Snapchat goes public raising concerns for L.A.'s Silicon Beach, what Attorney General Sessions could mean for California's pot industry, TV worth binge watching
Snapchat just secured its place as king of Silicon Beach
A big day for L.A.'s Silicon Beach: Snap Inc. the owners of the photo-sharing app, Snapchat made its stock market debut Thursday, trading at $24 a share.
The IPO gives Snap Inc. an initial valuation of nearly $24 billion. Not bad considering the California company lost more money than it made last year and that its 26-year old, Stanford frat boy, helicopter-flying, Ferrari-driving founder will not allow anyone who buys shares in Snap Inc. to have any voting power. Not even after he dies.
Joel Stein wrote about all this for Time Magazine and joined A Martinez for more.
Interview highlights
Before jumping into it, Stein clarified that Snapchat is in a league of its own and shouldn't be lumped in as a "social media" app. "Let me reassure you, it's not really a social media platform. You don't need to be on it, it's not a way to broadcast to a billion people..."
Will I be cooler if I'm on it?
"Well, no one will know if you're not snapping that's the thing, it's a very private place, it's not connected to the rest of the internet...most people think it's a social media company, it's really a way to visual text. You don't open up to a newsfeed of information or pictures, you open up just to a camera. Then you can send a picture or video of yourself then you can put little stickers on it or draw on it or write on it and then send it to your friends."
And it will last just 10 seconds, right? Is that a part of why it's so popular?
"So if you're a 13-year-old girl or maybe even a 45-year-old guy...you go on Instagram, you can take a picture of something and you want it to be perfect and you mess with the filters and you spend all this time finding the exact right caption for it...it's a lot of pressure if you're a teen girl. And you're waiting for people to comment and how many likes you get. Snapchat erases all that. It lets you be really casual, 'cause you're just sending a picture that's going to be erased...it's used for communication, not commemoration.
What these guys [Snapchat] kind of figured out is that photographs are cheap. We still treasure them but...I've got 7,000 on my phone that I'll never look at. I'm creating this museum to myself that no one will ever go in. Including me. And so Snapchat said, 'No, photographs are free. Let's just use them to communicate.'"
And you spoke to a psychologist about why this is so popular to the 18-34 crowd.
"Yeah, because people are worried about iGen, especially the girls of iGen. Their depression rates and suicide rates are really high and part of this is they have Instagram anxiety like they're being rated on their brand all day. Snapchat is kind of an escape for them."
Why is a non-voting share such a big deal? Why did that cause such a stir?
"Oh, it's crazy. This company would be worth more if it didn't have that rule. No one has ever done this before with a publicly traded company. It means that all of the institutions and people that own these stocks can't control the company. So if Evan Spiegel, the CEO, starts doing a really bad job...destroying the company, destroying the company they own, they can't get rid of him. They can't make changes to the company. He's CEO for life basically.
And in fact, the rule is...nine months after he dies he'll still have control over the company. So they can't pry the company out of his cold dead hands."
Evan Spiegel is an L.A. guy...so is it important for this to be in Los Angeles? Why?
"He really shuns Silicon Valley. He talks pretty poorly about the culture there and everyone being in each other's business. So, he moved his company basically across the street from where he grew up, near his dad...he ran the company and lived at his dad's house even when he was worth a billion dollars. And he's built Venice.
Google's there obviously and YouTube's there. You know, they're Silicon Beach, it's definitely happening but Snap is now like the king of Silicon Beach by far...it's just taking over all of Venice and it's attracting other investors and other companies down there."
Stein also touched on Spiegel's image and how "a Bond villain has better optics," how a company that lost money last year can be so successful and more.
Answers have been edited for length and clarity.
To hear the full conversation, click the blue play button above.
Worried about over-development in LA? It has to do with zoning
Think of the "S" in Measure S as signifying “stop.”
As in, "Stop mega developments from taking over Los Angeles."
That's what the initiative's backers want, and their leverage is a two-year moratorium on big buildings that comes with a "yes" on S.
But let's examine one claim the group makes in a recent mailer: “In backroom dealings, the [city] council breaks it own rules to allow its rich developer donors to build mega-developments banned by local zoning.”
Sounds like developers are making deals to break the rules so they can, say, build a sprawling 15-story complex where a tidy two-story apartment building once stood.
How does that work?
Zoning 101
The city's zoning code lays out what can be built where. But it's not set in concrete.
If you want to do something that's different than what the code allows, you can ask for a general plan amendment or a zone change.
Between 2000 and the middle of last year, nearly 1,000 projects wanted one of those.
Nearly all of them got it – 90 percent.
They all began the process by heading to the 6th floor of L.A. City Hall where the planning department is.
"They would start with us," says L.A.'s principal planner Shana Bonstin, "to get a sense of what types of development they can do, to get a sense of how to ask for it."
Zoning maps lay out the limits for what can be built on any plot of land.
A rectangle in green is for parks and can't be developed. Gold might mean residential homes up to compact apartment or condo buildings. Red squares are for high-density commercial buildings where the sky's the limit, literally.
Most of those red areas frame Los Angeles' most congested streets. That's on purpose: Planners first created the roads that would be L.A.'s main thoroughfares – like Wilshire and Sunset – and then said the open land around it could be built up big.
"The city of Los Angeles was really built out first," says Bonstin.
L.A. has the benefit (and problem) of being popular
There's a twist – many of the maps for L.A.'s 35 neighborhood are out of date.
The Hollywood one, for example, was designed in 1988 and hasn't been updated since.
So Bonstin is hearing from people who want to build for the city of 2017 ... and working off of designs that the people of the '80s wanted for Los Angeles.
L.A. has grown to be a much bigger city since that time.
Its population jumped by 34 percent between 1980 and 2015, which is much faster than places like New York, San Francisco or Chicago.
That means the maps don't account for more residents, or even advances in technology and infrastructure.
"Certainly since this map was developed, we had the Red Line come in," says Bonstin, and the Metro subway stops in the area have increased foot traffic.
It's a pattern you can see throughout the city, she adds.
For example, the map covering Miracle Mile limits how big you can build near LACMA and the Petersen Automotive Museum.
"This plan doesn't really account for Museum Row and how that has taken off in the last decade or so," says Bonstin.
That's why she says her office will consider zone changes for developers who want to break ground on dense, large buildings: 29-year-old maps like Hollywood's haven’t kept up with L.A.’s popularity as a national and international destination.
Her decisions are based on proximity, though.
If a proposal is in the middle of a small residential zone and happens to be right next to a tall tower, she might consider granting the request. But she won't allow a 15-story complex to plop down in the center of a sea of single-family homes.
Just update the maps...
You might be wondering why the city doesn't do that.
"Some of the concern might be the sense of doing planning through individual projects rather than comprehensively stopping everything, taking a look, where do we want to go in the future?" says Bonstin.
The city has tried.
A 2012 update to Hollywood’s 1988 map would’ve zoned more areas for bigger buildings, for example.
But people from the neighborhood successfully got the plan killed in court over three years ago – they were worried about the environmental impact.
Both the Measure S supporters and opponents agree, however, that updating the maps is a priority so all projects follow the rules and aren’t the exceptions.
Mayor Eric Garcetti and the City Council have pushed to revise all the community plans by 2026, too.
Bonstin says, beyond Measure S, that's the time to stay engaged.
"One of the ironies that we have in planning is that the larger scale and more comprehensive the planning, the less interest we get in it," she says. "People tend to come out when it is really impacting their individual neighborhood or their next door neighbor or their property."
But even if the topic of zoning and the planning code can be dense, Bonstin wants you to give her new maps so you have a say in the future of your L.A.
Prop or not? Why presidents single people out
It was one of the most memorable moments of the night Tuesday: President Trump in his first speech before Congress turned the spotlight on Chief Petty Officer, Ryan Owens and the wife he left behind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_3FR6FrTEk
Owens died during a raid in Yemen at the end of January. The circumstances aren't clear.
The two-minute standing ovation for the fallen Navy Seal was a touching moment to some,
Media people in my feed (left) viewed Trump's Navy SEAL moment last night very differently from the veterans (right). A story in two images: pic.twitter.com/P2vlptE5B1
— Brandon Friedman (@BFriedmanDC) March 1, 2017
Reaction from veterans online was swift: several condemned the display, saying Trump exploited Carryn Owens' grief. Then came the TV commentary:
Presidents often point out persons of note in front of Congress. Sometimes their motives are clear, other times opaque.
So why do it? For answers, Take Two turned to Barbara Perry, director of Presidential Studies at the University of Virginia's Miller Center.
Click on the blue bar above to listen to the entire interview.
What happens if Jeff Sessions tries dismantling California's pot industry?
"Good people don’t smoke marijuana," U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said during a meeting last April. Sessions may have recused himself from matters relating to the 2016 campaign and Russia, but as attorney general, he still has the power to shut down marijuana markets in states across the U.S.
That's why, from the time that Sessions was floated as the potential AG, marijuana advocates have been worried about what he might do to the cannabis industry. Since marijuana markets have only become more prevalent across the country recently, popping up in states like California, advocates are watching Sessions and the Trump administration closely, reading into everything that they say about weed.
What have Sessions and the Trump administration said about legal cannabis?
"I do think that you’ll see greater enforcement of it," Press Secretary Sean Spicer said last week, referring to federal law, which bans the growing, trafficking and use of cannabis.
"My best view is that we don't need to be legalizing marijuana," Sessions said during a speech to the National Association of Attorneys Generals on Feb. 28. "I, as you know, am dubious about marijuana. And states I get can pass whatever laws they choose, but I'm not sure we're going to be a better, healthier nation if we have marijuana being sold at every corner grocery store."
In the past, President Donald Trump has said that he believes that it should be up to the states to decide how they want to deal with marijuana. He hasn't been entirely consistent while discussing it, but Politifact has a nice roundup if you're curious.
So, it's not absolutely clear what the Trump administration is going to do, but that doesn't mean that people in the cannabis industry aren't anticipating the worst.
How can Sessions shut down the legal cannabis industry?
To put it simply, Sessions can use the power of the federal government. He can do that because, while California and other states have legalized pot, the federal government still considers it illegal. It’s a Schedule I substance, which places it in the same category as heroin and LSD.
Because of that classification, regardless of the laws that states pass, the federal government can elect to enforce federal law — which could mean shutting down the various marijuana markets that have popped up.
The markets were able to establish themselves in various states because the Obama administration more or less allowed them to do so, something that I covered in January.
There’s no guarantee that mass shutdowns will happen, but when statements like those above are made by Spicer and Sessions, marijuana advocates tend to worry.
What could federal enforcement look like?
Karl Manheim from Loyola Law School set the scenario for me. First, we could see letters from the federal government letting marijuana businesses know that they need to cease operation.
Then, they could launch raids, just like they did in the mid-2000s. In those raids, agents stormed grow operations and dispensaries with guns drawn to seize property, arrest and prosecute people — even if they were operating legally under state law.
When the George W. Bush administration took a hardline stance against medical marijuana, launching raids across the state, local law enforcement often participated, though the states and municipalities can opt to not have local authorities available for enforcement activities. However, even if that’s the case, the Drug Enforcement Administration can launch their own raids and investigations.
What was it like for the cannabis industry when the federal government was cracking down?
It was nerve-wracking, according to Virgil Grant, who was imprisoned three separate times on marijuana-related drug charges. The third charge came when his medical marijuana shops in Los Angeles County were raided by federal officials. At the time, there were raids going on across the state.
"Everybody operated, opening up their doors every day wondering, 'Is this the day that I'm going to get hit by the DEA... and are they going to come crashing in my home, my business?'" Grant said.
Grant spent six years in federal prison. But now he’s back, running two local marijuana advocacy groups: the Southern California Coalition and the California Minority Alliance.
"When they talk about being tough on crime or the war on drugs or things like that, that's always dumped upon the minority community more aggressively than any other community," he said.
Can California challenge the federal government's decision?
Manheim said that that scenario isn't likely. They can protest, but in response, the federal government can threaten to withhold certain funding.
None of the California officials that I contacted, including Gov. Jerry Brown and state AG Xavier Becerra, specified what actions they might take. Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote a letter to President Trump, detailing his opposition to enforcement of the federal law.
When asked, Alex Traverso, chief of communications at the state Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation, said that they were continuing to work on regulations for California’s marijuana market.
Growers and manufacturers that I've spoken with aren't going to stop either. They've operated in the shadows for this long, they told me — and even if there is a federal government crackdown, plenty of them would find a way to keep going.
Series: High-Q: Your California cannabis questions answered
This story is part of Take Two's look at the burgeoning, multi-billion dollar marijuana industry in California, with audience Q&As, explorations of personal narratives and an examination of how the industry is changing the world around our audience.
Read more in this series and call or text us your questions at (929) 344-1948, or
Harley v. Indian rolls into Petersen Automotive Museum
It’s a rivalry that’s gone on for decades. No, it isn’t Coke versus Pepsi. It isn’t Star Wars versus Star Trek. It’s Harley versus Indian. Opening this weekend, the new exhibit at the Petersen Automotive Museum will explore the century-old rivalry of the two legendary American motorcycle makers.
"With the fairly recent reintroduction of the Indian name plate on the American market, we thought it would be a really good idea to trace the history of Indian and their arch rival back to the early part of the 20th century," said Leslie Kendall, chief curator for the Petersen and the Harley v. Indian exhibit opening Saturday, March 4.
Indian Motorcycle dates back to 1901, Harley-Davidson to 1903. Indian, however, went bankrupt in 1953 and changed hands several times in the following decades. Now owned by Polaris Industries, Indian has been back on the market since 2013.
The oldest motorcycles in the exhibit are a 1902 Indian Camelback and 1908 Harley-Davidson Model 4, both of which show motorcycles in their infancy.
In the early part of the 20th century, "There were dozens of American motorcycle manufacturers," Kendall said. "Most of them started by building bicycles. Today we would call them glorified mopeds because they all had pedaling gear and that’s usually how you got them started, you didn’t have a crank or an electric start. You’d pedal them to get them going."
Today, both Harley-Davidson and Indian motorcycles are characterized by massive V-twin engines, but that wasn't always the case. Indians were powered with one, two -- even four cylinders, such as the very first Indian Ace motorcycle from 1927 that's included in the new Petersen exhibit.
Harley and Indian both made three wheelers, as well, including a Harley Servi-Car -- a precursor to the Harley trike -- and an Indian Dispatch Tow, used for towing. The three wheelers are among the 28-vehicle display that also includes midget race cars powered with Indian and Harley engines and a 1993 Harley HRM gifted to museum namesake, Bob Petersen, on the 45th anniversary of Hot Rod magazine.
The Binge: love, romance and Queen Elizabeth
Got some time to waste? Don't know what to do? You could catch up on some great movies or TV shows that are streaming, but where to begin?
Luckily there's our monthly segment - The Binge. A Martinez talks to writer and film critic
. Here are his picks:
What If (HULU – Showtime Movies)
Originally released under the title The F Word, with the F standing for FRIEND. This very funny, very insightful comedy stars Daniel Radcliffe as Wallace, a heartbroken guy who has been laying low, feeling sorry for himself but meets and falls in love with Chantry, played by Zoe Kazan.
Radcliffe’s buddy is played by Adam Driver and his girlfriend is played by McKenzie Davis who was in The Martian and is one of the leads in a great show we recently featured, Halt & Catch Fire.
Singles (HBO GO)
Singles comes from writer/director Cameron Crowe – who’s made everything from Say Anything to Jerry Maguire. This 1992 flick, is really good and full of superb performances from Bridget Fonda, Matt Dillon, Campbell Scott and Kyra Sedgwick.
This is Us (NBC.Com/HULU)
NBC’s new surprise hit dramedy is still in its first season – they’ve aired about 15 episodes so far and yes, some episodes are uneven and it can get a bit sappy at times, but overall it is a marvelous show – it follows three siblings and tells multiple stories with interesting, three dimensional characters portrayed by an excellent group of actors – one of which is Sterling K. Brown, who deservedly won an Emmy playing Christopher Darden in The People VS. O.J. Simpson.
The Crown (Netflix)
The Crown is the biographical story of Queen Elizabeth II and the first season, which consists of 10 episodes, covers the time period of 1947 when Elizabeth married Phillip to about 1955. The series has received excellent reviews and has already won Golden Globes for Best Drama Series and Claire Foy for Best Lead Actress who is magnificent as the Queen. Another actor getting raves is John Lithgow who portrays the elderly Winston Churchill.
(click on the blue arrow above to hear the entire interview)