L.A. Cost of Living Rises, but Pols Look to Arizona

CAPITOL OFFENSES Brendan Huffman A growing number of Californians believe that most of our elected officials cannot multitask. This is not intended as a mean-spirited criticism. Rather, this is an observation that more and more people are voicing. Here in Los Angeles, too many of our city officials seem to go from issue to issue without reaching any conclusions before moving on to the next media sensation. A few months ago, the four-year proliferation of pot dispensaries (like the one a block away from my house) suddenly got their attention. Then City Hall realized that tax revenues had plummeted since last year, so they went to work on cutting $250 million out of the $8 billion budget — although not much has been cut. Meanwhile, the Dept. of Water and Power sought another rate hike. First, it was to keep replacing old infrastructure. Then, it was to rid the city’s energy portfolio of dirty coal plants. The next week, it was because state emission reduction laws (such as AB 32) mandated that DWP replace coal with cleaner energy sources. A few days after that, the DWP said that it would not transfer $78 million from the department to the city’s general fund unless the city council approved the rate hike, which it ultimately did. In high school, I once kissed a girl who was not my girlfriend, and I remember struggling to keep my story straight with the girlfriend. She didn’t buy it, and after all we’ve been through with the DWP this past year, why should ratepayers? In the meantime, a long anticipated study was completed last month concluding that the rash of water main failures (and loss of water) was caused by too much pressure on aging systems overburdened by the city’s rule against watering lawns on any days other than Monday or Thursday. So why are we still limited to watering on Mondays and Thursdays? Why is the budget deficit still close to $250 million? Arizona law Part of the reason may come from the recent law enacted in Arizona that gives local enforcement agencies more authority to enforce federal immigration laws. While some contend that the new law is a cry for help from federal agencies to strengthen border enforcement and protect Americans from drug cartels and possible terrorists crossing the Mexican border, others feel strongly that the law is intended to target Latinos and pull out the welcome mat in Arizona. While both arguments are correct to a large extent, politicians throughout the country are stepping on each other to pander to the extremes on both sides. Unfortunately, many of our officeholders are no exception. The recent calls to boycott Arizona businesses are counter-productive but offer a good opportunity to distract everyone from serious problems in L.A. and throughout the state — budget deficits, high unemployment, pension liabilities, rising crime rates, and many more. So, what is the point of boycotts? They are intended to impose economic pain on entities and pressure them to come around to another point of view. Other than the Montgomery Bus Boycott, I’m not aware of too many boycotts that have changed much of anything, but I suspect a lot of lower-income folks working for employers in Arizona would be impacted by a boycott if it were to succeed. Choosing targets Next, let’s ask who will be boycotted, and how? Are we boycotting the Dodgers and Angels because both their spring training facilities are located in Arizona? Or, are we only boycotting employers based in Arizona? How do we know those employers aren’t of the same opinion as pro-immigrant protestors that SB 1070 is the wrong approach? Putting the shoe on the other foot, what if gay activists in another state decided to boycott California because voters here have twice rejected to legalize same-sex marriage? Mayors Gavin Newsome and Antonio Villaraigosa have both performed same-sex marriages for years. Will their cities be exempt from the boycott, or do they get passes? What about all the gay-owned businesses in California? Wouldn’t the boycott ultimately hurt the same folks we’re trying to help? Of course, most of our politicians are not that serious about a total boycott of Arizona because such a boycott would unintentionally hurt politically-connected employers in California. There are plenty of jerks in every state just as there are plenty of good people in every state, Arizona being no exception. Could it be that by boycotting an entire state we’d be no better than those who support racial profiling? In both cases, we’re punishing an entire population based on the acts of a few. Reform needed A more responsible reaction to the Arizona law would be to urge Congress to act on immigration reform immediately and to start reimbursing states and municipalities for costs associated with illegal aliens. I haven’t heard any public official call for that yet. Unfortunately, the political pandering and talk about boycotts is dividing decision makers even more, while serving as a distraction to the serious problems our state and cities face. While there are some officeholders who have long attention spans for complex issues, too many do not. Consequently, our budget deficits, service cuts, higher utility fees and rising crime rates will have to wait while the news cameras jump to another politically charged story. Brendan Huffman is the owner of Huffman Public Affairs in Studio City and the co-host of “Off the Presses,” an Internet radio program streamed via www.LATalkRadio.com every Thursday between 10-11 a.m.