US Supreme Court takes up issue of using prayers to open city council meetings

We have to say this has always been a pet peeve of ours among the many "practices", informal or otherwise, that Lakewood uses in its meetings. Hopefully this "practice" will soon go away as well. We have never understood why people insist on injecting their particular brand of religion into government. I say lets open with the pledge of allegiance (to the USA of course). That I support. But paying homage to one "brand" or "formulation" of religion? No thanks. Go to church and pray 12 times a week. Pray at home before the meeting. Pray to yourself before the meeting starts. Hell sit in a group in the audience and pray silently while holding hands up in the air. But don't make me have to sit there and listen to your version of a prayer recited in my face and sanctioned (hell even promoted) by the city council. And its televised no less (while public comments are not...hmm how convenient). This is nothing more than city council member pandering to their Christian religious bases (the same 2500 people that vote for them every time). The "open a government meeting with a prayer" routine is much more offensive and much more violative than prayer in schools as its literally the government itself promoting religion, directly and in your face, in conjunction with the governmental legislative process. This is why there are so many problems with the new governments in Egypt, Libya and Iraq; the "religious majority" wants to shut the religious minority out of a say in their own government altogether. Its a huge problem. Its why government needs to remain secular and religion should not become or "run" government. Also lets not get into the whole "religious history" of the founding fathers. Suffice it to say most did not practice "today's version of evangelical Christianity". But I'll leave that for the "revisionist" history writers.

The US Supreme Court sadly decided this was not a problem in May 2014.

As was aptly stated abut this matter recently in the NY Times:

Legislative Prayer

The case concerning prayers, Town of Greece v. Galloway, No. 12-696, came from Greece, a town near Rochester. For more than a decade starting in 1999, the town board began its public meetings with a prayer from a “chaplain of the month.” Town officials said that members of all faiths and atheists were welcome to give the opening prayer. In practice, the federal appeals court in New York said, almost all of the chaplains were Christian. “A substantial majority of the prayers in the record contained uniquely Christian language,” Judge Guido Calabresi wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel of the court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. “Roughly two-thirds contained references to ‘Jesus Christ,’ ‘Jesus,’ ‘Your Son’ or the ‘Holy Spirit.'” Two town residents sued, saying the prayers ran afoul of the First Amendment’s prohibition of the government establishment of religion. The appeals court agreed. “The town’s prayer practice must be viewed as an endorsement of a particular religious viewpoint,” Judge Calabresi wrote.

In 1983, in Marsh v. Chambers, the Supreme Court upheld the Nebraska Legislature’s practice of opening its legislative sessions with an invocation from a paid Presbyterian minister, saying that such ceremonies were “deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country.” David Cortman, a lawyer for the town, said its practices were consistent with that tradition. “Americans today should be as free as the founders were to pray,” he said in a statement. “The founders prayed while drafting our Constitution’s Bill of Rights.” (LAAG Editor: Perhaps (I was not there) but did they pray openly as an official start to the meeting or silently? Which religion? Also note this was BEFORE the first amendment was finalized and adopted and interpreted; perhaps the prayer gave them the inspiration to have the first amendment leave the prayer out?; also keep in mind these are the same guys that owned slaves yet wrote "...all men are created equal..." etc.) The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the group behind the lawsuit, said the Supreme Court should bar prayers in governmental settings like town meetings. “A town council meeting isn’t a church service, and it shouldn’t seem like one,” he said in a statement. “Government can’t serve everyone in the community when it endorses one faith over others. That sends the clear message that some are second-class citizens based on what they believe about religion.”


Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Boston Bombings demonstrate that all cities need to deploy city wide (emergency) wi fi

Given the fact that many people in Boston after the bombings last week were left without any way of communicating with loved ones due to either cell phone system overload (and or the now likely inaccurate rumor that the system was switched off for fear of it being used to trigger other bombs), it has become quite apparent that a realistic wi-fi strategy is needed so that people could at least text and or use social networking sites like twitter or facebook to stay in touch with loved ones (and emergency responders) after a catastrophe. In many cases with the right applications people with smartphones can also make calls on wifi using their smartphone. The point is the time has come for cities to take this issue seriously and get the ball rolling now well before our next disaster. LAAG is not the only one to call for this. We looked up "wi-fi" on the Lakewood website and as we figured there was absolutely nothing on the Lakewood website about it. We would be encouraged if we saw some minutes or agenda items on this but alas nothing.

The reason we are so disappointed is that Lakewood spends millions of taxpayer dollars on LASD stations being remodeled (and over $9 million a year for the services themselves) and we even spent tons of taxpayer dollars on an LASD "motor home" that is supposed to act as some sort of a command center in an emergency but is likely now just used at LASD picnics. The State, county and cities have also upgraded communications at all levels for first responders, but alas nothing for you little unimportant taxpayers. We also have one councilmember who is a high ranking LASD official and a new council member that works for Calif Emergency Management Agency (state version of FEMA) (Cal EMA's "mission" is to protect lives and property by effectively preparing for, preventing, responding to and recovering from all threats, crimes, hazards, and emergencies.") So one would think that they had thought of the wifi issue. But alas no sign of such thoughts. Isn't this what we pay these people (very well) for? To think about things like disasters? God knows they heap enough praise, taxpayer money and telecommunications equipment on LASD regarding these "issues". I think its time for Lakewood city council think about the rest of us who likely will need to rely on (communicating with) loved ones to get us through a disaster (like a large earthquake). And there are many ways to get this done.

So its time to get moving on this now! And yes Lakewood has the money! We just spent $750,000.00 (you read right) to resurface the Lakewood swimming pool! (only one bid by the way..so much for competitive bidding!)

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Last Chance to Protest the Los Angeles County Clean Water, Clean Beaches hearing March 12, 2013

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors will hear comments on the proposed Clean Water, Clean Beaches Measure on Tuesday, March 12, at 9:30am. The hearing will take place during the Board's regular meeting in the Board Hearing Room at the Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration, 500 West Temple St. Los Angeles, 90012. The Board meeting will be webcast live via the LA County website at www.LACounty.info. Requests to address the Board on this item must be submitted in person to the Executive Officer of the Board prior to the item being called.

 If you live in Knabe's district just email their office before the hearing and they will likely make sure you end up on the speakers list; or better yet just email your written protest to their office (AskDon@lacbos.org) and WQFI.Info@dpw.lacounty.gov as well as the scanned form available here. Actually all you need to do is send in that scanned form to effectively register your protest vote. To be counted, protest forms must be received by the end of the public hearing period on March 12 and include the parcel's site address, Assessor's Parcel Number, the name of the parcel owner, as well as the signature of the parcel owner or an authorized representative. Only scanned or photographed email protests with a handwritten signature will be accepted.

This is likely your last chance. The Board is likely going to "punt" at this hearing and make a decision on what to do with this mess that LA County Dept of Public Works dumped in their lap. The "no" votes are still no where near the 50% of all parcels needed to stop this under the very poorly drafted Proposition 218 (Its quite frankly amazing that the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn drafted 218 with such horrible anti taxpayer provisions) Really the only way this can be stopped at this point is for the Board to do away with the attempt to use the Prop. 218 method of "voting" and put this to a general election. Otherwise the taxpayers have no chance. Very sad day for LA County Taxpayers. We are about to get fleeced so get your wallets ready. This is actually worse than the FEMA imposed flood insurance mandates (that heavily hit residents in Lakewood and Long Beach) in the early 1990's. That flood insurance mandate only affected 1/10th of the residents this new measure will affect. And the FEMA insurance deal was temporary. This new tax will last forever.

For more on Prop 218 and the rest of this saga read our prior post

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Observations from the Clean Water Clean Beaches tax protest hearing at LA County Board of Superviors Jan 15, 2013

Our prior post on this topic

The meeting filled just about every seat (video clip) in the massive Hall of Administration Board of Supervisors main hearing room in Downtown Los Angeles. There was overflow seating set up. Everyone was accommodated. The agenda item 40 hearing went from 11 am to 430pm.

link to see full video of the hearing (posted in next 5 days)

link to read transcript of entire hearing (posted in next 5 days)

However that's not to say that it was an "easy" process. We were rather frustrated with the screening and searching process just to get into the hearing room. They are far more tedious (slow) than when you get on on airplane or go to court across the street from the Hall of Admin. We were quite perturbed to learn that although we assumed you could not eat in the "Great Hall" you also could not bring food in (this "no food" sign was not visible until you got to the front of a very long line eagerly awaiting their airport style examination). And of course there would be no break for lunch and if you did go to lunch you would loose your place in line or at the hearing. So you could either go home, throw your food out or stack it in a big heap with other peoples food. How nice. Good way to catch the flu.

Most of the comments were quite boring and usual pedestrian stuff of voters complaining about how much the tax would set them back. But there were a few more eloquent people and a few choice quotes. One was from a math professor who said the "measure was 'polluted' with bullsh_t". Others we liked were: "God has given us rain and you have figured out a way to tax it." The other was "We are drowning in fees not stormwater" Those two comments garnered praise by "meeting chair" Mark Ridley Thomas. Thomas also admonished attendees numerous times not to applaud speakers which quite frankly no one paid any attention to, causing Thomas to state that the taxpayer revolt group was honoring Martin Luther King's memory by invoking "civil disobedience". Oy Vey.

Over arching themes in all the protest comments were no "sunset provision" (the tax will last forever) and it was "Alice in Wonderland" like to be taxing other public entities. There were also lots of complaints about the "mailer" which no one realized was a "ballot" and threw it out. Also lots of complaints about the fact that there was not specificity at all about any projects that would be built with this money and or how effective they would be in preventing the pollution of the ocean.

LAAG's position was simply that this Prop 218 "voting mechanism" was not feasible and really was against the drafter's intent. We know the large protest meetings are all dramatic and "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" like but really they need to work out an on line protest form for under Prop 218 (as some people have to work) or better just go to a 2/3 regular vote (outside of the prop 218 structure). The problem with 218 is people that don't vote are counted as "yes" votes in essence as you have to have over 50% of all parcel owners vote "no" and that seldom happens especially when the "ballot" looks like "government junk mail". This prop 218 thing is way more complicated that a "regular" (2/3 vote required) election but it sure does favor the entity that wants to get a tax passed .[ As a late note we add in some info from our friends over at LBReport.com: "County staff said that roughly 95,000 written protests were received (roughly 4% of property subject to the proposed parcel property fee) and said that protests submitted via the internet wouldn't be counted"]

So if you need to mail in the form here it is again Download a new copy.

Locate your Assessor ID Number

Even LAUSD came out against the tax and would be voting "no" for all their 3764 parcels on which they paid property tax. Holy cow that's a lot of property. Remind me to break up that district into smaller chunks. Thomas was quite good at cutting off people that went over a minute, even the "electeds" got cut short. The one minute time limit for all speakers ("elected" or not) was clearly needed given the vast numbers of people there. But this along with the room ambiance, the throngs of people, the Board sitting up there, It just had the appearance of the "little people" (to borrow a phrase from Leona Helmsley) coming to make / plead their poverty/tax case to King Louis XVI at the Palace of Versailles.

The result of the hearing was a good one for taxpayers. Clearly rooms full of protestors has an affect on the "electeds". Late on Jan 15 after the hearing we recived this good news:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Cheryl Burnett

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVES KNABE’S CALL FOR EXTENSION OF PROTEST PERIOD FOR CLEAN WATER MEASURE

Los Angeles, January 15, 2013 – Following the conclusion of the Clean Water, Clean Beaches Measure Public Hearing and the testimony of hundreds of concerned stakeholders, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved a motion by Supervisor Don Knabe to allow for more time for protesting the proposed parcel tax.

“We continued to hear complaints from residents, businesses, school districts, churches and non-profits that this process has not been open and transparent,” said Supervisor Knabe. “Even as the Board was hearing testimonies at the public hearing, my office was receiving emails and phone calls from residents asking where they could get a protest form and how they could protest the measure.”

Supervisor Knabe’s motion, the public hearing and protest process would be extended for an additional 60 days and address several key issues in the process including the feasibility of an online protest option and addressing the concern of double taxation for those that are already capturing and treating storm water.

“Many property owners and businesses are already doing the things the parcel fees is meant to achieve; this is a double tax for them,” said Knabe. “Renters should have a voice as an increase in parcel fees would likely be passed on to them. Everyone wants clean water – put this to the voters so they can decide if this fee is how they want to try to achieve that.”

Supervisor Knabe’s motion also instructed the Department of Public Works to provide a process for placing the initiative on a general election ballot, define a specific list of clean water projects, determine a possible sunset date for the measure and develop a potential alternative method of funding storm water quality projects. # # #

agenda item 40 (at issue in the Jan 15, 2013 hearing) below:

Public Hearing
40. Hearing on the proposed Clean Water, Clean Beaches Fee; acting as the
Governing Body of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, consider
all protests against the proposed Clean Water, Clean Beaches Fee made
by owners of parcels upon which the fee is proposed for imposition; instruct
the Director of Public Works, in her capacity as the Chief Engineer, of the
County Flood Control District to return to the Board with a final tabulation of
written protests; if there is no majority protest, instruct the Chief Engineer to
return to the Board at a future date with a recommendation as to the type of
election to conduct on the Clean Water Clean Beaches Fee; if there is a
majority protest, refer the matter back to the Department of Public Works.
(Department of Public Works) (12-5638)

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Unanswered questions at the Los Angeles County Clean Water, Clean Beaches protest hearing January 15, 2013

Read our prior story on this subject

These are the questions that we are taking to the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors meeting on January 15, 2013, to the so called Clean Water, Clean Beaches "protest hearing", 11 a.m. January 15, 2013, 500 W. Temple St. in downtown Los Angeles. 

We will amend this article and these questions (and hopefully add answers) as time goes by so keep checking back. We are posting it before the hearing and sending it to the supervisors so they can look it over. Each citizen will only be given about one minute to speak at this meeting so clearly that is not enough time to even read this post aloud or let alone get any real answer to these questions below. But we do want these questions answered and we expert the Board to get these answers for us.

The County is attempting to get this stormwater run off tax passed by using Proposition 218. This Proposition 218 is very tricky. This is the 1996 initiative that was used to try to prevent government entities from assessing property owners with new fees and trying to escape election requirements. Amazingly the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn put this measure on the 1996 ballot. Proposition 218's very specific liberal construction provision mandates that the provisions of 218 "shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes of limiting local government revenue and enhancing taxpayer consent." But it made things even more murky. It is not at all clear who gets to vote on on the property held by government entities or property with multiple owners or how renters fare in all this. Not resolved at this time as far as we know. We also know that its government or commercial property (at least in inner city areas) that pollutes the most as most of it is paved unlike residential lots. This gets even more tricky as the ballots have to be "weighed" in proportion to the amount of the assessment each property owner would pay. (For example, if homeowner Jones would pay twice as much assessment as homeowner Smith, homeowner Jones' vote would "count" twice as much as homeowner Smith's vote.). Of course this "weighting" gets even trickier with the phoney ways in which they can total up the "run off" and thus assessment on each lot. The assessment may be imposed only if 50 percent or more of the weighted ballots support the assessment.This of course favors those voting for the large government properties. We suspect most government entities will vote in favor of the tax, especially if the schools are given a free pass on this.

The 50% requirement really is laughable as a regular vote for a tax (not using this silly Prop 218 mechanism passed in 1996) is a 2/3 yes vote requirement in order to pass. Also we are still looking into this problem which is even a bigger scam; if Knabe is correct and most people just threw their ballots out as junk mail (we almost did) then the vast majority of private landowners will not be voting. That means the yes (pass the tax) votes automatically win. To defeat the tax we think it has to be 50% of all properties, not just those that vote.

There are many other questions we have which are not answered at all or adequately at this time:

Can homeowners test their own run off volume and chemicals in that water? And if less than what the county shows in its "formulas" can we get a new assessment as is done for property tax assessments?

Formulas are allegedly used to determine impervious land area. We would like to see the report on this particularly as to what the rate will be per square foot on each lot (residential, commercial, and government owned) and exactly how it is that the County will determine "the amount of impervious area on the property". What about water from impermeable areas that drains to permeable areas? how is that accounted for?  We see a fiasco there and a whole new "appeals" process for homeowners disagreeing with the result or people that "capture" run off (very few residents currently but more likely after this). According to what we were told by the County Dept of Public works on this: "The amount average impervious is determined by using nationally accepted data for residential , commercial and industrial land use..." Accepted by who?

18% of my prop tax bill is "voted indebtedness" or "direct assessments" on top of my "property tax" assessed amount for the "general tax levy". The general tax levy is the only part subject to Prop 13. The other 18% not subject to prop 13. If this measure passes 21% of my tax bill will be for "voted indebtedness" or "direct assessments" which never end and are never subject to Prop 13. There are three "direct assessments" on my bill that also currently go to county flood districts or county water treatment districts. These assessments alone are currently 8.4% of my overall tax bill. Also these direct assessments are not based on a percentage of the property tax bill. So if you are older and have been in your house a long time and pay low tax rates under prop 13, these assessments are a big deal and consume a larger and larger share of your tax bill the longer you have been in the house.

It is reported that the measure would raise about $295 million for building storm water treatment projects. That's great but what is the calculated total of the projects currently ready to go into construction that will help address this issue? What specific projects have been proposed? Cost? Budgeted?

Are businesses that have oil and other hazardous elements on the property going to be charged more? Or people with leaky oily cars that leave oil on the pavement? Apparently not.

Who is going to determine if a project is to be funded by the "runoff tax"? What is the criteria? We saw millions spent on a recent project in the San Gabriel River that was a total waste of taxpayer dollars. Who on the taxpayer side is going to over see this to make sure that the funds are spent for run off and not other projects that should be built with general funds? Or state or federal funds? Will state or federal funds be available for some of these runoff projects? If not why not? Who is going to watch over all the funds given to cities on this issue?

How was the tax rate determined? did the County just work backwards from numbers it wanted to hit? set an amount it needed and look at total surface area? what are the estimates of total funds needed to fix the runoff problem?

What percentage of the "run off tax" budget will be spent on "educating the public" not to throw trash in the river or pour oil in the storm drains? Don't we already do that now with current budget money?

What if the County or a city violates the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit? Is the state or the Federal Govt. going to fine the county? That's laughable. The law requiring this run off tax was created by the state so it can be delayed or modified by the state especially if they see its not passed in a popular vote (not a Prop 218 shenaigan)

As this was fed/state mandate ( the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)) why don't we get funds from the federal or state government to pay for it? (unfunded mandates problem)

Are all the other local counties subject to the same permits and proposed taxes? If not why not? What are they doing in response? How are they doing it?

What if the fix or the projects (which we know very little about now in terms of cost or efficacy) end up costing less that the taxes bring in? Or what if they cost much more than the tax brings in? Or what if the projects do not have the intended effect?

Can the asessment be lessened each year and varied based on the budgeted items or projects that are "shovel ready"? Who determines this?

What if the run off tax does not pass? then what? is there a set aside in the general fund for these so called stormwater run off projects? A "rainy day fund?" (no pun intended)

If you have your own questions please pass them along to us at updates@laag.us

from earlier reports of the tax in May 2012:

http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_20719204/new-los-angeles-county-parcel-tax-storm-water

05/26/2012

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is expected to vote this week on a proposal to tax homeowners an average of $54 per parcel to raise funds to treat polluted storm water before it reaches local lakes and beaches. If the supervisors decide to move forward with the Water Quality Funding Initiative at their June 6 meeting, it must be approved by a majority of voters. Voting would take place in a 45-day mail-in ballot election between next March and May, according to county documents. The proposal, in the works for five years, would raise as much as $273 million to clean the San Gabriel and Los Angeles rivers by assessing property by parcel size and the amount of impervious area on the property, according to the proposal. The more impervious area that water cannot easily penetrate - such as blacktop - the higher the assessment. Urban run-off consists of storm water from rainfall that picks up animal feces, bacteria, lead, arsenic, waste oil from automobiles and other hazardous chemicals from lawn fertilizers and household pesticides as it makes its way along washes, creeks, streams and rivers to the ocean. When carried down the Arroyo Seco in Pasadena and South Pasadena, or the Rio Hondo and San Gabriel rivers, the toxic stew pollutes local lakes - such as Legg Lake in Whittier Narrows, Peck Road Park's lake on the border of south Arcadia and El Monte - and ocean beaches in Seal Beach and Long Beach, county officials said. Cash-poor cities are responsible for cleaning up this pollution but don't have the money to pay for cleanup projects. State legislation passed in 2010 enabled the county to begin collecting parcel fees to take care of the problem. The annual parcel tax, as proposed, would vary from $8 to $83 per year. Single family parcels would account for 75 percent of the properties, according to Kerjon Lee, a spokesman for the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. Every property in L.A. County would be assessed, except in the Antelope Valley. That includes 2.1 million parcels in nine watersheds stretching across the county: Ballona Creek, Dominguez Channel, Upper Los Angeles River, Lower Los Angeles River, Rio Hondo River, Upper San Gabriel River, Lower San Gabriel River, Santa Clara River and Santa Monica Bay. About 40 percent of the money would be distributed to 85 cities in the county, 50 percent would go to watershed groups made up of cities and unincorporated county communities, and 10 percent would go to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District for administrative costs, according to county documents. The county supervisors were supposed to vote on the proposal last fall, but the city of Los Angeles objected to the distribution formulas and wanted more time to tweak the proposal, Lee said. Indeed, the supervisors were scheduled to vote on the measure Tuesday, but pushed it back again eight days.

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email