"Philanthropist Eli Broad," Tax Revenues As Profits, And Your Open Thread
By Walter Moore, Chief Economist and Legal Analyst, L.A. Policy Institute.Issue 1: Free Brainwash With Article
Sometimes propaganda is subtle. The propagandist can win the battle by controlling the terms used in a debate. Examples include: "living wage" rather than "government price and wage controls;" "NIMBY's" rather than "homeowners;" "undocumented worker" rather than "illegal alien;" and "airport modernization" rather than "airport remodelling." The objective is to pick labels that make you sound like the good guy, and anyone who opposes you sound like some kind of idiot or selfish bastard.
That brings us to today's question. Which of the following two labels for a person would make you trust him more: "philanthropist," or "billionaire developer?" One sounds noble and altruistic; the other, not so much.
If you Google "philanthropist Eli Broad" -- with the quotation marks to ensure the exact phrase appears -- you will get 908 documents. Likewise, if you read the L.A. Times, you get the impression that the paper requires reporters to insert the word "philanthropist" before this guy's name, as opposed to, say, "billionaire developer," as in "Kaufman & Broad," as in "KB Homes."
The most recent example appears in Steve Lopez's column today. While Lopez correctly notes, in passing, that the Grand Avenue project involves giving away valuable public land and around $100 million of your tax money to "developers," Lopez still uses the "philanthropist" title -- as if it were Broad's first name.
Why do you suppose that is? Who decides whether to label someone, time after time, based on his charitable contributions as opposed to his occupation -- especially in articles that relate not to charity, but to land development? By referring to this man over and over as a philanthropist, the paper gives readers the impression that whatever he says or does regarding Grand Avenue is motivated not by financial self-interest, but by altruism.
Issue 2: Government As A Growth Industry
Speaking of Lopez's article, he says that Carol Schatz, head of the Central City Association (whatever that is) argues in favor of giving public land and tax subsidies to Grand Avenue developers because -- according to Lopez's paraphrasing of Schatz's argument -- "everyone in the city would benefit from the millions in taxes this project would generate, so the millions in sbsidies would be paid back in spades."
Excuse me, but since when did "maximizing tax revenues" become a goal of government? Government is NOT a business; its mission is not to make as big a "profit" as possible. Nor is maximizing tax revenues a legitimate goal. Furthermore, neither Ms. Schatz nor others who make this kind of argument ever provide a money-back guarantee when making these types of predictions about how great it will be to spend YOUR money.
So let's stop accepting the "it'll generate more revenues than it costs" argument, shall we?
Issue 3: You Pick
This is your open thread. Go for it.
Posted by Walter Moore @ 2/11/2007 10:32:00 AM
49 Comments:
'protecting' tax revenue was quoted as one of the compelling reasons to introduce LAMC 42.15 again on Venice Baech last year.
protect the merchants who provide tax revenue to the City.
I've always pointed out that thousands and thousands of dollars walk that boardwalk every weekend, and without west side vendors, a huge percentage of that money keeps walking and then heads to LAX and flies away never to be seen again.
far better to capture more and have it circulate here, than disappear into the never never.
there's absolutely no evidence produced that proves consumers spend that money in East side stores, absent the west side vendors.
in fact, some evidence proves the opposite but only if you can believe the source.
Carol Schatz waited a day to yell at Lopez because she was so mad? That's unusual. Schatz is well known for viciously and profanely lashing out at critics of the real estate and big business interests who pay her salary.
Eli Broad is the Children Television Workshop, Richard Riorend is Jim Henson and the Mayor is their their bitch, Kermit the Frog.
I can't wait till they give all these tax breaks to the richest billionaire developers, so the City of Los Angeles will NEVER be able to aks the voters for another tax hike or fee increase. DO NOT -- I REPEAT -- DO NOT HAVE THE NERVE TO GIVE THE RICHEST DEVELPOERS TAX BREAKS THEN AKS THE REST OF US TO PAY MORE...Capishe? OTR, D...YFM? HY....WS! HH!
To be fair, if you Google (a word is now a verb, as well as a company name) "developer Eli Broad" in quotes, you will receive 1,170 hits. But I certainly agree with Walter's point about how labels are used to control and frame the debate/discourse. Broad should be labeled (primarily) by the Times as a billionaire developer (who also engages in philanthropy).
Zuma,
It is not true that I am nothing more than a schill to approve policy and create legislation and award tax breaks for my muppet masters, Broad and Riordan, so they can continue to steamroll the city and get rich of the backs of the middle class. Who has been telling you this? It's not supposed to be public knowelege?
Now I'm gonna have to aks Robin Kramer to ask Riordan to aks Uncle Eli how I should repy to these inflammatory remarks.
"Sometimes propaganda is subtle. The propagandist can win the battle by controlling the terms used in a debate. Examples include: "NIMBY's" rather than "homeowners;"... The objective is to pick labels that make you sound like the good guy, and anyone who opposes you sound like some kind of idiot or selfish bastard."
That's interesting. You know, every time Mayor Sam (on this very blog) refers to the Sunland/Tujunga folks who're trying to stop that Home Depot from going in, he calls him "NIMBYs." I seem to have missed the many times you must've bravely upbraided him for his pernicious use of propaganda. Perhaps you can direct me to some of those times, Walter, you courageous paragon of principle, you.
I eagerly await them.
Patrick Meighan
Los Angeles Greens
No Eli Broad=No AB 1381
Eli Broad=Iron Fist up Nunez/Villar's ass to jam the clearly unconstitutional AB 1381 through without putting it to a vote of the people.
AB 1381=Contol over the school board=Control of over $20 Billion in construction money, ith no accontablity on any spending under $250,000=costs go WAY up with all these bonus $250,000 fees that no one is even required to be notified of=waste, $250,000 at a time.
Broad=Construction interests=now we know why he made his muppet create frankenstein=AB 1381.
this post=not zuma dogg, y'all. otr, d.
p.s. They just said on Council TV replay this week is Garshmetti's birthday. Jan Perry called him a "man boy" and when she pointed out the cake was "blue", the West Holly pol was quick to say, "I'm perfectly comfortable with 'pink', too." Here's a tribute to the birthday boy from my #1 source for tips to investigate, Mayor Sam Yorty and his highly respected blog that is read by powerful people from Scaramento to Washington to NYC. I(I don't know who that person is he is talking to, but he seems to make a whole lot of sense.)
A Birthday Tribute to City Council President Eric Garshmetti
GOOD BLOGGIN MORNING !!!
In the honor of Carol Schatz and "BILLIONAIRE DEVELOPER", Eli Broad, here are "TEN NEW STREAMS OF TAX REVENUE" that Broad, Schatz and other "CORPORATE WELFARE JUNKIES" can use to sustain their habit;
1. Tax on all "PALETAS" sold by undocumented merchants. This may not be P.C. for the current "CLOWNCIL".
2. Selling "HOT AIR CREDITS". Charge a fee for our local polititions who contribute to the "HOT AIR INDEX" around City Hall. Like Carbon Credits.
3. Photo Op Fees, every time "HIS POLLONESS" has a Photo Op charge him a fee. Protential for big revenue. Can also cut down on visual polution.
4. "P.R. Journalism Fee". Everytime the "LA ANTONIA TIMES" comes out with a "PRESS RELEASE" (ex. "LITTLE DOOKIE" HELFAND") that they try to pass off as objective journalism. Tax Them !!!!
5. "ZUMA DOGG THREAD LENGHTH TAX". Every time that Zuma Dogg writes a thread over 6 inches, hit him with a tax. Just Kidding bro.
6. "COUNCIL CEREMONY FEE". Every time the "CLOWNCIL" goes over the half hour mark with their long-winded ceremonies. Tax Them !!!. Maybe this will induce them to do the public work.
7. "Sidewalk Vendors Fees". Windfall for the city if they crack down on all the illegal street vendors.
8. "WESTSIDE WHITE GUY KISS ASS FEE". Everytime that WWG kisses the ass of "HIS POLLONESS". Tax Him !! . Maybe this will help his objectivity in regards to our mayor.
9. "CUT AND PASTE FEE IN CD 14". Tax a "PESO" for each "CUT AND PASTE" that revolves around CD 14 politics.
10. "HIS POLLONESS DENIAL FEE". Each time "MAYOR POLLORAIGOSA" denies that Illegal Immigration has not contributive to crime, urban blight, over crowding, and etc. Charge him a TAX for his denial. With this tax we can afford Coporate Welfare for all.
FREEDOM AND FREE ENTERPRISE
"RED SPOT OF REASON IN CD 14"
Here's one for you, Patrick: "greens" vs. "socialists." It's better to sound as though what you REALLY care about is the environment, when instead you want the government to set prices and wages, pay for housing and medical care, etc.
As for NIMBY, I'm sure if you dig deep enough, you'll find the comment I wrote against that term. People who own back yards are entitled to protect them. Plus, apparently you didn't notice it, but I pointed out, in this very post, that "NIMBY" is one of those loaded terms. Did you miss that part? Re-read for best results.
Red Spot: LOL. I like those taxes.
Zuma: Also LOL. You hit the nail on the head. And I'm with you: having given hundreds of millions of tax dollars to rich developers, City Hall has no right to ask us to pay more. But, of course, they will.
11:18: I couldn't find a way to do it, but you know what would be interesting? To search all past L.A. Times articles, and see how many times Broad had one label rather than the other. Also, funny you mention "Google" as a verb; in prior drafts, I addressed that, then the Ghost of the Nine-Minute Video came to me and said, "Keep It Simple, Stupid." Sometimes companies succeed too well: their trademarks become verbs through usage (e.g., Xerox a document).
Walter's onto something here with the propaganda angle. Let's change "NIMBY's" to "homeowners," or better yet "property owners." Then let's change "developers" to "homebuilders" or better yet "property owners." Wait now -- the Constitution grants equal protection to all property owners under the law? I guess a NIMBY is the same as a developer! Neither one is superior to the other! No propaganda necessary.
By the by, Broad hasn't owned KB Home for almost two decades...and neither Broad nor KB have any direct financial interest in Grand Avenue...but don't let that stop you from calling Broad a "developer" Walter, or should I say "property owner." Wait, Broad doesn't own any of the property involved. Looks like you're barking up the wrong tree.
"As for NIMBY, I'm sure if you dig deep enough, you'll find the comment I wrote against that term. People who own back yards are entitled to protect them."
Walter, I couldn't find any prior example (not one!) of your supposed opposition to Mayor Sam's use of the word "NIMBY." Could you please direct me to it? I'd hate to think that you're only opposed to such vile propaganda when it's used by your opponents, as opposed to when it's used by your friends and blog-hosts. 'Cause that'd make your opposition a sham and one of expedience, not one of principle. I'd sure hate to believe that about you, Walter.
"Plus, apparently you didn't notice it, but I pointed out, in this very post, that "NIMBY" is one of those loaded terms. Did you miss that part? Re-read for best results."
Okay, so are you now, officially, declaring that, Mayor Sam, himself, is a "propagandist" who picks "labels that make (him) sound like the good guy, and anyone who opposes (him) sound like some kind of idiot or selfish bastard"? It seems as though that's precisely what you're saying, but could you officially confirm it? 'Cause, if that's what you're saying, I wonder why you continue to associate with someone who resorts to a political tactic that you abhore. That doesn't seem like a very principled thing for you to do, Walter.
"Here's one for you, Patrick: "greens" vs. "socialists."
Ooh, red-baiting. There's an oldie but a goodie. I'm kinda surpised that someone, such as yourself, who is so commonly labeled (by others, not by me) a racist and an anti-semite would be so quick, himself, to fling labels when he runs out of legitimate arguments. That, too, doesn't seem like a very principled thing to do. But I guess the limits of your principles are getting exposed quite clearly today, sadly.
Patrick Meighan
Los Angeles Greens
How do you know what Broad owns, and doesn't own? Do you have a list of his stock holdings? And of the companies owned by the companies he owns? His LLC participations? Partnership agreements? His management contracts? Me, neither. So I don't know how you can claim, so confidently, that he has no stake in the Grand Avenue subsidies.
As for labelling property owners, business owners, developers, spokesmen for trade associations, etc., as such, that is my point: it is more fair to identify the financial stake people have in a debate than to call them, say, "philanthropists."
Patrick, as for searching old posts, you're welcome to try. I don't think Google lets one search comments, but I do recall having made the point about homeowners before, and obviously -- to everyone but you -- I made it again today.
As for the postings on Mayor Sam about NIMBY's, Sam's entitled to his opinion, and I'm entitled to mine, but everyone reading this Blog knows it is a forum for expressing opinions.
What may have eluded you is that the many so-called "news" articles about Grand Avenue constitute propaganda because they appear not on the op-ed pages, but on the news pages of the local papers. In what should be objective news articles, you instead have a developer transformed into a "philanthropist," and a spokesman for a trade group (i.e., Keyser) transformed into a "Chief Economist" -- which is why, by the way, I have generously conferred that impressive title upon myself.
As for your calling yourself a "Green" instead of a "socialist," conspicuous by its absence from your comment is your position on wage and price controls. If I recall correctly from your prior posts, you support the City ordinance that would require hotels near the airport to pay something like $10 per hour. True or false? True, of course. So don't be ashamed, just admit: you want the government to regulate wages. That's not red-baiting, it's an accurate statement of your position.
As for your "racist" and "anti-semite" comments, this illustrates your inability to defend your positions with logic and evidence. Name-calling is no subsitute for analysis.
Patrick, you're making a big mistake in thinking that Walter has any principles. Trying to prove that he doesn't (or that they are limited) is like trying to prove that the Earth is round. We all know.
Case in point: He thinks all of us in Sunland-Tujunga are NIMBYs because we oppose Home Depot. He never said us "homeowners" had any right to fight the project by the "developers." Yet now the "developers" are the bad guys Downtown. Pick a side Walter!
more tax opportunities:
- Tax merchant sidewalk "sandwich boards"- get the money based on the square inches used for these obstructions to pedestrians and to drivers'-line-of-sight views of corner cross-traffic. Bonus tax for collisions attributable to bad view.
- Tax Open House signs on public property.
- Tax on another sign, Yard Sales: flat tax, plus penalty based on the number of days between date on sign and date cited.
- Tax Exemption: Lost Pets - Found Pets postings.
BORDERGATE
Call for a full investigation
We can handle the truth!
Lies, lies and more lies. Where will the search for the truth lead us? Are we as Americans ready and willing to "Handle the Truth"?
The question on my mind today is whether or not we as Americans have the will to do what it will take to get the truth. Who in the seat of power had the final or utmost authority to conceive and perpetuate this American Tragedy? How far up the ladder of power does this conspiracy of injustice lead?
Will we, as Americans have the courage to set aside political affiliations in order to bring those responsible to justice?
I believe the answer is a resounding YES!
Bordergate is the term I find most fitting for our task ahead. I am full aware of the image which will be drawn by this title, never the less, we seek justice and the truth no matter where it leads us.
Please review the full articles listed below and know your facts. Then beginning tomorrow contact members of Congress http://www.house.gov/ and demand a full investigation into Bordergate.
David Hernandez
www.freeborderagents.com
******************************************************************************
San Bernardino County Sun
February 10, 2007
Two Border Patrol agents who testified against two co-workers convicted of shooting a drug smuggler will be fired for changing their stories about events surrounding the shooting, according to documents obtained by The Sun's sister newspaper, the Ontario-based Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.
Sources inside the Border Patrol also say Oscar Juarez, a third agent who testified against Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, resigned from the agency last month shortly before he was to be fired.
All three agents gave sworn testimony against Ramos and Compean for the U.S. Attorney's Office, which successfully prosecuted the shooting case in March. The three agents were given immunity in exchange for their testimony despite changing their accounts of the incident several times.
http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_5199815
World Net DAily
February 6, 2007
A Department of Homeland Security official admitted today the agency misled Congress when it contended it possessed investigative reports proving Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean confessed guilt and declared they "wanted to shoot some Mexicans" prior to the incident that led to their imprisonment.
The admission came during the testimony of DHS Inspector General Richard L. Skinner before the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, according to Michael Green, press secretary for Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas.
Culberson was questioning Skinner about a meeting DHS officials had Sept. 26 with him and three other Republican congressman from Texas, Reps. Ted Poe, Michael McCaul and Kenny Marchant.
To read full store click on link below
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54132
This is the beginning of a story which goes far beyond the fate of two border agents. We shall see if our local print media has the will to give it the coverage it deserves.
Please pass this on to your e-mail groups.
David Hernandez
www.davidhernandez.wordpress.com
To see clips of the Hollywood Rally and March for the "Texas Three" see Hollywood Rally Link at www.davidhernandez.wordpress.com
Patrick and Walter,
Very interesting discussion, and long overdue!
I hope Mayor Sam is listening!
This comes up for vote in clowncil on Tuesday. Those morons will once again do something stupid then regret it when they hear the criticism. Not on around that horseshoe with guts.
To 1:28:
You apparently did not read my original postings re the Home Depot, and are not familiar with opposition to the over-development of L.A. If you were, I don't think you'd see me quite so flat-earthy.
Insofar as the community around the Home Depot objects so strenuously to that store, what I proposed was using the power of eminent domain to: i) put a nice park there instead of the store; and ii) compensate Home Depot fairly for the market value of its property.
What I object to is attempts to "move the goal posts" on a property owner, like Home Depot, by changing the rules about what can be done with the property AFTER the person buys it.
Furthermore, my platform included preventing L.A. from becoming another New York or Tokyo by overdevelopment. And, instead of creating a big park downtown, I advocated the creation of small "pocket parks" THROUGHOUT L.A. so that, eventually and ideally, everyone would live within walking distance of a nice park.
Now, if you still believe I have no principles, that's fine. But at least disagree with my real position, and not one you have simply concocted as a straw man. The principle, just so you're clear, is basically this: rule of law, including just compensation for the taking of private property.
P.S. To the best of my knowledge, Home Depot in Sunland, unlike the Grand Avenue project, is NOT receiving: public land at below-market prices; subsidies; and tax breaks. Nor has the City Council required Home Depot's competitors by law to pay higher wages than Home Depot.
I'm not against developers or development in accordance with the law. I'm against welfare for the rich, including rich developers, and against changes in zoning laws to make our city even more dense and ugly than it is already.
what some people call propaganda, we in the blogosphere call a spin. Mayor sam's spins can be as entertaining as hell.
and none of you are getting paid to write here, so I say enjoy the entertainment, unless bitching over nimby is your idea of entertainment.....then, go right ahead...
Home Depot owns the lease, not the property. Just want to clarify that.
Additionally, Home Depot is violating the Foothill Blvd Corridor Specific Plan by attempting to open a store in a space designated as neighborhood retail. Think shopping carts, not forklifts, a walk to destination, not a warehouse that sells in bulk & delivers via flatbed semi trucks.
What the City is giving Home Depot, as opposed to tax exemptions or subsidies,
is a "pass" to violate the City's own rules. Almost, if not equal to, the same distasteful acts that Eli
is seeking.
A leasehold is a property interest.
As for the rest, I think we've covered that ad nauseum.
A leasehold is not a property owner.
Let's at least make that distinction.
And, no, we have barely scratched the surface, Walter. I refer you to the following document:
http://no2homedepot.com/files/NHDC2ndSupplement2007_02_02.pdf
http://no2homedepot.com/files/
NHDC2ndSupplement2007_02_02.pdf
"As for your calling yourself a "Green" instead of a "socialist," conspicuous by its absence from your comment is your position on wage and price controls. If I recall correctly from your prior posts, you support the City ordinance that would require hotels near the airport to pay something like $10 per hour. True or false? True, of course. So don't be ashamed, just admit: you want the government to regulate wages. That's not red-baiting, it's an accurate statement of your position."
Walter, I happen to belong to the Green Party, which is why I call myself a Green (as opposed to a "socialist," or whatever else it is you imagine I should call myself). It's not a rhetorical sleight-of-hand to call myself a Green, it's an accurate and matter-of-fact reportage of the political party with which I am registered.
Second, if all it takes to be a "socialist" is to be in favor of a minimum wage (or, as you put it, to "want the government to regulate wages"), then pretty 80-90% of the citizens of this nation are, by your definition, socialist. Congratulations, you've just defined socialism so broadly as to rob the word of all meaning!
And you accuse *others* of being propagandists!
Patrick Meighan
Los Angeles Greens
Here's your free legal lesson today. A lease is a conveyance and a contract. A leasehold is a property interest. Don't take my word for it. Read footnote 3 of the following document from the Attorney General's office, and the cases cited therein.
http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/pdfs/03-1108.pdf
A few thoughts -
Whether they're homeowners or property owners or NIMBYs they have no right to tell me what to do with my property or the people who rent my property.
NIMBY can be overused but it is an accurate term in many cases.
Greens are a re-branding of the old Socialist Party.
Someone needs to buy Joe B. some underwear soon.
A few thoughts -
Whether they're homeowners or property owners or NIMBYs they have no right to tell me what to do with my property or the people who rent my property.
NIMBY can be overused but it is an accurate term in many cases.
Greens are a re-branding of the old Socialist Party.
Someone needs to buy Joe B. some underwear soon.
Keep your legal lesson, Wally.
A leaseholder is not a property owner. There is a distinction. The work they intend to do to the property is subject to the property owner's approval. They do not enjoy the same rights as property owners, as you incorrectly keep referring to Home Depot as. Now, please go read the document I referred you to.
Mayor Sam,
It's time to get your head out of the gutter, or at least my pants.
Thank you.
I'll let the readers decide for themselves whether the Green Party is socialistic.
Exhibit A: the OFFICIAL Green Party platform, from the party's website, Section II, Social Justice, Section D, Welfare, which reads, in part, as follows:
"1. All people have a right to food, housing, medical care, jobs that pay a living wage, education, and support in times of hardship."
* * *
"7. The accumulation of individual wealth in the U.S. has reached grossly unbalanced proportions. It is clear that we cannot rely on the rich to regulate their profit-making excesses for the good of society through "trickle-down economics." We must take aggressive steps to restore a fair distribution of income. We support tax incentives for businesses that apply fair employee wage distribution standards, and income tax policies that restrict the accumulation of excessive individual wealth."
http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/socjustice.html#1001034
Etc., etc., etc.
What I don't get is why you hide being socialist. It's not as though there's any stigma attached.
Mayor Sam said, "Whether they're homeowners or property owners or NIMBYs they have no right to tell me what to do with my property or the people who rent my property."
You obviously have never tried to add a bedroom to your house (if you even own a house). You have no idea how many City entities that will tell you what you can or can't do to your property. Home Depot, on the other hand, has basically been given
the rights that you will never have. How fair is that?
You're right, Joe, and hundreds of years of the common law, along with California statutes and the attorney general and I are wrong. Our bad. We naively relied on laws and lawbooks, when we should have just asked you. If Joe says a leasehold is not property, we'll just have to overrule all those cases and re-write the law.
Wally said, "I'll let the readers decide for themselves whether the Green Party is socialistic.
Exhibit A: the OFFICIAL Green Party platform, from the party's website, Section II, Social Justice, Section D, Welfare, which reads, in part, as follows:
"1. All people have a right to food, housing, medical care, jobs that pay a living wage, education, and support in times of hardship."
* * *
"7. The accumulation of individual wealth in the U.S. has reached grossly unbalanced proportions. It is clear that we cannot rely on the rich to regulate their profit-making excesses for the good of society through "trickle-down economics." We must take aggressive steps to restore a fair distribution of income. We support tax incentives for businesses that apply fair employee wage distribution standards, and income tax policies that restrict the accumulation of excessive individual wealth."
Sounds very American to me!
Wally said, "You're right, Joe, and hundreds of years of the common law, along with California statutes and the attorney general and I are wrong. Our bad. We naively relied on laws and lawbooks, when we should have just asked you. If Joe says a leasehold is not property, we'll just have to overrule all those cases and re-write the law."
Now Wally, don't make this out to be more than it is. Simply admit that a leaseholder is not a property owner. That's all.
"BLOGGIN DARWINISM"
Maybe that will scare Patrick
"RED SPOT OF REASON IN CD 14"
P.S. Patrick why do you and your "FELLOW TRAVELING GREENIES" use our natural world to hide your true agenda ???
As for neighbors not having a right to tell one what to do with one's property, yes and no. Zoning laws, building codes and the like have been upheld forever. But as long as a proposed use conforms with those laws, the neighbors should not be allowed to interfere.
Example: if an area is zoned "residential," a property owner (whether a fee or leasehold) has no right to install a leaky nuclear reactor. However, if an area is zoned for retail, the neighbors shouldn't get to force the property owner to open, say, a Target instead of Mervyn's.
Sounds very American? No, Comrade Joe. Sounds very LATIN American, as in Cuban and, now, Venezuelan.
Wally said, "As for neighbors not having a right to tell one what to do with one's property, yes and no. Zoning laws, building codes and the like have been upheld forever. But as long as a proposed use conforms with those laws, the neighbors should not be allowed to interfere.
Example: if an area is zoned "residential," a property owner (whether a fee or leasehold) has no right to install a leaky nuclear reactor. However, if an area is zoned for retail, the neighbors shouldn't get to force the property owner to open, say, a Target instead of Mervyn's.
Ah, but what if the rules says that the store must serve the general retail needs of the community?
Home Depot, as a regional warehouse retailer and wholesaler, does not meet this qualification.
I refer you to the Foothill Blvd Corridor Specific Plan.
Wally said, "Sounds very American? No, Comrade Joe. Sounds very LATIN American, as in Cuban and, now, Venezuelan."
Sounds very FDR and New Deal to me, very American, Herr Wally.
Yes, I am a HomeOwner and I am a NIMBY, Walter, but you have never given me any respect for being a NIMBY which has alway been "a homeowner trying to protect his own backyard."
As a matter of fact, you have given me pure crap for being a NIMBY. Yet, I am not only a homeowner, but an owner of both rental residential and commercial properties in that same backyard.
And, guess what, my backyard is Sunland Tujunga and I am an advocate for No Home Depot in Sunland Tujunga.
So now suddenly that is okay with you, Walter? You've had a change of heart? Or do you just mouth off to hear yourself mouth off?
(blows dust off of Black's Law Dictionary)
Leasehold:
An estate in real property held by leasee/tenant under a lease. The four principal types of leasehold estates are the estate for years, periodic tenancy, tenancy at will, and tenancy at sufferance. The asset representing the right of the lessee to use leased property.
Walter, for Christ's Sake, the zoning codes are so outdated its pathetic, the City is corrupt to its core, Specific Plans are scoffed at and ignored, building codes are unsafe, money talks and developers walk. We in S-T know what is happening in our community and our joke of a city. You live in a dream world when it comes to these truths. Won't you please wake up once in a while and see the facts.
I think you would have great potential if you would open your eyes to the realities of the corporate takeover and control of government at all levels.
NIMBYs are just trying to use constituent power to stop the steam rolling developers who ar in total control not only of the politicians, but also the city officials.
Wake up, Walter, WAKE UP!
How they intend to use the property is settled through negotiation between the property owner and the leaseholder.
The point being, a leaseholder does not enjoy the same rights as a property owner.
Home Depot is not the property owner, as Wally keeps saying.
Home Depot is the leaseholder.
Couple of things...
Joe - are you a socialist?
I mention your underwear cause you are always complaining about not being able to buy any.
You keep bringing up that Home Depot is a renter. Are you stating that they are making changes to the property without the property owner's okay? Even if they are renters - if the owner has given them the right to be there - they have the right to open their store.
You say you want a discount store (to presumedly buy underwear and other things) on the site. But a discount store failed on that site. Is any other discount store lining up to build a store?
If Wal-Mart was willing to build there, would you allow it? Seems to me that Wal-Mart would meet your requirments of no forklifts and underwear for sale.
Are any other stores clamoring to come to Sunland Tujunga? I have not heard of it.
All in all it appears the desire to keep out Home Depot is 1) half baked government protectionism for poorly run businesses in Sunland Tujunga and 2) an effort to further enrich labor unions by banning stores that do not use union labor as well as enriching astro-turf special interest organizations who use emotional issues to gain power and apparently enrich a few so called community leaders
I wonder if AV's use of Getty House would be considered "taxable compensation" under tax law.
If not, then TAX HIM!!!
AV's use of the house is TOTALLY taxable as income.
As for the other comments, let me just say: if I guy with a foreign accent, a microphone and a camera approaches you, for God's sake, tell him you're Canadian.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack at 7:32, Walter. Don't you say that ad hominem attacks are used by people who have no rational arguments? This thread proves one thing: you are an idiot.
11:34, it is pretty difficult to figure out what it is you are saying, but one thing is clear. You are totally uninformed about Sunland Tujunga and this site. This S-T store was the most successful K-Mart in Los Angeles. They would still be up and thriving if K-Mart had not filed bankrupcy and had therefore to include it.
Secondly, we have had two attempts by Target to sub-lease the property. I personally do not want to see any large corporate store or chain store come in there. Walmart is the perfect example of corporate greed and lawlessness in our modern fascist era.
Home Depot is violating Municipal Code and our Specific Plan which is a city Ordinance (Law) and corrupt city officials all the way to the top of the pile are helping with this corruption.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home