Councilmember Jack Weiss on "Special Event Fee Waiver" Concerns
FOLLOW UP/UPDATE TO "SPECIAL EVENT FEE WAIVERS" STORY POSTED EARLIER TODAY.
See how it works? I know just enough to jump-start a topic with the basic things I hear from people -- then EVERYONE ELSE follows-up with stuff like THIS. HOPE THEY CAN USE THIS AT MONDAY'S 1:00PM "Budget & Finance" meeting at City Hall to address the "Special Event Fee Waiver" fraud, I mean issue.
For IMMEDIATE release (It should also have to say, "For Immediate ACTION"):
Jan. 15, 2002 (2-0-0-2, y'all!!!)
Los Angeles: Councilmember Jack Weiss, TODAY, called for a comprehensive review of the City's policy on reducng or "waiving" special event costs in an effort to address budget concerns and the possible inappropriate "waivers" of fees and costs for events that may NOT need or deserve financial support from the City.
"I am very concerned about the budget and the implications of waiving significant costs for groups that may not be entitled to these waivers. In particular, whenever the City "waives" (that's "waves") a fee, it in effect makes a DONATION to the sponsoring group. This support from the City should ONLY be given when the event is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC -- and -- SERVES AS A COMMUNITY PURPOSE." - Jack Weiss (01/15/02)
Weiss has asked for an analysis of the total cost of special events in the City, including lost revenue and expenses for police and emergency services, and for a review of other Cities' waiver policies.
YEAH, YEAH...Thanks Jack, my man! Even though you said on KABC radio, in response to "The City's problem of crime resulting from illegal immigration criminals", you immediatley replied: "There are a lot of factors that go into crime, like EDUCATION." (Hadn't laughed that hard since Kinison was alive), I think this more than makes up for it.
But, I can see why Council claims they need to extend their own terms to twelve years, because, "It takes forever to get anything done". I feel, ya. This was January 2002. But, the good news is, even though it's September 200-SIX, this topic will happen to be addressed tomorrow by CLA Gerry Miller and City Attorney's office. I hope you are redunant tomorrow, and repeat all this great stuff from years gone by. But, I wouldn't be surprised if you had to be somewhere else tomorrow during the meeting.
Zuma Dogg
www.zumadogg.blogspot.com
See how it works? I know just enough to jump-start a topic with the basic things I hear from people -- then EVERYONE ELSE follows-up with stuff like THIS. HOPE THEY CAN USE THIS AT MONDAY'S 1:00PM "Budget & Finance" meeting at City Hall to address the "Special Event Fee Waiver" fraud, I mean issue.
For IMMEDIATE release (It should also have to say, "For Immediate ACTION"):
Jan. 15, 2002 (2-0-0-2, y'all!!!)
Los Angeles: Councilmember Jack Weiss, TODAY, called for a comprehensive review of the City's policy on reducng or "waiving" special event costs in an effort to address budget concerns and the possible inappropriate "waivers" of fees and costs for events that may NOT need or deserve financial support from the City.
"I am very concerned about the budget and the implications of waiving significant costs for groups that may not be entitled to these waivers. In particular, whenever the City "waives" (that's "waves") a fee, it in effect makes a DONATION to the sponsoring group. This support from the City should ONLY be given when the event is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC -- and -- SERVES AS A COMMUNITY PURPOSE." - Jack Weiss (01/15/02)
Weiss has asked for an analysis of the total cost of special events in the City, including lost revenue and expenses for police and emergency services, and for a review of other Cities' waiver policies.
YEAH, YEAH...Thanks Jack, my man! Even though you said on KABC radio, in response to "The City's problem of crime resulting from illegal immigration criminals", you immediatley replied: "There are a lot of factors that go into crime, like EDUCATION." (Hadn't laughed that hard since Kinison was alive), I think this more than makes up for it.
But, I can see why Council claims they need to extend their own terms to twelve years, because, "It takes forever to get anything done". I feel, ya. This was January 2002. But, the good news is, even though it's September 200-SIX, this topic will happen to be addressed tomorrow by CLA Gerry Miller and City Attorney's office. I hope you are redunant tomorrow, and repeat all this great stuff from years gone by. But, I wouldn't be surprised if you had to be somewhere else tomorrow during the meeting.
Zuma Dogg
www.zumadogg.blogspot.com
Posted by Zuma Dogg @ 9/10/2006 01:07:00 PM
12 Comments:
Yeah Weiss Ass wanted this done in 2002 but he didn't have the balls to follow through. Good for you Dogg for speaking at public comment and asking the questions. I think this is the reason they are finally dealing with it. It would be interesting to find out how many millions of our tax dollars are being wasted on these events.
This illustrates perfectly that the "rationale" for longer term limits is BS. If he couldn't accomplish something this trivial in four years, why should we keep him in office for 12?
Indeed, by the Clowncil Members' logic, the worse they do their job, the longer they should keep it! Try that one out in the private sector some time!
Daily News reported 3 years ago the city was spending $10 million dollars on these special event waivers. Just look at the clowncil agendas and all the bullshit corporations they are waiving. Huizar is one of the worst for these event waivers.
Weiss is an asshole!
9/10/06 7:52 pm
he's not an asshole(weiss). an asshole has a purpose in this world! jack-ass-weiss is an original ass clown!!! soon to be an unemployed ass clown!!!
City hall staffers
Start typing your resumes
7:25
You don't "spend" money on waivers. It's just money you don't receive and may never have received, since the fees often make these events undoable in the first place. It's all on paper, and much of it is written in invisible ink.
11:58 AM
Who pays for items not covered by event planners?
Waived by city.
Do cops were for free
Do city workers work for free
Please don't think that Weiss didn't have the balls to follow through. He didn't have the motivation to follow through. Big difference.
Sometimes you have to write a fake initiative to make those damn retarded constituents happy. Nobody says you have to follow through. You can leave them lying in your desk drawer for 30 years (well not since term limits ha ha ha ha) and then when you're cleaning out your desk to leave, you can laugh and laugh and laugh about those silly initiatives that failed to go anywhere because you didn't take them anywhere because you weren't motivated to and you didn't want to piss off the people with money.
Huh? Am I right? Am I close? Too close for comfort?
Maybe that is why Weiss was SO against those bad NC's who wanted to initiate their own file numbers. What do you think? Do you think he was freaked because those dumb, dumb NC members who have so many conflicts of interest and can't be trusted might dig up his old work and make him look bad? Or do you really think he was worried?
Lucky for us, the city has council members like Jack Weiss and Greig Smith who are worried about "lobbyists" getting to the NC boards and (being as dumb as they all are), then board members voting with the lobbyists.
Yesirree Bob. We sure are lucky to have the likes of them looking out for our best interests with their clean campaign financing records.
I'm so Emo. I think I'll go do my hair and then pout for a couple of hours. Then I'll consider suicide, blow it off, do my hair again and go buy some girl's pants.
Oh sure, cops and city workers all work for free. What are you thinking? They love their city.
What exactly I'm wondering, are the items covered on the waiver list.
My NC got one once (much to my dismay and horror) because unlike what you all say, we just can't boss entire boards of people around. They closed down a road on a Sunday that was in front of the local elementary school but there was no cops and our members had to go pick up the cones take them back afterwards. That cost all of you $1000 in invisible money.
What I would like to know is where did that invisible $1000 go? Was the city going to rent the cones out to someone else? Did the closure of the street cost money somehow?
I'm seriously confused about this.
But I'm sure that we'll get nowhere with this because we aren't bright enough to just "allow the larger masses of informed voters" that make up the city of LA to decide for themselves if Measure R is good or bad. Oh no. We had to go and interfere and then lose.
That's not my take on the Measure R story, but I did read that one here somewhere. Of course down deep in my heart, I know that it was a council staffer. Call me psychic.
Right. . . City Council members are even more eager to have something voted on by the great unwashed than are the NCs (that are supposed to be "closer" to them and more representative).
Now why would that be?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home