Madeline Janis-Aparicio

A coalition of labor unions has recently joined the battle over the proposed expansion of Universal Studios by seeking better jobs and benefits for workers as a condition of approving the development.

Universal wants to expand the square footage of its complex by about 60% over 15 years. The expansion may include 1.2 million square feet of office space, 1,200 hotel rooms, a 50% expansion of the theme park and a smaller-scale version of CityWalk. It would create about 8,300 jobs.

The labor group, known as the Coalition for Accountability in the Universal Studios Expansion, or CAUSE, believes that economic factors should be considered in making land-use decisions. Its strategy is to use union political leverage with elected members of the Los Angeles City Council and County Board of Supervisors, both of which must approve the expansion.

The Times recently interviewed coalition spokeswoman Madeline Janis-Aparicio of the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy about this unique strategy.

* * *

Question: Is using the zoning-approval process to further your goals a new approach?

Answer: This is definitely a new approach that’s been devised in the last seven or eight years, especially as we’ve seen development turn around. And given the changes in the structure of our tax system with Prop. 13 and increased reliance on sales taxes, which in turn has developed a dependence on big-box retail and mini-mall retailers, there’s been a greater concern about the proliferation of low-wage, nonunion jobs and the consequences of that.

*

Q: Have these developments changed the local labor movement?

A: There’s been a real change. We’re seeing a lot more of these labor-community coalition approaches, where we’re looking at the relationships and the intersection between labor issues and community issues, rather than really segmenting labor on one side and community on the other and having completely distinct interests. We’ve been working for the past year to build a coalition involving people from the San Fernando Valley to deal with a development of this size because we’re dealing not only with an environmental-impact report and the proposed development on already entitled property, but a whole change in the entitlement for the land all around Universal.

*

Q: Is your goal then to extract economic concessions from the Universal people as they go through this zoning process?

A: I really wouldn’t put it like that, because it sounds like it’s having to do with the bargaining table, which is what Universal is trying to make it seem. We want to see a whole range of commitment that Universal makes both in terms of the quality of the jobs and the commitment to not rely on social services as a backup, but to provide benefits. And we have a number of groups in the coalition that are concerned about getting access to jobs for low-income families and so are real excited about the possibility of 8,000 permanent positions. What that could do for economic development in some of the blighted areas of the Valley is pretty incredible.

*

Q: Do you want to upgrade the salaries attached to the so-called service jobs?

A: Upgrade the salaries attached to those jobs, and ensure that there’s not a downgrading of the higher quality jobs. The other thing we want is for Universal to work with community organizations in the San Fernando Valley so that the local folks can get access to the jobs.

*

Q: How do you accomplish this?

A: There are some basic things that we’re going to do, and then there’s some other things that we’re researching. We’re looking at what the City Council and the Board of Supervisors could require within the context of the state and federal law. Right now, the coalition is saying that we’re opposed to the expansion as it’s now being proposed. And we think that there’s a relationship between the environmental consequences and the economic consequences, and they have to be considered together. The expansion plan is now before the county planners and it’s going to go to the Board of Supervisors, then it will go to the City Council. We’re going to be working really hard to educate and involve all the council members and supervisors and planning commissioners about Universal’s record and our concerns and why this is relevant to the regional economy and to the consequences of the development.

We’re not going to the City Council and saying Universal either has to give us these salaries or you vote no. We’re going to be saying Universal has to commit to standards that are going to have a direct benefit to the local community, such as a job-access program so that people who live near Universal in low-income neighborhoods can get access to those jobs. And working out a commitment that no workers will be paid less than a living wage.

*

Q: Has this approach worked in the past?

A: We have had a really good experience with the developer of the Academy Awards theater in Hollywood and that whole development. It’s the same sort of thing. We started to raise these issues, about the quality of the jobs and who was going to get them. And that developer was really open and actually sat down with us, and we brought together community folks and religious leaders and union leaders and we worked out a pretty innovative agreement.

*

Q: Do you feel as though there are members of the City Council who are sympathetic to your goals?

A: The City Council in particular has shown it is receptive to these types of issues. A lot of us have been involved in the whole living-wage fight with the council and this brings up similar issues, although in a land-use context. And we’re bringing together academics and lawyers to figure out a way for the City Council and the Board of Supervisors to act that’s within legal constraints. We want to push Universal in that direction, to do development that’s going to have a substantial impact on the character of the San Fernando Valley because it is going to create economic development that’s going to really benefit the community.

*

Q: Aren’t you in conflict with some of the local homeowners who are flatly opposed to the Universal expansion?

A: It’s interesting because the homeowners that I’ve talked to are not flat-out opposed and they have some similar concerns to ours. They’re not exactly the same, but there is some common ground about the numbers of low-wage jobs, and the impact on the community. So, we’re setting aside some time to have some real discussion with them about the common ground and then to set up a mutually respectful relationship. There are certain environmental concerns that are very genuine, and there are a lot of members of our coalition who live in the San Fernando Valley and live in the area around Universal. And there are thousands and thousands of members of the different organizations that have similar concerns about traffic and air quality so there may be a way we can actually commit to standing ground on these environmental issues, and they commit to standing ground on these economic issues and there’s an alliance there with different interests but that is mutually very respectful.

*

Q: How many people does your alliance represent?

A: There’s a good 10,000 people represented by the groups in the coalition.

*

Q: That’s a lot of political clout.

A: Yeah. We’ve already sent 2,000 letters to the City Council and the Board of Supervisors. And we’ve just been doing that real quietly. Now we’re going to start getting a lot more loud.