Down by the Riverside: Power Analysis and the Los Angeles River Revitalization Plan

Introduction

This paper will use power analysis to investigate issues related to the implementation of the Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan.  This plan has the support of a wide array of stakeholders, including the general public, yet since 2006 there has been no movement in the main portion of the plan.  It will be shown that the major reason for the hold up so far has been bureaucratic.  

This report will be organized into 5 sections.  The first section will describe the issue and explain why it should be important to the new mayor. Section two will provide historical context to the development of this issue.  Section three will discuss the policy community that is connected to the issue and viewpoints of the main stakeholders.  Section four will provide the power analysis of the issue and use the results to explain its importance to the new mayor. It will review the 7 steps in the power analysis process in narrative form.  The final sections will outline the options left open to new mayor at this time and provide a summation to the paper. 

1) Describe the emerging and complex issue, and justify why and how it is worth examining. What are the basic facts involved? Why is this issue worthy of consideration? Why should it be on the new mayor’s radar? Why and how is it significant? Why should it be a priority?

This paper will examine the Los Angeles River Revitalization (LARR) project.  This project is important because it involves reimagining the use of a 51 mile stretch of river that could revolutionize the use of public space in the Los Angeles metro area.  At this time, Los Angeles is thought of a city with vast, disconnected areas.  As the river runs a 31-mile course through the city, reusing this land for office, recreational, residential and wildlife conservation purposes could create a common urban space.  This space could be used to connect many of the city’s disparate communities. It would also have positive environmental impacts.  Part of the project entails cleaning up the pollution that accumulates in the river from storm runoff.  Also, many areas, environing the river, have turned into brownfields.  These are unoccupied lands that are not safe for development because of chemical contaminants.  Cleaning up such lands would have positive ecological effects and create a more welcoming environment for local wildlife to grow.  The resulting project, once fully realized, would provide civic, environmental, recreational, and social benefits to the city of Los Angeles that would significantly improve its quality of life.  Finally, as the revitalization project is expected to take at least 20-25 years to complete, it will have economic benefits as well.  The project is thought to cost at least $2.7 billion to complete. The LARRMP (“Los Angeles River,” 6) projects jobs created as a result of this plan would range from 11,000 to 18,000.  There would also be a long-term revenue increase ranging from $47 million to $81 million per annum. 

The LARR project is very similar to initiatives proposed in other cities.  Two prominent examples include Chicago’s River Corridor Development Plan.  This plan is focused on greening the space along the riverside by creating public parks and restoring fish life.  The other is New York’s Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, developed under Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The latter is very far along in its re-development goals with the continued re-development of New York’s Westside via the Highline project. There are also numerous other urban beautification projects in the city aimed at reuses of waterfront and non-waterfront properties that have been lying fallow for decades.

2) Offer the historical context necessary for the new mayor to understand the issue and its significance. Be sure to connect the issue to historical trends, patterns, and events, and consider how the issue relates to material from this course.

The Los Angeles River was once almost entirely natural bed.  According to a number of sources (Hymon; Anderson; Carroll), flooding resulting from powerful storms, periodically affected the county and its environs from 1914-1938.  Local officials decided that the floodplain needed to be secured in order to permit the expansion of the city onto areas in and around the flood zones.  The Army Corps of Engineers was enlisted, in a more than decade long project, to encase most of the river in concrete.  This created the modern appearance of the river seen in many popular Hollywood films such as Grease and Terminator.  It should be noted, some portions of the river, such in the Sepulveda Basin and north of downtown, retained the natural riverbed. 

The result of the concretization of the river has been significant.  The river is now emblematic of environmental disfigurement and political mismanagement.  Local wildlife has died out, the once robust river course has now slowed to a mere trickle, and it has become a place for all kinds of municipal waste to accumulate and fester.  Therefore, a main component in the Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan includes removing some of the concrete that currently covers most of the river,

It should be noted that the seasonal flooding of the river still remains a concern.  The Army Corps of Engineers was asked in 2006, to complete a feasibility study of the LARRMP’s recommendation to remove some of the concrete.  This is understandable since the river’s flooding was the original reason for the use of concrete to tame it.  The study is not yet complete as of this writing and it is unclear whether one of the key proposals of the redesign will get approved.  The plan also calls for adding vegetation to the river’s banks. This would entail widening or deepening sections of the river. 

3) Describe the likely terrain of debate over the issue. What actors, including institutional ones, are likely to be engaged in/by the issue? What points of view will be represented? What competing agendas are implicated? Where might points of consensus emerge? Where will consensus be most difficult to achieve?

The revitalization of the Los Angeles River has included the following actors: local, state and federal government officials and agencies.  These have included the Mayor of Los Angeles, City Council, the Governor and State legislature, and at the federal level, such agencies as the EPA. In addition, there is the Army Corps of Engineers.  There have also been non-governmental actors, including members of civil society organizations, such as Friends of the Los Angeles River and the Urban and Environmental Policy Institute.  Private sector businesses in real estate and finance will also be involved.  There have reportedly been shortages of public funding for the program (“Private donation to help fund”) and private sources can pick up some or even much of the shortfall. These businesses will also be involved in developing office and residential buildings and some of the park space.  Some of this space could also be enjoyed by members of the general public.  The voters of Los Angeles are also engaged.  The public has been supportive of the program’s initiatives such as the Adopt-a-Riverbank program. Their continued support will be critical going forward.  

The viewpoints of government officials, local area businesses, non-governmental organizations of the environmental movement, and the public will be represented. It appears that the confluence of commercial and environmental interests may lead to some conflict.  There is some discussion that the proposal to use some of the riverine locations for office space and apartment buildings is somewhat controversial.  Environmental organizations such as Greenpeace are predisposed to the idea that any commercial development will have negative effects on local wildlife.  Despite these differences the support for the re-development of the riparian spaces appears to be strong from all stakeholders. It is also unlikely that the mixed use of the land for commercial and residential purposes is a poison pill for the plan.  Indeed, including such uses may be crucial to obtaining funding to finance other developments.  At the same time, members of the general community will benefit from the increase in job creation and the increased economic activity will expand the local tax base.  As it stands, most sources on the subject indicate the consensus for the project remains strong and most disagreements are not obstacles to full realization of the plan. 

One serious obstacle to the project may center around the feasibility report under consideration by the Army Corps of Engineers.  This study was commissioned in 2006 but has yet to be completed because of shortfalls in funding.  Additional funding, totaling $970, 000, was made available by private donations in October of 2012.  But the study is as yet still not complete and may not be so by the end of 2013.  This is the last major obstacle to the project according to most stakeholders (“Private donation to help fund”; “Slow water”).  If the results of the feasibility study decide against removing any concrete it could lead to a major scaling back of the program.  As yet it’s unclear what any contingency plan might be. Other field studies show the results of environmental analysis, so this one should get underway as soon as possible.

4) Offer a power analysis of the issue and assess how it might inform the Mayor’s perspective on the issue.

In its simplest terms, power analysis is an interactive, graphic illustration tool that is used to map power relationships in a given milieu.  Although it was developed by the Swedish International Development Agency for use in developing countries, it can be adapted for any context where understanding power relationships are important (“Mapping Political Context”). 

Step 1: Define the major economic, political and/or social conditions which influence the landscape. 

The larger context in this case is Los Angeles: a sprawling metropolitan area with 10 million residents.  Los Angeles is the second largest city in the US and as such is one of the world’s major economic, social, cultural and political centers.  The county is heavily influenced by the Hispanic population.  According to Census Bureau data for 2010, Hispanics make up nearly half the population, followed by non-Hispanic whites at just of one-quarter, the Asian population at 14%, and the black population at just under 10%. The city’s median income is lower than the state average at $56,000 and its poverty rate is at 16.3%, which is higher than the state average.  Therefore, Los Angeles is like many urban centers of the post-World War II US.  It is a city that has seen a shift from an affluent white population, which has moved to the suburbs, to a more diverse majority-minority city that is less affluent. 

Step 2: Sketch the competing agendas.

The politics of the city reflects this shift as Los Angeles elected its first Hispanic mayor, Antonio Ramón Villaraigosa, who assumed office in 2005.  The city has the strong mayor with City Council system of many major US cities.  The City Council is composed of 15 members, 9 of whom are white, 6 Hispanic, and 3 black.  There is no Asian representation on the City Council at this time (Castro; “City of Los Angeles”).  Therefore, Los Angeles’ main policy making body still has majority white support in a city in which they are now just another of many social groups. As a result of this diverse ethnic mosaic and imbalance, Los Angeles has seen significant ethnic and racial tensions (Castro). White Angelinos also have tremendous influence over the metro area’s economy.  This adds an economic imbalance to the political one.  These imbalances may continue for the foreseeable future as the Hispanic population nears majority status but remains less engaged in the political process than either black or white Angelinos. 

Step 3: Sketch the formal decision makers affecting the agendas and your case.

To review, the major decision makers in this case include representatives of local and state politics (Mayor, City Council, Governor and State Legislature) and federal politics (mainly EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers). 

Step 4: Sketch major organized opposition groups.

Based on the narrative presented at the beginning of this paper, there is no organized opposition.  There is a strong consensus for the revitalization of the river among a disparate number of groups, organizations and institutions. It is probably safe to describe this project as a valence issue.  This is likely because so many local residents will benefit from the plan and the costs of the plan are dispersed so widely enough, that there is no known organized opposition (Stone 223). 

Step 5: Sketch organized progressive groups.

The organized progressive groups that are part of this policy community include members of the local non-governmental organizations involved in the environmental movement.  These organizations and other stakeholders are represented in the Los Angeles River Master Plan Advisory Committee (Bapna and Lopez).  This group was formed in the late 1990s.  It consists of 50 members that represent an array of interests including federal, state and local government agencies and elected officials, and environmental and community organizations.  The group has met quarterly since its inception.  The group reviews proposed projects related to the plan. Some of the projects the group has reviewed and supported include bikeway development, pocket parks, enhancements to the landscape, Earth Day events, and the Adopt-a-Riverbank program (crucial for building grassroots support) (Carren).  Influential progressive local NGOs include the community oriented academic research institute, the Urban and Environmental Policy Institute at Occidental College.  Another is the Friends of the Los Angeles River.  Both groups collaborated from very early in the process by alerting local institutional decision-makers to the possibilities of redeveloping the river (Gottlieb and Azuma 321-323). 

Step 6: Situate your policy on your landscape. 

As reported above, the Los Angeles River Redevelopment project is supported by a consensus of residents.  It is supported because of the civic, social and economic benefits that will accrue to its citizens.  Los Angeles is very much a divided city in many ways. This reality has been recognized by many policy makers for decades.  Its diversity of ethnic groups belies a segregated and disparate social order united only behind the progressive politics of the Democratic Party.  But this unity hides very real ethnic differences and competition. Some groups, such as members of the Asian community are completely excluded from the policy making process.  Where this project will mitigate this somewhat is by creating a public space spanning the entire breadth of the city. It will provide a common zone of interaction between the city’s disparate groups.  In effect, it will create a physical space that many hope will improve the opportunities for trans-ethnic and trans-racial civic and social comity.  But there are very real benefits.  Los Angeles has fairly high poverty and unemployment.  The jobs created from this project will help improve that.  The increased tax base will provide additional funding for much needed local social programs. 

Step 7: Sketch key unorganized social groups.

The main unorganized social group in this policy milieu is the voters. It doesn’t appear at this time that there is a strong need for them to be organized as it is unclear how the general public would be negatively affected.  As many writers have pointed out the project has met with little resistance and its benefits are very widely dispersed leading to solid public support.  The public has supported the events associated with the plan in informal ways, such as Adopt-a-Riverbank program, which has generated good attendance. There has been no reported opposition to local elected officials who have supported the plan. 

5) Outline the policy directions the Mayor might take and offer advice on which is the best in your opinion. What are the pros and cons of your selected course of action? Justify your selection.

In light of what has been reported, the Mayor and local and state officials in general, have little flexibility in their course of action.  The plan has been approved by a consensus of stakeholders and smaller projects have been broken from it and implemented.  The big redevelopment hurdle lies with the removal of concrete from the river and it is solely the call of the Army Corps of Engineers.  Until their feasibility study is complete there is little else that can be done in the main thrust of the plan.  However, wherever possible, smaller items from the plan that can be produced with little or no funding or with funding from local or private sources, can and should continue to be implemented. 

Summary and conclusion

The LA river project is important because it will provide civic, environmental, recreational, and social benefits to the city of Los Angeles.  These benefits will significantly improve the quality of life for all of its citizens.  While the cover the river in concrete was the solution to a problem of recurring flooding, it created new problems. This included disfiguring the environment.  It also created a stigma attached to most of the 51 mile stretch of riparian land so strong even long-time residents were unaware a river even existed in Los Angeles.  This case is somewhat unusual in the sense that most of the stakeholders, including the Mayor of Los Angeles, City Council, the Governor and State legislature, and at the federal level, the EPA, were mainly supportive of the objectives of the redevelopment plan. There was a consensus among these stakeholders that redevelopment would lead to an appreciable improvement in the quality of life of local residents.  It would also create jobs and expand the city’s tax base. The power analysis found little flexibility for local actors such as the mayor at this juncture.  It appears local officials have done as much as they can with the plan and must wait for the results of a feasibility study to continue. This study has been delayed for several years and is not likely to be released in 2013.  It is notable that the Army Corps of Engineers didn’t have the funds to complete the study.  But local officials were able to raise the funds needed to continue the study. This is also strong evidence of solid support for the project.  

Works Cited

Anderson, Lamar. L.A. wants to turn its concrete ‘river’ into a real river. TheAtlanticcities.com, May 3, 2013. http://www.theatlanticcities.com.

Bapna, Vik, Lopez, Maria. Los Angeles river master plan: a river's revitalization in an urban environment. Ingentaconnect.com, Jan. 1, 2002. http://www.ingentaconnect.com.

Jao, Carren. LA river celebrates a decade of change. Kcet.org, October 16, 2012. http://www.kcet.org/socal/departures/lariver/confluence/river-notes/la-river-celebrates-a-decade-of-change.html.

Carroll, Rory. The Los Angeles River lives again: LA's concrete storm drains conceal a living, breathing waterway that has rarely been explored – until now. The Guardian, Aug. 27, 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/.

Castro, Tony. Latinos gaining power at expense of blacks in Los Angeles. Voxxi.com, May 8, 2013. http://www.voxxi.com.

City of Los Angeles: Council Directory. Lacity.org, 2013. http://www.lacity.org.

Gottlieb, Robert, Azuma, Andrea. Re-envisioning the Los Angeles River: An NGO and Academic Institute Influence the policy discourse. Golden University Law Review, vol. 35, Issue 3 Environmental Law Journal: “City Rivers,”  October 1, 2010. http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu.

Gould, Jens Erik. Yes, a river runs through it: Kayaking the forgotten waterway of Los Angeles. Time.com, Sept. 16, 2011. http://www.time.com.

Hymon, Steve. L.A. will take its river to a new level: Proposed $2-billion makeover of the ugly concrete waterway calls for a string of parks, housing and offices. Latimes.com, Feb. 2, 2007. http://articles.latimes.com.

Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan. Lacity.org, April 2007. http://boe.lacity.org.

Mapping political context: Power analysis. Odi.org, January 2009. http://www.odi.org.uk.

Private donation to help fund study of Los Angeles River. Wavenewspapers.com, October 9, 2012. http://wavenewspapers.com.

Slow water: Bureaucracy obstructs the Los Angeles River’s Revitalization, May 1, 2013. http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=6628.

State and County QuickFacts: Los Angeles, California. Census.gov, March 11, 2013. http://quickfacts.census.gov.

Stone, Deborah. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1997.