Mental health outreach curbs local homelessness and incarceration, MOCA "parts ways" with advocate of diverse artists, Beverly Hills' fight against incorporation into city of LA.
California battles EPA over fuel economy
California has been in the Trump administration's crosshairs this week. On Tuesday, the same day President Trump was in town saying Governor Jerry Brown was doing a terrible job — the head of the EPA was on TV challenging California's authority to set its own fuel economy standards.
"California is not the arbiter of these issues," EPA director Scott Pruitt told Bloomberg. "[It] can't dictate to the rest of the country what these levels are going to be."
Sue Carpenter joined Take Two's A Martinez to explain what's going on.
The fight over fuel standards
In a nutshell, it's about how many miles per gallon a vehicle gets. During the Obama administration, in 2012, the California Air Resources Board, together with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, agreed on coordinated fuel economy rules that made them more strict every year through 2025.
In seven years, the average fuel economy of a passenger vehicle in the U.S. is supposed to be 54.5 miles per gallon.
The car companies agreed to this and have been complying with that plan. California wants to keep those standards because cars with better fuel economy help the state meet its air quality and climate goals. But the EPA, under the Trump Administration, is now considering rolling back the stricter targets.
Why fuel economy standards are so important right now
The EPA has until April 1 to decide whether or not it will maintain the 2022-2025 fuel economy standards. Only days before President Trump took office in early 2017, the Obama-era EPA conducted a review of the 2022 to 2025 fuel economy standards and ordered them to stay in place.
The Obama administration EPA did that, of course, because there were rumblings that after Trump took office, he would void the fuel economy standards. And lo and behold, shortly after Trump took office, he said ambitious fuel economy rules hurt U.S. auto makers. And he promised to work on the standards, which is what's coming to a head right now.
Trump is concerned about market forces
Pruitt said this week that if fuel economy standards are too aggressive, they're counter-productive. In his interview with Bloomberg on Tuesday, he said the purpose of fuel economy standards "is to make cars more efficient that people are actually buying." He's referring to the fact that the market right now is skewed toward gas guzzlers.
The best-selling cars in the U.S. right now are all pickup trucks. Because of low gas prices and a healthy economy, people aren't buying fuel-efficient cars, so why force car companies to make them? That's the argument.
Why fuel economy is important to California
The Los Angeles and Long Beach areas consistently have some of the worst air quality in the country. California as a whole has extremely ambitious goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It needs more people to drive fuel-efficient cars in order to meet those goals.
Who gets to set fuel economy standards?
Ultimately, it's the federal government.
But right now, both the U.S. government and California set fuel economy standards. The reason California has been able to set more stringent fuel economy standards is because of the U.S. Clean Air Act, which has let California get a waiver from the U.S. government to set its own passenger vehicle emissions standards because it has such poor air quality and couldn't meet clean air standards without them. Since 1970, when the Clean Air Act was signed, California has gotten more than 100 waivers for vehicle emissions.
California wants fuel economy standards extended through 2030
The California Air Resources Board has said it would consider easing the current fuel economy standards if the Trump administration would agree to develop fuel efficiency targets further into the future — beyond 2025. California is already developing its own fuel economy standards out to 2030.
I n his television interview this week, Pruitt dismissed the possibility of setting standards further into the future. "Being predictive about what's going to be taking place out in 2030 is really hard," he said. "I think it creates problems when you do that too aggressively."
Car companies want continued federal and California cooperation
Even though the car companies have urged President Trump to relax the fuel economy standards, they want the EPA and California to continue coordinating their policies. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers told the Washington Post the industry wants a proper midterm review of the fuel economy standard that "lets the facts dictate the outcome."
The shocking firing of MOCA chief curator Helen Molesworth
The Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) fired its chief curator, Helen Molesworth, this week.
MOCA sent out a statement saying that the the museum and Molesworth "decided to part ways due to creative differences." Subsequent reports suggested a less amicable parting.
Arts reporter Jori Finkel of the New York Times explains:
"What we do know is that creative differences were happening, that much is legitimate. On top of that, Catherine Opie, a very prominent artist in town, who is a board member at MOCA, went on record with the L.A. Times saying this was not a peaceful parting of the ways. Helen Molesworth was fired by Philippe Vergne."
Molesworth had been at MOCA for three years and was charged with establishing and honing the museum's creative direction after a period of turmoil.
"She became the face of the museum, in many ways. She was the creative powerhouse. She was the visionary. She was the one responsible for almost all of all the exciting programming that we've seen over the last two or three years."
But ideological tensions developed between Molesworth and MOCA Director Philippe Vergne, who came on board in January 2014, only a month before Molesworth was hired for her position.
According to Finkel, Molesworth advocated for a more diverse roster of featured artists, while Vergne, and MOCA's Board of Trustees, preferred the old-fashioned approach of sticking with conventional art stars.
"There really does seem to be a kind of culture clash — blue chip versus not blue chip. How much is a museum going to be influenced by the market? How much are they going to be influenced by the trustees who own paintings by the artists that they want shown at the museum?
That is the case with Mark Grotjahn, another white male art star. The trustees are heavily invested in him. They own his artwork."
Molesworth's controversial firing undermines the recent narrative that MOCA is back on track after a rough patch.
A decade ago, MOCA "hit rock bottom," depleting a good chunk of its funding, according to Finkel. It has since recovered with a $130 million endowment and begun to rebuild staff.
But losing a chief curator is a big deal, Finkel notes. The Los Angeles art community was shocked by the news of Molesworth's firing and MOCA's direction is, once again, unclear.
"I think the future of MOCA is up for grabs, once again. We've been there before, and now we're here again, looking at [questions like] 'Where is MOCA heading?' and 'What does it value?'
MOCA has been considered the serious art museum in town. And that's why the artists here care about it so much. I think, for the last ten years, that's been in question."
For more, see Finkel's story in the New York Times.
Long Beach among latest SoCal cities to adopt sanctuary rules
SoCal snowboarder Mike Shea aims for Paralympic gold
Drivers in their golden years die more often in the Golden State
Fatal crashes involving older drivers are increasing, especially in California. The state has the highest number of licensed drivers over 65 and the third highest number of fatalities involving at least one of those drivers, according to a new report from TRIP, a nonprofit transportation research group.
Traffic fatalities have increased across all age and around the country, according to Carolyn Kelly, TRIP's Associate Director of Research and Communications.
While the overall number of such fatalities is up 11 percent over the past five years, Kelly says traffic fatalities involving drivers 65 and older have increased by 22 percent during the same period.
"As the baby boom generation continues to age, the numbers of licensed drivers that are 65 and older is increasing at exponential rates. As you see more older Americans on the road and more older Americans who are living very active lives, you are starting to see a corresponding increase in their involvement in fatal crashes."
Kelly also cited two compounding factors: older drivers' reduced ability to avoid accidents and their heightened physical fragility, which makes them more susceptible than younger, healthier drivers.
Kelly pointed to a number of strategies that could help reduce traffic fatalities among seniors, including:
- Making signage clearer, larger and brighter
- Reducing the complexity of intersections
- Installing lane departure warning systems in cars
- Installing blind spot notification devices in cars
- Developing autonomous vehicles
- Accessing rideshare services
- Assessing driving skills of older drivers
- Limiting driving hours
- Adjusting routes
Roadway improvements are not happening quickly enough, she said. Funding issues are the primary factor at both the state and federal levels:
In many states, the funding to make those improvements simply does not exist. And California is an example of a state that has recently taken steps to increase their transportation funding, and that's a great start. But there still is a lack of transportation funding in California, and nationwide.
Ultimately, the best decision for an older driver's safety may be to hang up their keys, though there are some ways to safely delay that potential eventuality.
How Beverly Hills became — and stayed — an independent city
If you look at a map of the city of Los Angeles, you'll spot Beverly Hills, an island in the middle of the civic ocean. How it got that way is a story with all the elements of a classic Hollywood movie: water rights, film stars and cutthroat politics.
Nancie Clare explores the details in her new book "The Battle for Beverly Hills."
Setting the scene
In the 1910s, Beverly Hills was a tiny, unassuming place while Los Angeles was booming after William Mulholland brought water to the city.
"[Beverly Hills] was the middle of nowhere: coyotes, bobcats and lima bean fields... It was wilderness and farmland. It was essentially treeless and it was dry and arid and not a lot of people."
Then came the movie business. As film studios moved out west, so did actors. Eventually, they settled in Beverly Hills. Clare says that back then, actors weren't in it for the fame because films were a young, risky industry.
"They were all this first generation of stars and they didn't go into it for the same reasons that actors go into wanting to be movie stars now. I think they just wanted to make a living, and they took a chance on these 'flickers.' No one knew if they had staying power or not."
Water Woes
By 1923, Beverly Hills had a problem. It was running out of water. The proposed solution was to join the city of Los Angeles, which had plenty of water to spare, Clare said.
A special election was called with a ballot measure to let Beverly Hills residents vote on whether or not they wanted to be annexed into Los Angeles.
Some residents, including local influencer Silsby Spalding, were against the idea of annexation, Clare said.
"[Spalding] felt that Beverly Hills would get more bang for its buck as an independent city. They would have more control over their schools, more control over land use, many of the arguments that are still used today, 100 years later."
But the threat of running out of water was enough to convince many residents to join L.A. How would the anti-annexation camp win over the voters? Enter the Beverly Hills Eight.
Star Power
The Beverly Hills Eight were a group of film stars: Mary Pickford, her husband Douglas Fairbanks, Will Rogers, Harold Lloyd, Conrad Nagel, Fred Niblo, Tom Mix and Rudolph Valentino. They were big names and they used their celebrity to fight hard for the anti-annexation cause.
"They went door to door. They had picnics. They signed pictures. They signed scripts. They took selfies or the 1920s version of selfies. And I never found it, but I heard a rumor that there was a photo-op with Rudolph Valentino going door to door with his literature explaining why Beverly Hills should not be part of Los Angeles."
Clare said she thinks the Beverly Hills Eight were the force that tipped the scale against annexation. Pickford, in particular knew how to leverage the public's admiration for her into political power.
"Celebrities, most of whom are actors or people that attract attention, understand the relationship between themselves and the person who's looking at them. They inhabit roles and the better they are at it, the better they are as influencers. I think [Mary Pickford] got it. I think she understood the extent of her influence and by extension the influence of other motion picture stars."
The Final Act
When the annexation vote finally rolled around, the 'nays' had won out and Beverly Hills remained independent. Clare believes that moment set the stage for celebrity intervention in politics.
To solve their water troubles, Beverly Hills bought the Sherman Water Company in 1928 from a city that eventually became West Hollywood. In 1941, Beverly Hills started receiving supplies from the Metropolitan Water District.
A monument to the Beverly Hills Eight, called "Celluloid," stands in the middle of a traffic circle at the intersection of Olympic Boulevard and South Beverly Drive. The bronze and marble obelisk is a tribute to the political battle that kept Beverly Hills independent and a reminder of what star power can do.