L.A. regulatory madness, again

Hey, Southern California, we need to talk. Are you guys going out of your way to antagonize me out there, or are you really just that stupid?

Some Southern California cities fine residents for watering their lawns too much during droughts.

But in Orange, officials are locked in a legal battle with a couple accused of violating city ordinances for removing their lawn in an attempt to save water.

The dispute began two years ago, when Quan and Angelina Ha tore out the grass in their frontyard. In drought-plagued Southern California, the couple said, the lush grass had been soaking up tens of thousands of gallons of water -- and hundreds of dollars -- each year.

They said they were trying to do something good for the environment...

But city officials told the Has they were violating several city laws that require residents to cover significant portions of their frontyards with live ground cover. On Tuesday, the couple is scheduled to appear in Orange County Superior Court to challenge the city's lawsuit against them.

Soon after the city complained about the yard, the Has placed wood chips on top of the dirt, with help from neighbor Dennis Cleek.

"It's their yard, it's not overgrown with weeds, it's not an eyesore," said Cleek, whose own yard boasts fruit trees. "We should be able to have our yards look the way we want them to."

But city officials determined the fix was not acceptable, saying city codes require that 40% of the yard be landscaped predominantly with live plants.

"Compliance, that's all we've ever wanted," said Senior Assistant City Atty. Wayne Winthers.

Yes. Compliance is what we want. We don't care if the rule in question makes absolutely no sense and is completely counter-productive in every way, we demand compliance.

Seriously, what is going on out in California? Look, I understand the purpose and positive effect that zoning laws (and laws like them) can often have—I also sympathize with the counter-argument—but these laws here seem like city-planning run amok. When laws have become counter-productive, and begin to harm the overall well-being of the community they govern, they must be abolished.

Unfortunately, politicians of all types seem to hate repealing laws—they'd rather defend them to the death and let somebody else worry about the unintended consequences (or, alternatively, make another law to deal with that unintended consequence, then another, then another, etc...). What will SoCal think of next?

[LA Times]

Oh, come on, LA...

Yesterday's Quote of the Week highlighted what I considered to be a particularly egregious example of the federal government overstepping its bounds and needlessly meddling in the flow of private commerce. Today, I read an article that got me even more upset, and proved that local governments are similarly afflicted with what appears to be legislative Tourette's.

When you head down to the beach for a little fun this summer, county officials want you to leave the pigskin at home. 

The Board of Supervisors this week agreed to raise fines to up to $1,000 for anyone who throws a football or a Frisbee on any beach in Los Angeles County. 

In passing the 37-page ordinance on Tuesday, officials sought to outline responsibilities for law enforcement and other public agencies while also providing clarification on beach-goer activities that could potentially disrupt or even injure the public.

The updated rules now prohibit “any person to cast, toss, throw, kick or roll” any object other than a beach ball or volleyball “upon or over any beach” between Memorial Day and Labor Day. 

Exceptions allow for ball-throwing in predesignated areas, when a person obtains a permit, or playing water polo “in or over the Pacific Ocean”.

What the hell? Look, throwing footballs and frisbees is simply not the sort of thing that any government should need to concern itself with, least of all with a 37-page (side note: WTF?!? I've read dissertations that were shorter than that...) ordinance.

If somebody's throwing a football too close to me on the beach, I politely ask them to take it down closer to the water. If they refuse, the next time the ball comes near me, it's mine. Or I throw it in the ocean. I don't go crying to the county office building begging for them to pass a freaking law banning all football-throwing, and if I did, I'd expect them to laugh me out of the place.

BUT WAIT, there's more!!

Your kids could also end up costing you big bucks: the ordinance also prohibits digging any hole deeper than 18 inches into the sand except where permission is granted for film and TV production services only.

Oh, do come on... when I was a kid, practically the only reason I ever had any fun at the beach (besides body surfing, which always rules) was that I could dig a four foot deep hole (or as deep as I could go before I hit the water level) and then climb in it and screw around. Now, that's illegal. Of course it is.

I'm sick and tired of the environment in this country (some have called it the "nanny state") that seeks to ban any behavior that could potentially be performed in an irresponsible manner. It's a quick and dirty way for government officials to look like they're "doing something" (a dynamic I railed against in this post and this post regarding Yale athletics), but generally speaking we as citizens are simply sacrificing personal freedoms for a minimal social benefit (or, worse, a counter-productive policy).

Of course, in the case of L.A. County, this is probably just an example of a clearly-strapped local government trying to come up with ever more "creative" ways to raise revenue in a recession (hey, somebody's gotta pay for those wastefully extravagant schools). The fines that are being imposed here are basically just another form of taxation, albeit a much more "popular" form of taxation. Tax only the rule-breakers, not the responsible people, right? The same basic concept is used to justify high taxes on cigarettes, and now it's being extended to digging holes on beaches (an irresponsible behavior if ever there was one).

Whatever. Nice stealth tax hike, L.A. Well played.

[CBS L.A.]

An issue that won't go away

Yesterday, New Orleans Saints running back Reggie Bush--in one of the greatest you-can't-fire-me-I-quit moments in recent memory--forfeited the 2005 Heisman Trophy that he earned while playing for the USC Trojans. He becomes the first player in history to forfeit his award or have it stripped by the Heisman Trust, which has presented the award to the top collegiate football player since 1935.

Bush forfeited the trophy under extreme pressure from the Trust, which--despite its denials--was clearly on the verge of stripping the award due to Bush's improper receipt of gifts from an agent while he was at USC. There is further speculation that USC will also be forced to vacate its 2004 national title as the NCAA continues its investigation into the matter.

This is only the latest in a long line of recent news items focusing on "improper contact" between players and agents. Alabama coach Nick Saban famously referred to agents as "pimps" in the wake of his program's agent-related controversy this summer, saying:

"I don't think it's anything but greed that's creating it right now on behalf of the agents," Saban said in a rant at the SEC media days. "The agents that do this – and I hate to say this, but how are they any better than a pimp?

"I have no respect for people who do that to young people. None. How would you feel if they did it to your child?"

This, from a man who is scheduled to be paid $4 million per year through 2017 for coaching these same kids. Look in the mirror, Nick.

Former USC coach Pete Carroll, for his part, escaped from USC before it could be sanctioned, in order to sign a 5-year, $33 million contract with the NFL's Seattle Seahawks. He will face no punishment for what happened at USC under his watch, in the same way that Kentucky basketball coach John Calipari has twice escaped programs (UMass and Memphis) immediately before they were sanctioned. Coaches, athletic directors, and NCAA officials continue to be all too quick to blame individual agents and players for illicit behavior, without even addressing the possibility that their own policies and conduct may be to blame.

From their actions, the NCAA (and auxiliary organizations, like the Heisman Trust) continue to make it clear that the single worst violation a player can commit is to try to get a piece of collegiate athletics' ever-growing revenue pie. For comparison, recall that another Heisman-winning USC running back is currently serving time in prison for multiple felonies (murder not one of them), but has never been asked to return his award. In the eyes of the NCAA and Heisman Trust, armed robbery is apparently of less concern than gifts from agents.

I think about this issue in much the same way that I think about underage drinking. A rule is put in place that is somewhat arbitrary by its nature, but that engenders strong feelings among certain special interest groups. While nobody actually believes that the rules are particularly effective at preventing the targeted behavior, the rules' existence nevertheless creates a moral battleground that defines the public discourse. This is not healthy, and in fact prevents any informed discussion on the topic.

Player-agent contact, like underage drinking, continues to rage on college campuses across the country. Instead of trying to have an honest conversation as to why, we simply shun Reggie Bush for breaking the rules--and punish current USC players who had nothing to do with the situation--without considering if the rule was just to begin with.

This is just one more example of a reactionary policy creating more problems than it solves. By creating rules and heavily punishing athletes for breaking them, we are not actually doing anything to address the underlying inequities that create the behavior in the first place. All we have accomplished is to delay the broader conversation, which will only become that much more difficult once we are finally forced to have it. In my opinion, it will come sooner rather than later.

[Huffington Post]

L.A. Unified School District joins the wasteful hall of fame

Today marks the opening of the controversial $578 million Robert F. Kennedy Community Schools complex in Los Angeles, the most expensive public school in American history. The school has been a lightning rod for controversy, with many of the more profligate features in the complex standing in stark contrast to the city and state's otherwise precarious budget situation.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Allysia Finley summarizes some of the more offensive aspects of the project.

The school boasts an auditorium whose starry ceiling and garish entrance are modeled after the old Cocoanut Grove nightclub and a library whose round, vaulted ceilings and cavernous center resemble the ballroom where Kennedy made his last speech. It also includes the original Cocoanut Grove canopy around which the rest of the school was built. "It wasn't cheap, but it was saved," says Thomas Rubin, a consultant for the district's bond oversight committee, which oversees the $20 billion of bonds that taxpayers approved for school construction in recent years...

Talking benches—$54,000—play a three-hour audio of the site's history. Murals and other public art cost $1.3 million. A minipark facing a bustling Wilshire Boulevard? $4.9 million.

When Ms. Finley asked Mr. Rubin if he thought many of these features--such as the gigantic marble slab engraved with quotations from Cesar Chavez, Maya Angelou, and Ted Kennedy--were worth the cost, he responded, ""Did we have to do that? Hell no. But there's no accounting for taste."

 

With all due respect to Mr. Rubin, when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars, there sure as hell is. These expenditures might be a mere footnote if they existed in a different context, but the current economic environment makes them glaring. In discussing the opening of the school, the Los Angeles Times notes that:

The campus, which comprises six independent schools, will unlock its doors to about 3,700 students as a maelstrom of issues buffets the Los Angeles Unified School District, the nation's second-largest school system. The school's delayed Sept. 13 opening is the consequence of budget cuts that shortened the school year, while classes here and in other school systems will be larger because of teacher layoffs.

The school district is, in fact, running a $640 million deficit and has had to lay off a total of 3,000 teachers over the last two years. The contradictions here should be clear. To spend millions on art and parks that serve little or no educational purpose--while simultaneously laying off teachers and shortening the school year--represents the epitome of self-defeating behavior. With decisions like this, it is no small wonder that the district's graduation rates and college matriculation rates are among the lowest in the country--reportedly around 50% and 11%, respectively.

Controversies like this are, however, hardly unique to Los Angeles. In Massachusetts, debate continues to rage regarding the recently-opened Newton North High School ($197 million, nearly 100% above its original budget) and a $159 million high school project in neighboring Wellesley (my alma mater). In response to these projects, Massachusetts state treasurer Timothy Cahill issued a stern warning.

Cahill...said that school communities should not be making decisions for a community. He argued that even the wealthiest towns have residents who cannot afford the tax increases needed to fund such projects...

Cahill said the tax override that Newton voters rejected [in May 2008] was a case in point. The $12 million override was not related to the costs of the new school, which jumped $56 million in just over a year. Still, he said, the rejection was a sign of voter frustration with the city's fiscal management.

Now, the city could face the prospect of laying off teachers.

"The teachers are far more important than bricks and mortar," Cahill said.

In fairness to Wellesley, with enrollment nearly doubling over the past 10 years due to a conflation of factors, something needed to be done to the original 1938 building, which was stressed beyond capacity. Projects which expanded the original structure were considered, but proved to be more expensive and more time-consuming than a new structure--and much more disruptive to the students during the process. Furthermore, WHS is consistently rated among the best public high schools in America, and has earned the benefit of the doubt from me, a distinction which the Los Angeles Unified School District certainly has not.

This is ultimately part of a greater gripe of mine against many government responses to crises. Faced with low graduation rates and public pressure, Los Angeles simply threw money at the problem, rather than addressing the root causes. Not only will it not work, but it actually proved to be self-defeating, wasting money that could have otherwise been spent retaining the teachers that it was forced to lay off.

Just as Cash for Clunkers didn't save the car market (this August's sales rate represented the weakest August since 1983, further indicating that the demand pull-forward was a short-lived boon to the industry), and the Obama tax credits did not save the housing market (sales rates for both new and existing homes experienced a similarly devastating snap-back after the credits expired), the RFK school complex will not save Los Angeles' graduation rates or send more students to college (to be saddled with non-forgiveable loan debt). It will simply leave Los Angeles in an ever more precarious financial situation, forcing it to make difficult decisions that never would have had to be made absent this wasteful spending.

Bad government policies are worse than no government policies; they not only do not solve problems, they also create new problems in their wake. When Los Angeles finds itself in 2020 wondering why graduation rates are still languishing and their budget simply can't be balanced, they will have to look no farther than the inspirational marble slab at the RFK school complex. Hopefully, it will provide some helpful words of wisdom.

[Wall Street Journal]
[Los Angeles Times]
[Boston Globe]