Charter Reform Panels at Impasse

After more than a year of debate, two commissions analyzing reforms of the Los Angeles City Charter remain paralyzed by the question of how to expand community representation without hamstringing development and progress.

Their discussion has turned largely on the notion of neighborhood councils, which supporters believe would give neighborhoods control of their own destiny. Opponents see the same proposals and envision gridlock as powerful neighborhood boards shun development and Los Angeles’ growth grinds to a standstill.

The two sides have clashed repeatedly and bitterly over how to forge a compromise on community councils, and so far neither side has appeared ready to give in.

Quietly, however, a third version of community control has begun to gain ground with members of both the elected and appointed commissions, whose members are attempting to rewrite the city constitution and submit their recommendations to voters next year.

Under a proposal being considered by the appointed panel, the city’s Planning Commission would be broken into regional panels, each of which would have the authority to make most planning decisions for its area.

Such a “decision-making process . . . would go a long way to shorten the perceived distance between our citizens and their government,” wrote one of the idea’s advocates, appointed Commissioner Anton Calleia, in a memorandum to his colleagues. “And yet it would avoid the balkanization and chaos which would result from the creation of hundreds of decision-making neighborhood councils, each pursuing its narrow interest,” wrote the onetime chief of staff to the late Mayor Tom Bradley.

The specifics of what such regional commissions would do and how they would do it remain vague. Although the panel has approved the idea in concept, it has asked its staff to draft a more detailed proposal for how the commissions would work.

Meanwhile, Commissioner Chet Widom, a member of the elected panel, is pursuing a similar proposal intended to create local planning boards, an idea that has attracted some support.

And yet, as with many attempts at compromise in the debate over charter reform, the competing efforts can boast of at least one thing: They have just about everyone equally worried.

Business interests are wary of an idea that some believe could expand the bureaucracy and slow development. Neighborhood council enthusiasts voice the opposite concern--that fragmenting the planning process represents too little in the way of real change and that a more fundamental government reorganization is needed to revamp Los Angeles.

“Good idea,” said lawyer Richard Close, an advocate of San Fernando Valley secession, “but this particular proposal is flawed.”

Plan Reduces Power of Regional Groups

According to Close, there are two problems with the idea of regional planning commissions as being considered by the appointed commission. First is the notion that the regional commission’s actions still could be appealed to a citywide commission. That, Close said, reduces the importance of the regional groups and makes them merely an additional bureaucratic layer without real power.

Second, he said that some advocates of regional planning commissions will see them as a substitute for strong neighborhood councils. Close and other advocates of neighborhood councils see them as the fundamental point of charter reform, and Close said the regional planning notion would not go far enough to fill what he sees as the need for strong neighborhood organizations.

George Kieffer, chairman of the appointed commission, said he was not surprised at Close’s critique--Close has rarely agreed with the appointed commission’s recommendations. But Kieffer said he believes that the local planning boards could accomplish a key mission of the charter panel: bringing government closer to residents.

The appointed charter group has rejected creating elected neighborhood councils with decision-making powers, in part because it worries about the potential for fragmentation. For that, it has come under fire from advocates of the councils. But Kieffer said the panel remains committed to some of the ideas that underlie the community councils.

“We have never given up on this notion of bringing decisions closer to people,” he said. “This idea would bring them geographically closer but keeps a broader view as well as taking into consideration the local view.”

Business leaders eye the concept warily, saying they want more details. For one thing, the appointed commission has discussed breaking land-use decisions into two categories: Local matters would be handled by the regional boards, but issues with citywide impact still would be handled by the Planning Commission.

“OK, we know the [downtown sports] arena is a city issue, and adding a shower onto your house is a local issue,” said Carol Schatz, head of the Central City Assn. “But what about everything in between?”

Say a builder wanted to put up a skyscraper on Ventura Boulevard. Would that be handled by a San Fernando Valley regional board or by the citywide commission? Or if a developer wanted to build a mini-mall in East Los Angeles, would that be considered a local project or would its potential impact on traffic make it a matter for citywide determination?

Until such questions are answered, Schatz and other business leaders said, they are inclined to withhold support.

Complicating the question further is its potential impact on the effort by the city’s two charter commissions to create a common set of recommendations.

Differences Between 2 Panel

For months, the appointed commission and its elected counterpart have been working to try to agree upon most if not all of their recommendations. In theory, a common set of charter proposals would telegraph a consensus supporting the new charter and would make it harder for the Los Angeles City Council to resist placing the proposal on the ballot next year.

But in practice, the two commissions have found it difficult to reach agreement. The appointed commission, which has moved more quickly than the elected panel, has asked the elected officials to work from their draft charter, and some members of the elected commission have taken offense.

It has been weeks since there was a meeting of the conference committee, which includes representatives of both commissions, partly because of scheduling conflicts, but also because the panels have reached an impasse on issues of substance and approach.

The new Planning Commission proposal could deepen that divide by throwing up an issue of potentially profound impact relatively late into the game, just as both charter panels are trying to complete work on draft charters.