greengopost.com » Antonio Villaraigosa

A Million Promises, but Not Many Trees

Leon Kaye — Mon, 24 May 2010 12:30:28 +0000

I actually wrote this two months ago, but waited to post this because I did not want to jeapordize Parkman Triangle, the project on which I have worked for several months.
March 25, 2010

One thing I have noticed about Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and his deputies is that they are really good at telling Angelinos what they are going to do, but never discuss what they have accomplished. I've witnessed this trend of empty platitudes at several events I have attended over the past year, where the deputy-to-the-deputy-to-the-deputy assistant will crow about the Mayor's plans--especially on anything smacking of sustainability. Unfortunately, they have nothing to brag about because 5 years later, the mayor really hasn't done anything. He's a great salesman, very personable, but I have to say he's an empty suit.

One of Villaraigosa's first initiatives was his 1,000,000 Tree Campaign for a greener Los Angeles. The project was ambitious. By having residents take online tests and then getting trees for their yards, homeowners would plant these trees, which would provide shade and help heal LA's dirty air. Other trees were given away at city events and street fairs. But even a few years ago, it was clear that the million tree initiative had problems: the city had no way of monitoring how the trees were taken care of, while other trees sufferred from lack of water. Furthermore, while the city gave young saplings away, other trees were chopped down because of sidewalks buckling or street widening.

Well, never mind those facts: today I went to the city nursery to pick up some trees for Parkman Triangle. The task seemed simple enough: pick up three trees between 7:30 and 4:00. Well, long story short, neither of the employees were there. The miscommunication was annoying, but even more upsetting was that the problems with the million tree initiative lie at the source.

Never mind the fact that the two city employees at the Los Angeles Conservation Corps, which maintains the trees, were not at their Griffith Park office, despite the fact that this location was supposedly open all day, four days a week. Walking around the yard revealed some disturbing facts: employees were trying to water nursery plants, though they were more successful at watering the asphalt; another employee used so much water washing his forklift (while another employee sat their and watched) that the asphalt road going down the hill was slathered in water; most of the trees, in 5-gallon buckets, looked as if they lacked any watering; and a peek through the chain link fences revealed many trees and plants that were dead or dying--some were just strewn around the yard. I guess they don't think, or care, that some local residents may drop by the facility.

Word is out that the program is being dismantled. And we ended up buying trees from a nursery. Regardless, dealing with this one city program was a heinous experience. My peek around the Griffith Park nursery was one example why so many Angelinos are just tired of him . . . and tired of disengaged city employees.

Is this million tree initiative really that ambitious, or has it been ambushed by mismanagement? I'm curious what other Angelinos think.

LA: Off coal by 2020?

Leon Kaye — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:00:30 +0000

LA's mayor's about to announce that all of LA will be off coal by 2020. A press conference will start soon!

Okay, sorry. That blurb from my Blackberry was more appropriate for a Twitter Post, but I was at JETRO's (Japan External Trade Organization) Greening the City event in downtown LA this afternoon when one of the mayor's deputy announced the plan to get LA completely off coal by 2020.

It is about time. You would think that a city that basks in sunshine and has several outstanding universities would be a leader in solar and other energy technologies. While the LADWP has been polluting LA's suburbs with its Intermountain Coal Plant, the utility until resisted any move towards allowing residents to install solar on their homes. Of course that was not brought up today, but while Antonio Villaraigosa's deputies gushed about how much LA was doing, Japan has taken a lot of action over the past 35 or so years.

True, Japan is a small country with limited resources, so it behooved them to wean themselves off of oil rather than be subjected to oil price spikes and globalpolitical turmoil. But the Japanese have done it, and have even embarassed the Europeans in the race for energy efficiency and cutting-edge technologies.

Japan is having its problems with huge public debt and a sclerotic bureaucracy, but its people are making impressive gains and are leading with impressive sustainability programs, which I look forward to sharing over the next several weeks.

So expect more from Brazil, Japan, and of course, Korea, in the months ahead! They can give Angelinos some pretty good lessons . . .

Slowly to the Sea

Leon Kaye — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 03:43:27 +0000

I'm so thrilled. After years of NIMBYism, supported by the hypocritical likes of Henry Waxman, the Metropolitan Transit Authority approved the subway to the sea. Well, it's more rail to the sea as we are talking about a light-rail line. Although one neighborhood, Cheviot Hills, fought tooth and nail against the project (even though the line wouldn't run through their neighborhood), it looks like expanded mass transit in LA is going to happen.

It's about time. Commuting in LA is a hassle for countless reasons: the highways are clogged, neighborhood streets are unsafe thanks to frazzled drivers, no one wants one-way streets in their neighborhoods, biking is Russian Roulette, and the love for cars exceeds the horror of brown air hanging above us.

This Phase Two will run from Culver City to Santa Monica, just short of the pier. It is not the favored leg for which many were hoping; going under Wilshire would have been ideal, but there is a chance that leg still has a chance.

Many dismiss the necessity of rail, saying that LA's buses work fine. That screams elitism to me. Buses are not fine if you have to take them from East LA to the West Side. One attitude in LA I find disturbing is the belief many spout about public transportation: "it's okay to take, as long as I don't have to take it." There will still be a need for buses, but rail will make LA easier to navigate around, and may even encourage Angelinos to explore outside their home neighborhoods!

The beauty of living in high density cities like New York, Chicago, London, Seoul, and Tokyo--and to an extent, San Francisco and Washington, is that it is easy to hop the subway and enjoy the evenings with friends, family, or colleagues in a completely different part of town. That lifestyle in Los Angeles is impossible. Most folks here, after a day of commuting, hardly want to leave their homes and drive from Santa Monica to downtown for a play--or vice versa for a night at the beach.

It's a shame. More mass transit will reduce pollution, decrease our thirst for oil, and let's just face it--make us healthier. I don't care whether this makes Mayor Antonio more or less popular; it just needs to be done.

But it'll take time. When I lived in the Bay Area, I remember the BART extension opening to the SFO airport, which took about 30 years. Ridership was agonizingly slow for months to the point that some fretted the project was a boondoggle. Now Bay Area folks are thankful for the service and cannot imagine getting to the airport without it.

Now they just need rail to LAX. Check back in 2030.

Dig West, Young Man!

Leon Kaye — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:57:27 +0000

It's Sunday afternoon, and after walking up and down Sunset Boulevard taking care of some errands, I'm sitting in our backyard with the view of Century City and the Wilshire Corridor in the far distance. I've grown to love that stretch of Wilshire, starting with the former Bullock's department store (now Southwestern Law School), slicing through Koreatown, the Miracle Mile, LACMA (LA's art museum), and finally posh Beverly Hills . . .continuing on to Westwood and Santa Monica. Wilshire Boulevard defines Los Angeles. If only I didn't have to drive there, but Henry Waxman and his fellow limousine liberal constituents delayed any planning for twenty-plus years, only to see traffic in their neighborhoods . . . get worse!

Well, by 2036, when most of us will have our driver's licenses taken away, and if we aren't relegated to using a walker, we'll be able to take that Purple Line to Westwood. If Mayor Antonio has his way, the stretch to LACMA will be completed in the next ten years. And today's Los Angeles Times has a story how community groups are going berserk, demanding that preciously limited transit funds go through their communities. Now there are two parties: those for the subway to the sea, and others who think an extension should wind from North Hollywood through the heavily populated neighborhoods of West Hollywood and Hollywood, allowing bustling sites like Cedars-Sinai and the Beverly Center to have railway access.

Both sides have their merits: Indeed, many folks who live in the valley drive over city streets including Beverly Glen, Topanga Canyon, and Laurel Canyon to get to work: they are scenic drives but hardly enjoyable during rush hour, and I'm sure residents who live in these adjoining neighborhoods would love to less cars every morning and evening. Nevertheless, it slays me that the communities of West Hollywood and Hollywood, which rarely want anything to do with the rest of Los Angeles, suddenly are clamouring to have subway stations in their stomping grounds. I have a feeling that once the NIMBYs of West Hollywood realize that rail construction means dust, delays, and drama, they may have a change of heart.

I want the subway to continue under Wilshire for countless reasons. Ridership is already there. The Wilshire extension would allow even more residents of the east Los Angeles area to commute to their jobs along the many business centers that are dotted along Wilshire. Even if it takes decades for the subway to reach Century City, Westwood, and Santa Monica, many commuters would still be willing to transfer to a bus to continue their daily journey . . . and reading about some of the commuters in today's Times article left me exhausted just pondering their daily routine. Many residents on the east side work in the service industry, whether they toil in the restaurants of K-town or the medical offices of Beverly Hills--and need cost-effective and timely transport to get to their jobs.

I don't have access to all the data, but based on the traffic patterns I see on Wilshire during the day . . . logic and ridership, not lobbying strength, should determine where the MTA first extends the subway. Finally, Cedars-Sinai, the Beverly Center, and other hubs are hardly inaccessible from Wilshire. One analyst was quoted that Angelinos won't walk more than a quarter of a mile, which to me made for a ridiculous reason to favor one subway extension over another.

Maybe we Angelinos should start practicing walking that 1,320 feet. Perhaps tomorrow?

If you think your neighborhood should have priority for the MTA subway extension, we'd like to hear why!