DONATE

Category: CIP

Categories
Budgets CIP Leadership Public Participation

If It’s Business As Usual, It’s Not Reform

As Los Angeles considers how to reform its City Charter, members of the Board of Public Works made their pitch this past weekend to the Charter Commission Planning and Infrastructure Committee, in a presentation titled “Strengthening Infrastructure Governance.” Their proposal supports implementation of a five-year Capital Infrastructure Program — a much-needed step that Investing in Place has long called for. But their central recommendation, disappointingly, is to keep the current Board structure and simply expand its authority, which misses the mark.

 

They point to their frequent meetings (150 per year), their volume of contract approvals (85 percent of the City’s construction contracts), and their oversight of more than $1 billion in annual investment. But they fail to mention one critical thing: there is still no Chief of Public Works, no clear line of accountability, and no outcomes-driven leadership structure in place.

 

Let’s be honest: If you’re meeting more than 150 times per year, and you still can’t fix the sidewalks, something isn’t working. And it’s likely structural: This is not about the current people who sit on the Board; they inherited a decades-old, broken system. They meet so often because the City lacks a long-term infrastructure budget and program. Without a Capital Infrastructure Program, every decision becomes a one-off approval. Every contract, every repair, every permit moves in isolation. A CIP would radically improve efficiency, coordination, and transparency — and reduce the need for this kind of fragmented, reactive governance.

 

Right now:

  • More than 50,000 sidewalk repair requests are pending.
  • It takes 10 years to install an access ramp.
  • Streetlight repairs can take up to a year.
  • 200,000 tree wells sit empty during record heat waves.

Yet, the Board is asking us to double down on the very system that allowed this backlog to grow unchecked. Where is the accountability? Where is the outcome-focused plan?

  • Who speaks for the needs of neighborhoods?
  • Who speaks for improving City staff work plans and project delivery?
  • Who holds bureau managers accountable today?
  • How will keeping the same structure result in different outcomes?

It’s also important to name this: A group can be good at one thing and not good at another. Efficiency in processing contracts doesn’t make you a strategic leader. Those are different roles. And a well-functioning City needs both. Contract administration and executive management are not interchangeable. Let’s stop treating this like an either/or decision. What Los Angeles needs is both clear-eyed oversight and strong, accountable leadership that is focused on results.

 

At the same time, this conversation about reforming the Board of Public Works has come up before. The two Charter Reform Commissions from 1997 to 1999 considered changing how the Department of Public Works is governed. Some proposed making the Board a part-time advisory body, like other commissions, and appointing a single general manager. In the end, the Board kept its executive authority. A Director of Public Works was created, but only with limited administrative duties. The idea of real transformation was raised and quickly dismissed by those in power. Are we going to let that happen again? Or are we ready to consider every idea and commit to structural reform rooted in what neighborhoods actually need: reliable services, welcoming public spaces, and clear, accountable leadership?

 

This is what Investing in Place recommends: 

  • Amend the City Charter to establish a Chief of Public Works — a qualified, centralized executive responsible for managing the Capital Infrastructure Program and coordinating across departments. This role should not be political or ceremonial. It should be accountable, professional, and empowered to lead.
  • As for the Board of Public Works, there is room for thoughtful evolution. Rather than maintaining its current executive structure, the City could reimagine the Board as a governance board — similar to the boards that oversee the Port of LA, the Department of Water and Power, or the Airports Department (LAWA). These boards provide oversight, set policy direction, and ensure public transparency, but they do not manage day-to-day operations.

This isn’t about personalities. It’s about structure. It’s about whether LA can deliver a sidewalk fix in less than a decade. It’s about whether our public realm reflects care or neglect. It’s about whether our governance systems are built for service or for politically appointed positions with limited oversight.

 

If we want a City that works — for everyone — then we need leadership that is built to deliver.

Categories
Budgets CIP Leadership Public Participation

Who Runs LA’s Public Realm?

Charter Reform Must Deliver a Capital Infrastructure Program and the Leadership to Match

Who is in charge of public infrastructure in Los Angeles? As the City prepares to host the 2028 Olympics and faces a $1 billion budget deficit, that question has never been more urgent. Our sidewalks, streets, and parks are strained, crumbling, and governed by a fragmented system with no clear leader. The Los Angeles Charter Reform Commission will hold public meetings on planning and infrastructure on October 18 in Pacoima and October 22 at City Hall. These conversations are a critical opportunity to focus not just on what we build, but how we manage it and who is responsible.

 

What Los Angeles needs is not just more funding. It needs clarity, coordination, and leadership. The City needs a Capital Infrastructure Program (CIP), and it needs someone clearly accountable for delivering it. Everyone agrees the system is broken. Everyone agrees we need a plan. But few are asking the most important question: Who is in charge of making it happen?

 

Earlier this year, Investing in Place called for the creation of a Director of Public Works — an executive-level leader to coordinate infrastructure across departments and manage a five-year Capital Infrastructure Program. But in the months since, we have heard growing consensus that this role must carry more weight. A job this central to the future of LA’s public infrastructure needs the authority and visibility of a Chief of Public Works. This person should be a peer to the Police Chief or Fire Chief, accountable to the Mayor, trusted by the public, and hired through a national search.

 

This shift from a director to a chief underscores how serious we must be about reform. This is not just about changing org charts or moving departments around. LA’s current infrastructure system is fragmented, reactive, and stuck in short-term cycles. The City adopts its budget each June for the fiscal year beginning July 1. But by October, just four months in, staff are already writing internal memos for the following year’s budget. There is little time to assess progress or reset priorities. It becomes less about long-term planning and more about managing under pressure, motion by motion and crisis by crisis. Departments are expected to coordinate without a shared direction, because currently no long-term goals are identified or tracked.

 

A well-defined Capital Infrastructure Program would change the way Los Angeles does business. It does not require moving every department into one place. What it does require is getting everyone on the same page, working from a shared, multi-year playbook. It focuses on outcomes, not just on rearranging boxes in an org chart. Departmental changes might eventually be necessary, but that is a conversation for further down the line. First, we need structural reform that makes coordination possible and sets the City up to deliver on the basics. A CIP provides staff with a consistent and transparent work plan that is budgeted and tracked over time. It reduces the need for political workarounds or reactive motions just to get a streetlight fixed or a stop sign installed. This is how we move from chasing problems to delivering results. And this is why leadership, accountability, and Charter-level commitment must come first.

 

A Capital Infrastructure Program led by a Chief of Public Works would bring the structure and clarity Los Angeles needs. But these reforms cannot be left to departmental memos or piecemeal legislative changes. The City Charter must define the Capital Infrastructure Program and require a public, five-year plan with clearly prioritized projects, timelines, and funding sources. It must also establish the processes that guide how the plan is developed, updated, and shared with the public. This includes how projects are selected, how departments coordinate, and how progress is measured. Most importantly, the Charter must name who is responsible for delivering the plan. Los Angeles needs a Chief of Public Works to lead this work—someone with the authority to hold departments accountable and the responsibility to keep the public informed. Without this clarity, coordination will remain optional and accountability will remain elusive.

 

Some have proposed more modest changes, like merging departments or shifting responsibilities without updating the Charter. We strongly disagree. Los Angeles has spent decades trying to legislate around structural dysfunction. It has not worked. If we want long-overdue reform, we need to build it into the foundation.

 

Right now, even the City’s most high-profile planning effort — a Capital Infrastructure Program tied to the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games — has no dedicated funding and is relying on pro bono assistance. It is scheduled to be published in January, but its future remains uncertain. That speaks volumes.We cannot build a modern, well-run city on volunteer time. And we cannot leave something as critical as the City’s Capital Infrastructure Program up to the priorities of whichever mayor happens to be in office. 

 

This work must be embedded in how the City is managed. It must be defined in the Charter, staffed appropriately, and funded as a core public responsibility. That is how we build continuity, public trust, and long-term impact.

 

In the months ahead, Investing in Place will continue listening, researching, and learning to inform our full set of recommendations. But we are speaking up now because in all the Charter Reform conversations so far, one critical question is being overlooked. Who is in charge? This cannot be a rhetorical question. It must be answered in the City Charter. Our recommendation is clear: Los Angeles needs a Chief of Public Works — someone with the authority, technical expertise, and public accountability to deliver a five-year Capital Infrastructure Program.

 

As the Charter Commission begins to develop its recommendations, this is the moment to ask: Who will be responsible for leading LA’s Capital Infrastructure Program? Is it the Mayor? City Council? A Board? Or a Chief Executive? These questions are foundational, and they need to be discussed now. Report-backs from the October 22 meeting should clearly lay out the options, because the public deserves to know who will be accountable for delivering the infrastructure this city needs.

 

Public infrastructure shapes everything from mobility and climate resilience to economic opportunity and quality of life. When it fails, it is not just inefficient. It is unjust. The upcoming Charter Commission meetings are an opportunity to fix that. Let us not settle for surface fixes. Let us define the CIP. Let us name a Chief. And let us finally give Los Angeles the tools it needs to care for its public spaces and the people who use them.

Categories
Budgets CIP Leadership

Keeping Our House in Order: What LA Has Done, and What’s Next

Keeping the House in Order:  Our City as our Home

Think about the 60%+ of Angelenos who rent their homes. Statistically, you are likely one of them. Now, imagine that home – house, apartment, condo, ADU – needs repairs. The roof might leak after that last big storm, the paint is chipping a bit around the door frames, the driveway is crumbling because of tree roots, and the toilets keep running unless you jiggle the handle just the right way. 


You’re worried your aging parent who lives with you might not be able to climb the three front steps in a few years. Your concerns are not about vanity: they are about the quality of life for you and the people you love.


The reality: you have to depend on someone else, your landlord, to make a plan. They likely share your desire to improve the property, but they don’t know it like you do – especially if they don’t live nearby. After all, they don’t use the toilet. How will they know the state of the property, the living conditions, where to begin, and how to allocate their resources if they don’t ask you what you need and if they don’t keep track of everything? 

 

Should they just start working on things with no plan and without an assessment of the current state of the various needs? What should they do first? You don’t want to paint the exterior before fixing the catawampus door frames. And, what’s your vision for how you want your home to look when all is done? If your landlord doesn’t answer those questions first and get some input from you, the person who calls it home, how can they possibly make good decisions about what to do to make your home truly livable and to prioritize needs? 

 

A city is MUCH more complicated than our homes, but we still need those same things to manage and maintain our public right-of-way in Los Angeles.  

Investing in Place is calling for a Capital Infrastructure Plan (CIP) for the City of Los Angeles, to make sure we can provide the basics to make the city truly livable. We have defined a CIP in previous blog posts and reports as:

 

A long-term, unified direction for investment in our city’s infrastructure, working toward a vision for the city defined by those who live here. A CIP serves as the city’s plan for its major assets: it lists specific projects and programs along with expected costs and timelines. It encompasses all sources of funding. 

 

We often hear from people who say this type of plan already exists. 

 

It doesn’t.

 

That said, we understand the confusion. Over the past 10 years there has been a growing list of efforts to improve capital planning, interdepartmental coordination, and equity in the City of LA’s public right of way – and that’s great. 

 

But are they getting the job done?

 

How could we possibly know? There is no basis on which to judge progress.

 

  • There’s no overarching vision to compare it to. 
  • There is no inventory to know what we started with and where we are now. 
  • There’s no inclusive process to know how progress compares with what people want and need.. 
  • There’s no unified definition of how to measure equity to help determine the value of our investments. 
  • There is no one comprehensive place to see ALL THE MONEY (local, regional, state, federal), all the programs, and all the projects.

 

In this post, we offer a history of what has been done toward these efforts – and a summary of why they are not yet getting us what we need.

 

State of Street Infrastructure Programs in Los Angeles  

 

In the fall of 2017, FUSE research fellow Laila Alequresh, working in the Chief Administrative Office (CAO), released a report titled: Evaluation of the State of Street Infrastructure Programs in Los Angeles. 

 

To research and compile this detailed assessment of Los Angeles, Alequresh worked with “the entire Department of Public Works (all Bureaus and the Board), the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Department of Water and Power, this Office, the City Council, and the Mayor’s Office. Over 400 one-on-one interviews were conducted, numerous field observations were performed and the operations of both the City of Los Angeles and other municipal jurisdictions were studied to learn from their experience.”

 

This comprehensive report provides a deep analysis of how the City of Los Angeles can improve its management of the public right-of-way. When this report was released in 2017, Investing in Place reviewed, analyzed and tracked the committee meetings where the report was presented. 

 

We wrote several blog posts about the report: 

 

To quote ourselves from that last blog post: “The FUSE report recommendation we are most excited about is the reinstitution of a citywide Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Rec 2.5. Los Angeles is the only major City in the country that currently lacks a citywide capital plan. While a capital plan for all City assets could include other public facilities, including parks, libraries, or City-owned vacant lots, we can start with a multi-year plan and budget for our public right-of-way.”

 

One of the key issues that is a central theme through the entire FUSE report is “fragmentation in decision making for street related programs.”  

 

“Unlike the majority of the cities in California, or the country, programs relating to the surface of the street and activities over the street sit with two departments, DPW and DOT. By having these functions reside in multiple areas, the City takes a tactical, rather than strategic approach to managing the movement of goods and people across the City,” FUSE Report page 64.

 

As it is set up now, the City of Los Angeles has divided and decentralized responsibility for the right-of-way and programs that operate on the surface of the right-of-way among multiple departments and policymakers. 

 

The 2017 report is one of the reasons Investing in Place has developed a laser focus on supporting efforts toward a comprehensive Capital Infrastructure Plan for the City’s public right-of-way.

We need to set aside agency structural issues and focus on developing and adopting a long-term, comprehensive, budgeted plan (including local, regional, state and federal formula funds and grants) that encompasses the entire public right-of-way, based on an articulated vision for the future of Los Angeles: a 10-year Capital Infrastructure Plan.  

 

How We Got Here: A Timeline

 

To provide context and background, we’ve compiled a history of what has been happening since 2005 in the City of Los Angeles around capital infrastructure planning, interdepartmental coordination, and addressing equity in infrastructure. 

 

2005: Council adopts an annual investment target of 1% of General Fund revenues for capital and infrastructure improvements. This 1% investment target is implemented through the City’s annual Capital Improvement Expenditure Program (CIEP) budget that encompasses the acquisition, renovation or construction of new and existing Municipal Facilities and Physical Plant infrastructure. (C.F. 04-1822-S3).

 

From the 2017 FUSE report: “The City already has a policy that aims to allocate 1% of the budget to infrastructure, although this is not always met given other city priorities and macro-economic factors.” page 110

 

2008:  The Chief Administrative Office (CAO) stopped publishing two documents related to capital improvement:  that CIEP mentioned in the previous item, and also what’s known as the Capital and Technology Improvement Policy (CTIP). 

 

Why? So far we haven’t been able to understand that. Our best guess is the recession. 

What did it do: “It (the CTIP) consisted of large investment projects underway by departments, largely around public facilities and public works. This data is not captured in the budget system so departments were requested to submit a list of projects for the CIP book. 

 

The book served as a central source for a list of capital projects, but came short of including all city departments. Furthermore, it served as a repository of projects, but it did not serve as a true capital expenditure plan which typically outlays capital investments according to city policy. Many projects included in the CIP book were bond or special funded.” FUSE Report page 105.

 

2011: Street and Transportation Projects Oversight Committee (STPOC) was established by the Council and Mayor during adoption of the 2011-12 Budget. Its stated purpose was to:

1)     Ensure that street and transportation projects are delivered in a timely manner

  1. a) Unify management and provide accountability to those Departments involved in delivering street and transportation projects; and
  2. b) Develop solutions for issues that delay the delivery of these projects.

 

Critique in 2017 FUSE report page 73:  

“While this committee brings together employees to share progress and challenges to projects, there is no equivalent planning meeting from which the project list originates. During the meeting, Bureaus and DOT present a status of current projects and challenges as appropriate. Each department and group brings their own version of a status report that includes different information.”

 

“Currently decisions on proposed projects are made on an ad-hoc basis without consideration of larger city priorities. This is particularly intensified by the many offices seeking grant opportunities on top of existing work plans. This fragmentation in decision making renders a proactive planning function more vital.”

 

October 2013:  C.F. 13-1384 Councilmembers Paul Krekorian and Bob Blumenfield introduced a motion “that the Council instruct the CAO, with the assistance of any other relevant City Departments, to create a comprehensive Capital Infrastructure Strategic Plan .” 

 

August 2015: City Council approves the planning department’s Mobility Plan 2035, “the policy foundation for achieving a transportation system that balances the needs of all road users. As an update to the City’s General Plan Transportation Element (last adopted in 1999).” From page 13 of the Mobility Plan. 

 

“Currently the Mobility Plan 2035 does not identify funding, projects, or a prioritization plan based on equity metrics. It relies on detailed maps that identify high level priorities for key streets. It has been the view that a General Plan (which requires a lengthy General Plan Amendment process and City Council approval to update) should not contain specific projects, identify funding or rank in a prioritization. These would be better contained in a Capital Infrastructure Plan (CIP) or Mobility Improvement Plan (MIP).”  From: Investing in Place, Under the Surface: The Roots of LA’s Lack of Progress Toward Safer Streets, June 2022.

 

Fall 2017: FUSE research fellow, Laila Alequresh, working in the Chief Administrative Office (CAO), released the report mentioned earlier: Evaluation of the State of Street Infrastructure Programs in Los Angeles. Top recommendations include moving the Department of Transportation into the Department of Public Works as a Bureau, similar to the existing five bureaus. The report recommends this as a way to centralize the City’s transportation and street infrastructure agencies, which often rely on each other’s separated work plans to deliver projects. This recommendation, and many others in the report are not adopted. 

 

The report also documents the need for an asset inventory and for a comprehensive plan:

  •  “Address lack of asset data, timing of maintenance activities, selection of appropriate preventative and deferred maintenance lifecycle activities and scheduling for asset upgrades by prioritizing strategic asset management activities across asset classes.” (Recommendation 2.2)
  •  “Establish guidelines for large, critical infrastructure investments by reinstituting a Citywide Capital Expenditure Plan.” (Recommendation 2.5)

November 2019: City Council approves the LADOT Mobility Investment Program (MIP). The MIP aims to establish project delivery best practices, and identify  projects that would align well with funding eligibility criteria and are based on their 2018-2021 Strategic Plan pillars – equity, safety, accessibility, sustainability. (This effort is tied to Measure M subregional program funding, which allocated funding to each of the 9 Los Angeles County Council of Governments, one of which is Central Los Angeles City.) 

 

February 2020: Mayor Garcetti issues Executive Directive 25: L.A.’s Green New Deal: Leading By Example. This includes a directive for City departments to prepare the “Public Right-of-Way Protocols” to ensure all departmental decisions regarding the use and design of the public right-of-way support goals like a reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and transportation emissions.

 

May 2020: With the formulation of the 2020-2021 City Budget, the Mayor’s Office designated social equity as a funding priority. At the same time, the City Council and Mayor adopted a revised Capital and Technology Improvement Policy (CTIP), which includes an updated Capital and Technology Improvement Expenditure Program (CTIEP),* and puts this in motion for the first time since 2008. This included increasing the minimum investment target of General Fund revenues for capital and infrastructure improvements from 1% to 1.5% — with a goal of increasing to 2% of General Fund revenue for capital and technology improvements starting in Fiscal Year 2021–22. 

 

Who decides what gets on the CTIEP list? Ultimately, the decision is made by the City Council when the annual budget is considered. For what goes into the recommended CTIEP, that is a combination of CAO and Mayor’s Office leadership based on each department’s budget submittal.

 

*Our understanding of the difference between these frustratingly similar acronyms: CTIP (Capital and Technology Improvement Program) is the term CAO uses for the overall capital program, while CTIEP (Capital and Technology Improvement Expenditure Program) is how CAO describes the CTIP’s budget.

 

November 2020: The Controller’s Equity Index is released. Controller’s Equity Index was released in November 2020 based on the 2010 Census Tract; Cal Enviro 3.0; and 2018 American Community Survey.

 

January 2021: Council motion submitted to develop a plan for a City Capital Infrastructure Program to address equity. (C.F. 21-0039)

 

From the motion: “The City’s infrastructure investment is done on an ad-hoc basis and often the critical infrastructure needs in low income communities are ignored. The city must take a more unified and holistic approach to planning for infrastructure improvements to ensure equity for all neighborhoods. This includes assessing deficits in neighborhoods and creating a plan and prioritization list for addressing them.”

 

This motion elevated the continued call to take a unified approach to addressing infrastructure through an equitable investment strategy, which starts with assessing deficits and acknowledging historic disinvestment. This motion recognized that all neighborhoods in Los Angeles are not starting from the same place.

 

May 2021: The Board of Public Works approves the Public Right-of-Way Protocols, which formally establish safety, climate action, and equity as the three guiding principles for departments’ work in the public right-of-way. It is signed by the general managers of LADOT, Public Works Bureaus – Street Services (aka StreetsLA), Engineering, Sanitation, Street Lighting, Contract Administration) – and the Department of City Planning. 

 

November 2021: Resulting from the council actions in May 2020, the City restarts the Capital and Technology Expenditure Plan (CTIEP) and publishes its first expenditure plan since 2008. Projects that were included in the City’s annual FY22 budget book are folded into the CTIEP. 

    • We have demonstrated that the City’s annual budgeting process is limited and not getting outcomes the city’s infrastructure needs. So, if the CTIEP is pulling from that, it’s not a comprehensive needs-based document. 
    • Because the annual city budget books do not include all grants and state and federal funding, the CTIEP is a limited, incomplete scope of projects.
    • And from the FUSE 2017 Report page 105: “a true capital expenditure plan which typically outlays capital investments according to city policy” Evaluation of the State of Street Infrastructure Programs in Los Angeles.  Based on our research, the CTIEP (expenditure plan) does not address this. 

December 2021: Based on the January 2021 Council motion submitted to develop a plan for a City Capital Infrastructure Program to address equity* (C.F. 21-0039), the Office of Chief Administrative Office (CAO) recommends creating a new division: Equity, Performance Management and Innovation Division. 

*Important to note, the CAO’s office leads on multiple initiatives around racial justice and equity in the City.

 

January 2022: The Bureau of Engineering (BOE) is leading an effort to develop guidelines for equity in infrastructure.

“The Infrastructure Equity Scorecard Pilot Project launched with the City’s Bureau of Engineering as a tool to guide investment in infrastructure with an understanding of equity, increasing access, system quality and long-term livability for communities that need it most. Following an environmental scan of related efforts, critical social, environmental and built environment criteria were identified for determining priority neighborhoods for investment. The work will result in an Infrastructure Equity Scorecard to test future projects against strategic equity-focused priorities of the City.” From the Mayor’s Fund for LA

January 2022: To build on the Public Right-of-Way Protocols approved in May 2021, the Board of Public Works approves a new plan to improve coordination among City departments that do work in the public right-of-way: the “Interdepartmental Memorandum of Understanding: Improving Project Planning and Delivery in the Public Right of Way.”  

 

August 2022:  The Healthy Streets L.A. Ballot Initiative is certified by the City Clerk, and City Council unanimously votes to put it to voters in a special election on March 5, 2024. 

 

October 2022: Report back from the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA) on the “Mobility Plan (MP 2035) Implementation and City Mobility Plan Street Improvement Measures.”

The CLA was directed by City Council to provide a response to:

  • MP2035 Status and Implementation 
  • Departmental Coordination and Project Oversight
  • Capital Planning Activities
  • Community Engagement and Outreach 

Key Recommendations from the CLA that the Council include:

  • Incorporate MP2035 implementation in the Annual City Budget Process 
  • Request the Mayor incorporate above funding requests in FY24 budget 
  • Instruct LADOT, Department of Public Works with assistance from CAO to report back on work being done by existing working groups (attachment 5) 

Attachment 5: Interdepartmental Working Groups 

  • Streets Working Groups 
  • Streets and Transportation Projects Oversight Committee)
  • Street Reconstruction/Vision Zero Program (Complete Streets Executive Steering Committee)
  • Sidewalk Repair Program (Executive Steering Committee)
  • Mayor’s Interdepartmental Memorandum of Understanding Oversight Committee
  • Bus Speed and Reliability Working Group
  • Street Renewal Management Group
  • Other Coordination Efforts 
  • STAP
  • City partnering with Metro on First/Last Mile
  • City partnering with Metro on Bike Share

October 2022: Responding to Social Equity Motion (C.F. 21-0039): The staff from the division of Equity in the Chief Administrative Office presented to the Budget and Finance Committee) on Equity Prioritization within City’s Capital and Technology Improvement Expenditure Program. (Link to meeting video) 

 

Council Committee members: Bob Blumenfield, Monica Rodriguez and Paul Krekorian raised multiple questions.  For example, Blumenfield pointed out that qualitative data for investments is important in gauging project effectiveness, and also that geography isn’t the only parameter of equity, raising the example of how bus shelter infrastructure is inherently an equity project regardless of geography. Rodriguez brought up  that there was no policy determination instructing the CAO to utilize the Controller’s equity index, suggesting this decision was somewhat arbitrary.

 

Council Committee members seemed to arrive at consensus that the CAO still has a lot of work to do before they will produce something that City Council will approve of. Almost all Councilmembers acknowledged that the CAO has a tall task before them, but also that measuring equity in public infrastructure projects is crucial to correcting historical disinvestment

 

Time 1:14:22 Council President Krekorian pushes back on CAO’s equity analysis: “We’ve given them very little guidance in what we want to see come out of this. And the other part of that, we’re just talking about CTIEP here, when there are many different sources of city investments in physical infrastructure. There are all sorts of other things that may or may not be included in the CTIEP,” …… “I’m not very satisfied with where we are now, but I put the blame on us rather than the CAO’s office.  

 

We have more policymaking to do to determine what we want our outcomes to be. What we want the direction of our investments to be.”

 

Where Do We Go From Here?

As noted in the intro, it’s impossible to assess where we are, when:  

  • There’s no overarching vision to compare it to. 
  • There is no inventory to know what we started with and where we are now. 
  • There’s no inclusive process to know how progress compares with what people want. 
  • There’s no unified definition of how to measure equity to help determine the value of our investments. 
  • There is no one comprehensive place to see ALL THE MONEY (local, regional, state, federal), all the programs, and all the projects

Investing in Place is currently working in creating the inventory, and ultimately creating a Capital Infrastructure Plan that is based on a vision, informed by the inventory, inspired through an inclusive process, prioritized based on equity, and comprehensive enough to see all funding, all projects, all timelines in one place – made publicly available. 

hello@investinginplace.org

Instagram Youtube Linkedin

Stay up to date on our work!

Sign up for our newsletter

Site Credits

© Investing in Place. All Rights Reserved.

New Title

New Name

New Bio

Estolano Advisors

Richard France

Richard France assists clients with strategic planning, visioning, and community and economic development. He is a strategic planner at Estolano Advisors, where he has been involved in a variety of active transportation, transit-oriented development, climate change resiliency, and equitable economic development projects. His work in active transportation includes coordinating a study to improve bike and pedestrian access to transit oriented districts for the County of Los Angeles, and working with the Southern California Association of Governments to host tactical urbanism events throughout the region. Richard also serves as a technical assistance provider for a number of California Climate Investment programs, including the Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities, Transformative Climate Communities, and Low Carbon Transit Operations programs. He has also taught at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs. Richard received a Bachelor of Environmental Design from the University of Colorado at Boulder, and his M.A. in Urban Planning from UCLA.

Accelerator for America, Milken Institute

Matt Horton

Matt Horton is the director of state policy and initiatives for Accelerator for America. He collaborates with government officials, impact investors, and community leaders to shape infrastructure, job creation, and equitable community development efforts. With over fifteen years of experience, Matt has directed research-driven programs and initiatives focusing on housing production, infrastructure finance, access to capital, job creation, and economic development strategies. Previously, he served as the director of the California Center at the Milken Institute, where he produced research and events to support innovative economic policy solutions. Matt also has experience at the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), where he coordinated regional policy development and planning efforts. He holds an MA in political science from California State University, Fullerton, and a BA in history from Azusa Pacific University. Additionally, Matt serves as a Senior Advisor for the Milken Institute and is involved in various advisory boards, including Lift to Rise and WorkingNation.

UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies

Madeline Brozen

Madeline is the Deputy Director of the UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies at the Luskin School of Public Affairs. She oversees and supports students, staff, and faculty who work on planning and policy issues about how people live, move, and work in the Southern California region. When not supporting the work of the Lewis Center community, Madeline is doing research on the transportation patterns and travel needs of vulnerable populations in LA. Her recent work includes studies of low-income older adults in Westlake, public transit safety among university students, and uncovering the transportation needs of women, and girls in partnership with Los Angeles public agencies. Outside of UCLA, Madeline serves as the vice-chair of the Metro Westside Service Council and enjoys spending time seeing Los Angeles on the bus, on foot, and by bike.

Office of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass

Luis Gutierrez

Luis Gutierrez, works in the Office of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, as the Director of Energy & Water in the Office of Energy and Sustainability (MOES), Luis oversees issues related to LA’s transition to clean energy, water infrastructure, and serves as the primary liaison between the Mayor’s Office and the Department of Water and Power. Prior to joining MOES, Luis managed regulatory policy proceedings for Southern California Edison (SCE), focusing on issues related to equity and justice. Before joining SCE, Luis served as the Director of Policy and Research for Inclusive Action for the City, a community development organization dedicated to economic justice in Los Angeles. Luis holds a BA in Sociology and Spanish Literature from Wesleyan University, and a Master’s Degree in Public Administration from Cal State LA.

kim@investinginplace.org

Communications Strategist

Kim Perez

Kim is a writer, researcher and communications strategist, focused on sustainability, urban resilience and safe streets. Her specialty is taking something complex and making it clear and compelling. Harvard-trained in sustainability, she won a prize for her original research related to urban resilience in heat waves—in which she proposed a method to help cities identify where pedestrians spend a dangerous amount of time in direct sun, so they can plan for more equitable access to shade across a city.

jessica@investinginplace.org

(213) 210-8136

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Jessica Meaney

For over almost two decades, Jessica has led efforts in Los Angeles to promote inclusive decision-making and equitable resource allocation in public works and transportation funding. Jessica’s current work at Investing in Place is grounded in the belief that transparent and strategic prioritization of public funds can transform Los Angeles into a city where inclusive, accessible public spaces enrich both livability and well-being. As a collaborator and convener, Jessica plays a role in facilitating public policy conversations and providing nuanced insights into the interplay of politics, power, and process on decision-making and fiscal allocations.