News

Comments (22)

• John M. Fentis 11/05/2009 5:30:00 PM

  As a former prosecutor for the City of Long Beach who is now retired, please allow me to make a few observations on behalf of those of us who are working hard on the environmental issues which confront Los Angeles as well as the rest of California. 1. Let's begin by blatantly saying that without meaningful environmental enforcment, there can be no resolution of the environmental problems that all of us face. Let me add to that, in my view, meaningful environmental enforcement has virtually disappeared. The State of California, without a doubt is blessed with the most stringent environmental laws in the Nation and yet has no effective means by which to enforce them. Our enforcement structure is decentralized, fragmented, and bureaucratically impotent. Enforcement is being done largely on an administrative basis which is understandably interpreted by many as "the cost of doing business". The number of quality cases which wind up in the offices of prosecutors has severely dwindled due to the fact that most of the monies from administrative settlements remain in the hands of the agencies that initiated them. The ability of these agencies to communicate with one another has been minimized and there is a constant need to protect turf rather than craft permanent resolutions to environmental issues. 2. There is an extraordinary amount of divisiveness among environmental activists. The argument made by one reader relative to "elitism" is not without credibility and until there is a conversation designed to promote unity and healing among the entire environmental activist community, it will continue to pale in the face of the monetary and political influence wielded by those on the opposite side of the environmental agenda. There are those activists who live in the most environmentally impacted areas of the region, and there are those who do not and, therefore, do not really have a true understanding of the real issues that these impacted areas experience. There are also those environmental activists who are driven by their own narscisstic need for recognition of their work which, in the last analysis, is extremely damaging to the environmental agenda as a whole. I'm not going to name names, but you all know who you are. Until you learn to tame your egos and work with others, despite the difficulties and mistrust that this problem presents, nothing is going to be resolved. 3. Environmental problems are best resolved by the design of a system which will allow for the identification of those problems and a forum by which to address them. In my work as a former environmental prosecutor, I have found that the task force system best meets those needs. The reason that task forces have become lethargic is because they are missing a core group of people who have the ability to identify the environmental problems. They are the people who live and work in the areas where these problems thrive. It is within the "belly of the beast" that environmental enforcement should be the most prominent, and the agenda should be driven by the citizens, workers, and business owners who live within these areas. State and local agencies should listen to these participants and devise the means by which environmental compliance is ensured. 4. Settlements and penalties from environmental enforcement cases should come back to the communities which gave rise to the enforcement action. The current percentage allowed for Supplemental Enforcement Projects is far too low and as long as violators are not allowed to increase their respective pennance to provide direct relief to the impacted community, the environmental issues within that community will never be resolved. 5. Elected enforcement officials should be encouraged to renew their commitment to environmental enforcement. In the early '90's, the Los Angeles County District Attorney had it's own environmental enforcement unit with ten prosecutors and five investigators. Today, the unit has been integrated into the Consumer Protection unit with only five prosecutors and one investigator. The Los Angeles City Attorney still has a viable environmental enforcement unit but needs to re-tool its resources to a more targeted enforcement program so as to promote efficient and consistent enforcement. The City of Long Beach, the fifth largest City in the State no longer engages in environmental enforcement since my retirement in 2005. The elected there, Tom Reeves, failed to designate a replacement prosecutor thereby dismantling of one of the most effective and aggressive municipal environmental enforcement programs in the State. 6. There is a dire need for responsibility, accountability, and transparency in the design and implementation of environmental policy. This cannot take place unless a forum is created to accomplish this. Measure B failed because people were left out of the conversation and limitations were created which angered the voters. I wish that politicians would understand that they simply no longer have credibility with the voters, and unless they start to hold themselves accountable, they will be replaced even if their replacements are unqualified. I could go on and on, but I'm afraid that my hastily crafted commentary would exceed the length of this article. In short, we need to find a way to get the oars of this vessel rowing in the same direction. In order to do that, we need to put our egos and individual needs aside and engage in some very frank self-assessment in order to determine how to address these problems. Our continued failure to accomplish this fundamental task only serves to ensure the collapse of our existence as a forward thinking progressive society

• Garen Yegparian 07/21/2009 9:09:27 AM

  Very interesting article. Lots of familiar names-- of people and organizations. But one thing gives me pause. How can such an extensive article about the junction of politics and environmentalism be written without ever mentioning the Sierra Club (for better or worse). It makes me wonder about the breadth of the author's research.

• Eric Maundry 07/21/2009 5:59:50 AM

  The capitulation of many so-called "Greens" to the blandishments of SB 375 has made the environmental movement here practically irrelevant. Additional high-density development in a county as already built-out as this one is hardly going to do anything to reduce greenhouse gases. Quite the contrary, the eventual effect will be to only exacerbate the situation as buildings more often than not emit more of the stuff than automobiles. While at the same time introducing more automobiles to the area despite the pro-public transportation gloss so often added to the presentation. This has been little more than a boon to the BIA and other development pressure groups who hold so much sway in Sacramento. That the whole nasty mess has been painted green does little to in any way lessen the detrimental impact this will have on our already poor environment here.

• Terry 07/08/2009 11:45:38 PM

  Dear L A Weekly, What ARE Envrionwimps? Folks who know all the correct words but can't live up to the task? HA! Come on! Those guys are hysterical! They make us laugh1 So, we don't have water or clean air and we have no open wild space for birdies to sing. While you guys are riding your big cars down the highway do you think of such things? HA! Bet ya don't! And here's an example..... What's wrong with destroying a little wild open space in the Whittier Narrows Nature Center and displacing its Federally Endangered Bell's Vireos to cement lined freeways? DO you really care? I can tell you our tax paid Conservancy doesn't care - FUNNY isn't it?! What's not to like in a California State funded agency, Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, which calls itself a 'Conservancy' and spends most of its money on a development project to destroy nature? I mean - I hold my sides laughing!!! And also I love the funny stuff it pays for - publicity folks to make them look like wonderful environmentalists! HAHAHA! And listen to this!!! It's your tax dollars, too - but what does that mean to you, anyway? How come this Agency lost it's way???? It's mission statement's first concern is "conservation" (see:http://www.rmc.ca.gov/about/intro.html)... not to mention that word is in the name of the agency... It's the people who run it! Of Course! And no one is watching... which is the funniest part of all!!! And guess who is supporting this venture???? The Los Angeles County PARKS and RECREATION!!! That is BRILLIANT!!! They can look like TOTAL idiots or malfeasants or BOTH!!! (OH! I can't see, my eyes are tearing!) Here we are in one of the worst economic downturns in over 60 years and we have a bunch of Californian bureaucrats... wallowing in our hard earned dough, destroying what's left of our parks, "geeking" to kill our animals and calling each other conservationists!!! What will they think of next? The Rivers and Mountains Conservancy getting paid by the water companies to do this???HAHAHAHA! Happy water rates!!! HAHAHA!!! This stuff is a gut-buster!!! Doing things right just is not funny!

• Kate Lutz 07/07/2009 5:53:18 PM

  In response to Envirowimps, by PR McDonald -- the real environmental inventory that needs to be investigated is in-depth reporting on the perpetrators of environmental misdoings. Why are those who’ve worked diligently for years to enlighten the public about environmental misuses all of a sudden the bad guys for not being tough enough on the system? I've seen environmentalist painted as hippies, new agers, activists, agitators, freaks and now this – wimps – who would have thought! If the LA Weekly is searching for culprits in the line up of how did we get in this mess, look into the news rooms – print and broadcast. Environmental news has historically been underreported. To put a statistic on it, a few years back The Project for Excellence in Journalism nationally evaluated 33,000 local news reports over four years and reported that less than 1% of this news covered the environment. More specifically only .006% of news in Los Angeles and San Francisco covered the environment. Given repetition of news validates the merits and importance of it (think OJ Simpson, Brittney Spears, Michael Jackson), the lack of environmental front page reporting has historically marginalized the significance of this critical news beat. If the Weekly wants to slam people for not being the front line stewards for environmental protection – look to mayors, governors, presidents, the news media and the corporations without a deep and profound moral compass. Why does the job of making sure greater LA has clean air, water and soil fall into the hands of a 100s of people who are extremely underpaid, volunteer and are under resourced to get this work done. In other words, who died and made "environmentalists" the protectors of Earth? Being stewards of our planetary resources is not an appointed position or the “job” of a select few -- it is a civic duty we have yet to take full responsibility for as a country. Environmentalists don’t have enough political savvy? That’s due in part to the way the corporate foundation world was established to lend a hand to the non-profit 501Cs safety net of America. A tenet of 501C3 states a nonprofit may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities. I would like to see the LA Weekly and the rest of the news media do more in depth journalism on the complexity of environmental issues, or the history of LA's environmental community and all that it has accomplished with very little public attention. The gripe needs to be with the problems -- not focused on the messengers!

• Elizabeth crawford 07/06/2009 4:19:10 PM

  Dear LA Weekly: It’s not easy being green...especially when one has moved from the fringe into the actual doing of business, as have the subjects of last week’s “ENVIROWIMPS “ article. Having known and worked with, in a variety of collegial capacities, Mark Gold, David Nahai and Jonathan Parfrey since 2001, I take issue with the easy dismissal of their and others’ work in the larger arena of Los Angeles environmental politics. Unfortunately, most environmentalists cannot untangle politics from environmental work as Mr. Lipkis has been able to do; politics is the job at hand, when one is tangling with large corporations and emerging laws (such as the TMDL/wastewater permit work of Mr. Nahai and Mr. Gold), and in the Rocketdyne nuclear meltdown cleanup, as has Mr. Parfrey. I knew these gentlemen through my work in helping save Ahmanson Ranch from mini-town development (McMansions, school/hotel/restaurant/golf courses included) -- and the region’s environmentalists’ collaboration culminated in the exposure of perchlorate in the pristine area’s groundwater, probably from the adjacent Rocketdyne site — an event first uncovered in the pages of the LA Weekly. Being a “pure” environmentalist is easy: being an environmental politician or public policy wonk is so much more difficult. It’s then that the rubber meets the road, and one has to do more than hammer a single issue. So — to save Ahmanson Ranch (2800 acres of untouched California heaven), we must permit mixed-use development along transit lines in already-developed areas. To wean ourselves off coal, we must turn to solar — fast. What the anti-Measure B cadre didn’t tell you was that Measure B did not impact private residential programs or companies — and in fact there was planned a parallel upsurge in funding for these programs. And, the unions know that to stay in business, they have to embrace renewable energy. So — should they build a union coal plant, or union solar plants? Because the City contract requires unions — if one takes issue with unions, argue with the City’s contract, not Measure B or the DWP, as their action would have doubled the size of America’s solar installations, in one swoop. Los Angeles missed its best chance to go solar with Measure B — and Los Angeles’s environmental future won’t be well-served by this kind of slagging that masquerades as journalism. Please, LA Weekly — toss off your casual cynicism and return to real reporting again — the kind that won us Ahmanson Ranch. Sincerely, Elizabeth Crawford RocketdyneWatch.Org

• Rex Frankel 07/06/2009 11:25:56 AM

  Thank you, Patrick. We non-corporate-funded environmentalists are very grateful for your story. ---- Urban Growth is all about money: money for politicians’s campaign funds, jobs for construction workers, and windfall profits for land owners. But it also means a fake boost in tax dollars that is erased by all of the services needed by the residents of that growth. Local elected officials for years bought the builders’ baloney that mega development was the solution to local government’s budget woes. It’s not so. This faulty and unscientific belief was repeated unquestioned for years by the mainstream press. It’s been up to us, the independent activists and the independent press, to show that the growth emperor was not only naked, but he was drunk and blowing all of our money. A landmark study debunking the claims that development equals prosperity is at this link: http://www.farmlandinfo.org/documents/27757/FS_COCS_11-02.pdf On average, the study found that for every $1 that residential development brings into the government, the government then has to shell out $1.16 to service that development. Basically, if development was the salvation to California’s budget woes, California’s mega-growth since year 2000 would mean our budget would be fat and our taxes would be low. But California’s run a massive budget deficit for this entire decade even when the economy was “good”, when the stock market and “credit derivatives” were not bad words. Growth never pays for itself. If it did, we would have the lowest taxes in the country, not the highest. An underlying theme in Patrick Range McDonald’s article was that by working-with developers and polluters, some enviro groups think they can make a difference. Usually, they get worked-over, and the public gets the bill. We call it greenwashing because the developer still gets a massive project and we still get the traffic jams, but we also get feel-good billboards telling us that we wrecked our neighborhood in a green way. It’s like telling us that cancer is good for us because it’s “growth”. Growth is not always good, no matter what urban planning theorists tell us. The biggest problem with smart growth is that in L.A., at least, the decision to curb L.A. city’s sprawl can be erased because L.A. County and the city of Santa Clarita still approve big projects on our borders. We can concentrate growth in downtown L.A., and we can reject Rancho Las Lomas (sprawl in north San Fernando Valley), and then Kern County still intends to cram the Tejon Ranch project down our throats. That’s why we need to fight the entire 30,000 home wildlife-killing traffic jamming Tejon Ranch deal, no matter how many corporate enviro groups they’ve bought off. See http://savetejonranch.org for more, Smart growth works elsewhere, but only when all the local governments agree to it. Ventura County has a great voter-created system of greenbelts around their cities. These are very effective urban growth boundaries. In the San Francisco Bay area, most of the counties have these UGB’s. UGB’s have even spread to the developer-friendly Central Valley. This keeps the growth from escaping from one less developer friendly city to another. (Read more here: http://rare-earth-news.blogspot.com/2008/12/look-at-benefits-of-californias-voter.html) Coupled with these UGB’s in most places that have them are local land trusts and tax-dollar funded park purchase agencies that buy up the greenbelts that the voters put off-limits to development. This means that growth, if it must occur at all, is forced to stay in our downtowns. L.A. has been the worst player in urban sprawl and destroying the natural environment, but most of the rest of our state has learned from this lesson and does everything possible to avoid becoming like us. Even some of L.A.’s politicians are trying to turn this town around. Mayor Villaraigosa has been light-years better on green issues than any mayor before him. I consider Bill Rosendahl, our Westside councilman, a good friend. Compared to the openly hostile relationship we had with his predecessors Cindy Miscikowski, Ruth Galanter and Pat Russell, Bill is open, friendly, and not bought-off. The rubber is about to hit the road with two mega projects in Bill’s 11th district which are coming to the planning commission soon: the Howard Hughes Center on July 23rd and Playa Vista phase 2 later this summer or fall. Do we need another 3000 luxury condos? Do we need to let our yards turn brown so these towers can go up? Are the politicians going to fall for the usual developer B.S. again or will they really make L.A. the greenest city in the nation? If they don’t, we’re here to drag their asses into court…again. Rex Frankel http://connectingcalifornia.org and http://rare-earth-news.blogspot.com

• James Odling 07/05/2009 2:48:32 PM

  Thanks your for your courageous Envirowimps article. You underline much of what does not want to be said or written. And you are already catching flack for it. My observation is that environmental organizations, and others justice organizations, including unions, too often loosen their goals in search of a short cut through politicians and political parties. When that happens a new loyalty to the "good" politicians/party begins and so does the abandonment the of environmental protection and justice that led to the founding of the organization in the first place. It almost doesn't matter how bad the "good" politician evolves away from environmental protection, as long as she or he, and their party, are declared, often with little basis, to be "pro-environment." With the always present need for the environmental organizations to raise funds, comes another big problem. Hard-working grass roots organizations need funding always. How do we raise enough movement money? Philanthropic funding sources too often have establishment political connections and condition grants so that even applying for them means a giving up something of principle. As the article points out, there is the revolving door between the non-profit, the private sector and government posts. It is too reminiscent of Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial-Congressional complex. As one person says in the article, some politicians have got so used to "environmental" organizations doing what the officials want, that they treat the organizations as if they were employees of the office of a mayor or a Congress member. I have seen it. A local conservation committee member asks the committee for support of a measure so that organization's name will give cover (cover was his word) to a politician's plan. Cover! Do we not have our own plans to propose to the politicians rather than be conveyor belts for established ways? Yes, at least I hope we do. Do we allow whatever is called green go by just because of the word green? Too often So we are in mess. Let's talk more about how to lead ourselves out of it and avoid being tails on politicians' political schemes.

• Christina Walsh 07/05/2009 12:54:07 PM

  We are lucky to have those environmentalists in the positions where change can occur. It is necessary however, to have a complete understanding of both sides in order to make those difficult decisions that require balance and careful consideration. The writer either does not understand the issues, or does not care about how it applies to the real-life. The mis-use of the union name to turn needed independent energy into a catalyst to use for their own vested interests is certainly disappointing. It is unfortunate that lacking understanding at the neighborhood council level, has mis-represented these needed issues to the constituents they are supposed to serve. Real change in environmental policy and practices has occurred thanks to people like Gold and Parfrey, in areas that profoundly impact us all, and I personally hope to read more about the amazing things they have accomplished, rather than the blame-game we see here.

• Jill Stewart 07/05/2009 12:37:00 PM

  News Editor Jill Stewart replies: Thanks for all the great comments pro, con and otherwise. We truly welcome those who disagree, as well as those who agree, with our findings in major stories like Envirowimps. But in answer to Irvin in Palo Alto, no, in fact, VMT is not nearly the definitive measurement needed to determine whether in-fill, compact housing, density and smart growth will measurably reduce the emissions believed to cause global warming. Scientists are only now -- only NOW, folks -- trying to determine how to design the extremely complex studies needed to untangle the multi-layered issues involving in-fill vs. suburbia, yards vs. cement, idling your car in stopped Santa Monica traffic vs. driving your car in much less congested Van Nuys. Vast, vast sums of money would be spent to shift populations away from the suburbs -- where most people still want to live -- in hopes that the smart growth movement's guesswork (yes, guesswork, folks) is right. Many believe that we should instead spend those billions on things that we already know directly reduce emissions. Scientists directly involved in research are telling us that it will take years to prove the truth or folly of the VMT/density/in-fill belief system, which is closer to a religion than to science at this point. We at the Weekly contacted a couple dozen climatologists and other global warming researchers and all agreed: nobody has a clue if urban density reduces emissions related to global warming. If you find this disturbing or are at all curious, educate yourself: http://www.laweekly.com/2008-04-17/news/how-not-to-fight-global-warming/. And if you wonder why density is not working out as a social phenomenon, either, read this: http://www.laweekly.com/2008-02-28/news/bitter-homes-gardens/

• Irvin 07/05/2009 10:09:52 AM

  The article was interesting (being from the Bay Area...) but I thought it focused too much on conventional environmentalism as opposed to the changes occurring withing the movement. For example, in air quality, there is a movement to work with unions - it's one of the best example of 'good, green jobs' in action! And the alliance with developers goes by the term 'smart growth'. The part about the LEED standards being a way to push 'density' really showed how out-of-touch the reporter was in terms of smart growth...the environmental gains from increased density appropriately located far outweigh the energy efficiency gains of LEED. As for the 'traffic congestion' caused by the increased density, I think the reporter needs to do some homework on 'VMT', or vehicle miles traveled....it would show that the gains of infill far outweigh the negative local impacts they cause to the existing community.

• Nick Patsaouras 07/04/2009 3:51:10 PM

  Kudos to Patrick Range McDonald for a suberb, comprehensive and insightful article. Patrick hit the nail right on the head regarding the status of the environmental affairs in Los Angeles. As in the civil rights, labor, and affirmative action movements, so the environmental movement has evolved from the true believers, marchers and fighters, to users of a worthy cause. Over the last 35 years as Commissioner on the Board of Zoning Appeals, MTA, and more recently LADWP, I have witnessed the trasformation of the enviros from "tree huggers"(I`m proud that one of my relatives was one)activists to pontificating elitists. I know first hand young people right out of college volunteering hundreds of hours to help A. Lipkis plant trees all over the City, before planting trees became a buzzword and a haven of overpaid consultants, who have violated the taxpayers' trust.I know a young woman, who as a Peace Corps volunteer, traveled to Africa and spent years of her youth teaching the natives how to do soil conservation. And as a true believer, she went to a Kibbutz in the desert to start plant nurseries. All these people are unselfish, unsung soldiers, truly committed to improving our environment, in contrast to today`s self-proclaimed leaders, operating in incestuous, ossified groupies, and whose work is defined by self- agrandizement, ego gratification, and political and financial gains. Their work is limited and confined in the salons of the West Side, cooking up programs and projects for saving the planet without input from the "little" people, while they are sipping Perrier. As former President of the LADWP Commission, I do not recall the enviros testifying against Management`s proposal to cover the Elysian and Stone Canyon Reservoirs with unsightly aluminum corrugated roofs, close to 1.8 million sq.ft in area, supported by hundreds, if not thousands, of visible columns, an aesthetic and environmental abomination. Fortunately, the Board had the wisdom and the fortitude to overrule the staff`s recommendation and approve buried water tanks, thus eventually creating close to 45 acres of parks, trails, hiking paths, etc., in the most underparked city in the nation. Yes, the defeat of Measure B by the "little" people was a wake up call in the Environmental movement, that it is high time the Enviro leaders start walking the walk, and lead us with clear vision, fortitude, and determination, before we turn to our children a planet that is hell!

• Louweegie272 07/04/2009 8:14:44 AM

  Interesting article, I especially like the Mayor's comment "We need to build a future in which clean technology is as synonymous with Los Angeles as motion pictures or aerospace. Where L.A. is acknowledged as a growing capital of the green economy.” Currently the City's biggest growth industries are tourism and the informal labor market according to the report "Ebbing Tides in the Golden State". When will he do something to save the motion picture business?

• Charlie Baker 07/03/2009 12:29:24 PM

  I'm a supporter of strong Unions and disagree with those trying to demonize and blame them for economic and other problems especially in light of foolish mistakes made by overpaid executives in the financial industry. That being said, the points being made in this article should be heeded. The restraint to uncontrolled growth in Los Angeles should be the Water supply. Just read "Cadillac Desert" by Marc Reisner.

• joel kotkin 07/03/2009 11:24:40 AM

  patrick the problem i have with the greens is that they are an elitist movement, largely funded by trustifarians. their closeness to planning elites and developers are actually natural. most people in la want to live in a 'green' city which means a city with parks, backyards and trees. they don't want to be crammed into apartments so they can appeal to the world view of people who of course don't live in sardine cans. anyone who doubts this should look up dan zahniser's brilliant weekly piece on the advocates of smart growth. california's recent land use regulation acts and the atrocity of a climate change bill benefits the same group- investment bankers, consultants, university goo-goos and big developers. woe to the latino working class go who wants to buy a house in chino or the guy from taiwan who wants to build solar panels or computer systems in tustin. my experience is that greens, on the whole, have limited interest in upward mobility. actually they would like to see as the President's science advisor puts it 'dedevelopment' of the west. how that works in a country with 100 million more people 2050, well, you can fill in the blanks. finally the whole green jobs thing is wildly overstated. the us is running a huge deficit in green industries in part because of the approach we take (mandates,not incentives) and also because the regulatory environment here is impossible. in other words, it is strange to say, you are too kind. but it is a very important piece. joel

• Green Labor Lawyer 07/03/2009 9:30:59 AM

  You dig hard to find controversy and conflict, but you dig right past stereotypes that infect and compromise your story. Most troubling to me – because I have been fighting workers’ and greens’ battles for decades – is your characterization of the port truckers’ situation: • “the big union . . . forcing independent truckers to work for a company” • “stripping the truckers of their independence and giving the Teamsters a major opening to organize the drivers as union members” • “[the court] allowing independent truckers to continue working for themselves rather than for trucking companies” • “the mayor’s political maneuvering to help the Teamsters” With these trite phrases, you pit the labor movement against the greens. Is the labor movement opposing the green movement? You implicitly answer yes by putting “big unions” on the side of the (mostly evil in your story) developers and “big business.” Your story was an interesting reexamination of the green movement, but it accepted without critical thought an anti-labor mindset: Teamster and “big unions” are pejoratives. However, the workers’ rights movement (“big unions” as you call them) are fighting for who you call (probably with little thought) independent truckers. Most of these so-called independent truck drivers are independent in name only: they haul one company’s freight when and where and how they are told. By being misclassified as independent, they can be underpaid and overworked. (I realize this is a debatable distinction, and I’d invite you to write such an in depth article about the misclassification issue. Now there is some controversy for you.) Your solicitude for healthy children is not matched by your understanding of the need for kids to have parents who have time and money to spend with them. Properly classified as employees (as the mayor’s program had it), these worker would have time to spend with their families (one purpose of overtime laws). Only as employees can they organize for better wages and hours. Only with “big unions” on their side can these workers hope to have the time or energy to join the green movement.

• Gwennie 07/02/2009 9:25:03 PM

  LA Weekly is obviously doing its job, afflicting the comfortable if the comments RE this article are any indication. I find it fascinating that none of the rpevious comments addresses the major thrust of the article. Just character assaination, while madly attempting to misdirect.

• Eddie Scher 07/02/2009 12:09:35 PM

  When Patrick Range McDonald and the LA Weekly are ready to let the LA environmental movement up off their couch, there's lots of real environmental issues that deserve thorough coverage in a 5000 word article.

• Kevin R. 07/02/2009 10:50:53 AM

  This poorly written drivel fails to deliver any blow or make any substantiated point worth knowing about. Range McDonald has no idea idea what he's talking about, hasn't any real sense of LA environmental movement, and failed to do the kind of investigation that might have given him a clue. So who's the wimp? If I were Drex Heikes, the first thing I'd do is get rid of lightweights like McDonald and whoever allowed this shoddy excuse for journalism to be published.

• MIchael 07/02/2009 2:34:55 AM

  Here we go again –misinterpreting Measure B election night results as something it’s not. As the campaign mngr for Measure B I know exactly why it came up short of victory – the March election produced one of the more conservative right-wing electorates in 12 years. With a low-turnout and right-wing agenda driven newspapers (like the LA Weekly)with their non-stop pressure to tell a news story that didn’t exist, which duped Angelinos into a cautious voting pattern this past March. What is amazing about this article about the “environment” is that it quotes two gentlemen that have done more to harm the local environment here in LA than most. Jack Humphreville and Ron Kaye, one a republican and the other a self proclaimed anarchist both have contributed to the destruction of Los Angeles year after year after year. Mr. Humpreville (a millionaire) who made his fortune by selling cheap ads in local newspapers has a history of selling ad space for virtually every significant polluter in California. Many of the companies that padded his pockets have been fined several times by the EPA and in some instances have been put out of business due to regulatory actions, but that shouldn’t stop the LA Weekly from quoting him as some environmental maven. And on the other hand Mr Kaye the Daily News editor for over 20 years has never been one to put environmental concerns over a profit, as Editor of a newspaper he did everything in his power to prevent the Daily News from using recycled paper or safer less toxic inks. Several studies published in various University papers have shown the dangerous level of toxic chemicals used in newspaper ink, yet the Daily News (under Kaye’s leadership) continually stopped any ink reforms regarding soy inks that are acceptable today. In fact, a 1994 memo from the corporate owners of the Daily News touted their success at keeping their manufacturing cost lower because of their continual effort to “fight unproven newspaper techniques” which was a direct reference to their fight of cleaning up their toxic inks which I am sure toddlers were exposed to in Los Angeles, or for that matter introducing recycled paper into the mix paper use that the Daily News printer presses would use. And well, I suppose this leads me to ask the LA Weekly a similar question, what percentage of your newspaper ink is soy and what is your recycled paper count? As for a “union power-play” concerning Measure B, this theme is yellow journalism at its best. Measure B directed the City of Los Angeles to put solar panels on city rooftops. Now if a massive majority of the square footage of City property is owned by the DWP, logic dictates that DWP employees (for liability reasons) be the primary outfit to put solar panels on city rooftops. The absurd claim that it be opened up for “competitive bidding” is akin to this reporter writing a story demanding that Brinks Home Security be allowed to bid as one of the “private contractors” during this unprecedented public safety push headed by the City, or that private fire-fighting companies be allowed to convert City firehouses into for-profit centers of business. I for one am proud of the work the fire department, police department and the department of water and power do for LA every day. I say we let the LAPD hire LAPD officers for LAPD programs, LAFD hire LAFD firefighters for protection against the flames and the DWP hire DWP employees to put Solar panels on DWP rooftops. However, I suspect logic isn’t in this newspapers DNA.

• Sandra Hamlat 07/01/2009 11:00:47 PM

  This article is indicative of the efforts to divide, rather than unite, the environmental movement in LA. The arrows thrown at individuals and organizations, whether they are inside city hall or not, are misguided. Finding areas of mutual interest with entities that could be potential adversaries is a great strategy for creating win-win scenarios for the quality of life and jobs that make LA livable. This approach is difficult, and needed changes might come in increments. Regardless, the environmental movement in LA needs all the help it can to over-come a past that has historically under-valued the environment. Trying to divide the environmental movement might make for sensationalized reading but does a disservice for readers and activists wanting to better-understand the unique challenges of LA's environmental movement and how different tactics, both inside and outside city hall, can transform LA into one of the greenest big cities.

• stephanie Pincetl 07/01/2009 10:10:09 PM

  It is too bad that the author of this piece prefers sensationalism to analysis, carelessly takes people's comments out of context, and writes as though there is no historical, political, economic or legal context that frames what can, or cannot, take place in environmental politics in the city. Clearly it is not paradise, nor has the city done all it could do. . . yet, there is no mention of the constraints of proposition 13, 218, term limits, the complexities of ballot box initiatives, the role of neighborhood councils, the implosion of the economy and what alternatives could look like. Moreover, the strong libertarian, anti-union bias, and shallow understanding of environmental issues make this article quite short of the kind of analysis needed today. The reader is left with the impression that keeping the status quo segregated low density residential is more environmentally sound approach, and seems to not to find any contradictions in citing USC's studies about asthma and co-location of buildings next to freeways, with USC's own building next to the 110, and significant gentrification activities in the Figueroa Corridor. It inaccurately lumps groups and organizations together and does not recognize deep differences among them, like labor (and there are several different unions here too), developers, and others. Please, lets be consistent, careful, and construct a smart critique, not a scattershot set of allegations that are based on unstated, but implicit assumptions about the good, tax free, suburban life defended by grass roots activists! We should be past this kind of breezy pointing of fingers, lets get to real work.