Today on AirTalk, we discuss the Supreme Court's ruling on unions, Venice Beach's reaction to Google moving in, SCOTUS's FCC ruling, the Internet's new red-light district, Governor Brown's budget agreement, and the truth behind L.A.'s auto-centric stereotype. Plus, the latest news.
SCOTUS rules unions must give notice to nonmembers before collecting fee increases
Coming on the heels of Gov. Scott Walker’s recall victory in Wisconsin, today sees another blow to public-sector employee unions.
The Supreme Court handed down its decision rejecting the idea that governmental employee unions can use funds from non-members for political means. In an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, the basis of the majority’s argument rested on First Amendment rights. Essentially, while non-members are expected to pay a certain fee to unions for any benefits they may receive through collective bargaining efforts, they have no constitutional obligation to supply funds to politicians or campaigns with which they disagree.
The majority even went one step further, mandating that government unions must switch to an “opt-in” system for such payments. This means the employees themselves must go out of their way to agree to have their money diverted elsewhere. Traditionally, unions used an “opt-out” system, and employees had to speak up if they wanted to keep their money out of the political arena.
What are the short term and long term ramifications of this decision? What did the Supreme Court minority have to say about the ruling? What can labor unions do to regain some of their lost power?
Guest:
Deborah J. La Fetra, Principal Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation; Authored the Amicus Brief in support of Knox in this case
Joseph Grodin, Emeritus Professor, University of California Hastings and former associate justice for California Supreme Court
Here comes Google (to Venice), there goes the neighborhood
Venice Beach may be Southern California’s most iconic neighborhood.
Of course there’s the boardwalk, full of skaters, body builders, tourists and transients. Further in, Abbot Kinney and a rapidly gentrifying stretch of high-end stores and film and technology companies. Now add Google to the mix.
The search giant recently took over the Binoculars Building, which was designed by Frank Gehry and later made iconic with a huge pair of binoculars designed by Claes Oldenburg and Coosje van Bruggen. Also, Google has secured a lease on the building that currently houses Gold’s Gym. An article in the New York Times this week captures the neighborhood’s shift: even former Governor and former Mister Universe Arnold Schwarzenegger himself has converted his old body building gym into high-end office space.
Los Angeles City Councilman Bill Rosendahl has welcomed Google with open arms. He's been talking closely with company executives about what social resources they have to offer.
"What Google sees itself doing is working closely with the community on all kinds of issues: the Venice Artwalk, the silent auction, computers for kids in the neighborhood, office spaces, and now we're in discussions about homeless issues," he said.
According to Rosendahl, Google is a catalyst for synergy, new energy and growth in Venice, and they aren't looking to change Venice's vibe because it helps them think creatively.
"Ideas from young people happen walking the beach and seeing eclectic stuff. They go back to work, they help create new technologies," he said. "It's a work in progress, but it's a new energy added to the already energy there, and they want to be part of the community."
Linda Lucks, president of the Venice Neighborhood Council, said neighborhood residents feel both excitement and trepidation about Google's move because they can't predict its impact in the long run. She added that they're not afraid of change, but what the change will be.
"It's not as if Venice isn't changing anyway. I think the concern for those of us who have lived here a long time is that whoever comes in fits into the fabric of the community and doesn't try to change it without understanding who's been there, what the history there is, and the diversity and the need to keep Venice, Venice," she explained. "To come in with a mindset of sitting in and giving back is what I think most residents are looking for, and not taking it over like a company town and controlling everything."
Lucks said she's optimistic about Google so far.
"They are really trying to understand the community. They are really delving in, studying homelessness, finding out what they can to do help as opposed to just chasing people away. I think their attitude is exactly what we want in a good neighbor and a new neighbor," she continued.
With rents on the rise, is the shift toward big pocketed neighbors like Google inevitable? And will the presence of big companies bring more money and jobs to the neighborhood? Or will Venice lose its funky vibe?
From the phones:
Mark, who has lived in Venice for 23 years, said he's noticed a gradual evolution in the residents, and with that a change in expectations.
"There are a lot of new people living here, a lot of them in the entertainment industry, a lot of young families, a lot of folks that have an expectation that the place works, that you can find a parking space and in particular, that it's safe," he said, agreeing with Lucks that change will come to Venice. "My family moved back to Santa Monica in 1961 ... It went from extreme, right wing small town to being one of the most liberal cities in California. It's inevitable that that kind of evolution is going to take place next door in Venice."
He added that he welcomes a culture shift, but concluded that it's going to take a long time before Venice gets there.
Venice resident Mike's concerns about Google are two-fold: Mike said he doesn't want to compete with Google or rely on Google to fix the city's problems.
"I'm pretty concerned about the housing prices in Venice. I'm a renter and I've been looking to buy, and I worry that Google is going to price me out and it's going to price a lot of other people out," he said. " I worry when I hear the councilman speaking that there's not even a hint of skepticism in his voice, or an acknowledgement of some of the concerns. We've got to work on fixing [issues], and not just invite more companies in and let them fix it."
Diane moved to Venice 15 years ago because she couldn't afford housing in Santa Monica. She said that many residents are looking forward to improvements to problems like homelessness and parking spaces, and cleaning up the area won't affect Venice's one-of-a-kind culture.
"Although Venice is funky and bohemian, bohemian doesn't have to mean violence. When I was first here there was a lot of it. I wish people wouldn't associate bohemian with poor, dirty and violent," she said.
Guests:
Councilman Bill Rosendahl, 11th District of Los Angeles, including Venice and West LA
Linda Lucks, President of the Venice Neighborhood Council
SCOTUS rules FCC’s indecency rules enforcement unconstitutional but doesn’t say anything about the rules themselves
The Supreme Court has sided with Fox and ABC in a case involving the FCC and the way it enforces its indecency rules.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion stating, “Because the Commission failed to give Fox or ABC fair notice prior to the broadcasts in question that fleeting expletives and momentary nudity could be found actionably indecent, the Commission's standards as applied to these broadcasts were vague.”
While the decision was a favorable one for the two networks, it leaves something to be desired: an actual ruling on the FCC’s indecency rules themselves. Many broadcasters were hoping the case would finally create a clear definition of what can be considered indecent and perhaps take away some of the FCC’s power to regulate content. So does the court’s sort of non-ruling give networks more wiggle room?
Guests:
Lisa McElroy, Professor of Law, Earle Mack School of Law, Drexel University; Supreme Court scholar
Carter Phillips, Attorney with Sidley Austin LLP with offices around the world; Phillips argued on behalf of broadcasters in FCC v. Fox
Simon Wilkie, Executive director, USC Center for Communication Law and Policy; Wilkie served as Chief Economist at the Federal Communications Commission from July 2002 to December 2003
The Internet’s new red-light district
Yes, the Internet is a tool which allows for communication on a global scale. Sure, you can use it to research hundreds of web sites about every topic imaginable. And of course, it’s a revolutionary technology which has changed everything about how you go about your daily life. But, it’s also a seemingly endless font of pornography.
Once scattered throughout the entirety of the World Wide Web, usually found for free on aggregate search sites, digital pornography is now given its own special section of the Internet. Stuart Lawley and his ICM Registry is selling the “.xxx” domain name to businesses for roughly $60 a year. In its first active fiscal quarter, ICM Registry has taken in $25 million for such names.
Lawley envisions these websites as a red-light district, but a responsibly run one. For instance, the company plans to institute a plan similar to iTunes for payment. Customers will pay 33 cents per video clip, in lieu of traditional forms of payment such as monthly memberships for unlimited content.
How will such a monetary structure affect the porn industry itself? Will users who have previously been able to get whatever they want for free pony up to pay for it? When can the “.xxx” domain name expected to be the universal digital home for pornography?
Guest:
Paul Barrett, assistant managing editor and senior feature writer at Bloomberg Businessweek
Diane Duke, Executive Director, Free Speech Coalition
LA car owners live up to the stereotypes
Have you ever thought, ‘everyone in Silver Lake drives a Prius’ or ‘during rush hour the 405 looks like a luxury car lot’? Jessica Caldwell, a Senior Analyst at Edmunds.com, has been poring over some facts and figures to try and debunk those auto-centric stereotypes.
Caldwell stacked data from the Department of Motor Vehicles on registered automobiles in L.A. County up against industry averages across the U.S. What do the numbers tell us? Not all that surprising. Yes, we like our luxury brands – BMWs and Audis -- way more than those Ford F-150s or Dodge pickups. And we are the champions of the hybrid. In fact, our share of that market is over 100 percent higher than the US national average; hybrids are the fourth most registered vehicle category for California drivers.
We also like to keep up appearances (surprise, surprise), even if we can’t afford it; three out of every four Mercedes Benz’s and almost all BMW 6-series on the road are leased. But before you peg us as a bunch of luxury snobs and smug energy savers, we are bit more sensible than we seem. L.A. tops the national average of compact and sub-compact cars by a small stretch.
What car trends do you notice on the road? Is there a stereotype about L.A. automobiles that is completely untrue? Little deuce coupe, Ford GTO, Malibu convertible – what car says ‘California Dreamin’ to you?
GUEST
Jessica Caldwell, Senior Analyst, Edmunds.com