Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098

Sunday, October 22, 2006

I Wish The League of Women Voters Were 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea

In other words, F*CK The league of Women Voters. Any group that would support Proposition R (they initiated it) and also says "NO" on Prop 90 (controlling Eminent domain) is one endorsement Zuma Dogg for City Council doesn't ever want, and would categorically reject.

Because anyone who would Vote "for" R and "against" 90 is obviously a real estate, special interest, money-hungry, shady, corrupt, "League of Dumbass Voters". (Or maybe NOT so dumb if they care about their own special interests.)

Zuma Dogg is new to politics, but with a voting endorsement record like that, I'm sure this is old news to most; about these neutered lapdogs who only care about getting invited to some fundraiser where they blast fireworks into City Hall, and they can use the event to suck up to the politicians destroying the cultural, economic and social fabric of our City as they rob the constituents blind and the working class/middle class have to pick up the tab.



Anonymous Anonymous said:

90 means more taxes, unchecked development, and less quality of life.
The measure not only prohibits a city from taking land for private but it also says that you have to compensate developers for regulating them. So if I want to limit development, in Venice let's say, after Prop 90 passes, by limiting condo conversions or downzoing or whatever, the city would have to pay developer potentially millions b/c they could say well I planned to turn this into condos and now your basically making it so I make less money. What's the consequence, less quality of life, and higher taxes to pay for legal fees. That's why the California Taxpayers association is opposing it, and why all the environmentalists everybody except, the New York DEVELOPER, Howard Rich, whose bankrolling it, is against it. In lot of places in California we are trying to protect agricultural land from development, this basically says with any new regulation we have to compesnative developers. That's gonna hurt a lot of farmers, and a lot of agriculture districts, and hurt that industry in CA. That's why reps from the Central Valley oppose it. It also requires the fair compensation government has to pay when it takes property public use, i.e roads, and schools to increase.bThis means less schools, roads, etc, while we have unchecked development we can't control without getting sued or paying more and more taxes. Potentially, it could threaten the use of fees to pay for the impacts of development if courts that this counts as a regulation- what's the consequence? more traffic, worse air quality, or greater taxes pay for more infrastructure. So vote on 90, cause it's a vote for more taxes, and less quality of life.

October 22, 2006 5:04 PM  

Blogger Phil Krakover said:

Roger that; how about my solution to all our problems??

No drivers licenses for women.


No way to get to the polling place and vote;

No traffic;

Less accidents;

Lower insurance rates;

Zero unemployement;

Better home cooking;

No League of Women Voters;

and, a mess of other benefits I haven't considered as yet.

Anybody willing to sponsor such a bill?

(Not me, my wife'd kill me)

October 22, 2006 5:48 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


The "DEMOCRATIC LEAGUE OF NAG VOTERS" sold out their "non-partisan" standard long ago. John Zeigler took apart one of their political Directors on his show last week. She was shilling for Prop 89 on goverment finance campaigns. Further, Zeigo took her to task for their DEMOCRATIC leaning (party wise). Keep up the GOOD WORK, D, O, DOUBLE G!!!

October 22, 2006 6:00 PM  

Anonymous Samantha Allen-Newman said:

Go to page 94 of the California Voter Information Guide and read the rebuttal argument to Proposition 94. It's signed by the President of the League of Women Voters of California.

Don't get me wrong, the League is a valuable and needed organization. However, I find it interesting that the League supports Prop R (which is bankrolled by developers and special interests) and opposes Prop 90 (which also has an equally impressive list of supporters, including one of our own City Council members).

Has the League lost sight of its core mission which is encouraging informed and active participation in government? Perhaps.

October 22, 2006 6:49 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Z.D. go to couragecampaign.org and follow the links - particularly the Letter to the Editor link.

Then do some investigation. Look for connections to Grover Norquist, et al. Prop 90 is funded by extremists who intend to rape the land use and environmental laws not only in Los Angeles and California but all across the country.

Prop 90 would make it possible for developers to sue municipalities regarding certain ordinances or regulations claiming "economic harm," and winning hugh sums of money payable by the taxpayers who already suffer from the greed and corruption of the politicians.

This is scary stuff all in the name of getting rid of private property seizure through eminent domain.

Check out who is behind Prop 90, and who is against it.


I agree. Prop R is repulsive.

October 22, 2006 10:08 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

"Zuma Dogg is new to politics"

Gee, ya think??

I'd hardly call would you do "politics" since you haven't a clue 99-44/100 percent of the time, but I'm guessing you're also new to sobriety and most social conventions.

October 23, 2006 12:28 PM  

Anonymous joe east l.a. said:

right on ZUMMA DOG!!!!!!!

October 23, 2006 1:21 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

My oh my.. when someone "goes off" on you Zuma Dogg, like that 12:28 poster, you know what that means. You are hitting them right where it hurts.

Keep it up.

P.S. You don't need any social conventions and it doesn't really matter if you're sober or not. We've had it all on our Los Angeles City Council.

Yeah yeah.

October 23, 2006 2:39 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Thanks, Z. D., for checking out Prop 90. It is a wolf hiding in sheeps clothing - and not easy to discern that it is a developers dream.

October 23, 2006 7:29 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home