No Means No
This time it is Mayor Hahn's efforts to get the Neighborhood Council's to support his May ballot measure to hike the sales tax to pay for more cops. Many councils are complaining of heavy-handed tactics (Daily News). Most of the presentations don't allow for equal time on both sides of the issue and the all important survey they are running around with is as bogus as most online polls. It doesn't even provide the opportunity to oppose the tax in it's entirety.
As we have already posted, there are other alternatives.
The message they are sending is clear. We empowered you. Now do what we say. So much for autonomy of the councils. Ain't democracy grand?
Posted by Anonymous @ 1/13/2005 08:49:00 AM
35 Comments:
From: Community Activist:
I couldn't disagree more with your post. DONE has taken a proactive approach by organizing the Neighborhood Councils to attend a number of citywide meetings to give input. Public Safety is a citywide issue and one of the biggest. Anyone whether they disagreed or agreed had a chance to say so. All hell would have broken loose if this sales tax initative would have gone straight to committee before any input from the NC's. Remember the alarm issue? No input and straight to council floor. I attended a meeting and the information put forth by city reps and the NC"s was good. Reps had the opportunity to give their input. Greg Smith is crying but he didn't attend any of the meetings either. Amazing the people who are complaining are the ones who didn't go to a meeting. Overall from what I've heard citywide the NC's have had a positive reaction to these meetings. Too bad the Daily News failed to get a creditible story and printed their spin into a negative as they usually do.
Daily News said local leaders were upset and named just one from Porter Ranch. If there were more "local leaders" beside this one and Greg Smith why didn't they print that?
The problem is not taking the issue to the NCs to discuss, that is the good thing. The problem is the Hahn staffers not allowing the other side to be heard and threatening the NCs to support his tax grab.
I think the community can see right through this political tatic by Mayor Hahn. Two months ago the voters did not approve the sales tax. What has changed in the last two months? I think the Mayor should look at other alternative before comming back to us with a question the voters have already answered.
64% of voters in LA said YES to Measure A. That's 557,000 people saying we need more officers and we'll pay for them. Anyone could have gone to these meetings and stated their opinion. They were just too lazy and part of the problem not the solutione. They have no one to blame for not stating their disagreement. If these meetings didn't happen these same people would be saying why aren't we having any meetings. Ididots
No one invited the other side initially because the COUNCIL motion only asked for one side of the argument.
ITEM NO. (10) - 03-2267-S1 Motion (Parks - Miscikowski) relative to instructing the Chief Legislative Analyst to report with recommendations to place a measure on the March 2005 or May 2005 ballot to increase the local sales tax for public safety purposes
It passed with a 13-0 vote (including Villaraigosa) and 2 absent (Reyes/Weiss) in Nov. 2004.
The COUNCIL is to blame and they should be held to task on this.
FYI: Ya'll noticing Villaraigosa's flip/flop on this issue. He votes for it in Council because Bernie asks for his vote and he opposes it on the Mayoral campaign trail because Hahn supports it.
No one invited the other side initially because the COUNCIL motion only asked for one side of the argument.
ITEM NO. (10) - 03-2267-S1 Motion (Parks - Miscikowski) relative to instructing the Chief Legislative Analyst to report with recommendations to place a measure on the March 2005 or May 2005 ballot to increase the local sales tax for public safety purposes
It passed with a 13-0 vote (including Villaraigosa) and 2 absent (Reyes/Weiss) in Nov. 2004.
The COUNCIL is to blame and they should be held to task on this.
FYI: Ya'll noticing Villaraigosa's flip/flop on this issue. He votes for it in Council because Bernie asks for his vote and he opposes it on the Mayoral campaign trail because Hahn supports it.
Let's set the facts straight. It was initially Tom LaBonge in council who made the motion to get input from the neighborhood councils when Measure A didn't pass. Now, Greg Nelson is doing his job organizing the meetings per council and people are ripping into him. Who else did anyone thing were going to do this? Anyone could have attended these meetings. The one I went to their were a combination of NC's and residents. Some opposed and some supported but both sides were heard.
The council should have required that DONE make available speakers on both sides of the proposition. Even the state and county do that. To not do so is to spend public funds on a political campaign, which more and more local agencies are trying to do these days (e.g. the school district campaigning for bonds).
This is not Nelson, he's only a hired flunky. This reaks of Hahn.
Thankyou to the poster reminding us of Villaraigosa's "flip-flop". His decision to run for mayor after vowing to his constituents to remain in the 14th District for a full 4 year term shows not only Villaraigosa rank political opportunism but a complete lack of integrity. To vote in council in support of the half cent sales tax, and to spend $500,000 in support of another similar county wide measure, and then organize a petition against those measures less than THREE MONTHS later is nothing less than political fraud and shows a complete lack of integrity. When a leader who lacks integrity gets power corruption is not usually far behind. A major issue of this campaign should be Villaraioga's integrity.
Correction to the above blogger - 64% of LA residents voted for Measure A as a way to get cops for all of LA County. The difference is that now they're pushing for a city tax, which puts every business within the city of LA at a disadvantage for attracting business.
Tell me, why shop in LA and spend more in taxes when you can hop over to Santa Monica, Glendale, Inglewood, Burbank or Culver City and save a little money? The savings would be even greater for big ticket items. The loss of revenue from consumers shopping outside of city limits offsets the additional revenue generated by increased taxes.
The City of L.A. is not an island. There are 87 other cities in L.A. County where people can shop if they don't want to pay an additional 1/2 cent sales tax. As one other blogger noted, high ticket items, such as automobiles are huge tax generators for cities. If a consumer has a choice to buy a car in L.A. or Long Beach and the price BEFORE tax is the same, then obviously, the consumer is going to buy in Long Beach to save on the 1/2 cent sales tax.
L.A. City needs to end its "island" mentality. They tried banning ammunition sales, but that doesn't stop people from buying their ammo in cities bordering L.A.
L.A. City has money in its budget to pay for more cops. The question is whether there is the political will to do the digging and cutting. A 1/2 sales tax is the politically easy way out, but in the end it will hurt the city financially through business and consumer flight from the tax.
I, too, am against the half cent sales tax for L.A City. But I agree with the above poster who says Councilman Villaraigosa really shouldn't be allowed to get away with having it both ways. Voting for the Measure in council and organizing a petition against THAT SAME measure on the campaign trail. Where's the integrity in that?
The fact of the matter is those loser County Board of Supervisors were sitting on $309 million the whole time Measure A was out to the people. All of a sudden when it failed (county didn't come out as strong as city) all of a sudden they find their money. Antonio is a hypocrite. Now he's against this because he didn't push for it and it makes his stupid cop plan a joke. City people will not vote for a countywide plan after knowing County had $309 million they could have given to BACA. Bottom line and everyone will agree we need the cops. Most of the people I talk to say they will pay the extra tax to get them. We have no Fortune 500 companies here because of the perception of crime and gang members. Public Safety will bring them back, tourism, film production and so much more. I say "let the voters decide" Its our money and lame ass council hasn't done a thing to help.
that's a good point - the LA voters voted for A thinking that LA would have a level playing field across the county.
but knowing that this new proposal could cause the city economic harm, would they vote for it.
i know that some folks would say not hiring the police officers brings the city economic harm and i wuold agree but no one has proven that the new taxes are the only way to hire more officers.
WE have the only City Council of the other major cities (New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston etc.) throughout the US that don't think enough of our police dept. to find the money. How sad is that? They think giving presentations, wasting time in chambers is doing something for this city. They will never find the money, please they're just not that smart. They're arrogant losers who get angry when the public tells them they should be listening to us. That's our reps sadly. They are an embarrassement to this city. Where's the voice?
FROM MEAT:
So it appears that today’s word of the day is integrity – I like it.
Let’s look first into the allegations made about Mr. villaraigosa in the above comments and then get more into this integrity issue.
Allegation number 1. His decision to run for mayor after vowing to his constituents to remain in the 14th District for a full 4 year term shows not only Villaraigosa rank political opportunism but a complete lack of integrity.
Answer – Nevermind the fact that this is the only response hahn lovers have to Antonio running, because frankly Hahn has very little to run on himself. The voters of CD14 voted for Antonio to make their community better, to speak up about issues in the 14th and to ultimately improve the quality of life in the district. When Antonio ran the city was lethargic, but doing ok. He wins, gets into office and encounters a different city hall than the one he thought he would encounter. He sees a city adrift, a mayor with no leadership or vision, a city that is paralyzed by a MTA strike that dramatically impacts the residents and businesses in his district like no other. As a human this had a dramatic affect on Antonio’s mindset towards the city – and his overall impact.
So as other candidate’s line up to run for mayor and believing he can do a better job than the current mayor – he starts a long conversation with community members in his district. Which is why he was the last to jump in – there were numerous press accounts about the potential for Antonio to run, and everytime there was another story he only got positive calls to his office and home to run. After months and weeks of making sure it was the right decision – he launched his campaign. Now we see after launching his campaigning he has surged with contributions and leading in the polls – because people in this city are thirsty for leadership.
Next claim -- To vote in council in support of the half cent sales tax, and to spend $500,000 in support of another similar county wide measure, and then organize a petition against those measures less than THREE MONTHS later is nothing less than political fraud and shows a complete lack of integrity.
Answer – Whoever wrote this has everything in a weird order – so let me go one by one.
The first thing Antonio did was support Measure A (this is true) to the tune of $500,000 – he put his money where his mouth is – unfortunately this leaderless mayor who could’ve easily have raised or donated the same amount (see his first mayor’s race, the secession campaign or his current fundraising total for this mayor’s race) to help put Measure A over the top.
Then after the campaign for Measure A -- Antonio launches another initiative to get cops today and tomorrow. An initiative that Chief Bratton liked (see the daily breeze article). An initiative that gets the city 1,600 more cops over the course of the next several years.
Then there is a city council vote to get input on another potential initiative. So Antonio votes YES – big controversy right? No – the answer is simple – this was to gather input from the city’s neighborhood councils – perhaps a good step towards engaging this city in a conversation about how to protect it better. Does Antonio think this initiative is good that they are talking about – probably not – does he think NC’s should have the opportunity to have a robust debate (or not depending on who you are) on this subject –YES. This explains his vote.
The petition you are referencing I believe is a way to get 300 more cops today and not wait for another vote. Antonio again is trying to get the much needed cops for his district and the city. Jim Hahn is the CEO of this city and hasn’t met his goal or pledge on this issue.
Now on to the Integrity issue—“When a leader who lacks integrity gets power, corruption is not usually far behind” – 100% correct. Now in today’s CITY BEAT let’s see what sort of corruption they were reporting on today…(http://www.lacitybeat.com/article.php?id=1544&IssueNum=84)
…There’s reason to wonder if the mayor and his staff have a sense of driving around a campaign bus with nitroglycerine rattling around in the spare-tire well, hoping they don’t hit the bump that blows the campaign sky-high. A sampling of the volatile material:
• Two joint criminal county-federal investigations are looking into allegations that commissioners for three of the city’s three proprietary departments – the airport, the Port of Los Angeles, and the Department of Water and Power (DWP) – pressured contractors to kick into Hahn’s campaigns in order to obtain lucrative contracts. Also under investigation are other so-called “pay-to-play” contracting practices that give the appearance of trading contributions for access.
• In April, deputy mayor and former chief Hahn campaign fundraiser Troy Edwards and Airport Commissioner Ted Stein both resigned, following more “pay-to-play” allegations. The URS Corporation told federal prosecutors that it lost a contract worth millions after refusing to contribute to a Hahn campaign, and charged that Stein was involved in seeking the donation. Edwards was appointed deputy mayor and liaison between the mayor’s office and the airport, the Port of Los Angeles, and the DWP – making him someone with a database of the mayor’s donors and knowledge of contracts out for bid.
• Then there’s an investigation by the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office into possible campaign money-laundering by a Hahn supporter, Westside developer Mark Abrams, himself the target of an FBI probe for allegedly inflating mortgages and skimming millions. Associates of Abrams and his partner Charles Elliot Fitzgerald have said that Abrams engaged in what’s delicately called “contribution laundering,” the solicitation of campaign donations from employees and others followed by their re-imbursement with his own funds – possibly to get around legal campaign funding limits while still building a political presence with the Hahn administration. Hahn did appoint Abrams’s real estate attorney to the Planning Commission, which subsequently allowed the construction of previously forbidden 30-foot retaining walls. This helped out a troubled multi-million-dollar Bel-Air development by Abrams; a mayoral team also waded in to help Abrams out of a jam on that particular project. City ethics officials this week accused Abrams of 48 violations of campaign laws regarding $90,000 in campaign donations. The matter is under review by the five-member Ethics Commission, which could impose tens of thousands of dollars in civil penalities.
• A City Ethics Commission in July accused attorney Pierce O’Donnell of 26 violations of ethics laws by making so-called “assumed name” contributions to Hahn’s 2001 primary campaign. The matter is under review by an administrative hearing officer, and the result may have criminal implications.
• The executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, Larry Keller, resigned under pressure in September and is a witness in the federal investigation involving yet more alleged “pay-to-play” city contracting practices. That didn’t stop him from winning a $540,000 contract in October to do marketing work for the port – a decision defended by Hahn.
• Then there are the 71 law firms that got $18.9 million in 2003 doing city business, this despite the city’s permanent legal team, otherwise known as the City Attorney. Funny thing: 50 of the firms and attorneys contributed a total of $244,675 to Hahn’s 2001 mayor’s race, and $77,500 to his must-win anti-San Fernando Valley secession campaign in 2002. The three proprietary departments emerge as trouble spots again – as the departments that were the focus of the bulk of the outside legal work.
• In July, 2004, David Murdock, billionaire owner of Dole Food Company, developer of Castle and Cooke, and one of the biggest donors to Hahn’s anti-secession campaign, won a bid to operate a 7.3-acre jet center site at Van Nuys Airport. Two competitors filed formal protests with the City Attorney and Airport Commission charging that the Murdock bid failed to meet city guidelines. The rent offered was 75 percent less than that of other bidders.
• And, perhaps the most spectacular item, and one of the likeliest to generate political spatter – the Fleishman-Hillard scandal, or scandals – related to the PR giant’s $3 million annual contract with the DWP. It’s just the kind of combination pay-to-play and ratepayer chiseling that reflects poorly on the Hahn administration.
The high-powered Fleishman-Hillard PR firm was retained by the DWP as state deregulation went into effect during the Richard Riordan administration to promote the department in anticipation of consumers being allowed to choose their power providers. But the contract was extended by the board in 2003, long after any threat from deregulation. The DWP commission, all Hahn appointees, even gave the DWP’s general manager, also a Hahn appointee, sole authority to renew the contract.
While Fleishman-Hillard was putatively hired at rate-payer expense to promote the DWP, it was also promoting Hahn, via photo ops, news conferences, and with some press releases even sent out on stationery from the mayor’s office – not the DWP. The Los Angeles Times broke the story of collaboration between Fleishman and the mayor’s office, including constant contact between Hahn’s staff and the PR firm. If the PR firm was planning a DWP event, the mayor’s office got a heads-up to see if Hahn could be shoehorned into it.
Copley News Service turned up such nuggets as the $169.74 Fleishman charged for an employee to read newspaper coverage of a Hahn speech in a local paper. The employee, Shannon Murphy, later left Fleishman to become Hahn’s communications director. (A Hahn fundraiser-turned-deputy-mayor, Matt Middlebrook, had already done the reverse revolving-door two-step, leaving City Hall for Fleishman-Hillard’s corporate suites.) And four Fleishman employees charged a total of $2,870 to “staff,” as the City Hall verb goes, Hahn’s two and a half-hour State of the Harbor speech.
The PR-mayor relationship appears to have grown out of a strategy by the former head of Fleishman’s L.A. office, ex-newsman Douglas Dowie, to cultivate the association by providing pro bono work. The whole set-up was enough to raise eyebrows, and last year the DA’s office launched a criminal investigation in concert with federal authorities and the DWP/Fleishman-Hillard contract was terminated in April. Then a November audit by City Controller Laura Chick accused the high-powered PR firm of over-charging the DWP by $4.2 million.
And after several months of paid leave, ´´ Dosie parted company with the firm, along with two top vice-presidents. The conditions were not disclosed. Dowie had been relieved of his duties in July but retained on Fleishman-Hillard’s payroll until his exit this month. Speculation around City Hall is that criminal investigations are heating up and the firm seeks distance.
Another emblematic wrinkle in the pay-to-play allegations is the role of Hahn associate Dominick W. Rubalcava, appointed to the DWP board by the mayor and currently its president. Rubalcava was a heavy-hitter in the mayoral administrations of Tom Bradley, Riordan, and now Hahn, and has been on a number of commissions, including the fire and airport boards. Rubalcava has also donated $4,500 to Hahn’s election campaigns, and was on the DWP board when the Fleishman-Hillard contract was renewed. According to ethics commission documents, Rubalcava’s clients include Wal-Mart and he worked until June for Landrum and Brown, a Cincinnati-based airport-planning firm that donated $1,500 to Hahn’s campaigns in 2001 and in 2002 held a substantial contract in the $11 billion LAX redesign that Hahn championed. Landrum and Brown continues to bid on airport contracts, and the company’s executives have donated to Hahn during this mayoral go-round.
MAYOR SAM...MAYOR SAM...MAYOR SAM....PLEASE HELP. MEAT HAS GONE OFF HIS ROCKER. DON'T ALLOW HIM TO POST SO MUCH CRAP. EVERYONE ELSE IS RESPECTFUL ENOUGH NOT TO POST TOO MUCH BUT MEAT IS OUT OF CONTROL. IT SEEMS TO BE GETTING INTO HIGH GEAR FOR ANTONIO CAMPAIGNING ON THIS BLOG. PLESAE SOMEONE STOP HIM....STOP MEAT
MAJOR NEWS!!! - PR Firm Executive Indicted in DWP Fraud Case
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-011304indict_lat,0,6749071.story?coll=la-home-headlines
FROM MEAT:
Calm down lil one - Mayor Sam and the Chief have posted some things with a lot of text as well -- even my opposite MEATEATER likes to post comments with a lot of text.
Healthy debates sometimes mean healthy posts.
blog away dum-dum.
If you want to stop him, then counter with facts. Everything he wrote had substance regardless of whether you like it or agree with it. I hope this blog doesn't deteriorate into prime-time comedy sound-bites.
John Stodder's donations:
http://ethics.lacity.org/efs/public_search_results.cfm?idd=1&more=1&CITY=la&REPT_TYPE=ALLCon&LNM_CRIT=Stodder&SCHEDULE=A%2CB%2CC
Antonio: $250 during last mayoral race (but returned/bounced?)
Nick Pacheco: $250 for City COuncil race 2003
Laura Chick: $250 for Controller 2001
Wendy Greuel: $600 for both City Council races
Ludlow: $200
Padilla: $400
Janice Hahn: $400
James K Hahn: $1000 for re-election
Ruth Galanter: $250 for officeholder
Meat's post on tony's website...I think Mr Villaraigosa will be at the Gun exchange program, as will i - its a worthy cause. Then i along with 25 other folks will head on over to the Volunteer Mobilization effort and do what is needed.
Blog away.
Comment by Meat — 1/12/2005 @ 7:14 pm
Meat? You got a huge problem. I AM NOT A HAHN SUPPORTER! So, I don't care what you write about the Mayor. BUT BACK TO VILLARAIGOSA. The November 2004 motion he voted "yes" on in council was specific to the sales tax. Villaraigosa didn't vote on a motion asking for suggestions from neighborhood councils on ways the city could raise money for more cops. And the January 2005 petition while calling for 300 extra cops contains this line: "Tell Mayor Hahn we want action - not more taxes..." Now, we mustn't forget Meat that Villaraigosa was a councilmember in November when he spent that $500,000 supporting Measure A. Antonio could have saved all that money Meat if he did then what you are saying he was voting on in November - asking the Neighborhood Councils for their input! if anybody is manipulating neighborhood councils and the public in general, it's Antonio. Now to the recall. And, Meat, I never thought I would ever agree with you - but I do. The people of the 14th District voted for everything you wrote. PITY THEY WERE LIED TO! How could he deliver on his promises when he was away almost 70 days campaigning for Kerry and is now, as we all know, campaigning for mayor? And then you say the community asked him to run. Meat, you don't know what you are talking about. You just dole out the drivel Antonio and his consultants feed you. Maybe 40 people sat in a room and applauded when he said he was running. La Opinion took the trouble to survey the neighborhood and couldn't confirm Antonio's spin that the people wanted him to run. ANTONIO WANTED TO RUN. As he told the L.A. Weekly (feb 28-Mar 6, 2003) On election night, (the night he lost to Hahn), I knew that night I would run again for mayor. HE DIDN'T NEED ANYBODY ASKING HIM, MEAT, HE JUST WANTED COVER! In short, Meat, Antonio lacks integrity.
People had the choice to go or not go to these neighborhood council meetings. There was no strong arming.Greg Smith is behaving like a big crybaby. Why didn't he have the balls to call DONE when he found out (same day cause he sent out his dumb proposal) and ask to be put on table? All he's done is whine like a whimp. If these meetings would not have occurred and gone straight to budget finance committee all of you who are complaining would have be saying "why didn't anyone give us info." It seems overall the NC's are supportive.
Oh I forgot to MEAT. Please tell your boss Antonio that women find it disrespectful and revolting that he feels he can hug and kiss them without asking at every meeting or event. His winks are not welcomed to many. Typical macho little man syndrome behavior. We like when we get hugs from Bob though. You don't feel that sleazy ugly feeling like we do with Antonio. Bob makes women feel genuiely nice.
MEAT you are being dishonest.
Antonio specifically voted for a tax hike in the Parks motion.
Antonio flip/flopped on the issue and I'm sure you're disappointed, but that doesn't justify lying to people about the vote. The poster provided a source for the motion.
It's really dangerous when you start to believe your own spin; stick to the facts, MEAT.
Will someone please post the file index number so we can all read the motion?
ITEM NO. (10) - 03-2267-S1 Motion (Parks - Miscikowski) relative to instructing the Chief Legislative Analyst to report with recommendations to place a measure on the March 2005 or May 2005 ballot to increase the local sales tax for public safety purposes
What's worse - a hug from AV or from JH? Who is JH dating now?
Any type of touching from AV, he's sleazy, stinks, has body ordor and is caca
FROM: MEATBALL
Really? He looks clean in his picture. MEAT - how does AV smell to you?
How lame is it that Antonio has pictures on his website from two years ago compared from council campaign to Jimmy's more recent pictures. How arrogant to have pictures of yourself 6 times. Show's his attitude and little man syndrome thinking he's all that. Get real Antonio.
You can tell when worry starts to hit the Hahn campaign. They start attacking anything. "Antonio's tie was way below his waist line. Parks' car was 4 inches in the red. Hertzberg once ate a restaurant where Doug Dowie ate the night before. Alarcon uses too much hair spray."
C'mon, kids. You can do better than this. Just kidding. You can't!
The real truth of the matter is if Antonio had a good relationship with his constituents NOT, that we all know he doesn't don't you think he would have current pictures on his website? Doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Antonio is the last person to talk about attacking. He's been acting like a short, little man syndrome boy from day one. If you can't take the heat get out of kitchen.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home