Skip to Content
Streetsblog Los Angeles home
Streetsblog Los Angeles home
Log In
Antonio Villaraigosa

Fight Brewing Between Council and Mayor Over Street Furniture Funds

3_9_10_happy.jpgHappier times: Villaraigosa and Cardenas. Photo: Experience L.A./Flickr

With all the bleak news about the City of Los Angeles' budget woes, and the ridiculously poor state of the same city's Transit Oriented Development program; the last thing one might expect to hear out of city hall is a fight over how the city spends its "Street Furniture Revenue Fund."  Yesterday, when Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced a veto of Councilman Tony Cardenas' request to use street furniture funds to pay for his office staff, that's exactly what we got.

First, some background.  The city collects revenue from the advertising on bus shelters within city limits and those funds are to be spent on, in the Mayor's words, "...transit-related projects, sidewalk repair and other community beautification projects."  Fourteen of the fifteen City Council members use their local funds for just that purpose.  However, Cardenas requested, and the City Council approved a transfer of those funds to pay for two staff people, who Cardenas says work on local transportation issues.

In total, Cardenas sought to move $142,000 from the Street Furniture Revenue Fund to his district office funds.  KPCC reports that only $38,000 of that is under any mayoral control, so the veto only applies to to that amount.

Yesterday, in a strongly worded letter to the Council, Villaraigosa vetoed the request, and in a strongly worded letter to the City Council basically dared them to challenge the veto given the public's mood concerning the city's spending habits.  Meanwhile, the City's legislative analysts are pondering whether the Mayor has the authority to veto this transfer as these are Council controlled funds.

I'm of two minds about the Mayor's political maneuvering.  First, it's always nice to see someone stick up for funds that are meant to beutify and improve the ugly and failing streets that make up too much of Los Angeles.  On the other hand, it's disappointing that the Mayor didn't take a stronger stand that those funds need to be used to for that purpose.  Instead, he urged that the funds be sent to fill the yawning chasm that is the city's General Revenue Fund.

And let's be clear, $38,000 isn't going to fix any of the major problems associated with the city's Transit Oriented Development plans.  Streetsblog has written before about how the city's minimum parking requirements undercut the claim of any development actually being "transit oriented" and instead make buildings that ought to be full of transit riders be merely "transit adjacent."  Today at Soap Box, Stephen Box destroyed Metro's real estate department and the disgusting state of bike parking at the new "transit oriented" W Hotel in Hollywood.  Most damningly, this week's edition of L.A. Weekly goes into great depth about how the "Transit Oriented" developments in the city's urban core were located too near freeways and are literally killing the children that live there.

In that environment, Cardenas gambit provided the opportunity for Villaraigosa to make a strong statement about the state of transit oriented development in Los Angeles, and instead of hitting it out of the park he barely made it to first base.  You can read the entire text of the Mayor's veto message below:

March 8, 2010

Honorable Members of the Los Angeles City Councilc/o City ClerkRoom 395, City Hall


Honorable Members:

On February 9, 2010, in dialogue with the full City Council, I urgedmembers to partner with me in strengthening the City’s financialposition by, among other measures, moving uncommitted, discretionary“Council controlled” funds to the Reserve Fund.

With rating agency downgrades looming, I subsequently submitted aletter to Council President Garcetti on February 12, 2010, reiteratingmy urgent request to strengthen the Reserve Fund by infusing it with the“Council controlled” special fund cash balances. In that letter, Ialso unequivocally stated that I would veto any proposal to transferspecial “Council controlled” funds into members’ salary accounts,as follows:

One of the most critical actions we can take to ensure fiscal health isto fortify the City’s Reserve Fund – which is in danger of beingtotally depleted absent swift action to replenish it.  An inadequateReserve Fund is the single greatest immediate threat to the City’ssolvency.  It could trigger severe downgrades by credit rating agencies,which makes borrowing more expensive or in some cases impossible, whichcould in turn lead to an inability to meet cash flow needs.

As part of my plan to strengthen the Reserve Fund, I specificallyrequested that you move uncommitted discretionary “Councilcontrolled” funds - currently totaling up to $40 million - into theCity’s Reserve Fund until such time that the fund reaches 5% of theoverall budget.

It has come to my attention that following my news conference onThursday of last week, a number of Council members submitted motionsseeking the transfer of funds from these special “Councilcontrolled” funds to the respective members’ salary accounts…

Given the City’s dire financial situation, and the immediate need tofortify the City’s Reserve Fund, I have no choice but to veto anyproposal to transfer special “Council-controlled” funds into Councilmembers’ salary accounts.

Each of the above-referenced motions, with the exception of the councilfile in question, was either withdrawn or amended to direct the fundstoward their originally intended purposes.

The Street Furniture Revenue Fund is intended to fund transit-relatedprojects, sidewalk repair and other community beautification projects.It is not intended to augment elected officials’ staff salaryaccounts.  And as I have repeatedly stated, given the severity of thefinancial crisis we face, uncommitted discretionary funds should bedirected to the Reserve Fund.

The subject motion’s attempt to misuse the Street Furniture RevenueFund by augmenting the general salary account of Council District Six isfiscally imprudent, and is hereby VETOED.

As your Honorable Body considers my veto of this Council File, Irespectfully request that you consider the following:

First, you should consider whether a prolonged, controversial and verypublic debate over a possible override of this veto is worth theCouncil’s valuable time – particularly given the enormous amount ofwork before us as we attempt to balance this Fiscal Year’s budget andprepare to close next Fiscal Year’s $485 million deficit.

Second, you should carefully consider the message a Council override ofthis veto would send to the national credit rating agencies.  TheCity’s most recent downgrade by Standard & Poor’s and negativeoutlook by Moody’s Investor Service each referenced their respectivefears that the Council appears unable to make the necessary decisions tobalance the budget and strengthen our financial position.  An overrideof this veto would confirm those fears.

As you know, further downgrades by credit rating agencies will makeroutine borrowing more expensive or in some cases impossible, and couldseriously jeopardize our ability to meet cash flow needs.

Please consider these potential consequences as you deliberate the vetoof this Council File.

Very Truly Yours,


Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Streetsblog Los Angeles

Long Beach Leads in Traffic Circles

Traffic circles aren't quite ubiquitous in Long Beach, but they're around. Riding and walking through the city one encounters circles in neighborhoods rich and poor, new and old.

July 12, 2024

Metro and Caltrans Still Planning 605 Expansion, Plus Four Connecting Freeways

Metro and Caltrans are planning to spend billions of dollars widening the 605, 5, 10, 60 and 105 Freeways. Really.

July 10, 2024
See all posts