propositioning downtown: where we stand on the issues
This blog has moved to Twitter! Check out my twitter feed for the latest restaurant, retail, and cultural news in the neighborhood.
We’re loath to inject politics into this site, but this election season the stakes are too high and the consequences too great not to speak out on the topics that will affect us for years to come. That’s why we’ve put together this list of relative propositions and local measures.
While this isn’t a comprehensive voter guide — the Los Angeles Times does a much better job with a full editorial staff (though we may not agree with their views all of the time) — angelenic will happily take a stance on specific ballot questions that have the power to shape Downtown.
For all those neighborhood newcomers out there: Monday, October 20 is the last day to register to vote for this election, so be sure to sign up today.
Statewide Propositions
1a. High Speed Rail Bond: Yes. High-speed rail connecting Downtown Los Angeles to San Francisco is a no-brainer. In addition to creating 500,000 desperately needed jobs, a reduction in pollution caused by plane and automobile travel, and the sheer convenience of skipping the security lines at LAX and San Francisco International, the $10 billion investment is the first leg of a much larger network to be funded by private investors.
The cost of the alternative — expanding highways and airports — is much greater to our health, safety and long-term economic sustainability.
2. Standards for Confining Farm Animals: Yes. Though not specifically affecting many Downtowners’ day-to-day lives, forcing humane treatment of livestock and poultry should be a top concern for all those who share the concern for food safety in an era of large agribusiness and factory farms.
Proposition 2 would end the practice of confining farm animals so tightly that they cannot even turn around. Tightly confined livestock in close quarters — many times stacked on top of each other — is a filthy environment that encourages the breeding of bacteria such as Salmonella and E. Coli, and the resultant cocktail of antibiotics and hormones.
While Prop 2 won’t solve the problem of rampant disease in factory livestock, the increased space requirements will go a long way to easing the crushing burden of closely confined animals. Locally, Chinatown’s poultry distribution industry would be affected by the measure.
5. Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act: No. Proposition 5 would divert drug offenders to treatment programs, preventing judges and parole officers from doling out punishments that fit the crime. In Downtown Los Angeles, where one can see drug transactions occurring daily, plus the history of violent gang clashes related to the drug trade, Prop 5 is a dangerous experiment. Sometimes treatment is the preferred treatment over jail time, but we need to let judges and parole officers make informed, responsible decisions for their cases.
6. Safe Neighborhoods Act: No. The Act proposes $1 billion in unclear annual spending, but how will we pay for it? By a reduction in funding to other areas of the overstressed budget such as public safety and education.
In an era of falling crime statistics and increased funding for education and after-school programs that are proven to reduce gang activity, this proposition would hurt more than it helps.
7. Solar and Clean Energy: Yes. Prop 7 would set clear, strict targets for renewable energy production in California, creating tens of thousands of green jobs, reducing pollution and setting the standard for green energy solutions throughout the world.
Opponents call the targets of 20% renewable energy by 2010, 40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025 too strict. But costs have fallen dramatically, and we should encourage creative thinking and progressive targets.
California is a green energy champion. Prop 7 would send a message to the world that we want your green business.
8. Eliminates Marriage for Same-Sex Couples: No.
This matter is very near and dear to my heart; on August 14 of this year I proposed to my partner Jacob Holloway, and he said yes!
When most of the funding for banning marriage comes from out-of-state sources, it’s time to stand up and say that California won’t eliminate these rights for dedicated couples.
Local Measures
For local measures, angelenic supports the views espoused by the editorial board at the Los Angeles Times. Some notable measures listed below.
Measure B, Updates Affordable Housing Rules: Yes. Taxpayers will not be authorizing any taxes or bonds for this measure, which changes laws to allow denser multifamily units in affordable housing projects. The measure means LA County can receive its fair share of the 2006 affordable housing bond passed in the state, encouraging the development of such housing.
Measure R, Half-Cent Sales Tax for Transit: Yes. Mobility and jobs hang in the balance with this measure, which would provide funding for highway, rail, bus and street improvements throughout the county. The cost to the average Angeleno is only $25 per year; with that comes an unprecedented rail expansion (map) that would go a long way to reduce congestion and get people moving again.
-Official Measure R Site
President
Barack Obama. Perhaps nothing will affect dense urban areas that are facing serious ills than a pro-city President of the United States. Obama has the passion, drive and dedication to fund and get results out of our schools, create middle-class jobs, invest in clean energy technology, and shift priorities to start building up our cities once again.
We want to know where you stand on these and other issues, so let us know in the comments!
48 comments
I am surprised at your “Yes” recommendation for Prop 7. Prop 7 is opposed by nearly every californian political party, environmental group, and public utility company. It is so badly written that you could basically call it a scam to enrich its sole funder, Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens. He is trying to pull the same scam with Prop 10.
Kelly, any and all private green energy businesses can compete for contracts under Prop 7. It also forces municipal utilities (DWP) to comply with laws that privately held utilities must also comply with.
“Small producers” such as a homeowner with a wind turbine or solar panels can also sell their power back to utilities, thereby counting toward the energy credits.
Additionally, all environmental laws must be complied with when it comes to production facilities and transmission lines, another argument opponents make.
I agree that Prop 10 is a distraction; replacing one hydrocarbon (petroleum/gasoline) for another (natural gas) isn’t going to solve any problems and will only be an expensive boondoggle.
However, Prop 7 and requiring green energy solutions from utilities is the right choice.
I agree with Kelly on Prop 7. I’ll likely be voting no. The general consensus among many environmental groups is that prop 7 is so convoluted and confusing, that it could actually be detrimental to the cause its trying to promote.
Aside from that I agree whole heartedly with the other recommendations, especially Prop 8 and Measure R, both of which are very important to me.
By the way, Prop 7 is -not- being funded by T. Boone Pickens.
The courts have recognized that the language would not punish small producers.
In trying to cut through the claims on both sides, the more convoluted the opposition’s arguments become (“will ravage the environment,” “effectively ban small producers”) that are simply untrue, the more I support it.
Thanks for doing this piece Rich.
I totally agree with your positions. Before i was on the fence with props- 2 and 7. But i have come to realize that sure it will cost money, what doesn’t?
You have to take care of it and deal with it “now” not “later”.
And NO on prop 8, as a fellow gay male. I don’t want the government to be involved in my personal choices.
All “we” want is EQUALITY= equal protection under the law.
I personally don’t want to get married at the present time but I don’t want to have the choice/option taken away.
And this has nothing to do with religion or kids as the religious right has tried to make it be.
Anyways sorry for the rant, and congratulations wish you much comfort and happiness. Remember trust and communication regardless of gender!
I really hope Measure R gets through.
It could make our city better in so many ways. I’m worried that people are going to vote against anything that costs money this election because every economist on tv is ranting about how America needs to grow up and save more.
I agree with this, and by making it a sales tax measure we shift the largest amount of the burden on people spending lots of money anyway. I think some voters might not understand that.
It not only creates jobs, but also reduces traffic, which further boosts LA’s economy by reducing lost hours and days of work yearly.
As downtowners we have many more reasons to hope Measure R goes through, not the least of which is improved air quality, but I hope the rest of the voting public take a close look and see that this could be one of the most important items on the ballot.
Not a chance I am voting for measure R. Traffic in Los Angeles will continue to be a nightmare regardless of the added lines this measure proposes. Face it, only poor people ride public transportation until they save enough money for a car, then they jump on the freeways like everyone else. Of course there are handfuls of people that “choose” public transportation (I am among them) but these people are by far far far the minority.
And remember, the last time the sales tax went up, we were promised a subway to the sea. That didn’t happen, and where did the money go? More busses on already congested roads, the greenline from nowhere to nowhere, endless feasibility studies on more high-speed buses?
Forget R.
No on prop 8. I totally agree with Loveandhatela, it is about equality. People should have the right to love and marry whoever they want. Though I am straight, I am very passionate about this issues. I have friends who will be effected by it. You don’t know how many arguements I have gotten into with some friends, I should call them my formal friends.
Yikes! Yes on Prop 7?
EVERY environmental group is opposing this measure (http://www.noprop7.com/whoopposes7.html). It’s sloppy and creates loopholes. I respect your opion, Rich, which is why I come here for the latest restaurant review/development update. But if the Sierra Club and and NRDC both agree on something about an environmental policy, I think they hold the credibility.
It’s not just about traffic, although i have no idea how Measure R wouldn’t help. It’s about creating jobs. As construction halts to a stand-still in the housing market we need to provide projects for wage labor.
i sorta agree with Dale.
there have been numerous tax increases for public transportation in the past, how will this one be different?
How else do we improve public transportation?
prop 8 pases is like letting people marry animals
(Glad to hear no one is questioning your support of Obama! And congrats, Rich!)
On reading Dale’s (#7) rip through on Measure R, I almost had to laugh. I just got back from a trip to NYC and Washington, D.C. and rode the rails daily. Suits, blue collars, tourists, homeless…all were onboard both systems. Washington’s Metro, in particular because it reaches into the suburbs (NYC has its commuter rail systems which work similarly), was packed with middle-class commuters. They have a choice and they choose mass transit. While on the subject, check out the Bay Area’s BART ridership, too.
Despite this myth that LA is in love with its cars, we’re not mindless sheep. As LA’s Metro system grows fewer people will be jumping into cars when there’s a decent (and likely, faster) mass transit alternative.
Bottom Line: Don’t fault the proven viability of mass rail transit by using our infant, far-from-completed 73-mile system (in a region with 9 million residents) as the yard stick.
Congratulations on your recent engagement, Rich. Those damn “Yes on 8” ads are pissing me off- I get upset the more-and-more the government tries to take away our rights (or not give EQUAL rights in the first place) and will definitely be voting No on 8 (and I’m straight, as if that should matter on the debate on 8). Next government will be telling me I can’t eat fast food downtown (wait, they kind of are doing that already… damn them).
stuff…
you’re joking, right?
Or, because years ago states raised the drinking age to 21, it follows that we’ll raising them to 30 any day now? Then 50?
Or, because woman were granted the right to vote it must follow that we’ll soon be granting babies the right to vote?
Absurd analogies, all.
Go to http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/hot_topics/2008/Nov2008Election/endorseNOV2008.html and look at the list of organizations/newspapers and their recommendations for Prop 7. It’s the only proposition where all of the groups stating an opinion agree. And they all agree on “No.”
Besides prop 8 (where there has been plenty of coverage), the most worrisome proposition for me right now is prop 10, as so many people are not informed with it. On the surface it looks good (which is why I think it will likely pass), but as you dig deeper, you see how flawed it is. Most newspaper editorial boards have come out against it.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-10prop19-2008sep19,0,2399483.story
Just one of the snippets: “A total of $1 billion would be allocated for rebates on purchases of natural gas-powered trucks — an initial $50,000 rebate per truck. Nothing in the initiative says these trucks have to remain in California. So the day Proposition 10 is enacted, buyers will line up to purchase natural gas trucks, drive them to Nevada or some more sensible state, resell them and collect the $50,000-per-truck rebate as pure profit, courtesy of California taxpayers.”
I already voted (absentee as I will be out of the country Nov 4) YES on Prop 1A, YES on measure R, NO on props 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and of course for Barack Obama.
Dale should try riding Metrolink. It’s nothing but middle-class white suburbanites. The idea that only poor people ride public transit is a myth spread by the ignorant. But to answer Anonymous’ question, Measure R will be different because if it passes, subway construction starts in 2013. Unlike the last time, when they had no timetable. It’s all set and just waiting for funding.
I can’t believe anyone would vote yes on Prop 7. If you think you know more than every single environmental group in the state - groups run by people who dedicate their lives to environmentalism - then I’d love to have some of the Kool-aid you’re drinking.
Forget Dale.
YES on Measure R!
no on prop 8! i plan to get married here in 2011. AFTER COLLEGE YAY. :D
Congrats on the engagement man!
Yeah, I second the congratulations! Way to go. (Haha, I specifically liked the “and he said yes” comment.)
YES ON MEASURE R!!!
YES ON MEASURE R!!!
Check out a few pics of a YES ON MEASURE R rally in Westwood/UCLA last Friday.
Click here: http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/10/20/bruins-for-traffic-relief-raise-measure-rs-profile/#more-1276
If measure R was part of a far reaching plan to address all of the public transportation shortcomings in Los Angeles, then I would gladly vote for it. But it isn’t. It’s merely a money grab and some vague promises of “improvements.”
LA public transportation is always one step forward and two steps back. A subway to the sea that only makes it 1/3 of the way in 30 years. Dismantling of the majority of carpool lanes in the 80s that were setup in the 70s. Endless meetings arguing for above ground rail (slow and accident-ridden — ever ride the blue?) and more “rapid” buses on traffic choked streets (ever ride the 720 wilshire bus at rush?) I could go on and on.
And even if measure R results in fewer cars on the roads (and it won’t btw, what LA public transportation initiative HAS resulted in fewer cars on the road) who benefits the most from this? The people who drive all the time and would never consider public transportation. And if the roads have less traffic, more people will start to drive. (It’s a vicious circle.)
When the MTA stops begging for more money, and starts using their resources more effectively, and the city starts seriously advancing pedestrian services (ie. dedicated bicycle lanes, crosswalks that favor pedestrians over cars, layoff the crazy expensive jaywalk tickets, etc) then I’ll give them money. But not until then.
Yes on Prop 5! It’s incorrect to relate Prop 5 to gang-related clashes, which are often violent. Prop 5 affects nonviolent drug offenders and youth. I fully support decreasing the number of drug transactions on downtown streets, but I am very skeptical that sending nonviolent drug offenders and youth to prison actually has that effect. In fact, treatment is more likely than incarceration to decrease recidivism.
Readers - Prop 5 is not a dangerous experiment. It’s a well thought out recognition that incarceration is not always a good thing (especially for our youth and nonviolent drug offenders!) and a proper channeling of funds away from our prisons and towards programs that may actually help communities. Vote YES ON FIVE!!!!
For more info, see http://www.prop5yes.com/
I agree with everything except the Obama endorsement. Obama is a Chicago machine crook, and a fraud, and a serial liar. His campaign has been racist, sexist and it now appears to be abetting voter fraud in at least 12 states.
He has accomplished nothing (can anyone name 1 thing??) and has less experience that Sarah Palin - who has very little experience. He flip flops at the speed of sound and has signed off on wiretapping and has no intention of leaving Iraq. Obama is a fraud. Wake up.
Rich, I agree with just about all of your endorsements (and congratulations on your engagement) but I think there’s one bit of prop 7 that makes it a no-go for me: This paragraph from the Times opinion piece:
“Some utilities, such as Southern California Edison, are also leasing rooftop space from corporations for large (though less than 30-megawatt) installations. If such projects don’t count toward meeting the state’s renewable-power goal, which would probably be the case under Proposition 7, there would no longer be any incentive for the utilities to pay for them.”
As an environmentalist homeowner who wants to put solar panels on the roof and (1) save money on my bills and (2) help the environment, I’m dependent on the utility company incentives to afford the panels. If this prop will decrease (or eliminate) the likelihood they’ll be offered, I can see it actually hurting the progress towards green power. There are other objectionable parts of the measure, but this is the one that hits close enough to home that I’m inclined to vote against it.
Mr. Alossi, congratulations on your engagement! Though I’m not the marrying type, I’m glad our supreme court brought our state into the 21st century. I’ve recently “taken a lover” myself and though we both claim to be too rebellious to marry, I secretly hope we do. (Oops, guess it’s no longer a secret. Hi Peter!) I’ve been pleasantly surprised by enthusiastic support of straight people to defeat 8 (thanks Liz & Skid!). I have a co-worker who’s basically a Republican living in Simi Valley but she and her family are passionately against 8.
Dale: I consider myself middle-class and yes, most of my co-riders are of a lower echelon in life but I’m happy to do my part. Unfortunately, you are correct—I have a car but it’s old and if I had money, I’d get a new one and drive to work…because it’s only 9 miles but it takes 1 hour 20 minutes to get to work (Red Line to MTA 222 plus some walking) but if there were more rails, and dog-forbid, underground rails that cost more money but are not only more safe but also not subject to at-grade traffic, any improvement to that type of service would be most welcome and if the time were shortened, I’d gladly stay on public transportation. By the way, only 20 - 30 minutes by car on the 101.
NO ON 8! YES ON R!
Congratulations on your engagement, Rich! And thanks for the great guide— definitely agree with you on a number of propositions, including a big NO on 8.
But I am voting yes on Prop 5, which is endorsed by The California Society of Addiction Medicine, the League of Women Voters of California, the California Democratic Party and others. You mentioned the violent gang clashes related to the drug trade, but this proposition is about creating systems of care for the the nonviolent drug offender. You can find more information at http://www.prop5yes.com/nora-and-drug-courts.
I know you were hesitant to discuss politics on your blog but its the discussions like this that educate and activate people. I agree with your stance on the issues - except Prop. 7. I’m ALLLL FOOORRRR renewable energy but I’m not sure this is the right way to go about it. We, as a state, should require more from our government - send them back to the table to write something that would make a real difference.
BTW- Congratulations Rich! :)
Congratulations, Rich. I’ve been working on the NO on 8 campaign and just produced Marriage Fair, a gay and lesbian wedding expo. If anyone is willing to be a drop-off spot for yard signs, I’ll be glad to bring a few hundred, so people can pick them up. marc@marcjoseph.com
It’s great to see so much support here.
Regarding Measure R, I have to vote it down. Yes, it sounds wonderful if it actually happened. But the state of California, like every other governmental body, has repeatedly asked for tax increases to be earmarked for specific projects, then a couple years down the road, after people have forgotten, divert the money for other causes or throw it into the general fund. For what purpose was the California state lottery set up? Where is that money going now? I have to say a resounding NO to tax increases of any kind. The state has enough revenue coming to handle all necessary expenses. They are not accountable for what happens to it. NO new taxes!
To all the people concerned about money grabs with regards to Measure R, I encourage you to read the measure and see how the funds will be both distributed and overseen. Diverting these funds would be no easy matter as it was in the past. If we keep punishing the MTA for past mistakes with regards to rail construction we only hurt ourselves and will continue to be left behind by many other cities in this country and across the world. The fact is, the transit infrastructure in Los Angeles and the state of CA are failing and need investment. If we don’t address it, our problems will grow exponentially. Our economy cannot compete on a local or international level with the laughable infrastructure we currently have in place.
Let’s make L.A and California livable and competitive again.
If you are interested in the future of Los Angeles, then you need to vote YES on bills like 1A and Measure R.
Oh, don’t forget; suburban sprawl reducing SB 375 was signed only weeks ago by the Governor
To answer Dale’s question of what did we get from the last sales tax increase:
We got the Blue Line, the Green Line, the Gold Line, the Red Line, and the Rapid system. Those were made possible from that 1/2 cent sales tax. If Measure R passes we get more of the same.
The only reason that public transit is not more widely used is because people like yourself who rail against funding it have prevented it from being built as it should. The system is not extensive and widespread because of opposition to its funding.
Measure R is only one piece of the puzzle. If it passes, the MTA can borrow against future revenue and use that money to get matching federal and state funds, leveraging the money into much more.
If R does not pass we will see service cuts and no more construction. How is that a good thing?
Looks like it’s hard to tell if 7 is good or not. Better to vote no then. I’ll probably vote no on everything except R then
I am also glad to see everyone is in favor of Prop 2. Who wants to see chicken’s suffer before they get slaughtered for food? Wish we had more vegan restaurants downtown, damnit!!
Since I am not a US citizen I am unable to vote in the upcoming election but I thought I would chime in to this great discussion.
Rich: Congratulations!
Prop 8: I am amazed at the intolerance and sexism by those looking to strike down same sex marriage. I don’t know what baffles me more, the fact that people in 2008 are still so close minded or the advertisements on television portraying love between two human beings as being wrong.
Regardless of your views, please make sure you and those around you vote on election day.
Bert: Good answer to Dale’s (and marcjoseph’s) somewhat understandable frustration.
We get what we pay for…same as any other city.
Sure, we don’t always like where our money goes (I for one, don’t think METRO needs to devote quite so much $ to station art…though I really like the H’wood/Vine station) but that’s how the system works. Be it bonds, sales tax increases, property taxes - we pay for what we get.
Yes on prop 7 because it will significantly reduce our contribution to global warming. Yes on prop 7 because all utility companies need to be included in renewable requirements. Yes on prop 7 because PG&E, Edison, and Sempra are pouring $30 million into opposing it. Yes on prop 7 because the environmental groups opposing it are the same who supported deregulation in California. Yes on prop 7 because the legislature keeps failing to pass further renewable requirements, because the same utility companies keep blocking it. Yes on prop 7 because all renewable companies of all sizes are included in it. Yes on prop 7 because Dolores Huerta endorses it and she always is on the side of the people.
Bert,
Throwing money at a problem does not always solve the problem. Some of the lines you mentioned are pretty decent (Gold) and some are just dumb (Green). Take a look at the proposed slate of projects from the MTA. More of the same.
Los Angeles is a frontier town with a frontier mentality. There is no such thing as a wide-ranging community spirit. That’s why a comprehensive public transit system will not happen unless the city itself gets more involved and pushes tunneling through neighborhoods that oppose it (Hancock Park, Holmby Hills, etc).
It’s rather simple, in order for people to take public transportation is has to be:
faster than a car
cheaper than a car
clean and safe
As it stands, this is not the case for 90% of commuters. If it were, the streets would be vacant.
Until the MTA targets areas of the city with the most traffic — which they are not doing — we will end up with more Crenshaw Corridor lines.
And … I am a HUGE proponent of public transportation, and purchase a monthly pass every single month. I drive my car maybe four or five times a month, and only when absolutely necessary. If the MTA plan was better, I’d gladly vote for a full cent increase. But their current plan (and track record) are seriously flawed.
Neither one of the candidates impress me…I dont trust any politician! However, it is very clear that Obama is more hype than anything. He cant even make up his mind on who to root for in the world series! We expect him to make an important executive decision!? I am in the minority, I realize this, but Im not getting sucked into the hype that the media has created with Obama. Everyone hates Bush so much (including myself) that they have been led to believe that McCain is a clone of Bush. This is just not true and all it is is a tactic to get people to vote for Obama. The democrats could have put ANYONE on their ticket and they would get the same amount of votes no matter what, Its not Obama people are voting for, its a vote for ANYONE NOT REPUBLICAN.
By the way,…congrats Rich on the proposal! Im not gay but I support anyones right to get married. It should be no one elses business.
“He (Obama) cant even make up his mind on who to root for in the world series! We expect him to make an important executive decision!? ”
Are you serious? Maybe he just doesn’t care about that…you know, with the collapse of the economy and the big election coming up and all.
Dale-
Nobody is talking abut throwing money around. Measure R is only a small amount of money in the grand scheme of things.
As for the Green Line, it is a feeder line. It’s ridership numbers are 50% higher than original projections. When it was built, it was meant to serve the aerospace industry, with a projected daily ridership of 22,000. When it opened, the aerospace industry shrank due to the end of the cold war, but the ridership went to 30,000 almost immediately and is now near 40,000. How is that a failure?
I have lived in New York, San Francisco, and Chicago. In NONE of those cities is transit always faster and more convenient than a car (except for NYC at rush hour). But that is not the point. It’s about options and a multi-modal approach to city life. The problem in LA is a lack of options, making people slaves to the one dominant mode, the car.
What’s wrong with the MTA’s list of projects? They are all proposed for corridors that have their bus traffic at capacity. That’s the true basis for ridership, not an imaginary need in a corridor where people currently do not use transit.
You obviously have a disdain for Los Angeles, which is unfortunate, because it is causing you to assume an obstructionist point of view, which to me is not supported by any hard facts.
NObama!
March 3, 2009: Election of Los Angeles City Attorney
Carmen Trutanich is not the Front-Runner … he is the people’s choice!
The city of Los Angeles will not elect the Front-Runner for Los Angeles City Attorney, they will elect the people’s choice. The Office of the City Attorney is an important player in the economic and business life of the city. Working with all city departments and agencies, the Office of City Attorney is significantly involved in nearly all the issues and problems the city confronts.
Choosing the best candidate for Office of City Attorney depends on his or her grasp of the law; ability to work as a team; professionalism and experience to guide young lawyers; skills to run a law office; and integrity to practice law without politics.
Carmen Trutanich’s superior level of expertise, coupled with a commitment to legal and ethical business conduct, make him arguably the most qualified candidate for city attorney ever to seek the office. Carmen Trutanich spent his early career at the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, where he was instrumental in gang prosecution and the successful formation of the Environmental Crimes Division.
Over the past 29 years, Carmen Trutanich has earned unparalleled respect amongst his peers with an AV Rating by Martindale-Hubbell. California Lawyer magazine chose him as one of the top ten in the field of environmental law, while California Super Lawyers named Mr. Trutanich one of the top attorneys in Southern California, four consecutive years in a row. Only five percent of the lawyers in the state are named by Super Lawyers.
Carmen Trutanich has garnered the broad range of experience needed to re-establish faith in the city, trust in the community, and integrity to the office of Los Angeles City Attorney. http://tru09.com/fight/
Leave a Comment