CARLETON CRONIN: Silly season, part two

Ten candidates for two Council seats. We need to hear from them all. But, aside from attending every individual fundraiser, how can we get to know them? Happily, two forums have been announced: the West Hollywood Chamber of Commerce and several WeHo Watch groups will convene today at Beaches Tropicana from 5:30 to 8:00 PM; and on October 13, West Hollywood West Residents Association will host a forum in the Doheny Room at West Hollywood Park.

I’m hoping that those who attend these forums ask hard questions that require firm replies, not fluff. For instance, find out who is backing each candidate — an issue seldom brought up in past forums.

It would be wonderful if City TV could cover these events for the many who cannot attend. Since I am one of the non-attendees, I’m throwing out some thoughts on important local issues that I believe need to be seriously addressed. A review of statements from the ten Council candidates, downloaded from wehoonline.com, indicates that the most common reference to the improvement of public safety is about addressing crime in the city. West Hollywood has always been like an open box of chocolates tempting a legion of small-time crooks. Before cityhood, house burglaries were a common occurrence. Since West Hollywood was then an unincorporated section of the county, it was considered a sort of backwater. Even though many well-known actors and film production people had residences here, the sheriff did not rush over to respond. Now, we pay separately for police presence and protection and have quick, professional response. We also pay additionally for “ambassadors,” the Block by Block company, hired to provide a liaison between residents, visitors, and the sheriff. Do we need this layer of ordinary people between us and sworn police officers when we require a response to crime? A vigorous Watch program administered by the city might be a better way to connect with the sheriff. What does LAFD have to say about this issue?

Public safety is an inclusive term. It covers not just preventing harm from criminal activities but also — and equally important — reducing residents’ harm from natural and man-made disasters. We cannot rely upon the city to hold our hands through every disaster, but we must insist that the city aid us in preparing for the inevitable: those hours when first responders are not available. Here is one element of public safety that continues to be very popular among all WeHo residents: CERT (Community Emergency Response Team), which trains residents to care for themselves in the early hours of a disaster — earthquake, gas leak, fire, severe weather. Currently, the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) conducts the FEMA training course at no cost to the city. But here’s the rub:

The training course is so popular that it sells out within days of the announced training date. Its value is easily recognized by WeHo residents. Those who missed out must wait until next year because LAFD does not have the resources to provide additional training dates. This is where the city must step up. CERT trainers could be hired from other nearby functioning CERT groups. Thus, the city’s response would be one answer to the question: what does a city owe its residents? Which of the ten candidates seem to understand this issue? (CERT is a wonderful community-building tool as well.)

Homelessness is a national disaster… and disgrace. State and county responses are so weak and inconsistent that they are largely ineffective. What can a little city do when it is forced to confront the problem? How much does the situation contribute to local crime?

I don’t see much reference in the candidates’ statements to traffic and transportation issues in the city. Yet, just about everybody has something to say about parking as a major city problem. Parking is not the problem; cars are the problem. Solutions to many of our traffic woes are beyond our ability to remedy because such problems are at least county-wide. But we can institute some local measures to bring some ease. I would guess that 85% of the traffic we see is just passing through.

They are not much of an economic factor for us. The measures I suggest would require firm political courage and willingness from residents to accomplish any result. Here is a quick rundown of remedies put forth by several U.S. cities to mitigate the growing problem of too many cars in town: exclusion zones — pay-to-enter zones — shuttle for contractors’ employees — vehicle size limits in residential areas — night-only deliveries to major retailers — more pedestrian crosswalks with signals — city-sponsored carpool assistance for local businesses…

Someday LA County will have the transit system it deserves. Until then, cities must provide internal transit for residents, as WeHo is doing, while finding ways to live with the burden of too many cars.

Affordable housing… an ongoing joke. We have Chanel, Dior, Restoration Hardware, but no truly affordable residences for elderly retirees or workers who might wish to live closer to their jobs. The proliferation of McMansions signals that the city easily permits such buildings to rise but dithers over housing for the less wealthy. This city, like all others, must become more attractive to accommodate the necessary increase in population density for its sustainability. How up-to-date is West Hollywood in this regard? I must note here, with much regret, the withdrawal from candidacy of a most credible person, Rachel Schmeidler, due to threats against her children, according to a wehoonline.com story. I trust that LASD and the FBI are looking into this unfortunate occurrence. There are unsavory, perhaps criminal, forces at work in this election.

The booklet from the state election office has arrived. A couple of the propositions will impact our city. Check them out.

Last day to register to vote — October 21.

Be a true citizen — VOTE.