an error, it’s careless beyond belief. The principle of charity compels me to assume it’s more of the dark sarcasm so favored by Feuer’s minions. They just don’t give a fuck, and why should they? They probably already have the million dollar payout to Carol Sobel budgeted for. But I’m getting ahead of the story.
Continue reading City of Los Angeles Files Singularly Unconvincing Response in Support of its Own Motion to Dismiss Venice Justice Committee Lawsuit; (Sarcastically?) Suggests Protestors Would be Better Off Speaking at Neighborhood Council than Leafletting on Boardwalk
Sixth Time’s a Charm: Judge O’Connell Yet Again Extends Deadline for City of LA, Fashion District BID to Respond to Initial Complaint in Street Vending Lawsuit
Just a brief note here to memorialize the fact that last week the parties to the street vending lawsuit brought against the Fashion District BID and the City of Los Angeles jointly requested that Judge O’Connell give the defendants more time to respond to the initial complaint. Today Judge O’Connell issued an order granting the request. The new deadline for the defendants’ response is September 12, 2016. As with the five previous extensions, the reason given is that settlement talks are still proceeding fruitfully. So that happened.
Motion to Certify Class Action in Chua v. City of LA Filed Today, Along With Extensive Supporting Declarations; Hearing Set for Monday, October 24, 2016, at 8 a.m.
See this article from the LA Times and our previous posts on the subject for the background to this post. All of the filings can be found here.
Today the plaintiffs in the case Chua v. City of Los Angeles filed the following pleadings:
- Motion for class certification — This motion argues that the suit should be a class action.
- Declaration of Barrett S. Litt in support of motion — Here plaintiffs’ attorney Barrett Litt argues that he is sufficiently qualified to represent the class.
- Declaration of Carol A. Sobel in support of motion — This is Carol Sobel’s argument that she’s qualified to represent the class.
- Declarations of named plaintiffs in support of motion — Here the named plaintiffs themselves explain why they’re qualified to represent the class of others similarly situated.
Audio Recordings of Three City Council Public Safety Committee Meetings from 1999 and 2000 May Shed Further Light on BID Patrol Police Commission Registration Issues
Continue reading Audio Recordings of Three City Council Public Safety Committee Meetings from 1999 and 2000 May Shed Further Light on BID Patrol Police Commission Registration Issues