Mayor Eric Garcetti and several city council members have decided that the issue of a high-rise Los Angeles is too hot to handle and want to throw it into the bottomless pit that is the city hall bureaucracy, which is much akin to the Department of Circumlocution in Charles Dickens “Little Dorrit.” That’s why they favor delaying until 2026 new city plans regulating the big buildings.

Risk adverse is a kindly way of describing these officials. Gutless is more appropriate.

Development in Los Angeles is supposedly regulated by 35 neighborhood plans developed over many years by the city planning department and approved by mayors and the city council.

Here’s what it means: Whether those shops on your nearby shopping street are replaced by a 10-story apartment building is regulated by your neighborhood plan. Most of these plans are more than 15 years old.

But as someone who spent years hanging around city hall as a reporter and an ethics commissioner, I saw that these plans are worthless. Development in Los Angeles is actually controlled by a web of incomprehensible zoning laws that are regularly avoided by campaign-contributing real estate magnates and their city hall supporters. If developers want to put up a tall building, they go to the council member representing the area. Council members control zoning laws and developments in their districts. Their colleagues, no matter what a neighborhood plan says, routinely grant approval. Residents are left in the dark unless they happen to follow their neighborhood association website.

Market forces, not city laws and regulations, shape this process. Completion of the Metro subway through Hollywood into the San Fernando Valley helped sparked construction of high rises for apartments, condos, offices and retail in Hollywood. The backlash was an anti-development-limiting measure that is scheduled to be on the March, 2017 ballot. The Hollywood-inspired measure is likely to stir up enthusiasm in other parts of the city worried about gentrification, high rise construction and other changes that could come with new transit lines.

After the limit proposal surfaced, Mayor Garcetti and council members rushed into action with an odd plan that would delay a decision on regulating development, requiring the city planning to update the 35 existing plans by, believe it or not, 2026. It would require 28 more city planners to do the work at a cost of $4.2 million a year, which seems like a lot of money for a decade-long approach to rewriting existing plans.

Garcetti told David Zahniser of the Los Angeles Times that he wasn’t reacting to the limitation ballot measure. All he wanted to do, he said, is update. Actually, what he and the council members really want to do is delay action for a decade, hoping that protesters have short attention spans.

But we should have this debate next year, when the initiative is on the ballot, rather than letting the issue disappear in the city hall bureaucracy. Personally, I like the idea of residences, offices and retail around train and subway stops. But a lot of people worry about their neighborhoods being wrecked. And most everybody wants planning regulations with teeth, not the present laws that are easily avoided by developers and their city hall allies.

As a television moderator and a city councilman, the late Bill Rosendahl was fiercely dedicated to good government and clean politics. Even more important, he was dedicated to bringing people together to work for those laudable but frequently scorned goals.

It was notable that after he died Wednesday, among those paying tribute were two public spirited Angelenos of widely disparate political philosophies.

“At six foot three, with a bright, bursting smile and a bear hug the span of a 747, Rosendahl was an imposing force, unwavering in his principles…the kind of person you never meet among the elected class,” wrote liberal Harvey Rosenfield, founder of Consumer Watchdog, which fights business and government abuse. “Bill was a passionate supporter of Democratic candidates and liberal causes but he was open to discussion and arguments from all sides,” said conservative Joel Fox, a founder of the web site Fox & Hounds and a strong advocate for business, smaller government and lower taxes.

Both wrote of being frequent guests on Rosendahl’s Week In Review on what was then Century Communications cable. Shown on Century’s public access channel, it featured Rosendahl and four or five guests—politicians, academics, activists like Fox and Rosenfield and journalists.

I was on his first show, with Mayor Tom Bradley, and on his last, as he was leaving Century for the city council. He had been elected to represent the district that includes Mar Vista, Venice and the airport.

Rosendahl liked controversy on the show, giving the guests time to argue, but always making sure it was done in an intelligent, civilized way, so unlike the mindless shouting matches of today’s cable news channels and the Republican presidential debates. I’d try to get to Century’s unpretentious headquarters in an industrial section of Santa Monica early so I could gossip with him about politics. Another reason to arrive early was to talk to the other guests. I knew some but others were strangers and, through Rosendahl’s show, I became acquainted with a wide range of people.

As a councilman, Rosendahl was as forthright as he was as a TV host—a quality not especially appreciated by his council colleagues, whose guiding principle is “Go Along To Get Along.” Rosendahl had won many journalism awards by not going along, and he certainly didn’t follow that cautionary advice when he worked on Sen. George McGovern’s presidential campaign in 1972.

Rather than ducking controversy, Rosendahl sought it out, driven by his desire to let Los Angeles speak. I remember a Saturday afternoon meeting of the Westside Progressives at a church in Mar Vista. The earnest, well-intentioned Progressives had invited members of Occupy LA and Rosendahl. Occupy held elected officials—and journalists—in contempt. The Occupy people bawled me out for some offense I didn’t understand. But they really gave it to Rosendahl. He sat there while the electoral system was assailed “We don’t want to join with any group affiliated with the electoral system,” said one Occupy person. Rosendahl told how he had helped create housing for homeless veterans and was working on providing more facilities for them and other vets at the Sawtelle Veterans Administration hospital. “Not everyone is corrupt, not all politics are corrupt,” he said. They would have none of it. Rosendahl’s patience finally ran out and he answered them in kind. I admired him for going there and arguing. That’s what an elected official is supposed to do.

When his council colleagues rushed to support a subsequently abandoned proposal for a downtown football stadium, requiring a city appropriation, Rosendahl said go slow. He tried to rip away the secret curtain raised by council powers who favored the plan. He went public.

Such behavior on the council does not go unpunished. The other council members ignored him on the stadium and other matters. He was marginalized for insisting on open and honest government.

Marginalized by council members, maybe, but not by us veterans of the Week In Review cable show, its audience of city political junkies, and by thousands who still want a fair chance to be heard in city hall.