Responsible Leadership
for a
Better Community
Responsible Leadership For A Better Community is a coalition of experienced and new political and governmental participants, civic voices, neighborhood advocates, and grassroots activists. RLFABC focuses on issues and efforts that involve protecting the rights and improving the safety and quality of life of local residents and all people, including by emphasizing the views and lived experiences of those most directly affected by governmental success or failure.
We are currently setting up our text messaging system. Information on how to sign up for SMS updates will be available soon. Please check back for updates.
Email us at: [email protected]
Privacy Policy
Last Updated: 05/28/2026Responsible Leadership for a Better Community respects your privacy and is committed to protecting any information you choose to share with us.Information We Collect
We only collect information that individuals voluntarily provide to us.This may include:Information provided when contacting us by email
Information submitted through sign-up or opt-in forms
Phone numbers provided for SMS/text message updates
We do not knowingly collect personal information from children under 13 years of age.How We Use Information
We may use information provided to:Respond to inquiries
Provide information about our community activities and initiatives
Send email communications
Send SMS/text message updates to individuals who have opted in
Maintain and improve our communications
SMS Communications
Individuals who voluntarily opt in may receive SMS/text messages from Responsible Leadership for a Better Community.Message frequency may vary.Message and data rates may apply.You may opt out at any time by replying STOP to any message. For assistance, reply HELP.Information Sharing
We do not sell, rent, or trade personal information.We may use trusted service providers to assist with communications, website operations, or message delivery. Information is shared only as necessary to provide those services.We may also disclose information when required by law.Data Security
We take reasonable steps to protect information provided to us. However, no method of electronic transmission or storage is completely secure, and we cannot guarantee absolute security.External Links
Our website may contain links to third-party websites or services. We are not responsible for the privacy practices of those third parties.Your Choices
You may choose not to provide personal information to us.You may unsubscribe from email communications using any unsubscribe instructions provided.You may opt out of SMS communications at any time by replying STOP.Contact Us
If you have questions about this Privacy Policy, please contact:Responsible Leadership for a Better Community[email protected]
Terms & ConditionsLast Updated: 05/28/2026Welcome to the website of Responsible Leadership for a Better Community. By accessing or using this website, you agree to these Terms & Conditions.Website UseThis website is provided for informational and community engagement purposes. You agree to use this website only in a lawful manner.SMS CommunicationsBy voluntarily providing your phone number and opting in to receive text messages, you consent to receive SMS communications from Responsible Leadership for a Better Community.Message frequency may vary.Message and data rates may apply.You may opt out of SMS communications at any time by replying STOP to any message.For assistance, reply HELP or contact us using the information provided below.Your consent to receive text messages is not a condition of participation in any activities or services.Intellectual PropertyUnless otherwise stated, the content on this website is the property of Responsible Leadership for a Better Community and may not be copied, reproduced, or distributed without permission.Third-Party LinksThis website may contain links to third-party websites. We are not responsible for the content, availability, or practices of those websites.DisclaimerThe information provided on this website is for general informational purposes only. While we strive to keep information accurate and up to date, we make no guarantees regarding completeness, accuracy, or reliability.Limitation of LiabilityTo the fullest extent permitted by law, Responsible Leadership for a Better Community shall not be liable for any damages arising from the use of this website or reliance on information provided through this website.Changes to These TermsWe may update these Terms & Conditions from time to time. Updates will be posted on this page with a revised effective date.Contact InformationIf you have questions regarding these Terms & Conditions, please contact:Responsible Leadership for a Better Community[email protected]
Copper Wire Theft Reward
This constituent survey asks, “Do YOU support the City of L.A.’s reward ordinance to help discourage and prevent copper wire theft?” The “Metal and Wire Theft Reward” ordinance was adopted by an 11-2 vote of the City Council.Copper wire theft has reportedly caused nearly half of the current streetlight outages across L.A. (KTLA5 News, Feb. 13, 2026). More than 200,000 streetlights are in need of repair or replacement because of copper wire thieves (NBC4, April 24, 2026).Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martinez and Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez voted AGAINST the ordinance. Voting FOR the ordinance were Councilmembers Blumenfield, Hutt, McOsker, Park, Rodriguez, Harris-Dawson, Jurado, Lee, Padilla, Raman, and Yaroslavsky. The ordinance was then signed into law by Mayor Karen Bass.It is dangerous when street lighting doesn’t work. Good street lighting deters crime and promotes pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Much of the copper wire theft has been attributed to organized crime activity.Because of this ordinance, information regarding theft of copper wire may lead to a $5,000 reward for felony grand theft, or $1,000 for misdemeanor theft. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Angelenos are getting asked to pay approximately $150 or more per year to get L.A.’s streetlights fixed or replaced.SURVEY: By an 11-2 vote, the Council adopted the “Metal and Wire Theft Reward” ordinance which was then signed into law by the Mayor. To take our one-question survey, which asks if YOU support the ordinance, please use this link:Responsible Leadership for a Better Community Survey - Copper Wire Theft RewardThank you for agreeing to take this brief survey. Your opinions are important.Responsible Leadership for a Better Community is NOT affiliated with any political campaign or candidate, and will only release total survey numbers; responses are completely confidential, and no individual names, answers or information will be shared. Overall polling results will be made public by Responsible Leadership for a Better Community, through outreach to local media and civic and community organizations.Paid for by Responsible Leadership for a Better Community #1491361
Not authorized by a candidate or a committee controlled by a candidate.
Encampments Near Schools & Daycare Centers
In August, 2022, the Los Angeles City Council voted overwhelmingly to expand Municipal Code 41.18 to prohibit homeless encampments within 500 feet of schools and daycare centers.Since then, the ban has been haphazardly enforced, often depending on whether a local City Council member ideologically opposes or supports the ban and its enforcement.This constituent survey asks, ”Do YOU support enforcement of this ban?” To take our one-question survey, please use this link:Responsible Leadership for a Better Community Survey - Encampments Near Schools & Daycare CentersThank you for agreeing to take this brief survey. Your opinions are important.BACKGROUND: Five current L.A. Councilmembers — Hugo Soto-Martinez, Nithya Raman, Marqueece Harris-Dawson, Ysabel Jurado, and Eunisses Hernandez — consistently vote AGAINST 41.18 enforcement zones within 500’ of schools and daycare centers, whether in their own districts or elsewhere.The other ten Councilmembers — Katy Yaroslavsky, Monica Rodriguez, Curren D. Price, Jr., Traci Park, Imelda Padilla, Adrin Nazarian, Tim McOsker, John Lee, Heather Hutt, and Bob Blumenfield — either vote consistently IN SUPPORT OF such enforcement zones near schools and daycare centers, or decide based on an encampment’s individual circumstances.Angelenos deeply care about the safety of children, as well as the present and future well-being of people living precariously on the streets of our city. Policies, data, and expenditures regarding homelessness are fiercely debated, while calls for implementation of 41.18 within 500’ of schools and daycare centers are often passionately championed by parents and guardians of students who walk by such encampments.Responsible Leadership for a Better Community believes that all City of L.A. constituents deserve to be heard on this and any crucial issue. RLFABC is NOT affiliated with any political campaign or candidate, and will only release total survey numbers; responses are completely confidential, and no individual names, answers, or information will be shared. Overall polling results will be made public by Responsible Leadership for a Better Community, through outreach to local media and civic and community organizations.Paid for by Responsible Leadership for a Better Community #1491361
Not authorized by a candidate or a committee controlled by a candidate.
Controversial Local Development
Single-question surveys by Responsible Leadership for a Better Community — in which constituents are invited to participate — take the pulse of the community on important matters. This survey about a controversial local proposed development appears at the bottom.On April 23, L.A.’s City Planning Commission held a remarkable discussion regarding a controversial proposed development in Silver Lake (Council District 13). The commissioners asked a wide array of tough but fair questions about the Silver Lake Garden Apartments, which date back to 1949: the proposal would add buildings, height, and density (and subterranean garage), with the developer seeking six waivers, an exemption, and an incentive.Commission staff said the only show of support for the proposed development was a single letter, whereas 32 letters were received opposing the proposed development, including one of unanimous non-approval from the Silver Lake Neighborhood Council. Well more than 1,000 local residents (Silver Lake Garden Apartments renters and neighbors alike) signed a petition against the proposal; 11 spoke out in person at the meeting. A host of apprehensions were shared, including about renter displacement; the property’s significant history of violations; how enlarged development could clog up the narrow, winding road from the hillside directly behind in what is a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone; etc.The planning director representing Council Member Hugo Soto-Martinez never mentioned or acknowledged any tenant/constituent concerns when he addressed the commission. He didn’t criticize anything about the proposal. He said it was “a relatively unique situation” and “not something the city is in a position to turn down,” and that CD 13 staff had attended multiple meetings including an on-site town hall, and that the office has a dedicated housing team offering support on tenants’ rights issues.The commissioners — if you wish, you can hear the entire 90-minute discussion here, https://planning.lacity.gov/plndoc/Audio/CPC/2026/04-23-2026/7CPC20245534.mp3 — asked many questions, and raised many issues: “It’s heartbreaking to hear the call from the public and the current tenants, in what they’re experiencing.” “It’s very disheartening.” “I don’t believe we should be just saying that’s OK, and they’ll take care of them, we should not be moving forward when a landlord has had that level of violations on a property, and then approving their project on a go-forward basis.” “This is by far one of the more unattractive properties I have seen, while I’ve been on the commission.” “The waiver requirements that they are asking for are many, and I’m not really sure what the benefit for the city is, in terms of the actual affordable housing that they are supposed to be providing.” “It saddens me to hear about this type of project, and also obviously, it saddens me even more that we have so many limitations in what we can do.” One commissioner asked why “reward bad behavior?”A commissioner who lives close to that neighborhood said “the traffic is as horrendous as everyone who called in described at particular times of the day, and weekends are terrible.” “While I am certainly in favor of more housing of all types in this city, I think a lot of those concerns that were expressed are very valid.” “The health and safety of our fellow Angelenos are on the table here.” “The range of the possible violations that people have been subjected to includes infestation, mould, lack of heat…and it sounds like beyond neglect, maybe abuse.” The last commissioner to chime in said, “I manage over 1500 units nationwide in multiple buildings: I’ve never seen a degree of complaints like this…I have rent control units and I have buildings that are 75 years old. I’ve never seen anything like this, and so it does raise a great degree of concern to me, to be moving forward with a project that is going to be managed in the same way that this is being managed.” The commissioners were told that “the entitlements before the commission are the density bonus and the project review entitlements, and those entitlements do not have a mechanism or a need to require guarantees from the applicants for existing unit habitability,” and that the violations were no longer open. The landlord said that many of the past violations were caused by tenants, and that violations have been corrected when noticed during inspection.The Commission was up against an immediate procedural deadline to decide the issue, but earnestly wanted to get more answers, and input from various agencies, building inspectors, etc. The developer willingly agreed to a continuance until the next meeting date of June 11. The commissioners made clear that in general, they’d appreciate more coordination between departments from the very start of a proposed development, so that decisions will be as informed as possible when voting ultimately occurs. In case you want to read it, here’s the link to the massive file that was available as of the 4/23 Planning Commission meeting: https://planning.lacity.gov/plndoc/StaffReports/2026/04-23-2026/CPC20245534.pdf.Responsible Leadership for a Better Community Survey - Silver Lake Garden ApartmentsPaid for by Responsible Leadership for a Better Community #1491361
Not authorized by a candidate or a committee controlled by a candidate.