text:
- Demise of Local Government
- Challenges of Empowerment
- Scientific Public Administration
- Two-Tier Metropolitan Government
- Neighborhood Politics & Economics
- Creating Public Space
- Fostering Public Enterprise
- Electoral Options
- Fiscal Considerations
- Fiscal Equalization Strategies
As a student of community organizing at the UCLA School of Social Welfare, my mentor was Professor Warren Haggstrom, who had what has always seemed to me an engaging view of Los Angeles as a polity. He once said that, "Los Angeles can be understood best as an underdeveloped city, complex in the sense that large dinosaurs were complex, without being very adequately guided by its own ideas." That was more than 25 years ago, but the comparison is more apt now than ever. And his insight is just the tip of the secession-momentum iceberg. There's a long list of reasons why the City of Los Angeles shouldn't be the exclusive local government for millions of citizens--the secessionists certainly have that right. But before we consider why secession is such a misguided idea, let's consider how it has gained so much momentum.
Demise of Local Government
While the city continues to grow larger and more ungovernable, the means of its governance--the City of Los Angeles, the Council, the Mayor, and the bureaucracy--remain virtually unchanged. Fifteen people continue to hold all of the public powers that are essential to govern 3,694,820 of us in the City, notwithstanding the launching of advisory neighborhood councils. There hasn't been any discernable shift in who controls the powers to enact ordinances, police, regulate, tax, spend, contract, incur indebtedness, or exercise eminent domain. These powers over millions of us remain in the hands of a handful.
During the course of the last century, cities throughout the country generally and Los Angeles in particular grew into bureaucratic behemoths though relentless annexation of small towns and municipalities within their potential "sphere of influence." The San Fernando Valley was once home to a number of small town governments. The net effect of their demise is "local government"--"THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES"--that cannot meaningfully be described as local or government, at least insofar as those terms suggest accessibility and inclusive political participation. With gigantic constituencies, our so-called local government officials have fled the political arena of citizen dialogue and decision-making about civic affairs, except for public relations purposes, effectively becoming members of a public board of directors that oversees their centralized bureaucratic enterprise. Mandated by a meager minority of the eligible electorate to supervise public monopolies, they're mostly involved in negotiating compromises with well-organized and endowed elites, pluralities, and special interests. Real estate, construction, and development interests, banking and finance institutions, unions, and the like, have become the citizenry served by the City's bureaucratized polity. Certainly we don't have anything that remotely resembles what less than a century ago was called "local government."
The colossal size of our centralized and bureaucratized city government, as a means not only to deliver services but also to regulate and rule politically, obviates the demands of representation as we usually understand them. With voting constituencies in the hundreds of thousands, political participation costs for most of us are exorbitant. Individually trying to influence decisions at City Hall is a Kafkaesque exercise in futility. Not surprisingly, for those unable to meet the ante--the majority of us whose day-to-day interests are not meaningfully represented by the high-powered lobbyist-denizens of the City government--elected officials are objects of fear and scorn: we typically fear them in their presence and scorn them in their absence. For most of us, local government is an historical artifact.
What's the typical response of our elected City Council members, who "represent" almost a quarter-million of us, when one of us says the City isn't responsive? According to one member of the Council, "Council members spend all day long responding to things in their district. The danger in the kind of rhetoric I'm hearing [justifying secession] is that it just obscures the issue of learning to be close to [the representatives] who can fix things in your neighborhood."(1) In other words, we are presumably to accept the naïve notion that one representative can adequately serve the needs of almost a quarter-million citizens--even assuming she's working 24/7. Then we're to accept the arrogant assumption that if a citizen's needs aren't being met, it must be because he or she doesn't know how to use the system--even assuming the person has been trying 24/7.
In a manner of speaking, we were forewarned of the consequences of Los Angeles' bureaucratized polity. After his visit to this country in the early 1830s, the French nobleman Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that centralized bureaucracy was the "despotism democratic nations have to fear" in the future. He described a new type of public organization, for which he acknowledged having no name. He imagined an organization that would "degrade without [physically] tormenting," a powerful force for social isolation, undermining community, and becoming the unsatisfactory arbiter and guarantor of equality--while continuously narrowing the space [i.e., rights, roles, and resources] for civic action until the citizenry is reduced to "a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."(2) Seemingly we have arrived at the place Tocqueville imagined.
What is it about bureaucracy that fosters such damnable consequences? The inherent anomaly of a bureaucratized polity like the City of Los Angeles is its domination by a single center of decision-making. The result is a complicated, costly, and error-prone system of communication and control. We have an example in a similar bureaucratized polity, the Unified School District, with the recent revelation of a $19.3 million expenditure on a contract to buy air conditioners in which the District failed to get a single air conditioner in the bargain. The problem is accentuated by the City's monopolization of services, which reduces its sensitivity to large-scale diseconomies.
To the continuous pain and resentment of citizens with low to moderate incomes, those who find it difficult to move out of the City when its governance is offensive, burdensome, or simply inept, the City has adopted the practice of defining "producer efficiency" without reference to "consumer utility." In effect, the City's monopoly has created an incentive to realize cost savings, improving the appearance of economy, by placing greater burdens on consumers.
Let's say you're not thrilled with the cost of your cable TV service--it's now approaching $50 a month for the basic package. Where and how do you complain? Take yourself to Room 600 at 120 South San Pedro Street. How's that for convenience and service? Got a housing code enforcement concern? Try the main office at 111 North Hope Street. Need a building permit? Go to 201 North Figueroa Street. You say you don't live near downtown--that's a shame.
Recently I had occasion to call the City because across the street from where I live, a large truck and trailer rig with very noisy pumping equipment has been disturbing my neighborhood for over a year--a deep, loud droning all day long, every weekday. A brief survey of some of my neighbors confirmed that they too are fed up with this noise nuisance. After overcoming the hurdle of identifying the correct official to contact, I called the individual to request that the City investigate the problem. Regardless of what time of the day or day of the week I called, there was a recorded response. I left three or four messages, never received a reply, and finally gave up.
That the movement for secession is gaining momentum reveals nothing more than the logic of collective action; it's what we should expect people to do in their own self-interest under the circumstances. But if that's true, why should secession not be the solution? If big is bad, shouldn't smaller be good? And if secession is not the solution, what's the problem? For starters, it's not whether Los Angeles should be divided up into a number of smaller cities, which is a no-brainer.
The problem we face is how to determine the most effective form of governance for the massive, diverse, and growing citizenry within the "natural" political and economic boundaries of the Los Angeles basin.
Challenges of Empowerment
The challenge in the next decade is to imagine and bring to life a form of government that will politically empower myriad constituencies and localities, from neighborhoods to districts and beyond to the metropolitan boundaries, while simultaneously recognizing inescapable demands of economic empowerment. The secession of mid- to large-size areas, such as Hollywood, San Pedro, and the San Fernando Valley, will not accomplish either objective. We won't have relieved the alienation of ethnic and cultural neighborhoods and constituencies from the exercise of public powers, but we will have lost the economic advantages of metropolitan boundaries for producing "public goods." There is every reason to think that a new San Fernando Valley city of nearly one and a half million people will simply create another large, unresponsive bureaucratized polity.
Trying to answer the question of what's the best form of government for Los Angeles pits us against more than a century of momentum and misinformation that are working against structural reform. From the late 19th century and throughout the 20th, "municipal reformers" claimed that having many municipalities within a metropolitan area was politically ineffective and economically inefficient, which often seemed an accurate observation. And in their time, up to a point, they were right. But now, at the beginning of the 21st century, we've gone beyond that point. So let's consider why and how that's true.
The earliest and most influential explanations of municipal reform were Woodrow Wilson's Congressional Government (1885) and Frank J. Goodnow's Politics and Administration (1900). Wilson believed that the state should have a single center of power, and that constitutional separations and balances are little more than facade. He argued that as power is more divided it becomes more irresponsible. Max Weber's writing on bureaucracy supported Wilson's central themes. Weber thought that bureaucracies are inherently rational and efficient. His belief was that, while government may have different political objectives, good administration has but one form--hierarchical organization, with top-down authority, directing technically trained civil servants. Its efficiency and effectiveness presumably could be measured in economic terms: maximum output at minimum cost. And derivative principles of municipal government have been repeated endlessly ever since. These include widening span of control, functional departmentalization, unity of command, consolidation of authority in unit heads, and centralization in a chief executive (or executive group)--all identifiable features of our own City government.
From the turn of the last century, virtually every major city in the country created a "municipal reform bureau" to promote these principles of local government.(3) The movement was bankrolled by well-known industrial capitalists who could see that the big-city political machines could no longer deal with the increasingly raucous demands of a mushrooming class of urban industrial workers. The municipal reform principles were rationalized by theory that served distinct capitalist ideological interests, with little or no scientific foundation. Nonetheless, with ample financial backing and an engaging theoretical rationale, municipal reformers justified reducing the number of governments within metropolitan areas, increasing the size of governments, placing greater reliance on hierarchical control, reducing the number of elected officials, and replacing smaller towns and limited authority special districts with cities and counties having general authority.
The effect has been to treat citizens in their local communities as incompetent to govern themselves and to contract together by petition and election to form public organizations for that purpose. Unfortunately, municipal reformers' claims for improvements in efficiency and effectiveness have not been borne out. The only scientifically verified advantage has been that in a relatively small number of instances, the boundaries of the larger city were more economically viable. The political consequences, however, have been catastrophic. Overall, the municipal reform tradition, as characterized by Vincent Ostrom, has been "the disease rather than the doctor" of American public administration.(4) If the call was once to "municipal reform," it ought now be to "reform municipal reform."(5)
The circumstances of our lives as Angelenos present us with a providential question: What are we to do about our government which, by its very structure, even with the good intentions of those who guide it, inters hope and spirit, a government that poisons human potential by its alienation of the citizens who authorize its operation? What are we to do about our City's bureaucratized polity that, with a monopoly on politics and the production and distribution of public goods, is commonly incapable not only of economy and efficiency, but equity and accountability as well?
Scientific Public Administration
Contrary to the municipal reform ideology, there is a competing history and scientific theory and practice of public administration. Reconstructing from The Federalist the theory implicit in a "compound" federal republic--our combined system of federal, state, and local governments--Ostrom cites as its distinguishing feature the balancing of powers rather than their separation.(6) The idea is that in a national structure of compounded governments, each level of government offsets the powers of the government above it, so that citizens can act through cities and counties to somewhat balance the states' powers, and act through the states to restrain federal power. Ostrom proposes that the founders of the nation consciously employed this compound, polycentric model in preference to the monocentric British state.
Recognition of the compound federal structure as a stable and productive polycentric system, composed of a vast number of independent yet federated governments, is the first and essential step in developing a 21st century vision for urban government, retrieving it from the domination of centralized bureaucratic monopolies.
Polycentric theory is the conceptual foundation for what is now known as "public choice" political-economics. Over the past several decades, political-economists have been examining various organizational patterns for producing public goods and services.(7) They take public choice or demand, in contrast to expert determinations of need, as their basic unit of analysis.(8) Their goal has been to assay the outcomes of different organizational decision-making arrangements. They don't conclude that all polycentric systems are productive but that we may optimize them by varying the dimensions of their design.
Going beyond municipal reform measures of organizational performance that are based on the ratio of goods produced to their production costs, public choice political-economists look at production and consumption costs. Including consumers' burdens, such as travel and waiting times, ensures that "social" costs will be included in measures of performance. The complete criteria for evaluating government performance are efficiency, the ratio of production benefits (output) to costs (input); effectiveness, the quality of service as a function of cost; equity; the provision of special service to meet special need; equality, equal service for equal status; and accountability, citizen access and control.
The public choice approach to organizational design is based on a theory of producing public goods.(9) In a capitalist economy such as ours, goods that can be divided and packaged for consumption according to individual preferences--toothpaste, sold in small tubes, is the classic example--are usually in the private economy. Because such goods are divided, however, those individuals who can't or won't pay for them don't get a share. Purely public goods and services, however, are indivisible and, once produced, they are (at least theoretically) accessible to everyone whether or not they pay for them. The costs of public goods and services are apportioned through taxes among the total population (again, at least theoretically). Water purification, air pollution control, colleges, and armies are examples of indivisible public goods. The principle isn't absolute because some divisible goods are also produced publicly to ensure the welfare of the disabled and disadvantaged, to lessen hardship for those who can't pay for essentials, and when a good or service affects everyone equally by conditioning the total environment, as with police patrols or mosquito spraying. And, of course, some indivisible goods are produced privately.
"Public bads" are the reciprocals of public goods. The idea is that what an individual regards as a private good may be a bad when considered as a matter of public interest--say for instance, the Malibu homeowner who wants to restrict beach access or the teenager who spray-paints gang graffiti on a public building. While the main goal of urban government is the production of public goods, typically by increasing the quantity of facilities and services, there is an equally important need to eliminate public bads. Often the yield from government investment is greater on balance from achieving more effective usage of facilities, reducing public bads, than by enlarging their quantity. Unfortunately, centralized bureaucratic governments are notorious for their inability to reduce or eliminate public bads by influencing public behavior, which is an arena in which face-to-face, grassroots organizations excel.
The need for small-scale jurisdictions with public powers to reduce public bads has never been more pressing in Los Angeles. The City has frightening levels of gang activity and related crime, coupled with a centrally directed police force that for too long has been regarded as an "occupying power" by lower-income and working-class ethnic and cultural communities.(10)
Production of a public good involves a "deal" between our government and us (i.e., the taxpayers). The resulting benefits or burdens that spill over the city's boundaries, affecting people living nearby, are known as "externalities" or "spillovers." Animal control, paid for by L.A. taxpayers, spills over unearned benefits outside of the City by preventing stray animals from crossing our boundaries into adjoining cities; while a power generation plant within the city limits may spill over burdens in the form of wastes that are buried in another city. Urban public goods differ dramatically in their geographic implications, with spillover boundaries ranging from neighborhood to region. It's these infinitely variable spillovers of public goods that we have to take into account when thinking about the most effective form of government for the metropolitan area that roughly corresponds to the Los Angeles basin.
Each public good or service has an optimum scale of organization for production. Economies of large scale are associated with capital-intensive production, as with sewage treatment, power generation, water supply, and mass transportation. Small-scale economies are common with a variety of more labor-intensive activities, such as teaching, maintenance, inspection, and some forms of policing.
Two-Tier Metropolitan Government
We can vitalize city government in Los Angeles not by exchanging our centralized bureaucracy for district or neighborhood control, but by balancing the existing top-heavy system with grants of public powers to a lower tier of government. The basic polycentric model for this purpose is two-tier metropolitan government, dividing public powers and functions along metropolitan and neighborhood boundaries.(11) Given the presence of counties, metropolitan public authorities, and regional councils of governments, the most pressing need is to introduce public powers into existing and incipient neighborhood civil communities. The resulting grassroots empowerment would certainly moot the issue of secession for the majority.
Regarding predictions that public powers vested in neighborhood organizations will intensify ethnic isolation and undermine fiscal equity, there is a bottom-up view that is alien to the liberal and progressive rhetoric that advocates integration for others at all costs. It is that virtually all whites except those in the lowest socio-economic classes share the benefits of the present system of mass urban government, not only to maintain their own exclusive enclaves but also to contain and exploit ethnic ghettos. The view from the bottom is that there's nothing lamentable about trading the rhetoric of integration for some form of institutionalized neighborhood empowerment.
Equally not compelling from the bottom-up perspective is the argument that if we grant public powers to our neighborhoods, the areas with resources, those producing tax revenues, are likely to secede, leaving those without to fend for themselves. The idea reflects a limited and mistaken conception of urban government as necessarily centralized or decentralized, rather than polycentric. But in a two-tier metropolitan federation, empowered neighborhoods are part of a compound structure that includes a metropolitan government, plus county, state, and federal jurisdictions. It's not possible to secede unilaterally from their authority--particularly the taxing, regulatory, and judicial powers they exercise--anymore than San Pedro can unilaterally secede from Los Angeles County. Moreover, across our contemporary cityscape, the relationship between rich and poor areas is more like exploitation than charitable benevolence. So low- to moderate-income neighborhoods may have more to gain from acquiring public powers, winning the rights and resources to manage their own development, than hanging on to the current system.
But there is a positive answer to predictions of more ethnic, cultural, and socio-economic isolation from neighborhood empowerment. Unlike the present situation in which our monopolistic city government tends to deny political rights, roles, and resources to citizens with low to middle incomes, giving rise to their political irrelevance, the advent of neighborhoods with public powers would offer practical opportunities for cooperation between disparate communities, each in their own self-interest. There will always be positive pressures for formal and informal service, mutual aid, and joint powers agreements in such a polycentric system.
In Los Angeles, or any other city dominated by bureaucratized polity, neighborhoods are often limited to interacting, at the polls or elsewhere, only in destructive competition or conflict. While both will undoubtedly always be with us to some degree, granting public powers to neighborhoods in the context of two-tier metropolitan government would create genuine opportunities for self-interested cooperation. Then our neighborhoods would not only have the need for cooperation, but also the institutionalized wherewithal to successfully launch and manage cooperative initiatives with one another.
If the majority of citizens in Los Angeles are to have an effective political voice in the governance of the City, our neighborhoods will require a mix of public powers. In effect, to successfully govern and produce public goods and services demands a complex repertoire of organizational capabilities. Like any successful polity or enterprise, neighborhoods must be able to acquire, transform, and distribute resources. So it is that authentic expression of our collective political and economic will demands that neighborhoods have legislative, taxing, and other public powers, although in limited grants that recognize the essential role of an upper tier of metropolitan government with broader authority and responsibility. These powers, along with a mandate to contract and assume debt, are essential to vitalize the civic rights and roles of the citizenry and to capitalize and operate services and enterprises.
How can we accomplish this? There are three variations on neighborhood "empowerment": administrative decentralization, political decentralization, and by petition and election. They are distinguished by the direction of their sponsorship, their functions and authority, the extent of their public powers, and the characteristic ways in which their authority and powers become vested.
Administrative decentralization is easily recognizable from the imprint of its top-down sponsors. Notwithstanding the so-called decentralization, it amounts to little more than an enlargement of the existing centralized bureaucracy, an ironic expansion, to fix an already legendary sluggishness. Branches are established at lower levels, like Boston's "little city halls," serving populations from 50,000 upwards, with low-level managers granted discretion to "gather input" and implement policies of central decision-makers. The professed goal is to upgrade the distribution of public goods and services, to improve equity and equality in addition to efficiency and economy, by more accurate measurement of need and targeting or tailoring of delivery. Such decentralization has a modest effect on the delivery of services--at the least, travel time to city agencies is reduced--but the character of political rule and bureaucratic decision-making remain obscure and inaccessible to the citizenry. The well-known story of the Roxbury Neighborhood of Boston and its Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative illustrates the point that the "little city halls" have no effect on the bureaucratized polity of the city.(12)
Political decentralization is also sponsored from the top down. But it's very different than administrative decentralization. Limited political authority may be granted to local organizations. The neighborhood is given a limited franchise for a limited purpose under the supervision of the city. The heart of political decentralization is not branch-management but devolution of decision-making, limited to be sure, yet policy-making authority nonetheless. Our new neighborhood councils in Los Angeles, governed by locally elected representatives, may evolve into this kind of decentralization, acquiring limited authority for some aspects of the City's programs and services. Sometimes the authority of the representatives includes a "legislative" mandate, to make decisions on policy options set out by the city. While some urban political-economists have recommended giving limited taxing authority to these neighborhood councils, the practice is unheard of and entirely without advocates among big-city mayors and elected county officials. Political decentralization in its ideal form is a non-starter. Its inescapable weakness is that by virtue of how it's created, there is no prospect that it will ever encompass essential public powers, even in limited grants. And as every municipal official knows that it's not possible to manage citywide government without such powers, the same is certainly true for neighborhood government.
Petition and election, however, are means by which we the citizenry can directly establish neighborhood organizations with public powers from the bottom up. In California we have the right of petition to bring about an initiative or referendum for charter reform. The organizations created by such actions differ decisively from their top-down-sponsored counterparts. The most important yet least apparent distinction between devolutionary approaches and these bottom-up methods is their potential to bring about the vesting of public powers. Unfortunately but predictably, the decentralization of political decision-making in Los Angeles' neighborhood councils, while potentially a sharing of policy-making authority, never vests any of the city's public powers in the local councils, even though the councils were created by charter reform. The same initiative and referendum tools may be used, however, to vest limited public powers in neighborhoods in such a way that their withdrawal would require extraordinary conditions and actions, much as would be needed to eliminate cities and counties, because they would have the public authority to enter into binding contracts.
Thus the potential of granting public powers through initiative and referendum differs from devolutionary approaches in that neighborhoods so empowered may acquire permanent grants of the powers that are unique to governments. We may grant them limited entitlements to enact and enforce ordinances, levy taxes or service charges, exercise eminent domain, carry on policing, etc.
Neighborhood Politics & Economics
What should be the form of decision-making to ensure the democratic expression of the citizens' will? Should it be a direct democracy--the "open" form of government known to New England towns--in which every citizen has the right to attend and vote in the town meeting? Or should it be a representative government, as we have now in Los Angeles, with an elected council of a dozen or so members as proposed for the new San Fernando Valley city?
The answer hinges somewhat on the ideal size for neighborhood organizations that exercise limited public powers. Most political-economists have concluded that, given the size of metropolitan areas like Los Angeles, the minimum scale for empowered neighborhood organizations, usually estimated from 10,000 to more than 100,000, puts the option of direct democracy out of reach. The implicit assumption is that if neighborhood organizations with public powers were sized to serve populations from 5,000 to 10,000, the ideal for direct democracy and authentic community, some 150 to 300 such jurisdictions would be necessary in an urban area with a population of one and a half million. The presumption is that in a two-tier system of metropolitan and neighborhood government, the legislative body for the city, the equivalent of today's council, would be far too big--assuming that its members would be representatives elected by the neighborhoods.
But given the political alienation that goes with our "representative" city government, and recognizing that a single metropolitan area like Los Angeles is in many ways now comparable demographically to the country as a whole at its founding, the legislative body for the upper tier of our metropolitan government might more appropriately be an assembly--several hundred neighborhood representatives from independent neighborhoods. Such a transformation would dramatically increase the accountability of the City's bureaucratized polity.
The economic argument against neighborhood organizations with public powers sized to serve populations of 5,000 to 10,000 is that small scale is inherently inefficient for delivery of services. But polycentric theory and public administration practice both refute this municipal reform mythology. The theory suggests that efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability in providing public services can be improved by allocating them among governments of varying sizes. And research confirms, for example, that urban law enforcement so divided shows gains on virtually all measures of performance. Typical allocations of police services include: (1) support functions (records, communications, laboratory services, detention, training, etc.) to the metropolitan area; (2) crime-fighting (capture of criminals, stakeouts, SWAT activities, etc.) to districts; and (3) maintenance of public order (traffic control, public education, mediation of neighborhood disputes, etc.) to neighborhoods. Similar divisions have been proposed and successfully applied to recreation, transportation, social and health services, judicial administration, and education, with benefits not only from the production of public goods but the elimination of public bads.
If the main arguments against direct democracy and the small scale it demands aren't compelling, the most prominent ones in favor at least speak to its value and feasibility. They are based on the political utility of public space and the economic benefits of public enterprise for urban social communities.
Creating Public Space
The most compelling fact of American political life at the beginning of the 21st century is the extraordinary degree of political alienation, the overwhelming privatization of concerns that were once thought to be matters of citizen discourse and decision-making. As individuals we no longer have opportunities to play meaningful parts in decisions of governance, which are reserved to distant and seemingly dehumanized governments. The familiar theme is frustration of human potential by denial of power.
The alienation we experience originates in our isolation from power, in our lack of resources to act effectively in politics and the economy. The result is a decay of the ideas that once united us as a people, because the old beliefs are no longer reinforced by the outcomes they are supposed to influence. As we can see all around us, behavior becomes divested of values, moral purpose, and communal goals, leading to public malaise and obsession with material possessions. We see the evidence of mass alienation in refusal to vote and the drive for personal position, prestige, possessions, and power--at all costs.
People with low to middle incomes who are not only dissatisfied but want to do something, albeit often reactionary, either find no way or are steered to positions and roles without power--which undoubtedly will be one of the debilitating functions of our neighborhood councils, notwithstanding the rhetoric, hyperbole, and cant surrounding their formation. The councils will not cure the deficit in what was once called "political liberty," a more familiar expression for what political philosophers refer to as "public space"--those institutionalized rights, roles, and resources mentioned earlier.
For Jefferson and contemporary commentators too, American independence created new political liberty but failed to institutionalize public space for its expression in action by the general citizenry, except for occasional elections. Although the Constitution granted all power to the citizenry, it withheld opportunities for acting as citizens. Government discussing and deciding, the hallmark of political liberty, was closed to all but representatives. And the neighborhood councils do nothing effectively to change that fact.
Jefferson believed this lack of public space was a defect in the structure of the newly established state and would continue to threaten our nation's welfare. He was convinced that public space is a preventive measure and antidote to political tyranny, including the bureaucratic variety, and to endless cycles of insurgency and repression--of which we've had several large doses in the recent history of Los Angeles. He wrote that without public space as a permanent platform for constructive citizen action, "we shall go on in the endless circle of oppression, rebellion, reformation; and repression, reformation, again; and so on forever." The heart of the problem is not poverty but powerlessness--which is the key to curing not only poverty but oppression and injustice as well.
Jefferson also believed that the presence of directly democratic government within a polycentric system would ensure that "every man in the state will let his heart be torn out of his body sooner than let his power be wrested from him by a Caesar or Bonaparte." After his retirement from public life, he advocated subdividing the counties into "little republics," patterned on New England town governments, most of which were founded and continue today, nearly four centuries later, as directly democratic popular assemblies--which the citizens are adamant about retaining as such.
The need for public space has grown rather than diminished over the course of our urbanization history. Apart from the centralized bureaucracy, the City's system of representation is feeding a vale of political alienation. It's not difficult to understand how elected officials are recruited to serve special interests that hold irresponsible power and how the representative system is transformed from a means of articulating the democratic will to a method for subverting it. Reputable studies confirm the common sense conviction that voting and government policy are at best remotely related. Predictably, millions of people intuitively understand that going to the polls is not a remedy for their sweeping powerlessness, with school bond referendums and initiatives that limit taxes possible partial exceptions.
Our urban decline is marked by deprivation and alienation that result in part from massive scale, accompanied by the breakdown of political representation and the advent of centralized bureaucratic organization. We can reasonably expect in coming decades that, as the city continues to grow in population and conditions worsen for the majority, there will be more frequent and extreme attempts to initiate and renew broadly based public life. Transforming this energy into constructive action will depend mostly on our institutionalizing empowering rights, roles, and resources for the general citizenry--the creation of directly democratic public space and public enterprise.
Fostering Public Enterprise
Our existing laws and traditions, grounded in capitalist interests and ideologies, hinder governments from engaging in enterprise, which is normally considered the preserve of private, profit-making organizations. The production and distribution of private (divisible) goods and services in the capitalist economy, particularly, are excluded from public activity--although not absolutely--which we might regard as a "preferential option for the rich."(13) It's ironic because we trace our history from the English parishes that obtained income by brewing beer, renting pews, and other enterprise, and from the colonies that were founded by commercial exploration companies. But there are more contemporary and convincing reasons for neighborhood governments to engage in enterprise within the context of polycentric public industry.
Social infrastructure--local organization and the cultural values and beliefs that sustain it--represents investment in a form of collective capital that serves individuals yet is charged to all the rest of us through taxation. Our public sponsorship of social infrastructure development bestows unearned benefits on owners of private capital. The few owners of significant capital enjoy extraordinary advantages, freebies if you will, from our public investments in social infrastructure. This is verified in cities when such investments are withheld and the infrastructure begins to disintegrate or disappears altogether. As public investment in schools, streets, libraries, etc., declines, private enterprise and capital accumulation suffer setbacks, victims of human resource shortages. There is decay of the labor force, slackening of training, education, and health care; and failure of public services, from policing and maintenance of streets to mail service.
Public subsidies to private enterprise, through uncompensated investments(14) in social infrastructure, create lucrative incentives for more capital-intensive technology and production. Yet there is a deep and reasoned consensus among radical economists that long-term development of our political economy requires at least a partial shift away from capital-intensive, socially wasteful industries. Their great demands for capital, energy, and materials tend to restrict ownership and control to a small minority, strain government fiscal capacity to the breaking point, generate unmanageable wastes and social pathologies, and leave idle reservoirs of labor. The alternative is for the public to directly reap some of the benefits of their investment in social infrastructure by engaging in local less-capital-intensive enterprise, especially in the service economy.
There are myriad opportunities for publicly sponsored, small-scale, labor-intensive enterprise, offering practical routes toward economic decentralization of the political economy.(15) Nothing in the U.S. Constitution prohibits the states from exercising proprietary rights of enterprise, and several--North Dakota most notably with state banks--have done so. In People of Puerto Rico v. Eastern Sugar Association (156 F. 2d 316, 1946), the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the Puerto Rican legislature's use of eminent domain to break up large concentrations of land holdings by sugar companies. The states may grant these proprietary rights to local governments, either through their chartering, by legislative enactment or initiative, or via constitutional amendment. State courts have gone so far as to allow municipalities to engage in commerce beyond their own city limits. Local governments in Michigan, for example, own and operate housing for the elderly in Florida. An early Ohio court decision allowed a city to run a railroad across its own boundaries.
Attempts by municipalities in the 19th century to own and operate utilities were initially branded "gas and water socialism." But nearly 2,000 cities own utility companies. And in the wake of California's recent power industry chaos, in which only those cities with their own generators didn't face the threat of rolling blackouts, more than a dozen communities "have considered abandoning large investor-owned utilities" in favor of operating their own power plants.(16) Perhaps the most interesting facet of this development is the consideration being given to "spot utilities," taking advantage of the latest noiseless neighborhood generators that can economically and efficiently serve as few as a dozen homes.
Local governments run printing plants, telephone systems, public baths, laundries, theaters, markets, and much more. Some own sports teams, and many others own cable TV systems. At one point, one of the directors of the Golden Gate Bridge District, the multi-county public authority that also operates a ferry fleet and bus system, recommended that the District purchase or construct its own oil refinery, to satisfy its own needs and those of all other public transportation agencies in Northern California. Once the local government is granted proprietary authority, it may acquire an enterprise or supplementary resources either by purchase or eminent domain, although a public purpose must be served in both cases, and fair compensation made in the latter.
Beyond service-enterprise, intermediate technologies for manufacturing, many of which are byproducts of international development efforts, make it possible to create less-capital-intensive workplaces. The application of these technologies by neighborhood organizations raises a hope for relieving what has become an epidemic of alienation in the workplaces of industrial capitalism, which has not been relieved for low-wage workers in high-tech, fast-food, or building-maintenance industries. Given the absence of any economic law that predicts a better capital-to-output ratio by concentrating capital at fewer sites, there is also a promise of greater total economic productivity.
Development of neighborhood government service enterprises is also likely to have beneficial effects on alienation and economic output. The decentralization experiments of recent decades have tested and refined many such enterprises--food cooperatives, daycare centers, community took cribs, job exchanges, medical clinics, ad infinitum.
Public sponsorship of enterprise, if by directly democratic neighborhood governments, presents the novel prospect of distant yet feasible long-range opportunities for worker self-management in the U.S., a direct cure for workplace alienation. The potential for productive worker-controlled, directly democratic enterprise has been demonstrated repeatedly, in Israel, Yugoslavia, Chile, and elsewhere. The most obvious approach to integrating self-managed enterprise into neighborhood government is a variation on the Yugoslavian model, a two-chamber assembly, with popular participation in the "lower house" based on residence and representation in the "upper house" based on workplace.
Implicit in the incremental vesting of public powers in grassroots organizations is a slow but abiding tendency to countervail corporate power. The union movement in its early life was an example of how long-range, bottom-up investment in social infrastructure can refine and consolidate new power, critically altering relations with the elites that monopolize private capital.
Citizen alienation in Los Angeles--our isolation from decision-making power where we live and work, where we buy and sell, and where we're governed--promotes a strong bias to directly democratic rather than representative neighborhood government: it is a brief for public space and self-managed enterprise. The upper and lower population limits for such "open" government--10,000 and 5,000 respectively--do not present any insurmountable problems for organizing the upper tier of metropolitan government.
As more social communities arise in the City during the coming decades, primed for organizing by the downwardly spiraling conditions created by our distant City government and by the effects of mature industrial capitalism, directly democratic neighborhood government can be the most effective means for filling the infrastructural void.
Achieving a single, unified upper tier of urban government is more or less problematic according to the congruence of city and county boundaries, and according to the number of cities within our municipal boundaries (e.g., Culver City, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, and Santa Monica).
When the existing county government corresponds to the area-wide community, the main tasks are to expand its authority and responsibility, and to transform the structure of executive and legislative offices. Many metropolitan areas, including San Francisco, have achieved this transformation by consolidating their city and county. These objectives, seemingly fantastic, are all more feasible if there is parallel development of public powers in grassroots organizations, even on a modest scale.
The potential for successfully creating a two-tier metropolitan federation in Los Angeles reflects in part the imagined place of existing special and general-purpose governments. The list of possibilities is endless, and certainly none are predictable. Except for the possibility of special districts and municipalities dissolving voluntarily, merging, or consolidating with metropolitan or neighborhood governments, it must be reasoned that these districts and small cities will continue to represent genuine if not symmetrical civil communities in the urban political-economy. In the future Los Angeles we may see a "federal" government, metropolitan and neighborhood tiers predominating, but not excluding the remaining special districts and smaller cities.
Electoral Options
The pivotal issue in the development of an upper tier is office-holding (or districting), and there are a number of options worth considering. Metropolitan officials may be named by neighborhood governments and hold their upper-tier incumbency ex officio. They may be elected from districts that match neighborhood government jurisdictions. In either case, the legislative body of the metropolitan government would resemble an assembly, with several hundred representatives. Another option is for the upper-tier officials to be directly elected from larger districts. Or they may be elected at large.
There are disadvantages and dangers in constituting metropolitan governments as federations of neighborhood representatives, either ex officio or directly elected, or electing upper tier officials at large. There is the general drawback of focusing disproportionate attention on either neighborhood or metropolitan concerns. On the one hand, there's the disconcerting possibility of a metropolitan government of neighborhood representatives bogged down in ceaseless conflict, pursuing narrow interests without let-up, absent any institutionalized representation of larger geo-political interests. On the other hand, the dangers of at-large elections for metropolitan government are high-cost election campaigns, resulting in severe financial burdens and restriction of office-seeking to a select few--coupled with the tendency to undermine the voting power, in metropolitan elections, of sizable minority constituencies, usually Latino, African American, and low-income.
There is an at-large electoral system that ensures representation of multiple constituencies exactly in proportion to their voting strength.(17) This "proportional representation," unfortunately, is somewhat complex in operation and has been slow to gain public support as a reform measure in the U.S., although it has gained acceptance in Europe.(18) In general, such a system would be based on the introduction of partisan parties into local government elections. The parties would win seats in the legislative assembly in proportion to their share of the popular vote.(19)
Electoral districting of the upper tier in metropolitan government, on the scale of existing voting districts, with constituencies of 50,000 to 500,000, may be most likely and most desirable. Such districting is probable because of the bias to the interests of current elected representatives and their constituencies; it's desirable because, given the choice between at-large representation that favors "metropolitanism" and neighborhood representation that favors "localism," it offers a means for building district-wide alliances and resolving intergovernmental conflicts.
Insofar as neighborhood and metropolitan governments are organized and begin to operate in coming decades as compound structures, their successes in meeting the challenges of urban governance will reflect the linkages between them. There must be institutionalized communication channels and decision-rules, integrated in a system of mutual understandings, and sanctioned by state laws, formal contracts, and other covenants that define their respective domains and terms of interaction. One of the most important issues is how fiscal resources are to be divided.
Fiscal Considerations
A sizable part of the conflict between local governments revolves around capturing fiscal resources. The problem in urban areas is that the tax base varies unevenly across jurisdictional boundaries. There is "cutthroat intergovernmental competition" to internalize (take in) resources and to externalize (throw out) problems and costs, through boundary changes, legislative mandates, or other available means. The result is a persistent mismatch between needs and resources.
The economic challenge in distributing resources is defining and assigning costs and benefits of fiscal flows, which are the underpinnings of equalization strategies. Economic activities spill over political boundaries, with people living and working and playing--always earning and spending--in different government jurisdictions. Consider a small municipality within a metropolitan area, an enclave city that attracts a new shopping center development. It then adds a sales tax of one percent. If the center attracts shoppers in large numbers from adjoining jurisdictions, sufficient sales tax revenues may be received for the small city to significantly lower its property tax. Some of the new revenue is consumed, of course, in providing police, fire, lighting, and other services to the new development.
The task when assigning costs and benefits of fiscal flows is to prevent exploitation of, or windfalls to, any governmental unit and segment of the metropolitan citizenry. The most promising government structure, because of its flexibility, is a fully developed polycentric system, one in which political-economic empowerment is gained through variously sized public organizations that can effectively manage their externalities.
There is good news and bad news for the proponents of this vision of unending competition for public resources. The bad news is that local officials in large cities and urban counties, managers of bureaucratic public monopolies, oppose in every way possible the formation of new, competing, independent centers of public power within their jurisdictions. In response to the proposal by the Carter Administration to give neighborhoods "equal standing" with other governments for direct federal funding, the U.S. Conference of Mayors branded the plan as one that would threaten "progress and harmony" in the cities--and nothing's changed since then. The good news is that while the urban tax base may in places be insufficient for neighborhoods to become full service providers, prospects are good for gap-filling roles in producing and distributing goods and services. The potential for service divisibility, accumulation of resources through enterprise, and fiscal equalization strategies has been well demonstrated in the urban development and decentralization experiments of the last four decades.
Fiscal Equalization Strategies
There are two especially promising strategies for equalizing fiscal resources, apart from shifting the regulatory, program, or service functions of municipal government to higher levels, as with the transfer of city hospitals to county administration. Equalization may be achieved by delivering services in neighborhoods but transferring upwards the responsibility for taxing and financing. Financing of public education has moved a long way in that direction.
The State of California now funds 60 percent of local public school
education. The federal government funds 10 percent, local governments fund 28.5
percent, and the state lottery funds 1.5 percent. Prior to 1973 school funds
came primarily from property taxes, and funding levels per pupil varied greatly.
In 1973 the California Supreme Court in Serrano v. Priest ruled that students in
areas with low property values were being denied equal educational opportunities
as compared to students in areas with high property values. Based on the Serrano
decision, the State began to equalize wealth-related differences among school
districts and established a system of revenue-limit control formulas (SB 90).
The formulas limited the amount districts could derive from property taxes and
provided a basic dollar amount per unit of Average Daily Attendance, plus an
adjustment factor for any special needs funding. An equalization or inflation
factor was also added, which was higher for low-revenue districts and lower for
high-revenue districts.
In 1977 California Assembly Bill 65 established a program that allowed districts to spend a minimum amount per pupil, with the State picking up the difference (i.e., equalizing) if a district could not raise the minimum amount on its own. If the property tax component for a school district equaled or exceeded its revenue limit, due to high property values, they were permitted to keep all of this money. However, the California Constitution requires that the State must give each school district a minimum of $120 per pupil in basic State aid. If a district's property values are so high that the State only provides it with basic aid, it is referred to as Basic Aid District.
In 1978 Proposition 13 drastically altered California's property tax system by (1) rolling back assessed values to 1975 levels, (2) limiting the tax rates to one percent of assessed value and, (3) limiting the annual increases in assessed value to either the lesser of (a) two percent or (b) the change in the Consumer Price Index. Until this time about two thirds of revenues for schools were provided through property taxes. In response to Proposition 13, legislation was enacted that shifted much of the property taxes previously allocated to public schools to the other areas of local government and made up most of the losses to schools with State funds (AB 8). Thus school district revenue limits were transformed from a cap on local tax revenues into an entitlement that guaranteed districts a certain level of general purpose funding. The net effect was that districts, with the exception of Basic Aid Districts, now depended primarily on State aid, since local property taxes were no longer sufficient.
In the early 1980s the State began providing additional equalization funding, which was incorporated into districts' general-purpose entitlements. In response to schools' reliance on State funds, Proposition 98 (1988) amended provisions of the State Constitution to set a guaranteed minimum funding level for K-12 education and the California community colleges equal to the greater of (1) a specified percent of the State's General Fund revenues or (2) the amount provided in the prior year, adjusted for growth in students and inflation. Proposition 98 is now responsible for a majority of school funding.
Federal and state financing takes many forms, and several of them could be aimed at neighborhood governments. Former U.S. Senator Mark Hatfield (R-Oregon), for example, introduced legislation to fund neighborhood governments by way of a Federal income tax credit. Presumably it failed to pass for lack of an organized constituency. The individual taxpayer in Hatfield's plan would receive a dollar-for-dollar credit against Federal income tax for "contributions" to recognized neighborhood governments. It has been proposed that state sales taxes be rebated to neighborhood governments for implementing state-recommended improvement programs. And financial assistance might be given with vouchers that can be cashed only by neighborhood jurisdictions.
A second way of equalizing resources among competing urban governments is known as tax-base-growth-sharing, a plan to share future growth of the urban tax base. State enabling legislation for this approach was adopted by Minnesota in 1971. The plan there takes 40 percent of the annual increase in non-residential property tax assessments within a metropolitan jurisdiction, pooling those resources at the area-wide level, then redistributing them back to all contributing jurisdictions on a formula tied directly to population and inversely to current per capita assessed valuations in each area.
Although not equalization strategies per se, among the least recognized possibilities for fiscal empowerment of neighborhood governments are locally generated resources. The resource base for urban governments can be considerably expanded by neighborhood sponsorship of public enterprise and by effective control of public bads.
Secession is not the solution for what ails us. It's a backward step based on a 19th century theory and practice of local government. Instead of one unresponsive bureaucratized polity, we'll have two--or three or four or more; instead of the clear advantages of near-metropolitan boundaries, we'll have fragmented and economically dysfunctional jurisdictions that correspond to districts within the City.
One of the worst potential outcomes of this misguided initiative is the inevitable increase in alienation and despair it will produce among the majority of low- to middle-income residents of the City. How long should we imagine it will take, given the most likely eventualities, before the majority of the citizens realize that little or nothing has changed for them--services no better, regulatory activity no fairer, opportunities for grassroots communal enterprise no greater, and political and bureaucratic decision-making no more accessible? The probable and most ironic outcome of a successful secession of the San Fernando Valley is that its citizens will be more alienated than ever from their "local government."
What makes such a result all the more outrageous is that few of the proponents of secession are primarily interested in "good government"--we have budding political careerists, self-serving entrepreneurs, and self-promoting media--but what we don't have is a movement of the people, by the people, and for the people. Instead, we have a movement of, by, and for the special interests, pluralities, and elites.
When and if the citizens of Los Angeles decide to move forward and take their governance into their own hands, hopefully they will begin with a vision of two-tier government in which we the people have at least one hand on the handles of public power.
What are the prospects for this vision of citizen empowerment in Los Angeles? Admittedly they are few and far between at present. There is no organized constituency and it's patently not in the interests of those constituencies that are organized. Yet it's not far fetched to imagine that as the conditions of life in Los Angeles become more punishing for the majority, while simultaneously our dissatisfaction with the City intensifies, a movement will be aborning, eventually organizing itself for action to bring about structural, self-empowering reform. The double irony is that, eventually, the disappointment with secession will almost certainly contribute energy to that movement.
* Rabbi Moshe ben Asher, Ph.D., has been a professional community organizer for more than three decades.
"He is
currently co-director of Gather the People and teaches community organizing at California State University Long Beach and California State University Dominguez Hills.
1. Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles (January 29, 2002).
2. Alexis de Tocqueville, American Institutions and their Influence (New York: A.S. Barnes, 1851).
3. For a case study that casts municipal reform in a positive light, see Jane S. Dahlberg, The New York Bureau of Municipal Research (New York: New York University Press, 1966).
4. See Vincent Ostrom, The Intellectual Crisis in American Public Administration (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1989).
5. For a less than idealized view of municipal reform, see Robert L. Bish and Vincent Ostrom, Understanding Urban Government: Metropolitan Reform Reconsidered (Washington: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1973).
6. See Vincent Ostrom, The Political Theory of a Compound Republic: Designing the American Experiment (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1987).
7. For a seminal work in this vein, see Robert L. Bish, The Public Economy of Metropolitan Areas (Chicago: Markham Publishing, 1971).
8. For a general survey, see Glen O. Robinson, American Bureaucracy: Public Choice and Public Law (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991).
9. For example, see Guy Gilbert and Pierre Picard, "Incentives and Optimal Size of Local Jurisdictions," European Economic Review, 40:19-41 (January 1996).
10. For a recent related op-ed statement of concern, see Frank del Olmo, "L.A.'s Next [Police] Chief Should Listen to What the Community Wants," Los Angeles Times (April 14, 2002).
11. For an introduction to the "two-tier solution," see. Bish and Ostrom, Understanding Urban Government: Metropolitan Reform Reconsidered, pp. 12-15.
12. See "Holding Ground: The Rebirth of Dudley Street," an award-winning documentary film (available on videocassette) about the community organizing and development that revitalized the Roxbury neighborhood of Boston (Ho-ho-kus, NJ: New Day Films, 1996).
13. This is in contrast to the Catholic doctrine of a "preferential option for the poor," which ensures that, "In every economic, political, and social decision, a weighted concerned must be given to the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable."
14. That is, not offset by tax revenues from the corporate beneficiaries.
15. For one promising approach, see Hubert Schmitz, "Collective Efficiency: Growth Path for Small-Scale Industry," Journal of Development Studies, 31(4):529-38 (April 1995).
16. "After Energy Jolt, Cities Think Small," Los Angeles Times (May 26, 2002).
17. Joseph F. Zimmerman argues for proportional representation in his article, "A 'Fair' Voting System for Local Governments," National Civic Review, 68:481-7+ (1979). See also Rob Ritchie et al., "Reclaiming Democracy in the 21st century: Instant Runoffs, Proportional Representation, and Cumulative Voting," Social Policy, 31(2):35-42 (Winter 2000).
18. See Karen Beckwith, "Comparative Research and Electoral Systems: Lessons from France and Italy," Women and Politics, 12(1):1-33 (1992).
19. See Rob Ritchie and Steven Hill, "Proportional Representation," Social Policy, 26:25-7+ (Summer 1996) and Andreas Ladner and Henry Milner, "Do voters turn out more under proportional than majoritarian systems? The evidence from Swiss communal elections." Electoral Studies, 18(2):235-50 (June 1999).
© 2002 Moshe ben Asher


text:
26468 E Walker Dr, Aurora, Colorado 80016-610426468 E Walker Dr, Aurora, Colorado 80016-6104 Aurora, CO 80016
view map
get a ride
Start: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 1:00 PM
End: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 2:00 PM
tell friends »
set reminder
add to calendar: outlook, google, yahoo
Event Features: Business-Related
Neighborhood: Avenue of the Arts
OVERVIEW The way we look at the workforce today is changing. There are many factors that are changing today's workforce. We have a multi-generational workforce which requires many moving parts and also leads to generational differences in the workplace. For example the workforce is aging with baby boomer leaving with institution knowledge and millennial's entering the workforce with minimum work experiences. Many organizations are faced with how to manage a multi-generational workforce. With the workforce comprised of 4 and some 5 generations this is a real challenge. The question is HOW do we manage all the different dynamic of today's workforce and still be productive and profitable.WHY SHOULD YOU ATTENDThis webinar will provide you the evolution of a workforce we once knew to a workforce that has challenged everyone from Executives, HR Mangers, Business owners and employees. After taking this webinar you will have a better understanding of how and why the workplace has changed and how bridging generations is VITAL to the success of any organization.Participants will walk away with a better understanding of each generations and techniques for managing generational differences in the workplace.AREAS COVERED• Overview of the different generations• Generations work expectations• The challenges faced due to generational differences in the workplace• Commonality among the generations• Solutions to bridging the generation gap in the workforceLEARNING OBJECTIVESFor the first time in our history we are faced with managing five generations in the workplace. The webinar helps you learn how to manage a multi-generational workforce.WHO WILL BENEFIT• Human Resource Professional• Business Owners• Consultants• Supervisors and ManagersFor more detail please click on this below link:https://bit.ly/2DDbbvIEmail: email@example.com Free: +1-888-300-8494Tel: +1-720-996-1616Fax: +1-888-909-1882
Link To This Page (click to send to friends!): https://www.UpcomingEvents.com/event/36723/
Follow Us on Twitter!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Jetzt kostenlos testen
Ransomed Bride
"I won't lose you now!" said Cam in a voice ragged with emotion. The moon moved across the sky from behind the sheltering trees, and suddenly the two of them were enveloped in moonlight. "I love you, and yet I know I have no right to speak to you of this. I'm not free. I'm engaged—" "Oh, Cam, don't!" she begged. "It cannot be. It is too late. There is no way—" A tremor coursed through her — a premonition of danger. This was madness, she knew. The two were as much star-crossed lovers as Romeo and Juliet, theirs as forbidden a love by all the same barriers of family, church, and honor. "There has to be a way. There must be. We'll find a way!" Cam declared as he drew her into his arms. "Cam, let me go. We must forget this ever happened." "How can we?" he asked in anguish.
Ransomed Bride is a historical romance that brings to life a young couple's choice between duty and love.


text: We have used Shimmering Waters since moving to AZ 2 1/2 years ago. Dan has taken excellent care of all our pool related needs. Our pump went out on a Wednesday, he was at our house on Thursday morning with a new one. He hD it installed and running by a little past noon. Excellent service, fair prices.


text:
Hi there! What a busy couple weeks our family has had. From all of our October travels to life's craziness at home (and catching up on sleep!), I have been slow to post. I am in the middle of pulling together our Washington DC trip recap, and can't wait to share that soon, but in the meantime I wanted to tell you about some exciting news that has also kept me very busy…
Our journey with Adeline has inspired me to plan Sips for Hips Atlanta, a fundraising event for the International Hip Dysplasia Institute (IHDI) to help further their efforts in research as well as educating patients, families, and physicians. While Hip Dysplasia isn't life threatening, it has been life changing and introduced me to an international community of "hip families." I am very excited to be able to do something to benefit this organization and all the work that they are doing!
Greg and I are in the midst of finalizing the date and time of the event. I will continue posting about it on the blog and through social media channels. I can't wait to share further details with you, but in the meantime follow Sips for Hips Atlanta on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter @SipsforHipsATL and encourage your friends and family to as well.
We appreciate all the love and support you have shown to Adeline!


text:
Just like the old cliché, everything is bigger in Texas, including the State Fair - big meals, big rides, big games, and despite the ravages of a fire in October 2012, Big Tex.
The 52-foot icon, which has become a mainstay at the annual Dallas event, is back this October for big fair fun. Big Texas was officially unveiled Thursday, Sept. 26. Thanks to sponsorships and donations, fair officials have rebuilt the cowpoke host just in time for this year's festivities.
Fair Park, the 277-acre entertainment and recreation complex two miles east of downtown, plays host each year to the fun.
Besides Big Tex, food is always a fair favorite, and this year is no different. The fair recently named the finalists for its Big Tex Choice awards. Some of the more interesting concoctions include:
� Fried Thanksgiving Dinner: Homemade stuffing and diced roasted turkey rolled in a ball, dipped in southern cream corn and rolled in seasoned corn meal, and all fried to a crispy golden brown and served with giblet brown gravy. Cranberry sauce is included for dipping.
� Southern Style Chicken-Fried Meatloaf: Homemade meatloaf slices coated in a Texas chicken-fried breading, deep-fried, and served with garlic mashed potatoes, cream gravy, and a ketchup/brown sugar glaze for dipping.
� Texas Fried Fireball: Pimento cheese, pickles, cayenne pepper, and bacon are rolled into a ball, dipped in buttermilk, covered with a jalapeno-infused batter, and fried and served with chipotle ranch for dipping.
If these unique deep-fried treats are a bit too much for your palate, other favorites are numerous. From Texas-sized corn dogs to potato twists to cold beer, there's something for everyone.
Venturing over to the Midway, the fair offers up a new ride this year - the Top o' Texas Tower features a 500-foot super gyro tower with a cabin traveling vertically at a speed of 6.5 feet per second and rotating 1 foot per second. The ride duration is four-and-a-half minutes with a five-second stop at the top for a 360-degree view of downtown Dallas. Other ride favorites include the 212-foot Texas Star Ferris wheel and the Texas SkyWay gondola ride, among many.
Entertainment options abound this year for fairgoers, and for sports fans the Cotton Bowl looms large on many fans' itineraries. This year's match-ups include: the Southwest Airlines State Fair Classic featuring Grambling State versus Prairie View A&M on Oct. 5; and the annual AT&T Red River Rivalry as Oklahoma takes on Texas.
Musically, taking the Main Stage this year are acts and bands for every musical taste. Kelly Rowland sings Saturday, Oct. 5, and country artist Cory Morrow performs Oct. 12. Several other acts are also scheduled and all concerts come with the price of admission.
No trip to the fair would be complete without a visit to the Auto Show to check out the latest wheels. Other attractions include museums, livestock exhibits, arts exhibits, the Garden Show, and much more. For the little ones, Kids Corner offers games and crafts opportunities.
The fried food and fair atmosphere is ready, so pile the family in the car and head to the Big D. And if you plan on partaking in the deep-fried food, don't forget the antacid - just in case.


text:
" Thank you SO much for getting me divorced in 2017. I really appreciate the extra effort that you went through to make it happen."
If you are looking to start 2018 on a positive note and want to take steps to part ways with your spouse, consider contacting Ms. Chin or one of our other experienced family law attorneys.
Ms. Chin's experience and credentials are among the highest in the field of family law. She joined Nichols Zauzig Sandler in 2001 and has focused on family law her entire career. She is a member of American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers and is AV Rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
Ms. Chin's 5-star rating by Avvo clients includes reviews that speak to her professionalism, responsiveness and skill. Take a look at Ms. Chin's family law experience and additional client testimonials.
It is important to understand your legal rights under Virginia divorce law and to seek help from an experienced Virginia divorce attorney in navigating the divorce process. When you are ready to take the next step, contact us at 703-492-4200.


text:
Tops and Bases Sold Separately - ORDER BOTH.
Create your own unique bistro or conference tables.
Reversible table tops have a different color and pattern on each side with coordinating dark gray edge banding.
Single-column bases in two heights.
Durable laminate is water-, scratch-, and dent-resistant.
Coordinating colors with Alera® Valencia™ and Open Office Series.
Commercial grade, 1" thick top.


text:
This year , Om Ethnic Handicraft have started working with Yes Helping Hands in Nepal. We have returned to Nepal after the earthquake and hope to bring something back to this place. We are so proud to find Yes Helping Hands. The Staff Laxman is so kind that he took us to their workshops and explained to us about the process of making their crafts and also the mission of their organisation.
Helping Hands Handicrafts offers practical training and employment opportunities for people living with disabilities in Nepal. In order to uplift them, Yes Helping Hands teach them different handicraft skills such as hand loom weaving. Now you can also purchase their scarves in our online store.
We also really appreciated their mission in local charity work. They had actively involved in post-earthquake humanitarian activities to provide temporary rehabilitation facilities to the victims. You can know more about them on their website: http://yeshelpinghands.org/


text:
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Jaw Shao-kang: Why should you vote for the New Party?
19:00 -- 22:00
YouTube Video
Jaw Shao-kang: Why should you vote for the New Party?
New Party Political Rally
Taipei Daan Park
January 5, 2008
19:00 -- 22:00
4 comments:
- Anonymous6:31 AM
Please write your thoughts on the legislative elections as soon as possible. Your articles are very informing and educational to read. I check everyday for updates.ReplyDelete
Dear ccL1,ReplyDelete
Thanks for the kind praise.
I will indeed do a write up on the January 12 legislative elections ASAP.
I have a lot I want to get off my chest.
It may be a few days before I can get to it however.
I'm helping the New Party out as a campaign worker.
Hi Bevin, I am disappointed that the New Party did not get any seats, despite being the 3rd party...And why is the KMT nominating that Wang Jin-pyng again as speaker? He is just a green guy in disguise...I am not convinced that the KMT's win will result in better Cross-Straits relations, or faster reunification either...although anything is better than the DPP, I have no high hopes.ReplyDelete
Dear Zyzyx,ReplyDelete
Yes. I am too.
Let me give you the short answer to why the New Party didn't do as well as it should have.
The short reason is that Pan Blue voters who would have voted for the New Party if they understood how the new Single Member District, Two Ballot System worked, didn't understand how it worked.
Pan Blue voters are right to be afraid of "Pan Blue disunity." The Pan Blues have lost many times in the past because their majority was split, allowing the Pan Greens to squeak in even though they were the minority, and have always been the minority.
This time however, the KMT lied to the public about how the Single Member District, Two Ballot System works. The KMT ran millions of dollars in prime time TV spots misleading Pan Blue voters into thinking that if they voted for the New Party on the At Large Party Ballot, then the DPP would win.
If you understand how the Single Member District, Two Ballot System works, you know this is a bare-faced lie. You know that the second ballot, the At Large Party Ballot does not affect the first ballot, the District Ballot.
The whole purpose of the second ballot, the At Large Party Ballot, is to allow voters to vote for the party whose ideals most represent their own values, without undermining the election prospects for an acceptable, albeit not ideal candidate on the District Ballot.
This was the first time the new Single Member District, Two Ballot System was used.
During the campaign, we New Party campaign workers found that nobody understood how the system worked!
They believed erroneously that any vote for their first choice on the At Large Party Ballot would "split the Pan Blue vote" and lead to a Pan Green squeaking in.
The KMT encouraged this lack of understanding by running millions of dollars in TV spots scaring Pan Blue voters into not voting for the New Party.
As a result, the Pan Blues did not do as well as they could have. Had the KMT not attempted to squash the New Party, the Pan Blues together could have eliminated one more Pan Green candidate, Trong Chai.
That's right, the notorious Trong Chai, aka "Referendum Chai," Deep Green hardliner.


text:
Teenager stabbed in disturbance at Andover Estate party
PUBLISHED: 12:16 20 February 2014 | UPDATED: 12:57 20 February 2014
A teenager was stabbed last night after violence broke out at a party on the Andover Estate.
Police swarmed the Holloway estate, dispersing party-goers, after reports of a disturbance at 9.49pm.
The 15-year-old male suffered a stab wound to the leg and was taken to hospital where his condition was said to be not life-threatening.
It comes after four youths were wounded when shots were fired at a party in July last year, where nearly 400 youths were celebrating the lifting of an anti-social dispersal order, which was put in place after the brutal murder of 21-year-old Andrew Jaipaul in 2011.
A police spokesperson said: "Officers attended and found a 15-year-old male suffering a stab wound to the leg. He has been taken to hospital where his condition is not life-threatening.
"Police assisted in dispersing those in attendance at the party.
"Enquiries into the assault continue. There have been no arrests at this time."
Anyone who saw the stabbing, knows those involved or knows where weapons may have been concealed should call Islington CID on 101 or Crimestoppers, anonymously, on 0800 555 111.
If you value what this story gives you, please consider supporting the Islington Gazette. Click the link in the orange box below for details.


text: GPS devices can be used to track mobile assets, as well as provide location for stored assets such as construction materials or shipping containers. Many GPS units also show derived information such as direction and speed, calculated from position changes. Exotrac's Yardtrac solution uses the power of GPS mobile phones with barcode scanning to rapidly scan assets like trailers, containers, automobiles and storage units. Leveraging mobile communication networks to upload and download scan data to and from Exotrac's web application delivers exceptional visibility and monitoring across your entire organization.


text:
Unique, stylish and fun; the Siesta is unlike any other cat bed on the market. The unique teardrop shape is a hip flourish to any room, and the cozy interior is a great hideaway spot for your kitty to snooze and, of course, hang out.
The Siesta can be suspended from the included stand or from any secure anchor point!
**PLEASE NOTE**The Siesta Bed swings! It is designed to rock gently back and forth. Most Kitties love this, but be advised that if yours does not WILL NOT BE ACCEPTING RETURNS OR ISSUING REFUNDS for this item for any reason other than defects or damage. If your Kitty proves less adventurous, you can add some links to the chain so that the base rests on the floor.


text:
Milk Chocolate Caramel Popcorn
Make Your snacking pop
An unbeatable flavor combination awaits in our milk chocolate caramel popcorn. We work our chocolate magic on the popcorn and the result is a crave worthy addiction that they will dream about long after the last crumb is devoured.
- 10.5 oz of popcorn coated with caramel glaze and drizzled with creamy milk chocolate


text:
In the State of Ohio, a trial is a hearing in court before a judge or jury to resolve disputes between two or more parties. If a party requests a jury trial, it must be demanded in accordance with the civil rules. The number of jurors is controlled by Civil Rule 38(B), and may be as many as twelve jurors in certain matters, but is limited to eight members in most cases. The parties may also stipulate to a smaller amount of jurors. Trials are controlled by Title VI of the Civil Rules, which includes rules 38 to 53.
A jury trial begins with a short introduction by the court explaining the general nature of the case and the positions of each party. The prospective jurors will learn a little about the case and what the underlying basis for the dispute. After this introduction, the attorneys will begin a process known as voir dire, which determines the jury that will hear the case. This process is controlled by Civil Rule 47. The parties have the opportunity to dismiss potential jurors for cause or they may dismiss up to three potential jurors for any reason, known as peremptory challenges.
Once a jury is selected, the parties will begin with their opening statements. The plaintiff will go first followed by the defendant. The opening statements provide each parties version of the evidence that will be presented to the jury. The parties advocate for their position and attempt to sway the jury into their favor.
After opening statements, the plaintiff will have an opportunity to present his or her case in chief. This involves the presentation of witness testimony, physical evidence, and expert testimony. Each witness will placed under oath. The plaintiff has the opportunity to examine the witness through questioning. After the plaintiff finishes the questioning, the defendant will have an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Cross-examination is limited to the topics discussed in the plaintiff's questioning, as well as any other topics which may attack the credibility of the witness. After the defendant has completed the cross-examination, the plaintiff may re-direct the witness to clarify any testimony that was attacked during the cross-examination.
After the plaintiff has completed their case in chief, the defendant will have an opportunity to present their side of the story. The defendant may call witnesses, present evidence, and include expert testimony in the same manner the plaintiff did in their case in chief. The plaintiff will cross-examine the defendant's witnesses. The defendant can re-direct.
After the parties have presented their case, they will engage in closing arguments, which should tie the entire case together. The parties will refer to the testimony and the evidence presented during their case and advocate that the judge or jury should find in their favor. It is the last opportunity to present the case to the judge or jury before deliberation occurs. If it is a jury trial, after the parties have completed their closing arguments, the judge will advise the jury regarding the law and the duties they must perform.
In the State of Ohio, the jury must render a verdict based upon the concurrence of three-fourths or more of their number. Usually the jury will deliberate to determine two main questions regarding liability and damages. If the jury determines the defendant is liable to the plaintiff, the next decision is to determine what award should be given. This usually involves an amount of money paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.
Once a jury has rendered its decision, the verdict will be read in court by the judge. The parties have the option to poll each juror individually. After this process is completed, the jury is discharged and has completed its civic duty.


text:
Berry lipsticks are an Autumn/Winter beauty staple, and over the years I've accumulated a beautiful collection of sumptuous plums, vibrant raspberry pinks and seductive cherry reds. The only problem is I rarely wear them, because the look seems so high maintenance. Application has to be precise, and then you need to keep a close eye on the colour throughout the day.
But this year I'm determined to make the effort and rock a berry lip more often (my favourite pinky nude bullets could use a break anyway…) And to get motivated I spoke to Clinique's UK Colour Artist, Florrie White, who kindly shared her expert tips. Here's what she had to say…
CTP: What's the best way to find a berry lipstick that flatters your skin tone? Are there rules to follow?
Florrie White: There are rules based around skin tones, but the surest way of finding a complimentary shade is by trying and testing. Take advantage of your local make-up counter and have a play. I always think it's best to follow your instinct, so try out a colour before you buy and see the reaction from your friends before you commit.
How do we get long-lasting, precise results when applying deep, juicy lip colours?
Make sure to even out your lip shape first by using a lip liner, and then fill in the whole of the lips with the liner pencil. This will hold onto the lipstick, giving a long-lasting finish. Also, choose a lipstick with a creamy formulation – it will glide on and be easier to apply.
Which Clinique products do you turn to when creating a berry lip?
It's so important to prep the lips before you start, and I love All About Lips for this because it leaves a matte finish. Then go in and perfect the lip shape with Clinique's new Quickliner Intense pencil and apply a creamy, intense finish with a Clinique Pop lipstick.
Which style of eye makeup best compliments berry lipstick?
You can either keep the eye simple with a few coats of black mascara, making the lips a real statement, or create a really classic smokey eye with a complimentary pigment such as Clinique Black Honey All About Eyes eyeshadow. Then balance the cheeks with a light berry flush on the apples of the cheeks.
If you were on the fence before hopefully Florrie's tips have encouraged you to give deep, berry lips a go this Autumn/Winter!
Do you like to wear berry lip colours throughout Autumn/Winter? Which shades do you always return to? Leave a comment below or tweet us at @cocosteaparty to have your say…
P.S. Heal chapped lips with these 5 simple steps.
{Lead image of Miranda Kerr from Glamour US}


text:
Relocation of INTERACT's Data Centre
Posted by admin in SAM | 0 comments
As part of our ongoing efforts to improve scalability, security, disaster recovery and implement new product features, INTERACT Technology is migrating its current Data Centre from North California to Sydney.
Key benefits of the migration include:
- Access more of the latest Amazon Web Services (AWS) features offered by the Sydney AWS region e.g. the ability to leverage Single Sign On in the near future and improved reporting and business analytics functions
- Improved end-to-end encryption to meet healthcare information security standards
- Improved reliability and disaster recovery
The impact of these changes is expected to be minimal and will enable INTERACT to continue to enhance its offering. Users outside of Australia may notice possible increases in network latency which we believe will be insignificant (in the order of ~500 milliseconds).
This migration will occur on Sunday 18 June 2017 between 16:00-20:00 (UCT +10) at which time SAM will be unavailable.
For more information on our security and privacy policy please click here.
If you have any questions please contact your Account Manager or INTERACT Technology on +61 2 8071 8128.


text:
Green Lantern Corps #10
Well...The Alpha Corps found John Stewart guilting of murdering fellow Lantern Kirrt. Isn't that just a kick in the nuts? And John seems pretty resigned to his fate, even though execution seems a bit drastic, since he only killed him to save Oa and the rest of the Corps. The Alphas however are incapable it seems of seeing anything in other than black and white.
The Guardians, true to their plan of fomenting as much dissension as possible, haul the Alphas and Guy into their chambers for a little discussion about the method of execution. First off, they say they don't agree, which gets the Alphas all cranky. Then they make a few jabs about emotion. The Alphas think the Guardians should kill John, but they say no. Then they want their fellow Lanterns to kill John, at which point Guy has a few...choice words. Then they say they should bring in an outsider, at which point Guy tells them that if they think they can sentence someone to death, and then weasel out of taking the hard part of actually executing them...they can think again. But being Guy, he does it more...colorfully.
The Guardians by the way, are quite perplexed at Guy's behavior. He isn't stomping around making threats, or screaming or having tantrums or whatever. Well...not much anyway. But his final point, does get across that the Alphas have to do their own dirty work.
Meanwhile, John is trying to make amends, apologizing to Kirrt's family and trying to explain why he did what he did. And in a rather unusual moment, a professor teaching gets a Green Lantern ring...for only a minute before it flies off again. I'm sure that this will have something to do with a plot down the road.
Guy takes John his last meal, and calls Bookidda a few names along the way. Instead of the Samosas, Garlic Nan and Chicken Tikka Masala that John requested...he gets a bowl of cereal and some milk. Guy's been...busy. John says that he hopes he hasn't been up to any sort of rescue plan for tomorrow, but Guy just sits back, smirks and says that he's not bothering to wait till tomorrow...
And everything blows up. Blows up Good! John is yelling he doesn't WANT to be saved, but Guy isn't having any of that and clocks him,and charges up his ring. Kilowog is there and Isamot, and a whole bunch of fellow Lanterns, who are getting just a wee bit fed up with what is going on. The Alphas are running round yelling threats, and there is general mayhem...which is probably exactly what the Guardians want, the little blue rat bastards.
Oh this is good.
I'm wondering if on the one hand, that Kirrt's death is simply a straw that broke the camels back sort of thing, what with John killing Mogo and all. John himself certainly feels guilty for a LOT of things, and seems to be simply sitting back and offering no resistance, only a chance at redemption or at least of atonement. John needs a good slap in the face, and Guy Gardner is just the man to do it. They haven't always gotten along, but I hope that John realizes that nevertheless, Guy will move heaven and earth to help him...cuz that's how he rolls.


text:
- Elevation: 1,312 m (4,304 ft)
- Prominence: 1,065 m
- Ribu category: Kurang Tinggi
- Province: Sabah (Malaysia)
- Google Earth: kml
- Rating:
- Other names: none.
Bagging It!
Gunung Magdalena is the tallest peak in the range near the town of Tawau. It can apparently be hiked in around 2 days.
- Getting there: The closest town is Tawau which has an airport. From the airport to Tawau Hills Park takes about 1 hour by car or taxi (or 30 minutes from Tawau itself). Public transport is poor or non-existent.
- Accommodation: Plenty of hotels in Tawau but there is also accommodation available in the Park (reserve well in advance).
- Permits: RM3 entrance fee for Malaysians (Rm10 for foreigners). Open at 8am until 4.30pm.
- Water sources: Currently unknown
- Travel insurance: We recommend World Nomads insurance, which is designed for adventurous travellers with cover for overseas medical, evacuation, baggage and a range of adventure sports and activities including mountain hiking.
Local Average Monthly Rainfall (mm):


text:
The Truth About Hell
Contributed by Michael Monica on Jul 22, 2017 (message contributor)
Summary: The Truth About Hell
The Truth About Hell
"All liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." Revelation 21:8.
The subject and doctrine of hell is probably the most awful as well as controversial subjects one can undertake and speak about. Christ had much to say about hell during his earthly ministry.
It is a blessed comfort to know though that in the realms of heaven, there is no pain or suffering because there is no sin. There is no greed, there is no pride, there is no comparison, there is no lie.
A lie is build on the foundation of robbing glory from the one who is worthy of glory, God Alone! The devil, the evil one, lied and continues to do so in order to cast doubt in the minds of Jesus followers . His tactic is to disrupt the plan of God for the people of God.
However, read carefully the following text: "The Lord is... not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." 2Peter 3:9.
The will, the desire, the hope of God himself is this: that no man, ever should face the realities of hell. While the devil is disruptive, God's spirit is pleading.
God has given himself in our place so we might live for him. The greatest weapon against lies is grace. Because of grace, we don't need to hide ourselves. We can come before God with confidence knowing he loves us. Just as we are.
Related Media
PowerPoint Template
PowerPoint Template
PowerPoint Template


text:
By: Beth Ann Lennon
The Ninth Circuit recently reminded employers to keep state statutes regarding lawful off duty work in mind. R.C. Willey had a policy prohibiting employees from arriving at work with a blood alcohol level above .04%. When an employee came to work with a higher BAL, the employer discharged him. The policy violation provided a non-discriminatory basis for the termination, and the employer won summary judgment on an ADA claim. However, under Nevada law, an employee cannot be discharged for engaging "in the lawful use . . . of any product outside the premises of the employer during the employee's nonworking hours, if that use does not adversely affect the employee's ability to perform his or her job or the safety of other employees." Nev. Rev. Stat § 613/333(1)(b). At the time, the employee was on light duty work and he might have been able to do his extremely limited duties while just a little drunk. Now, a jury will have to decide whether the employee's "lawful off duty" alcohol consumption "adversely affected" his ability to do his limited duties or the safety of others. O'Brien v. R.C. Willey Home Furnishings, No. 16-16677 (9th Cir. July 13, 2018).
More than half of the states have a statute that protects employees from adverse employment actions because of their off-duty activities. Don't focus exclusively on the federal claims; sometimes the state bites you, even outside California.


text: electronics_shamim 0 Report post Posted April 5, 2019 In step down transformer is it that Ampere changes in accordance with Turns. I mean to say that in the Table I found: 38 swg wire has 0.0365 amp @ 200 amp per square cm. and 3507 turns per sq.cm. If i wind 4000 turns shall I arrive at 0.042 Ampere that means current increases with increase in Turns. Raw Formula = (0.0365/3503) x 4000 = 0.0416 Please help am I right. This is required for small step down transformers from 300mA to 1 Amp. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites


text: If regular chocolate-glazed, sprinkle-covered doughnuts have been boring you, you're in luck: Stoke is serving up a 1lb doughnut -- simply called The Doughnut, of course -- that will put your morning crullers to shame. The mammoth-sized brioche dessert is topped with a massive amount (we're talking more than a dollop here) of rich pastry cream, Heath bar crumbles, and a blizzard of powdered sugar. It comes on a giant cutting board and is meant to be shared, but we recommend hoarding the treat to yourself. Remember: If you order a doughnut for dessert, then there's no shame in eating your leftovers for breakfast the next day.