Noel Weiss Sticks Up for Middle Class Homeowners
"The middle class is getting reamed. There are a lot of paid advocates for the poor and lower income people; the rich can take care of themselves, but no one is out there for the middle class." - Noel Weiss
The best thing about my recent time spent showing up at City Hall for Public Comment, is all the other people I have met from the city, also showing up to speak on issues most important to them. And some of these speakers represent many more people -- and have years of knowlege, research and expertise on these issues.
One of these people is Noel Weiss. A complete 180 from Zuma Dogg in every way. He wears a nice suit and tie and carries an actual briefcase, with lots of actual documents -- instead of a ski cap, sunglasses and his own T shirt. Plus, he's way smarter than me.
But, at least I'm smart enough to recognize when someone is doing the best work in the city when it comes to sticking up for the middle class homeowners, being burnt by Councilmembers like Wendy Greuel (he has a BIG beef with her), who are not listening to, or sticking up for their constituents as real estate developers are kicking people out of their homes and skyrocketing real estate costs are preventing them from finding affordable housing elsewhere.
Noel also brought to my attention how these real estate problems affect LAUSD: Since parents can't find affordable housing close by, or in the areas where they are working, parents are forced to drive long commutes (more cars on roads/traffic problems). Parents would like to be able to live in the areas they work and be able to send their kids to schools in those districts.
And someone at LAUSD mentioned to me they wish The Mayor of Los Angeles would do more to help create affordable housing for TEACHERS of LAUSD so they can be able to live in the communities where they teach. (Again, less commuting -- better traffic in L.A.) LAUSD isn't able to pay enough to attract enough new teachers to the system, and then no affordable housing is the final straw that sends all the best college graduates to surrounding states, instead of LAUSD. (And now, teachers are retiring earlier than in previous eras and can't be replaced quick enough.)
So, since it's a slow news day, if you want to become a top expert on the real estate crisis many homeowners across the city are facing, and more importantly; read some innovative and ingenious soulutions...I will post some of Noel's (extensive, complex and informative) emails under the "Comment" section of this story, for those who want to read more. And I look forward to YOUR comments, as well. Cause a lot of this is over my head...so some of you with a better grasp of this, please add some comments for me to read. (Z.D. & Mayor Sam's Saurday Real Estate Seminar.)
WAY TO GO NOEL WEISS! When you see this guy on City TV 35, please pay attention. He's saying something very important. And if you are a City Employee (like a Councilmember) and you get an email from Noel Weiss, please read it. He has phenomenal ideas for the city that can help you get re-elected (if you're able to keep "R" alive).
The best thing about my recent time spent showing up at City Hall for Public Comment, is all the other people I have met from the city, also showing up to speak on issues most important to them. And some of these speakers represent many more people -- and have years of knowlege, research and expertise on these issues.
One of these people is Noel Weiss. A complete 180 from Zuma Dogg in every way. He wears a nice suit and tie and carries an actual briefcase, with lots of actual documents -- instead of a ski cap, sunglasses and his own T shirt. Plus, he's way smarter than me.
But, at least I'm smart enough to recognize when someone is doing the best work in the city when it comes to sticking up for the middle class homeowners, being burnt by Councilmembers like Wendy Greuel (he has a BIG beef with her), who are not listening to, or sticking up for their constituents as real estate developers are kicking people out of their homes and skyrocketing real estate costs are preventing them from finding affordable housing elsewhere.
Noel also brought to my attention how these real estate problems affect LAUSD: Since parents can't find affordable housing close by, or in the areas where they are working, parents are forced to drive long commutes (more cars on roads/traffic problems). Parents would like to be able to live in the areas they work and be able to send their kids to schools in those districts.
And someone at LAUSD mentioned to me they wish The Mayor of Los Angeles would do more to help create affordable housing for TEACHERS of LAUSD so they can be able to live in the communities where they teach. (Again, less commuting -- better traffic in L.A.) LAUSD isn't able to pay enough to attract enough new teachers to the system, and then no affordable housing is the final straw that sends all the best college graduates to surrounding states, instead of LAUSD. (And now, teachers are retiring earlier than in previous eras and can't be replaced quick enough.)
So, since it's a slow news day, if you want to become a top expert on the real estate crisis many homeowners across the city are facing, and more importantly; read some innovative and ingenious soulutions...I will post some of Noel's (extensive, complex and informative) emails under the "Comment" section of this story, for those who want to read more. And I look forward to YOUR comments, as well. Cause a lot of this is over my head...so some of you with a better grasp of this, please add some comments for me to read. (Z.D. & Mayor Sam's Saurday Real Estate Seminar.)
WAY TO GO NOEL WEISS! When you see this guy on City TV 35, please pay attention. He's saying something very important. And if you are a City Employee (like a Councilmember) and you get an email from Noel Weiss, please read it. He has phenomenal ideas for the city that can help you get re-elected (if you're able to keep "R" alive).
Posted by Zuma Dogg @ 9/09/2006 11:22:00 AM
22 Comments:
Zuma:
Here's some more "food for thought" for you. The LA Times had an
editorial against a mortaorium on condo conversions and the demolition
of rent controlled housing to construct new townhouses from scratch.
(This ties in with) Item 25 on the day's agenda. That is
a "development" where I have asked Wendy Greuel to use her power to
provide for more compensation to the tenants beyond the meager $3300
being offered. I want the tenants to get the differential for one
year between the market rate and the rent controlled rate, plus $1000
moving costs. That would equal for these people around $10,000.
The tenants at Maltman Ave. (in Garcetti's district) which I mediated,
got $9000. When I started, they were only being offered $4000.
Noel.
PS You ought to consider figuring out a way to register the homeless
in Gruel's district to vote so they could vote for you. If you
organize that voting block, with the meager turnout in the elections,
you would be positioned to make a real race of it.
Is anyone going to tally the homeless citywide. Homeless issue is important.
Zuma,
I'm telling you what is going on in that district is absolutely
incredible. The Planner referred someone to me to help them. Get this:
The owner has conned the tenants into leaving (20 units) without
paying them any relocation or providing them the basic advance notice required under both state and local law. This is a condo conversion.
The City Planning Dept. said the owner had complied, when such was not the case (this is truly amazing). There are now three tenants left in the building. Meanwhile, the landlord has been doing major renovation work - I'm talking sandblasting, tearing up vacant apartments to renovate them; tearing out the front door - I mean it is absolutely incredible!!
All of this is happening under Wendy's nose. Does she care? Probably, but not enough to put out the word that tenants in her district are not to be abused. If she made that clear, a lot of this nonsense would stop because the bureaucrats take their cue from their bosses - The Council.
For the record, this is an "expedite" case which the planning dept. has totally screwd up. This is the second one I have run across in two months.
The theme is really a simple one: Wendy, if you care about tenants,
then act on that concern and make it clear that you expect them to be protected and that your office will do everything which needs to be done to ensure that protection.
Zuma:
So you are completely informed, here is a letter signed by Wendy on August 11, 2006, which incorporates a motion passed by the Council on August 18, 2006, with regard to various solutions which the Council needs to "study". This is how Wendy and her ilk are going to pander to the public. They are going to say, "See, we are really, really
concerned now that things have entered a crisis phase - And as an
expression of that concern, we are asking the following matters be 'studied' in order to protect the tenants".
Here is a summary of the proposed remedies as they relate to the
tenants:
1. They want to create a new bureaucracy to "monitor" what is going on and secure compliance with whatever policies they adopt. The funds for this bureaucracy would be collected from the developers;
2. "Study" how to provide rental guarantees of one year fordisabled
and seniors on demolitions and two years on condo conversions for disabled and seniors (the presumption is that these people will be able to retain their apartments for this period of time);
3. Direct that no demolitions can occur unless tenant mitigation
conditions (whatever they may be in a given instance) have been fully complied with;
4. Do a "study" through a taskforce which would list ideas on how more apartments can be built in the city;
5. To provide for equality of treatment for tenants residing in
buildings to be demolished and tenants occupying buildings to be
converted, and to increase the moving expense payment to $1000 from its current level of $500. Right now tenants in buidings to be converted get much better benefits (that section is 12.95.2);
6. To "study" and report on the viability of a Purchase Assistance
Program for displaced tenants;
7. To expedite the City's completion of the "Housing Element" revision to the General Plan.
Now Zuma, this is so paltry as to be an embarrassment. It is "crap" -total "crap".
Here's why and what else is needed if these so-called leaders are
really serious about really confronting this problem:
1. The amount of relocation fees have to be increased. $3,300 for non-seniors and non-disabled are at 1980's levels. Tenants confront 21st Century costs. I know now from my own experience (because I mediated a dispute in Silverlake)that the sum of $9,000 for non-seniors is reasonable (that project involved 17 units). As for the seniors and disabled, $14,000 is reasonable (AIMCO upped its offer to $16,500). Keep in mind as well that current state law requires school districts
demolishing multi-family units to pay the difference between market
rate and the rent controlled rate for 42 months (actually utility
costs are included in the calculation);
a. Rather than a fixed sum, incorporate a provision which
gives tenants the greater of the fixed sums noted above, or the
difference between their current rent and the market rent for a period of one year (for non-seniors and non-disabled) or three years (for seniors, disabled, and families with kids);
b. Have the City advance the funds from a pool of money collected from all residential developments in the City, and then reimburse the fund from payments to be made by developers as part of the tract map approval process. These funds should be paid immediately
and up front. The people should not have to wait;
c. If people are concerned about tenants blowing the money, then simply issue the tenants a debit card with the monthly differential in rent put on the magnetic strip on the card. Then when the tenant moves, the tenant would pay the rent controlled rate with a check and then submit the debit card to the landlord who could get the difference each month (or the same thing could be done by way of
issuing a series of monthly vouchers (like Traveler's Checks) which the tenant could remit each month to the new landlord);
2. Families with children are totally excluded from the category of residents which need protection. Aren't things tough enough for kids today? They need to be included - Doesn't Wendy care about the kids?;
3. Enforcement of tenant mitigation protections needs to occur by having those conditions recorded against the property immediately after the parcel map or tentative tract map rights are granted. 12.95.2 does that for tenants occupying apartments which are going to be converted (although the City Attorney wants to repeal this provision). The recommendation needs to affirmatively state that this
protection of 12.95.2 is going to be applied to tenants occupying
buildings to be demolished. Instead, it says only that the
circumstances should be the same for both. We should equalize "up" not equalize "down".
4. The developer needs to hire a relocation company to find suitable replacement housing for the tenants;
5. Each tenant should be eligible for a 20% discount on the purchase
of a condo;
6. Issue Certificates of Participation (COP's) to help finance the tenant purchase of the improvements through a co-op structure. The land would be leased to an REIT or a group of institutional investors.
The lease would be for a minimum of 50 years. That way, the tenants
could end up owning something.
7. The City Council needs to issue what I suggest be called "The
Citizen's Blank Slate". This would be a blank piece of paper on which
citizens would be asked to "fill in the blank slate" by providing
detailed recommendations and ideas on how to deal with this epidemic
of needless tenant dislocations stemming from this rampant land use entitlement speculation frenzy. Challenge us, the public, to come up with solutions. What they are doing is to organize a taskforce around building new apartments. What is needed as much if not more are ideas on how to preserve the economic and demographic character of
neighborhoods and provide tenant ownership opportunities at the same time;
8. Berkeley has a provision on the ballot which would give displaced tenants 2% off of the top of the proceeds realized upon the sale of the condos (maybe we ought to think along those lines).
As a candidate you can pledge that the character of neighborhoods can
be protected through the implementation of tenant protection provisions which are fair. The motto can be: A fair result, fairly obtained.
9. Another one is for the City to finance a mediation which would be
binding on the developer but advisory on the tenant. The mediation would be like the one I handled in Silverlake. This was in Garcetti's district (even after I solved this problem for him, he didn't care enough to even write a thank you note). The developer offered $4,000. I got it to $9000. Having some kind of structured mediation process would help both sides;
10. The Council needs to come up with specific policies which provide for specific tenant mitigation measures in all cases by directing the Planning Dept. before it issues tract maps or parcel maps to make sure
that the cumulative impacts of all development in an area will not
create needless strain on the tenants or the infrastructure.
The ultimate goal: To smooth out the rough edges for the tenants.
If you enter the race, one key to victory will be getting tenants
registered and getting them to vote. You can begin to drive a real wedge and open up some real possibilities.
Noel.
Noel,
This is happening everywhere in Los Angeles. When our mayor announced affordable housing grants, shit hit the fan. Developers and newbie investors want to cash in the market. We have groups of homeless shoved from one place to another. As long as they don't interfere with gentrification process in Los Angeles.
Have you seen an increase of homeless humans in your area?
If yes, tell us since when did you notice and location.
[SORRY FOR THE CHOPPY EDITS OF THESE POSTS. WILL FIX IN FUTURE.]
Tom:
I wanted to follow-up to my previous email, particularly since Ellen said she wants to make a report to the Sherman Oaks Homeowner's Association. Since that fine organization took a position in support of the Lincoln Place motion introduced by Bill Rosendahl (contrary to Wendy Greuel), I think it's important that Ellen get the benefit of
these additional thoughts.
1. As things currently stand, if rent controlled apartments are
demolished and replaced with newly constructed apartments, they are
exempt from rent control. The Ellis Act permits these units to be rent controlled after the initial rental rate is established. However, for this to occur, the City must enact the enabling legislation. In a letter dated April 7, 2005, to the Housing, Community, and Economic
Development Committee, the Housing Department took the position that
two prerequisites were necessary to the City Council's passage of
these Ellis Act protections: (1) The completion of an economic
analysis of what the effect would be of making newly constructed units subject to rent control (going forward), and (2) an environmental analysis under CEQA. [As an aside, what's interesting here is that they say CEQA applies when establishing rent control on newly constructed apartment units; but the Planning Dept. has taken the position in at least one case (Laurelwood) that CEQA does not apply when tenants are being dislodged from rent controlled apartments because there are no "environmental" impacts - only social impacts -
What we need here is for the City Council to write into law a policy
which says that where the vacancy rate is less than 5%, social impacts are to be taken into account - period, end of story). Would Wendy get behind such a policy change? She needs to be asked. You know Tom (but Ellen does not) that the City Attorney of San Diego came up with a legal opinion that says that CEQA does apply when tenants are being
evicted, so a legal argument in favor and in support the legality of such a law exists];
2. Neither Wendy, nor any of the other members of the Council, did
anything to aggressively move forward to commission either study. There was (and in my opinion still is) no sense of urgency whatsoever, despite the fact that the crisis was clearly unfolding, and continues;
3. On October 11, 2005, the City Attorney submitted a draft Ordinance to the City Council which provided that newly constructed apartment units which are completed within five years of the date the prior rent controlled units were withdrawn can be made subject to rent control. Again, this is perfectly legal because it is specifically authorized by the Ellis Act (Government Code Section 7060.2(d));
4. What did Wendy or the rest of the Council do? The usual -Nothing. At a minimum, they could have pushed for the economic "study" and CEQA
review to be undertaken post-haste. If Wendy cared enough about
tenants, she would have done this. There is no excuse for her having
done nothing. Meanwhile, the Ellis eviction epidemic continued;
5. April, 2006: Wendy holds a community meeting to discuss the
problem. She has Judith Reel from the City Attorney's officepresent.
She is given draft motions. She could have introduced them, if for no other reason than to generate some debate and discussion. She says she is concerned; that she will call Wesson at home that night. She fails to mention that she could move the agenda forward to get this study underway. She fails to educate her constitutents on what's really going on, what can be done, and what needs to be done going forward. If Wesson refused to move the motion for the studies out of committee, under Council Rule 53, Wendy can ask the full Council to bring it out of committee for a vote (again we are simply talking here about a CEQA
Environmental Study only - No big deal, right?). Yet, neither Wendy,
nor any other member of theCouncil does anything. I specifically ask
Wendy at that meeting;whether she feels the current tenant relocation benefits are too low. She dodges the question and refuses to answer it. She needs to be asked this question straight away;
6. During May, 2006, three joint meetings are held citywide to hear
testimony about the problems attendant to the rash of Ellis evictions -It is unclear if anyone brought to the Council's attention the need for these studies to get underway ASAP (had I been more conversant with these details, I would have);
7. August 18, 2006 - Finally sixteen (needless and) long months since the Housing Dept. letter recommending the studies, the council passes a motion authorizing them. It will take four months to set up the criteria for the contractor, and another three months for the contractor to be selected; then another year for the studies to be completed. That's March, 2008. Great, huh?
Meanwhile, as a sop to the public, Wendy, on August 11, 2006, along
with Rosendahl, Reyes, and Wesson, came up with a series of proposals
which they feel set out the appropriate "balance" between the tenants and the developers. Now, let's briefly talk about those
recommendations - Their focus and, more importantly, what they omit:
a. The focus is clearly on development. They want a task force to (here's that word again) "study" how new apartments can be built and what incentives can be employed to accomplish that objective. Of course, this sets up as a straw man for Wendy to say that in order to get new apartments, they must be exempt from rent control. However,
because the City is permitting middle class affordable housing to be destroyed, it risks being in violation of its own Housing Element of the City's General Plan (something which is also mandated by the State - The violation of which arguably could be used to justify a lawsuit enjoining further issuance of any building permits or demolition permits - a judicially mandated moratorium - until the City comes into compliance with its duties under this important state law).
So what to do? Include a request in her letter that the Planning
Department "expedite" the update to the City's Housing Element of the General Plan (see last paragraph on page 2 of the letter). Meanwhile, while these studies are going on, does Wendy support a moratorium? Nope. With all of this uncertainty, what's wrong with a time-out? That, Ellen, should be the title of your report to the Association - "What's Wrong with a Time-Out"?
b. Wendy fails to address the paltry sums the tenants get by way of relocation in her letter and proposals. I know from my personal
experience in successfully mediating a dispute in Silverlake involving 17 units this June, that $8,000, plus $1,000 in moving costs (plus discounts on the condo purchase, plus recordation of the tenant mitigation conditions) is reasonable for non-seniors and non-disabled.
We also know from the Lincoln Place situation that $16,500 is reasonable for seniors and disabled because that's what AIMCO is now offering. So why does Wendy insist on giving the tenants 1980's relocation dollars when they have to pay 2006 rental rates? She needs to be called on this. The only thing in her recommendation is to raise the moving reimbursement from $500 to $1000 for tenants occupying units which are going to be converted (Bill Rosendahl signed this letter - He, of all people, should know better);
c. Wendy makes no provision for families with kids. They should be
given the same benefits as seniors and disabled. Doesn't Wendy care
about how no-fault evictions impact on the lives of kids? Isn't it tough enough to be a kid today? Yet, not one word here. Shocking - Appalling -Indefensible. Of course Wendy cares about kids. But does she care enough to make these kids a priority? Or is she simply
stretched too thin; is ill-served by her staff; or did she simply make a mistake? She needs to be called on this;
d. The City can (in my opinion - the City Attorney will likely
disagree) enact as a mitigation measure a rule which says that where a building is occupied by a senior or disabled person (or, I would propose, a family), every tenant in that building gets the one year maximum authorized under Ellis. Wendy doesn't even give consideration to this as a possibility worthy of study. Now she could say that the City Attorney said it will not be lawful - But I'm really tired of
this argument. The City Attorney gives legal advice - The Council is the client. The Council makes policy. If the policy is not lawful, then a court will strike it down. The Council had no problem with ignoring the City Attorney when it came to the term limit ballot initiative; and it had no problem ignoring the CLA's view and City Attorney's view that the Mayor's educational proposal is of questionable legal validity on two counts (one of which has been confirmed by the State Legislative Counsel's Office) when it failed to do its job in " checking" the Mayor's unconstitutional (and unlawful
because it violates the City Charter) usurpation of power over the public school system. What the people have to understand is that the City Attorney's job is to figure out a way to ensure that Council policy decisions are implemented in the most lawful manner possible. Sometimes it's really o.k. to go to court where a need exists to reaffirm or confirm the legality of a council action.
The bottom line - The City Council appears more than satisfied with
the destruction and elimination of rent controlled housing (middle
class affordable housing). Ellen - This could be another theme or
title to your article: "Is the City Council Satisfied With the
Destruction and Elimination of Rent Controlled Housing"? This is
where the Homeowner's Associations have a clear interest, particularly since the price to be paid, apart from the adverse impact it has on the economic and physical character and architecture of neighborhoods,
is that under SB 1818, there will be greater density and stress on the infrastructure. Again, our political leaders have let us down. The impact this will have on the infrastructure is simply being ignored.
No one knows really what it will be - Yet the "beat goes on". Why?
Isn't this another justification for a moratorium - a freeze on the
status quo - a "time out" so we can see and evaluate where we are,
where we want to go, and how we intend to get there? (Who gets what, and why?; What are we doing, and why?)
Ellen, why wouldn't the Sherman Oaks Homeowner's Association get
behind this idea? Can you help me frame these issues in a way which
will bring the various homeowner associations to the point of
endorsing a moratorium?
Wendy says she wants "balance". Yet she presides over a current
circumstance where there is a severe imbalance in favor of the
development side of the ledger. The risks and harm being done to her constituents is real and it is significant. The fact of "complexity" is neutral - It can just as easily support a moratorium as not.
I suggest the Association sponsor a real debate (Lincoln/Douglas style versus a kind of joint question and answer session) where Wendy and Jack Weiss can be asked by tenant representatives to account for their actions and explain their current philosophy. I think it would be very
informative and educational for those in attendance. The debate can be recorded and (if it is lively enough) sold as a fundraising tool (or at least provided to the media for its use).
This pandering and pretense really has got to stop. On the westside,
we have Bill Rosendahl who ran for office on a tenant's rights
platform and is now telling the tenants at Lincoln Place they should simply pack up and leave and take what's being offered to them - An appalling lack of leadership. This is what sours people on the political process - But it's all we've got and it can be made to work.
Noel
I discovered a homeless man living in my basement in Westwood. The entrance to my basement in on the outside on the side of my home. am north of Wilshire!
The homeless man totally trashed my basement, stole a lot of things, and defecated on the floor of the basement.
He was living there for at least two weeks before I discovered him and called the police. Of course, he was gone before the police got there, but there is nothing anyone can do about it anyway.
The police officer told me that one nite they even found a homeless guy sleeping in the back seat of their cruiser!!!!
I have also seen homeless guys walking through my back yard! They just climb the walls!
It's a HUGE problem and getting worse! But we don't have any city officials to protect us anymore...all they care about is their own self interest and getting rich on the taxpayer's dime!
LA is lost forever!
I LIKE THIS EXCERPT FROM NOEL:
This pandering and pretense really has got to stop.
On the westside, we have Bill Rosendahl who ran for office on a tenant's rights platform and is now telling the tenants at Lincoln Place they should simply pack up and leave and take what's being offered to them - An appalling lack of leadership.
This is what sours people on the political process - But it's all we've got and it can be made to work.
Noel
September 09, 2006 12:28 PM
ZD
There is a substantial increase of homeless in WLA on SantaMonica Bl. West of Sepulveda all the way down to Santa Monica. Heavy concentration around Purdue, Butler, Barrington, etc.
The homeless on skid row are making their way into Boyle Heights and South LA. Perry/Jose's major developers spending millions don't want them around and where are they supposed to go? Why didn't the clowncil address this problem years ago? They only addressed it when the developers came forward and wanted to spend $1 billion on LA Live and all around Staples plus on the Grand Avenue corridor.
The homeless on skid row are making their way into Boyle Heights and South LA. Perry/Jose's major developers spending millions don't want them around and where are they supposed to go? Why didn't the clowncil address this problem years ago? They only addressed it when the developers came forward and wanted to spend $1 billion on LA Live and all around Staples plus on the Grand Avenue corridor.
Lincoln Heights on Brodway/Daly St
Main by Brewery & UPS.At Lincoln Park & Observe b4 sunrise and after sunset. Huge amounts of homeless living at park.
El Sereno, everywhere you look.
Eastern Ave/Valley Blvd/Poplar/Van Horne/Huntington Dr./Soto/Mission/MontereyRd/
Hillside
Rose Hills
York Blvd Highland Park
Lincoln Heights on Brodway/Daly St
Main by Brewery & UPS.At Lincoln Park & Observe b4 sunrise and after sunset. Huge amounts of homeless living at park.
El Sereno, everywhere you look.
Eastern Ave/Valley Blvd/Poplar/Van Horne/Huntington Dr./Soto/Mission/MontereyRd/
Let me know ehn and where.
Also it might be nice to have a place where we can post where we observe homeless in numbers , this way we can get a decent count.
Homeless usually congregate around each other for protection at night and during the day go their sepearate ways.
I watch those who work during the day , come here and sleep at night. Esp day laborers who are too late to make it into the missions.
So let us know where and take pictures. Or let me know and I will head to take pics.
The homeless were alrady there. The empty buildings that are now being convereted into live work lofts ahs displaced them from around these empty structures. NAd now they are becoming more visible.
I am getting a video camera next month and will be doing my documentary on this problem soon.
No agenda here . NO left agenda no right agenda , it is time the homeless actuallly talked about the problems the way we see them and not the way others in one side of the debate or the others sees it.
You are going to be surprised at what you hear.
Haven't you heard? The Mayor is sending the homeless to the Suburbs. Ask the homeowners in Lopez Canyon in the National Forest. Great place to put a bunch of drug addicts and their children, don't you think? Wait 'til fire season!
Actually it is Steve LOpez the LA Time Writer that is tryng to do this . He hasn't advocated putting these projects next to his home as of late or as of way beack when.
So he calls for sending folks to LOpez Canyon.
I personally don't have aproblem with this idea.
Why?
Are you planning on setting the forest on fire?
I personally have heard it said from LOpez Canyon that it has nothing to do with them being drug addicts or homeless , but black.
Oh now that is rich. We take our homeless and their children, most of whom have severe drug problems or untreated mental disorders and we stick them out in the middle of the forest? What the hell does that do? Is it all of the jobs we have there? Is it so they can catch their own fish, hunt for their food and cut down trees to keep warm?
Hmm, sounds like a pretty funny sitcom.
Nothing funny about it!
Antonio wants to make downtown all pretty and shiny and Big Orange for his million-dollar, corporate condo owners and their million-dollar views from their million-dollar condos, so he is sending all of the homeless, mostly addicts, to the suburbs. The recision rate is 98%, and these addicts tend to land where they fall, so the suburbs will be overrun with homelessness-many times more than today.
Once Antonio gets rid of the homeless addicts, where is he going to ship the porta-potty whores and the drug dealers?
>>And someone at LAUSD mentioned to me they wish The Mayor of Los Angeles would do more to help create affordable housing for TEACHERS of LAUSD so they can be able to live in the communities where they teach.
Zuma, Don't buy that arguement. Teachers get reassigned and moved around the district. Especially those with less senority. Yes, today they would live nearby their school but tomorrow they would be assigned to a school 20 miles away.
This would merely end up being a perk paid for by bonus densities and one that is unavailable to you or me.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home