LB Press Telegram / L.A. Daily News Editorial (5/31/07)

Finally a bit of common sense begins to creep into CA...LAAG asked for this a few weeks ago when Georgia banned fireworks due to statewide fire dangers. Well the Fireworks lobbyists are busy making sure those Chinese workers making fireworks get their bonuses this year. And dont count on local politicians to get this done. It will have to be at the state level.

Fireworks danger
Article Launched: 05/30/2007 08:53:09 PM PDT
http://www.presstelegram.com/opinions/ci_6024165

From the L.A. Daily News

Even in the lushest of Southern California summers, fireworks shows - both sanctioned and neighborhood free-for-alls - are a dangerous pastime.

But they have been allowed because celebrating our country's birth was deemed worth the fire risk. Besides, fire fighters from every SoCal community know that the week leading up to July 4 is a time to be extra vigilant.

But this year, conditions are more ignitable than usual. It's shaping up to be the driest summer on record for Los Angeles - a city filled with and surrounded by rain-deprived vegetation just waiting for a spark. Last month's Griffith Park wildfire shows how one stray spark can lead to large-scale scorching.

Because of this fire authorities need to reconsider their fireworks policies this year. Already the city of Burbank has cancelled its famous Fourth of July fireworks extravaganza at the Starlight Bowl for fear that the Verdugo Mountains could be set ablaze.

Fireworks shows are planned for every corner of Los Angeles. Fire officials ought to assess the danger of two planned fireworks displays in particular - at Hansen Dam and Dodger Stadium, which is surrounded by the large and wild Elysian Park. Popular as these shows are, safety must come first.

As well, authorities must crack down on illegal fireworks displays. During normal years, it might be acceptable to look away. But with conditions as fire-ripe as they are this year, every sparkler and bottle rocket must be considered a dangerous incendiary device.

Wildfire weary county places 60-day ban on fireworks

Perhaps its time Governor Arnold did the same in CA....as we are in the middle of a record drought...fire season is just starting..

Oh and for the comment that lawnmowers and barbeque's should banned to I don't think those fall into the same category as fireworks whose sole purpose if to create smoke and sparks. They are not a necessity like mowing the lawn (which reduces the fire hazard)

http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap_newfullstory.asp?ID=92865

The Associated Press - WAYCROSS, Ga.

Weary from extreme drought and a record wildfire still burning after five weeks, Ware County commissioners on Thursday unanimously banned fireworks for the next 60 days _ a period including the Memorial Day and Fourth of July holidays.

Anyone violating the moratorium will face fines up to $1,000 and up to 60 days in jail, said James Ginn, a Ware County spokesman.

"Fireworks by design are somewhat volatile and sometimes unpredictable," Ginn said. "They have a proven track record of causing fires, and that's in conditions less dry than this."

Firework sales are expected to peak for the July 4 holiday, but Georgia retailers are stocking sparklers and other fireworks in time for the Memorial Day weekend.

The nation's largest firework distributor, Alabama-based TNT Fireworks, said Thursday it has halted shipments to Ware County and other counties in south Georgia and parts of Florida because of fire risks. The company said it hoped conditions would improve in time to resume shipments by July 4.

"We do not want TNT products associated with wildfires," Tommy Glascow, the company's president, said in a statement.

The largest wildfire recorded in Georgia since the 1950s started just outside of Waycross when a tree ignited after falling onto a power line April 16.

The blaze, now centered in the Okefenokee Swamp, has burned 496,785 acres _ or 776 square miles _ of swamp and timberland in southern Georgia and northern Florida. It has destroyed 21 homes in Ware County.

The Ware County moratorium bans using fireworks, but not selling them. Ginn said that's because most county residents are in the city of Waycross, which is not affected by the county's ban.

John Thomas, a Georgia lobbyist for Ohio-based retailer Phantom Fireworks, said the county had unfairly singled out fireworks when cigarettes, barbecue grills and lawn mowers can also start fires.

"We can ban fireworks and that's not going to stop wildfires," Thomas said. "It's an inappropriate response targeting one product when we should be looking at general fire safety."

Georgia banned all fireworks until 2005, when state lawmakers voted to allow sales of sparklers and other items that don't explode or shoot balls of flame. Firecrackers, bottle rockets, Roman candles as well as many others are still illegal.

The Georgia Forestry Commission has urged Georgians statewide to refrain from using fireworks because of drought conditions. It says fireworks started 25 fires in Georgia during the last July 4 holiday.

The commission says central and south Georgia are so dry that more than half of the state faces an "extreme" fire danger _ the most severe rating. Everywhere else, the threat is considered "high" or "very high."

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.