POV: The Problem with Los Angeles’ economy The topics of professor Michael Storper's new book on urban economies discussed on KCRW.

Why do some public organizations deny it? Don’t shoot the messenger, please. 

I was recently on the radio show “Which Way LA?,” with a panel discussion devoted to our book on San Francisco and Los Angeles.

http://www.kcrw.com/news-culture/shows/which-way-la/is-la-or-san-francisco-leading-the-way-to-the-future

One of the panelists was Mr. Hasan Ikhrata, who is the Executive Director of the Southern California Association of Governments.  This is what is known as a “council of governments” under California state law, and a “metropolitan planning organization” under federal law.  Basically, it’s a place where the governments of a region come together to analyze the region’s past and future and consider ways forward, to improve the lives of people in the region.  That’s the goal they state on their website.   Organizations such as SCAG are important, because they produce ideas for the many scattered governments in the region and try to get everybody on the same page to understand and solve problems.

Mr. Ikhrata’s position in our radio debate was surprising, as it was in the interview our team conducted with him during the research for our book.  I would characterize it as “deny everything.”   What I mean by this is that he did not even admit that Southern California has a problem.  But if slipping from 4th place to 25th place among metropolitan regions in the USA is not a problem, then I’d like to know why.

Listening to the interview, Mr. Ikhrata did the following:  first, even though he knows perfectly well (and I stated it clearly before he spoke) that our book compares the whole five-county Southern California region to the whole 10-county Bay Area, he tried to change the subject, speaking about the city of San Francisco and emphasizing its smallness.  This is an elementary error that nobody in his position could possibly commit without it being a deliberate attempt to divert attention.

He attempted to make four other points, which range from vague to clearly inaccurate. First, he noted that So Cal has received a lot of immigrants, as if this is the reason for its economic decline.  But he knows that both So Cal and the Bay Area had the same proportion of immigrants in 1970 (11% each) and the same now (respectively 38% and 39%).  It’s true that the origins of the immigrants are somewhat different, but it’s simply not true to characterize LA as more an immigrant gateway than the Bay Area.

We also clearly show in our book that LA’s slippage is not primarily because it received more of its immigrants from poorer origins than the Bay Area. Instead, it’s that the quality of opportunities (and wages) offered to immigrants in the Bay Area have gotten progressively better over time than in LA, whether for educated or less-educated immigrants and from any origin group.  So don’t blame immigrants, Mr. Ikhrata, blame the failure of LA’s economy to capture the industries that give people high-quality opportunities.

His second claim was that LA’s economy is “diverse.”  As someone working in economic matters, he knows that this term means nothing when applied to a regional economy.  It could be applied to the people of a region, in which case the two populations are indeed “diverse,” by which we mean composed of people from many different cultures and birthplaces.   It could mean what economists call, more accurately, “diversified,” meaning having many different industries and not specializing in much of anything.  This is exactly what we document for LA, and show that it’s a main reason for LA’s slippage down the ranks of regions.  All the world’s wealthy great city-regions are strongly specialized, such as New York in finance or SF in high technology.  LA used to be strongly specialized and is no longer, and this is one main reason why it has become relatively poorer.  So Mr. Ikhrata’s assertion that LA’s economic diversity is a positive thing is exactly wrong.

This is linked to a third assertion he made, which is that because the Bay Area is so specialized in such high-wage activities as information technology or biotech (how terrible is that?) that it will one day collapse, as a one-horse town vulnerable to shocks.  But we show in our book that Silicon Valley is now in its 7th incarnation and that the Bay Area continues to develop wave after wave of new technology and entrepreneurship, the way LA used to do in the middle of the 20th century.   In any case, where is Mr. Ikhrata’s evidence?  There is a long scholarly paper trail on specialized cities that shows that they are not, on average, more vulnerable to decline than highly diversified ones.  It’s the wrong question in fact.  The issue is whether a city-region stays dynamic, innovative and entrepreneurial in whatever it’s activity happens to be, whether it’s highly concentrated in a few sectors or spread over many.  He cited absolutely no evidence for his assertion about impending Bay Area doom, because there isn’t any evidence to cite.

Finally, he repeated that Southern California creates more “high tech” jobs than the Bay Area! I especially liked this brazen, unsupported claim.  But it’s not true.  Not only does the Bay Area create jobs that are “higher high tech” than LA (higher up the technology skills chain and paid much, much more than in LA), but it creates more of them in an absolute sense, even though its economy is only half the size of LA’s.

One doesn’t expect perfect accuracy in every public debate.  Economic development is a complicated matter.  But in our book we chased down every clue we could find and all of our conclusions are amply documented with the best available evidence.  Mr. Ikhrata is in a position of public responsibility.  Why would he deny that the Southern California region has a serious problem and not then turn his organization into a forum for trying to help the region get out of this predicament?  Isn’t that what his organization says it is there to do, with the taxpayers’ money?

One reason he might be denying that the problem exists is that SCAG’s track record is a miserable one.  In our book, we carefully analyzed thirty years of SCAG reports for how their authors viewed the present and future of the Southern California regional economy.  They got it wrong about 95% of the time, hardly ever mentioning the new economy of IT and new forms of entrepreneurship.  They looked backward to the old days of manufacturing.  They advocated strengthening low-wage industries such as logistics.  This was actually before Mr. Ikhrata took up his job at SCAG, so we can’t hold him responsible for the errors of his predecessors. All the more reason for him not to be defensive, but instead to turn his organization around to be realistic, admit the problem, and get to work helping the governments of Southern California to change their vision and move forward into the 21st century.  The well-being of millions of people depends on it.

New Issue of ACCESS Magazine Now Available The latest issue of ACCESS magazine is now available online at accessmagazine.org

 

By Adeney Zo
UCLA Luskin Student Writer

 

The latest issue of ACCESS magazine is now available online at accessmagazine.org.

 

The upcoming issue will feature the following topics:

  • Informal Parking: Turning Problems Into Solutions (Donald Shoup)

  • The Social Context of Travel (Michael J. Smart & Nicholas J. Klein)

  • The First Big-Box Store in Davis (Susan L. Handy, Kristin Lovejoy, Gian-Claudia Sciara, Deborah Salon, and Patricia L. Mokhtarian)

  • Suburban Transit in Mexico City (Erick Guerra)

  • A Bathtub Model of Downtown Traffic Congestion (Richard Arnott)

  • The ACCESS Almanac: Painting in the Present, Imagining the Future (Richard Wilson)

  • Can we have sustainable transportation without making people drive less or give up suburban living? (Mark Delucchi and Kenneth S. Kurani)

 

“Informal Parking: Turning Problems Into Solutions,” is an article written by former EIC and recently retired Urban Planning professor, Donald Shoup. In honor of his work and dedication to the Luskin over the past 41 years, a special tribute website was created to celebrate his legacy. This site features the story of Shoup’s game-changing research in urban planning, along with anecdotes from his supporters (fondly labelled “Shoupistas”) and information about his books and publications.

 

ACCESS Magazine is housed in the Institute of Transportation Studies and features research funded by the UC Center on Economic Competitiveness. The magazine has been publishing since 1992, and it took home the 2014 National Planning Award for a Communication Initiative from the American Planning Association.

 

 

 

Robert Putnam talks about OUR KIDS: The American Dream in Crisis Robert Putnam discusses how socioeconomic mobility is becoming increasingly difficult, threatening low-income populations.

feat_putnam

 

By Stan Paul

“We were poor and didn’t know it.” This is the consensus of America’s “class of 1959” says Robert Putnam, Harvard scholar and prolific author of such well-known titles as Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community; Making Democracy Work; Better Together: Restoring the American Community; and, co-author of American Grace.

Putnam spoke April 21 at the Luskin School of Public Affairs about his latest book, OUR KIDS: The American Dream in Crisis, which begins with a semi-nostalgic look back at the small American town where he grew up – Port Clinton, Ohio.

But, Putnam’s look back is less a wistful recollection than a sobering contrast to the “upward mobility” that, he argues, was more available to more people than now.  And, Port Clinton is representative of every town across America where now the so-called American Dream appears to be slipping away from a greater number of lower-income people, specifically young students.

During his noontime talk — sponsored by the Luskin School’s Center for Civil Society and Center for the Study of Inequality — Putnam offered numerous examples of the benefits of “who your parents happen to be” today. Fundamentally, “that’s wrong,” he said, citing that even the ability to afford and the opportunity to participate in extra-curricular activities, and develop marketable “soft skills” today is predictive of a higher paid job in the future.

To the class consensus he adds in his book, “In fact, however, in the breadth and depth of the community support we enjoyed, we were rich, but we didn’t know it.”

Robert Putnam is the Malkin Professor of Public Policy at Harvard and former dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.

 

Luskin Forum Highlights the School’s Multiple Perspectives

The winter 2015 edition of the Luskin Forum, titled “Engaging Multiple Perspectives,” is all about the diverse spectrum of ideas and research which have brought the Luskin to its present standing and continue to advance the school’s development and impact.

The magazine features stories ranging from the Luskin’s “Season of Service” for the underserved homeless population to professor Mark S. Kaplan’s work in suicide cause and prevention, along with highlights and achievements from many other faculty and students.

This edition of the Luskin Forum is available in print form and online via this link.

http://issuu.com/uclapubaffairs/docs/lfwi15

 

Luskin Center / EDF Report Featured on KPCC-FM

The latest edition of the Los Angeles Solar and Efficiency Report (LASER) was featured in an item on 89.3 KPCC-FM, the public radio affiliate in Pasadena.

In a segment by environmental reporter Jed Kim, Luskin Center deputy director Colleen Callahan highlighted the report’s finding that only 2 percent of Los Angeles County’s solar potential is currently being utilized.

“The fact that 98 percent is still untapped means that we have a tremendous resource sitting on a roof that really is going unused,” Callahan said.

The report estimates growing utilization to 10 percent would result in the creation of an estimated 47,000 jobs. Kim also spoke with Kokayi Kwa Jitahidi, a community organizer with the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, who said that these efficiencies are best directed at low income communities.

“If we’re going to grow the green economy, if we’re going to grow energy efficiency, we have to start in those communities first,” Judahidi said.

Listen to the entire report here.

UCLA Luskin Postcard: Health Care Reform Salon with Mark Peterson

Mark Peterson, an expert in health care policy and a longtime watcher of efforts to reform medical insurance in the U.S., spoke to an exclusive group of UCLA Luskin friends at a Dean’s Associates Salon a few weeks after the Affordable Care Act’s coverage began to become active.

UCLA Luskin student writer Max Wynn sent this postcard from the evening.

On January 15th friends of UCLA Luskin gathered at Michael and Natalie Mahdesian’s Studio City home for the eleventh Dean’s Associates Salon.

The highlight of the evening was a discussion of the Affordable Care Act led by Mark A. Peterson, UCLA Luskin professor of public policy, political science and law. Former Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, a visiting professor of Public Policy, provided closing remarks and perspective on the health care reform experience of his own state.

In his opening remarks, Mahdesian, a member of UCLA Luskin’s Board of Advisors, stated that the School trains leaders to come up with solutions to the problems and needs of our society. Health care is a universal need but health care reform is a complex issue, and the clarity of Peterson’s analysis reinforced Mahdesian’s reasoning for calling UCLA Luskin “one of the best [public affairs programs] on the west coast — if not the nation.”

The collected guests filled the Mahdesian’s spacious living room, and while some sat up right in their seats and others relaxed on couches, they all listened intently as Peterson spoke.

He began by explaining why the Affordable Care Act is such a complex piece of legislation, before tracing the fraught history of health care reform in this country up to the problems with the Act’s rollout last fall. However, the majority of his presentation was devoted to what he called “the implementation wars.”

Peterson characterized the national debate over Obamacare as a “civil war within our political ranks,” explaining that the vitriol of the debate was driven by an increasingly polarized Congress and the racial intolerance of a powerful minority within the conservative electorate.

This divisive rhetoric of the health care debate was a recurring theme throughout the night, but Peterson’s in-depth, factual analysis of Obamacare was a steady hand on the subject.

Peterson’s remarks were followed by a lengthy question and answer session, and the intimate setting fostered a lively discussion between Peterson and the attendees. Questions came from all corners of the room and the constructive nature of the discussion stood in stark relief to the divisiveness of the subject matter.

As the night wound down Dukakis delivered his closing remarks, emphasizing that, “Obamacare works…[and] it’s working in my state.”

As guests milled about afterwards the general consensus was that the night’s discussion had provided a level of context that is much needed, but rarely found, in the discourse surrounding health care reform.

If you would like to learn more about UCLA Luksin’s Dean’s Associates program, click here.

Crisis as an Opportunity: UCLA and Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade host symposium to address water concerns for a warming planet

By Karen A. Lefkowitz

“It’s important to awaken all to the seriousness of drought and the lack of rain…the drought emphasizes that we do live in an era of limits and that we need solutions that are elegant.” On January 17 Governor Jerry Brown officially declared a drought emergency in California. On the other side of the world, Australia suffered through a 12-year drought that ended last year with widespread flooding. The 2012-2013 ‘angry summer’ was the country’s hottest on record and temperatures continue to rise this summer. These parallel challenges make Australia and the U.S. ideal partners on water resource responses. UCLA’s Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, International Institute, Luskin Center for Innovation, and School of Law Environmental Law Center partnered with the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs to host a “U.S.-Australian Dialogue on Water — The Coming Water Crisis: Solutions and Strategies” on January 13.

Legislative officials, industry specialists, legal experts, educators and scientists, economists and business executives, and non-profit professionals shared experiences and advanced the conversation on water sustainability. UCLA Chancellor Gene Block provided introductory remarks and Australia’s Minister for Trade and Investment Andrew Robb delivered the keynote speech. The symposium was part of the G’Day USA program of events that brings together leaders and key influencers in diverse industries to cultivate and enhance the Australia–United States relationship. Conference segments considered coping techniques for arid environments, blueprints for better water management, and new water sources for the future.

Ten Questions: J.R. DeShazo and solar power J.R. DeShazo explains how solar can provide up to a third of L.A.'s energy, without costing a bundle

by Alison Hewitt

Environmental economist J.R. DeShazo’s recent research is the basis of Los Angeles’ new solar power policy. DeShazo explains how solar can provide up to a third of L.A.’s energy, without costing a bundle.

J.R. DeShazo, the director of The UCLA School of Public Affairs Luskin Center for Innovation and an associate professor of public policy, describes himself as an

environmental economist. Most recently, he turned his focus to how Los Angeles can create policies that will encourage Angelenos to turn their rooftops into a glittering sea of solar panels. His research formed the basis of L.A.’s new solar plan. DeShazo sat down with UCLA Today writer Alison Hewitt to explain how solar could save L.A. Below is an edited Q&A.

Why bother with solar energy?
Solar power is completely underutilized in Los Angeles. All the unused capacity – on business rooftops, on top of parking lots, in fields – adds up to 5.5 gigawatts, which could meet about a third of L.A.’s energy needs. California is a leader in solar, thanks to state and federal subsidies, but Los Angeles’ Department of Water and Power still gets 44 percent of its energy from coal. That’s a lot for California.

So why haven’t more rooftops begun sprouting solar panels already?
The biggest obstacle to increasing the availability of solar energy right now is the cost of solar panels. They’re still really expensive. The price is beginning to fall, but for now, government incentives are vital to make the cost of solar panels pan out.

Your solution is a program called feed-in tariffs, which would raise utility rates a little bit so the city could create a solar fund. The fund would help volunteers afford solar panels, and actually hook them up to the grid so that we could all use the power they generate. Is this a new program?

Variations on feed-in tariffs are being used around the world, from Japan and Spain to Florida and Vermont. Germany’s feed-in tariff program is the best known. But when I studied these other programs, it was discouraging. No one else’s policy was right for Los Angeles. They were all too expensive.

How did you design a solar feed-in tariff program that would be affordable?
One big change from other programs is that we have to target commercial customers, not residential customers.

What makes commercial buildings better?
Businesses have larger rooftops and parking lots where you can install large banks of solar panels. Existing feed-in tariff programs have focused on residential rooftops, but you miss all the economies of scale that way. Federal tax subsidies can help reduce the cost, but only if you’re already paying a lot of taxes, as a company would. We want to include homeowners, nonprofits, schools and hospitals, but commercial properties have to be the main target.

Why would companies want to enter the solar power business and sell clean energy to the city?
Because the feed-in tariff system would provide a “reasonable rate of return” – a small profit. Solar power is still too expensive to pan out economically for most people, but if we buy it from feed-in tariff providers the same way we buy it from utility companies, they can make their money back. The city would buy the solar power for a slightly above-market rate using its solar fund.

Why would residents agree to pay a little more for power just so their neighbors or local companies could earn a profit selling them solar power?
Solar is the only renewable energy program that produces jobs in L.A. Wind farms will be elsewhere. Geothermal energy sources are far away. But we have a massive amount of unused solar capacity right here in Los Angeles.

We’re also known as the nation’s most polluted city. A solar power program can change the way we’re perceived and how Los Angeles thinks about itself. Los Angeles has very ambitious renewable energy targets, but we’re struggling to meet them. This plan was designed to help Los Angeles meet its renewable energy goals with the lowest possible impact to ratepayers.

How is your research being used by Los Angeles?

The details are still being negotiated at City Hall, but the mayor is using our research as the basis for his solar policy.

How could the energy landscape change if solar becomes as widespread as you hope?
This could change everything. So many people will have solar that we won’t need the Department of Water and Power – well, except on rainy days. There will be a big shift from energy delivery to energy reliability. Actually, it threatens power utilities’ business model, which is centered on production and transmission, not on distribution from sources all over the city. Power generation would become a public-private partnership.

What made you decide to research solar power policy?
The Luskin Center’s focus for our first three years is on environmental sustainability. Our mission is solving regional problems, local problems where we can have the biggest impact. We identify problems that need to be solved and look for a partner, like the City of Los Angeles, who can benefit from our research.­­­­­­­

Fernando Torres-Gil Confirmed by the U.S. Senate as a Member of the National Council on Disability

Associate Dean Fernando Torres-Gil has been named to an Obama administration post as a member and vice chair of the National Council on Disability.  This marks the third term of national service in a
presidential administration for Professor Torres-Gil, who previously served under President Bill Clinton and President Jimmy Carter.
Prior to his roles at UCLA, he served as a professor of gerontology and public administration at the
University of Southern California, where he is still an adjunct professor of gerontology. Before serving in academia, Prof. Torres-Gil was the first assistant secretary for aging in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and as the staff director of the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Aging.  Prof. Torres-Gil also served as President of the American Society on Aging from 1989 to 1992.

Prof. Torres-Gil holds appointments as professor of social welfare and public policy in the UCLA School of Public Affairs and is the director of the Center for Policy Research on Aging.  Professor Torres-Gil is an expert in the fields of health and long-term care, the politics of aging, social policy, ethnicity and disability.

He is the author of six books and more than 80 articles and book chapters, including The New Aging: Politics and Change in America (1992), and Lessons From Three Nations, Volumes I and II (2007).  In recognition of his many academic accomplishments, he was elected a Fellow of the Gerontological Society of America in 1985 and the National Academy of Public Administration in 1995.  He also served as President of the American Society on Aging from 1989 to 1992 and is a member of the National Academy of Social Insurance.  He is currently a member of the San Francisco Bay Area Polio Survivors, the National Academy of Social Insurance and of the board of directors of Elderhostel, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the AARP Foundation, the Los Angeles Airport Commission, and The California Endowment.