As I pointed out in an earlier article, there is potential for the 2024 Olympics to provide a substantial economic boost to the region.

The City Council will vote on a resolution to give the mayor power to enter a binding contract with the USOC. The contract would also make us responsible for any cost overruns.

I could accept such a condition if the organizing committee has broad powers to decide on the construction, renovation or repurposing of facilities. I accept the fact that the cost of security, traffic control and crowd management will be high, but the prospects of record-breaking revenues are high too, owing to a new TV contract after the current one expires as of the conclusion of the 2020 Games, and the likely mega-influx of Asian tourists – particularly from Olympic powerhouse China. But the cost of new venues could make or break the finances.

So, before the Council authorizes the mayor to proceed, there must be strict limitations, perhaps defined as a cap, on infrastructure costs. Our current major facilities are good enough for professional sports and Division 1 NCAA contests, so there is no reason to spend on big ticket improvements. We need to ask if an Olympic village is even necessary, as opposed to dispersing teams to college dormitories or hotel complexes, the latter approach becoming more popular for nations with elite programs.

It is also critical for the Council to consider the impact the games will have on general infrastructure projects throughout the city.  It would not be wise to have the DWP tearing up streets to replace water mains in the months leading up to the competition.

It gets down to drawing a line in the sand with the IOC and USOC, organizations who have proven themselves incapable of exercising or encouraging financial common sense, and who,  because they are playing with other people’s money, bear little risk if a city goes bust.

If our terms are deemed as too restrictive, too bad.  In time, more and more cities will push back and the ruling Olympic poobahs will finally get the message that the world has had enough.

Of course, they could always rely on nations run by authoritarian regimes to cough up sums they cannot afford.

How would Tehran and Pyongyang appeal to the public as future regular destinations? Maybe we can leverage them by having some nuclear weapons inspectors pose as athletes. Our team mascot could be a geiger counter.

The local press has lately focused on one key controversial element of the proposed DWP rate increase, one which the Mayor, City Council and General Manager Marcie “D’Arcy” Edwards would rather not discuss.

That’s the 8% transfer fee and the utility tax (10% paid by residential users and 12.5% by commercial entities). Together they will absorb around 20% of the gross increase and direct it to the city’s general fund, where it will be used for anything other than upgrading the neglected power and water infrastructure.

While allowed by the City Charter, this practice is unconscionable and the transfer component may even be declared illegal by the courts.

In all, around $250 million per year for the last several years has been diverted from what would be a source of funds available to make considerable headway in long-overdue capital improvements. That alone makes the transfer morally unethical.  It is like siphoning cash from your kids’ college savings accounts to buy a new car.

Yet the mayor, his allies and Marcie Edwards like to call the tax and transfer a dividend.  They say we are the shareholders of the DWP.  We are simply paying ourselves.

I know of no other dividend where the recipient does not have the right to decide how to spend it.

In a recent op-ed piece in the LA Times, Gregory Lippe ( a Valley CPA) and Richard Moss (a former DWP Commissioner) suggested keeping the proposed increase free of any tax or transfer fee. This would allow the additional revenue to flow 100% to improvements.

The two gentlemen pointed to the mayor’s position that the increase has nothing to do with feeding the city’s budget.

Perhaps we should refer to it as a supposed position because the mayor has not shown any indication to end the levy on ratepayers’ payments.

It’s time for the mayor to show his true colors. Will he back Lippe’s and Moss’ very sensible approach?

Garcetti’s track record does not provide cause for optimism.

He has failed to make any reforms at the DWP.  His pick for GM, Marcie Edwards, co-whined a letter with Brain D’Arcy defiling Ron Galperin’s audit of the out-of-control non profit trusts, and she has yet to remove any manager associated with the costly failure of the billing system. It appears the DWP is on a path of business as usual – no accountability, no integrity.

Does this type of management warrant a 20% premium?

It is going to be tough enough assuring the increase will be spent wisely and used appropriately.

The Olympic Games have been devolving for many years into a grotesque spectacle of over-spending, if not virtually pushing some cities and nations towards bankruptcy.

The Athens Games exacerbated Greece’s already strained economy in 2004 with a loss of $14 billion and produced a landscape dotted with crumbling facilities.

Beijing left China with little usable infrastructure to show for its $44 billion outlay.

Russia’s $50 billion spectacle in Sochi fared better than Beijing’s games in the sense it resulted in lasting capital improvements, but one has to wonder whether the location will ever pan out into a popular destination, one worthy of the massive investment.  It’s a lot to spend on a city of only 300,000 people far removed from the rest of the country. It does not help that Putin is doing what he can to isolate Russia from the rest of the developed world.

The two most successful Games in history were held in the United States – Atlanta and Los Angeles, although Atlanta’s was marred by an act of domestic terrorism.

The Los Angeles 1984 Games succeeded beyond any standard of achievement, making $250 million on an investment of around $500 million. It was the first Summer Games to turn a profit since 1932 when they were held in ………Los Angeles.

The only new sporting venues – the velodrome and aquatic center – were heavily financed by corporate sponsors.

The legacy of these games was not unsightly ruins and Olympic-sized debt, but an endowment that still thrives today.  I’m talking about LA84.

But times are different.

The cost of security alone would be a budget-buster for many host cities and their national governments.

Also, the IOC has done nothing to discourage the senseless splurge by some governments who view the Games as a  a testimonial to their autocratic and corrupt regimes.

Boston, the United States entry for the 2024 Summer Olympics, seemed to be heading down a path to financial suicide, but an alarm rang in the mayor’s office when the city had to sign a contract that would make it liable to pay for any losses.  Give Mayor Martin Walsh a gold medal for having the courage to walk from the deal.

Considering the history of excessive and unconscionable costs, should Los Angeles dare fill the void left by Boston?

If any city in the United States can stage a successful and affordable Games, it is Los Angeles.

Record-breaking revenue would seem to be certain. The location, pleasant climate, diverse entertainment venues and beaches will likely attract a record number of visitors, including many from Olympic powerhouse China, a nation which made its debut at the Games in 1984. Back then, it was impossible for Chinese to travel abroad in any significant numbers. I would expect an armada of charter and scheduled flights carrying PRC citizens will land here this time around.

A surplus would almost be certain, too, if we insisted on managing the event our way, and not the IOC’s.

Just as in 1984, corporate sponsors will come through.  Various government entities would have to provide most of the security and transportation control, for which they should be reimbursed off the top of receipts.  Security for London 2012 came to an equivalent of $800 million and ticket sales were around $1 billion.

Don’t forget about our share of television money, which may also set a record.  NBC’s current contract to cover the games runs through 2020, so a bidding war will be likely among the major networks.  Existing production facilities and available technicians in Los Angeles should create efficiencies that translate to lower production costs, a consideration which will not lost on the bidders.

To assure a surplus, the Los Angeles organizers must stand firm against constructing new facilities. If our stadiums and arenas are good enough for UCLA, USC, MLB, NBA and NHL, they are good enough for the rest of the world.  Any costs related to sports infrastructure should be limited to clearing deferred maintenance and any technology upgrades to manage the events on the field or in the water. Temporary facilities will have to be constructed for certain sports and enhancements made to college dormitories to house the athletes, although the trend has been for many teams to stay in private facilities.

Our message to the IOC should be about financial sensibility.  Given the immense money pit forming in Rio de Janeiro, the IOC may be more receptive to the concept. If not, there will be fewer and fewer bidders for the Games in the years to come.

Thoroughly Modern Millie was a Tony Award winner.

State Senator Bob Hertzberg is rolling out his own sequel.  The only problem is the production cost.

Actually, the real problem is we will be the ones bankrolling it if Bob gets the green light. It is the most expensive tax scam concocted, more than California HSR.

I’m talking about SB-8. Bob’s name for it is the Upward Mobility Act.  Who can’t like something with a name like that? Leo Bloom and Max Bialystock would be proud of the deception used to promote it.

Hertzberg claims it is about “modernizing” our tax system, to align it with our service-sector dominated economy of today. He correctly points out that the current approach to taxation was developed back when the goods-producing sector (manufacturing, mining and agriculture) was the revenue driver.

However, his modernization logic is irrelevant and baseless.

Service providers and their counterparts in the goods sector pay income taxes, as they always have.  A dollar of net income counts the same for a service sector firm or provider as it does for a manufacturer, mining operator or farmer. It always has.  The size of each broad industry segment in relation to the other does not impact total income. Income, from whatever the source, is fungible, just like money.

Bob’s energy would be better utilized if he led the charge to cull tax breaks and government programs that have outlived their usefulness, as well as tackle the state’s very expensive employee compensation and benefits.

So why is he blowing smoke by falsely correlating the objective of SB-8 with the ever-changing nature of the economy?

Because he wants your money: $10 billion more per year of it.  No matter the noble purposes he has in mind for the additional taxes, it is going to cost a large segment of the population big time.

Part of the increase, perhaps a big chunk, will come from levying a sales tax on services.  No matter how you cut it, it will disproportionately  burden middle income taxpayers, who would pay it on vital services such as insurance, tax preparation, legal costs to defend themselves in court, communications, car repairs…you name it.  It is not too different in concept from the Stamp Act of 1765.

The sales tax rate has more than doubled since 1962. Let’s make an already regressive tax even more onerous by applying it to everyday services!

But wait!

Bob said there would be a reduction in income taxes across the board.

Let’s see – half of the state’s income tax revenue is paid by the top 1% of earners, according to the state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office,  very progressive to say the least. Perhaps Bob will reduce rates for middle-income taxpayers much more than for the wealthy, but even he recognizes the dangerous volatility associated with relying on the wealthiest segment to carry most of the income tax load. Such a move would magnify that dependence. On the flip side, a proportional cut to all brackets would greatly diminish income tax paid by the wealthiest.

No matter what, middle- and low- income earners, who pay relatively little personal income tax today, stand to benefit the least from an income tax cut. They have far more to lose than gain with SB-8’s strategy.

According to an article in the Sacramento Business Journal, Governor Brown expressed reservations about SB-8:

Politically, the idea of applying the sales tax rate to professional services would look like an attempt to “burden the ordinary folks.” 

The plan “may be logical with some green-eye-shaded accountants, but I don’t know that from the political point of view that is very viable”.

In response, Sen. Hertzberg said the governor had not seen the completed tax proposal and he thinks Brown would change his mind.

“People are making assumptions on limited information and it’s just not accurate. The governor is a brilliant guy … I think he will like the proposal when he sees what it will look like.”

If anyone is to be blamed for limited information, it is the senator, himself. Hertzberg introduced the bill back in December 2014.  That’s seven months ago, sufficient time to share with the public its criteria and mechanism….and maybe even an estimate summarizing how much of the $10 billion per year each segment of the population could be expected to bear. And he hasn’t even briefed the governor despite the wide-ranging implications of the bill?

He is behaving like a car salesman who withholds negative information about the product in hopes of inducing the customer to sign on the dotted line.

At least there is a lemon law providing some degree of protection for the customer who buys a shiny new car.

If SB-8 becomes law, good luck on getting relief.

SB-8 would be the largest permanent tax increase in the history of the state. It would require a voter initiative for final approval, but do not expect transparency in how it would be worded in the ballot. After all, it is all about modernization.

I’ve watched the Godfather saga many times.

It is very difficult to pick a favorite supporting character from an ensemble cast which is still, in my view, the strongest ever assembled.

One of my personal favorites was Alex Rocco, who played the irascible Moe Green, a Las Vegas casino owner whose character was inspired by Bugsy Siegel.

Alex Rocco passed away at his home in Studio City over the weekend.

A movie about Moe would have made a worthwhile spinoff project – a no-nonsense casino operator with ties to the mob, trying to run an efficient business while balancing the demands of the bosses with the requirements of the Nevada Gaming Commission.

But we did get a spinoff of sorts.

It was Casino. with the role of the casino operator played by Robert De Niro, another of the Godfather saga’s memorable supporting actors.

De Niro’s character in Casino, Sam “Ace” Rothstein, was also based on an actual person – Frank Rosenthal.

The contrast in management styles between Greene (Rocco) and Rothstein (De Niro) would be worthy of a Harvard Business School case study.

Greene’s unabashed tirade about why he slapped Michael Corleone’s brother, Fredo, in front of the casino’s patrons is 180 degrees from Rothstein’s measured defense of his firing of an incompetent brother-in-law of a gaming commissioner.

The results speak for themselves – Rothstein lived a long life; Moe was shot through the eye by a Corleone family hitman while enjoying a massage.

Anyone can run numbers, including the crowd that passes itself off as management at DWP.

Attendees at last week’s Valley Alliance of Neighborhood Council meeting got to listen to Marcie Edwards deliver a dog and pony show about proposed rate increases, owing to the need to replace aging water infrastructure and increase power capacity.

No one is doubting the need, but the DWP was not in a full disclosure mode and offered a litany of excuses for its failure to address the problems over the years.

The utility has been feeding pablum to the public about its rate increase plan in an attempt to silence possible criticism. Characterizing the proposal as a 5-year plan is insultingly disingenuous. The higher rates will not go away after five years. With 20% of water pipes destined to reach the end of their useful lives over the next 15 years, the rate increases for the water portion of our bills alone will continue for years to come.  It took an astute attendee at the presentation to pull the admission out of Edwards.

There will be debt service on new bonds for both water and power reaching out 30 years from the issuance dates, which will also contribute to ever-increasing rates.

Once again, no one is doubting the need for restorative capital investments.

But since DWP and the City Council have neglected upgrading and replacing delivery and generation systems, yet continued to divert an annual transfer of a bogus operating surplus (currently around $245 million) from the utility to the general fund, it is only fair for the public to demand an end to that process.  A large part of the surplus must be retained by DWP, and the rate increase reduced accordingly, to help fund the vital improvements.

Edwards, as her predecessors, likened the transfer as a dividend to shareholders.  Anyone receive a dividend check from DWP in the mail lately?  Ever?

I reminded Edwards that well-run companies do not declare dividends when they have ongoing, significant cash needs.

She did not understand the question, instead falling back on how much money DWP has saved its ratepayers as a result of the last labor negotiations.


I suppose so, in the same sense as when a burglar does not steal all of your valuables.

Also, she had the hutzpah to compare LA’s leakage rate as favorable to other major cities, all on the east coast – much older systems, not to mention they are not located in a desert where the importance of every drop is magnified many times.

When I asked Edwards if anyone in management had been fired as a result of the costly billing system debacle and the pathetic response to correct customer accounts, she blamed the civil service system and the fact she can only hire ten managers on her own.

Almost any CEO will tell you that ten well-picked hires can make a huge difference in any organization.

According to Jim Collins, author of Good to Great, “Start by getting the right people on the bus, the wrong people off the bus, and the right people in the right seats.”

I think Marcie Edwards missed the bus.

Ten competent leaders can establish and enforce demanding standards.  If their direct reports are not cutting it, they can document their shortcomings and make a case for removal, demotion or termination of the weakest links.

Yes, it takes work, but highly motivated leaders are persistent and will rise to the occasion.  Edwards, herself, must step up and support her direct subordinates along those lines instead of throwing up her hands. Her current approach will preserve a culture that rewards incompetence or mediocrity.

As ratepayers, we need to insist on sound management.

If not, the cost of implementing the very critical capital improvements over the next 15-20 years will be far more expensive than necessary.

Would persons applying for citizenship in the United States through the established legal process be denied if they had committed felonies?

Murder, for certain, would be automatic cause for denial.

Aggravated felonies, too, would very likely result in denial. One should note that some misdemeanors at the state level could qualify as aggravated felonies in evaluating an applicant for immigration.  Follow this link for a partial list of offenses. The bottom line is that federal immigration law has a broader range of offenses in its tool kit to deport immigrants regardless of the path they followed to gain entry to the United States.

Francisco Sanchez, who shot and killed Kathryn Steinle, had seven felony convictions, four of which involved drug charges. He also used a number of aliases.

Owing to his criminal record, he would not have been eligible to enter the country legally under the law. The City and County of San Francisco are complicit, then, in the murder of Ms. Steinle, not to mention all state and local politicians who allowed law enforcement to overlook past criminal activities when deciding to release an illegal alien from custody.

Politicians argue that sanctuary laws are to protect average illegal immigrants who go about their business, and to encourage their cooperation with law enforcement.  Average ones do not commit felonies, contrary to what Donald Trump suggested. They will not be impacted by the deportation of real criminals.  If anything, getting career criminals off the street can only help them.

Our elected officials may quibble over the number and degree of felonies as a matter of political correctness, or maybe even of conscience, when it comes to defining the conditions of sanctuary. It is impossible to fathom, though, allowing someone with multiple convictions – even nonviolent ones – to stay here one second beyond the end of a sentence. Such scum are time bombs destined to explode.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 66 other followers