Health care reform will happen - The blockbuster bi-partisan summit

Before last summer’s recess, Democrats in Congress were working to pass a health care reform bill and Republicans were doing whatever they could to stop it. Around that time, New Jersey’s own Bill Maher asked, “If you can’t shove some real reform down (the Republicans’) throats now, then when?” Nobody ever accused Maher of being a charmer or a policy wonk, so I can excuse his lack of subtlety and his not understanding we had only completed the second of five or six steps in the process. Jon Stewart, also from Jersey, knows better than to presume to tell the president what to do. He was on Bill O’Reilly’s show on Fox News a few weeks ago and admitted, “I can’t I can't tell if (President Obama) is a Jedi Master, playing chess on a three-level board way ahead of us, or this is kicking his ass.”

For months, everyone from late night comedians in L.A. and New York to pundits and members of Congress in Washington has been trying to get the president to show his hand in the high-stakes poker game that is health care reform. On Monday, three days before tomorrow’s blockbuster bi-partisan health care reform summit at the Blair House, he showed that he has developed a policy as well as a plan to get around a Republican filibuster (otherwise known as a political full house). So for Bill Maher, the answer is Thursday February 25th at 10:00 AM Eastern Standard Time and Jon Stewart can stop wondering, the answer is clearly “Jedi Master.”

I give the Republicans credit for being able to drag this thing out for so long. Their strategy since last summer has been to demonize the health care reform bills in order to delay them to death, then start all over. By then, it would be campaign season and they could try running on a “they didn’t get anything done, so vote for us” platform because they would have stopped health care reform and prevented an energy bill from even being discussed. They don’t seem to realize that while they were spending so much political capital to block these two proposals – even going so far as to oppose measures they once supported – they lost any credibility they may have had with the political center. Meanwhile, the Democrats have quietly overseen one of the most productive sessions Congress has seen in fifty years and are poised to win the support of key centrist voters in 2010.

The $787 billion Recovery Act contained $288 billion in tax relief, making it one of the largest tax cuts in American history. It contained an $80 billion investment in clean water, a smart energy grid, green technologies, and expanded broadband and wireless internet capacity. This Congress reformed defense procurement, expanded children’s health insurance, passed the largest land conservation law in twenty years, and gave credit card holders a bill of rights.

No matter what happens tomorrow, the White House has already combined the House and Senate bills into one measure that can either be passed in 24 hours or be pushed through via budget reconciliation. That takes away the Republicans’ main offensive weapon: the filibuster. By broadcasting the meeting live on C-SPAN, they’ve also removed the Republican leadership’s main defensive weapon: lies, damned lies, and statistics supporting the status quo repeated ad nauseam on Fox News. Republican ideas will go directly into the bill if, for the first time in a year, they don’t just say no to health care reform. The Dems have made it clear they’re coming to make a deal, they’re willing to compromise, and that the point is to find something the GOP is willing to trade “yes” votes for.

They may not realize it yet, but the Republican leadership is negotiating the terms of surrender for their party’s political future tomorrow. The president’s plan is going to become law, one way or another, and the Democrats will put it at the top of their long list of legislative achievements during the upcoming campaign. Republicans can’t claim that they wanted to reform health care because they had control of Congress and the White House for six years and did nothing, they can’t claim to be fiscal conservatives because they exploded the deficit during the Bush years, and their ideas for growing the economy are the same ideas that caused the recession in the first place. They’re not likely to find any new ideas before the Democrats start campaigning on a record of legislative accomplishments in the next few months, so they can kiss 2010 goodbye.

The spring of 2009 found us on the verge of a second Great Depression, but the spring of 2010 looks much better thanks to the Recovery Act. If the spring of 2011 finds more people covered and health care costs being held down thanks to the health care reform bill passed this year, the GOP will lose seats in 2012 the same way they will lose seats this year. That will mean losses in four consecutive election cycles – including two presidential elections – and total political irrelevance.

That’s 3-D Jedi Master check and mate.

Can you handle the truth? - Santa Monica City Council vs. Sister Sue

The great architect and visionary city planner Frank Lloyd Wright once said, "The truth is more important than the facts." That quote kept running through my head as I listened to people from Saint John's Health Center and its representative, the Shane Miller Company, informing their neighbors about the progress of hospital construction at a meeting two weeks ago. For years, Mid-City residents who live near the site have seen increased traffic, reduced parking, and have put up with health issues from Saint John's sewage. These facts are generally accepted and totally undisputed — except in meetings with people from Saint John's and the Shane Miller Company.

For six months I've been working to find the truth behind what's really going on with Santa Monica's worst neighbor and most powerful real estate developer, Sister Sue Miller of Leavenworth, Kan. — and it isn't pretty. The truth is that the Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth entered into an agreement with the city of Santa Monica to develop Saint John's Health Center, the Sisters have violated that agreement from the beginning, and our City Council has negligently abdicated its responsibility to hold the Sisters accountable; effectively rendering the people of Santa Monica totally powerless. It's time for council members and the organization that put most of them in place, Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights, to show the people of this city who and what they stand for.

When it comes to development agreements, city and state laws are unequivocal — even if the bodies charged with enforcing them are impotent. California Government Code Section 65865.1 requires "periodic review at least every 12 months, at which time the applicant … shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the agreement." It goes on to say, "If, as a result of such periodic review, the local agency finds and determines … that the applicant … has not complied in good faith with terms or conditions of the agreement, the local agency may terminate or modify the agreement." California law also allows City Hall to "modify or suspend the provisions of the development agreement if the city determines that the failure … to do so would place … the residents of the city … in a condition dangerous to their health."

The Santa Monica Municipal Code largely mirrors state law. Section 9.48.190 states, "The City Council shall review the development agreement at least every 12 months" and it requires the Sisters to "demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the development agreement." Most importantly, it says, "If, as a result of such periodic review, the City Council finds and determines … that the applicant … has not complied in good faith with the terms or conditions of the development agreement, the City Council may commence proceedings to enforce, modify or terminate the development agreement."

So, make no mistake, both the state of California and the city of Santa Monica require our City Council to review the Saint John's agreement annually. Both require a demonstration of good faith compliance and both empower the City Council to effectively cancel the agreement if the Sisters don't comply in good faith or if they endanger the health or safety of city residents. Since there is no way to claim good faith compliance when the underground parking garage the Sisters agreed to build is nowhere to be found in any of their plans over the last 12 years; and since there is no question that the problems associated with the Sisters pumping and hauling their sewage twice a week are a danger to health, I'm left with some questions for our City Council and, by extension, SMRR.

Have you been reviewing the Saint John's Development agreement every 12 months? Did you know the Sisters were required to have their "parking operations plan" for the North Subterranean Parking Garage approved by the planning director before they were to be allowed to build the Keck Center (now completed)?

Did you know that the planning director doesn't have and didn't approve that plan, the Sisters have indicated they didn't develop that plan before they submitted their 2007 application for permission to defer building the parking garage for at least 10 years, they haven't developed that plan in the years since their application was submitted, and they don't intend to ever develop that plan? Did you know that the reason the Sisters are refusing to fix their sewage problems or honor their agreement to build the garage is that it would cost too much money?

I'm not inclined to waste another six months finding out that the (obvious) answer to all these questions is a resounding, embarrassing, and emasculating "No." So, let's just move on to solutions, shall we?

There is a provision in the development agreement that requires the Sisters to make annual cash contributions to a "Community Benefit Plan." The estimated cost of fixing the sewage problem and building the garage is about $40 million, and the cost of doing nothing is whatever it takes to buy land use attorney Chris Harding's conscience. The council should immediately begin proceedings to amend the agreement and increase that required annual contribution to $10 million. That way, Sister Sue and SCLHS President William Murray will have to take this seriously and the people of Santa Monica will have a reason to think our City Council has our back. As it stands now, they don't and we don't.

And that's the truth.

Turning Santa Monica into ancient Rome - Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights naked power grab

The Republican Party in Washington, D.C. is totally out of touch with the concerns of the average American. For 50 years, they've had two solutions to every problem: cut taxes and reduce government spending. That's because the GOP is the party of wealthy people whose only concern is protecting their money. On the one hand, I'm disgusted by the fact that far too many of these people would deny poor kids a good public education or decent health care in order to maintain their account balances. On the other hand, I appreciate that their primary motivation (greed) makes them predictable.

In our fair city, we also have a political party that is totally out of touch with the concerns of the average person. They're called Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights. They were a tenant's organization that somehow morphed into the political force to be reckoned with in Santa Monica; controlling the levers of power at Santa Monica College, the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, the Rent Control Board, and on our City Council. The organization (and by extension, the city it runs) claims to be focused on a progressive, people-first agenda, but too often fails to meet the liberal smell test. Look at other famously hip cities like Cambridge in Massachusetts or Berkeley in the Bay Area and you'll find a local government where decisions are made out in the open, after public debate, and by people who are accountable to voters. Look at Santa Monica, and you'll find two City Council vacancies being filled by appointment, not election, in one year. You'll also find that SMRR doesn't care about democracy, only about power.

When Herb Katz passed away last year, the City Council had to find a replacement. Appointing someone was the first option. The SMRR majority on the council chose appointment and supposedly opened the process to any Santa Monican registered to vote. They received 27 applications and chose SMRR's Gleam Davis. With that appointment, Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights controlled five of the seven seats on the council. From the beginning to the end of the process, I was surprised to see that SMRR had adopted the GOP attitude that ignores public opinion, the appearance of impropriety, and any potential conflicts of interest. But then why concern yourself with how bad your naked power grab looks when you can crush anyone who complains?

With the recent passing of Ken Genser, it's déjà vu all over again. Only this time, a special election wasn't even on SMRR's radar. This time, the question was whether to solicit applications for SMRR to approve or just choose directly from a list of SMRR members. By a vote of 4-1, the council chose not to ask for applications. The bedfellows on this vote were especially strange with Bobby Shriver joining the SMRR caucus in a "keep it real" protest vote, and SMRR's Kevin McKeown as the only vote for an open application process. Potential candidates are supposed to just call up a council member to see if they might be considered. Thanks to Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights, our City Council has gone from an elected body to a country club where membership has its privileges.

I almost joined SMRR last year. Then I realized I was highly unlikely to have any effect on the organization's vision or direction. As best I could tell, I'd have to whip up a bunch of votes for candidates for the Steering Committee in hopes that I might someday be a candidate myself. If I kissed enough butt on the Steering Committee, I might get a seat on a city board or commission. If I toed the SMRR line well enough and long enough, I might be considered for one of those City Council appointments — at which point I become a council member for life because SMRR candidates don't lose elections. That would take way too long, so I decided to keep shaming them in print.

Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights came into its own in 1979 and we all know that as tough as it is to be anti-establishment in your 30s, it's that much tougher to recognize when you've actually become the establishment. But that's what SMRR is. They may have set out to give the seven-out-of-10 Santa Monicans who don't own property a moderately priced beachfront paradise to enjoy. But three decades later, what they've given us is a college with less than 20 percent local enrollment that constantly begs for millions of dollars from local taxpayers; a school district that protects and enables pedophile sexual predators like Thomas Beltran; and a City Council that permits developers like Sister Sue at Saint John's to literally crap on our community. With people like SMRR's Kelly Olsen advocating for SMRR's Patricia Hoffman at the funeral of SMRR's Ken Genser, what we have in Santa Monica is ancient Rome by the Sea. A place where political power is handed out as a favor from one family to another, not earned from the voters through the democratic process — and they don't even give us bread and circuses.