Outsourcing Hollywood, Billions Leave Local Economy, Families Separated
By Kevin James, Huffington Post

One of America's most lucrative exports is entertainment. It wasn't that long ago that L.A. was the entertainment capital of the world. L.A. was by far the primary source of entertainment content shipped around the globe. Hundreds of thousands of Angelenos built their careers and their livelihoods filling different roles in the entertainment industry. Hollywood is a key contributor to L.A.'s rich history.

Other states began to recognize that entire economies could be created by attracting entertainment jobs to their communities. L.A.'s local leaders, however, remained complacent, confident that L.A.'s sunny skies and comfortable climate was enough to keep Hollywood in Hollywood. L.A.'s elected leaders ignored repeated warnings year in and year out telling them
that other states were recruiting local jobs away from us -- right under their noses. In fact, L.A.'s leaders were so callous toward keeping local entertainment jobs here that other cities and states were buying television ads in L.A. to recruit the jobs away from L.A. Our elected leaders seemed to do nothing. They refused to fight to keep these jobs here.

What used to be the healthy and lucrative exportation of movies and television shows from L.A.
has now become the painful and devastating exportation of entertainment jobs from L.A.

L.A.'s elected leaders have turned Hollywood upside down. It used to be that television shows
and movies that were set in far away places like New York City (I love Lucy), Miami (Golden Girls), or the South (Gone with the Wind), were all shot in Southern California. Now, television shows and movies that are set in Los Angeles are shot in far away places (Battle L.A. was shot in Louisiana).

Lack of a vision for Los Angeles' future by current city leadership has led to the destruction of a
local industry. For those that would argue that it is not fair to blame current city leadership for
outsourcing tens of thousands of entertainment jobs, one does not have to look farther than
FilmLA's own statistics -- "The amount of on-location movie production in L.A. has plummeted
60 percent since it peaked 15 years ago."

City Council members Eric Garcetti and Jan Perry were both elected over 11 years ago, while
Controller Wendy Greuel was elected to the City Council 10 years ago. Those three elected
officials have presided over the largest departure of jobs from L.A. in the history of the
entertainment industry. According to FilmLA, in 2005 (when Garcetti, Greuel and Perry were
well into their first terms), "82 percent of new TV pilots were made in Los Angeles. By 2011, only 51 percent were filmed here."

I have worked as an attorney in the entertainment industry since 1993 and have had many clients affected by Hollywood outsourcing. An often unreported but potentially devastating hardship caused by the outsourcing of entertainment jobs is the separation of families. When film and television production goes to another state, employees on those shoots must also go to another state, oftentimes leaving a spouse and children behind. There is no doubt such a circumstance can cause severe strain on the family.

My plan to bring Hollywood home will include a fair and equitable across-the-board reduction in our business tax burden and simplification of our business tax structure. The Los Angeles
business tax will finally be brought in line with the most business-friendly cities in the region in order to make L.A. competitive again.

Los Angeles is unique in its ability to bring lost jobs back. Because of our geographic location,
our climate, our pool of talent, and the fact that every major movie studio is either located in the L.A. city limits or borders L.A., we can bring Hollywood home. While I will work to grow a city film and television incentive program, I will also use the power of the mayoral podium to be a strong advocate in Sacramento to ensure that our State Legislature makes local filming a priority.

If the City Council will not cooperate in the growth of the city's film incentive program, I will go
around the City Council and obtain the signatures necessary to put it on the ballot for the public to implement.

According to the California Film Commission, in four years, film and TV projects shooting in
California due to California's film incentive program spent $3.9 billion in the state.

I will create an environment for the entertainment industry that provides relief from the city's
current obstructionist stream of permitting red-tape which can force businesses through an
unnecessary and impossible maze of up to 15 city departments. This will be done by creating a
Permit Center which will accelerate previous progress made through the city's Case Management Series office, and will bring in representatives from the key city departments needed to implement effective improvements in permitting. A model to consider is the City of Dallas' Permit Center. Dallas was recently determined by 85 percent of the city's businesses to be a "good" or "excellent" place to do business.

Bringing Hollywood home will result in numerous collateral economic benefits. The California Film Commission reports that a single medium budget movie ($30-$75 million) will purchase
goods and services from 485 unique vendors. The Los Angeles County Economic Development
Corporation states that a single $175 million movie sustains 2,400 jobs and generates $27 million in state and local tax revenue. According to the LAEDC, 92 percent of all goods and services purchased by California-based film or TV production are locally sourced in the state.

We cannot wait any longer to take swift and bold action to fight for our entertainment jobs. The health of many other industries is directly related to a vibrant entertainment job base, including tourism, technology, and small business. Join me in bringing Hollywood back home.

Los Angeles City Officials Were Warned of "Lost" Millions Years Ago And Did Nothing
By Kevin James, Huffington Post

On July 20, 2012, the Los Angeles Times reported on the growing number of cities falling victim to the "questionable financial practices" put in place by their elected officials. According to the Times, "many of the [bankrupt] cities relied on restricted funds to balance their books, obscuring their financial troubles." The Times correctly concluded that "bad accounting practices and improper use of funds have also taken a toll" in forcing California municipalities into bankruptcy.

A few weeks later, Californians statewide were outraged to learn that $54 million in taxpayer funds had been hidden away at a time that state lawmakers are asking taxpayers for more of their hard-earned money. According to the Los Angeles Times, the money was "hidden" in parks accounts "stashed away for at least a dozen years." Investigations are now warranted, and many are being opened. According to the Times, a state audit was added to "a growing list of probes examining state finances in the wake of an accounting scandal."

After further investigations were opened, hundreds of millions of additional dollars were found. Californians up and down the state started asking questions about their own city's finances and accounting practices as well, particularly because of municipal bankruptcy fears that have been sweeping the state.

In an apparent attempt to capitalize on this latest state accounting scandal, Los Angeles Controller Wendy Greuel sent out a press release on August 16, 2012 referencing the state scandal and stating that she "is currently in the process of auditing some of the highest risk special revenue funds to ensure full transparency and accountability of every dollar within these funds."

What Controller Greuel failed to tell the public is that on August 27, 2008, four long years ago, Greuel's predecessor Controller Laura Chick sent a letter to the Mayor and the City Council (which included Greuel) warning them that millions of dollars of taxpayer money was being "lost" in hundreds of special revenue funds. Specifically, Controller Chick wrote that "I have been critical of the over abundance of separate fund accounts because money easily gets "lost" in them, remaining unspent and thus wasted." Here is a link to Controller Chick's 2008 letter.

It is now clear that Controller Greuel, who has been Controller since July 1, 2009, has done nothing to find the "lost" millions from the hundreds of special revenue funds referenced in Ms. Chick's 2008 letter -- at least up until the very recent work referenced in her August 16, 2012 press release. Controller Greuel is not the only elected official that deserves blame for ignoring Controller Chick's warnings. Councilmembers Eric Garcetti and Jan Perry are running for Mayor and Councilmember Dennis Zine is running for Controller. They were also City Councilmembers in 2008. Yet none of them are able to show that they responded in any way whatsoever to Controller Chick's 2008 letter warning every one of them that millions of dollars of taxpayer money was being "lost" in these special revenue accounts.

Controller Chick's warning that millions of "lost" money was floating around special revenue funds was ignored while fiscal emergencies were declared by city officials in 2009, 2010, 2011, and2012.

Controller Chick's 2008 letter is concerning for several obvious reasons. As a former federal prosecutor, what concerns me the most about Controller Chick's letter is her decision to put the word "lost" in quotations marks -- possibly suggesting something more sinister related to the money than merely losing millions of dollars of taxpayer money. It is clear that our elected officials waited for years to respond to Controller Chick's mandate, if at all, and what makes matters worse is that Controller Chick's choice to put the word "lost" in quotation marks should have sent up a red flag and resulted in urgency on the part of our elected leaders to "find" the millions of dollars in taxpayer money -- especially those four members of the 2008 City Council that are now running for citywide office (Greuel, Garcetti, Perry and Zine).

Controller Chick's 2008 letter is shocking enough. Elected officials' failure to respond is inexcusable.

Kevin James Responds to the San Bernardino Bankruptcy Announcement

Los Angeles, July 13th –

 "We are in a fiscal crisis in Los Angeles.  City leaders recently, and quietly, declared a "fiscal emergency" in Los Angeles.  Our current elected officials are largely responsible for allowing L.A.'s fiscal condition to teeter on the brink of bankruptcy.  How many more California cities must file for bankruptcy before our elected officials wake up and make the responsible decisions to dig us out of this hole?  I'm running for Mayor because I am willing to make the decisions necessary to solve L.A.'s financial problems.  Los Angeles needs a leader who is willing to deal honestly with our City's fiscal challenges.  As Mayor, I will refuse to let our core city services suffer because of the bad decisions made by my City Hall opponents -- all of whom share responsibility for the mismanagement of our City.  Over the course of this campaign I will continue to provide solutions to make our City more efficient, financially solvent, and most importantly livable for all once again."

 -Kevin James

# # #

City Controller Dodges Records Request From Investigative Reporter Who Exposed Tax Assessor Scandal
By Kevin James, Huffington Post

What is the City of L.A.'s chief accountant hiding?

Randy Economy, an investigative reporter at the Los Cerritos Community News ("LACCN"), is making quite a name for himself for exposing the mega multi-million-dollar County Tax Assessor scandal that has already landed one appraiser in jail facing 60 felony counts with numerous other officials likely to follow. As a result of Economy's work, County Tax Assessor John Noguez was forced by public pressure to take a leave of absence while the criminal investigation of his office continues.

L.A. County District Attorney Steve Cooley told Economy that the tax assessor scandal "is the biggest in his 40 years as a prosecutor."

After breaking the story months ago, Economy has been hot on the trail of numerous emails linking public officials to the growing scandal that the L.A. Times says has increased to multiple targets and will result in grand jury indictments in the near future. Economy has become an expert at using the State's Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250) to request and obtain the records that are at the center of this rapidly-expanding investigation. The investigation has already revealed hundreds of millions of dollars in unlawfully lowered property values from potentially hundreds of properties located in and around the City of Los Angeles.

In order to continue his probe, on June 11, 2012 (four weeks ago), Economy sent a Public Records Act request to Los Angeles City Controller Wendy Greuel seeking the calendars and agendas of the Controller. According to Economy, his records request has been completely ignored by the Controller -- even though state law requires the Controller to respond. Economy said, "Controller Greuel's office has ignored my records request and my attempts to follow up in search of a response." Economy added, "I am interested in seeing if the City Controller, who is the City's chief auditor and accountant, met with any of the key players in this investigation and I also want to know if Controller Greuel participated in any meetings relating to any of the key properties that are now at the center of this scandal." Economy reiterated that "County officials also ignored my requests at the beginning of my search, but good government requires a response by the Controller and production of the documents."

The public is entitled to a timely response by Controller Greuel. The fact that a full month has passed and LACCN's records request has not even been acknowledged by the Controller is inexcusable. The Controller's website states that one of her missions is to be "the taxpayer's watchdog" and she regularly touts "transparency" and "accountability."

How can Controller Greuel claim to be the taxpayer's watchdog and carry on about transparency and accountability when she is unwilling to follow state law that requires her to respond to investigative reporter Economy's records request and to turn over the responsive documents?

Economy has already proven that he will not back down. If Controller Greuel has any doubt about Economy's commitment to exposing this corruption by public officials she can ask her friend, former Tax Assessor John Noguez, to whom she provided a "key endorsement" in 2010 and from whom she has received campaign contributions dating back to 2007 and 2008.

City Hall Continues to Stick it to LA with Bad Budgeting and Deceitful One-Off Gimmicks
By Kevin James, CityWatch

POLITICS - The Los Angeles Times calls it “Villaraigosa’s $100-million cost shift.”  A brief description of the latest trickery by City officials to promote the ruse of a “balanced” budget was put best by the Times: “Working in sync with the City Council, Villaraigosa has delayed paying for such obligations as police overtime, unused sick time, contractually agreed-upon wage hikes and an early retirement program that gave 2,400 employees full pensions five years ahead of schedule.”  Who comes up with such budgetary games?  Our City leadership does – regularly. 
Such irresponsible tactics constitute bad budgeting, bad business, and bad precedent. They harm our future fiscal outlook and create even more uncertainty surrounding the City’s volatile fiscal condition.  The Times even wrote that Mayoral candidates “Eric Garcetti and Jan Perry both voted for the strategy as City Council members, and candidate Austin Beutner served as a top Villaraigosa deputy when the complex policy was hatched.”  

Controller Greuel once again neglected to expose such corrupt accounting – choosing instead to follow the media’s lead (perhaps with the hope they wouldn’t notice).  

As simple as it may sound, the first step in truly balancing the City budget and solving the fiscal crisis created by current leadership is being honest with the taxpayers.  This latest expose by the Times’ David Zahniser demonstrates the complex lengths the City Hall insiders are willing to go to in order to create the “image” of a balanced budget to protect their own political careers, while merely hoping the budget will fix itself.  

The budget will not fix itself.  The crisis created by out of control increases in employee compensation, health benefits, and contributions to pensions, compounded by the billions needed to repair and maintain our infrastructure (roads, sidewalks, curbs, parks, sewers, drainage systems, power lines, facilities, hardware, etc.), will not be solved by electing someone willing to implement such a crafty and deceitful budgetary tool as this “cost-shifting.”  

As I wrote in CityWatch back on April 29  – our City leaders continue to use the Visa card to pay the Discover card bill.

Solving our budget crisis will take a combination of cuts in unnecessary spending, increases in government efficiency (including exposing corruption in order to end corruption) and an increase in revenues.  Increasing revenues, however, does not have to mean raising taxes and fees (especially when the voters will vote down such attempts at tax hikes).  

As I’ve maintained throughout this campaign, we can increase our general fund revenues without raising taxes and fees.  A fair and equitable across-the-board reduction in our business tax burden and simplification of our business tax structure would make operating a business easier for our existing businesses (small, medium and large) and encourage new businesses to come.  
The increase in volume (i.e., the number of entities doing business in the city) will cause an increase in business tax revenue, sales tax revenue, utility users’ tax revenue, parking users’ tax revenue, and even revenue from licenses, permits, fees and fines.  In other words, we would see an increase in revenues from five sources of general fund revenue.  Very recent studies have supported this conclusion.  

Let me be clear, we can solve this crisis.  We have the local talent, industry diversity, geographic advantage, and entrepreneurial spirit to – together – put Los Angeles back on track.

Los Angeles Quietly Declares a "Fiscal Emergency," Warranting Review of Wide-Spread Criticism of City Controller
By Kevin James, Huffington Post

America's second largest city is in crisis. The city's Chief Administrative Officer has warned that Los Angeles is near bankruptcy. Adding credibility to the CAO's warning is the fact that the City Council very recently -- and very quietly -- passed a resolution "Declaring a Fiscal Emergency."

City officials have mismanaged the taxpayer's money. Chief among them is the City Controller. According to the City Charter, the Controller is the chief auditor and general accountant of the city. It is the Controller's responsibility to supervise the accounts of all offices, departments, boards and employees of the city who collect or disburse the city's money.

Because of the recent Declaration of Fiscal Emergency, questions surrounding the work performance of the Controller are warranted.

In exercising her duties, Wendy Greuel's work has created a steady stream of criticism and resulted in questions of competency from community leaders, department heads, the Mayor, City Council, the former Controller, the Chief Administrative Officer, a County Supervisor, a Deputy Mayor and the media. Research reveals that a climate of discontent developed early in the Controller's term and continued throughout her tenure. Now the city is nearly bankrupt.

Proof of the Controller's parade of errors is easy to find. Below are just a few examples, starting with the most recent.

In April 2012, after indictments of Coliseum Commissioners, Greuel audited the Coliseum Commission. In response to Greuel's audit, County Supervisor Don Knabe pointed out in a letter to Greuel that "failures have existed in the Office of the Controller" and that financial abuses could have been avoided if she had used her authority to audit the Coliseum earlier.

In April 2012, Council members questioned Greuel's ability to conduct her own audit of Fire Department response times by voting to commission an outside audit of the response times, and stated that "there is a limit to fire and emergency services expertise in the controller's office."

In March 2012, City Hall blogger and former Los Angeles Daily News editor Ron Kaye accused Greuel of doing little more than a rewrite of an old Laura Chick audit of fuel usage in the city. Kaye stated that "some might call it plagiarism since Greuel doesn't mention or cite Chick's audit on the same subject three years earlier."

In February 2012, the Los Angeles Times called out Greuel, along with other officials, for doing a "poor job" at "recouping about a half a billion dollars that [the City] is owed," pointing out that these same officials ignored the recommendations of their own Commission on Revenue Efficiency they created to find ways to improve debt collection.

In December 2011, CBS2 News reported that Greuels' predecessor, Controller Laura Chick, "blasted Greuel for not taking stronger action after 'SoCal Connected' first reported on questionable spending at HACLA in March."

In December 2011, in response to Greuel's audit of the L.A. Housing Authority, LA Weeklyreporter Simone Wilson pointed out that Greuel was "late to the party" adding that "it's been almost a year since local station KCET first revealed rampant credit-card misuse by former HACLA CEO Rudy Montiel. And it's almost two weeks since KCET dropped the second half of its two-part HACLA investigation on similar overspending by his underlings, again scooping the vast majority of Greuel's work." LA Weekly adds that "it's a little pathetic for her to equate her powerlessness with that of a brushed-off L.A. reporter -- when in the end, it's the City Controller's job to duck under the media tape and kick some executive ass."

In November 2011, in response to Greuel's audit of funds transferred to the city by the Community Redevelopment Agency for upcoming projects, a CRA spokesman said that the agency "strongly disagree[d] with the characterizations in the audit."

In May 2011, Controller Greuel released an audit on the city's "Gold Card Desk" where city politicians and their staffs improperly obtained dismissals of over 1,000 parking tickets. Greuel claimed she was unaware of the Gold Card Desk. Within hours, Mayor Villaraigosa's office released documents indicating that Greuel, who had chaired the council's Transportation Committee, voted to renew the contract of the company that maintains the program and had been briefed on its operations. "As chair of the City Council's Transportation Committee then-Councilmember Greuel was briefed on all aspects of the department's operations and was fully aware of the Gold Card Desk," according to the Mayor's spokesperson.

In September 2010, results from Greuel's audit of hundreds of millions of dollars of American Reinvestment and Recovery Act job creation funds were "sharply different" from Chief Administrative Officer Miguel Santana's numbers on the same ARRA funds.

In June 2010, there was a highly publicized dispute surrounding Greuel's audit of the DWP in which she examined a fight in April 2010 between the DWP and the City Council over a rate hike and a transfer of funds from the DWP to the City's general fund. The interim chief of the DWP at the time cited errors from an early reading of Greuel's audit.

In May 2010, Sanitation Department head Enrique Zaldivar pointed out to KABC Channel 7 that two sophisticated, expensive pieces of equipment that Greuel's audit claimed were missing were "right where they were supposed to be." KABC confirmed that major equipment that Greuel claimed was missing wasn't missing at all.

And now Controller Greuel, the city's chief auditor and general accountant, wants to be Mayor. Los Angeles voters, who now live under the cloud of a declared fiscal emergency which threatens critical city services, should take the Controller's record into account in making their decision in March 2013.

10-Year-Old Fire Audit Ignored by Controller and City Council -- Public Safety Crisis in L.A. Continues
By Kevin James, Huffinton Post

How many opportunities to lead will Controller Greuel allow to pass by?

Ten years ago, back in January 2002, then-Controller Laura Chick audited the Los Angeles Fire Department and sounded the alarm around LAFD response times.

Unfortunately, our elected officials who are responsible for providing a safe community were not listening in 2002, and for the next 10 years ignored continuing signs of a crisis until the close proximity of the 2013 mayor's election forced them to respond.

Council members Eric Garcetti and Jan Perry were recently criticized for voting for budget cuts to the LAFD which caused LAFD response times to grow making Los Angeles a more dangerous city.

Common sense says that if you close fire stations and move engines away from neighborhoods the chances of harm to residents increases.

While the irresponsible actions of Garcetti and Perry warranted their criticism, it is the more recent inaction by Controller Wendy Greuel that should leave Angelenos outraged and concerned for their safety.

It is well-known that an article written by Austin Beutner, a former mayoral candidate, and a "citizen's audit" conducted by Cary Brazeman, who is running for Controller, exposed the fact that the LAFD responds to emergencies in under five minutes less than 60 percent of the time. National standards call for response times of under five minutes 90 percent of the time. Making the response time scandal worse was the fact that LAFD data was discovered to be faulty and misleading.

In order to restore credibility to the LAFD, an embarrassed and humiliated Mayor Villaraigosa appointed nationally renowned data expert Jeffrey Godown to analyze the faulty data and create an updated system enabling the LAFD to determine the staffing needs necessary to meet the national response time standard. The now-famous fire response time scandal of 2012 would indicate that Controller Chick's call for an updated system 10 years ago was ignored.

According to Controller Greuel's website, "performance and operational audits of City departments and programs are mandated by the City Charter, and assess whether government programs or functions are efficiently and effectively achieving their goals."

After the most recent response time story broke, Controller Greuel conducted an audit reaching many of the same findings already uncovered in Brazeman's audit.

Clearly, the LAFD goal of responding to emergencies in five minutes or less is not being met. The accounting of LAFD response times has also been a serious failure, making our city more dangerous.

The Charter (Sec. 261) empowers Controller Greuel to "take charge" of any problematic accounting functions and to implement new standards and practices within any city department. Despite having a staff of over 130 taxpayer funded employees with extensive audit, data analysis and accounting experience, Controller Greuel did not act. Rather than using the powers of her office to help solve this important public safety crisis, the Controller sat on the sidelines, deferring to the Mayor and Fire Chief and leaving them to deal with the data catastrophe.

Within weeks of Godown's appointment, Godown publicly, and appropriately, criticized the lack of cooperation he received from the LAFD Chief. Godown told the Los Angeles Times that the LAFD failed to provide him with the resources necessary to do his job. To add insult to injury, Godown stated that right now the data being analyzed is not even accurate which prevents the LAFD from beginning the process of improving emergency response times for Los Angeles residents.

Once again Controller Greuel faced an opportunity to lead -- to step in and implement her authority under the Charter to "take charge" of the fledgling LAFD data -- to offer up her staff experienced in audit, data analysis and accounting practices to help solve the crisis. Yet, Greuel again sat it out.

Godown just announced that he is leaving his LAFD post after just three months to accept a job at UC San Francisco. Who will replace Godown? According to Mayoral spokesman Peter Sanders "the Fire Department will assign someone internally." Given the LAFD's prior history of using faulty data, the decision to replace Godown from within the LAFD is causing concern.

While that concern is understandable and indeed warranted, I remain optimistic that the LAFD will solve this crisis. Fortunately, newly-appointed Fire Commissioner Alan Skobin is now overseeing the effort which includes a panel of firefighters working with experts from the LAPD and the Rand Corporation. The taxpayer-funded Controller's office is noticeably absent.

Greuel's continued absence is not surprising. As former candidate Beutner pointed out in his March 20, 2012 Op Ed in the Huffington Post, as of March 20, not one of Greuel's 49 audits was a performance audit of the fire department. "Public safety doesn't even make her top 50," wrote Beutner.

What is surprising -- indeed shocking -- is that back in 2002, then-Controller Laura Chick, Greuel's predecessor, published an audit finding that:

Critical improvements are needed, however, in the area of data analysis. The very data being analyzed cannot be completely validated or verified by the Department or anyone else, because the LAFD uses an outdated, nonverifiable system to track response times. This lack of ability to verify information means that the Department, despite its genuine effort, cannot with total accuracy track and measure performance in the critical area of response time, and cannot use the data accurately as a basis for resource allocation and deployment.

It is a fact that Angelenos have lost their lives as a direct result of such irresponsible inaction. On September 1, 2009 (just two months after Controller Greuel moved from the City Council to the Controller's office), the LA Times wrote a story with this headline: "3-year-old's drowning underscores L.A. Fire Department budget cuts."

Greuel, Garcetti and Perry, all elected officials, allowed the fire response times to grow and to reach crisis levels until the close proximity of the 2013 mayor's election forced them to respond.

Misplaced Priorities, Corrupt System Contribute to the Homelessness Crisis in Los Angeles
By Kevin James, CityWatch

POLITICS - (Ed Note: This is the second article in Mayoral Candidate Kevin James' Plan to Make LA Great Again.)  A recent study estimated that 84,000 people in Los Angeles County are homeless on any given night, with a significant portion concentrated in the City of Los Angeles.

LA has not been more effective in combating homelessness because of a lack of priorities on the part of city leadership, including a willingness by the city's elected officials to ignore the homeless in favor of the elite with close connections to City Hall. A stark example of this is the recent move by Councilwoman Jan Perry to funnel $ 1 million of taxpayer money originally slated for programs in Skid Row to the Gensler Architecture Firm so they could decorate their offices in downtown Los Angeles.

To begin the process of solving the city's homelessness problem, we must first clean up the departments assigned to oversee the crisis.  All too often, the culture of corruption in City Hall gets in the way of the implementation of important and well-intentioned programs -- and taxpayer money is wasted.  

For example, last year a City Housing Authority Commissioner resigned after questions arose as to whether her sons living in affordable housing in Los Angeles were allowed to bypass a years-long wait list of hundreds of families.

There have also been federal indictments related to the theft of millions of taxpayer dollars designated for affordable housing in the city.

As the only former prosecutor in the race, I am best equipped to end the culture of corruption in City Hall by exposing it from the inside.

In recent years, City Councilmembers Garcetti and Perry, former Councilmember Greuel, Supervisor Yaroslavsky and other elected officials were reportedly working with the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority ("LAHSA") in convening an effort called "Bring LA Home".  

According to the Bring LA Home website, it was "convened by elected officials from across Los Angeles County, Bring LA Home is a panel of more than 50 leaders of government, faith-based, social service, advocacy, entertainment, law enforcement, and business organizations, and people who have experienced homelessness."  Their goal was to end homelessness in LA County by 2013.

LAHSA coordinates and manages over $70 million dollars annually in Federal, State, County and City funds for programs providing shelter, housing and services to homeless persons in the City and County of Los Angeles.

Unfortunately this admirable effort will not be successful -- 2013 is only six months away.  

Homelessness has not been eliminated in LA -- it is getting worse.

While Bring LA Home is an important organization, undoubtedly does great work, and is desperately needed to continue its work, Bring LA Home will never realize the joy in reaching its goal of ending homelessness in LA when the one hand doing the good work (the private industry/philanthropic hand) is being constantly undercut by the other hand (the city government hand) that is corrupt and willing to use the crisis of homelessness to squander taxpayer funds for improper or illegal purposes.

As Co-Chair of AIDS Project Los Angeles (where I served from 1994 through 2000), one of APLA's most critical and successful programs was our housing assistance program.  Homelessness among AIDS patients often complicated the already challenging circumstances APLA faced in serving the sophisticated needs of its clients.  

APLA is successful in combating homelessness among its clients by assisting clients in locating, acquiring, financing and maintaining affordable and appropriate housing.  

APLA assists in the formulation of housing plans, guiding clients through the housing assistance application process, moving clients into housing, and educating them about tenant rights and responsibilities, and acting as an ongoing liaison between clients, property owners and case managers.

While homelessness will always exist to some degree in Los Angeles, we must do everything we can to minimize its existence and reduce the number of people, particularly children, affected by it.  

The best thing city government can do is create an environment welcoming to private business -- a job goes a very long way in improving a person's confidence, self-respect, dignity, and economic stability.  

Jobs are critical to reducing homelessness.  Therefore, my jobs plan is the first step in dealing with homelessness in LA.
I believe our primary goal should be to acclimate our homeless population back into society.  In addition to ending the corruption that feeds off of funding targeted toward solving this crisis, I will take the following additional immediate actions as Mayor to deal with the problem.

● We will utilize unused city-owned buildings that are the most fit for conversion into transitional housing and/or shelters.  The conversion of available city buildings must include accommodations for couples, families, and people with pets.  Many homeless people will stay in the streets if an available shelter does not provide a safe environment for children or does not allow pets.

● I will direct the implementation of financial and performance audits of LAHSA (something the current Controller has failed to do).  The results of those audits will detail necessary additional reform measures that I will put in place.

● To enable existing programs to work more efficiently, LAHSA will be reformed to take better advantage of existing volunteer efforts and diverse talent among city residents available through Neighborhood Councils and other community organizations.  This will save taxpayer money.

● We must address this crisis as it relates to our Veterans.  Studies have found that there are 20,000 homeless Veterans in Los Angeles County -- with most living in the City of L.A.  I will use my 10+ years of experience as a member of the media to call out the Federal government, including the Veterans Administration, for their failures, inaction, and abuse of Veterans' rights.  

In other words, I am not afraid to use the power of the podium that comes with the Mayor's office to embarrass the Feds into doing what is right for our local Veterans and to get the most out of local Veterans’ services facilities.

My plans, proposals, ideas and solutions are a work-in-progress -- and it is a process that, unlike my opponents, I am willing to have with you in the public eye and with media scrutiny.  I am willing to put everything on the table, and not hide it in the back room.  

I welcome your input.  Putting LA back on track is a team effort.  And you and I know that we need new team members.  To join us and to submit your ideas contact me at kevin@kevinjamesformayor.com.

The Public Should Have an Additional 45 Days to Review AEG's Stadium EIR
By Kevin James, Huffington Post

AEG's 10,000 page EIR is four times the size of the Obama Administration's health care bill, and eight times the size of War and Peace.

If built, some believe Farmers Field would be constructed in 2013, while others are not sure when construction would begin. If Farmers Field is built, it would be a part of our skyline for over 40 years. But residents are only being allowed 45 days -- just over six weeks -- to review what AEG claims to be the most "thorough environmental impact report in history."

As a candidate for Mayor of Los Angeles and a concerned citizen who has serious questions about Farmers Field and the permanent changes it would cause in relation to the Convention Center, I call upon the City's Ad Hoc Committee on The Proposed Downtown Stadium and Events Center to obtain an extension from the City of the review period by a mere 45 days. The Ad Hoc Committee is Chaired by Councilwoman Jan Perry. Councilman Bill Rosendahl serves as Vice-Chair. An extension this brief would not disrupt the timetable of the NFL or of AEG's proposed construction but would allow residents and council members an opportunity to thoroughly review one of the biggest proposals in Los Angeles in recent memory.

Common sense suggests several good reasons for my requested extension. If built, construction of Farmers Field would not even start until 2013 at the earliest. Also, the NFL will not allow serious negotiations or the final sale of a team until after the 2013 Super Bowl. Furthermore, the NFL has been using Los Angeles as a bargaining tool various for team owners for nearly 20 years and does not seem to be in a hurry now. So, what's the rush?

A quick review of the environmental report confirms a heavy use of public money -- something many Angelenos feared all along. While AEG has guaranteed the costs of the stadium and municipal bonds, taxpayers of Los Angeles will be left covering the tab for street improvements, railway extensions and a proposed auxiliary lane for the 101 freeway.

The additional lane for the 101 could cost Los Angeles billions of dollars and AEG has only agreed to pay $2.4 million to study the project. A second source of public funds will go to cover new light rail trains and buses, platform extensions, and capital and operational expenses for increased serviceability - all of which AEG has put on the public's back.

We have been promised from the beginning by all of our elected officials that no public money would be used. We need additional time to ensure that the people of Los Angeles will not get left holding the bill.

In addition, Sacramento has already provided AEG with an environmental pass. The least our City Council can and should do is provide residents, voters and environmental groups with a reasonable opportunity to review the impact on our local environment.

Transportation ramifications need more analysis. AEG only studied 177 intersections. In a presentation to the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association last year, AEG representatives claimed that AEG would study every intersection from here to Brea. They clearly did not.

AEG also failed to study the combined affects of traffic between Farmers Field and the STAPLES Center or Dodger Stadium. Maybe that means the NBA will agree that the Lakers and Clippers will not play on Sunday during football season (which seems like a stretch to me) or maybe it was an oversight, but either way we need to ask those questions.

And then there's parking vs. public transportation. Despite big assurances that everyone will ditch their cars and seek light rail, the numbers do not add up. In New York, the home of the most comprehensive public transportation system in the country, no more than 8,000 fans take public transportation to Jets and Giants football games. 

Also, AEG's report used Target Field in Minneapolis and AT&T park in San Francisco as comparison stadiums regarding their assumption of how many football fans would take public transportation to get to Farmers Field. What virtually every reporter covering the story seemed to miss is that Target Field and AT&T Park are baseball stadiums - Farmers Field is for football.

Football has a tailgating culture that baseball simply does not have and as I told an Associated Press reporter at AEG's press conference, football fans cannot take their barbeque grills and other tailgating equipment on the subway.

Parking is obviously important to drivers in Los Angeles. Outside parking that allows for tailgating is a significant attraction for football fans. AEG did not study either and we need to know why.

My call for a 45-day extension is based on common sense and common concerns. There is no rush and no legitimate reason why the City's Ad Hoc Committee on The Proposed Downtown Stadium and Events Center should not seek an extension of the review period by 45 days.

I ask that Councilwoman Perry and Councilman Rosendahl exercise leadership in their roles as Chair and Vice-Chair respectively of the City's Ad Hoc Committee and side with the taxpayers and the community on this request and allow us more time to review AEG's EIR which AEG claims is the "most thorough in history."

A Detailed Plan to Make Los Angeles Great Again
By Kevin James, CityWatch

LA POLITICS - There have been countless complaints from the public that our elected officials lack direction. Community leaders, editorial writers, and even a prominent former candidate have made numerous requests that the candidates for Mayor offer detailed solutions to our City's many problems. In fact, Angelenos should be demanding honesty in pinpointing the problems, realistic and detailed solutions, and a plan to implement those solutions. In the coming weeks, I will be publishing my detailed plan to make LA great again.

Many details of my plan will be published here and through other outlets. The Downtown News acknowledged this about my campaign: "he regularly puts out statements and has released more detailed plans and position papers than his established competitors, City Council members Jan Perry and Eric Garcetti and City Controller Wendy Greuel."

In addition to a fiscal solvency plan for the City, topics I will address include homelessness, education, medical marijuana, the environment, transportation, the entertainment industry, public/private partnerships, development issues, animal services, and the NFL stadium.

I am opening my series now with an introduction to my jobs plan.

It was admitted in the Mayor's most recent State of the City address that the City's unemployment rate is now over 13%, a number which does not include those that have stopped looking for work or the underemployed.

To grow employment in Los Angeles, I will take a "business improvement package" directly to the voters if necessary. In order to obtain business tax reform I will be presenting a business improvement package to the City Council immediately upon taking office. It will contain two primary parts: (1) business tax reform; and (2) streamlining the permitting process.

The business improvement package will include the elimination of the burdensome "gross receipts" method of calculating the City's business tax and a complete revision of the way the business tax is formulated. The City's most recent Business Tax Advisory Committee has done a good job of
demonstrating how burdensome the City's business tax has become. But while the Council "ponders" ways to implement BTAC's recommendations, businesses continue to leave our City. The time for real reform, not simply window-dressing, is long overdue.

My plan will contain a fair and equitable across-the-board reduction in our business tax burden and simplification of our business tax structure. The Los Angeles business tax will finally be brought in line with the most business-friendly cities in the region in order to make LA competitive again.

Unlike other big cities in America that have suffered a mass exodus of jobs, Los Angeles is unique in its ability to bring lost jobs back. Because of our geographic location, our climate, our port, and our pool of talent, our potential for growth in a number of sectors remains strong -- in trade, technology, transportation, entertainment, manufacturing, and small business.

I will create an environment for private business that provides relief from the City's current obstructionist stream of permitting red-tape which can force businesses through an unnecessary and impossible maze of up to 15 City departments. This will be done by creating a Permit Center which will accelerate previous progress made through the City's Case Management Series office, and will bring in representatives from the key City departments needed to implement effective improvements in permitting. A model to consider is the City of Dallas’ Permit Center. Dallas was recently determined by 85 percent of the City's businesses to be a "good" or "excellent" place to do business.

While I will vastly improve the permitting process, I recognize its importance and the direct relationship it has to public safety. The community must and will have an important say in development decisions and the opportunity to be heard and respected when new projects are proposed. The current practice in City Hall has been to ignore the community in favor of well-connected insiders. I will also expand the City's current program of contracting with businesses that are located within City limits.

The City Council's previous attempts at business tax reform have failed. While the City is flirting with it again, the Council is showing signs of backing off because of potential opposition from a majority of the Council. If the Council fails to approve the business improvement package I present, I will take these reforms directly to the voters by obtaining the signatures to put them on the ballot, and will use my ten years of media experience to get them passed.

A fair and equitable across-the-board reduction in our business tax and simplification of its structure will make operating any business easier and encourage new businesses to come. The increase in volume will cause an increase in business tax revenue, sales tax revenue, utility users’ tax revenue, parking users’ tax revenue, and even revenue from licenses, permits, fees and fines. In other words, we will see an increase from numerous sources of general fund revenue.

My opponents' new-found warmth for the private sector is hollow. They each have built careers in chasing the private sector away. Even the LA Times noted this in a recent front-page story. For example, the Hollywood district recently lost its largest single employer when LegalZoom moved to Glendale.

Furthermore, my opponents have also proven that even when the federal government gave them over $100 million of taxpayer funds through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act earmarked for job creation, their policies still drove jobs away.

My plans, proposals, ideas and solutions are a work-in-progress -- and it is a process that, unlike my opponents, I am willing to have with you in the public eye and with media scrutiny. I am willing to put everything on the table, and not hide it in the back room. I welcome your input. Putting LA back on track is a team effort. And you know and I know that we need new team members. To join us and to submit your ideas contact me at kevin@kevinjamesformayor.com.

‘Live Within Its Means’ Charter Amendment: Good Start in Fiscal Reform for LA
By Kevin James, CityWatch

FISCAL POLITICS - CityWatch columnist, Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council member, and NC Budget Representative Jack Humphreville has set forth an outline for a fiscal reform charter amendment in Los Angeles that he calls the "Live Within Its Means" charter amendment. Mr. Humphreville has called on the four leading Mayoral candidates to review the proposal, and he has consistently called on each of us to publicly support the "Live Within Its Means" charter amendment. 

In addition, the Neighborhood Council Budget Advocates publicly called on the City Council and Mayor to adopt many of the elements of the proposed "Live Within Its Means" charter amendment during their budget presentation to the City Council in April. 

The "Live Within Its Means" Term Sheet was published in CityWatch on May 7 and can be found here. 

I have reviewed the proposed outline of the "Live Within Its Means" charter amendment. I have gone through it step by step with Mr. Humphreville, and I have researched questions I had related to the plan. 

I support the "Live Within Its Means" charter amendment as proposed in the Term Sheet published in CityWatch on May 7, 2012.

I agree that the City should be required to develop and adhere to a Five Year Financial Plan, to approve two year balanced budgets based on Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") as determined by the Government Accounting Standards Board, to properly fund our infrastructure and pension plans, and to have actual funding for any new spending initiatives. 

My City Hall opponents have brought the City to the brink of bankruptcy, and have already proven that they are unable to operate the City within its means. Implementing the elements of the "Live Within Its Means" charter amendment will put the City on the road to fiscal recovery. 

In addition to my support of the "Live Within Its Means" charter amendment, I am drafting a fiscal solvency plan that contains additional important items of fiscal reform for Los Angeles. I will also be rolling out position papers on numerous other City issues over the coming weeks and months. 

The L.A. Riots 20 Years Ago: Where Were You?

That was one of the first questions I was asked by Dr. Fernando Guerra, the Director of the Center for the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University, during the Center's Urban Lecture Series that took place recently.  On April 29, 1992, I was sitting in the United States Attorney's office in Los Angeles reviewing details of a number of existing cases when a call came in about the potential for violence in our City's streets.  Employees in the U.S. Attorney's office, housed in the Federal Courthouse downtown, were released early that day.  There were a few prosecutors that remained in the office into the evening, only to find the building under attack by rioters that night.  

Like so many of you, I watched the images on television in disbelief while responding to concerned calls from friends and family around the country.  The riots claimed more than 50 lives, 2,000 suffered injuries,1,100 buildings were damaged, over 3,000 fires were set, stores' shelves were looted completely bare, and property damage estimates exceeded $1 billion.

While we all remember where we were during the 1992 L.A. riots, on this day 20 years later I believe it is important to look at where we have come as a City.

While a recent poll published by the Center for the Study of Los Angeles found that many L.A. residents believe the City is safer and believe the City has better race relations than in 1992, sadly the City's economic situation is surprisingly similar to what we faced in 1992.  According to a recent L.A. Weekly report, the California Economic Development Department ("CEDD") painted a bleak picture of L.A.'s 1992 "labor market as 'experiencing one of the most severe recessions of the postwar era.'"  The Weekly reported that the CEDD found that between April 1991 and April 1992, 108,000 local jobs vanished and that "Black and Latino communities were hard hit, with a combined 29.7 percent in poverty and more than 13 percent unemployed."

The same news report states that "in the Los Angeles area, unemployment for Latinos and Blacks is worse than in 1992.  In 2010, 13.4 percent of Latinos and 19.5 percent of African-Americans were without work."  The City's 2012 reported overall unemployment rate sits at 13.3 percent.  The Los Angeles Business Journal recently reported that the Los Angeles area has lost 400,000 jobs since December 2007.

While the survey from the Center for the Study of Los Angeles provides reasons for optimism, Los Angeles is undoubtedly experiencing a decade of decline.  Urban Development professor Joel Kotkin writing in the Wall Street Journal correctly placed significant blame squarely in the laps of current City leadership.

The entire nation knows that L.A. has been mismanaged.  I am running against the City's managers.  We face a jobs crisis, budget crisis, infrastructure crisis, public education crisis, and transportation crisis.  Public safety challenges will emerge due to the State's prison realignment legislation; add the culture of corruption and the desperate need for City Hall reform could not be more pronounced.   

Los Angeles can get back on track -- citywide.  The entertainment industry is still headquartered here.  We have prestigious universities, the best health care facilities, and the Port of L.A.  We remain the most diverse City in the country, with a world class workforce and unmatched talent in technology.  We need new leadership in City Hall.  
Join me in making L.A. great again!

Sincerely,

Kevin

A New Plan for the Convention Center
Huffington Post, by Kevin James

What's missing from politics are good ideas. As a candidate for mayor of Los Angeles, basing my campaign on good, realistic ideas, and on accountability.

Last September, I presented my plan for Los Angeles to transition to a part-time city council. By doing so we could eliminate waste and corruption, and would be following in the footsteps of New York, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, San Antonio and Dallas.

Today, I outline my plan to expand the Los Angeles Convention Center (LACC) to over one million square feet. A bigger more competitive convention center is something our city desperately needs. Over the coming weeks and months ahead, my campaign will outline a vision for our convention and tourism industry that will propel Los Angeles into the 21st century and stand as an alternative to my opponents' universal support for AEG's Farmers Field.

First, let me make clear that I am a fan of the NFL returning to the Southland -- but we need a plan that focuses on expanding the LACC in a way that is attractive to conventions and trade shows. Unfortunately, Farmers Field is not. Plus the NFL has made it very clear that AEG's proposal will not work for a team or the league.

After reviewing plans released by AEG for the Pico Hall expansion, I believe AEG's project could cause permanent damage to the LACC. Despite reports to the contrary, AEG's proposal will make the LACC smaller and less competitive. This plan also contradicts the city's own consultants who are on record stating that football stadiums do not adequately meet the needs of the convention industry. I believe, and others contend, that we must collaborate on an alternative proposal.

My proposal builds on a previous 1996 agreement between the City of Los Angeles and AEG (at the time L.A. Arena Company) to expand the LACC to one million square feet. This agreement -- established with the development of the STAPLES Center -- calls for an expansion of 250,000 square feet over Chick Hearn Way. This would connect the current West Hall to the convention hotel, which is an ideal design for trade shows and conventions.


My proposal would be paid for without local tax dollars and would eliminate AEG's call for at least $300 million in public money. In fact, my plan would immediately result in a savings of tens of millions of dollars since we would no longer have to demolish the LACC West Hall. My proposal would also maintain existing parking structures that are sufficient as is. Based on AEG's own analysis and their plans for development the city would be forced to pay between $80-100 million to demolish and build new parking structures.

I believe we can pay for the Chick Hearn expansion by generating new revenues from our hotel industry. Estimates provide that each one percent increase in our city's hotel occupancy tax would generate approximately $11.5 million (based on the LA 2010-11 budget). A convention center of one million square feet or more could generate annual revenues to the city of over $15 million. Simple math would show that my plan to construct new convention space above Chick Hearn Way would cost significantly less than Farmers Field and the revenue from a one percent rate increase would be more than enough to pay the annual debt service. Most importantly, a one million square foot convention center that is connected to the convention hotel will be attractive to all convention planners.

In addition, a Chick Hearn expansion would alleviate conflicts with the convention industry over Farmers Field and its 36-month construction schedule. This schedule has already resulted in the cancellation of the Society of Critical Care Medicine convention and reports indicate that others like E3 and the L.A. Auto Show are threatening to leave town. More telling, there have been no new conventions booked for 2013-14. Future bookings would be impossible to schedule or predict because the NFL season, which starts in August and continues through January, would prevent conventions from being held on Sundays.

The drop in current and future LACC bookings will take its toll on our hotel industry, local restaurants and other businesses that are dependent on tourism.

Under my plan there will be no interruption to current business during construction because the existing convention space will remain. This will be a huge relief to hotels and restaurants that are predicting lost business with Farmers Field.

Los Angeles would also reserve the ability to expand the LACC further in the future. The Pico Hall that is currently being discussed can be added (if needed) to maximize the LACC to over 1.2 million square feet. This will make us even more competitive.

Finally, this expansion plan would create thousands of new jobs. And we could create these jobs now rather than holding out hope for the NFL.

I am calling on our city's hotels, local businesses and concerned citizens to consider my plan and to work with me on creating the most competitive convention center for Los Angeles.

Patch Position Papers: Kevin James - Transportation
Patch Position Papers are an opportunity for Los Angeles mayoral candidates to weigh in on subjects important to city residents. They have been prepared as background for the "Talking About Los Angeles" series of conversations.

The price of admission to watch me debate City Hall insiders on Time Warner Cable

Wouldn't you gladly pay the price of admission to see me debate the City Hall insiders that have steered LA into its decade of decline?

Since the debates are free to attend, whatever you would be willing to pay to see me debate my opponents ($5, $50, $100) could be donated to the campaign. I won't be invited to these debates aired by Time Warner Cable unless we raise enough money to meet the City's matching funds threshold - and we are almost there! 

In fact, we are only a few thousand dollars shy of that milestone.

Time is of the essence.  Our need for campaign contributions is URGENT. 

The first debate is February 2nd.

The debate organizers will soon start printing promotional materials and my name should be in those promotional materials.

Help me qualify for these debates - send your online contribution today!

Any amount gets us closer.

Here is a link to a story demonstrating the importance of this upcoming debate series that mentions that we are right on the verge of inclusion. 

http://www.thecitymaven.com/2011/12/06/l-a-s-top-mayoral-candidates-to-participate-in-conversation-series/

Help put us over the top!

Please contribute now through this link.

Thank you for your continued support of our campaign to fix Los Angeles. 

Sincerely,

Kevin James

The Rape-Kit Backlog: The More Important Question Is Not How The Backlog Was Eliminated But Why It Existed.
May 13, 2011

By Kevin James, Candidate for Mayor

How does Los Angeles allow thousands of rape kits to sit on a shelf collecting dust while rapists walk free?  A lack of leadership, that’s how.

The sad truth about the rape-kit backlog is that city leadership allowed there to be a rape-kit backlog.  On April 27, 2011, city officials took a victory lap around City Hall in celebration of the elimination of the backlog of rape-evidence kits that had grown in recent years to more than 7,000 untested kits.  Every city official that self-servingly posed for the cameras on April 27 was in office – and in a senior leadership role of one form or another – during the years the rape-kit backlog grew and grew and grew.  The one city official that deserved credit for the elimination of the backlog – former Controller Laura Chick – was not there.

The big question they all came to answer – and take credit for – was how the rape-kit backlog was eliminated.  The question they should have all been answering was why they allowed more than 7,000 DNA samples from rape victims to sit on shelves for years collecting dust while statutes of limitations ran.  If that had been the question being asked, however, the elected officials would have politely “passed” on the press conference. 

Politely “passing” on press conferences calling attention to this crisis is exactly what they were doing back in 2007 and 2008 when victim-advocacy groups were standing on the steps of City Hall demanding action.  When the question was why the rape-kit backlog existed and was growing by hundreds per month, these elected officials were too busy for the cameras and, unfortunately, too busy for rape victims.  

The rape-kit backlog was eliminated because victim-advocacy groups representing rape victims refused to be ignored.  When victim-advocacy groups could not get results from elected officials in City Hall, they went to the media.  They went to the Los Angeles Daily News, the Los Angeles Times, talk radio, and every other media outlet that would listen. 

Frustrated with continuing inaction from City Hall, representatives from these victim-advocacy groups contacted me directly as they knew I would expose this injustice on my show and call out publicly those that were to blame.  In response to media calls for immediate action, city officials used one of the oldest excuses in the book – lack of funding.  However, on August 18, 2008, the Daily News set the record straight writing that “there’s money available if police officials really need it.  In fact, the LAPD hasn’t even spent $1.3 million in federal grant funds intended for that very purpose.  And the department’s failure to use that grant money prompted the feds to significantly reduce the grant money this year.”  The Daily News continued – “The money excuse is just a facile brushoff.  What’s missing isn’t cash; it’s accountability and a lack of political will.”  Daily News 8/18/08.  To add insult to injury, city officials have known for years that the backlog was growing.  “City Hall has been saying for years there’s a backlog, but has never done much about it.”  Daily News 8/18/08.

Then, the one city official that deserves credit for helping to solve the crisis, then-Controller Laura Chick, stepped up with an audit of the backlog and a press conference on the steps of City Hall.  Chick’s audit blasted city officials “for leaving thousands of victims without justice.”  Daily News 10/25/08.  Chick’s audit results were picked up by news outlets around the country.  This public embarrassment of city officials, brought on by dedicated victim-advocacy groups who were tired of being ignored and tired of the lack of “political will” in City Hall, finally set the wheels in motion to eliminate the backlog. 

Indeed, the Los Angeles Times confirmed in its April 27, 2011 story that it was “pressure from victim-advocacy groups,” not pressure from elected officials in City Hall, that forced then-Chief William Bratton “to acknowledge and vow to address the thousands of pieces of DNA evidence that had sat untouched for years.”  LA Times 4/27/11.  To his credit, Mayor Villaraigosa admitted during the April 27 press conference that city officials had “let justice wait” and that “every sexual assault evidence kit [represents] an individual – a mother, a daughter, a friend – who rightfully deserves justice.”  LA Times 4/27/11.

The fact that many of the city officials that sat idly by as the backlog grew while refusing to take real action until chided by the national media were the same city officials preening for the cameras and claiming credit for the elimination of the horrible backlog at an April 27 press conference is a just another illustration of what is wrong with current city leadership.

By Kevin James, Candidate for Mayor, former Asst. U.S. Attorney, Radio Broadcaster (AM 870 KRLA)

Don’t Punt Hard Questions on NFL Stadium
City officials have failed to tackle tough development, tourism issues surrounding
the L.A. Live project.
By Kevin James, Los Angeles Business Journal

In 2010, word leaked out that Anschutz Entertainment Group and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa were courting the NFL. The league that dashed in 1995 and remains elusive today was, as Councilwoman Jan Perry put it, “our own economic stimulus package.”

New stadium designs released earlier this month prove that as we approach 2012 the citizens of Los Angeles still don’t know the details – and apparently neither do the developers. The new designs prove that AEG’s proposal is still in flux. But our city government refuses to ask tough questions.

Despite promises by city officials and pageantry by AEG, details of the plan are scarce. What remains readily available, however, are broken promises and unanswered questions.

When AEG’s proposal was announced, we were promised that the expanded convention facility and new stadium would result in more than 30 additional citywide conventions bringing hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars to our city. We were showered with guarantees that Los Angeles would go from 15th in the nation to fifth as a convention destination. In the beginning, outlandish statements projected that our new events center would be 1.4 million square feet of contiguous space. Most importantly, we were promised more than 30,000 new jobs.

Few, if any, asked whether any of that was possible.

Throughout the vetting process, our city government immediately abandoned its promise that not a “dime of taxpayer money” would be used for the project. In exchange for flashy photo ops, city officials guided the project through approval without any finished details or hard, pressing questions.

Subject of study?

Going back one must wonder what city officials studied in the first place. The building hadn’t been designed. The Environmental Impact Report hadn’t been started. The only thing on the books was a mere six-page proposal by the developer.

How much will Farmers Field really cost? With the propensity for outrageous cost overruns in Southern California (e.g., the Robert F. Kennedy Community School at the Ambassador Hotel site, the “subway to the sea,” and the Anaheim to San Francisco “bullet train”), this is a question that we should be very concerned about – I’m sure the National Football League is. Will AEG pay for all cost overruns?

How will Los Angeles compete for conventions without a roof on the stadium? Will the Convention Center end up bigger than it is today? Or is this really just for the NFL?

We now know that the promise of jobs was inflated and without a roof on the stadium, the impact on the Convention Center won’t be as significant as the City Council stated.

As for those 30 conventions each year or the equivalent of 80 new event days (FarmersField.com), did anyone ask what convention in the world is going to come to Los Angeles without a roof on the stadium?

Farmers Field has already begun to damage convention business. The Society of Critical Care Medicine – a large annual convention – canceled its convention planned for 2014 because of construction issues. This negatively affected our local hotels and restaurants, but it didn’t seem to dissuade our City Council.

Since then, our city government has been silent. The agreement with AEG and the city reportedly states that the developers must pay for the loss of convention business – but that remains to be seen.

How many other conventions will cancel? After all, construction, noise and transportation issues won’t make for a memorable trade show.

How many conventions will this plan give us? How much money will local businesses lose during construction?

Don’t our city officials want these answers? They are unanimously behind AEG’s proposal.

It appears that under this project, Los Angeles will not get a bigger Convention Center and will not jump to the top five in convention cities. We will however get a bigger deficit, something our city cannot afford.

Has anyone looked at the top five convention cities/centers in America? Las Vegas has 10.5 million square feet of convention space. Chicago’s McCormick Place has 2.6 million. Orlando has 2.1 million. Washington, D.C., ranks fourth and Georgia’s World Congress Center ranks fifth. And while Georgia has a football field, it also has more than 3 million square feet of exhibition space.

How does this plan make Los Angeles more competitive? Have any conventions expressed interest in using Farmers Field?

How does the Los Angeles Auto Show take place in November at the peak of football season? Especially if we have two teams? Will our team(s) have to play road games throughout the month of November?

A closer look at the project is warranted and will certainly reveal the flaws in our city government and in the plan’s prospectus.

The biggest question that remains is whether or not our city officials – many of whom are running for higher office – are willing to ask these tough questions.

As a citizen of Los Angeles and a candidate for mayor, I recognize that AEG has had a positive impact on the community and I would like to see the NFL return. But not until we understand all of the details and not until we have all of the answers.

Reaction to the Mayor's Budget Summary
April 27, 2011

By Kevin James, Candidate for Mayor

The good news is that the Mayor appears to understand the need for long-term solutions to address the escalating payroll, pension and benefit obligations.  This apparent understanding is demonstrated by the elimination of full-time positions and the tentative agreement with the Coalition of LA City Unions.  Unfortunately, however, the Mayor’s proposal is short on long-term solutions and long on short-term solutions.

Did anyone notice that the Mayor’s 2011-12 Budget Proposal actually projects a very slight increase in general fund revenues?  General fund revenues are projected to go up roughly $4 million next year (from $4.375b to $4.379b).  Taken in context, projected revenues (emphasis on the word “projected”) are basically stable.  The $458 million deficit we face in the upcoming year (roughly 10% of the city’s expected general fund revenue), therefore, reflects a spending problem.

Dealing with the Spending Problem.                                                                                                        
With projected deficits in subsequent years growing even larger than what we are facing today, and a significant portion of the general fund being spent on mandatory items such as pension, benefit and debt payments, long-term structural reforms are critical.  While Mayor Villaraigosa’s proposal acknowledges the growing crisis (which is good), he remains content on leaving the heavy lifting to his successor. 

Let’s start with some of the better points in the Mayor’s proposal.

First, the proposed/tentative agreement with the Coalition of LA City Unions that would increase employee contributions to retiree healthcare is an important step in providing long-term solutions.  While ratification of the deal will require members to contribute 4% of their pay for the cost of retiree healthcare coverage (without ratification we will face serious furloughs resulting in further reductions in the quality of services), much more work must be done in negotiating with our city unions.  Even if the agreement is ratified (and there is some doubt it will be as many Coalition members are exempted from furloughs), opponents of the agreement point out that it provides Coalition members with new guarantees and even more leverage in upcoming negotiations.

Second, the proposed “data-driven” Fire Deployment Plan which replaces the former so-called “Modified Coverage Plan” (a/k/a the poorly-planned and dangerous rolling brown-outs) certainly sounds good as described in the Mayor’s proposal.  The Times says it is a “smarter approach to fire stations that replaces underused and expensive ladder trucks with more badly needed paramedic teams.”  It will certainly be a “smarter approach” if it works and public safety is not compromised.

Third, the Mayor describes the “Police Sworn Salary and Overtime Reductions” valued at $100 million as “long term.”  I hope he is right.  While eliminating 105 vacant civilian positions is long-term, even Councilmember Parks acknowledges that the Mayor’s “assumption” that overtime savings through the management of compensated time off and deployment of sworn resources will total $80 million is “uncertain.”  Furthermore, an added $20 million in “targeted savings” through LAPD “operational efficiencies” (whatever those are) could be long-term savings if they can be implemented and public safety is not compromised.  Obviously, these “assumptions” and “targets” are risky.

Fourth, consolidation of duplicative city offices and departments is a long-term structural solution, as is the elimination of 680 full-time positions (although if they were already vacant, we are not paying employees in those positions now anyway).  I appreciate that the Mayor has found some departmental duplication to eliminate in the last two budget proposals.  However, more work can be done here.  Even if it is proving difficult for the Mayor to find departments that duplicate the work of other departments, there are many divisions of city departments that are duplicative.

A few elements of the Mayor’s proposal that are particularly troublesome. 

The Mayor offers many one-time solutions that do nothing to improve the city’s long-term fiscal solvency.  While these “one-timers” may kick the can down the road to the next budget year, all they really do is paper-over the lack of leadership in City Hall.  

The fact that we are going to borrow $43 million to cover a mortgage payment on the convention center ($22 million) and to cover costs related to the city’s Early Retirement Incentive Program ($21 million (that was supposed to have been cost neutral in the first place)) means we are borrowing money to pay more money we already owe.  In other words, we are using the Visa Card to pay the Discover Card bill.  Not only are we extending the life of the debt, we are going to pay much more for it.  

It is also unfortunate to see the “continued reduction of general fund support for capital improvement projects”– this means $48 million less for infrastructure maintenance and improvements previously funded at 1% of the general fund.

While I certainly support real budget cuts in both the Mayor’s office and City Council offices, I am very skeptical when I hear about reductions to this Mayor’s budget and City Council budget.  This year the proposal is an 11% reduction for the Mayor and a 10% reduction for the City Council.  What we are not being told is how much the budgets of the Mayor and City Council have grown over the last few years.  A 10% or 11% budget reduction does not impress me if that budget has seen constant growth in recent years.  Indeed, one could argue that it is really no budget reduction at all.  The Daily News reported on August 10, 2010 that the Mayor’s staff has grown to 206 “dwarfing that of former Mayor James Hahn, who had 121 employees, and former Mayor Richard Riordan, with 114.”

An example of a cut in the Mayor’s proposed budget I would not have made is the 10% reduction to the annual appropriations to Neighborhood Councils (“NC”).  The city’s NC system results in hundreds of thousands of volunteer hours given to the city every year by NC board members.  There are well over one thousand NC board members.  Further cuts to their funds (money used to pay for meeting space, rentals, copies, refreshments, and community activities, etc.) only makes it harder for them to do their jobs – as volunteers – and discourages more extended involvement in the NC system.                  

An example of “new revenue” proposed by the Mayor that I would not seek is the increase in net revenue that spending money to hire additional traffic officers would allegedly bring.  Putting more traffic officers on our streets to hound city residents and customers of our city’s private businesses with annoying and outrageous traffic/parking fines levied as a result of ridiculously confusing and ambiguous parking signs/rules is not a way to increase revenue.  It is a way to drive customers out of our city and away from our businesses and into communities that are not so obsessed with abusive traffic/parking fines for nice patrons who are one minute over on the 7 pm deadline on the third Saturday of the fifth month of an odd-numbered year as depicted on the parking sign three blocks away with four different signs (some of which are spray-painted over).  I recognize that parking fines are projected to bring in $141 million next year, but I also believe that a city can go overboard and drive business away thereby resulting in a net loss in revenues.

In the spirit of shared sacrifice, I was hoping to see a proposed transfer to the city’s Reserve Fund of some of the discretionary funds of the Mayor and City Council.  You know, the slush funds or “street-furniture” funds as they are called that elected officials use (as the Times put it regarding the Board of Supervisors) to “burnish their public images, pay for chauffeurs, hold parties for friends and lobbyists and support pet projects.”  That is an example of a funds transfer I would propose that was not in the Mayor’s budget proposal.

I was also hoping to see a category reflecting real improvements in the city’s revenue collections and revenue enhancements.  The city is in need of significant improvements in the areas of revenue collections, tax compliance, accounts receivable collections, new revenues, centralized billing, and implementation of prior audits.  The Commission on Revenue Efficiency offered 65 specific recommendations for reform – the need for many of which have been known for years.  Nevertheless, the Mayor’s proposal offers nothing in the way of a solution to this continuing problem.

General Fund Revenues.

It is important to note here that the revenue numbers in the Mayor’s proposal for 2011-12 are merely projections – an estimate.  The Times pointed out that the Mayor’s estimate is $130 million higher than the Controller’s latest revenue projection for the year.  Councilmember Parks pointed out that revenues from 2010-11 were “$60-plus million under the projection.”  It is worth noting that last year’s budget contained projected revenues of approximately $53 million from the long-term lease of parking garages from a make-believe deal that never existed.  So there is cause for concern surrounding the current projected revenue figures.

Finally, I refuse to accept the current level of general fund revenues as the best Los Angeles can do.  Current city leadership has offered very little, if anything, in the way of ideas to grow general fund revenues.  At this point, tax and fee increases (which current leadership loves and has tried) and tax incentive “gimmicks” (which current leadership has tried) do much more harm than good.

Los Angeles can do better.  We can increase our general fund revenues without raising taxes and fees.  A fair and equitable across-the-board reduction in our business tax burden and simplification of our business tax structure would make operating a business easier for our existing businesses (small, medium and large) and encourage new businesses to come.  The increase in volume (i.e., the number of entities doing business in the city) will cause an increase in business tax revenue, sales tax revenue, utility users’ tax revenue, parking users’ tax revenue, and even revenue from licenses, permits, fees and fines.  In other words, we would see an increase in revenues from five out of eleven sources of general fund revenue.  (There is much more on this coming from me in the coming months).

"Unspeakable Crimes, an Outraged Community, too many
Unanswered Questions, and more Betrayal of the Public's Trust"
Los Angeles Mayoral Candidate Kevin James responds to the horrific abuse charges brought against former LAUSD teacher Mark Berndt.

Our entire nation has been shaken by the unspeakable crimes charged against former LAUSD teacher Mark Berndt.  The unanswered questions are numerous, and the scandal is growing.  How could this abuse have gone on for as long as it did, affecting as many children as it did, in a classroom lined with windows, surrounded by potential witnesses, and in an environment open to conversation about each day's occurrences?   How many more cases will surface now that the Berndt case has surfaced?  Our entire community deserves answers. 

Mark Berndt will never see a day of freedom again.  While locking up Berndt for the rest of his life will protect our children from Berndt, how will we as a community protect our children from a system that has failed them? 

Many recognize that this is more than an LAUSD issue.  The community's trust of government has been betrayed at all levels.  But no such betrayal is as painful as local betrayal.  

How can we make such basic improvements to our public school district when the public can no longer trust those responsible for implementing the improvements?

While so many questions remain unanswered in the Berndt case, we all know the answer to the larger problem.  We must go through the long and challenging task of finding new leaders, with a new vision, willing to take us in a new direction.