By Hillel Aron
By Joseph Tsidulko
By Patrick Range McDonald
By David Futch
By Hillel Aron
By Dennis Romero
By Jill Stewart
By Dennis Romero
But how did Gensler qualify when the poor on Skid Row are repeatedly rejected? Legal Aid dug up a slew of emails showing that Thomas Properties, a big landlord that owns Southern California skyscrapers, sought taxpayer help from Councilwoman Perry to defray the cost of wooing Gensler downtown and away from Santa Monica.
The embarrassing emails, first published by KCBS-TV reporter David Goldstein on Sept. 26, show that the deal wasn't initiated to serve "the immediate needs of the city's most impoverished citizens" at all, as Villaraigosa urged last year.
In his first email on Nov. 17, 2010, Thomas Properties executive Ayahlushim Getachew merely asked one of Perry's 20-plus personal aides: "Do you have any available block grant available [sic] at [Community Development Department] for a really great opportunity in the 9th [Council District]? What do you think?"
The next day, after Perry's aide asked Getachew for details of the "great opportunity," he spelled it out: "Confidentially," Getachew wrote, "Gensler just agreed to move their corporate headquarters to our building" — the Jewel Box. "We are quickly and quietly working to make this a good move for everyone."
Getachew said, "I need about $1 million or more for tenant improvements and about $600,000 from DOT or Metro for transportation incentives ... transit passes, etc. ... Do you think that is doable? Can we work together on this?"
In May, the feds cut block grant funds for the poor by more than 16 percent. But a city development official, Ninoos Benjamin, emailed Getachew with upbeat reassurance that the Gensler subsidy would sail through.
Benjamin wrote that the L.A. Community Development Department had recommended "which programs to be canceled and which to receive lesser funding — Gensler was left as it was — (no change, to receive the whole $1 million)."
Individuals associated with skyscraper owner Thomas Properties have contributed $5,000 to Councilwoman Perry's mayoral bid, according to the city's Ethics Commission, and $9,750 total to the city's politicians since the start of 2010. Individuals associated with Gensler have contributed $2,500 to Perry, and a total of $10,000 to the city's politicians since 2010.
Legal Aid lawyer Schultz says of the Gensler subsidy: "Like everyone else, I'm quite appalled."
She is reviewing her legal options.
Beth Mueller says Skid Row residents and Occupy L.A. this month will ask the City Council finance committee to pull the $1 million back and then take their case to the full City Council.
@Lovely.....Тhis is сrаzу...Мy friеnd`s sistеr mакеs 78/hr оn thе intеrnеt. Shе hаs bееn unеmрlоуеd fоr 11 mоnths but lаst mоnth hеr incоmе wаs 7985$ јust wоrкing оn thе РС fоr а fеw hоurs. Gо tо this wеb sitе .......http://alturl.com/mjc7z
To the Concerned Angeleno Below, it's ironic you are concerned about the previous author's sources, because you seem to feel completely comfortable with Martin Berg's disregard for relevant sources. In truth, Martin Berg has very little regard for truth, and he gets away with it time and time and time again, because readers like us react to his catchy titles.
Isn't that right, Marty? You'd rather harvest readers than print the truth? You say in your article "Gensler and Thomas Properties...did not respond to requests seeking comment..." Now, you know that isn't exactly true Marty. I'm going to guess you got responses from both of those companies, but your refusal to incorproate facts made it difficult for their comments to be useful to you. That's usually how you work. And it helps your points to say that those companies declined to comment, even if you spent time talking to them at length.
That fact is, Mr. Berg can't explain to you how the HUD grants work, and isn't going to direct you to the City's Economic Plan (posted online for all to see), he isn't going to address the positive financial impact that this grant will have on the city (and on Skid Row), and he isn't going to take the time to outline how the other millions of HUD dollars are going to support community programs and low-income housing and unemployment. He isn't going to do any of these things, because then he couldn't use his preposterous title to draw in more readers. It's too bad, too, because there is a lot of work to be done, and we need Skid Row and the City of L.A. and companies like Gensler to be united in finding solutions. If the irresponsible journalists would get out of the way, we might just move closer to doing this.
Looking4Facts couldn't be more right. I have on very good authority that Thomas Properties did give Mr Berg a response but since it contradicted his far flung assumptions he chose not to use it.
This letter from the City of Los Angeles Community Development Department doesn't seem to include among its listed eligible activities anything that sounds like what Gensler received its grant for, either:
LookingForFacts, put up the link to the City's Economic Plan and point out the part you feel is relevant.
I suppose Steve Lopez of the Los Angeles Times is just another irresponsible journalist? LA Weekly broke the story, but Lopez published this on October 8, 2011:
The list of eligible activities under the HUD Community Development Block program is here:
And there IS one eligible activity that could allow for the $1 million grant to Gensler: "provision of assistance to profit-motivated businesses to carry out economic development and job creation/retention activities."
While I personally don't think that giving a firm $1 million to outfit its new office counts as carrying out "economic development and job creation/retention activities," I"m sure it could be twisted that way. Unfortunately, with most of this HUD money removed from LA's coffers, spending almost half of it on Gensler's interiors does indeed seem outrageous to me, on top of their three-year tax holiday.
For all of this, they are required to create 29 jobs based on the amount of grant money they receive, and only 15 of those jobs, according to the Lopez article, must go to low-income people.
I am not saying that LA CAN or any other particular entity should receive the money instead. I DO think Gensler didn't need it and isn't an appropriate recipient, in our current economic climate.
Мy sistеr mаkes $88/hr оn thесomputer.Shеhаs bеen оut оf wоrk fоr 7 mоnths but lаst mоnth hеr рaycheck wаs $6256јust wоrking оn thесomputer fоr аfеw hоurs. Сheck оut ...http://alturl.com/gtw97
Might help if the people representing this cause weren't a group of drug dealing activist thugs like LA Can. Seriously - no wonder this money was lost before it was ever spent - let me see the city can spend one million dollars in luring a respectable design firm into the downtown area or it can continue to throw good money after bad in helping to aid the drug dealers and vagrants who swarm in and out of the LA CAN offices - this is a no brainer.
1. Not sure why you think anyone should believe anything you say if you provide no sources for your anonymous accusations. You could be anyone: from someone who really knows what's going on at LA CAN, to someone at Thomas Properties, Gensler or the City who wants to weaken the case Mueller and Occupy LA are making.
2. Whether or not LA CAN is an appropriate recipient of the money, it is quite clear that Gensler and Thomas Properties are NOT. As the article above makes clear, this money is just not intended for such use, and was not granted to the City to allocate for such uses.
Should anyone be surprised by this action? The cushy relationship and revolving door between developers/property owners and city hall politicians’ serves both groups well, usually at the expense of the city’s residents. In this case it is the city’s poorest residents, those most vulnerable, who are getting the shaft. Villaraigosa and Perry will say they care, but like many of their aides, are simply looking for the next step up the political ladder.
Sadly this cushy relationship between developers and well-connected landscape architects, architects and other consultants and former council staffers does great harm to our city. Primarily by alienating already disgusted voters who believe that this behavior is ok and moral and then secondly, by delivering sub-standard work (usually only after everyone involved makes campaign donations to the politicians involved). This attitude and borderline corruption at city hall needs to be investigated on a federal level. Let’s get a federal grand jury impaneled and make Los Angeles clean, so that everyone wins, not just the rich and well connected.
One answer is to make the elected officials abide by the same rules that apply to me as a Code Enforcement Official at LAHD; not allowed to accept any tips or gifts None !. Let the elected officials truly serve the public for an honest days work, for an honest days pay.
Facebook; david barron for LA city