Long Beach Suffers Dramatic Drop in Water Quality

All of the nasty stuff in the Lakewood gutters goes right into the San Gabriel River and then into Long Beach. Now they have the dirtiest water around. Again this is what happens when you don't sweep the streets weekly!

Heal the Bay's 17th Annual California Beach Report Card™ for 2006-2007

Long Beach Suffers Dramatic Drop in Water Quality

In Los Angeles County, the Long Beach area suffered a dramatic drop in water quality during the last year. Long Beach saw 24 of 28 reporting locations register a “C,” “D” or “F,” a dramatic change for a city that has a history of good water quality. As a result, the city of Long Beach has the dubious distinction of being ranked as the #1 “Beach Bummer” in this year’s report (see sidebar at right).

Long Beach has traditionally fared well in the Beach Report Card despite the fact its beaches are completely enclosed by a breakwater. Typically, beaches located inside a breakwall are more prone to poor water quality than open ocean beaches, but this has not been an issue for Long Beach except at Colorado Lagoon.

Heal the Bay plans to work quickly with officials in Long Beach to get to the bottom of the dramatic change in their water quality, and begin making recommendations for improvements immediately.

Letter to City Council re Private Property RV parking

Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 11:27:00 -0700
To: "Todd Rogers, Lkwd City Council"
From: "www.LAAG.us | Lakewood Accountability Action Group"
Subject: RV/Trailer private property parking code revisions
Cc: "Todd Rogers, City Council" , , "Joe Esquivel, City Council" , , "Larry Van Nostran, city council" , , "Steve Croft, city council" , , "Diane DuBois, City Council" , "Jack Gonsalves Dir. Comm. Dev." ,


May 22, 2007
Total of 5 page(s) via e mail
Lakewood City Council

Re: RV/Trailer private property parking code revisions
Dear Councilman Rogers:

I wanted to summarize my thoughts in a letter rather than taking up time in the last two city hearings I have attended on this issue. From the Press Telegram report today it does appear that the Council is capitulating on the reform of the code as to the private property parking issues, which LAAG feels will likely result in further relaxations of the existing code not recommended by the Planning Commission and which will have the effect of nullifying the November 2006 election results.

Election issues:

Only the complaining RV (RV includes trailers and all other devices addressed in the 11/06 ballot proposition) owners come to these meetings, not voters, as the general rule is those with money to loose come out and are more vocal. People don’t like to complain about aesthetics but it is annoying. I laughed when one of the pro RV people said “we are the voters”. Well true but there are only 7,000 “RV voters” at most and they were clearly outnumbered in the election.

I think the one issue that is clear is that the voters (the vast majority of which are non RV owners) do not want these eyesores on the street. So clearly it does not make much sense to move the RV’s ten feet into the driveway. La Palma was faced with the opposite situation in 2005. There restricting private property parking would just have moved the RV’s to the street where there were no restrictions at the time. So clearly moving RV’s a short distance does not “remedy” the aesthetics issue.

We need to enforce the will of the voters. The law says it will go into effect July 1. If you suspend all private property parking regulations for months, the effect will be nullifying the election results and the will of the voters. The motor home owners have had 7 months to deal with the election so no delay is justified. Also all the city is trying to do is liberalize the code. If the RV owners want to delay the liberalization of the code then let the existing code stay in force. The requested moratorium is just a stalling tactic for the RV owners to rally the troops to nullify the will of the voters by better organizing and attacking the city at the city council level rather than at the election level.

Enforcement issues:

The overriding sense I get from listening to most people speak is that they did not know the law (an made no effort to find out what it was) and made some of these purchases and parking arrangements based on ignorance of the law primarily due to the fact that not all the parking rules were on your website (and still are not) and because of the city’s famous “complaint driven” enforcement system. Had enforcement been carried out more consistently and regularly then there would be less ignorance of the law. The best way to learn the law is to get a ticket for a violation. You should know that as a law enforcement officer. You also know that ignorance of the law is never an excuse.

Short of real enforcement the city needs to post diagrams like they have displayed at the last two meetings clearly delineating what is allowed and what is not along with measurements. Real photos of do’s and don’ts would also help. That is where the website comes in.

People complained that they bought a RV thinking that Lakewood was a “do whatever you want” type of city. Well that’s too bad. Laws change every year and negatively affect people all the time. Get used to it. They also used your moniker of “Times Change Values Don’t”. One could say that of the code. Times Change, but the code will stay the same, as it should.

Also some people take the position that it is their property and they can do what ever they want with it. Well if that’s true, then take the entire municipal code and throw it out. It is obvious that most RV owners at the meeting just did not give a damn about what their neighbors might think, knowing all the well that most neighbors are too nice to complain and just suffer due to one neighbors insensitivity to the world around him. These are the same people with loud vehicles and environment destroying contraptions. The just don’t care. The neighborhood and all public space is theirs to use as they see fit.

I think a lot of the problem is that many people are just plain lazy. That is why people don’t park in their garages. Too much effort to clean out the garage and open the garage door. People have also bought RV’s that are just plain too big to store on their lot. The RV’s square footage is about 1/3 of the size of their house. They spent their entire fortune on the RV (and now with gas at 4.00 per gal) they have no budget to properly store or accommodate them. So now its my problem? The conscientious RV owners are not the problem. Most of us can spot the problem RV owners just like we can spot the people’s who front yard and house is a disaster. Same people.

I also think the fines clearly have to be in excess of any monthly storage fees and have to be progressive. In addition you need to be able to apply the fine to both the vehicle and the property it is parked on.

This is also about money. Just like fireworks. People come up with all sorts of excuses and of course have to throw the “child” card into the mix. These people over spent and left no budget for storage and now feel that everyone public space and parking in front of their home is open territory for them to adopt as their own personal parking spaces.

Fires:

Make no mistake about it: more 12 foot tall 8 ft wide vehicles in driveways is going to increase the likelihood that the fire department will not be able to access the rear yard as effectively as they could without driveway blockage. The more crowding on the lot the more likely that fires will be able to jump from house to house. Also don’t forget about all those gas and propane tanks on the RV’s and trailers. So really that is a concern for the non RV owner just as much as the RV owner.

Private Enforcement Issues:

The biggest problem we have is that the council may make some decisions that may greatly affect certain owners property values. The code should be written so that these homeowners can still bring private nuisance actions under civil code section 3501 et. seq. If the council is going to rely on a lax or complaint driven system then it should give homeowners the tools they need to fight blight on an as needed basis.

Quite frankly the council would have been better off not stirring up this mess. It should have added the private property parking restrictions to the ballot. Now that its too late and this Pandora’s Box is open. Leave the code as it is and allow those who object to it to file CUP’s when their neighbors complain. If there are only 65 complaints for on property parking then it seems to me that the CUP process may be less burdensome and less costly than the current process. Plus it would only involve the two interested opposing sides. This is really the same thing as a complaint driven system but it puts the burden on the RV owners as it should be.

Permit issues

Clearly this is ripe for abuse and manipulation. The permit system should allow motor home owners to pick the dates they want for a permit (say a fri and a tues for a weekend trip) and take no more days than they need. There should be a limit as to how many consecutive days, days per week and days per year that one can get permits for. Very simple process.

Allowing loading and unloading on private property is a good idea but I still think we need a permit process or we are going to run into the 72 hour enforcement problem again as some people will be in a constant state of unloading and loading. A game the permit process will end.

Also how will neighbors know when people have permits? They must be clearly posted on the vehicle at all times. Also how will property owners be able to check license plates to see that the RV is registered to that property?

Non RV’s and size issues.

The one issue not really addressed here and should be looked at (which is another reason the CUP process should be used) is the total number of vehicles on the lot, number of drivers residing there, the total size of all the RV’s and total lot size. Clearly a 14 foot tall 35’ RV is a bigger problem than a 14’ boat. If you fill the driveway with an RV all the cars and trucks spill out into the street and take away everyone else’s street parking. With all these vehicles on the street, especially work trucks, there will be more break-ins and thefts. This is clearly already one of Lakewood’s biggest crime problems (see our website for more on this issue) which is why Lakewood has almost twice the vehicle theft as Cerritos does where no overnight street parking is allowed.

Care and Use

Another issue that I heard over and over again is that “we use our RV all the time” Well I think most neighbors know how often they are used. I suspect that over 90% are used less than 5 times per year. Also most RV owners think that their RV is very attractive as is their parking arrangement. Again this is all very subjective and typically RV’s owners are more forgiving of owners who don’t maintain their RV’s or their parking site. Again these types of issues could all be dealt with in a CUP. I would love to see all those RV’s owners post a picture of their

Set back

None of the RV’s should be allowed to park forward of the front edge of the house as that is going to create problems for the few of us that park their cars in the driveway and have to back out across the sidewalk. We will be blocked from seeing anything as we back out. That 5 foot vision triangle is not going to cut it. This is the reason you have a front fence height limit of 42 inches. So you can see over it backing out in a car.

Sob Stories

I listed to the whole “parade of horribles” that would occur if there were any parking restrictions. When I was growing up in Lakewood we went camping in an 8 ft. cab over camper and had a 14” aluminum boat towed behind. (not the gross monstrosities sold today) All were parked on our property and we even installed a separate driveway and parking area for them. The fact that families enjoy using RV’s does not give the owners license to do whatever they want. The two issues are not related. Also one has to keep in mind that 90% of these RV’s are “recreational” vehicles, not cars and trucks people use for transportation. Most of these “toy” people have 5 or 6 vehicles. All of which they have to license, maintain and buy gas for. And most get poor mileage. So it is clear that these toys are just that…toys. The whole “way of life” argument is a side issue. If you can afford these “big boy toys” you need to be able to afford all the aspects of owning them. Not just gas costs to get to Glamis.

Also I wonder how some of these people that claim to be disabled are using RV’s. From what I now of RV’s they are a big effort to own, use and set up. Someone who is clearly disabled is not going to be able to do what is required to even use them properly or set them up at a camping area. If they can then being disabled should not prevent them from following the code in Lakewood.

Other issues to consider

Overnight sleeping in RV’s should never be allowed on or off the property. RV’s must be kept in road worthy vehicle code compliance at all times as well as licensed at all times. Also the registered owner has to match the house not just the city. Trailers should never be unhitched in a front driveway (beyond front edge of house) or street ever. Parking on front laws should never be allowed. Ever.

Front driveway fences obscuring RVs should cover at least 60% of the ht of the RV and not be transparent.

Work trailers and “work RV’s”

This is mostly a size/daily use issue. Also most companies have these vehicles parked at a yard and the worker drives there to get the truck. For those running businesses from their home this should be an issue on the business permit and or a CUP issue and or a state contractors license board issue.

CEQA

The “aesthetics” part of CEQA is a big issue here. I think if this ordinance gets too liberal it is going to be subject to a CEQA challenge. So the existing negative EIR could be called into question as it was done for the changes the Planning Commission envisioned which I don’t see being adopted without significant relaxations affecting esthetics.

Edison right of way:

See attached story from the LA Times on that issue. I expect new fights on that front. Also I expect that new ordinances will need to be enacted due to fire, safety and noise issues for those whose homes back up to these proposed storage areas.

Local Storage:

I know that the city has done a survey of spaces available nearby. This need to be posted on the website along with pricing for the spaces. I really think we need to consider a “needs test” as to some of these claims that people cant afford to park their RV there. That is definitely an issue for business related trailers.

Citizen Committee:

If such a committee is started LAAG would like to have at least one of its non RV owning members on the committee. The committee should also be fairly balanced with RV owners and non RV owners that are concerned about aesthetics. I have previously volunteered in writing and in person as you know.


Sincerely,

Lakewood Accountability Action Group


Cc: Council; Jack Gonsalves Dir. Comm. Dev.

Rosemead is not too far behind Lakewood

Well Rosemead is not too far behind Lakewood. It just goes to show that until these cities are called on the carpet for this lax attitude this is what were are going to get. See all our related stories under the subject "Open Government: Mission Unfulfilled" (on the right margin of this page)


http://www.sgvtribune.com/news/ci_5940540

Rosemead lags in getting the word out
City struggles to achieve public records efficiency
By Jennifer McLain Staff Writer

ROSEMEAD - The city is behind the times in providing public information.

As other cities offer reports online, Rosemead residents can only view paper documents for city business at three locations. Copies will cost 15 cents a page. West Covina broadcasts its City Council meetings on television and on the Web, and Diamond Bar's meetings can also be seen online.

Not in Rosemead - its meetings are only audio video taped.

"I think we got a late start," said City Manager Andrew Lazzaretto, adding that the city's Web site was introduced a year ago. Meeting agendas are posted on the site. "And I can guarantee that a lot of the systems and records are in disarray."

Limited financial resources, cluttered and inefficient archives and a past disinterest in technology are some of reasons why the city is behind the times in providing public information via the Internet, officials said.

Rosemead also has difficulty in responding timely to public information requests or acknowledging that the requests will be filled late.

"It is unlawful and inexcusable," said Terry Francke, counsel for Californians Aware, an open-government advocacy group. "They do it because no one has seriously called them out on it."

Rosemead council members did not respond to calls seeking comment.

Resident Jim Flournoy, who has several pending lawsuits against the city, thinks Rosemead is "terrible" at responding to public records requests.

"We don't think they answer the requests at all," he said. "We put in a request in November, and we didn't get a response until March or April."

City Clerk Nina Castruita said that she tries to let people know how their request is coming along, although responding to requests is difficult with only one full-time employee in the clerk's office and an antiquated records system.

According to the California Public Records Act, agencies are required promptly, and in no case more than 10 days from the date of the request, to determine and inform the applicant in writing as to whether the request will be granted. In some cases, agencies can take an additional 14 days to make a determination.

Marlene Shinen, a San Gabriel resident who was against the construction of Wal-Mart, said she has made records requests and one has been outstanding for months.

"I never got a letter for a request I made on Feb. 11," she said. "There's been so much stalling, dismissal, neglect, brush-off, whatever you want to call it."

Lazzaretto said he thinks the city is adhering to state law.

"I think we are fulfilling the requests as best we can," Lazzaretto said. "Some of our systems are not where we need to be."

The CPRA also limits the fee that could be charged for making copies. The law permits a direct cost of duplication.

"They can't charge any more than making the council copies," Francke said. "15 cents is well beyond the cost of direct duplication."

A request for documents concerning when the City Council approved how much the city would charge for documents and how it came to that figure has not yet been responded to. The request was made on May 10.

But posting documents online could eventually be a cost savings, Francke said.

"The thing about posting documents of any kind on a Web site is that by and large, it eliminates a lot of specific records requests," Francke said.

Lazzaretto thinks the city will eventually join the ranks of Monterey Park, West Covina, Diamond Bar and Azusa, who provide either staff reports online, broadcast their council meetings on television, or streamline the meetings online.

"I'm kind of envious of these cities, where you could go on their Web site and get all kinds of slick information," Lazzaretto said. "I think we are moving in that direction."

jennifer.mclain@sgvn.com

(626) 962-8811, Ext. 2477

5/07 update on Lakewood Crime Statistics 2007; "lies, damn lies, and statistics"

[originally published 2-4-07 and amended 5-20-07]

For as much as the city council touts Lakewood's ever lower crime statistics you would think that the city would put all these stats on their website from year to year so that residents can really see what they are getting for their law enforcement dollar. The latest (rather scant) info posted on the Lakewood website is from 2004!! Why aren't they posted? Because the city does not want you to find or look too closely at the real crime figures and question their headlines, speeches and newsletter fodder. Once again in the "state of the city" address in January 2007 Mayor Van Nostran touts: "Serious crime dropped 16 percent last year and property crime dropped 19 percent" (the city has not yet posted the full text of the speech or details on the statistics backing up the remark). No definitions of serious crime. No indication where we are from 2000...not even an indication of what years he is comparing. Supposedly he is comparing 2006 with 2005 but that is not clear and 2006 stats were not posted on the LASD or Lakewood websites as of the date of the speech. LAAG made numerous requests for the 2006 statistics which were supposed to be posed by February but from what we can tell did not make it on to the LASD stats page until 4/12/07, even though it appears the statistics were known much earlier

When you make year to year comparisons and you have an increase one year and a decrease the next, of course they report that as a decrease..but compared to what? There is well-known saying popularized by Mark Twain: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics. The semi-ironic statement refers to the persuasive power of numbers, and succinctly describes how even accurate statistics can be used to bolster inaccurate arguments. In other words its real easy to "cherry pick" the data and support just about any argument you want.

LAAG looked a little closer and found an example of Mark Twain's statement:

For "Part I" crimes (Murder, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, theft, grand theft auto and arson) here is what we dug up at LASD's crime stats pages:

For the city of Lakewood only; crime rate per 100,000 population (Part 1 or "serious crimes like felonies):

2001....372.6
2002....383.1
2003....387.5
2004....412.9 (9.76 percent increase over 2001)
2005....378.1 (1.40 percent increase over 2001)
2006....320.7 (15 percent decrease over 2005)

Now for comparison the city of Artesia's crime rate for 2005 (also patrolled by the sheriffs) was 266.0 or 42% lower than Lakewood's rate for the same 2005 reporting year. The City of Artesia also had a 21% crime decrease in 2006 as compared to 2005. Similarly Hawaiian Gardens had a 19% drop and Paramount had a 14% drop from 2005 to 2006. So in that light Lakewood does not appear to be that unique in the area.

Also lots of talk about the very costly Sheriff's mobile command center (really just a toy that will be outdated before the next disaster) and the $18 million new station, but not much in the way of tangible material on either the Lakewood website or the LASD website with detailed crime stats so that citizens can make informed decisions on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis.

Also no statistics comparing what each of these crimes is costing us in terms of LASD costs. Law Enforcement hates when taxpayers look at that as their costs are typically hard to justify and their enforcement efforts do not always lead to more arrests or more arrest efficiency (the true measure of your law enforcement tax dollars). Don't forget that LASD STARTING salaries are almost $60,000 per year which does not include the best benefits, vacation and overtime policy out there (far better than the private sector can afford) in addition to retiring at 50 at 90% of your highest years pay. Not bad, especially when get to kick back at a station like Lakewood which pays overtime for fireworks patrol!! (reportedly $100,000 just for July 2006)

Look at the crime stats the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department puts out. 2006 was not posted for Lakewood until Mid April 2007 LASD 2006 crime stats county wide. That is not acceptable. Also very hard to make a year to year comparison or to target areas within the city or even compare cities without manually printing everything out and doing your own math. Very user "unfriendly". For an example of how this should be done take a look here chicagocrime.org Even LAPD does a better job than the LASD and they are a similar sized agency to LASD. LAPD stats page There are other pages noting problems with crime stats: LAPD Explains the Numbers and COMPSTAT and Crime Reduction

Here is an example of why more complex statistics interfaces are needed for residents. Lets say one wants to compare the effectiveness of one parking control scheme of Lakewood with Cerritos as to its effects on auto theft. We know that Cerritos prohibits overnight parking on the street. Lakewood does anything but. If we average out the 2005 and 2006 reporting years for grand theft auto in both cities and use the "crime rate per 10,000" to control for population differences we see that the car theft rate in Cerritos was 52.2 while in the Lakewood station it was almost 84 car thefts per 10,000 people. That is statistically significant and shows that Cerritos' no overnight parking rule must be having an effect in lowering the car theft rate as that is the only difference between the two cities. On top of that it is clear from looking at the Lakewood stats that Grand Theft Auto is the second biggest number of reported "serious" crimes after Larceny (Theft)

We found a nice link for crime stats city by city to give you head to head comparisons but it only worked for two cities at a time and is from the FBI crime stats site so the latest data is 2005. But is does a good job giving you comparisons. Also make sure you focus on the rate per 100,000 people as that is the only way you can make comparisons between cities with varying populations. Just make sure you add in the other city for comparisons. (It is best to use all the cities that border Lakewood, realizing that Long Beach is the only city bordering Lakewood that has its own police force) Also note the national crime averages per 100,000 residents.

Also one feature that we are looking for is a site that shows you the officer to citizen ratio and then the costs per officer or cost per citizen for the officers. then when you look at crime stats per 100,000 you get a rough idea of how "effective" the law enforcement dollar is. The problem with law enforcement is too much is spent for very little results. If you know of such a site let us know.

Quite frankly the LASD statistics are user unfreindly, way too slow coming out to be useful and need to be presented in such a fashion that all LASD cities can easily be compared from year for long periods of time. As it stands now most police agencies are well ahead of the LASD, such as LAPD and even much smaller cities than Lakewood that have their own police department, such as Gardena with a population of 60,000 compared to Lakewood's 83,000.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is what you get (as of 1/07) when you search for "crime statistics" on Lakewood's website: (you dont even get a deep link to the LASD stats page)

Search Results

Search Tips
Click the link if you are only looking for the complete phrase 'crime statistics'.

Dynamic Pages Search Results (Searched for: crime statistics)
No Matches Found

Keyword Search Results (Searched for: crime statistics)

No Matches Found
A-Z Index Search Results (Searched for: crime statistics)

No Matches Found
InfoGuide Search Results (Searched for: crime statistics)

No Matches Found
News Search Results (Searched for: crime statistics)

Search Results 9 Items Found. show all results

Crime statistics show Lakewood at - or near - historic lows
Statistics for 2002 compiled by the Crime Analysis unit at the Lakewood Sheriff’s Station show that levels of serious crime in Lakewood are at – or near – ten-year lows.Robbery is down 46.5% s

Think Neighborhood Watch in 2006
Do you want to become more involved in your community or protect yourself, family and property? If so, Neighborhood Watch is the program for you.

Arrests soar as 'revolving door' of criminal justice system threatens public safety advances Lakewood officials are criticizing the "revolving door system of criminal justice" in Los Angeles County that has spiked crime and arrest rates throughout the region. While crime rates are up, so are ...

2004 State of the City: The seven challenges facing Lakewood During his recent term as Mayor, Lakewood Council Member Joseph Esquivel, at the 2004 State of the City event, focused on seven challenges facing the city in the year ahead.

Public Safety Report: Crime levels drop again in 2003
Statistics gathered by the Crime Analysis unit at the Lakewood Sheriff’s Station show that crime in Lakewood continued the steep, downward trend. Lakewood has enjoyed a significant 35 percent decrease...

File Bank Search Results (Searched for: crime statistics)

No Matches Found
FAQ Search Results (Searched for: crime statistics)

No Matches Found
Calendar Search Results (Searched for: crime statistics)

No Matches Found
Press Releases Search Results (Searched for: crime statistics)

No Matches Found

Southern California Edison's plan for self-storage units and RV parking

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-eaton20may20,1,3116947.story
From the Los Angeles Times

[See related story here]


Pasadena residents draw a line at the lines

Where they see open space, Edison sees revenue-generating self-storage units.
By Deborah Schoch
Times Staff Writer

May 20, 2007

Southern California Edison's plan to replace Pasadena plant nurseries with self-storage units and parking lots has sparked a vocal campaign to preserve a two-mile swath of land under power lines at the foot of the San Gabriel Mountains.

In a region facing fierce development pressure, the debate illustrates the growing importance of remaining open space, even if it lies under tall towers and a thick web of power lines.

More than 100 residents met Saturday in a standing-room-only session to plan an initiative to preserve the Edison-owned corridor, calling it an important piece of a potential "emerald horseshoe" of open space cradling the Pasadena area.

The utility is working with a private developer that plans self-storage facilities on Edison rights of way dotted across Los Angeles and Orange counties, with two completed ­ in Long Beach and Orange ­ and one under construction near Anaheim. RHC Communities Inc. also has self-storage projects pending on Edison corridors in more than a dozen other area cities.

In Pasadena, the firm plans to build two self-storage projects on a portion of the corridor. The outcry there is the most vociferous to date, in part because some residents view the current Edison right of way ­ historically a checkerboard of nurseries, tree farms and parking lots ­ as some of the last remaining open space in the city of 146,000 residents.

One speaker at the meeting, Jet Propulsion Laboratory climatologist Bill Patzert, called the corridors an "open space opportunity" at a time when the last open land includes cemeteries and military bases such as Camp Pendleton.

"Give the last open space to the people," he said. "Rather than putting your stuff in storage, give it to the Salvation Army."

Starting in the 1990s, Edison began looking for more lucrative "second uses" for land under its power lines, blaming the decision in part on deregulation and the resulting increased competition. That led to a shift from Christmas tree farms and nurseries to bigger revenue generators such as self-storage units and car lots ­ and Edison said it owed that increased revenue to customers and shareholders.

But just as some Orange County residents protested the closing of Christmas tree farms in the mid-1990s, Pasadena residents are speaking up for plant nurseries and undeveloped space.

The Pasadena project is planned by an RHC subsidiary company, Tustin-based Pacific Storage Partners, which has proposed two self-storage facilities, each about 70,000 square feet, officials said. The plan also called for a warehouse, parking for a new YMCA and ice rink, and an estimated $500,000 in park and recreation improvements. The developer has already provided land that is now part of Vina Vieja Park.

Critics say the plans involve too much development. The Edison corridor provides a valuable band of open land running from Eaton Canyon south, parallel to Eaton Wash, and ending south of Del Mar Boulevard, residents said Saturday. The meeting was organized by a new group, Open Space Now, and held at the Eaton Canyon Nature Center.

The flash point of the controversy, they said, was news that two local nurseries, Persson's and Present Perfect, would lose their land this summer to the new development, which has not yet been reviewed by the city. The tree farms and other nursery areas have already moved.

Persson's in particular has stirred residents' concerns, because it has operated on the site for 35 years and built a staunch following, some speakers said.

"They're having their knees cut out from under them after 35 years, with no public meeting," said attorney Michael J. Coppess, a former Pasadena planning commissioner. "This strip of land is not being planned within the public process. It is being driven by a private storage developer."

He urged residents to contact City Hall and fight development of the right of way, calling the plan "space for cash and prizes."

Spokesmen for Edison and RHC Communities said in interviews Friday and Saturday that the Pasadena plan is on hold as RHC studies how to incorporate more parkland.

"We're not just talking self-storage," said RHC's George Minter. The original plan would have added 12 acres of parks, he said. "What we're trying to do is significantly increase that acreage," he said. A new plan could be ready within weeks, officials said.

Minter blamed the current outcry on the Persson's case and said many of the opponents hadn't studied the complete plans. He said Persson's was offered the chance to move across the street to a new location but declined.

But Gary Butters, general manager of Persson's, said the cost of the move would have proved prohibitive, in part because the nursery is under 1975 city codes and would have had to meet 2007 code standards.

"It wasn't as simple as just picking up your plants, moving them across the street and opening again," said Butters, whose wife, Linda Persson-Butters, owns the nursery started by her parents. Butters said he was also apprehensive because the project incorporating the proposed nursery site has not yet been approved by the city.

He and his wife plan to close the nursery June 30 and will hold a liquidation sale.

RHC representatives met with homeowners associations along the corridor for several years, and those groups never opposed the final proposal, Minter said.

Edison has worked with several developers in recent years to build self-storage facilities in Rosemead, Redondo Beach, Orange, Irvine and other cities, said Edison project manager Lou Salas. In 2001, the utility signed an exclusive option with RHC for the development of more projects.

"We figured it was more prudent to do it with one developer," Salas said. RHC projects on Edison corridors have been approved in Los Angeles, South Gate, Bellflower, Pico Rivera and Paramount. Other plans are pending in the Eagle Rock area, Torrance, Carson, Redondo Beach, Hawthorne, Montebello and other cities.


Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

3% of LASD complaints lead to formal investigations

File this in the "we already figured that" file. This is what happens when you have a lower profile than the LAPD (and "fly under the radar") and no direct city council control or citizen watchdogs over an agency. LASD provides services in many small cities like Lakewood whose city councils rarely question LASD actions, unlike the LA City Council which along with the ACLU and a host of other organizations is watching LAPD like a hawk.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-sheriff17may17,1,4409673.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california

From the Los Angeles Times
Study faults some deputy probes
L.A. County sheriff's response to complaints is found to be improved but inconsistent overall.

By Stuart Pfeifer
Times Staff Writer

May 17, 2007

The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department has improved the way it investigates allegations of deputy misconduct, but it often reduces discipline without explanation, according to a report released Wednesday.

Merrick Bobb, an attorney hired by the Board of Supervisors to review the Sheriff's Department, studied hundreds of misconduct investigations initiated in 2005. He found that the department has made "great strides" since the early 1990s in investigating public complaints about deputies' behavior.

In most cases, the department investigates complaints thoroughly and objectively, Bobb found. He said investigations were inadequate in about one in five cases, faulting sheriff's managers in those cases for failing to interview all pertinent witnesses, writing biased or incomplete reports or improperly documenting investigations.

"The LASD's commitment to the fair investigation of citizens' complaints has strengthened considerably," wrote Bobb, who was hired in 1993 to monitor the department's reform efforts following allegations of excessive force and concern about the citizen complaint process.

The department handles complaints about deputies differently from the Los Angeles Police Department. Pursuant to a consent decree, the LAPD must formally investigate all complaints through its internal affairs unit. The Sheriff's Department handles complaints from the public informally at the station to which the deputy is assigned. Sheriff's station supervisors can request formal internal affairs investigations of citizens' complaints. Bobb found that just 3% of complaints lead to formal investigations.

The report also concluded that the department too often agrees to reduce discipline imposed on deputies who violate department policies ranging from the use of force during arrests to unsafe driving of patrol cars and off-duty incidents, such as drunk driving.

In one instance, a deputy received a three-day suspension for making racially insensitive comments in a telephone conversation with a member of the public and for telling the caller, "I don't have time for this," before hanging up. After the deputy complained about his punishment, a captain put the suspension in abeyance, meaning it would be imposed only if the deputy committed a new offense.

"In our view, the captain fumbled and the deputy recovered the ball and went on to score a touchdown," Bobb wrote in his report.

Sheriff Lee Baca said he believes holding discipline in abeyance provides incentive for deputies to reform.

"Settlement agreements give management a stronger capacity [to prevent] future misconduct," Baca said. "They've agreed not to transgress again."

The department reduced discipline in 84% of the cases in which a suspension was imposed, the report said.

Most often, the discipline was reduced after deputies complained to their captains that they thought their punishment was excessive, the report said.

"The department must stop letting the grievance process be a one-way ticket to a reduced discipline," Bobb wrote. The report said it appears the department "plea bargains" discipline cases as a matter of routine.

Bobb and his staff studied investigations of deputies assigned to six sheriff's stations: Century, Compton, Lakewood, Palmdale, Pico Rivera and Santa Clarita.

In one instance, a deputy had accumulated 11 complaints of discourteous conduct in the past three years, including six in which his conduct was faulted by supervisors. Despite this record, the deputy was not subjected to a broad investigation.

Time to break some promises..just like politicians do with taxpayers

Controller: State faces up to $47 billion bill on health benefits

Monday, May 7, 2007

California may have to come up with an extra $47.9 billion over the next 30 years to cover health and dental benefits for its retirees and current state employees, Controller John Chiang said Monday.

But Chiang said the state could cut that bill to about $31.3 billion if it dropped its pay-as-you-go approach, invested about $1 billion a year to help cover future retiree health costs and used the earnings to ease the impact on the state budget.

"Our actuarial report shows that, annually, if we continue on the pay-as-you-go basis, we will accrue a liability of $3.59 billion a year," Chiang said in remarks prepared for a speech to the Sacramento Press Club. "But if we fully pre-fund and put that money into a trust fund, we'll only need $2.59 billion a year (from the budget) to cover this liability."

The state has been paying less than $1.4 billion a year for health benefits, raising the specter of a large unfunded liability in the future, Chiang said.

An order issued by the federal government in 2004 requires states to spell out how much they'll have to pay in non-pension retirement benefits.

Chiang said he was releasing his findings nearly two years before the federal deadline to give the state time to come up with a "responsible plan to honor our promises to state employees and protect future budgets."

"We cannot continue to defer these costs to the next generation of Californians," he added.

The pre-funding approach he recommends is the same one used by the state to pay pensions. He also said the state should look for ways to control its health-care costs.

State Finance Director Mike Genest said Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed a 12-member commission last year to propose ways to deal with state public pensions and retiree health benefits.

"As the governor has said, we have to find the best way to meet these obligations without harming other government programs and taxpayers or handing the problem off to future generations," Genest said.

State mandates relating to clean storm water and pollution-prevention

Court Ruling to Help County, Cities Fund Clean Storm Water Programs, CPR Says
May 15, 2007

Decision Means Better, More Effective Pollution-Prevention Efforts at Local Level; Judge Says Statute Preventing Communities from Receiving State Aid for ‘Unfunded Mandates’ is Unconstitutional

SIGNAL HILL, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--A recent decision by the California Court of Appeals in Los Angeles will bring funding to local communities to help pay for State mandates relating to clean storm water and pollution-prevention measures. The ruling will help usher an array of clean storm water and anti-pollution programs in communities throughout the region.

Stating that “a statute cannot trump the constitution,” the California Court of Appeals in Los Angeles Thursday ruled that a statute preventing municipalities from obtaining state funding for new or more expensive programs mandated by the State Water Resources Control Board, or regional water quality control boards, is unconstitutional.

The unanimous opinion by the Court of Appeals affirmed a May 2005 ruling by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Victoria Chaney holding that Government Code Section 17516 conflicted with the California Constitution.

Article XIIIB, section 6 of the constitution provides that whenever the Legislature or a state agency “mandates a new program or higher level of service on any local government,” the state must provide a “subvention” of state funds to reimburse the local government “for the costs of the program or increased level of service.” This provision was added to the California constitution by voter initiative in 1979.

The Government Code section declared unconstitutional by the Court of Appeals exempted from eligibility for state reimbursement various orders or regulations issued by the State Water Board or regional boards. As a result, local governments had been prevented from arguing to the Commission on State Mandates, which determines whether state funding is appropriate, that the cost of complying with these orders or regulations was recoverable as an “unfunded state mandate.”

In recent years, the State and regional water boards have imposed a number of new requirements on counties and cities across the state, including requirements relating to municipal storm water permits and other requirements addressing pollutants in storm water. The cost of these requirements is in the billions of dollars, yet relatively little state bond funding has been available.

As a result, the County of Los Angeles and 22 cities sued the Commission on State Mandates, arguing that the Government Code section conflicted with the constitutional provision allowing for state funding. Judge Chaney agreed, and the Commission appealed her ruling to the Court of Appeals.

The ruling by the Court of Appeals means that local governments will now be able to seek reimbursement for the cost of programs required by the State Water Board or the regional boards.

“It’s a victory for taxpayers, and a victory for the environment,” said Larry Forester, who heads the Coalition for Practical Regulation, a membership organization committed to supporting the environment through State-funded programs. “Communities will not be forced to choose between funding clean water programs and essential services like police and fire. Better still, this ruling will greatly improve the environment because cities will be able to adopt more cost-effective pollution prevention programs.”

Copies of complete Court ruling, excerpts and details are available on request. For story assistance call Jeff Hobbs, City of Bellflower, at (562) 804-1424 ext. 2278.

'Servants' become the masters

What an apt title. The drum keeps beating but the politicians are not hearing, just like with everything else in America. The politicians only serve themselves, public employees, lobbyists (and the interest groups that hire them) and the taxpayers. In that order, with taxpayers outnumbering the former but way down the list in terms of influence. Why? Because taxpayers are lame (less than half vote) and never vote anyone out of office (usually as there is no one else any better to vote in)

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/columns/article_1691947.php

May 13, 2007
'Servants' become the masters
STEVEN GREENHUT
Sr. editorial writer and columnist
The Orange County Register
sgreenhut@ocregister.com

As the presidential race gets under way, we're once again hearing the Democratic candidates ratchet up their rhetoric about the nation's great divisions between rich and poor, between those with health insurance and those without it, and between those with jobs and those on the unemployment line. I thought most people got tired of John Edwards' "two Americas" shtick during his campaign in 2004, but he is again championing this theme as he seeks the 2008 nomination.

I'll give the millionaire former senator this much: There are indeed two Americas, although the divide isn't the one that he repeatedly details.

Since the mid-1990s, American policy makers have been involved in a massive wealth transfer from the private sector to the public sector. To win the support of the powerful public-sector unions, officials at the federal, state and local levels have granted to government workers lavish retirement benefits that dwarf those of non-government workers. Here's the real divide: Between "public servants," who will be retired in their early 50s and living it up by the golf course, and private-sector workers who will be laboring until they drop over – not only to pay the bills, but to pay the higher taxes that surely will be needed to sustain the underfunded pensions promised to their government counterparts.

"As the first wave of 79 million baby boomers heads to retirement, the nation is dividing into two classes of workers: those who have government benefits and those who don't," USA Today reported Feb. 21. "The gap is accelerating in every way – pensions, medical benefits, retirement ages. Retired government workers are twice as likely to get a pension as their counterparts in the private sector, and the typical benefit is far more generous."

The newspaper quotes the Congressional Research Service, which finds that the typical government retirement is well over twice that of the typical private-sector retirement.

Government workers often also make more in salary. There are dueling statistics on public-sector vs. private-sector salaries, but the Bureau of Labor Statistics gives public employees (over the entire range of job categories) a 25-percent premium. Looking solely at federal workers, the Cato Institute explains that those in the government sector earn 56 percentmore in salary alone than those in the private sector. Public sector employees also have more days off, shorter work days, better health care benefits and so forth.

The benefit boom started when the stock market bubble inflated in the late 1990s, with unions claiming that the new level of investment returns meant higher pensions would be covered by pension fund investment gains and involve no risk to taxpayers. But what goes up must someday come down. After 9/11 happened, government unions – especially for police and fire – exploited that tragedy to increase their retirement dollars. No one could say no to potential "heroes." Meanwhile, union-dominated retirement boards continue to push for the most aggressive investments to earn the highest-possible returns. Why not? If they pan out, union members get even more benefits. If they don't, the taxpayers are stuck paying the difference.

The day of reckoning keeps getting closer.

State Controller John Chiang announced last week that California needs to start setting aside at least $2.2 billion a year to address the liability for its retiring workers; the total deficit ranges in estimates from about $48 billion to $70 billion. The state's pension deficit is at least $50 billion.

In Orange County, the public employee pension tab tops $2 billion – something made far worse after the Board of Supervisors in 2004 passed a retroactive pension spike that allows county workers to retire with a guaranteed pension equaling 81 percent of their pay after 30 years of service. Public safety workers in Orange County can retire with 100 percent of their final pay at age 53.

At these rates, pension liabilities are mounting. Some states' pension plans are on the skids and will soon require a bailout. Private pensions are in similar trouble, which is why corporate America is slashing benefits. But no such reductions have a chance in the public sector, where it's "only" taxpayer money that's at stake, and officials would rather pawn off problems to the future than face the wrath of the unions. Unlike companies, bureaucracies never go out of business, and voters rarely pay attention to these boring issues.

So it's two Americas, with the haves being those who worked in the government, and the have-nots being everybody else.

But don't worry.

A taxpayer-funded think tank at a taxpayer-funded university has released new research sponsored by a taxpayer-funded retirement system "proving" that these outsized pensions are not a problem for the state, but a benefit. As the Sacramento Business Journal reported, "The Applied Research Center at California State University, Sacramento, analyzed the impact of benefit payments to 674,000 retirees and their beneficiaries. Dr. Robert Fountain, research center director, and Dr. Robert Waste determined that the $13.8 billion in retirement benefits paid in 2006 created a $7.3 billion 'ripple effect,' for a total $21.1 billion impact." The CEO of the state retirement system reiterated the point of the study: "Retiree pension payments may seem like they are liabilities on the books of government, but, in fact, they represent billions and billions of dollars that contribute to the strength of state and local governments."

I don't know what's scarier, that professors (including one with the appropriate last name, "Waste") would engage in such pointless research or that the person in charge of the state's retirement system, with billions of dollars at its disposal, has such little economic understanding.

The argument that such liabilities are really benefits is known to economists as the "broken window fallacy." Author Henry Hazlitt told the famous fictional story, whereby a hoodlum throws a brick through a shop window. The store owner is upset, but a crowd gathers around the smashed window and starts to talk about the good things that will come from the vandalism. The money spent to fix the window will benefit a glazier, and the money the glazier gets will benefit his grocer and on and on. "The logical conclusion from all this would be, if the crowd drew it, that the little hoodlum who threw the brick, far from being a public menace, was a public benefactor," Hazlitt explained.

But ... the crowd forgets that the shopkeeper is out the money, and he would have spent it at, say, the tailor's, and the tailor would have spent it somewhere else. The broken window did not create wealth but unfairly shifted it.

Likewise, elected officials, at the behest of the unions, have been diverting billions of dollars from taxpayers and giving those dollars to union members. Certainly, one can study the effect of the money spent by those retirees. I'm sure real estate agents at Lake Coeur D'Alene, Idaho, car dealerships and the people who sell those 4-by-4 sand toys will enjoy the benefits of dollars lavished on retired government workers.

Yes, if a mugger takes the money in my wallet, there will be a boon to the liquor store where he spends it. But then I'll be out the cash, which I won't be able to spend at the local restaurant.

There simply is not enough money to pay for all the promises made to government unions and their members. As the liabilities mount, officials will be forced either to slash benefits, borrow money or raise taxes. The unions will never allow the first course of action to happen, so we're stuck with the latter two options – both of which will mean more wealth transfers from one America to the other, regardless of how some government economists try to spin it.

Contact the writer: 714-796-7823 or sgreenhut@ocregister.com

Unopposed board raised $8 million....Does this surprise anyone?

Really who would have expected this? The goal of most local politicos is to make stuff as hard to find as possible to keep the public in the dark but still have some degree of "plausible deniability". "Oh you want to know what we are up to...go look thru some musty old records in the basement" Good luck trying to find anything or if you do, connecting it to us. All this "stuff" needs to be on the internet. The state legislature needs to prevent this type of activity by local politicians (at City an County level) by requiring that ALL local agencies put all their "back room dealings" on the internet so we can all Google them and see what they are up to. The feds are starting to see that transparency and ease of access for the public is necessary and quite frankly, our right as taxpayers. See The Federal Funding Accountability And Transparency Act Of 2006

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-supes13may13,0,2568564.story?coll=la-home-center

Unopposed board raised $8 million
A Times database looks at more than 15,000 contributions to L.A. County supervisors.

By Jack Leonard and Doug Smith, Times Staff Writers

May 13, 2007

It has been more than a decade since any of Los Angeles County's five supervisors faced a serious election contest, but that hasn't curbed their appetite for campaign cash.

A Times analysis of political donations shows that supervisors have raised more than $8 million since 1998, tapping businesses, labor unions and individuals who have stakes in decisions made by the nation's largest county government.

The supervisors have used their political war chests to scare off potential opponents, donate to favorite political causes and spend on personal campaign items, including a gun permit in one case and UCLA sports tickets in another.

Until now, the scope of these political donations was almost impossible to gauge. Unlike other local governments — including the cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach — the county has never made such contributions accessible in a searchable online database.

But over the last four months, The Times has built a database of more than 15,000 contributions and, starting today, it is available at latimes.com. A review of the donations provides the most comprehensive look yet at who has given money to the supervisors since voters approved strict limits on campaign contributions in 1996.

• Developers dominate the list of the most generous donors, with Newhall Land & Farming Co. on top. The company, along with its executives and their relatives, gave about $65,000. The supervisors have approved the company's plans to build a 20,885-home development at Newhall Ranch, despite opposition from environmentalists.

• Other top contributors include companies that have been awarded contracts to provide services to the county. For example, Premier Building Maintenance and its officers have given $39,700. Last year, the county paid Premier $5 million for janitorial services. A company executive said the firm won its contracts in open and fair bidding.

• Supervisors have held their wallets open even when they faced no opposition. In 2000, when their terms were about to expire, Supervisors Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, Don Knabe and Mike Antonovich ran unopposed on the ballot yet amassed as a group more than $1.4 million.

• In 1998, more than a year after voters approved limits on the amount donors can give to the supervisors, Knabe, who was newly elected, used a legal loophole to raise money in excess of those limits to pay election debts. He collected 40 donations exceeding the $1,000 limit per donor, raising nearly $120,000.

Nothing prohibits contractors and developers with projects pending before the county board from giving money to a supervisor's campaign. And supervisors defend their practice of accepting such donations, saying they need the money to ensure reelection.

They insist that they do not allow campaign cash to influence their government decisions and point to instances when they have voted against contributors.

"Any time you get to a place where you feel because you get $1,000 you have to vote for their issue, you're in trouble," Burke said.

Antonovich said: "People who contribute are buying my philosophy. I'm not buying theirs."

Campaign reform advocates expressed skepticism, however, noting that the largest donors gave to all five supervisors, whose political views span a broad spectrum. Burke, Zev Yaroslavsky and Gloria Molina are Democrats; Knabe and Antonovich are Republicans.

Kathay Feng, executive director of California Common Cause, said elected officials should be barred from voting on issues that would probably benefit contributors.

She cited rules that prohibit Metropolitan Transportation Authority board members — who include all five supervisors — from accepting more than $10 from companies that seek contracts from the transit agency.

"It creates a perception that people who make large donations get additional access to our elected officials," Feng said. "Sometimes, that impression can translate into real influence."

Feng also criticized county leaders for failing to move sooner to offer a more accessible way to see who contributes to supervisors. The county registrar-recorder's office posts printed copies of campaign finance reports on its website, but they are difficult to view and do not allow the public to easily search for donors.

The state and some local government agencies provide better online tools for the public. The secretary of state's office launched its Web database for candidates running for state office in 2000. The city of Los Angeles' online database includes donations since 1998, when Ethics Commission workers started computerizing contributions to candidates for city offices.

County Registrar-Recorder Conny McCormack said efforts to use the same software the city uses were stalled until recently by legal and technology concerns. The county is preparing to launch its own online database this summer.

The database will initially include contributions made since January to candidates for supervisor, sheriff, district attorney and assessor. McCormack said the county would not add older contributions, saying staff shortages and the county's rules on soliciting bids for outsourced work would make the task too difficult.

"There's no legal requirement for us to go back," she said. "It would be a huge amount of work."

The Times spent $6,300 to hire a private company to computerize the supervisors' campaign finance records back to 1998. The newspaper then built its own database, which includes monetary and nonmonetary contributions, refunds and loans.

A review of the data shows that Knabe, Antonovich and Yaroslavsky each raised more than $2 million over the last nine years. Burke collected $1.4 million. Molina — who makes little secret of her distaste for fundraising — lagged well behind with $527,589.

In 1996, county voters approved a ballot measure that in most cases restricts donations to campaign accounts to $1,000 per donor per election cycle. Until then, the county had no limits, and some unions and businesses pumped tens of thousands of dollars into individual campaigns.

A review of the donations shows that the limits have eliminated such large one-time donations and reduced the influence individual donors can exert on an election.

"I think it's totally changed the dynamic of political campaigns and the appearance of favoritism completely," said Yaroslavsky, who wrote the campaign reform measure.

In 1998, Knabe exceeded the limits by accepting donations of as much as $5,000 to pay off expenses from his 1996 election, which took place before the rules took effect. His spokesman said he raised the money only after receiving a memo from county lawyers saying it was legal to do so.

Among his top donors were investors who lease land from the county in Marina del Rey and developers, such as Newhall Land, that need county approval for their projects.

Interest groups continue to dominate the top donors to supervisors, despite the 1996 reforms. The $1,000 limit does not stop a company, its executives and employees and their relatives from each giving the maximum allowed. In addition, donors can contribute not only to supervisors' campaign committees but also to legal defense and officeholder accounts that all five supervisors keep for official business expenses.

Newhall Land, its executives and their relatives have provided steady support to most of the supervisors. The developer gave most generously in 1999 and 2003, coinciding with the two votes the board took in approving the company's sprawling Newhall Ranch development.

"If they don't vote for the projects, they won't continue to get the contributions," said Lynne Plambeck, an environmentalist who opposes the Newhall project.

Yaroslavsky voted against the project in 2003, the only supervisor to do so. The company has not donated to him since.

Newhall spokeswoman Marlee Lauffer said the developer does not contribute in order to gain favor for its own projects.

"We've … given to people who we think better the quality of life in Los Angeles County," she said.

Because no supervisor has faced a run-off election in more than a decade, they are left with millions of dollars that campaign rules say cannot be used in future elections. Supervisors donate most of it to charities, civic groups and ballot measures.

But other expenditures stand out. In 1998, Antonovich used contributions to pay the Sheriff's Department $109 for a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Antonovich, a retired reserve police officer, said he sought the permit in response to threats on his life.

"My personal protection is connected to my performance of my duties as an elected official," he said.

State law allows expenditures that are directly related to a political, legislative or governmental purpose.

Yaroslavsky, a Bruins fan who likes to quote legendary basketball coach John Wooden, spent thousands of dollars on UCLA football and basketball tickets.

In response to questions about the tickets, Yaroslavsky provided a written statement, saying he took guests "whose responsibilities overlap with mine as an elected official or who have roles in the communities I represent that overlap with my responsibilities as an elected official."

*

jack.leonard@latimes.com

doug.smith@latimes.com

*

Political donations

A review of financial contributions to Los Angeles County's five supervisors shows that they have raised more than $8 million since 1998, even though none has faced a serious election challenge in a decade.

Mike Antonovich: $2,164,576

Zev Yaroslavsky: 2,040,911

Don Knabe: 2,014,349

Yvonne Brathwaite Burke: 1,413,036

Gloria Molina: 527,589

TOTAL: $8,160,461

--

Named below are a few of the most generous contributors, many of whom do business with the county. The amounts can include contributions made by the company, its executives and employees and their relatives.

Newhall Land & Farming Co. (developer): $65,600

Del Rey Shores (leaseholder of county land in Marina del Rey): $49,750

Premier Building Maintenance (county janitorial services contractor): $39,700

Tarzana Treatment Center (county contractor and drug and alcohol treatment provider): $35,800

B. Butler Enterprises/Scapular House/Canon Human Services Centers (county contractor and drug and alcohol treatment provider): $34,900

California Commerce Casino (casino): $34,075

American Medical Response (county contractor and ambulance services provider): $32,800

Watson Land Co. (developer): $29,350

Louis Weider (former leaseholder of county land in Marina del Rey): $26,375

Tejon Ranch Co. (developer): $21,687