Boot Hill for the Choo Choo?

The Metro board on Thursday afternoon dealt the first of what may be many blows intended to kill the Gold Line extension to Montclair (and maybe Ontario). They put off deciding on the Long Range Plan, including the Gold Line, until November. What that means is this: the Gold Line misses out on this year’s Federal funding cycle, which translates into a minimum of a year’s delay for the Gold Line.

AND that could very well mean the end of the light rail project for the foreseeable future, BECAUSE the Metro (that’s the old MTA with a new hairdo, for those who don’t know) board has other priorities and no regard for the powerless San Gabriel Valley.

So, what went wrong?

First, there was no muscle behind the San Gabriel Valley pitch for the Gold Line. Why should the Metro board give in when the San Gabriel Valley has no clout and wields no power over the Board? Why weren’t projects important to the Metro Board leveraged to gain Gold Line support? Would an Metro board member even recognize the mayor of Glendora, Monrovia, San Dimas or La Verne, let alone listen to them or be concerned they could have an impact on the Metro board member? Of course not. And Bill Bogaard, for all his positive attributes, is known for his avoidance of confrontation and conflict. Quite frankly, we have no attack dogs on the local level.

So what can be done?

Metro wants to install pay-to-drive HOV lanes on the 210 and 10 freeway. Before anybody in the San Gabriel Valley even considers this proposal, we should all have been saying: Show us your support for the projects we want and approve the Gold Line. (To me, if requiring people to pay to drive in the HOV lanes will magically remove traffic from freeways and surface streets, then why isn’t Metro trying to work that magic on the Westside and in the San Fernando Valley, where we have the most congested freeways? Think maybe it’s because voters over there will barbecue politicians who even propose that. And we get a representative who is the CHAIR of the Metro’s subcommittee to impose that “congestion pricing” scheme on all of us.)

At least our Congressional delegation is fighting tooth and nail to stop that pay-for-HOV scheme and telling Metro to approve the Gold Line of face Federal legislation that prohibits imposing fees to drive on existing free roads. These are people who have some measure of power over the Metro (remember this is the MTA tiger with its stripes rearranged).

Why aren’t our leaders saying, “Don’t even propose a sales tax for transit and expect we’ll support it here in the San Gabriel Valley without knowing IN ADVANCE that Metro has placed the Gold Line on the Long Range Transportation Plan and provided the $80 million match required to leverage Federal funds to build the first phase of phase two.

AND, when are we going to see someone propose legislation that breaks up the Metro into four or five smaller transportation authorities? How about one for downtown LA, one for the San Fernando and Antelope Valleys, one for the South Bay and Santa Monica AND one for the San Gabriel Valley?

OR, how about someone proposing legislation to reconstitute the Metro board? With fewer representatives for the City of Los Angeles and more for outlying cities.

We need people up the political food chain to hold the meat cleaver over Metro’s neck.

For now, we get six more months to plot the rebirth of the Gold Line before Metro finds another way to screw over the San Gabriel Valley. In the meantime, enjoy paying to drive in the HOV lanes.

Paul

City Council passes budget and disses voters at the same time

Council passed the annual operating budget last Monday night. Mostly, from what I can see the budget is appropriate.

I do have one serious concern: they added nearly $4 million more to the city’s General Fund reserve. Ok. Reserves help with stability, and generally I don’t have an issue with a healthy reserve. BUT, Pasadena already has a very healthy General Fund reserve. So healthy, the city recently earned a AAA bond rating.

Here’s my gripe, when they were campaigning for passage of Measure D, which I supported, the Mayor, former city manager, current interim city manager and the Council said they faced an emergency if the Utility User Tax wasn’t extended. BUT, now that the have the UUT in place, the city leaders are taking cash and putting it in their own reserve funds. NOT using it for services. NOT using it for constituent support. NOT using it for anything at all. If there was an emergency in February and it no longer exists, it seems to me only fair that, rather than line the city’s bank account, the appropriate action would have been to rebate that $3.7 million to the folks who pay the Utility User Tax.

As for the argument that other cities have higher reserves — those cities don’t enjoy a AAA bond rating. They also don’t have a utility company that generates mass quantities of money on a daily basis and that carries both a reserve and a working capital reserve valued together at more than 25% of the General Fund budget. Oh, and let’s not forget the Capital Projects Reserve and a host of other funds carrying balances to hedge against lost revenue or emergencies.

So, I have take my hat off to Martin Truitt and Wayne Lusvardi, who apparently were prescient when they said that the city didn’t have an emergency, didn’t need the UUT renewal and that city leadership was only going to fatten its own wallet with the money.

In times of economic stress, I do find it difficult to accept a city government that increases its own reserves rather than do what it can to relieve the stress on its citizens and businesses.

Paul

City budget’s teed up and ready to go

From last Monday’s public hearing, it seems the City budget is ready for adoption. I haven’t gone to any of the finance committee meetings and can’t bring myself to actually look at the budget draft in all its 800+ page glory, but I can confidently say there are some really good things in there, and some not-so-good things in there.  Pretty much the was true of the budgets we considered when I chaired the Finance Committee. (So no one mistakes me for someone who is “holier than thou.”

Interim City Manager Melekian did suggest some changes in approach to this year’s budget. He sought zero-based budgets from his department. Essentially, that means he asked everyone to examine all of their expenditures, not just what might be different from the previous budget. To me, that seems a good change. Look at your entire work program and all your expenditures, then prioritize everything, rather than assume last year’s expenses were all good and build on that.

He also asked that everyone consider their mission and look at the budget to see if they are doing heir best to accomplish that mission.  Again, that makes sense.

He also wants to fatten up the reserves by using the money that had been set aside should Measure D fail.  To me, if the city has an additional three or four million dollars and given the state of our economy and the promises made during the Measure D campaign by the City leadership, that money should be used to pay down fees, offset increased utility rates or otherwise be returned to the citizens and businesses of Pasadena.

The City really can’t keep taking and then not expect to give back when they’ve got some extra.

Now. let’s talk about those utility rates…

Paul

AT&T delivers U-Verse at sub-Lightspeed

AT&T has wanted to bring television services to Pasadena for the last few years. By all accounts, the service is exceptional and less expensive than our current provider. When it was first brought to the City a few years ago, the sting of Altrio was still very fresh. That company’s legacy still haunts AT&T.

A couple of years ago, it was understood that the City had the ability to insist that AT&T perform an Environmental Impact Review for the project. Now, apparently, that is not the case. I expect AT&T was able to press and win the argument that they have a statewide franchise, as a result of legislation a few years ago, and thus are not subject to local regulations. Essentially, they are free to build as they please.

As someone whose parkway was completely destroyed when Altrio planted a vault in the middle of it, I am sensitive to concerns of neighbors who fear new, large installations. Nobody really wants on of those cabinets in front of their home, and AT&T apprently has agreed that none will go in front of anyone’s house. To me, that’s a significant concession, and not the only one they made regarding size and siting of boxes.

Also, it appears that AT&T is going to be talking with neighbors in publicly convened meetings in each council district so should be able to gauge sentiment and desire for the product. Are people going to be so angry about the installations they won’t subscribe to the service (the Altrio experience) or will AT&T be able to assuage fears and move forward with customer confidence? That remains to be seen.

I do think there are a few more concessions the city should be considering as they move forward. Should techno;logy change, is AT$T willing to commit to replacing boxes with smaller installations? Does the city have the ability to impose customer service standards on all the television providers?

Has the City considered deeding the land from the street to the adjoining neighbors? We’re all required by ordinance to maintain the parkways and sidewalks as if we owned them. Why not really own them? Then the property owner would have the ultimate say in what goes in the parkway.

At any rate, the AT&T product is good. They seem sensitive to concerns that have festered as a result of the Altrio experience. The City doesn’t have a lot of leverage to force compliance with any demands. Absent a citizen lawsuit, which would be difficult for them to win, I think we can all expect, a year from now, to be getting calls at dinnertime asking if we want to add U-Verse to our current phone service.

And it probably won’t be a bad thing to consider.

Paul

Downtown Summit asks big questions

Our three downtown business districts, with some support from Paseo Colorado and the City, staged the first Downtown Summit this morning. Maybe eighty people, a good number of them city staff, heard a presentation on what makes downtowns work by Kennedy Lawson Smith who was witty, entertaining and had some good “how it’s been done elsewhere” stories.

Attendees ranged from policy wonks to developers, neighborhood gadflies to new urbanists, architects and planners to small business owners. Some came grinding their usual axe, but others came to engage in an energetic discussion about the future of downtown Pasadena.

For Smith, Pasadena is a success story that needs to capitalize on that success and maintain it in the face of increased competition and those seeking to replicate our downtown environment.

So, the question of the day really was, “What do we do about it?”

And the answer(s) were kind of disappointing, honestly. There was talk of retail tenant mixes (with no mention of how to corral property owners into submission); complaints about design guidelines (with no real way to create anything better); some discussion of making downtown more accessible to people who might prefer not to drive (without much talk about how to pay for such things) and some more sturm und drang about parking (again without much in the way of suggestions to address the problem).

The people who always complain that they don’t like what’s been built in Pasadena complained that they don’t like what’s been built in Pasadena. They aren’t completely wrong, there have been a few buildings that really aren’t up to a “Pasadena” standard, but a lot of what people dislike is really a matter of taste, not quality. At one point I asked another participant if they thought Greene and Greene or Frank Lloyd Wright could pull a building permit in Pasadena today. “Of course not!” was the response.

There is truth to the concerns that it’s not easy to get from one part of downtown to the other. Solutions are possible, but they all hinge on funding, ingenuity, vision, persistence and a willingness for all stakeholders to be participants in defining and implementing a solution. People like the idea of streetcars, but need to recognize that would be a $75 million to $100 million long-term solution. So what can we do now?

The other reality is that we can’t all sit back and expect the prosperity to continue if we don’t nurture, support and facilitate that prosperity. Chain stores may evolve over time, but I don’t think they will disappear (as Ms. Smith postulated). At the same time, I do think it’s important for Pasadena to have an eclectic mix that includes national retailers and local sellers. It is also incumbent on property owners, retailers and restauranteurs to have an aggressive approach to protecting and expanding their economic vitality. It is unrealistic to expect someone else to step up and invest in business districts without the businesses themselves doing exactly that same thing, stepping up and providing additional support for their own prosperity.

There were a lot of important issues raised. Many that need to be considered. How do we free up parking? How do we deal with the tension between residents who see additional traffic as a curse and businesses who see increased traffic as additional patrons?

One thing that wasn’t discussed is how does Pasadena maintain the small local retailers and restaurants that create much of the character that defines Pasadena. How do we save those little places that aren’t able to afford current downtown rents?

Also not discussed was any commercial development or operation that isn’t retail. Something else to consider is how office uses bring customers, create vitality and economic prosperity.

Nonetheless, it is important to bring stakeholders together to discuss downtown vitality. It is important to talk about keeping Pasadena’s competitive edge in the face of stiff competition from outside our borders and a staggering economy. It is important to keep focused on planning for the future.

So, when’s the next meeting?

Paul

The World may change for Pasadena electeds

According to the LA Times, the Fair Political Practices Commission is considering changing the rules about ticket use by local elected officials. Mentioned in the article are the 100+ Rose Parade seats council members are given each year. FPPCers want electred officials who get free tickets to explain on public websites how using the tickets were beneficial to the public interest.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gifts13-2008jun13,0,7638866.story

California political watchdog may prohibit city officials from accepting free concert, sports tickets

The chairman of the state Fair Political Practices Commission is pushing to curtail the gifts, but Anaheim and Pasadena leaders defend them.

By Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
June 13, 2008

SACRAMENTO — – Ahhh, to be a member of the Anaheim City Council, with access to free tickets to baseball games at Angel Stadium, Ducks hockey games at Honda Center and rock concerts at the Grove.

But, like the Ducks’ offense, those perks may soon disappear.

In Pasadena, the 2,100 grandstand seats for the Rose Parade that are gratis for the mayor and other city officials may also be in jeopardy. Ditto the luxury box reserved for San Jose city officials at Sharks hockey games and hip-hop concerts.

The grinch who would restrict the freebies going to politicians is Ross Johnson, a former Orange County state senator who some would say has turned against his kind since he became chairman of the state Fair Political Practices Commission.

On Thursday, Johnson sided with the commission staff on a proposal to limit free tickets for officials to cases in which their attendance at an event serves a legitimate public purpose. The gifts should be curtailed, Johnson said.

I honestly don’t see a lot of problem with explaining a legitimate public purpose associated with use of free tickets. I expect the alternative would be having to declare the tickets as gifts on FPPC forms.

With the parade tickets, many find a fair way to distribute them to constituents, though it is not unheard of to see a number wind up in the hands of political supporters and personal friends. Was I going to tell m y brother-in-law or cousin that I had tickets to give away but they couldn’t have any? Let’s all be honest and realistic. What I did do with 90% of the tickets I received was hold a blind raffle/lottery for constituents to have the chance to win tickets.

I’m not sure how the rules would apply to Rose Bowl game tickets, since those have to be paid for at face value and can’t be legally sold by office holders (or any of the recipients of the city issued tickets) at a profit.

Anaheim apparently argued that the city ownership of Angels Stadium made the proposed rules invalid in their case. That the City of Pasadena owns the Rose Bowl and the land underneath the Orange Grove and Colorado grandstands could be impacted if Anaheim succeeds in pressing its case.

FPPC heard from Pasadena City Attorneys and others and will rule on this at a future meeting.

It could mean big changes for local elected officials. Something to watch.

Paul

Who do we want to be?

It was an interesting meeting, the part I attended, anyway. But what’s it really mean?

I saw the story in the Star-News about a meeting of “concerned” groups regarding the upcoming revision of Pasadena’s General Plan (Planning for Pasadena’s future by Janette Williams) and thought I’d stop in to see how many people were in attendance and what was on their mind. I got there late, so I missed most of the real complaining but did get to hear several concerns expressed about lack of “citizen input” into city affairs. There were about 45 people there, by my count, about ten of them organizers of the effort. (From my observation, anyway.)

Attendees included several people who frequent city meetings and energetically advocate for positions. They were older, affluent, and, with two exceptions that I saw, white. Two are consistent affordable housing advocates, one an ardent voice for seniors. Others are longtime and traditional neighborhood advocates, a couple of consultants who specialize in development-related issues, and one (more or less) regular neighborhood guy. Councilman Victor Gordo and his three year-old son were there, too.

The complaint when I got there centered around the notion that the City of Pasadena and the council restricts public access to decision-making processes. Former Planning Commissioner Arnie Siegal disputed the assertion, mentioning that when he served on the commission there was no lack of public participation. From my experience, people have the opportunity to weigh in on all sorts of city decisions. I think some fail to see the distinction between having a chance to present a view or advocate with getting what they want.

One person in the audience suggested participants focus on achieving a significant and meaningful level of participation, rather than chase a series of goals for development and city manager hiring.  The meeting was clearly called and organized to promote a particular agenda, that of those who are dissatisfied with Pasadena’s current plans and approach to growth and development. Organizers were also, very clearly, a group of formerly influential folks who are dissatisfied with their ability to influence decision making in present day Pasadena.

Not everybody in the audience was completely in agreement, but dissenting opinions, or alternative approaches were quickly dismissed by the meeting facilitators.

While I agree that several pending decisions and processes require significant citizen input, the City Manager selection and the general Plan update jump to mind, I don’t agree that most citizens think Pasadena’s on the brink of disaster. (Otherwise, I’d expect our home prices to have dropped more than 3% since last year, for example.) I also think we have a lot of people who find the present downtown environment in Pasadena desirable. Most people in Pasadena seem, at least in my experience, mostly pleased with what we have here.

What we may be witnessing is a generational power struggle, of sorts. Most of the people who were in attendance at today’s meeting have longstanding history of involvement in Pasadena civic affairs. They’re been the influential folks in the past.

But times change.

As an asie, it is fascinating when people who served on the steering committee that put together the current General Plan complain when they don’t like the results. At least two of those complaining about the present state of Pasadena’s built environment were members of that steering committee that refined and ultimately was responsible for much of what remains the foundation of Pasadena’s growth and development. So they are complaining about… their own work… without accepting responsibility for any of it.

Paul