10/21/04

LC041021

Val Zavala>> Tonight on Life and Times --

It's a towering reminder of the Northridge earthquake, so why
doesn't someone get rid of this mountain of concrete?

Linda Marquez>> Look at my house. Look at my windows. Look at
the windows over there. Look at this horrible thing that we
have here. They didn't think of that. They thought of what
they were going to put in there. They never thought of us.
That's a crime.

Val>> And then, Southern California wine country plays a
leading role as we pop the cork on a new edition of FilmWeek.

It's all coming up next on tonight's Life and Times.

Life and Times is made possible through the generous support of
the L.K. Whittier Foundation dedicated to improving the quality
of life by supporting innovative endeavors in the fields of
medicine, health, science and education.

And by a generous grant from Jim and Anne Rothenberg.

Val>> For the past ten years, chunks of the 10 Freeway have
been sitting in a huge pile in a neighborhood in southeast Los
Angeles and, for the past ten years, the residents there have
been trying to get the concrete removed. As Hena Cuevas tells
us, the legal mountain they've had to climb is almost as big as
the one they want moved.

Hena Cuevas>> Driving down Cottage Street in Huntington Park,
it's impossible to miss the massive pile of concrete rubble on
one side of the street. Covering more than five acres, the
concrete has been sitting there for the past ten years.

Linda Marquez>> I noticed that they were working there. They
were putting in all of that rubble.

Hena Cuevas>> Back in early 1994, eighty year old Linda Marquez
saw activity going on in the vacant lot across the street from
her apartment.

Linda Marquez>> But when it continued for twenty-four hours and
floodlights, bulldozers, trucks at night, I wondered what it
was.

Hena Cuevas>> What was being brought in by the truckload was
the remains of the Santa Monica Freeway that had just collapsed
during the January Northridge earthquake in 1994. A local
businessman had bought the rubble and was renting the land to
store it. His plan was to use it as a temporary dumping site
until the concrete could be crushed and sold to build roads.

Linda Marquez>> We should have been notified and, if we were
notified, of course, I didn't get a letter.

Hena Cuevas>> Dean Hickman owns an apartment building a block
away. He says he was also surprised by the arrival of the pile,
but he understands why it was done. The concrete had to go
somewhere.

Dean Hickman>> It was an emergency, so I can't really fault the
city for accepting that level of debris. The original
conditional use permit said that the debris would not be any
higher than the fence, so this was an emergency and I went along
with it.

Hena Cuevas>> But a decade later, what was supposed to be a
temporary site seems more like a permanent one. In the past ten
years, plants and shrubs have even started growing on top of it,
a sign of just how long it's been sitting here. The neighbors
even have a nickname for it, La Montana, which in Spanish means
The Mountain.

Linda Marquez>> We gave it La Montana because it was getting
higher and higher and higher.

Hena Cuevas>> So high that it's now as tall as a five-story
building.

Linda Marquez>> When we first got it, we had no protection
whatsoever. We finally got a mesh that they used in the
gardening and things like that and put it up. Well, the first
rain that we got was so heavy and loaded with dust that that
water that came down just brought that mesh right down. It was
no help to us whatsoever.

Hena Cueva>> It didn't take long before residents had to deal
with one potentially harmful side effect: dust and lots of it.

Hector Lopez>> Dust. You just hit the word. Dust. That's my
situation.

Hena Cuevas>> Hector Lopez, who lives a block away, moved into
his apartment a year before La Montana arrived.

Hector Lopez>> My wife gets (laughter) -- like in the summer,
you know, sometimes even a lot of people say it's not windy in
the summer, but sometimes little breezes pick up when the
windows are open. She's constantly dusting. She gets all --
what do you want me to do? Do you want me to get a shovel and
move it myself (laughter)?

Linda Marquez>> Look at my house. Look at my windows. Look at
the windows over there. Look at this horrible thing that we
have here and we're going to leave it there until that mountain
is out. That's an injustice for anybody. These people over
here have to close their windows and their doors still. I have
to close my windows because that dust will go in like, for
instance, when the wind is blowing in the afternoon, yes. When
we had that wind here, yes, it's a crime that we have it. We
shouldn't have this. No city should have this.

Hena Cuevas>> But the problems, they say, go beyond just having
to clean every day. Lopez's daughter who was born after La
Montana came in developed asthma as a baby.

Hector Lopez>> We figured it was because of La Montana. La
Montana had a cause of that because no other kids or anybody in
my family ever had suffered with asthma.

Hena Cuevas>> Others, like Hickman's wife, have also reported
having breathing problems.

Linda Marquez>> These people over here had to take their two
children who have some kind of bronchial asthma down the street.
People have asthmatic conditions. They didn't think of those.
They thought of what they were going to put in there. They
never thought of us. That's a crime.

Hena Cuevas>> The fight to remove La Montana was headed by
Marquez and Hickman.

Linda Marquez>> In 1994 is when we started the ball rolling
going down the street here. I had to use a walker and I knocked
on doors. Dean knocked on doors. His wife knocked on doors.
We recruited a lot of people around here that had to knock on
doors and ask these people to come out and speak out against
this mountain.

Robert Cabrales>> It's not a quick battle and it's never a
quick battle.

Hena Cuevas>> According to Robert Cabrales of the group,
Communities for a Better Environment, what is going on in
Huntington Park is an example of environmental racism.

Robert Cabrales>> Communities of color are always targeted, you
know, to bring certain industries -- you know, bring some
revenue in one part, but also affect the peoples' health.

Hena Cuevas>> Huntington Park is a heavily industrial area
located southeast of Los Angeles with a predominantly Latino
population. Why do you call it environmental racism?

Robert Cabrales>> Well, because they didn't take into
consideration the community that lives there, you know. If they
would have brought it over to Beverly Hills or Palos Verdes in a
community that there is more income or more wealthy folks there,
it would have been out in months.

Hena Cuevas>> Cabrales, who's been working closely with the
residents of Huntington Park, says the legal obstacles they
faced are as massive as La Montana itself. First, the man who
was renting the land and actually owned the pile declared
bankruptcy in 1998. After that, ownership of the pile and the
responsibility to clean it up went to the landowner. We tried
numerous times to reach him through his attorney, but received
no response.

Robert Cabrales>> You know, he was ordered to do the cleanup
and then he's like we don't have any money. He was ordered to
do the cleanup and then extensions after extensions. You know,
the city was always pretty much pushing forward and taking it to
the court and finding out what they can do in their power and
there is usually no power because the landowner has his
contracts.

Hena Cuevas>> It's estimated that the cleanup will cost over
two million dollars. The state has already approved three-
quarters of that. However, state officials aren't allowed to go
on private property without permission. Only last August did
they get clearance to enter the site. Do you really think this
is going to happen?

Robert Cabrales>> I'm confident that it can happen. I mean,
the community folks were promised several times that the cleanup
process would start a few years ago and nothing has happened.
That's precisely why the community is little bit hesitant of
seeing this proposal at this time as we speak move forward.

Hena Cuevas>> Hickman says he's heard it all before.

Dean Hickman>> I've got my fingers crossed, but I don't want to
celebrate yet.

Hena Cuevas>> Lopez is also skeptical.

Hector Lopez>> Let's play it by ear. Let's see what happens.
That's all I can tell you.

Hena Cuevas>> Marquez, for her part, is just praying for the
day when she can finally remove the tarps.

Linda Marquez>> When that mountain goes out, it'll be the most
glorious day for all of us here.

Kcet.org is the place to look for the very latest on Life and
Times. You'll find previews of upcoming stories, transcripts
and audio of past episodes and links to some of our most
interesting features. Just go to kcet.org and click on "Life
and Times".


Val>> You may want to get your sample ballot out while you
watch this next segment. As you know, there are sixteen
measures on the ballot and some of them, like stem cell research
and Indian gaming, have gotten a lot of publicity. But others
have not and yet they're still important. NewsHour
correspondent, Jeffrey Kaye, went to Occidental College and
talked with Professor of Politics, Mona Field. Field is an
elected Trustee on the L.A. Community College Board and author
of a college textbook on California politics.

Jeffrey Kaye>> Mona Field, thanks very much for joining us.
We're going to be looking at six of the sixteen propositions on
the long California ballot and I'd like you to give us thumbnail
descriptions of each one that we'll discuss, 59 through 63, and
the arguments for and against. So let's start with Proposition
59. Proposition 59 is a constitutional amendment dealing with
public records and open meetings.

Mona Field>> Right, and this one is pretty easy. It doesn't
have any serious opposition. It's really a cleanup of what we
have had in California for a while, sort of an open meeting law
making sure the public has access to what elected officials do.
Essentially, a lot of this particular proposition came from a
very active member of society who had a bad experience trying to
get information, realized there was a little loophole and the
legislature came up with this and it's widely supported.

Jeffrey Kaye>> What's the loophole? What would it close?

Mona Field>> Well, it had to do with whether city councils had
to reveal certain data and apparently there was a court ruling
that very narrowly defined what can leave the room from a closed
session. This will simply reopen that a little bit. It's a
hard balance, Jeffrey, because as an elected official, I know
there are some things that really cannot be dealt with in the
full public eye. If you're talking about the individual
personnel records of an employee, of a public agency, if you're
talking about litigation, there are some things that really the
public can't know all the time. But this would clean up a piece
of it and, again, has almost no opposition.

Jeffrey Kaye>> As far as I understand, the only argument
against it is that it doesn't go far.

Mona Field>> Exactly.

Jeffrey Kaye>> Okay, moving on. Proposition 60 and 62 go
together. Both are constitutional amendments dealing with
elections and political parties.

Mona Field>> Well, they are exact opposites. Proposition 60,
people want to keep things as they are now, they'll vote yes on
60. If they would like to bring us to an open primary, they'll
vote yes on 62. Again, they are opposites.

Jeffrey Kaye>> Yes on 62 and --

Mona Field>> -- and no on 60.

Jeffrey Kaye>> And no on 60.

Mona Field>> Right. If you would like an open primary,
diversion that's being proposed in Proposition 62 is one in
which everyone gets the same ballot, for example, in the
gubernatorial primary or assembly or state senate primary and
all of us would vote on the same choices. Then the top two
would go to the final election. Now the top two in this system
could both be from the same political party. That would be very
different.

So the proponents of this actually -- the theory is that it
creates the opportunity for more moderate candidates to emerge
and, of course, the opposition tends to believe that this would
destroy the ability of parties to nominate their own and for all
parties in California to have a candidate on that general
election ballot.

Jeffrey Kaye>> Who is for 62?

Mona Field>> What we have here is people who are considered
moderates and who have a great deal of money knowing that, if
there were such an open primary, they could appeal to people
from both parties and that, perhaps through their financial
resources, they could come out within the top two. It certainly
diminishes the strength of political parties in California.

Jeffrey Kaye>> Which is why both political parties are aligned
on this one?

Mona Field>> All of the parties oppose 62 and favor 60 to keep
things as they are.

Jeffrey Kaye>> Proposition 60A is a constitutional amendment.
It would specify how proceeds from the sale of surplus state
property is used, which sounds pretty technical.

Mona Field>> It is, and the political history is what makes it
interesting. Proposition 60A was originally part of the
legislature's response to Proposition 62. In other words, when
the legislature realized we all come from the two major parties,
we don't want an open primary, let's figure out a way to oppose
it. They put together the measure to keep the primary the same
and they threw in a sweetener which has now become 60A after a
court ruling that you can't really put two separate subjects in
one ballot measure. So 60A at this point is a fairly neutral
no-harm-done. If you vote yes, you're saying be efficient when
you sell California bonds. It really has no other particular
impact.

Jeffrey Kaye>> Be efficient in what? So where would the money
go?

Mona Field>> Well, bonds that are already authorized, it's a
matter of the routines and procedures for selling them. In
theory, there could be some savings if they're sold in a more
efficient manner. So 60A at this point is kind of a harmless
thing one way or the other. If people support more efficient
government, they'll probably vote yes.

Jeffrey Kaye>> And the argument against it?

Mona Field>> There has not been a whole lot of argument against
it. Again, it really is only on the ballot because it was kind
of thrown in to counter-balance the 62 open primary.

Jeffrey Kaye>> Proposition 61 is a $750 million dollar bond
that would pay for building projects at hospitals for children.

Mona Field>> Right. Now here's an example, although it is a
wonderful cause and has generated very little opposition. Even
the anti-tax groups in California aren't trying to go up against
children's hospitals. It's an example, however, of the failure
of our legislative process and our governor in general -- no
particular one -- to take care of California's needs. We have
this repeated turning to the ballot and to the voters to take
care of things like hospitals, healthcare, etc. and the truth is
that it's the only way Californians seem to feel they can get
certain things accomplished.

Jeffrey Kaye>> And what would this accomplish?

Mona Field>> This would allow the five UC hospitals and a
number of private children's hospitals throughout the state in
all geographic areas to do some of the renovation they need to
do. Some of it is seismic work that is required by law. Some
of it has to do with just upgrading equipment in terms of new
technology for medicine. The ballot arguments in favor come
from a very heart-wrenching assortment of parents with children
with a variety of severe illnesses. Again, the organized
opposition is pretty minimal even though this does, of course,
involve spending state money and borrowing, but it's an
emotional issue.

Jeffrey Kaye>> Well, there's always an argument against bond
indebtedness.

Mona Field>> Absolutely. I mean, there's always this fact
that, if we could, we should pay "as we go". Of course, the
problem is like all of us. We rarely can afford a home without
a mortgage. California can rarely afford to build something
without borrowing.

Jeffrey Kaye>> The last one we're going to talk about is
Proposition 63, the one percent tax on people with incomes above
a million dollars a year. The proceeds would fund the expansion
of mental health services.

Mona Field>> Here's an example where most of us won't be taxed.
It will only tax about 25,000 extremely well-to-do Californians
and it will cost them about $10,000 a year. This is people
making a million or more. It is for a cause that, once again,
is almost beyond question. The mental health care in
California, as you know, almost forty years ago under Governor
Reagan, we had tremendous cuts in mental health care, the theory
being we would move people back into the community and give them
care within their communities and close mental hospitals.

The unfortunate result is that we have extraordinary unmet needs
and the jails are full of mentally ill people, some of whom have
committed pretty dreadful crimes before they got there. Of
course, the homeless population includes substantial numbers of
mentally ill. This was put on the ballot in part by the
healthcare providers who see the need, and the families.

Jeffrey Kaye>> And the argument against it?

Mona Field>> It's about the financial commitment. It's a huge
amount of money for one very targeted need. Many people wonder
why we do this kind of taxation. Why don't we broaden the base?
For example, why doesn't it include education or why doesn't it
include the environment? Well, the truth is, a particular group
that for many years has found that they can't get the two-thirds
vote in the legislature for this piece of the puzzle has said
we're going to the people.

Jeffrey Kaye>> I'm afraid we're going to have to leave it
there. Mona Field, thanks very much.

Mona Field>> Thank you.

To send a comment or a question to our program, you can reach us
by mail at this address:

Life and Times
4401 Sunset Blvd.
Los Angeles, California 90027

You can also call our viewer comment line (323) 953-5555) or
contact us the fast way by e-mail at kcet.org.

Larry Mantle>> Welcome to FilmWeek on Life and Times. I'm
Larry Mantle of 89.3 KPCC. Our first film this week is from
British writer-director, Mike Leigh. His movie is "Vera Drake".

[Film Clip]

Larry Mantle>> I'm joined this week by critics Jean Oppenheimer
of New Times and Andy Klein of CityBEAT and ValleyBEAT. Jean,
what did you think of "Vera Drake"?

Jean Oppenheimer>> Well, this is one if not the best film that
I think Leigh has ever done and I'm not a fan of his normally.
It's very interesting. It was very clever of Leigh. He waits
until twenty minutes into the film before he reveals that Vera
is an abortionist, that she performs abortions. By that time,
the audience has really developed a real respect and affection
for her.

I think that Imelda Staunton, an actress whom I normally don't
like, does a magnificent job. She makes this woman a really
very kind-hearted, upbeat who never complains, somebody that you
might normally think is just too good to be true, but somehow
Staunton carries it off. All the acting is marvelous
throughout. I must say I found the second half of the film less
appealing because, at a certain point which is referred to in
the clips, when Vera is caught and arrested, she then sort of
turns into a simpering sort of blob who can barely speak and I
just think it sort of slows down the pacing of the film.

Larry Mantle>> Andy Klein?

Andy Klein>> I thought the film was pretty good. I'm a huge
Mike Leigh fan and I thought this was actually one of his lesser
efforts because it isn't in his usual vein. This is much closer
to social realism. Staunton was very good, but I never really
engaged with any of these characters. You know, he makes a
wonderful point about the repercussions of having abortion
totally illegal in England in that period. But I just did not
get pulled into the drama.

Larry Mantle>> Next we have the latest from filmmaker,
Alexander Payne. His most recent movie "About Schmidt" was very
successful with critics and with audiences. His new film is
"Sideways".

[Film Clip]

Larry Mantle>> Andy Klein, what did you think of "Sideways"?

Andy Klein>> Well, this is basically a romantic comedy about
two guys taking a wine-tasting trip up the coast. Thomas Haden
Church plays this sort of happy-go-lucky smalltime actor who
just -- he's about to get married in a couple of days, but he
wants to have his last fling. His best friend is this schlumpy,
pathetic, self-pitying guy played by Paul Giamatti perfectly.

Essentially, their relationship is Woody Allen and Tony Roberts.
That was a bad comparison for me because, unfortunately, I think
this film is reasonably funny. I think it's reasonably
engaging. It's had tremendous advance buzz and I kind of don't
see the big deal. It's okay. It's amusing. The characters are
okay. The performances are all very good, including Virginia
Madsen and Sandra Oh. But I just don't think it's epical.

Larry Mantle>> What did you think, Jean?

Jean Oppenheimer>> I agree. I liked this film a lot, but I
really didn't love it. Oddly enough, some of the very things
that I liked about it were some of the things I had problems
with. For instance, the two male characters, Miles and Jack. I
liked the fact that they're such different personalities, but
you wonder how they ever became friends in the first place, much
less maintain their friendship. I liked the fact that they're
really different, but they were so different and the Thomas
Haden Church character almost seems like comedy relief. But I
must say that Virginia Madsen gives the best performance I've
ever seen of her.

Larry Mantle>> And finally this week, the film that was the top
award winner at this year's Sundance Film Festival. It's from
writer, director and co-star, Shane Carruth, his baffling movie,
"Primer".

[Film Clip]

Larry Mantle>> Andy, my head is still spinning from my single
screening of "Primer" (laughter). Do you what it means?

Andy Klein>> Sort of. I've seen it twice and my head is still
spinning too. This is a really incredibly complex screenplay by
first-timer Shane Carruth who made the film for essentially
$7,000, not counting transferring it and stuff to 35mm. It's a
story of two young engineers who worked on a project that they
discover has a side effect that's much more interesting than
what they were originally doing.

At this point, it's not giving anything away to say the side
effect is that they can reverse the flow of time. They've
essentially invented a time machine and immediately they get
swept up in exploiting that and you know that that's going to
cause problems because you don't mess with the flow of time. As
it goes on, things get so complicated as they move around each
other that it's almost impossible to map out, but it's a
terrific puzzle film and I think, on almost every level, really
wonderfully well done.

Larry Mantle>> Jean?

Jean Oppenheimer>> I agree with Andy on that one too. I mean,
I must say that, for the first half hour, it was so intriguing
and then I got completely lost. I think too many things weren't
said or weren't stated, things that really wouldn't have given
away too much and would have helped the audience to understand.
It reminded me in a good way of "The Sorcerer's Apprentice".
You know, where things get completely out of hand. So it's
definitely a film you need to see more than once.

Larry Mantle>> Well, thanks so much for joining us for another
edition of FilmWeek on Life and Times. I'm Larry Mantle of 89.3
KPCC joined by critics Andy Klein of CityBEAT and ValleyBEAT and
Jean Oppenheimer of New Times. Please join us again next week
for another edition of FilmWeek on Life and Times.

Val>> And, of course, you can hear a full hour of FilmWeek
every Friday morning at 11:00 a.m. on KPCC 89.3. And that's our
program. I'm Val Zavala. For everyone at Life and Times,
thanks for watching. We'll see you next time.

Life and Times was made possible through the generous support of
the L.K. Whittier Foundation dedicated to improving the quality
of life by supporting innovative endeavors in the fields of
medicine, health, science and education.

And by a generous grant from Jim and Anne Rothenberg.

Val>> Next time on Life and Times --

She's driven to help kids succeed and it all begins with one
good book.

>> It's like we tell them, okay, here are some crackers, here
is some water, now go gain weight. So we're saying to learn how
to read and go be good readers and go be good testers when we
give them nothing to help them, and what we give to help them is
books.

Val>> That's next time on Life and Times.