Get ready for more property taxes related to storm water runoff

Now that Lakewood homeowners have dodged a bullet on the "flood tax" (FEMA imposed flood insurance in Lakewood where it is not needed) we have a new "parcel tax" to worry about. The County has secretly been working on this for some time. The new water "run off" regulations are out now per the story below and it is going to be very interesting how the County assess each parcel owner with this new property tax. This "election" will be next year and will be very low key. The county will not want you property owners to pay much attention to it but you should. We will pass along more information as we learn it as to when this so called "election" will take place in 2013. We have previously asked the County for information about this election but were rebuffed.

We believe the only persons entitled to vote will be property owners so again it will not be a "typical" election of all registered voters like we just had. Voting could take place in a 45-day mail-in ballot election between March and May 2013, according to county documents. Depending on the size of your lot you could be looking at a $50.00 to $100.00 per year (or more) additional fee on your property tax bill forever. This will highly depend on the size and configuration of your lot and likely how it is zoned.Of course the issue will be whether the County should pay for this out of its General Fund or asses a new "tax" for it. About 40 percent of the money would be distributed to 85 cities in the county, 50 percent would go to watershed groups made up of cities and unincorporated county communities, and 10 percent would go to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District for administrative costs, according to county documents. Recall of course you just rejected Measure J in LA County on November 6, 2012. (that was to extend the "temporary 1/2 cent sales tax hike in LA County to 2069) Take a look at all the current assessments on your property tax bill. There are many hundreds of dollars of "fees" and "assessments"on there and for some people may even be higher than the property tax bill itself.

So once again what have you seen from the city of Lakewood on this? Nothing. Dont bother looking at the website. Nothing there. What are they going to do about it? Apparently nothing. It does not appear that any representatives from Lakewood even spoke at the Nov 8, 2012 meeting (unlike other local cities) As usual, the City Council is keeping you in the dark. Now that we have posted something perhaps they will bring it up as they love to do that just like they did with the FEMA problem.

latimes.com/news/local/la-me-storm-water-20121109,0,4497794.story latimes.com

New storm water runoff rules could cost cities billions The regional water board regulations place restrictions on 33 pollutants. 

 By Bettina Boxall, Los Angeles Times
 November 9, 2012

Cities in Los Angeles County face spending billions of dollars to clean up the dirty urban runoff that washes pollution into drains and coastal waters under storm water regulations approved Thursday night by the regional water board. Despite more than two decades of regulation, runoff remains the leading cause of water pollution in Southern California, prompting beach closures and bans on eating fish caught in Santa Monica Bay. The runoff — whether from heavy winter rains or sprinkler water spilling down the gutter — is tainted by a host of contaminants from thousands of different places: bacteria from pet waste, copper from auto brake pads, toxics from industrial areas, pesticides and fertilizer from lawns. "Municipal wastewater treatment has made incredible strides over the past 20 or 30 years, and other sources of pollution have been well controlled," said John Kemmerer, regional associate water director for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which oversees the Clean Water Act. "It really comes down now to urban runoff."

The regulations, which the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted after a daylong hearing, place limits on 33 pollutants ranging from coliform bacteria to hydrocarbons and lead. "This is the only way to move forward," said board member Madelyn Glickfeld. Environmental groups countered that the regulations contain provisions that weaken enforcement. "We're extremely disappointed with this decision," said Kirsten James, water quality director for Heal the Bay. "At the end of the day [the cities] don't have that stick waiting for them. That's very disconcerting." The requirements, in the form of a pollution permit, are an overdue renewal of storm water regulations adopted in 2001 that failed to reap hoped-for improvements in water quality. The permit applies to most cities in the county as well as the county flood control district and unincorporated areas. Over the last few years, other regions in the state have adopted similar storm water regulations. But none address as many pollutants as the Los Angeles rules, which cover 3,000 square miles containing about 500 miles of open drainage channels and 3,500 miles of subterranean drains.

The Los Angeles provision seeks to reduce storm water flows to the ocean in ways that would replenish aquifers, thus boosting local water supplies.

Municipal officials say they will pursue a variety of tactics to meet the regulations, ranging from better street sweeping to collaborating on the construction of large infiltration basins that will capture storm water and let it seep into the ground to recharge groundwater. They also plan to adopt low-impact development ordinances similar to one approved in the city of Los Angeles that require new, larger construction projects to use parking lot and landscape designs that would retain a certain amount of runoff on site. Building "green infrastructure" to capture the runoff is more cost-efficient than trying to treat it at thousands of small sources, Kemmerer said. Parking lots at public buildings such as schools could be converted to permeable paving. Street curbs could be altered to send road runoff to plant beds rather than storm drains. Small pocket parks could be created with plantings to hold and filter rainwater. "This takes a different approach" that gives cities flexibility to meet the pollution standards "in the most economical way possible," said Charles Stringer, the board's vice chairman.

The cost of complying with regulations has been a top concern for cities — although environmentalists say municipalities are exaggerating the expense. Shahram Kharaghani, watershed protection division manager for Los Angeles, estimated it will cost $5 billion to $8 billion to meet the storm water standards for the city over the next two decades. But the projects won't just improve water quality, he said, they will recharge groundwater supplies, create wildlife habitat and create green jobs. "This is no longer put the water in the pipe and get it out to the ocean," he said. The county flood control district is preparing a ballot proposal for next year that would impose a parcel fee to pay for the runoff controls. At $54 for an average residential parcel, the fee would raise about $275 million a year, Kharaghani said. But what the cities view as needed flexibility, environmental groups describe as offramps that will let municipalities off the compliance hook. "It is going to be the public that suffers, the water quality that suffers," warned Noah Garrison, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. Environmentalists objected in particular to a provision they interpret as saying that if municipalities adopt a watershed plan approved by the board and implement it, they will be considered in compliance, even if the pollution limits are exceeded. The water board staff, which has worked for several years on the new regulations, rebutted that contention, saying the requirements were much more stringent than earlier permits.

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

Update on FEMA's flood "tax"

this is the latest update from LBReport.com:

UPDATE: June 25, 2012, 2:15 p.m., Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid began making a series of motions re amendments and procedures related to the flood insurance bill. Sen. Jon Tester (D., MT) then spoke urging swift approval of the bill. The federal flood insurance bill which includes a section that could require homeowners and commercial property owners (whose properties carry federally backed loans) to purchase flood insurance if they're now protected by levees and dams. A vote on another bill is scheduled for 2:30 p.m. Tomorrow, the Senate may take up the flood insurance bill again. If the "residual flood risk" verbiage isn't removed from the Senate version of the bill (as it was last year in the House version), it could require tens of thousands of homeowners and commercial property owners in shaded areas on maps below to buy federally-run "flood insurance" each year. On passage, the Senate bill will go to a House-Senate conference committee (a handful of House and Senate members). If the Committee doesn't remove the "residual risk" language [Congress has a fiscal incentive to leave it in the final bill], the resulting legislation could require LB and southeast LA County homeowners with federally backed loans in the shaded areas below to pay federal flood insurance premiums each year [precise amount unspecified in bill and left to FEMA, we speculate several hundred dollars annually]. See coverage on LBReport.com for up to the minute details....

Update from LAAG on June 25:

We checked the text of Councilman Van Nostran's 2012 'State of the City" address given on January 5, 2012 and guess what. Not one mention of this "tax" or FEMA or flooding or anything else giving Lakewood homeowners a heads up about this and other really important things that will affect your family budget drastically. So either Lakewood is asleep at the helm or they decided to hide it from you. This bill has been in the works since December 2011 (when S. 1940 was introduced in the US Senate)

Lakewood city council should have alerted residents to this months ago and urged residents to write to the elected officials in Washington to seek a legislative "fix" to this problem before it hit this current crisis mode. Now there is very little time for a realistic legislative solution and the issue will likely we left to the bureaucrats at FEMA to decide our fate. Not very comforting as the FEMA folks are NOT ELECTED.

LAAG's Prior FEMA flood tax Post here

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

FEMA is once again getting ready to fleece homeowners in Lakewood with the help of Congress

June 25th Update here

Once again FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) via the NFIP (National Flood Insurance Plan) and of course your pals in Congress are trying to stick it to you again. Homeowners in Lakewood may once again be stuck with hundreds of dollars a year in flood insurance premiums as they once were in the 1990's up thru 2001 or thereabouts. In a nutshell what congress is doing is acknowledging that we (Thanks to then Congressman Steve Horn) fixed the levees on the LA River to be certified to protect against a "100 year flood". What congress is doing now is upping that to 500 year storm protection which basically means you will never be free from being forced to buy flood insurance (by NFIP) for your federally insured mortgage. And yes this little scheme is being pushed by both Democrats and Republicans (Likely to pay for all the hurricane and disaster relief that FEMA did in other states these past few years) Oh but wait its not a "tax" its just a mandatory insurance requirement for something that is less likely to occur than a direct asteroid strike in Lakewood. And the best part it does not increase the deficit (because YOU are going to pay for 100% of the costs of the program.... until you pay off your mortgage) There is a vote on this bill in the senate on Monday (June 25, 2012) at about 10 am PST. Unfortunately due to some maneuverings in congress were were caught short on this notice (Congress likes to do things that way so you pesky voters don't have time to call them or email them and tell them how angry your are).

If you are wondering what our "gold plated" city management team (with paid lobbyists) was doing on this bill for the last year that is a good question for them come next election cycle. We have seen nothing on this from Lakewood city council. Thanks guys. LAAG had to bring it to the attention of Lakewood voters first once again. All the city has on its website is the old 2008 FEMA info (see this link) and on the home page this weekend (June 23) some info about the July 4 block party (see this link) There will be no reason to celebrate if this bill passes. So once again while the city council parties you get hit with a big insurance bill.

Please take a look at this article and this one done by our good friends over at LBReport.com. Again thanks to them for helping out on this. We will keep this story updated as we learn more information.

But we suggest you contact Sen Boxer here and Sen. Feinstein here and tell them what you think about this little back door "tax" increase. Mention Senate Bill 1940.

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

We could not have said this better ourselves

If you want to learn about pro sports, yesterdays weather, police chases, lost pets, car accidents, fires and other headline catching news (all delivered by very sexy looking "script readers") then by all means watch local TV news. The type of news gathering that exposed the city of Bell and the other pension crisis issues in local government is not going to be on the local TV news. Well not until long after it is headline news on blogs and in newsprint. In fact even smallish newspapers like the press telegram don't cover this stuff. It takes "real" "investigative journalism". Not regurgitating press releases by the local government news machine like some "local" news papers are happy to do. In fact that was one of the uglier parts of the CIA leak case during the Bush years. Even the national media and government work hand in hand to promote each other. Its a dirty business but in some cases its the only way to get a story. The media does not have the time nor resources to "dig" by hand for everything they print daily.

This was a very good program highlighting the problem. Of course it was on PBS and advocated doing what we did in the late 1700's and early 1800's and that was using public funding structure to promote investigative journalism (sort of like what we do with PBS). The Founding Fathers made the First Amendment first as I think they realized that without a non governmental "check" on government we would have a real problem long term with our government. Just look at the countries that repress true and open journalism and see how well they pass the democracy test. The problem we have now is the "blogopshere" has taken over journalism so its really hard to know who to trust. Government or the bloggers.

Here at LAAG we wish we had a full time staff like the NY Times or LA Times just to dig around over at city hall. I am sure we would find some embarrassing stuff. But we don't have the staff the city does (nor the tax dollars). They can bury it a lot faster than we can dig it up.

Oh and in case you were wondering, still no "details" from the Lakewood City Council on how they are going to be more "transparent" in 2011. First I think Larry Van Nostran has to look the word up in the dictionary.

FCC report on media warns of decline in quality local news
June 9, 2011 | 3:21 pm
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2011/06/fcc-report-on-media-warns-of-decline-in-quality-local-news-.html

A new report from the Federal Communications Commission warned that the "independent watchdog function that the founding fathers envisioned for journalism" is at risk in local communities across the country.

In a 475-page report released Thursday titled, "The Information Needs of Communities: The Changing Media Landscape in a Broadband Age," the government regulatory agency, which has oversight over television and radio as well as certain aspects of the Internet, said there is a "shortage of local, professional, accountability reporting" that could lead to "more government waste, more local corruption," "less effective schools" and other problems.

"The less quality reporting we have, the less likely we are to learn about government misdeeds,” said FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski in a statement released with the report.

A topic of discussion in the report is the Los Angeles Times' coverage of the abuses by the city administration in Bell. Although the Pulitzer-Prize winning efforts of The Times exposed the corruption, it went on for years before getting noticed.

“A lot of residents tried to get the media’s attention, but it was impossible,” community activist and teacher Christina Garcia told the FCC. “The city of Bell doesn’t even have a local paper; no local media of any sort.”

Indeed, the FCC noted that The Times covers almost 100 municipalities and 10 million residents. David Lauter, Metro editor of The Times, is quoted as saying that his staff is “spread thinner and there are fewer people on any given area.... We’re not there every day, or even every week or every month. Unfortunately, nobody else is either.”

Local TV is singled out in the report for not covering important issues enough. Although the number of hours of local news has increased over the last few years, too few stations "are investing in more reporting on critical local issues," the report said. Furthermore, the report said that although stations may be adding newscasts, they are doing it with fewer reporters.

Even with the additional newscasts, the stories often focus on crime and the reason for that has more to do with how cheap it is to cover crime stories than it does viewer demand.

While the report, which was originally to be titled "The Future of Media," said there has been an explosion of media platforms because of the growth of digital platforms, at the same time there has been a decline in quality as a result of the same technology boom.

"As technology offered consumers new choices, it upended traditional news industry business models, resulting in massive job losses," the FCC said.

The result has been "gaps in coverage that even the fast-growing digital world has yet to fill." Although the digital media may someday fill the void left by diminishing traditional media, "at this moment the media deficits in many communities are consequential."

-- Joe Flint

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

Crime mapping in Lakewood gets a facelift (once it comes on line)

We of course were not surprised when the Sheriff's dept. (LASD) managed to once again drop the ball on crime reporting. We applaud the LASD in trying to find a cheaper (not sure how much cheaper or if better) alternative to crimereports.com which they have been using for some time as we reported. What bothers us the most is that the city of Lakewood NEVER even mentioned crimereports.com on their website or in any other literature we can find. Why? The Press Telegram did not even mention this safu below with the transition to crimemapping.com. We mentioned crimereports.com when we first happened upon it by accident in January 2009. Only time will tell if crimemapping.com gives us better detail and more customization than crimereports.com. In addition, one must remember that these third party privately run websites are only as good and as timely as the data supplied by LASD. One must also remember that these are only incidents that are reported AND where a report is taken or an incident number is assigned. In most cases people don't even bother to report stuff to Lakewood LASD as nothing good ever comes of it. And none of us will ever know how much of that crime goes unreported. (in speaking with some recent victims of Lakewood burglaries we were told by the victims that reporting it to Lakewood LASD was a total waste of time)

When we recently heard of a rash of residential Lakewood burglaries in March and April 2011 we became even more interested in the realtime crime data. Also we learned that the LASD Cerritos substation puts out a weekly crime related email with maps and a very nice one page summary of significant crime trends (and some insight) for residents to keep on the lookout for. Now what puzzled us is why is Cerritos substation putting out these weekly crime reports when Lakewood is not? Could it be that Cerritos has more crime than Lakewood? Hardly. They also have the same Sheriff service Lakewood does. Cerritos LASD also still uses crimereports.com and will be using crimemapping.com in addition to the email summaries they are sending out unlike Lakewood LASD. Its key to note that the emailed reports come from the CITY of Cerritos (crime_information@cerritos.us), not LASD (lasd.org). So there you have it. The difference is that the Cerritos city council acknowledges that crime exists in their city and they want their residents to be aware of an uptick etc in crime or abnormal pattern and the types of crime as well as where the hotspots are. Now on the other hand the Lakewood city council (which happens to have a Sheriff sitting on it) does not want to even acknowledge that there is any crime in Lakewood as this hurts reelection. So the best way to pretend there is no crime in Lakewood is to make sure the city never officially acknowledges any (by sending out crime reports like Cerritos) other than to say at the end of the year "crime is down..." Oh great. What about the rash of burglaries in North Lakewood. Oh well those just get merged into the overall yearly rate. Problem Solved. If you want to dig a little deeper you are on your own. The city of Lakewood is not going to help you and they are not going to ask LASD to help you either. Again as we said before there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Denial is not just a river folks. Again lack of transparency is very "apparent" when you take even a little bit of a closer look at what is going on in this city.


Sheriff's online crime data unavailable as department switches software
By Brian Day, Staff Writer
Posted: 04/28/2011
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_17952798

LOS ANGELES COUNTY - Online public crime information from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is temporarily unavailable as the agency switches to a new crime reporting software, officials said.

For more than a year, the sheriff's department has provided limited information about the type, time and locations of crimes reported to the department via the website Crimereports.com. Several other Los Angeles County agencies, including the Baldwin Park, Covina and Whittier police, also provide crime information to the public via Crimereports.com.

The department has elected to start using a new system, effective this weekend, officials said, and the process has had the unintended consequence of no online crime information being posted on Crimereports.com since April 18.


"We don't know what the glitch was, but we're going to get it fixed," Los Angeles County sheriff's Capt. Michael Parker said.

"It was supposed to be seamless," Parker added of the transition between crime reporting systems.

The sheriff's department has paid for services from Crimereports.com through Saturday, Parker said, so it was unclear why crime data is no longer being updated. Once informed of the issue, authorities began looking into it.

Starting this weekend, Parker said, sheriff's officials will post crime data on the website Crimemapping.com, which is already used by agencies including Pasadena, Los Angeles, Arcadia and Sab Gabriel police.

When sheriff's data begins to show up on Crimemapping.com this weekend, Parker said, it will likely take a week or two to work out all the bugs.

"We expect glitches, because that's what happens when you do a big transition," he said.


Once in place, Crimamapping.com will retroactively pull all crime data from the previous six months

The switch is designed to provide better information to the public at a reduced cost to the sheriff's department, Parker said.

"We have changed systems because we found a system that was less expensive and was able to provide more information to public," he said.

Read more: http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_17952798#ixzz1KwU1TI7F



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