Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Exporting Event Waivers?

A reader brought this to our attention and it caught our interest.

Is the City Council providing a $34K event waiver for an event outside of the city limits?

In certain parts of the city, boundaries are a bit crazy and sometimes there's overlap. But as far as we can tell the Culver City Farmers' Market is located in Culver City and not the City of Los Angeles.

The following item is on Wednesday's Council Agenda:
CD 10 f. MOTION (ZINE for WESSON - ROSENDAHL) relative to declaring the Culver City Farmers’ Market on Tuesdays from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007 a Special Event (fees and costs absorbed by the City = $34,320).
If you know more, please enlighten us.


Anonymous Anonymous said:

We know this is a political favor but to who? Culver City has been having this farmer's market now I'm wondering whether the city of LA has been paying for it. Culver City is incorporated and has its own budget, police, etc. I don't understand why the city of LA is getting involved with their stuff. More info needs to be put on the agendas on these special event waivers. I notice many of them today are sketching.

December 19, 2006 9:29 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

You know anyone with an Internet connection can answer these questions with a couple clicks. But then, why bother, it's easier to muckrake than research, right?

This is part of a cooperative arrangement that dates back to Nate Holden's days, maybe before. Part of the area used for the market is IN L.A., plus Angelenos use the market as much or more than CC people:

(from 2001) - Culver City Farmers market operates primarily in Culver City on a weekly basis, however it involves a small, approximately 50 foot, portion of Bagley Street located in the City of Los Angeles. The organizers of this farmers market have requested that the City close this portion of that street in order to facilitate the holding of the farmer's market. The street would be closed for an eight hour period one day per week. The closures would begin on Tuesday, March 6, 2001 and would continue for a one year period."

So, it just makes sense that how-so-for-as Culver City is like surrounded on like 99+ sides and landlocked by the city of L.A., but also serves as a major throughway for people avoiding the 10 freeway, and why-so-what-as most of major streets in that part of L.A. run through some portion of CC that would be affected by traffic and street closures, then-so-for a little cooperation is good for all.

The alternative is, Culver City can just have it's market, and half the westside of L.A. can be doubly gridlocked because some kneejerkers are being pissy about where the lines are drawn. We can pay double for traffic patrols for 10 miles in all directions, in our part of L.A., just to keep from "waiving fees" the city would never receive, anyway.


"Fee waivers" are NOT L.A. paying for something, they're "FEES" (hidden taxes) being WAIVED by the city, for things that enhance residents' everyday life.

You WANT people to pay MORE taxes??

I thought this was a GOP blog???

December 19, 2006 11:25 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Well, Zuma did mention this and let's see if anyone gives a damn. Media should be jumping on this one.

December 19, 2006 11:25 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The Culver City Farmer's market is on MAIN STREET IN CULVER CITY. Neither side of the streets on the East, West are in the city of LA. Its one stupid block and shouldn't cost LA $34,000 as a waiver. The 10fwy is way down from this street so that's b.s. what the poster stated. Everyone knows when the market is held so they have learned to avoid that area in Culver City.

December 19, 2006 12:23 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

This is as bad as Huizar waiving $20,000 in special event fees for a parade that doesn't even take place in the city of LA. This money was waived for a County parade in September and had 2 streets on the city side where the people organized the floats. This shit has got to stop.

December 19, 2006 12:56 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Damned straight, it's bad business to assist neighboring communities. We should just erect a 70-mile fence around the city of Los Angeles, and FORCE them to drive around the outside (plus that would keep people in our BLUE city from driving to any of the EVIL, cheaper WALMARTs that ring the city in other communities.

Hell, let's put up toll gate and FORCE those non-Angelenos to PAY to get into L.A.

Be GREAT for local businesses, too.

Assisting neighboring communities by waiving those extortionistic street closure fees in border and common areas is BAD BUSINESS for L.A.

If they don't want to live IN L.A., screw 'em.

December 19, 2006 3:29 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


STRAIGHT out of previously approved council files, for the past five years... but of course YOU know better than all the dozens of city clerks, attorneys, councilmembers, etc. that have reviwed this for half a decade!

"it involves a small, approximately 50 foot, portion of Bagley Street located in the City of Los Angeles."

(And, of course, ONLY people who already KNOW about a Farmer's Market in Culver City EVER drive through West L.A. during those hours).

December 19, 2006 3:32 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

This is fun, lets look up some other fee waiver items, not bother to look at ANY of the backup motions, years of history, dozens of easily linked pages, or other explanations as to why they're necessary, scoff at the thousands of L.A, residents they help,
and without fail suggest that they're ALL because SOME ONE downtown is CORRUPT!

"They're STEALING taxpayer's money" (which it isn't), to do things that ONLY benefit hundreds and hundreds of L.A. citizens with a better way of life.

This is how ZUMA DOGG does it, scream foul, and then skulk away afterwards when the real explanation arrives, without so much as a "Whoops, my bad"!.

Zuma DEMA-gogg is more like it.

Fuck the full-text motion one click away, let's just scream about what we THINK the one-paragraph synopsis means, until the egg on our faces rots.

WE WANT TO PAY MORE TAXES DISGUISED AT "city service fees" -- Please, oh, please, city council, don't WAIVE them . . . FEE at LAST, Fee at LAST!

December 19, 2006 3:40 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Here's where the real waste of taxpayers' dollars comes from. Someone reads just enough off a posted agenda to screw up the interpretation, and begins e-mailing or blog-posting accusations all over town that somebody on city council is cheating their district out of some sum of money with things like fee waivers. Dozens, maybe hundreds of their e-mail spam contacts (some of the exact same people who now firmly believe they are negotiating by e-mail to handle the sizable banking inheritance of Nirus Ujufani, third son of the exiled king of Uganda -- who sent them a personal e-mail last week seeking their discreet assistance) they begin pounding council and mayor's staff with phone calls and e-mail questions about this huge travesty of justice involving several thousand dollars the city never stood to collect in the first place. (Without the fee waivers, most of these events would just go somewhere else, or skip the event entirely).

By the time the phone lines finally calm down, constituents with real problems have been on hold for half an hour, or never get called back. Meanwhile, the fake "controversy" of corruption has burned up dozens of hours of staff time fielding, correcting, and re-explaining 20 times each that the original poster was wrong, and all the correct information was on public record and perfectly legit.

Thanks for wasting real, already collected taxpayer money crying over fees that never did -- and usually never will -- exist in the first place.

Your mamas would be so proud of their little "pubic advocates".

December 19, 2006 3:58 PM  

Blogger Dockweiler_Mutt-tt said:

Hey, that's my new subtitle:


Pubic Aggravate and
Community TINACTI-vist

Write in candidate for city council.

I just got to figure out which district the biggest Forest Lawn is in, so my "peeps" can vote.

December 19, 2006 4:32 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

IF there's nothing to hide and clowncil isn't doing anything wrong then why has the CLA report from 2003 still sitting in Budget Finance even after Weiss Ass put out a press release stating that CLOWNCIL IS ABUSING SPECIAL EVENT WAIVERS? Again, these waivers were meant for non profits, churches etc. who couldn't afford to pay for street closures etc. You can't tell me CULVER CITY who has lots of money can't pay for their own damn farmer's market especially when its their police dept. that does security for it on ONE BLOCK. Special event waivers are way passed $15 million a year and Culver City Farmer's market has tons of corp. stores that sell at it. Why shld LA tax payers eat that fee?

December 19, 2006 5:32 PM  

Blogger Zuma Dogg said:



December 19, 2006 9:27 PM  

Blogger Zuma Dogg said:

Dear 3:58pm

Dozens, maybe hundreds of their e-mail spam contacts...they begin pounding council and mayor's staff with phone calls and e-mail questions about this huge travesty of justice.

First of all, I have never sent spam to anyone regarding "special event fee waivers", so if you are being pounded with calls and e-mail questions, you can thank Mayor Sam's blog and TV 35. Wow! I didn't know it made such an impact.

Meanwhile, I loved this: "Someone reads just enough off a posted agenda to screw up the interpretation, and begins e-mailing or blog-posting accusations all over town." Nice spin...really, probably the best so far from a ZD hater/special event fee abuser, so I should mention this: Whenever I bring this stuff up, I am kinda stumbling around in the dark trying to figure out the confusing daily agenda. I think I hit on some good points, and have stumbled upon some biggies (thanks to the additonal info provided by mayor sam bloggers), but I am alway exteremely happy when someone clarifies when the dogg is barking up the wrong tree and i can breathe a sigh of relief. but overall, you know i've been right on this special event fee waiver abuse thing....sorry.

December 19, 2006 9:41 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Hey if we're helping out Culver City why not waive fees for Burbank, Glendale, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica and the rest of the cities that surround us.

December 20, 2006 9:40 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Alhambra, Pasadena, Duarte, Azusa, Bradbury, Long Beach.

Heck, put group in waiver wagon.

December 20, 2006 9:50 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

If we charge "fees" to neighboring communities for joint efforts, or cross-over projects, then they charge us back.

We've got a hell of a lot more border area to get screwed over in this equation. Think about it. Use the whole brain this time.

L.A. loses, if we don't cooperate.

December 20, 2006 10:18 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

10:18 You pussy.,

December 20, 2006 11:49 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

10:18 You pussy.,

December 20, 2006 11:50 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Isolating one event outside of L.A. does not warrant the attention that it is recieving on this blog.

Why does not someone research or ask the city to provide a spreadsheet of how much money is provided to each district and neighborhood.

I bet the richer and whiter neighborhoods get more money.

Another point that was good and brought up on this blog is how certain people on this blog and city are so opposed to sharing money with neighborhing cities. I can bet you that most people working in L.A. (especially working class citizens) live outside of L.A. boundaries. L.A. should be doing something for all the life it sucks out of the neighborhing communities and world in general.

December 20, 2006 4:29 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home