Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098
mayorsam@mayorsam.org

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Special Treatment For Special Interests

To discourage developers from illegally destroying historic buildings, the City has a law: if you demolish a building without a permit, you cannot build anything new on the site for five years.

There is, however, an unwritten exception to the rule: if you donate large sums of money to career politicians, you, of course, naturally deserve a 60% reduction in the ban. I mean, come on -- what's the point of "contributing" all that money if you're going to get treated like everyone else? Laws are for suckers.

Today's example: bizillionaire developer Richard Meruelo, who knows full well you do not tear down buildings without permits, destroyed four buildings dowtown, without bothering to get permits. The result? The L.A. Board of Building and Safety Commissioners expressly encouraged his company's lawyers to apply for an exemption from the five-year rule.

Here's how the L.A. Times reported on the meeting: "To put five years on this site, I think is extreme," said commission President Javier Nuñez. "I would be comfortable with 24 months."

Read all about it: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-meruelo27sep27,1,4386386.story?coll=la-headlines-california .

11 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Mayor Sam a couple of friends and I think blasting this site with all that crap was a deliberate attempt to quiet the masses. Don't you find the timing interesting?? A time when we were all criticizing clowncil and Prop R?? Too coincidential!!!!!!!
Walter the fact also is Meuerlo was the biggest campaign donor to Antonio. He also owns more land in downtown area then anyone else.

September 28, 2006 7:06 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I did some checking and found that this developer donated to the Democrat candidate for State Assembly in my district. In fact, my candidate is SO far into the pocket of special interest it is sick. For once I'm going to do something I never thought I would do. I'm going to vote for the other candidate. At least she doesn't have the stink of special interest on her!

September 28, 2006 9:47 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

9:47AM

Kevin De Leon pockets were overflowing with cash. I plan on being a "RED SPOT OF PROTEST" in this blue cesspool of a assembly district.

September 28, 2006 1:28 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Nice plant, Sam, at 9:47 a.m. But you and your household were already in the GOP column, (which totals about 25 percent in that district, tops).

September 28, 2006 1:53 PM  

Anonymous Samantha Allen-Newman said:

If I were going to plant something, I would put my name to it. And I agree about overflowing pockets of special interest. I have the expectation that the person I elect to represent me has ME as their special interest. Not a developer. Not an outside entity seeking to gain influence. I'm the special interest along with everybody else in the Assembly District. It's not rocket science, but common sense.

I find it interesting that as a future Assemblyman, Kevin will be in the awkward position of having to choose between whose side he's on with respect to the proposed high school in Taylor Yard. Will he back the locals? Or will he back Meuerlo? Anyone care to throw out an answer to this one? Again, this isn't rocket science.

And whether or not my district has Republican registration of 25% tops doesn't mean a slam-dunk victory for Kevin. Nothing in politics is safe, just ask Gray Davis.

September 28, 2006 5:42 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Yeah, give that on a rest, party hack. DeLeon couldn't lose in that district if people found out he was actually Black Irish.

Especially of the opponent think making anon catcalls on Mayor Sam's is the way to campaign against him.

September 28, 2006 6:23 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

You think money has nothing to do with it....
Just look at the money pouring into Fabian Nunez campaign....
well over a $million and he running against NOBODY..... voters don't even get to vote NONE of the ABOVE. Cedillo ran unapposed in 2002 raked in $700,000 that year. Sacramento is for sale just like Downtown LA.

September 29, 2006 10:11 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

It’s statements like yours, 623, that turn voters away from your candidate. And Ms. Allen-Newman asks a legitimate question and we’d all like to hear the answer. The ugly truth is that Kevin DeLeon is financed by and beholden to special interest groups. That’s not negative campaigning, just the plain and simple truth. It was the reason I voted for someone else in the primary and why I’ll not vote for Kevin in the general election.

September 29, 2006 10:27 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

REALity check; come back to earth.

A) not "my" candidate. . . just stating the bloody obvious!

2) NO one is "turning away" from Kevin DeLeon. He will win easily AND the GOP candidate--who was unknown in the primary, and is now becoming known just enough to be scary, even to Republicans--will get LESS votes in the general, than in the primary, when the GOP voters had no choice.

Mark my words. It will be breathtakingly embarrassing.

The gossip-mongers tried desperately here, there, and everywhere else 18 months ago to tar Villaraigosa with the Meruelo connection, and worse ones . . . ENDlessly. MS blog watchers can attest; the name Merulo was posted here more times than Jimmy Hahn's some days. Not only did NO good against Villaraigosa, but reminded people of the crack pipe ads from '01.

I didn't support AV, and still don't like him, but I can tell a lame, useless campaign tactic like "guilt by donation (acceptance)" when I see it.

It takes no votes away, and probably adds some fence-sitters to the column of the "accused." It just makes the supposedly "clean" losers feel better when it's all over.

It IS negative campaigning to suggest that someone accepting a donation from people with a specific "interest" then owes them something as a result. It says they can be bought, and no one knows that to be true, until they take office.

What's more "negative" than accusing someone of being for sale, when you have not one shred of evidence it's true.

It's only been a few years since this was always assumed. . . "Boy, SHE sure got promoted fast; must have SLEPT her way to the top.

Just "plain and simple truth" from a prior era.

September 29, 2006 2:54 PM  

Anonymous Letty's Dad said:

Yeah, she's scary all right. She's got you scared enough to post all that. Reality Check: come back to earth. She's also my kid's first communion teacher at St. Bernards, so I don't think she's the type to sleep her way to the top. You picked the wrong person to accuse of sleeping with the boss. Dumb ass. Kevin is still a crappy candidate and it's too late to do damage control. Thank the other candidates who didn't win the primary for doing a good job of trashing Kevin. We haven't forgotten.

September 29, 2006 4:54 PM  

Anonymous Samantha Allen-Newman said:

So, who did I sleep with for a promotion? Must have missed it 'cause it didn't happen in a prior era and that's the plain and simple truth. As for the other Republicans, they don't scare that easy.

September 29, 2006 5:04 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

Advertisement

Advertisement