Entries Tagged as ''

Westchester’s basketball program – An obstacle to reform

Now that Westchester High School has again taken the state Division I basketball championship I’ll take this opportunity to reprint an article I posted a year ago that pointed out that we cannot have reform at WHS until the school focuses its attention and resources (including it varsity sports programs) at local students instead of the regions elite.

Westchester High School may have won its 5th State Division I title, but the basketball program continues to be nothing more than a private club team headed by Ed Azzam. A club that has no place for W/PdR students.

Azzam even acknowledges himself that academics at WHS takes a back seat to sports in this recent  L.A.Times blog as saying “That’s kind of when it kind of dawned on me, the difference between CAMS (the charter school Azzam’s son goes to) and a lot of other schools. My kids would never consider missing a game — and it wouldn’t even enter my mind — and that’s the difference. The academics here (at CAMS) come first in all that they do.”

Since I published the article a year ago there have been some encouraging changes including the hiring of a new principal. Dr. Bruce Mims was recently hired by a select group of parents, teachers and community members as part of the iDesign reforms at the high school.

However, Mims will have a tough time attracting our local students including local student athletes as long as Westchester’s sports programs are designed to attract or recruit athletes from throughout the country with the specific goal of winning Division I championships.

Westchester out of the Playoffs – so should be the coaches

Former principal Dana Perryman – “We would like the Westchester community to continue to believe that this is their school… There are a lot of families with young children in the area and we want them to send their children here.”

When Perryman uttered those words six years ago hoping that our communities children would return to the school, few Westchester families took up her offer. Many of those third graders whose families she was speaking to will be attending other high schools this coming September.

That is because the school continuously failed to offer the families a wide array of academic courses, electives and it set its bar so high in its sports programs by offering places on its junior varsity and varsity teams only to the regions most elite players. I pointed out not to long ago on these pages (quickly picked up by one local newspaper) that the high school no longer even has an aerospace magnet even though the magnet had “Aerospace” in the name.

All of this could change if reforms can take place now that the school elected to distance itself from the perpetually broken system of local districts and a micromanaging downtown board of education. In December, teachers and parents voted to join the LMU/Westchester Family of schools. Its still part of the LAUSD but it is being granted some forms of autonomy.

Steps for reform
One recent step in the right direction was the announcement that our high school will be getting its school band and music director back. That’s just one of a series of steps that will be necessary if the LMU/Westchester family of schools is serious about renewing community interest in the high school.

Another important step would be a demonstration to the community that the athletic needs of our sons are just as important as the performing arts needs of all of our children.

That step would necessitate a new direction in the schools varsity and junior varsity athletic programs and finding new people to manage and coach it.

Now that the basketball program at Westchester High School has come to a quick end, it would be a good time to thank athletic director Brian Henderson and basketball coach Ed Azzam for their services and look for a new director and coach whose interests are in providing the local student athlete with opportunities.

Henderson and Azzam’s only interests has been to win CIF State Division I championships year after year. Together they have been quite effective. However, to meet that lofty goal the Comets have been caught violating CIF rules time after time, year after year.

Few if any at all of Azzam’s varsity players over the years have come through Westchester’s feeder schools that would also include our local private schools. Henderson and Azzam’s program have routinely recruited outside of the schools enrollment area, often raiding other schools to recruit some of the best players in the country to insure a place in the CIF state finals.

Some examples include:

  • The Comets were slapped with a year’s probation when Hassan Adams played for the team in a 2000 summer tournament before his transfer to the school was official.
  • The same year Ashton Thomas was declared ineligible for varsity competition one season because of an improper transfer from Leuzinger.
  • In 2003 Amir Johnson was recruited out of Verbum Dei (an academically superior school btw) to play basketball for WHS. Westchester was Johnsons third school in as many years having originally enrolled at Narbonne. Westchester was banned from post season play in the CIF State finals after the recruiting violations were discovered. According to the Los Angeles Times, Johnson was punished for falsifying grades and an assistant coach was banned from coaching for one year.
  • Hassan Adams of Inglewood had attended two other high schools before landing at Westchester.
  • The LA Times also noted that starting point guard Ashanti Cook, sixth man Brandon Heath and reserve Bobby Brown each came from Inglewood and others came from Santa Monica, Hawthorne, Torrance, Lawndale, Carson, Hancock Park and the Crenshaw district.
  • Auri Allen played at two different high schools in four years before winding up at Westchester in his senior year.
  • The LA Times wrote: “Three times in the last two years (2002-2003) Westchester has been formally accused of breaking City Section rules, and twice it has been penalized.
  • In 2005 Eric Sonderheim of the Times wrote: “The stink of corruption keeps getting stronger even though the City Section (referring to particularly to Westchester) and The Southern Section have new transfer restrictions requiring athletes to change residences if they want to gain immediate eligibility.”

Cheating the community

Westchester high school recruiting practices have come at a price to the community. Our son’s, many who could easily find themselves a slot on a team in another school if they had lived elsewhere, are left out of program in our own community.

Because of Westchester’s recruiting practices, it’s been years since this community has been able to rally around one of it’s children at our high school and its been years since one of our kids found their name in a local paper such as the Argonaut with a story of their contribution to a successful win over another school. What this ultimately boils down to is another opportunity that the school failed to provide our children and one of many reasons why it will be difficult to encourage community enrollment.

In 2002, Reseda Coach Mike Wagner was quoted as saying: “No kid in his right mind is not going to want to go to Westchester, where they get their shoes and sweats and bags.”

It goes even further than that, The LA Times write “While most high school teams do car washes and bake sales to raise funds for equipment, uniforms and travel, Westchester, a public school, attracts all-star-caliber athletes from across the South Bay and parts of Los Angeles. The players admit they have been at least partially enticed by thousands of dollars in free apparel and paid trips to national tournaments that are attended by hundreds of college scouts.”

In the same article the Times wrote ”Jonathan Smith, a top player at Lawndale Leuzinger High, transferred to Westchester before this season only to become an end- of-the-bench reserve. But he doesn’t regret his choice.

“There’s a lot of exposure,” he said. “At Leuzinger, we only traveled to tournaments in the South Bay. At Westchester, we travel everywhere. The shoes, they’re nice too.”

Westchester high schools activities have hurt not only our community but other high schools as well since they lure students away from their programs as had happened with Amir Johnson who attended Narbonne and Mater Dei before settling in on Westchester HS.

On a well known basketball forum a parent wrote, “If you want your son to be part of a program that cheats and constantly is looking for players to replace your son and your son will have teammates transferring in and out faster than the planes that land at LAX, then Westchester might be one of the places for him.

If you want your kid to be part of a program that the Coaches genuinely care about the well being of the kid (not just the basketball skills) and will work their butts off to build a team around your son and help him both on the basketball court and in the classroom, I can suggest the following schools…”

Clearly at many high schools, recruiting top talent has reached obsessive levels and the cycle continues year after year. It doesn’t have to continue at Westchester High School any longer.

If the LMU/Westchester Family of Schools is true to it’s commitment of bringing the community back into its schools, it will have the authority bring back athletic opportunities to kids living in the Westchester high school enrollment area.

Does L.A.’s proposed water rate
structure discriminate against families?

The Department of Water and Power voted to reduce a residents basic allotment of water from 28 HFC to 24 HFC. Anything exceeding 24 HFC will now be charged a higher rate.  This was proposed by the board to “encourage” residents to conserve. (Nothing was proposed by the board to encourage reductions in housing development that’s been driving most of the water demand in the last decade.)

walletThe unfortunate result of reducing the basic (Tier I) allotment is that it hurts the pocketbook of households with three or more members, particularly those with kids. Single member households and couples will easily stay under the 24 HFC tier level.

However, households with children will end up paying more since water rates are not based on the number of people living in the home. If you have three or four children, each taking daily baths, brushing teeth, doing laundry for them, etc. you will obviously use more water, but probably less per capita than a one or two person household.

I just checked my February bill and my family used 25 HFC so we are going to be over our allotment and will have to pay extra if the city council approves it. Last year we were at 31 HFC so we already have reduced our consumption by 20%.  

Take our current usage and divide it by four we only use 6.25 HFC per person or 3.12 HFC per person per month. That is roughly 2,330 gallons a month or 77 gallons a day per person. A family of 5? 59 gallons per day per person. Now we are getting into city enforced shower-free days.

A single person can use all 24 HFC (299 gals per day) and stay under the cap. A couple can use 12 HFC (150 gals per day) each and stay under the cap.

So who is getting penalized by the proposed water rate? Households with 3 or more members.

What they ought to do is go after the higher-consumption customers like those living in LADWP General Manager’s neighborhood.  

Yep… The General Manager of the LADWP last year was outed using over 100 HFC in numerous billing cycles. 4 times my homes usage. The audit also notes that his neighbors also use from 2 to 4 times what we use in a month. My guess is that they don’t give a twit how much they pay or what Tier level they are in.

Drawing the line on housing
and higher density

Last week our neighborhood council was asked to re-approve the EIR for Playa Vista Phase II and on a vote of 18-2 the neighborhood council supported the 2,600 mixed use development. I was the only person on the council to speak against any further development and 1 of 2 that voted against it.

While my vote was on this project, my -real- message was towards the community, our city council and the mayor on future and soon to be heard projects.

Here are my comments:

On November 4th, 2003 our neighborhood council voted to support Playa Vista Phase II 13 to 10. At the time Playa Vista had greatly down-sized their original plans in response to the community concerns and we commended them for that.

I was one of the members of the board at the time that supported the EIR. I liked the plan because of the mix of retail and lower residential density than the original proposal.

The retail component was important to me because it completed the package giving the Playa Vista community their own local place to shop without having to leave the community and create an additional traffic burden on Sepulveda or Lincoln.

With our neighborhood council’s support, former council member Cindy Miscikowski took that project downtown where the Los Angeles City Council deliberated and with the Mayor they approved the project and work began.

However.., a lot has transpired since 2003 that has -challenged the notion- that we can continue to grow and grow and provide housing to meet Sacramento’s growth projections for Southern California. It is these growth projections that drive development. These projections are not based on reality and they ignore very real constraints to our regions infrastructure. Likewise, L.A.’s planning policies ignore the same restraints.

Since the time that –our– neighborhood council first approved Playa Vista Phase II, we’ve seen the rolling power blackouts and brownouts of 2004. We’ve seen soaring levels of traffic gridlock and impractical solutions to solve it. We’ve seen our reservoirs, lakes and rivers slowly draw down and emergency water conservation ordinances imposed on us and on residents from other cities throughout Southern California. And this was –without- the construction of Phase II.

Between 1970 and 2008, the population of the City of Los Angeles has gone from 2.81 million people to just over 4 million and our water deliveries have remained essentially static at less than 700,000 acre feet. The water supply has not grown with population growth and it won’t. In fact, between equal parts of below average rainfall, court ordered reductions and excessive growth, the best we can hope for is making do with much, much less.

The most recent projections by the California State Department of Finance is that Southern California’s population will double by 2050. According to the DOF, we will need housing for another 15 million people. If we build it… they will come.

Since 1997, the City of Los Angeles has been bending over backwards to meet the States projected population growth and housing requirements by approving permits for 10’s of thousand of new housing units each year. Even during this period of emergency water conservation enforcement, the City of Los Angeles still has not imposed a moratorium on development.

We’ve seen that growth here in Playa del Rey, Westchester and in Playa Vista. We’ve seen the loss of Acapulco Restaurant at Pershing and Manchester to a 49 unit housing complex. We’ve seen the arrival of a 288 housing unit complex at Manchester and Tuscany. We’ve seen L.A.’s first so-called smart growth project – the 539 unit Playa del Oro, and high density projects near transit stops such as the 37 unit complex that replaced B’nai Tikvah and the 43 unit condo project on Arizona. It’s happening here and it’s happening all over the city.

Neighborhood councils were created to give regular people like us a voice in the direction of their community. We are not expected to be rubber stamps for our elected officials housing policies.

If we don’t speak up…, One parcel at a time, our neighborhoods will slowly grind down to a halt as people are squeezed into smaller confines, traffic gridlock will extend longer into the day and evening, and more severe water conservation efforts will imposed on us. I fully expect the City of L.A to raise the enforcement level to at least a Phase IV or higher this year.

Having said this, Under today’s conditions, I cannot support large housing projects, let alone a project that proposes 2,600 new housing units. If this was 2003 I might have a very different position. However, it’s 2009 and the region is overdeveloped and the city has overcommitted our resources including water, power and streets. Unless there is a way for the city to resolve these infrastructure issues without further eroding our quality of life, I cannot support new housing..

We may not be able to control rainfall,  we can control growth. If you have the tolerance for more traffic grid lock, tightening water supplies and penalties for not meeting water restrictions vote yes.

If you want to send the city a message that unsustainable growth is NOT acceptable, Vote No.

David Coffin
Neighborhood Council of Westchester/Playa
Board member of Residential Seat 10