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

Our prior post on this topic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Locate your Assessor ID Number

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

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Cheryl Burnett

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read our prior story on this subject

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

from earlier reports of the tax in May 2012:

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

05/26/2012

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

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

Getting ready to protest the Los Angeles County Clean Water, Clean Beaches Measure on January 15, 2013

LAAG does plan on protesting this "tax" at the Public Hearing on January 15, 2013. There are many questions we have that have not been sufficiently answered. This is clearly a case of "lets get the tax money first and see if we can solve the problem later" type of deal from the county. Amazing. Also doing it as a property owner only type of vote may hurt it more than a popular vote as people that don't own property (but use water) like to vote in indebtedness to those "wealthy landowners". What a mess.

The info below is from Supervisor Knabe's website:

Many county residents have been receiving letters in the mail regarding a Clean Water, Clean Beaches Measure. I am here to tell you that I strongly oppose this Measure, and believe that the way the process is being managed is a sneaky attempt to get it passed. This is a two-step process. What you received is the first step, a Notice of a Public Hearing and Protest Form, which was sent to all residential, business and public parcel owners in Los Angeles County. If you oppose the Measure, please be sure to fill out and mail in the Protest Form that is attached to the Notice. At the Public Hearing on January 15, 2013 if a majority protest of the parcel owners throughout the County has been received, then the item will be rejected. If the protest fails, the Measure is currently scheduled to go to the second step, which could be a mail-in ballot next Spring. The special election mail-in ballot would be sent only to property owners. It is being done this way because polls show that if a ballot measure went to all registered voters, the initiative would be much less likely to pass. While this process is in line with the letter of the law, it is not in the spirit of the law. I see this as an underhanded attempt to pass this initiative and am strongly against this taxpayer rip-off. This Measure is a proposed fee on parcel owners that will generate funding to complete projects that protect public health, and increase drinking water supplies, by cleaning up our rivers, lakes, bays, beaches and coastal waters. I have consistently supported clean water projects throughout the County, and remain committed to improving water quality. However, I believe that every voter in the County should have the opportunity to decide on this fee, through an open and transparent initiative process, which should be putting it before the voters and not in a mailing. The Public Hearing for this Measure is scheduled for Tuesday, January 15, 2013 in the Board of Supervisors Hearing Room. At that time, if there is no majority protest, then I will again push for a Regular Ballot on an election day. I will not support the item if it is a Special Election by mail and only for property owners. If you have any questions on the specifics of the Measure itself, please call (800) 218-0018 or visit www.lacountycleanwater.org.

Lost your notice of public hearing? Download a new copy.

Locate your Assessor ID Number

SURVEY: Will you protest the Clean Water, Clean Beaches Measure?
 
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

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

Here we go again?

This is starting to become a problem. Now that city budgets are getting tight in the downturn the ugly truth is coming out: mismanagement or worse, fraud and deception. Again like with City of Bell we keep saying this is due to lack of transparency and voters and media that just dont want to take the time to scrutinize what is going on a local level and everyone is so obsessed with state and national political circus played out every day. Well this is where the news channels needs to focus their energy. Real investigative reporting at the local level. With all the media we have today there is more than enough to cover local politics properly. Without the drama and party bickering that overtakes state and national politics. But if the media does not shine the light on this type of stuff then voters will never see it. Quite frankly the two reporters that broke the City of Bell story last year deserve the Pulitzer.


State controller orders audit of city of Montebello, saying there's evidence of false financial reports
April 21, 2011
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/04/allegation-of-fake-financial-reports-prompts-outside-audit-of-troubled-montebello.html

The state controller took the unusual step Thursday of ordering an outside audit of the struggling city of Montebello, saying there is evidence the city produced false financial reports dating back several years.

The action, which marks the first time officials have launched a full city audit since examining wrongdoing in Bell last year, marks an ominous turn for Montebello, which is in danger of running out of money later this year.

The working-class city east of downtown L.A. has been mired in budget problems and allegations of mismanagement and missing money for months. Last week, the city manager brought in to clean up the mess abruptly resigned. Peter Cosentini warned councilmembers that former city officials for years had used accounting tricks to hide the true nature of the city’s financial picture, making it seem as though the city had more money than it actually did.

Montebello officials discovered more than $1 million in two off-the-book bank accounts. That prompted a probe by Los Angeles County prosecutors that is still ongoing. Last month, Montebello officials said they solved the mystery, claiming the money went to a local developer as part of a complex loan to build a restaurant in the city.

In a letter to Montebello announcing the audit, state Controller John Chiang said the city was out of compliance with state laws because it had not submitted annual audits and financial reports to the state. Chiang also cited comments made by several city officials to The Times and others that financial reports might be inaccurate and included false information.

“I have concluded that there is reason to believe that the Annual Report of Financial Transactions … [is] false, incomplete or incorrect,” Chiang wrote.

Montebello Councilwoman Christina Cortez, a critic of the city’s past financial dealings, said she welcomed the audit.

“It’s unfortunate that nobody in the city understood the severity and seriousness of all the illegal activities that have been going on,” she said. “I’m glad we are finally getting a third party to investigate.”


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

Wonder where your law enforcement tax dollars are going?

Well when it comes to the LA County Sheriff's department it's not going to enforcement and keeping you safe, but to lawsuit payoffs. This Blake Dupree case was settled very quietly 2 months ago and we just recently came upon one article that just mentioned it. The only reason we mention it is because the incident happened at the Lakewood Sheriff substation in 2008. From the LA times story on yet another settlement for bad behavior:


"Lyznick's settlement comes less than two months after the county agreed to pay $4.25 million and other costs [so its even more money?] to Blake Dupree, a man who was paralyzed from the chest down after a sheriff's deputy Tasered him, causing him to fall from the top bunk of his jail bed. Dupree, who had been refusing to leave his cell, was then carried out to the station's fingerprint area and dumped on the floor, according to his lawsuit. Much of the 2007 [we understand it was 2008] incident was caught on tape." (keep those iPhones rolling!)

You ask yourself why the county settles these? Its because they cant take them to trial as it would be so obvious to a jury that LASD screwed up (per the LASD defense attorneys) and the jury would likely award a lot more money that then settlement. Also don't forget we still have this little gem yet to be "resolved". The LASD is very good at keeping these settlements out of the press as they dont want you to know where your tax dollars are really going. The Dupree settlement is almost half of he Lakewood LASD budget for a year! Like we said before, the Deputies that are causing these problems need to go. To never be hired again by another agency. Oh but wait the LASD union is in the way preventing us from getting rid of the "lawsuit magnets"....

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