Elections in LA: Not a great day for Antonio V

Antonio Villaraigosa won reelection as Mayor of Los Angeles yesterday. Good news for him, but bad news in the results - he only won 55% of the vote. I was joking yesterday that the only question in this election was whether he was going to get 70, 80, or 85% of the vote. Ooops. He had nine opponents, but none of them were serious candidates. One of them was listed on the ballot as having the nickname "Zuma Dogg." That was actually on the ballot, with two "g's" in "Dogg" (only in LA, really - Zuma is the name of a beach in Malibu). Only 15% of the electorate turned out. That ain't much of a mandate. He pushed hard for Measure B, a proposal for solar energy in LA, but it looks like it might not pass. Which would be a good thing - I voted against it.

I still like Antonio, I still think he's doing a good job as mayor. But I agree with the LA Times that Antonio and his allies need to do some deep thinking. Democrats run LA with virtually no interference from Republicans. That can be good and bad; good, because there isn't much opposition. Bad, because there isn't much opposition. That's good because it makes it easier to get things done, but bad because getting things done easily sometimes means you start to get sloppy without someone asking hard questions.

It is entirely possible that the lack of serious opposition is starting to go to Antonio's head. And the heads of those around him. Power corrupts, guys. Hopefully, this will be a wakeup call. Antonio has done a lot of good things, and he hasn't made any horrendous mistakes. Most of what he has done has been largely invisible; from what I can tell, he's appointed very good people. He has gotten a lot of good things going, and there are many things going well under him that started out under people before him; the subway is one, cleaning up the ports is another. Let's hope he learns the lesson of this election quickly, and let's hope this is one trend that starts and stops in LA - thank goodness there are enough Republicans in Congress to at least pretend to be the loyal opposition. Antonio has hit a lot of singles, maybe a few doubles, but no home runs. He needs to hit something out of the park.

My suggestion would be LAX. Something needs to be done with the major entry point for millions of people to LA. It needs to be seriously redesigned, and there needs to be good public transportation there, ideally light rail. There were some good proposals floating around several years ago, but I haven't heard anything basically since Antonio took office. My impression is that there have been many minor changes at the airport, but nothing major. Even if he proposes a sweeping overhaul tomorrow, nothing will be visibly different by the time he's running for his next office, whatever that is. Antonio opposed the last major overhaul of the airport; that was one of my points of disagreement with him. Reviving that proposal - or any proposal - would be a good way to generate the kind of attention he wants and needs to be governor. Someone get this man a cup of coffee so he can smell it.

Elections today in Los Angeles!

There are elections today in Los Angeles. More democracy! Find your polling place here. I'm voting for Antonio Villaraigosa for Mayor, because he's done a decent job. Some newspapers have complained that he hasn't risen to his potential, and that he is focused more on his next campaign than on his current job.

I think Antonio has done a good job just keeping LA going during this crisis. His school reforms haven't gone as far as we would all like, but that's also a huge job. He's gotten the Subway To The Sea off the ground, which is a major accomplishment. Unfortunately, we won't see the results of that for a long time. His best quality is just his sheer enthusiasm. There is something to be said for a politician who puts his heart and soul into improving the quality of life for his constituents. Say what you will about his policies, you can't question his dedication or his professionalism. As for his campaigning for the higher office; he will probably be running for either senator or governor very soon. But an essential part of his campaign is how well he runs the city today. If you don't like the fact that he's spending more time running for senator or governor than being mayor, send a message and vote against him in that next election. I do agree with his critics who think that he should have participated in mayoral debates. None of his competitors were serious candidates, but he did have nine of them. You would think that the Mayor of Los Angeles would understand that he has a certain responsibility to provide his constituents with some entertainment value. Particularly during a campaign.

As for the rest of the offices, I just use the LA Times endorsements. The one contentious ballot measure is Measure B, which would encourage the use of solar power in LA. That sounds like a great thing, but I've read too many criticisms of it as a power grab by the electrician's union (installations of solar power facilities would have to be by the union). Laura Chick has reached the end of her term limits, which is too bad; she's been a great Controller. Yet another great reason to oppose term limits, the stupidest idea currently inflicted on American democracy. On the other hand, I am NOT going to miss Rocky Delgadillo as City Attorney. He's had something of a bizarre tenure, which I don't even want to think about.

Look! It's a mayoral election!

Los Angeles is going to be holding an election for mayor on March 3, 2009. Less than a month away! This may be one of the most under-the-radar elections ever for an office that represents 3 million people. Our current Mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, is running for reelection. He has almost no opposition. Rick Caruso, the developer of The Grove, considered running, but decided that this is not a good year to run for office in Los Angeles as a Republican. At this point, Antonio V's strongest opponent is a guy named Walter Moore, who is an independent. He's raised over $200,000, which is fairly impressive, but also irrelevant. Antonio has already survived an affair; at this point he would have to be convicted of some horrible crime to lose this election.

Antonio, naturally, doesn't want a debate with his opponents. Steve Lopez, a columnist for the LA Times, of course finds this appalling (Lopez will be portrayed by Robert Downey, Jr. in the upcoming movie The Soloist). He took a poll of his readers; 97% would like to see a debate. I think Antonio should engage his opponents in a debate, at the very least because I think it would be good for his future political career - he's probably going to run for either Governor or Senator. He's going to win this election in a walk - the only question is whether he's going to get 70% or 80% of the vote. He can afford to look gracious. By denying a debate, he looks small and petty. Not good, Antonio. I realize that part of the reason he only has token opposition is that Democrats completely dominate politics in LA, and he's actually done a decent job as mayor. But there are issues that I would like to hear debated. Tops on my list would be what the candidates plan to do about car alarms. Personally, I would outlaw all car alams in LA.

I can find reason to have fun in just about any election, but this one is boring. REALLY boring. I like Antonio, I think he's been a good Mayor, and might make a good governor. He's very energetic, I usually agree with him, and even when I don't, he takes clear, strong positions. The man is not wishy-washy. But he looks arrogant when he doesn't debate his opponents. Come on, Antonio, make this race just a little bit interesting.

Brewer out at LAUSD

David Brewer, superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District, announced his resignation today.

That was fast. There have been grumblings about Brewer for months, but it's just been in the last couple of weeks that he has lost the support of the Board. The president of the Board, Monica Garcia, tried to get rid of him last week, but couldn't quite do it. But she wouldn't have made that move unless she knew she had enough support. It helps that she has the support of the Mayor, and Brewer doesn't.

To his credit, Brewer, who is black, made it clear that he did not want anyone to see his resignation in ethnic terms.

"As an African American, I've experienced my share of discrimination," he said. "I know what it looks like, smells like, and the consequences. Although this debate is disconcerting and troubling, it must not become an ethnic issue. When adults fight, it can manifest itself in our children. This must not become an ethnic or racial battle that infests our schools, our campuses, our playgrounds. This is not about settling an old score; this must be about what is best for every LAUSD student."

I was a little surprised when he was hired. He was a retired vice admiral, and he said all the right things, but he had no background in education. Which would mean, in part, that he wouldn't be able to bring in his own team with him.

The traditional liberal explanation for failing schools is lack of money, but that doesn't really fly here. LAUSD has passed five construction bonds in the last few years. Money for construction is not a problem. Of course, money for ongoing operations will be a problem, given every government's lack of resources in the current economic climate.

But the big issue in LA is the exceesive bureaucracy. That's true of large urban school districts across the country, and LA is no different. Brewer did nothing to address that problem. Green Dot schools is making a difference on that front with Locke High School, but they are doing it from outside the system.

Whoever can crack the nut of redefining school bureaucracy in this country will be a hero. Now that Brewer is gone, Antonio Villaraigosa might take another stab at it. He tried to take over the school system when he was first sworn into office, but didn't manage it. He now has a majority of the school board as allies, so the next superintendent will be selected with input from him. Rumors are constantly swirling around Antonio about what office he will be looking for next. Many people think he will run for governor in 2010, when Arnold will be term limited out. I'm not sure - I think he might want to stick around and dedicate himself to transforming LAUSD. He's certainly got the energy and the constituency. It might be a stepping stone to higher office, like governor or senator. At the very least, it would be a great, great legacy.

As we big au revoir to Adm. Brewer, we cross our fingers and hope for better luck this time. Much, much better luck.

Rick Caruso not running for Mayor

Rick Caruso has announced that he will not be running for Mayor of Los Angeles. At least not in 2009. Good call. This is really not a good time for someone who supported Bush to be running for political office, particularly against a strong incumbent.

Don't run, Rick!

Rick Caruso, developer of The Grove, is considering running for Mayor of LA. In the midst of this incredibly interesting time in national politics, this caught my attention. I don't think it's a good idea. He would be running as a Republican against Antonio Villaraigosa. A Republican consultant asks the key question:

"Is the disappointment with Villaraigosa so widespread?"

My short answer would be "No," and my long answer be "No, and certainly not enough to vote for a Republican." Antonio is doing a solid job. He may not be the transformational Mayor we all want and sort of expect from him, but he hasn't made any major mistakes. The only blemish is the affair he had, but even that was relatively minor. He took responsibility for it, and it faded fairly quickly.

I'm not opposed to Caruso running for Mayor eventually. I like the idea of maintaining some ideological diversity in a city as big as LA. But given the disarray of the GOP and the disillusionment with Republicans on the part of the electorate, I think he would have a much better shot if he waits until Villaraigosa leaves office. Antonio will be term-limited out in 2013, but might leave before then if he gets picked to run something in an Obama administration or if he runs for Governor and wins (which is the strongest possibility).

What I like about Villaraigosa is that he's incredibly energetic, he's very optimistic and gung-ho, he's a consummate professional, and he's not afraid to take strong stands. He unequivocally opposes Proposition 8. He hires good people. Under an Obama administration, I think he could really flourish as Mayor of LA.

I don't know much about Caruso's positions, but from his public persona, I think he might - emphasis on might - make a good mayor of LA. He seems fairly innovative, he's a good manager, and he clearly sees opportunities where others don't. And he believes in delivering value for his customers, a good sign of a good capitalist. But I think his best bet is to wait until he current occupant has moved on.

Optimism about light rail in LA

The MTA, aka the Metropolitan Transit Authority, the primary transporation agency for LA County (but far from the only one) is in the middle of some serious long-range planning. I've been following this with half an ear; I know it's going on, but I haven't followed in great detail. The one part that I am very aware of is plans for building a subway under Wilshire, continuing the purple line from downtown out to Santa Monica. I live about 4 blocks from the purple line, but I live near the second-to-last stop. It really needs to be built out all the way to Santa Monica. That would alleviate a lot of traffic. Unfortunately, it will probably cost at least $5 billion.

One problem is that there is no shortage of worthwhile public transportation projects in LA. If someone dropped $100 billion on LA for light rail, I'm sure we could find good uses for it immediately. One of the very worthwhile projects is extending the Gold Line out to Azusa. This isn't quite as economically worthwhile as the Purple Line, but it's also much less expensive; supposedly $80 million will get it started.

The LA Times has an excellent Op-Ed about this dilemma. It looks like a straightforward, traditional zero-sum issue: if one part of LA will gets the money, the other part won't get any. But the Times suggests that perhaps such pessimism is unwarranted; a bond issue is coming up in November, and hopefully there will be enough money for both projects.

I completely agree. What the Times doesn't mention is that public transportation is one of those issues where success breeds success. The more light rail there is in LA, the more people depend on it, the more people will vote to support it.

Thank goodness we have a great mayor here who believes in public transportation.

Greener buildings coming in LA

Some very good news on the environmental front here in LA: the City Council just passed a law requiring that some new buildings meet tougher environmental standards. It's not perfect, and allegedly San Francisco has a better law, but it's a solid start. Good for Antonio V!

My only complaint is not with the law, but with the coverage from the LA Times. This covers real estate and environmentalism two topics that lots and lots and lots of Californians are very interested in, but they put it on the first page of the California section, B1, rather than on the front page, A1. Doesn't good news sell newspapers, too?

Being mayor of LA is not for the weak of spirit

Tim Rutten, a great recent addition to the LA Times Op-Ed page, has an excellent piece on where Antonio Villaraigosa is at this stage of his first term as mayor of Los Angeles. He's doing well so far, hiring good people, but the jury is out because the job isn't done. It will never be done, of course, but Villaraigosa set for large goals for himself, and has not yet accomplished them. Rutten points out the contradiction of being mayor of LA:

Los Angeles is arguably more difficult to govern than any other major American city. Its mayor is elected by one city to govern another. The "city" that elects a chief executive is far older, more affluent and whiter than the real thing. The city that elects a mayor has interests; the city that the mayor governs has needs, and in that disjunction much of our civic discontent simmers.

I don't think it's entirely fair to describe LA as unique in this respect. New York certainly faces this conundrum, and Washington has the added burden of not really being in control of its fate. But the basics are right.

Rutten is not quite damning with faint praise, but neither is he slamming Antonio. He's reserving judgment, which, honestly, is refreshing for an Op-Ed piece. It's refreshing because it's an honest appraisal, and it's neither too cynical nor too optimistic. This is what "balanced" means.

Good news about LA real estate

OK, this is somewhat bureaucratic, but it is now easier to get building permits in LA. That has to be good news for people interested in LA, which is just about everyone. Builders use to have to go through 12 city agencies for permits; that has been reduced to 2. That's good. My only complaint is that it's not a very deep report in the LA Times. For example, the story mentions that it should make it easier for non-profit developers to build affordable housing, but doesn't quote anybody to that effect. And it doesn't explain much about how this change actually happened. Which, for a political junkie like me, is fascinating. What role did our Mayor Antonio play? Where's the gossip?