Los Angeles Mayoral Candidate Debate - March 1, 2017

Los Angeles Mayoral Candidate Debate 

on Wednesday March 1, 2017 - Time 7-9 pm

Doors open 6 pm

Informal after debate meet and greet will be held across the street - at Los Candiles - 2100 Cypress Avenue

Co-sponsors: LANCC, LA River studios, VOX productions

Please submit questions to: LANCC@EMPOWER LA.ORG

LOCATION:
at: Sonia Sotomayor Learning Academies  
2050 N. San Fernando Rd., Los Angeles, CA 90065

Moderator:
Susan Hirasuna - Award Winning broadcast Journalist
and KTLA FOX 11 Anchor

11 Certified Los Angeles 2017 MAYORAL Candidates      

Paul E. Amori

YJ Draiman

Eric M. Garcetti

Diane Harman

David Raymond Hernandez

Yuval Daniel Kremer

Frantz Pierre

Eric Preven

Dennis Richter

David Saltsburg

Mitchell Schwartz

http://losangeles.solutions/page15.php

http://losangeleselections.com/page10.php

A Reminder to Conservative Trump Critics

A Reminder to Conservative Trump Critics

Trump is a bare-knuckled brawler who never gives an inch.  His counter-punches are fast, hard, and relentless.  Like it or not, that’s what it takes to survive and win in today’s political environment.

Ron Ross

February 20, 2017

Conservative elites as well as some in the Republican establishment love finding fault with virtually everything Donald Trump says or does.  There is almost a daily litany of what they know he should have done differently or not at all.  They can always find something wrong with whatever he does.

Here’s the problem — like everything else in life, Donald Trump is a package deal.  It simply is not possible to design your own idealized Donald Trump (or anyone else). Furthermore, he’s the president.  They’re not.  He actually ran for president, got nominated, and got elected.  Pointing out what he could have said or done better is nothing more than pointless and tiresome kibitzing.

For example, Jonah Goldberg, a devout never-Trumper, had a recent column entitled “The Right Can’t Defend Trump’s Behavior.”  The sub-heading stated, “President Trump’s defenders struggle to explain his unorthodox behavior.”  Goldberg doesn’t seem to grasp that if it were not for Donald Trump’s “unorthodox behavior” Hillary Clinton would now be president.  Unorthodoxy was what it took to overcome the standard brutal tactics of the establishment.

Life comes in packages, not discrete components.  You can’t put in an à la carte order for life.  You can’t mix and match, pick and choose your preferred combination of reality parts.

Conservatives who are offended by Trump’s style, personality, and tweets are akin to the campus snowflakes who need “safe zones” and “trigger warnings.”  They are a bit too delicate and precious for the discomforts of reality.  It’s time, however, for them to put their big-boy pants on and grow up.

Another inescapable reality is that life is comprised of choices.  If you are a conservative who doesn’t like Trump, what are your alternative, real-world choices?

In debates, Milton Friedman would sometimes ask his opponent, “What perfect solution on what perfect planet are you comparing this to?”  That is an excellent rhetorical question.  It’s a good way to bring someone back to reality.

The political realities of 2016 meant voters had a choice between one of two candidates — Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.  If the Republican nominee had been anyone other than Trump, conservatives would now be living with the hell-on-earth presidency of Hillary Clinton.

None of the other Republican primary candidates would have had a prayer against Clinton and her henchmen in the media.  They would have been demonized, villainized, and defeated, just as John McCain and Mitt Romney were eight and four years ago.  Trump was the only candidate capable of surviving the whatever-it-takes tactics of the Democrats and the media.  He won, because he refused to play by the establishment’s ground rules and threw their obnoxious politically correct censorship right back in their faces.

Trump is a bare-knuckled brawler who never gives an inch.  His counterpunches are fast, hard, and relentless.  Like it or not, that’s what it takes to survive and win in today’s political environment.

Whenever you find yourself bothered by something President Trump says or does, repeat these three words to yourself: “President Hillary Clinton.”  You’re bound to feel better instantly.

Spend a little time visualizing what a Hillary presidency would be like.  It’s not hard.  Her advisers would include Huma Weiner, John Podesta, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Elizabeth Warren, and Madeleine Albright, just to name a few. It would be a four- or eight-year prolonging of the Obama presidency.  You would have been forced to refer to Bill Clinton as the “first gentleman.”  If all of that turns your stomach, you should be thanking President Trump every day for keeping it from becoming a reality.

Too many of the conservative elites use Trump’s imperfections as opportunities to feel sanctimonious and holier than thou. They seem to think we’re in the faculty lounge, rather than fighting against people who are serious about destroying everything we hold dear.

Dennis Prager recently wrote that America is now engaged in Civil War II. He’s right. Conservatives who find President Trump too coarse for their delicate sensitivities don’t seem to recognize the gravity of what’s at stake. This is not the time to go wobbly.

It’s been said that a liberal is someone who will not take his own side in a fight. It’s starting to look like that could be said of some conservatives.  Politicians like John McCain and Lindsey Graham criticize fellow Republicans far more often and energetically than they do Democrats.  With friends like these, who needs enemies?  In many ways, McCain’s and Graham’s behavior is more repugnant than someone like Sen. Chuck Schumer.   At least Schumer is open about being a Democrat.

Undermining your leader, particularly for unserious reasons, is equivalent to working for the enemy.  Conservatives have few friends in high places, certainly not the establishment, the media, academia, or the bureaucracy.  We cannot afford to have enemies within.

https://spectator.org/a-reminder-to-conservative-trump-critics/

WILL THE 'TRUMP EFFECT' ENCOURAGE MORE REAL ESTATE EXECUTIVES TO GO INTO POLITICS? Posted by YJ Draiman

WILL THE 'TRUMP EFFECT' 

ENCOURAGE MORE REAL ESTATE EXECUTIVES TO GO INTO POLITICS?

National Jan 31, 2017 Jarred Schenke, Bisnow, Atlanta - Forbes

If Donald Trump's election proved anything to Peebles Corp founder Don Peebles, it is that Americans value business leadership over political experience. So for someone who has successfully managed a portfolio of billions of dollars in commercial real estate, a city with an $80B budget should be just as easy.

Peebles is still mulling a run for New York City mayor in an attempt to unseat incumbent Bill de Blasio in the Democratic primary. He is just one of a handful of commercial real estate executives across the country who are eyeing public service in the wake of Trump's historic win of the U.S. presidency. 

“I think Donald Trump's election as president is a lasting change,” Peebles said, regarding high-level political positions. "No more will a person seeking a political seat have to be a career politician. They will not need to have that experience of the career politician or the career public servant to go and seek America's highest office.” 

Is This The Trump Effect?

This 2017 election season is seeing a handful of current and former real estate executives jumping into the political arena. 

IV Capital's Sidney Torres IV is considering a run for mayor of New Orleans, and, in a Trumpian twist, will be starring in a reality show. 

YJ Draiman, a retired real estate executive, is running for mayor in Los Angeles for a second time. 

LA Mayoral Candidate YJ Draiman and Son David Draiman the frontman for Disturbed

And the biggest names of all are running for mayor in the president's hometown: Peebles, Massey Knakal brokerage co-founder Paul Massey and Abyssinian Development head Calvin Butts. 

Attributing a plethora of political candidates with commercial real estate backgrounds seeking public office to Trump winning the presidency may be overstating things. But a successful Trump administration could certainly have a long-term, inspiring effect of more commercial real estate and other private sector executives pursuing public office, said Loyola Marymount University political science professor Richard Fox.  

“It's way too early to say there's a Trump effect, but yes, there's a potential for that,” Fox said. 

In a study he and American University professor Jennifer Lawless conducted for the National Science Foundation, Fox said there was a measurable uptick on the number of African-American high school and college students who expressed interest in pursuing political roles while Obama was president. Unless Trump crashes and burns, Fox said he would expect a similar effect under Trump. 

The Perception Of Developers Is Changing

                                  YJDraiman.org Miriam Draiman, David Draiman and YJ Draiman 

“There is a negative connotation for being a developer," Draiman, a retired Chicago real estate investor who did hundreds of residential rehabs in Chicago with his former company, Bankers Realty, said. "I've seen a negative effect from various people who I met. They feel, when they see a developer, that it's a no-no." 

Today, Draiman — whose son, David, is the Grammy-nominated frontman for the rock band Disturbed — is hoping to discover the power of politics in his quest for the Los Angeles mayoral seat in the March primary. He also ran for mayor in 2013, and in a 2011 interview with L.A. Weekly, he was making many of the same cases for himself Trump made in the presidential campaign. 

"Some politicians were basically coerced, if you want to call it, to support a developer," he told the publication. "And remember, I was a developer myself, so I know where it's going to and where it's coming from."  

This time, he is running on the platform of pushing for economic development and for pushing for smarter growth and development with developers in the city. Much of his rhetoric is similar; after all, it worked for Trump. 

“The public as a whole feels that large, wealthy developers, since they contribute so heavily … to various other elected officials, they have an in, if you want to call it,” Draiman said. "They get by with certain benefits that the little guy doesn't get. And it's true. I won't deny it. I've seen it with my own eyes." 

Terranova Corp founder Stephen Bittel takes exception to the idea that any real estate executive who jumps into the political arena does it because of Trump's success. For Bittel — who recently was elected as Florida Democratic Committee chairman — the longtime Democratic Party donor and activist was mulling an ascent long before Trump announced his candidacy. 

“American history is replete with successful business leaders getting involved in the leadership of our country,” Bittel said. “I think Donald Trump, what he did for a living, has nothing to do with this. And to suggest that might even encourage people not to seek careers in public service. I don't think that the electorate cares about how you made your money, I think they care about how you lived your life.” 

If You Can Build It, The Votes Will Come 

Courtesy: Avison Young Kirk Rich 

Atlanta native Kirk Rich has been enmeshed in the commercial real estate industry for decades. He is president of the Georgia Chapter of the Certified Commercial Investment Member organization; a board member of Invest Atlanta — the city's economic development arm; and a member of Georgia State University's real estate board. 

He recently sold his boutique Atlanta third-party leasing and management firm to Avison Young, and has been tapped to head that firm's third-party platform. 

Rich has also thrown his hat into the ring for Atlanta City Council's 6th District seat, which covers a wide swath of Atlanta's most prestigious neighborhoods, including Morningside-Lenox Park, Druid Hills, Virginia-Highland, Piedmont Heights, portions of Midtown; the nexus of growth since the last recession. 

“I don't think Trump has affected people in real estate wanting to run for office,” Rich said, noting he did not support Trump for president. “But I think people are tired of politicians, and they're looking for people from the private sector. And Trump is about as private sector as it gets.” In Atlanta, the issues trumping voters' priorities in city council races are about growth and development, and the stress associated with it on traffic and infrastructure. And that's where Rich said real estate executives can be effective in public office. 

“That opens the door for people who understand commercial real estate development to get involved,”  he said. "And they need to get involved, because with the challenges we have I don't think they've been at the table enough already." 

While voters might find appeal with a business person running government, at least in New York City, where Hillary Clinton snagged 80% of voters, “I'm not necessarily sure being in the real estate business, especially in light of President Trump, is an advantage,” Peebles said. In fact, he added, it could be a double-edged sword. 

What being a commercial real estate executive does, Peebles said, is give him the ability to manage city issues and delegate authority. After all, one of the biggest issues facing New Yorkers is right in a developer's wheelhouse: housing affordability. 

“Real estate developers, by and large, don't have a very specific technical skill set. They have broad vision and leadership skills to be able to lead a team and be able to execute,” he said. 

But Peebles is also taking some cues from executives cum politicians like Trump and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (whom Peebles credits for blazing a trail with New York voters to accept a private sector executive in high public office): he vows to largely self-fund his campaign, if he runs. Peebles also said he will instruct the executives running Peebles Corp not to do any real estate deals in New York City while he's mayor to avoid conflicts of interest. His firm also has projects in Charlotte, Philadelphia, Washington, DC, Miami and Boston. 

Bittel is taking a similar tactic during his four-year stint as the Democratic chair: He will not draw a salary, nor will he seek expense reimbursements, he said. 

“I'm doing this for all the right reasons,” he said. 

Private World, Public Business 

Courtesy: Jennifer Lawless 

Lawless said it's not uncommon for politicians to have come from the private sector. Typically, a third of Congressional members have backgrounds in Corporate America or business ownership. The other common paths are from law, education and career political activism. Those ratios were consistent with congresses in 2001, 2008 and 2011, Lawless said, with Republicans substantially more likely to have a business background. 

“When you think about local office, I'm not surprised by the real estate background [of candidates], because they really know the community,” she said. 

Lawless said it is too early to tell if President Trump will inspire more real estate executives to enter politics, especially on a national level. That will come to bear in the 2018 election, perhaps. 

“We know generally speaking when somebody becomes president of the United States," she said, "that that person's qualifications and background automatically become legitimate” in the eyes of the voters.

Rich said his experience in the industry is a plus on a city council that, essentially, is all about urban planning. If you run on the idea of smarter development that doesn't affect traffic negatively, “you'll win,” Rich said. 

See Also: BGC Partners Is Taking NGKF Public Related Topics: Chicago, New Orleans, American University, Atlanta City Council, Don Peebles, Kirk Rich, Abyssinian Development Corp, Loyola Marymount University, Paul Massey, President Donald Trump, Trump Effect, YJ Draiman, Bankers Realty Capital, Jennifer Lawless, Richard Fox, Calvin Butts, Bakersfield, Kyle Carter, Carter Realty , Sidney Torres IV, IV Capital, Boise, Tommy Ahlquist, David Draiman , Disturbed

Read more at: https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/commercial-real-estate/is-there-a-trump-effect-on-real-estate-execs-entering-politics-70208?utm_source=CopyShare&utm_medium=Browser

Congress: Obama Admin
Fired Top Scientist to 'Advance Climate Change' Plans

Investigation claims Obama admin retaliated against scientists, politicized DoE

Share

Tweet

Email

AP

BY: Adam Kredo
December 20, 2016 3:00 pm
A new congressional investigation has determined that the Obama administration fired a top scientist and intimidated staff at the Department of Energy in order to further its climate change agenda, according to a new report that alleges the administration ordered top officials to obstruct Congress in order to forward this agenda.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas), chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, released a wide-ranging report on Tuesday that shows how senior Obama administration officials retaliated against a leading scientist and plotted ways to block a congressional inquiry surrounding key research into the impact of radiation.
A top DoE scientist who liaised with Congress on the matter was fired by the Obama administration for being too forthright with lawmakers, according to the report, which provides an in-depth look at the White House’s efforts to ensure senior staffers toe the administration’s line.

The report also provides evidence that the Obama administration worked to kill legislation in order to ensure that it could receive full funding for its own hotly contested climate change agenda.
The report additionally discovered efforts by the Obama administration to censor the information given to Congress, interfering with the body’s ability to perform critical oversight work.
“Instead of providing the type of scientific information needed by Congress to legislate effectively, senior departmental officials sought to hide information, lobbied against legislation, and retaliated against a scientist for being forthcoming,” Smith said in a statement. “In this staff report based on lengthy record before the committee, much has been revealed about how senior level agency officials under the Obama administration retaliated against a scientist who did not follow the party line.”
“Moving forward, the department needs to overhaul its management practices to ensure that Congress is provided the information it requires to legislate and that federal employees and scientists who provide that information do so without fear of retribution,” Smith said.
The report goes into Congress’ efforts to regulate the Low Dose Radiation Research Program, or LDRRP, which sought to test the impact of radiation on human beings. The program, started in the 1990s, was meant to support research into waste cleanup and the impact of nuclear weapons.
In mid-2014, lawmakers introduced legislation, the Low Dose Radiation Act of 2014, to help regulate the program and minimize harmful side effects.
During an October 2014 briefing with senior DoE staff on the matter, lawmakers heard testimony from Dr. Noelle Metting, the radiation research program’s manager.
Less than a month later, lawmakers discovered that Obama administration officials had “removed Dr. Metting from federal service for allegedly providing too much information in response to questions posed by” Congress during the briefing, the report states.
Congressional investigators later determined that the administration’s “actions to remove Dr. Metting were, in part, retaliation against Dr. Metting because she refused to conform to the predetermined remarks and talking points designed by Management to undermine the advancement of” the 2014 radiation act.
Emails unearthed during the investigation “show a sequence of events leading to a premeditated scheme by senior DoE employees ‘to squash the prospects of Senate support'” for the radiation act, a move that lawmakers claim was meant to help advance President Obama’s own climate change goals.
“The committee has learned that one of DoE’s stated purposes for Dr. Metting’s removal from federal service was her failure to confine the discussion at the briefing to pre-approved talking points,” according to the report. “The committee has also established that DoE management … failed to exercise even a minimal standard of care to avoid chilling other agency scientists as a result of the retaliation against Dr. Metting for her refusal to censor information from Congress.”
The investigation concluded that “DoE placed its own priorities to further the president’s Climate Action Plan before its constitutional obligations to be candid with Congress,” the report states. “The DoE’s actions constitute a reckless and calculated attack on the legislative process itself, which undermines the power of Congress to legislate. The committee further concludes that DoE’s disregard for separation of powers is not limited to a small group of employees, but rather is an institutional problem that must be corrected by overhauling its management practices with respect to its relationship with the Congress.”
These moves by the administration were part of an effort to secure full funding for the president’s climate change agenda, the report claims.
“Instead of working to understand the value of the LDRRP for emergency situations, DoE Management engaged in a campaign to terminate research programs that could divert funds from the president’s Climate Action Plan,” the report states.
Congress is recommending a full overhaul of the DoE’s management structure in order to ensure this type of situation does not occur again.

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged Climate Change, Department of Energy, Obama Administration. Bookmark the permalink.

Two Major Lawsuits Claim LA Illegally Collected More Than $2 Billion in Taxes

June 9, 2015 By Stephen Frank 1 Comment

Good grief—it looks like the City of Los Angeles stole as much money as Bernie Madoff—and he is in jail and those responsible for the LA thefts get re-elected. Criminals in the courtroom (illegal aliens can now be attorneys in California and New York). In LA the city stole billions by illegally charging taxpayers and ratepayers.

I guess they hoped they would never be caught. Now the problem will be returning the money to those they decided to steal from.

“The first lawsuit, Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, was filed in December, 2009.  It alleges that that the 10% Telephone Users Tax was an illegal tax, resulting in the collection of approximately $750 million between 2006 and 2008.  With interest, the potential liability to the City is more than $1 billion.

The second class action lawsuit, Patrick Eck v. City of Los Angeles, was filed in April, 2015.  It alleges that the undisclosed 8% Transfer Fee levied by the Department of Water and Power is an illegal tax.  This has resulted in the collection of over $1.25 billion from Ratepayers since the passage of Proposition 26 in November, 2010.”

Obama famous said, “so sue me”. Guess that disease has spread to all of government—try to get away with criminal action; refusal to enforce the laws, then when caught say, “so sue me”. Billions stolen is not a math mistake—it is a criminal act. Maybe Eric Garcetti should need a good attorney.

 

Photo courtesy of channone, flickr

Two Major Lawsuits Claim LA Illegally Collected More Than $2 Billion in Taxes

Written by Jack Humphreville, City Watch LA, 6/9/15

LA WATCHDOG-The City of Los Angeles is the defendant in two major class action lawsuits alleging that the City illegally collected over $2 billion in taxes from the Taxpayers and Ratepayers that were not approved by the voters.

The City, Mayor Eric Garcetti, City Council President Herb Wesson, Budget and Finance Chair Paul Krekorian, and the rest of the City Council have a massive conflict of interest as they attempt to minimize the return of our money that was illegally collected while we, their constituents, want full recovery of our hard earned money.

The first lawsuit, Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, was filed in December, 2009.  It alleges that that the 10% Telephone Users Tax was an illegal tax, resulting in the collection of approximately $750 million between 2006 and 2008.  With interest, the potential liability to the City is more than $1 billion.

Parenthetically, in a special election held in February, 2008, 66% of the voters approved the 9% Communication Users Tax (Proposition S).  This replaced the 10% Telephone Users Tax.

The second class action lawsuit, Patrick Eck v. City of Los Angeles, was filed in April, 2015.  It alleges that the undisclosed 8% Transfer Fee levied by the Department of Water and Power is an illegal tax.  This has resulted in the collection of over $1.25 billion from Ratepayers since the passage of Proposition 26 in November, 2010.  The plaintiff is requesting the elimination of the 8% Transfer Fee ($266 million for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2015) and the return of over $1.25 billion to Ratepayers.

Another lawsuit, Tyler Chapman v. City of Los Angeles, was filed in January, 2015.   It also involves the illegal the 8% Transfer Fee.

The City has been less than transparent about the potential liability involving the $1 billion liability associated with Ardon litigation.  To the contrary, the City failed to disclose its potential liability in the contingency section of its audit financial statements, referring only to a class action litigation.  The City is continuing to fight this litigation and its certification as a class action, all on our nickel.

Rather than waging a war against the Taxpayers and the Ratepayers, the City needs to develop a plan to finance the repayment of our $2 billion without paying big fat contingency fees to the class action lawyers with our money. This plan will involve new taxes that will need to be approved by the electorate, not an easy ask since the voters do not trust the fiscally irresponsible City Council.

Therefore, the City will need to engage in wholesale financial, budget, pension, and work place / personnel reform.  This would include, at a minimum, placing on the ballot a Live Within Its Means charter amendment that would require the City to develop and adhere to a Five Year Financial Plan, to pass two year balanced budgets based on Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and, over the next twenty years, to repair our streets and sidewalks and to fully fund the City’s two pension plans.

The longer Mayor Garcetti and the Herb Wesson-led City Council wait, the city’s bargaining and financial condition will deteriorate.  Now is the time to repay the Taxpayers and Ratepayers their $2 billion.

A dozen hopefuls step up to the starting line for Los Angeles mayoral race - YJ Draiman lead

A dozen hopefuls step up to the starting line for Los Angeles mayoral race

People play soccer in the shadow of city hall at Grand Park in Los Angeles. (Photo by Hans Gutknecht/Los Angeles Daily News) 

By Dana Bartholomew, Los Angeles Daily News

POSTED: 11/11/16, 6:22 PM PST | UPDATED: ON 11/11/2016

5 COMMENTS

Los Angeles City Hall, June, 2014 (Photo by Dean Musgrove/Los Angeles Daily News) 

Y.J. Draiman would take Mayor Eric Garcetti’s job by boosting business. David Hernandez would supplant the mayor by building infrastructure. And Garcetti would be re-elected mayor by having already led Los Angeles.

They were among the dozen candidates to formally declare they would run for mayor before the deadline ends at noon today. Candidates have until Dec. 7 to collect enough signatures to get onto the March 7 city election ballot.

“We have people filing even today for mayor,” said Tom Reindel, public services administrator for the Los Angeles City Clerk-Election Division, which remained open during the Veterans Day holiday.

“If someone shows up at 12:01 p.m. (today), they will not be processed.”

Besides the mayor’s race, elections will be held for city attorney, controller, eight-odd numbered council districts and even-numbered Los Angeles school board and community college districts.

Garcetti, a native of Encino, was voted into office in May 2013 after a bruising battle with former City Controller Wendy Greuel, a native of North Hollywood.

Highlights during his term include passing a $15 minimum wage, a new contract with Department of Water and Power workers, a Los Angeles bid for the 2024 Olympics, and the recent passage of the Measure M transit tax.

After announcing he’d run again more than a year ago, he has raised $2.25 million toward his re-election bid, according to a Sept. 30 campaign filing, the latest available.

Among the dozen challengers for the $249,000 mayoral seat were five from the San Fernando Valley: Draiman, a Northridge East Neighborhood Council board member from Northridge; Hernandez, a community advocate from Valley Village; Rudy Melendez, a laborer/artist from North Hollywood; Eric Preven, a writer/producer from Studio City; and Diane “Pinky” Harman, a retired educator/actor from Northridge.

Draiman, a retired real estate developer, had run for mayor three years ago. He says he’s running again to make a difference: in energy and water conservation; and in bringing business back to Los Angeles.

“That is key to this city,” said Draiman, 67, a registered independent. “You bring business back to the city, and you employ the unemployed. I am very determined. I want this city to move forward. It’s ridiculous; we’re going backwards.”

Hernandez, a retired insurance adjuster, once ran for Los Angeles County supervisor as well as Congress. He’s also been active in community issues, from advocating for Asian elephants at the Los Angeles Zoo to fighting a proposed bullet train in the Northeast Valley.

“I’m running because I can only do so much as a community advocate to make a positive change,” said Hernandez, 68, a registered Republican who raised $1,300, “including going to basics and resetting our priorities to public safety, infrastructure, business opportunities and quality of life.”

• RELATED STORY: Former Obama strategist files fundraising papers for 2017 mayoral election

Harman taught English as a second language in Los Angeles schools for more than three decades before she found a second wind as a senior rapper and hip-hop dancer.

She says Queen Latifah named her “Pinky” on account of her signature head-to-toe pink getups. She is running for mayor, she said, to advocate for senior citizens, end racial injustice and put an end to criminal hacking and stalking.

“I’m pink and positive,” said Harman, 65. “Keep it pink and positive. I would paint the town pink and make Los Angeles have a pink horizon.”

Of the dozen candidates to have declared their intention to run for mayor, Mitchell Schwartz has raised $255,000. The former communications director for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, who lives in Windsor Square, has cited crime, traffic and education as key issues.

• RELATED STORY: Charter school founder Steve Barr to challenge Eric Garcetti in 2017 mayor’s race

Paul E. Amori, creator of Amori’s Casino & Burlesque, will run for mayor having founded the Love Party, which he said will launch a political paradigm by putting love into action to solve problems.

Steve Barr, founder of Green Dot Public Schools, had raised $18,000 to campaign for mayor by last fall, but he had not formally declared his candidacy by noon Friday.

The most active city race may be to replace Councilman Felipe Fuentes, who stepped down from his job in September to become a lobbyist in Sacramento.

By Friday, 21 residents had declared their intent to run for City Council District 7, which includes Northeast Valley neighborhoods from Sunland-Tujunga to Sylmar.

Shocker! DWP’s Pension Plan is $4.8 Billion Underfunded … Ratepayers Will Pay the Bill!

JACK HUMPHREVILLE 

 

12 DECEMBER 2016

LA WATCHDOG

• NEXT ARTICLEPolitics: DWP Board Blesses $13 Million Solar Rooftop Stinker with 3-2 Vote

TOOLS

•  PRINT 
•  EMAIL

LA WATCHDOG--The Department of Water and Power’s pension plan and its plan to cover Other Post-Employment Benefits (“OPEB”) have unfunded liabilities of almost $4.8 billion, an obligation that the Ratepayers will be required to fund.  

The Department of Water and Power pension plan is only 84% funded as assets of $10.3 billion are about $2 billion short of its future obligations of $12.3 billion. 

At the same time, the OPEB obligations are only 75% funded as assets of $1.75 billion are about $600 million less that its future obligations of $2.3 billion. 

Combined, DWP retirement obligations are only 83% funded, representing an unfunded liability of $2.5 billion. 

That’s the good news. 

When DWP finishes cooking the books and marks the assets to their true market value and assumes a more realistic investment rate assumption of 6.25%, the unfunded liability soars to $4.8 billion, representing an unhealthy funded ratio of 71%. 

DWP’s retirement plans are also very expensive to maintain. This year, the Department is expected to contribute $550 million to the two plans, an amount equal to over 12.5% of Department revenues and equal to almost 60% of its payroll.  The City, on the other hand, contributes less than 30% of civilian workers’ salaries to the Los Angeles City Employees’ Retirement System. 

During the last year, the unfunded liability increased by 50% ($1.6 billion) to $4.8 billion, in large part because the return on invested assets was less than 1% (0.82%), a considerable shortfall from the overly optimistic investment rate assumption of 7.5%.  At the same time, the annual contribution will increase to 60% of projected payroll, up from less than 50% the previous year. 

DWP, to its credit, has been making some progress. 

Several years ago, the Department contributed $600 million to fund a portion of its OPEB obligations, unlike the County and the State who have failed to fund any of this ever increasing liability.  As an aside, the City has been funding a portion of this obligation for almost 20 years.  

In the past year, it lowered its investment rate assumption to 7.25% even though it resulted in a higher unfunded liability and increased contributions. 

The Department and IBEW 18 also agreed to establish a new pension tier with lower benefits for employees who were hired after January 1, 2014.  This resulted in lower annual contributions as a percentage of the payroll. 

But even with these changes, DWP’s retirement plans are not sustainable as the investment returns on the stock and bond portfolios are expected to be in the range of 6% to 6.5%, lower than the targeted rate of return of 7.25%.  Furthermore, the investment rate assumption does not provide for the funding of the $4.8 billion unfunded liability which will continue to compound.  At the same time, annual benefits of this mature pension plan will exceed contributions by the Department and its employees. 

This shortfall will eventually be funded by the hard pressed Ratepayers who are already being smacked with a five year, $1 billion rate increase.  

Rather than speculate about the status of DWP’s retirement plans, the Board of Commissioners should require the Department, with the assistance of the Ratepayers Advocate and the Neighborhood Councils, to follow the recommendation of the LA 2020 Commission to establish an independent and transparent Commission on Retirement Security to review the DWP’s retirement obligations in order to promote am accurate understanding of the facts, to report on employment costs in various categories, and to develop concrete recommendations on how to achieve equilibrium on retirement costs by 2020. 

Is this too much to ask of the Garcetti appointed Commissioners?

(Jack Humphreville writes LA Watchdog for CityWatch. He is the President of the DWP Advocacy Committee and is the Budget and DWP representative for the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council.  He is a Neighborhood Council Budget Advocate.  Jack is affiliated with Recycler Classifieds -- www.recycler.com.  He can be reached at:  lajack@gmail.com.)