Showing posts with label Los Angeles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Los Angeles. Show all posts
Sunday, May 4, 2008
For a long time, one of California school districts' main complaints was the financial inability to build new schools.
Starting in the early 80s, the result of Prop. 13 and the subsequent Reagan and post-Reagan political climates, school funding tanked, making LAUSD, among many other districts, unable to build schools. That meant classroom overcrowding, overworked teachers, year-round scheduling, and busing disputes, among many other distractions from the business of education.
But now, after a political shift that has seen conservatives embrace the notion of public schooling, and a spate of state and local bonds to fund public schools, the LAUSD is building schools again.
That seems like it should be a good thing. Until you look more closely at how the district has been handling its role as school-builder.
LAUSD has built a bunch of new schools in the past few years – driving west-to-east on any major street will show you that. And the district says that, even with enrollment declining, schools are still way overstuffed and yet more are needed. Let's grant them that.
What's worrisome to me is not their claim of a need for schools, which may indeed be real, nor the inherent compromise of spending on new buildings instead of (say) new teachers.
No, the thing that bothers me is the way they're going about rebuilding the district. Why is LAUSD eminent-domaining low-rent neighborhoods? Why is the district dropping $100 million more than necessary on an (admittedly cool-looking) high school? Couldn't they build new schools without making these sorts of moves, which do little more than damage public trust?
Maybe I wouldn't be as concerned about that if the district was doing a great job under its other charges – like educating students. But there's no question that the district is doing its typically poor job of that, too. Even looking past standardized test scores, a new study shows that many L.A. students don't even know about state-required college prep classes.
And let us not forget last year's payroll disaster that dramatically underpaid some teachers and overpaid others.
Reacting to the questionable management of both the educational and infrastructural sides of the district, Mayor Villaraigosa has quietly wrested control of LAUSD's operations away from the school board's elected superintendent, David Brewer, and handed it to some dude in his office, named Ramon Cortines.
It's too early, of course, to know what difference that's going to make, but I hope Cortines has the mettle to get LAUSD's runaway mine cart back on the rails. As part of that, maybe he can make the LAUSD's construction initiatives justifiable again.
Monday, April 21, 2008
The Cost of Living
David Zahniser's piece in today's Times laid out some of the latest about anti-gang program reform in Los Angeles - mainly, that the L.A. Bridges program will be dropped in favor of (hopefully more accountable) prevention and intervention programs in 12 specific gang-reduction zones. While reading it, I tripped over the following piece of information:
"Each of the 12 zones -- neighborhoods such as Panorama City, Cypress Park and Baldwin Village -- will receive $1 million per year in prevention funds, enough to target at least 200 children per zone."
It was sobering to think about how, even after whatever lessons have or haven't been learned by the inefficiency of L.A. Bridges, this is the best we can realistically hope for in terms of raw numbers. $1 million to target 200 children per gang-reduction zone (to this, Councilwoman Janice Hahn reliably quips: "'I mean, all of Markham Middle School' -- which has an enrollment of 1,500 -- 'is at risk of joining gangs'"). And what would an acceptable success rate be in terms of gang prevention? 70%? 10%?
I believe strongly in the value of human lives, and 20 or 50 "saved" children per zone is no small thing, but with tens of thousands of gang members in L.A. (estimates vary between 30,000-60,000), we're talking about band-aids. In addition, there is the problem of measuring success: How long would one keep tracking the children involved in such programs? How effective can long-term tracking be, when many of these children are illegal immigrants? Do we declare success if they stay out of gangs for 10 years, and join in the 11th? How surely could we determine whether they were active gang members or not? How to know whether a child would have stayed out of gangs anyway?
I'm in support of both prevention and intervention programs, as I think too much emphasis is placed on law enforcement when it comes to this problem. And I certainly am not smart enough to draw up a short-term plan that sounds better than this new strategy. But I don't think much will change unless this city somehow tackles larger issues of economic and educational inequality (in addition to all those thornier issues of gun control, immigration, prison reform, interracial tensions, etc.) If ever gang membership and gang violence significantly decrease in L.A., I can't see it being by design.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Back to Special Order 40
At the urging of libertarian political opportunist Walter Moore, the city of Los Angeles is going back to the well of Special Order 40.
Much has elapsed since the death of an L.A. high school student named Jamiel Shaw, and as I predicted weeks ago, the conversation about his death has become an ugly one about immigration.
Moore has ridden the zeitgeist and pressed a repeal of an LAPD regulation called Special Order 40, which bars police from investigation someone solely to determine his or her citizenship. 40 is intended to encourage illegal immigrants' cooperation in police investigations. (Reasoning: An illegal immigrant will tell police about a crime he has witnessed if he knows he won't get deported for it, proponents say.)
His proposed repeal, called "Jamiel's Law," has no political traction, but a related motion in the city council by a San Fernando Valley council member by the name of Dennis Zine does. Zine wants to amend 40 by requiring officers to check the immigration status of gang members they run into, even if those gang members aren't under arrest.
(The plan has obvious surface flaws. For instance, how do you know who's a gang member and who's just a troublemaker? Sure, there are government lists of gang members, but gang membership changes everyday, and the LAPD's Excel spreadsheets of gang membership cannot possibly keep up. Still, one can understand the appeal of Zine's proposal.)
Whether Zine, Moore, or 40's proponents are right I cannot say. The debate over 40 is typical of a policy debate, in which there are pros and cons, and the "right" policy is the one where the pros outweigh the cons.
I can't say whether the pros outweigh the cons because the debate lacks the statistics that comprise pros and cons here. To determine whether 40 is good policy, you'd have to know things like how many illegal immigrants feel protected by the existence of 40? How many crimes have been solved with an illegal immigrant's help? Et cetera.
Right now, the debate is solely an ideological one: should the LAPD be in the deportation business or not? As we know from watching (for instance) the Bush administration, ideology is not necessarily a springboard to good policy.
As such (and as usual), city council president Eric Garcetti is on the right side here:
We need to look at the big picture and focus on creating a system that effectively deports criminals, encourages cooperation from victims and witnesses, and ensures the federal government accepts its responsibility as the enforcer of our nation's immigration laws.Sure, he sounds non-committal, but starting from a premise of "these are worthwhile policy goals" is so much more effective than starting from a premise of "I believe illegal immigrants should be ______."
Eco-Fashions Defeat the Point
Photo by: EJP Photo
The masses have spoken. They want green. They want eco-conscious. They want stunning vistas in the background and stunning celebrities in the foreground. They want all this stunning, green, consciousness splashed across the pages of Vanity Fair, Rolling Stone, The Advocate and even Fortune—at least once a year when Earth Day rolls around. Who are we to deny the masses?
The iconography of the post-Al Gore green movement is gelling, and even if the use of the actual color green is becoming a design cliché, there are some major upsides. Perhaps the biggest is that the charge of greening the world is no longer a responsibility relegated to the progeny of the counterculture—at least stylistically. Green’s glossy moment has arrived.
So it is that from our newsprint pages in Los Angeles—a city full of glossy tastemakers—we find ourselves struggling with this next chapter of the environmental movement unfolding in our urban, not-so-dense backyard. And we keep finding ourselves squarely in the "it's not easy being green" camp, and we're becoming resentful of anyone telling us otherwise.
Sure, it's easy switching to fluorescent lights, hopping on DASH or buying organic. But, for anyone with more than just a fleeting interest in the environment, there's always that nagging feeling. Was my organic Whole Food produce shipped from Chile? Was the green issue of Vanity Fair printed on recycled paper? Does living alone in my fluorescent-lit apartment increase my carbon footprint?
Politicians and celebs who dare to call themselves "green" face these nagging questions publicly. Gore—the man, the PowerPoint, the Nobel Peace Prize—has had to answer tough questions about the size of his house and his jet-setting ways of spreading the green gospel. Even Mayor Villaraigosa's use of the word "green" to describe Los Angeles—and his own mayorship by extension—is tainted. The DWP still relies on coal-fueled power plants for 47%, which puts us way out of the league of PG&E's 3% or California's average of 15%.
Going green is easier said than done and the process can easily slide into guilt-inducing territory. Now that we've entered the glossy phase, the twin oxymorons of lifestyle journalism and green consumerism are ready to sell indulgences to wash away our eco-sins. (Gore himself has opted for the less glossy but no less controversial carbon offset credits.)
The Times' green blog, Emerald City, is typical of this eco-indulgence trend. The blog links to stories from the green beat and tips on how to reduce your carbon footprint. But they're sandwiched between posts that rely a bit too heavily on a sort of press release journalism that's keen on advising eco-sinners where to get an organic facial or eco-hangers or organic oreos.
Here we face the catch-22 of environmentalist ideas in a liberal market democracy: to make a change, you have to be in the market for change. Environmentalism means consuming less, but consuming less equates to a lower profit margin on environmentally-friendly goods right from the get-go. American consumer culture and the enslavement to shareholder values means that the movement is catering to a group with the desire and money to retrofit their homes with neat-o gadgets that aren’t universally accessible. This notion that we can buy our way out of this crisis or that saving the environment is a matter of personal preference is dangerous and out-of-touch.
The trouble with the new toys and baubles is that they encourage consumerism and take the glint of guilt off the purchase—you can feel like you’re helping the cause, but if you’re changing the quality but not the quantity of your consumption habits, you’re kowtowing to the big cash register in the sky every bit as much as before, and that has never and will never make the world a cleaner place.
“It’s a good thing to have green be chic these days but it shouldn’t turn away middle America who don’t have access to latest fashions. It should still be something democratic in its involvement with everyone,” said Terry O’Day, executive director of Environment Now, a LA-based environmental group.
The iconography of the post-Al Gore green movement is gelling, and even if the use of the actual color green is becoming a design cliché, there are some major upsides. Perhaps the biggest is that the charge of greening the world is no longer a responsibility relegated to the progeny of the counterculture—at least stylistically. Green’s glossy moment has arrived.
So it is that from our newsprint pages in Los Angeles—a city full of glossy tastemakers—we find ourselves struggling with this next chapter of the environmental movement unfolding in our urban, not-so-dense backyard. And we keep finding ourselves squarely in the "it's not easy being green" camp, and we're becoming resentful of anyone telling us otherwise.
Sure, it's easy switching to fluorescent lights, hopping on DASH or buying organic. But, for anyone with more than just a fleeting interest in the environment, there's always that nagging feeling. Was my organic Whole Food produce shipped from Chile? Was the green issue of Vanity Fair printed on recycled paper? Does living alone in my fluorescent-lit apartment increase my carbon footprint?
Politicians and celebs who dare to call themselves "green" face these nagging questions publicly. Gore—the man, the PowerPoint, the Nobel Peace Prize—has had to answer tough questions about the size of his house and his jet-setting ways of spreading the green gospel. Even Mayor Villaraigosa's use of the word "green" to describe Los Angeles—and his own mayorship by extension—is tainted. The DWP still relies on coal-fueled power plants for 47%, which puts us way out of the league of PG&E's 3% or California's average of 15%.
Going green is easier said than done and the process can easily slide into guilt-inducing territory. Now that we've entered the glossy phase, the twin oxymorons of lifestyle journalism and green consumerism are ready to sell indulgences to wash away our eco-sins. (Gore himself has opted for the less glossy but no less controversial carbon offset credits.)
The Times' green blog, Emerald City, is typical of this eco-indulgence trend. The blog links to stories from the green beat and tips on how to reduce your carbon footprint. But they're sandwiched between posts that rely a bit too heavily on a sort of press release journalism that's keen on advising eco-sinners where to get an organic facial or eco-hangers or organic oreos.
Here we face the catch-22 of environmentalist ideas in a liberal market democracy: to make a change, you have to be in the market for change. Environmentalism means consuming less, but consuming less equates to a lower profit margin on environmentally-friendly goods right from the get-go. American consumer culture and the enslavement to shareholder values means that the movement is catering to a group with the desire and money to retrofit their homes with neat-o gadgets that aren’t universally accessible. This notion that we can buy our way out of this crisis or that saving the environment is a matter of personal preference is dangerous and out-of-touch.
The trouble with the new toys and baubles is that they encourage consumerism and take the glint of guilt off the purchase—you can feel like you’re helping the cause, but if you’re changing the quality but not the quantity of your consumption habits, you’re kowtowing to the big cash register in the sky every bit as much as before, and that has never and will never make the world a cleaner place.
“It’s a good thing to have green be chic these days but it shouldn’t turn away middle America who don’t have access to latest fashions. It should still be something democratic in its involvement with everyone,” said Terry O’Day, executive director of Environment Now, a LA-based environmental group.
But O’Day impressed upon us that buying eco-friendly Prada pumps or taking your house completely off the grid are not the only ways to make a difference. The things that average people can do to improve their impact on the environment aren’t sexy. They don’t involve buying new toys or running out and switching your old car for a Prius. They do involve making conscious changes in lifestyle and, the ultimate American hang-up: consuming less.
Unfortunately, one of the biggest changes that needs to be made here is sacrificing the notion that individual efforts can substitute for substantive political change.
Los Angeles is trying, but not hard enough. We’ve got a mayor that wants to go green but can’t quit the DWP’s oil habit, a Million Trees that just isn’t even close and a plastic bag ban that’s stymied in the Board of Supervisors who have passed the buck onto Assemblyman Mike Davis.
So please, green the government before you green up your clothing choices. In our glossy-green world of eco-Oscar’s and Leonardo DiCaprio’s pretty face on Al Gore’s important words, know that the most important individual effort any of us can make is at the ballot box. If not, we’re just biding our time before green goes out of fashion and with it the Hollywood gleam that’s giving it some cache.
--By Emma Gallegos and Ashley Archibald
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Going to Get Ugly
photograph by mirandapablo
The Associated Press scooped all the L.A. papers this morning, following up on a rumor that the gang member who stands accused of killing high school football star Jamiel Shaw might be – wait for it – an illegal alien.
A spokesperson for the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency said the alleged killer may or may not be an illegal alien, and that they may not know for sure for awhile.
The accused killer, Pedro Espinoza, had just finished serving a four month prison term the day before Jamiel was shot. He was serving a sentence for brandishing a weapon and resisting arrest.
So, just to recap, this story now
- Has a youth-on-the-right-path narrative
- Has a youth-on-the-wrong-path narrative
- Contains brown-on-black violence
- Includes a gang member
- Includes a star athlete
- Has an immigration thread
- Has a prison system thread
- Is happening during a spike-in-crime
With the new information about the accused's immigration status, it would be naive to think that Shaw's death will not immediately become a rallying point for anti-immigrant hatred. I predict Lou Dobbs will begin to talk about it in approximately 14 seconds.
Never mind that Espinoza has not been, you know, convicted.
Another aspect likely to be overlooked, due to a combination of Los Angeles's current fog of fear and the coming tsunami of talk show immigration rhetoric, is the total uselessness of the prison system. If Espinoza is indeed the killer, this is someone committing a murder the day after he got out of jail. Taking him as an example – though he's certainly not unique in this sense – it's pretty clear that our prisons do little to discourage recidivism.
It seems to me that the whole concept of imprisonment as a solution to criminal behavior is based on a principle that imprisonment prevents people from committing crimes again. If prisons are not discouraging repeat offenses, what's the point?
Maybe one might think the reason for prisons is just to satisfy a sort of primal need for revenge. But if that's all we require of a post-conviction system, we could put convicts in the stocks and throw rotten fruit at them and then be done with it.
No, imprisonment must have some other goal. But whatever that goal is, it's not being accomplished – and at a cost to California taxpayers of over $10 billion per year, growing 9% annually.
That's one tenth of the state's revenues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)