Trying to get into the minds of the current majority of Los Angeles Unified School District board members is often like trying to crawl into an impossibly small, dark, unventilated space.
Particularly when it comes to the fate of the accursed $200 million Belmont Learning Complex. Its now two months since the board majority sought to put the problem-plagued campus behind it forever, to terminate it with extreme prejudice. But instead of offering an alternative location to the Belmont Learning Complex -- which was intended to serve the growing inner-city student population -- LAUSD Chief Operating Officer Howard Miller proposed a hodgepodge of small high schools, after first floating the notion of converting middle schools to high schools, a plan that is no longer regarded as feasible in the Belmont area.
The proposed alternative locations include a portion of the Dodger Stadium parking lot and the site of the shuttered Ambassador Hotel. But both sites hit deep obstacles last week, leaving the LAUSD with fewer options to the Belmont Learning Complex, apart from continuing to ignore the need for it.
Dodger president Bob Graziano rebuffed the districts stadium parking-lot high school proposal as fraught with extraordinary hurdles.
Premium Seating: Los Angeles Angels v. Oakland Athletics
TicketsFri., Aug. 4, 7:07pm
Los Angeles Angels vs. Oakland Athletics
TicketsFri., Aug. 4, 7:07pm
Premium Seating: Los Angeles Angels v. Baltimore Orioles
TicketsMon., Aug. 7, 7:07pm
Los Angeles Angels vs. Baltimore Orioles
TicketsMon., Aug. 7, 7:07pm
It looks like this topic is, from the Dodgers point of view, undiscussable. Which means that the district would have to legally condemn Dodger property to get the 16 acres it wants. Taking property this way (district officials prefer the term eminent domain) can be costly -- the law decrees that the condemning agency must pay fair market value. But it gets costlier, because the condemnee is certain to take the matter to court to demand more money. This kind of litigation also takes a long time as it ambles through the court system with the deliberation of an elderly cruise ship meandering among the holiday ports of Micronesia. A costly voyage indeed.
A similarly difficult journey looms ahead at the Ambassador, where negotiations with the propertys owners have broken down.
Miller remains unfazed. At this weeks school board meeting, he made it clear that both sites are firmly on the table. And should they fall off, hes got enough other potential school sites to do the job. He did not offer information on how much it would cost to build these alternative schools from scratch.
Millers Turn Our Backs on Belmont dogma, however, is going to cost the befuddled district in other ways as well. The board majority professes that its rejecting the new Belmont, which sits half finished above a shallow oil field, because to do otherwise would risk condemning its future occupants to a sudden and fiery doom. It is accordingly not interested in finding out just how really dangerous the high school site is. The board is particularly uninterested in finding out how costly gas-venting mitigation of the $200 million project might be. Better write the thing off as a total loss and start all over again, it says.
But, as noted here three weeks ago, the district has a far less credible motive here. Its to recoup as much of its spendthrift $200 million investment as possible -- even at the cost of rejecting a potentially viable school. As member Valerie Fields put it, finding out if Belmonts safe would diminish the liability of OMelveny & Myers, the stellar downtown law partnership that the board is suing. In other words, ignore Belmont and pocket a bundle.
Now, O&M appears to have given the LAUSD some very questionable advice on Belmont, particularly as to the scrutiny of various expenditures. It also had some alleged conflicts of interest in the case and may have let the 1997 Belmont construction proceed without sufficient research.
Well and good, but if the district thinks its that easy to enhance the law firms liability, it must have become addicted to bad counsel. The contention that, by unilaterally declaring Belmont useless, it stands to get more out of O&M is like an accident victim claiming that if he chooses not to try to walk again, he can win more in his case.
Of course, what really happens then is that the defendants lawyer orders a medical examination of the plaintiff. And if there is no proof that the victim is paraplegic, he collects little. The presumption is that if there were contrary evidence, the plaintiff would have produced it.
Such contrary evidence -- proof that the Belmont sites gassy effervescence is not economically remediable -- is exactly what the LAUSD board is reluctant to yield. Meanwhile, the defendant has shown its own findings. On Wednesday -- the same day the Ambassador setback was reported -- the Times reported that O&Ms tests suggest that gas hazards at the new Belmont site were similar to those prevailing at the old Belmont high school, which now accommodates 4,500 students.
The district tried to stop the firm from doing any testing. Then Howard Miller objected to the courts disclosure of the test results so far. Miller said the findings dont change his position, due to the uncertain costs of gas mitigation. But as an attorney, Miller ought to be aware that, minus a certain -- and very high -- price tag on exactly those gas mitigations, the district is losing its case even before it gets to court.
Meanwhile, the present Belmont school, as overcrowded as the county jail, will continue to bus more kids to farther-away high school destinations.
Declaration of Independence?
The front pages of the citys only occasionally competitive two dailies were topped by competitive headlines through most of the past week. The result was that rare thing in this town -- a news-coverage artillery duel. The Daily News mortars fronted several headlines claiming, for instance, that at least one D.A. underling had tried to head off the mounting perjury problems of key Rampart defendant Rafael Perez (Whomp!). Meanwhile, the Times howitzers returned fire with reports that the LAPD had, for instance, denied the D.A. access to reports and videotapes important in the Rampart case (Crump!). The Daily News favored LAPD Chief Bernie Parks while the Times seemed inclined toward the folks over on Temple Street. At least until the peculiar upshot Thursday of a Times editorial so critical of Gil Garcetti that one wondered whether the folks in Woodland Hills hadnt hacked it into the Times computer.
In the City Council, things looked fairly splattered. Various members made their objections to the way the investigation was proceeding. Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg asked that the Board of Police Commissioners reaffirm its policy -- dating back to Chief Daryl Gates -- of encouraging community trust and communication with the Police Department via prohibiting the enforcement of federal immigration law by local police officers. Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas asked U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno to poke her nose into the mess. The impetus for an independent Rampart investigation mounted.
And then Council President John Ferraro told everyone to sit down and shut up. Ferraro claimed to have had a private conversation with Warren Christopher himself, and that Warren (who, by coincidence, is the managing partner of OMelveny & Myers, mentioned above) had told Ferraro that matters should be left in the capable hands of the Police Commission. Whereupon, until the commission declared itself done with the matter, Ferraro issued a gag order referring all Rampart motions -- without discussion -- to the Public Safety Committee.
But it is increasingly obvious that the problem with this oft-proclaimed idea of leaving the whole thing to the commission is the Police Commission itself. Apart from its president, Gerald Chaleff, the members lack the stature and experience needed to handle Rampart in depth, even with the seven-figure hiring funds promised by the City Council. If Mayor Dick Riordan really wanted to inspire the publics confidence in the panel, hed weed out at least two current members and replace them with -- for instance -- a respected, retired senior police official and perhaps one of the active or retired Superior Court judges who are former police officers. These would worthily replace the mayors former Ethics Commission hatchet woman Raquelle de la Rocha and right-wing car dealer Bert Boeckmann.
Instead, the downtown rumor is that Riordan and Parks are trying to persuade Chaleff to see things Parks way and let the commission rubber-stamp the chiefs own Rampart report. Right now, there are at most seven City Council votes for an independent Rampart query. My guess is, the moment Chaleff quits or gives in to Riordan, there will be 15.
Get the ICYMI: Today's Top Stories Newsletter Our daily newsletter delivers quick clicks to keep you in the know
Catch up on the day's news and stay informed with our daily digest of the most popular news, music, food and arts stories in Los Angeles, delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday.