Los Angeles on HuffingtonPost.com

William Lucas Walker: Prop 8: The Color Of Pee-Pee

2012-02-10T23:28:00Z

Our son was 3 years old when Prop 8 passed, too young to understand what was going on but just the right age to articulate his thoughts on those yellow "Yes on 8" signs he saw everywhere. They were, he announced, "the color of pee-pee."

On some level, he got what was happening to his family.

Six months earlier, on May 14, 2008, my children and I had helped their Papa celebrate his 40th birthday. Since Kelly was born here in Los Angeles, we took him on a sort of "This Is Your Life" driving tour. We visited the hospital where he was born, his childhood home in Sylmar, his kindergarten and elementary schools. After that we drove to Pasadena so we could show the kids the spot where Kel and I had met, in the courtyard of All Saints Episcopal Church. Growing up, Kelly's mom had told him that if he was lucky, he'd meet the person he was going to marry at church. As usual, she was right, though I doubt she pictured a bride with my testosterone levels.

The next morning, May 15, a late, unexpected birthday gift arrived. It wasn't the sort of thing you could wrap or slip into a card. It was too big. Huge, in fact. The California Supreme Court had just handed down a landmark verdict: Kelly and I were no longer banned from getting married. That night, after nine years and two children, I was finally able to propose to the love of my life. There were tears, so it was fitting that our daughter captured the moment on the video camera we've used to record every moist event in our family's life together, from her sticky birth to the time she threw up on her grandfather.

Kelly insisted that we marry the first day such unions would become legal, June 17, before -- as he so presciently put it -- "they try to take it away from us." Bastards. That's what I was thinking. Our children will no longer be bastards! Our plan to correct this problem was to take the kids to the county courthouse, pay for our license, and get hitched then and there. But our next-door neighbor had other ideas.

"You finally get the right to marry, and you're not having a wedding?" cried Judy. "You have to have a wedding!" I told her we were on a tight timetable -- three weeks -- and besides, a wedding wasn't in our budget. Judy was hearing none of it. "We'll help you," she said. "We'll make it happen."

"Who'll make it happen?" I asked.

"Your neighbors. The Ladies of La Punta Drive!" I wondered by it was so important for her to see us get married, so I asked, and she answered: "Because we love your family, and we want you to have what we have." A moment I'll never forget.

So the Ladies of La Punta kicked into high gear. Mary, an attorney, forever reversed my low opinion of lawyers by baking us a spectacular, three-tier wedding cake. Alexa augmented a $100 flower budget by grabbing a machete and taking to the street like some feral florist, whacking down enough greenery to turn our living room into a lovely, low-cost garden. As for Judy, she took pictures with a broken wrist, while Lisa handled the nuptial food, demonstrating what every parent of a pregnant bride has known for years: there's nothing like Costco for a quickie wedding reception. Neil, our daughter's godfather and an Episcopal priest, officiated. Our attendants were our children: Elizabeth, then 7, and James, 2-and-a-half. Elizabeth called herself our groomsmaid and never looked more radiant. Or proud. James froze on the aisle, as 2-year-olds have done throughout time. Still, he managed to strew a path of leaves for his parents as they strode toward a day they thought would never arrive.

Nothing can compete with the birth of your kids for sheer depth of joy, but our wedding day was a close second. Kelly and I repeated the vows we'd made to each other at a religious blessing of our union at All Saints Church in 2001. Only this time we were able to use the words "lawfully wedded." We were married, in the eyes of our god, our state, our friends and family, but, most importantly, our children.

The reception rocked. Way back in 1995, I had written the gay wedding episode of Roseanne, the first time a national television audience had witnessed such a(n illegal) thing. At his sitcom reception, Martin Mull, who played one of the grooms, looked aghast at the wedding cake topper Roseanne had concocted for him. She explained herself in her trademark nasal whine: "I couldn't find anything with two grooms, so I ripped off the bride and stuck on one of D.J.'s action heroes from Pocahontas."

I loved that cake topper and had kept it as a souvenir. When Mary told me about the three-level, 18-million-calorie confection she planned to bake, I dug the topper out of storage. And once again, these two little men, plastic but clearly meant for each other, took their place on the frosting, this time as a legally married couple: Mr. and Mr. Captain John Smith. Our children thought it was funny. And it was.

But as Elizabeth and James watched our wedding day unfold, what neither of them realized was this: though it may have seemed to be about us, this day was very much about the two of them. Marriage has a way of providing kids with a sense of stability most children take for granted. Now our kids no longer had to stand on a playground wondering why everybody else's parents could be married but theirs could not.

Five months after our happy day, the "Yes on 8" campaign convinced over half of California's electorate that my family's having equal access to marriage is a Very Bad Thing. I heard them say, a lot, "Why do you need to be married? You guys get the same rights and protections as marriage. It's just called domestic partnerships; really, it's exactly the same," as if pointing in the far distance and saying, "See, there it is, way over there. Squint." I grew up in the segregated South, and those arguments sounded awfully familiar. I was in a domestic partnership for eight years; I've been married for five months. The water does not taste the same.

In the final weeks leading up to the election, as I was driving Elizabeth home from school, we passed a newspaper stand on which someone had plastered a "Yes on 8" bumper sticker. She became visibly agitated, as she did whenever she saw a "Yes on 8" yard sign. She asked if I would stop the car so that we could scrape off the bumper sticker. I explained to her that we live in America and there's a thing called freedom of speech, which means everyone has the right to express their opinion, as long as they're not hurting anyone. She started to cry, saying, "But they are. They're hurting our family. Why do all those people want to hurt our family?" It was one of my lowest moments as a father.

Prop 8 passed that November. Elizabeth's second-grade class had been following the presidential election, so she knew about percentages and majorities. What she was unable to wrap her mind around was the fact that over half the voters in California thought we had no legal right to be a family.

It was months before she told me about the nightmares she'd been having, dreams of people with yellow signs coming to our house with torches, trying set fire to our home. I wish I were making this up. Sadly, no. Thanks, National Organization for Marriage. To you I would say this: if, as your misleading campaign ads bleated for months, you main goal is to protect children, how could you possibly do this to mine?

We got married that very warm, first possible evening in June, not to be part of history or to make some political statement, but because we're a family and want what's best for our kids. Luckily, California's Supreme Court subsequently held that our marriage, and the other 18,000 marriages performed during those five months, had been entered into in good faith and could not be evaporated by a vote. But what about the other families, the ones who weren't lucky enough to marry when they had the chance?

Even with Tuesday's court ruling finding Prop 8 unconstitutional, with the inevitable stays and delays as the case likely works its way to the Supreme Court, for months and probably years we'll have California kids standing on playgrounds wondering why they can't have married parents like their friends.

This post is the first in a series of Spilled Milk columns by William Lucas Walker that chronicle his journey through parenthood.

Actress In Racist Campaign Ad Reportedly Identified

2012-02-10T23:19:37Z

The young woman who starred in a much-maligned Senate campaign ad targeting Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and released by Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) has reportedly been identified as Lisa Chan, a 21-year-old California native.

The blog Angry Asian Man, which first reported the details, reports that Chan is a part-time actress and model -- a beauty pageant contestant and winner, in fact -- UC Berkeley graduate, founder of a non-profit for under-served youth, and now star of the most controversial ad so far of the 2012 election cycle.

The ad, which aired in Michigan on Super Bowl Sunday and was removed from circulation later in the week, shows a woman, reportedly played by Chan, bicycling through a landscape of rice paddies dressed in khakis and a yellow shirt -- apparently the reason for an unfortunate typo that labeled her as "yellowgirl" in an html code.

As she approaches the camera, the actress thanks "Michigan Senator Debbie Spend-it-Now" for supposedly spending too much money, in turn helping the Chinese economy.

"Your economy get very weak. Ours get very good," she says in broken and stereotypically accented English.

Chan hasn't commented on her reported role in the ad, but she has apparently been affected by the backlash. From the Angry Asian Man blog:

From what I understand, she's now proactively trying to address and undo her role in the racist messaging of Hoekstra's campaign, and has partnered with a community organization to release a statement with her version of the story.

The original ad is below:

Rob Perks: House Transportation Bill Would Worsen Traffic

2012-02-10T22:12:52Z

House Republicans have an opportunity to pass transportation legislation that would help create new jobs, fix our roads and bridges, and improve our commutes. What have they decided to do instead? Load up their version of a transportation bill (HR. 7) with an ideological wish list that will prevent Congress from passing a measure that could provide real transportation improvements.

Unfortunately, House Republican leaders are doing exactly what they promised they wouldn’t do. In their “Pledge to America,” after taking control of the House of Representatives, the GOP promised it would not package unpopular legislation with must-pass bills. They promised they would take up major legislation one piece at a time, and not sneak in politically motivated provisions. They’ve done the exact opposite with the transportation bill.

Among many reasons, NRDC strongly opposes the legislation because it is a blatant bait-and-switch to boost drilling off our shores and even in the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But another big problem with this partisan "poison pill" bill is that it essentially declares war on public transportation.

Everyone should be alarmed that the House transportation bill threatens to derail dedicated funding for mass transit throughout the United States. Currently, roughly 3 cents of every 18 cents collected from the federal tax on a gallon of gasoline goes to fund light rail, subways and buses in cities and towns all across the country. Since President Reagan created this cost-share arrangement in 1982, approximately $1 out of every $5 in federal funding has gone to transit, with the rest spent on highways. House Republicans are now seeking to undo the Reagan legacy by restricting gas tax revenues to highways and leaving transit projects to compete for shrinking general funds.

Less Transit, More Traffic

Make no mistake: It is a really bad idea to slash transit funding, not just for riders who rely on that system but for drivers too. After all, less money for transit means fewer alternatives to travel than by car. So the House bill perversely promotes congestion on our roads and highways. Washington Post political satirist Tom Toles captured this problem perfectly in his cartoon today.

In her blog "Seven Fatal Flaws in the House Highway Bill," Donna Cooper noted increased congestion as a big problem:

Increased access to affordable and reliable mass transit is a certain way to deal with congestion. Millions of Americans already spend the equivalent of a week of work or more a year sitting in traffic.[1] Frustration with gridlock is a raging bipartisan complaint. The late Paul Weyrich, a central player in the forming of the Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council, said in 2009, “Conservatives are just as tired as everybody else of sitting stuck in traffic.”[2]

Yet this bill terminates the Reagan legacy of using a small portion of gas tax revenues to pay for mass transit. To assuage the pro-transit outrage, the bill cynically establishes a separate four-year fund for transit improvements. But that measure has been widely attacked by business leaders, mayors, and others who looked behind the curtain and found out that the special transit fund is far too small and worse yet dependent on imaginary annual appropriations of federal general-fund dollars. It’s a farce to think that general-fund dollars will be allocated for transit when the federal deficit is the Republicans’ favorite cudgel.

The inevitable result of this bill will be more Americans stuck in their cars, higher cost for American businesses that will pay truckers even more to sit in traffic, and higher fares for transit- and rail-reliant commuters.

A book I read recently -- Moving Minds: Conservatives and Public Transportation -- reinforces why transit is a non-partisan solution, not a partisan problem:

If transit suddenly ceased operating in any large American city, commuting would become almost impossible. Rush-hour traffic is already horrendous, to the point where in places like Los Angeles and Washington...the rush hour itself has become rush many-hours, even "permanent rush hour." In urban areas, there isn't any place to put more higways...If all the people now on trains, subways, light rail lines and buses suddenly joined the rush-hour drive, getting to work might take as much time as the job itself.

Consider this: every rail car has the potential to remove up to 125 passengers from our roadways (and every bus full of passengers removes 40 cars from traffic). Therefore, the more people who have access to trains -- as well as buses, carpool lanes, bike baths and walkable communities -- the less they have to hit the roads in their cars to get where they want to go. But aside from traffic reduction, there are several other societal benefits of transit:

More transit means more jobs: Spending on transit makes economic sense because every $1 invested in public transportation generates approximately $6 in economic returns. In fact, over 300,000 jobs and $30.8 billion in economic activity is supported through transportation spending in the recent congressional appropriations bill -- including some 6,200 jobs in Virginia.
More transit makes us more secure: Giving people the freedom to travel other than by automobile is good for national security because less driving helps lessen America's dependence on oil. On average each person riding transit rather than driving alone in a car saves 200 gallons of gasoline a year. It's worth noting that the House bill, by boosting oil drilling, would only feed our nation's fossil fuel addiction.
More transit means less pollution: Simply put, reducing the distance and frequency people may be forced to drive reduces dirty, harmful, unhealthy tailpipe exhaust that pollutes the air and cook the planet. Federally mandated vehicle-pollution controls help, but more cars on the road idling on congested roadways will drive up pollution and make it harder for all us to breath clean air.

NRDC is joined by environmental advocates, transportation experts, fiscal conservatives and even right-wing think tanks in calling on Congress to kill this bill for a variety of reasons. The threat to federal transit funding is a major concern of NRDC and many others who are fighting the bill. Feel free to visit our website to learn more about the bill and to take action. You can also make your voice heard by dialing 1-877-573-7693 and urging your representative to vote NO on HR.7.

This post was first published on NRDC's Switchboard blog.

LA Weekend Calendar: Getting More Than One Kind Of Action This Weekend

2012-02-10T21:31:00Z

FRIDAY
Pizza Pizza!
What: A special meal cooked with love at home is possibly the best date a person (especially a woman) can ask for. And pizza is one of the most versatile dishes out there. So if you know how to make dough, have countless different meals (and dates) at your fingertips. Grilled shrimp and roasted eggplant pizza with bell pepper puree, anyone? At this cooking class with Master Chef Eric, you'll get creative with the endless cheese, sauce and toppings possibilities. Eat up!
When: Friday, Feb. 10, 7-9:30pm, $85 per person
Where: 2366 Pelham Ave., LA, CA

Shhh, It's A "Secret" Menu
What: An edible exhibit? Oooh yeah. Pacific Standard Time's Art As An Appetizer is a "collision between art and food that nourishes the mind, body and spirit." What does that mean? It means that restaurants Playa and Rivera are offering a "secret menu" from now until March 31. It is a three-course menu that costs $37 and is the delicious genius of chef John Sedlar, artist Ron Cooper and mixologist Julian Cox. If you're not convinced, just look at these pictures, and you will be salivating... in an artistic kind of way.
When: Friday, Feb. 10, see Playa and Rivera websites for hours.
Where: Playa, 7360 Beverly Blvd., LA, CA & Rivera, 1050 South Flower St., LA, CA

We Heart Bikes
What: Everyone loves CicLAvia, the event that shuts down 10 miles of LA so bikers and walkers can take over the streets. So come share some V-Day love for the event as this holiday party and benefit. Highlights include speed dating so you can find a Valentine, and an auction that will include a prize date with "bodacious biker babes." There will be drinks, food, a photo booth and music by DJ Survive, Alanna Lin and Fascinoma. All the ingredients for a "love"ly time! Hat tip to blogger and friend, Bruce Chan, for this one.
When: Friday, Feb. 10, 7-10pm, Free
Where: Atwater Crossing, 3245 Casitas Avenue, LA, CA

SATURDAY
Indulgence
What: Don't know what to get your Valentine this year? You can't go wrong with great food and quality time together on the nice side of town. Six Taste is offering an "Indulgence" food tour through Beverly Hills. Treats on Saturday's menu include spaghetti, wine, truffle popcorn, lamb ribs, calamari, agnolotti, penne oxtail, spicy Maya hot cholocate, tequenos, cheese tasting and chocolate truffles. Click here for Sunday's menu and a list of all of the stops. Treat your sweet!
When: Saturday, Feb. 11 & Feb. 12, 10am or 2pm both days, $125/person, 21+, pre-registration required
Where: Beverly Canon Gardens, Montage Beverly Hills, 225 North Canon Dr., Beverly Hills, CA

Get Your Craft On
What: This kind of weaving is not for your grandma, unless she's experimental. The Los Angeles Craft and Folk Art Museum (CAFAM) is using the special exhibit NOW on display as a reason to craft this Saturday and gain inspiration from a pro. Maximo Gonzalez's exhibit, "Playful," consists of "installations, mural and weavings made from global currencies, videos, symbolic objects and performance." CAFAM's Holly Jerger's "Craftlab" workshop will teach the basics of weaving while experimenting with a range of unusual materials, just like Gonzalez. "Over and under" gets rejuvenated.
When: Saturday, Feb. 11, 1:30-3:30pm, $5 (includes museum admission)
Where: CAFAM, 5814 Wilshire Boulevard, LA, CA

Music, Redefined
What: When we see very different genres being claimed on a band's Myspace page ("Metal/Classical/Samba"), we think "Yeah right." But Kid Infinity really is an amalgam of punk, electro, hip hop, pop... and more (see video below). When KI's playing, the crowd is dancing and shouting the lyrics (you'll catch right on) and the rapper is on the ground, in the mix with his fans. As if their music wasn't original enough, this band has pioneered 3D visuals in live performances (picture everyone dancing with the funny glasses). This Saturday, KI will do its thang at The Handbag Factory, a new downtown live venue that triples as a recording studio and art gallery. In addition to KI, the speakers will blast equally edgy acts including MC Draperies, Telle Eyed Specs, VCR Monster, Peg Leg Love and DJ Ham On Everything.
When: Saturday, Feb. 11, 9pm-2am, $7 after 11pm, 18+
Where: (the) Handbag Factory, 1336 S. Grand Ave, LA, CA

SUNDAY
Snow For A Cause!
What: If you're like us, you'll take any excuse to get out of town. What if your excuse was a good cause? Bingo. Join Stoked Mentoring nonprofit, which introduces outdoor sports to at-risk youth, for a day on the slopes. They need volunteers for the day to teach kids how to snowboard. And you'll be treated well with provided equipment and lunch. Exercise + volunteering + vacation in one. Check out iVolunteer's website for more information.
When: Sunday, Feb. 12, 6:45am for bus pick-up, Free
Where: Meet at Stoked Los Angeles Headquarters, 1930 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 509, LA, CA

A Love Story
What: Going to the movies is a timeless date option. But let's face it: Star Wars isn't very romantic. Which is why the Arclight is showing the following classic romance movies in 35mm: "The Philadelphia Story" (1940), "The African Queen" (1951), "Sabrina" (1954) and "Dirty Dancing" (1987). Completing the evening: champagne and chocolate-covered strawberries available in the theater cafe. Now that's romantic!
When: Sunday, Feb. 12 & Tuesday, Feb. 14, See websites below for times and prices.
Where: Hollywood Arclight, Pasadena Arclight and Sherman Oaks Arclight

Good News For State's Juvenile Offenders

2012-02-10T21:28:59Z

This article comes to us courtesy of California Watch.

By Michael Montgomery

County governments have invested nearly a half-billion dollars over the past 15 years to modernize juvenile lockups and now have the capacity to absorb offenders currently housed in the state's youth prisons, if those facilities are closed, a new study contends.

The report [PDF] by the San Francisco-based Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice offers fresh data in support of Gov. Jerry Brown's renewed push to shutter the state's three remaining youth prisons as part of a historic realignment of California's criminal justice system.

A total of $455,779,103 was allocated to renovate county facilities, according to the report, with 96 percent going to new maximum-security juvenile halls in 41 jurisdictions.

"These state-of-the-art buildings stand in stark contrast to the dilapidated and archaic 19th-century relics that DJF (Division of Juvenile Facilities) utilizes to house its remaining wards," reads the report. "The review demonstrates that local secure county-based facilities currently surpass existing state youth correctional facilities in architectural design and structural integrity."

Counties that allocated the most money for construction of juvenile facilities as of November 2007 include:

San Mateo:21,105,000
Fresno:24,120,000
San Bernardino:27,187,727
Alameda:33,113,670
San Diego:39,198,000
Ventura:40,500,000
Los Angeles:49,465,625

As a measure of progress, the study highlights facilities in Alameda and San Francisco counties that are "easily adaptable for long-term commitments as all necessary programming space exists on-site."

Alameda County's juvenile justice center includes 24-hour secure housing, full educational services, on-site community-based programming and a specialized mental health treatment unit, according to the report.

Under a plan [PDF] released in January as part of Brown's budget blueprint, the Division of Juvenile Justice would stop accepting new admissions by 2013 and the entire system would shut down in 2014. The Brown administration pledged to hand counties $10 million and allow up to a year to manage the transition.

But there is opposition to the plan. Some youth advocates, judges and district attorneys contend that many counties do not have the resources to manage youths convicted of violent crimes like murder and rape and might be forced to send such offenders to state lockups. What's more, as a result of a 2004 court settlement, California already has spent millions of dollars upgrading its youth prisons and invested heavily in special programming.

Still, some counties have managed to stop sending high-risk offenders to the state by housing them away from the general population and developing specialized programming.

The report contends that even county facilities with no long-term programming in place "serve as a significantly improved living environment for youth who would otherwise face custodial time in the extremely isolated and dilapidated state facilities."

The state's youth prison population has dropped to fewer than 1,100 from more than 10,000 in the mid-1990s. While classified as juveniles, 59 percent of the offenders housed in state youth prisons are between 19 and 25, according to state figures. Annual costs at state institutions have topped $200,000 per ward.

Michael Montgomery is an investigative reporter for California Watch, a project of the non-profit Center for Investigative Reporting. Find more California Watch stories here.

Meet Miramonte's New Princpal

2012-02-10T20:53:45Z

Perhaps the most important member of Miramonte Elementary's brand-new staff is the new principal, 66-year-old Dolores Palacio. Her immediate goal is to calm the nerves of parents -- some who are keeping their kids home -- after two teachers were arrested on sex abuse allegations.

Palacio was a teacher from 1974-1986 and a principal of two schools from 1988-2004, NBC reports. Although she retired in 2004, she has helped train principals since then and also reached out to help Martin Sandoval, Miramonte's principal when the teacher sex abuse allegations arose.

She said of the new staff of teachers at Miramonte, "These teachers were [previously] laid off because of the budget crisis in the past... not because of their experience. All of them were investigated and reviewed and their personnel folders were examined. They are all qualified and experienced," the Los Angeles Times reports.

In addition to new teachers, Palacio added that students will have bilingual social workers available throughout the year, ABC reports. She confirmed, "We are totally transparent. We are totally open. I welcome [parents] to the school anytime. This morning I invited them to stay in the classrooms as long as they felt comfortable."

Mary J. Blige's Packed LA Show

2012-02-10T20:33:31Z

LOS ANGELES -- Mary J. Blige brought out plenty of emotion as she performed in front of a packed house to support one of her favorite charities.

Blige sang several of her most famous songs, including "No More Drama" and "Family Affair" at the Avalon nightclub on Thursday night to support the (RED) campaign that raises money to fight AIDS and HIV. She has supported the charity for years.

The singer gave a few emotional speeches where she talked about the importance of giving back.

"All those people we are rocking for are going to be just fine," Blige said before performing her hit single "Just Fine."

After her set, musician Skrillex acted as DJ, playing in a VIP area at the Belvedere-sponsored pre-Grammy event that also included singer Kelis, actress Malin Akerman and Oscar winner Forest Whitaker.

The Grammys will be held Sunday at the Staples Center in Los Angeles.

___

Online:

___

8 California School Workers On Leave During Student Abuse Probe

2012-02-10T19:32:47Z

REDWOOD CITY, Calif. -- Eight school district employees were placed on leave during an investigation of their handling of allegations that a special education teacher kicked and slapped students.

Alexia Bogdis, the special education teacher, is facing nine misdemeanor battery and child cruelty charges.

She is accused of slapping and kicking the stomach of one 4-year-old student, and twisting the wrist, kicking the chair and withholding food and drink from another student between December and January. Neither child was seriously injured.

The Redwood City School District is looking into whether the employees who handled the allegations followed procedure.

The employees' names and their positions were not disclosed. Calls to the district by The Associated Press were not immediately returned.

"Our internal investigation raised questions for which we need answers in order to ensure the safety of our students, which is our top priority at all times," Superintendent Jan Christensen said Thursday in a prepared statement. "We need more information to determine exactly what happened."

The district said an aide reported the suspected abuse to a deputy superintendent on Feb. 1 and was instructed to call authorities.

Bogdis, 43, was placed on administrative leave that day and turned herself into police on Feb. 4. She is free on $15,000 bail. She did not immediately return a phone message left by the AP seeking comment.

Bogdis is scheduled to appear in San Mateo County Superior Court on March 1 for arraignment.

___

So Much For Holding Polluters Responsible In California

2012-02-10T19:19:31Z

This article comes to us courtesy of California Watch.

By Corey G. Johnson

Under pressure from construction, architect and other industry groups, state legislators killed a bill that would have closed a loophole used by businesses to evade pollution lawsuits.

Sponsored by Assemblyman Warren Furutani, D-Long Beach, AB 1207 arose out of a lawsuit in Carson, where residents discovered in 2009 that for nearly five decades, their families have been exposed to dangerous levels of cancer-causing toxins emanating from their properties. There is no state law that explicitly puts time limits on pollution cases, which often are discovered decades after the toxic dumping occurs.

However, Shell Oil Co. and a local developer were able to initially get the resident lawsuit thrown out by claiming the state's 10-year time limit on "construction defect" claims had expired.

Key supporters of the Carson residents told Furutani that new legislation was needed, as other companies were using the state's construction defects time limits to escape legal responsibility for pollution-related damages.

But construction industry lobbyists argued that Furutani's bill made architects, builders and developers needlessly vulnerable to lawsuits.

The American Institute of Architects' California Council, Associated Builders and Contractors of California and 40 other groups sent a letter to Mike Feuer, D-West Hollywood, chairman of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, warning that California's weak economy was threatened by Furutani's legislation and could force business owners into "possible bankruptcy."

This bill would remove this outside limitation and thereby expand the statute of limitations on personal or real property lawsuits when there was an allegation of exposure to a hazardous material, even if it was in relation to remediation activities. In so doing, AB 1207 unnecessarily exposes a large number of industries to increased unjustified liability that may even lead to possible bankruptcy.
At a time when our economy is struggling to recover and when the state needs jobs, such an unjustified increased liability on businesses and governments is ill-advised. For these reasons we urge your "no" vote.

Three years ago, the state Department of Toxic Substances Control unearthed evidence of Carson's pollution while investigating another case. Subsequent investigations by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board have found alarming levels of cancer-causing benzene and explosive methane gas throughout the Carson neighborhood.

Shell Oil, which owned and used the land for drilling and dumping waste, sold the property in the 1960s but didn't remove the toxins before the sale. The water quality board has issued an advisory urging residents to avoid physical contact with the soil in their yards and has ordered Shell Oil to clean up the properties.

In 2009, hundreds of Carson residents filed multiple lawsuits against Shell Oil and a local developer, alleging the companies never told property owners that their homes rested atop an abandoned oil farm and chemical dumpsite. The lawsuits also accused Shell of failing to clean up the contaminated soil.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge William Highberger, an appointee of former Gov. Pete Wilson, initially rejected the residents' claims, citing the state's 10-year limit on construction defect lawsuits. He has since rescinded that ruling and the case is still ongoing.

Furutani said his bill would prevent future legal misinterpretations over pollution claims, according to a legislative analysis.

AB 1207 intends to correct a flaw in current law that could be â and currently is being â interpreted to allow corporate polluters to walk away from dangerous pollution as long as it is concealed for ten years. If the pollution is not discovered, as is often the case, for ten, twenty, thirty years or longer, the polluter gets away with it and leaves others to deal with the health and environmental ramifications.

Clearly the Legislature never intended the Statue of Repose or any other limitations be afforded to polluters or other illegal dischargers and it needs to be corrected to prevent further abuse of the system. The unscrupulous use of the Statute of Repose by polluters to protect themselves from liability undermines most environmental laws in the State of California and puts homeowners at financial and health risk.
The bill officially died last week in Feuer's committee. Feuer didn't respond to requests for comment. Furutani said he was disappointed but not deterred.

"Although this legislation would not have directly helped the residents of the Carson Carousel Tract, it would have prevented this from happening to homeowners in the future," Furutani said. "We are conducting further research for viable legislation that would ensure that polluters are held responsible to clean up toxic pollution they create, no matter how many years pass before it is discovered.â

Corey G. Johnson is an investigative reporter for California Watch, a project of the nonprofit Center for Investigative Reporting. Find more California Watch stories here.

PHOTOS: LA's Best Local Lingerie Stores

2012-02-10T18:51:00Z

Whether you're shopping for yourself or for that special sweetheart, you need not trek to the mall for leather and lace this Valentine's season. Why would you, when we are blessed with so many unique and classically-LA lingerie stores in practically every neighborhood around town?

There's a little something for every woman, whether she's the sex-bot, the romance queen, the lover of all things French or the striped-shirt-and-jeans Sunday bruncher. Herewith are our top picks for the best local lingerie shops you won't want to miss.

Peruse the slideshow below and get lost in all of the beauty LA has to offer:

Charles Garcia: Will Hispanic Voters Swing the 2012 Race?

2012-02-10T18:44:00Z

This post originally appeared on CNN.

Former Gov. Jeb Bush recently argued in an op-ed that Hispanic voters will represent the margin of victory in the 15 swing states that will decide who will win the race for the White House. Is his political intuition right? And if it is, how do both parties significantly increase their chances of winning the Hispanic vote?

Determining what qualifies as a swing state is not an exact science, but the best estimate nine months out is as follows: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

The key for political parties is registering Hispanics to vote. According to the U.S. Census, 84 percent of Hispanic registered voters reported voting in 2008. In North Carolina, not generally considered a "Hispanic state," from 2000 to 2010 the Hispanic population grew 111 percent. Between January 2008 and November 4, 2008, Hispanic voter registration in North Carolina grew by 62 percent, from 42,000 to 68,000. Obama won the state by only 14,177 votes. Since then, Hispanic voter registration in North Carolina has nearly doubled to 130,615.

According to the U.S. Census, in 2010 there were 492,330 Latinos of voting age in North Carolina, representing a clear opportunity for both parties. In a tight race, Hispanic voters could be the margin of victory in 12 of the 15 swing states. (For more state by state data, click here)

Three important points about Hispanic swing voters:

Hispanics lean Democratic, but it's not a base Democratic vote. Hispanics cast their ballots on issues and in favor of the candidates rather than for the party, much like 40 percent of the population, which is now considered independent.
Campaigns need to communicate to Hispanics in both English and Spanish. A strategic move behind President Obama winning 67 percent of Hispanic vote was his campaign's outspending McCain in the Spanish language media by five to one.
Hispanic adults are more engaged in the social Web than non-Hispanics, over-indexing as creators, critics, collectors, joiners in and spectators of social networks.

In addressing the concerns of this demographic, no candidate can ignore the issue of immigration reform, particularly when it comes to young, first-time voters. Each month 50,000 Hispanics in the United States turn 18. These young voters power Latino social networks, connecting on Facebook and tweeting voters across the country. Imagine the response when the hardworking mom or dad of these young voters is called a "criminal" by a candidate.

A recent Pew survey found that Latinos, by 91 percent, support legislation known as the Dream Act that would give legal status to illegal immigrants who earn college degrees or serve in the military for two years. Imagine the waves across social media when the Dream Act is not aggressively pursued or summarily dismissed.

And immigration -- and its power to alienate or attract voters -- is the key for both parties, not just Republicans. Yet, so far for both parties, immigration has been kryptonite. President Obama broke his promise to introduce an immigration reform bill during his first year in office. He deported 1.2 million Latinos, including 46,000 parents of American citizens. His draconian policies left thousands of frightened children languishing in foster care, which brought an onslaught of negative Spanish-language media. Heading into the presidential campaign, President Obama's approval rating among Latinos has plunged 36 points since April 2009 -- from 85 percent to 49 percent, according to a recent Pew survey.

Obama's potential opponent, Republican front-runner Mitt Romney, wants to make life so unbearable for Hispanics working here illegally that they will "self-deport." Passing apartheid-like laws to pressure Hispanic undocumented workers to leave the country is central to Romney's platform. Witness the laws passed in Alabama, Arizona and South Carolina, whose chief architect, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, happily endorsed Romney, advises the campaign and acts as a surrogate.

To win over Hispanic voters, both President Obama and the GOP nominee need to smother the kryptonite that the issue of immigration has become with a lead blanket of comprehensive immigration reform, supported by strong majorities of Hispanic swing voters and a majority of independents and the general public. Tackling this issue in a thoughtful manner is supported by strong majorities of Hispanic swing voters and a majority of the general public. Only then can the conversation between Hispanic voters and the candidate really begin.

In the 2008 election there was a 30 percent swing of Hispanic votes away from the Republican Party's share of the vote in 2004. This swing vote was enough to elect Barack Obama to the White House and turn six states -- Colorado, Florida, Indiana, New Mexico, Nevada and Virginia -- from red to blue. Any candidate or campaign that ignores Hispanic swing voters does it at their peril.

The President's Deportation Policy In Question

2012-02-10T18:30:12Z

This article comes to us courtesy of California Watch

By Andrew Becker

In an unusual twist, a federal appellate court this week pressed the Obama administration on whether the government will follow its own highly publicized policy of using discretion when reviewing deportation cases.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 ruling Monday involving five immigration cases, ordered the government to decide by March 19 if it intends to follow two memos released last year by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

In a critical dissent, Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain wrote that the court overreached its boundaries and the constitutional separation of powers with its "audacious ruling."

"The majority ... needlessly catapults this court into the realm of decisionmaking from which it is constitutionally walled off," O'Scannlain wrote.

Rather than citing law, Judges William C. Canby and Raymond C. Fisher referred in their order to ICE Director John Morton's memos from June and November of last year.

The directives outlined the factors to weigh in deciding whether to pursue deportation, such as immigration history, U.S. family ties, military service, criminal history and length of time in the country, among other criteria.

The five cases involve seven immigrants previously ordered deported but who appealed those decisions. None appears to have a criminal conviction, and all but one have U.S. citizen children, according to the order.

In immigration courts, attorneys for ICE, an agency of the Department of Homeland Security, argue for deportation before Justice Department immigration judges. In federal district and circuit courts, Justice Department attorneys typically handle immigration cases.

An ICE memo wouldn't typically apply to the Justice Department, said Kevin Johnson, dean of the UC Davis School of Law. He said the judges may might asking an astute but basic question: "Is the right hand talking to the left?

"I've never seen anything quite like it before, although I can understand why they are doing it," Johnson said. "They could be wondering, 'Do we need to decide these cases they're not going to deport anyway?' If not, they can save everyone some work."

Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller said in an e-mail that the department is studying the opinions. He had no comment on the cases.

But U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said that with its ruling, the court has veered into the executive branch's sole domain.

"The Ninth Circuit should decide cases under our nation's laws, not under the Obama administration's policies that ignore the law and intent of Congress," Smith said in a statement.

The memos are just two in a string of internal directives issued by the Obama administration that have received public attention. With Congress unwilling to take up the debate on legislative reform of the nation's immigration laws, the Obama administration has explored various administrative remedies, such as revamped immigration lockups that are less punitive, other detention reforms and prosecutorial discretion. Conservatives have argued that the administration has attempted "backdoor amnesty."

Last month, ICE completed two pilot programs that reviewed deportation cases in Denver and Baltimore. Meanwhile, the rate of deportations has dropped to a record low, and the long-standing backlog of removal cases before the immigration courts, while still growing, has slowed, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a research group based at Syracuse University.

This week, ICE also announced that it had appointed a public advocate to engage with the public, including immigrants facing deportation and advocacy groups.

"We want the public to know that they have a representative at this agency whose sole duty is to ensure their voice is heard and their interests are recognized," ICE's Morton said in a statement.

The new position raised eyebrows among some law enforcement agents.

"A public advocate? For lawbreakers?" said Shawn Moran, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council, the agents' union. "What's next, asking the DEA to give a public advocate to drug dealers and arguing that they're just unlicensed pharmacists?"

Andrew Becker is an investigative reporter for California Watch, a project of the non-profit Center for Investigative reporting. Find more California Watch stories here.

Woman Kidnaps Mentally Challenged Teen, Taunts Mom With Texts: Cops

2012-02-10T18:29:15Z

HESPERIA, Calif. -- A missing, mentally challenged teenager was rescued and a woman was charged with false imprisonment after she befriended the girl and taunted her mother with text messages giving phony information on the girl's whereabouts, investigators said.

Mayra Gonzalez, 24, was taken into custody late Wednesday after a cellphone carrier zeroed in on the suspect's Hesperia home, San Bernardino County sheriff's Sgt. Lon Jacobs said.

Gonzalez was booked for investigation of felony false imprisonment and released on $50,000 bail.

Gonzalez is suspected of befriending the 18-year-old victim, who has the mental capacity of a 6-year-old, at a liquor store on Wednesday, authorities said. The girl was unharmed.

A voicemail message left at the Gonzalez home on Friday wasn't immediately returned.

When the teenager didn't come home Wednesday, her mother contacted authorities, but deputies were unable to find her.

The mother then began receiving text messages from an unknown number giving locations where the teen could be found. Family members went to the locations but didn't find her.

After Gonzalez denied knowing anything about the missing teenager, deputies obtained a search warrant. During the search, Gonzalez told the teenager to run out the rear of the house, authorities said.

The teen was found a short distance away and returned to her family.

Investigators said they don't have a motive for the incident.

___

Cobras And Matadors To Close Feb 13

2012-02-10T18:13:55Z

Cobras and Matadors -- one of LA's most popular Tapas spots -- is closing it's doors, LA Weekly reports.

Cobras and Matadors' restauranteur Steven Arroyo posted to his Instragram, "Cobras & Matadors will close in 144 hrs. Naturally the eve of Valentines because she is such a lover."

The original Beverly Blvd. location was the last remaining of the chain's locations. Cobras and Matadors in Los Feliz was replaced by Umami Burger in 2009.

To many fans it is the end of an era, but Arroyo isn't slowing down anytime soon. Potato Chips (located next door to C&M) is still on a sandwich making role, Malo is serving up a storm and Escuela Taqueria is making customers go loco for his tacos. Steven Arroyo is planning to "open up an entirely new restaurant in [C&M's] spot," reports Your Next Bite.

Cobras and Matadors will close for good on February 13, 2012.

Rick Schwartz: Losing an Academy Award: The Aftermath

2012-02-10T18:05:12Z

This is the third of a four-part series. Read part two here.

Here's what you don't see on television: immediately after the last award is given, the TV cameras go off and the bright lights in the aptly named Kodak Theatre go on. This is now your worst nightmare. For security reasons, logistical stupidity and other associated causes, nobody can go anywhere for a few short but excruciating minutes. So basically, you have one group of really happy people with shiny gold statues, and then you have another group of people standing 5 feet away from them who are identical in every way -- except for the really happy part. And the statues.

You slowly shuffle out, as hugs and tears of joy envelop practically everyone around you. Around you, not actually you; a small but key distinction. Luckily, in anticipation of your Big Victory, you were invited to every major party. (If there were a way to gracefully rescind those invites now, they would surely do it.) There's little time to grieve -- it's happy face time! This classic look, perfected by every losing actor at every single award show, will now become your mask du jour. Except that they're professional actors who fake things for a living, and you're not -- so your smile will gradually erode into a half-scowl/half-smirk. That, you will soon discover, is why they are in front of the camera and you are not.

This will prove to be a very long night.

You try to act professionally, shuffling off to the first party along with the other Losers. You now see all human beings, however, through a brand new prism: people who were lucky enough to not be nominated, people who were kidding themselves if they thought they had a chance to win, and people who shouldn't be at these parties in the first place. Of course, every once in a while, amidst the crush of celebrity and wonderfully soft lighting, you spot an unmistakable glow: Someone holding that damn statue. Invariably, they're surrounded by the "can I hold it?" crowd, and wearing those goofy grins you've already come to hate. If they gave awards for envy, you'd be clinging to your little green guy right this second.

Much like the build-up to the Oscars themselves, there's a parade of more and more parties and you dutifully show your tortured face at each one. (Why, you ask yourself? Is there anything left to win?) Studio A has their particular winner front and center, bathed in the golden glow, holding court when you walk in so you're forced to pay your respects -- like it or not. Too much, too soon, so it's on to Studio B's party, where the mood is grim, since they spent way too much on advertising to win one lousy Art Director's award and you think, 'hey, I can hang with this crowd, but here comes their winner...' and everything brightens around them and suddenly you don't care if it's a 'minor category' or not, it's time to go. Studio C is way too celebratory for what's come their way earlier that night, giving you a brief pang of hope. Can you just pretend you won? Will people actually fall for that? (Maybe they didn't see the show?)

Then you pin down a mid-level accountant who's served 15 years there and he gives up the goods: they're using fuzzy math. Co-productions, split rights deals, independent divisions, movies they can pronounce -- they're counting them all and claiming them as victories for the home team. You're definitely a standout Loser in this crowd. Studio D is the one that took home the Big One, the one you were supposed to get. You definitely shouldn't be here -- the wound is way too fresh -- yet something draws you in. As you near the roped-off section where the Big Winners gloat, you suddenly devise a really solid, well-conceived plan -- grab their goddamn statues and run for the exits. Have your name engraved over theirs later. Deny you were ever at the party in the first place. But when you actually come face to face with them (after crawling under the legs of a mammoth bouncer and an emaciated actress), you both look at each other with a sense of dÃ©jÃ vu. We just had this moment a few hours ago at the ceremony, and the look on their faces says it all: you were a Loser then, you're a Loser now, and despite managing to squirrel your way into the VIP section just to ogle the Big Winners, you'll still be a Loser tomorrow. Needless to say, you slink off towards the valet.

To be continued...