City Loses First Round Of LAX "Living Wage" Lawsuit
By Walter Moore, Chief Economist and Legal Analyst, L.A. Policy Institute
Regular readers and viewers know that yours truly urged the Mayor to veto, as illegal, the City Council's "living wage" ordinance.
As I explained via video -- no reading required -- the ordinance is illegal for two reasons. First, it would violate the equal protection clause, because it would apply only to one industry (hotels), and only to one part of the city (an area near the airport). Sedond, the ordinance violates local law, because voters submitted a petition requiring the Council to repeal the ordinance or submit it to the voters, and the Council opted to repeal it, but then immediately re-enacted it with only minor changes.
The Mayor, having never passed that pesky bar exam himself, opted to ignore the free but valuable veto advice.
Result? You -- yes, YOU, my taxpaying friend -- are footing the bill for lawyers to wage a losing battle over the ordinance in the Superior Court. As reported in the Daily News, "Round 1" just ended, and the businesses who filed the lawsuit to challenge the illegal ordinance won. Judge Dzintra Janavs issued a temporary restaining order to prevent the City from publishing and implementing the new law. Judge Janavs will give the City an opportunity to brief the issue further, and will conduct another hearing in May.
Meanwhile, the meters will be running furiously on your legal tab. You can "thank" the City Council for passing this ordinance, and the Mayor for refusing to veto it.
Regular readers and viewers know that yours truly urged the Mayor to veto, as illegal, the City Council's "living wage" ordinance.
As I explained via video -- no reading required -- the ordinance is illegal for two reasons. First, it would violate the equal protection clause, because it would apply only to one industry (hotels), and only to one part of the city (an area near the airport). Sedond, the ordinance violates local law, because voters submitted a petition requiring the Council to repeal the ordinance or submit it to the voters, and the Council opted to repeal it, but then immediately re-enacted it with only minor changes.
The Mayor, having never passed that pesky bar exam himself, opted to ignore the free but valuable veto advice.
Result? You -- yes, YOU, my taxpaying friend -- are footing the bill for lawyers to wage a losing battle over the ordinance in the Superior Court. As reported in the Daily News, "Round 1" just ended, and the businesses who filed the lawsuit to challenge the illegal ordinance won. Judge Dzintra Janavs issued a temporary restaining order to prevent the City from publishing and implementing the new law. Judge Janavs will give the City an opportunity to brief the issue further, and will conduct another hearing in May.
Meanwhile, the meters will be running furiously on your legal tab. You can "thank" the City Council for passing this ordinance, and the Mayor for refusing to veto it.
4 Comments:
San Fernando Spinster said:
If she doesn't want to run for LA, I'd welcome her to City of San Fernando. She clearly doesn't fear the long, shoulder-padded arm of Mayor Villaraigosa. Most councilmembers around here tend to kiss MAV's rear so hard, they usually leave a hickey.
Go Dzintra!
solomon said:
As much as their fiscal recklessness infuriates me, watching these bullies get smacked down in court after the tricks they played on the hotels will be worth the sacrifice.
Anonymous said:
Here comes the Judge! April 11th Judge Dzintra Janavas gets to do her thing again and this time it will cost the city council four years in office. Sorry Richard, but two years is all you can hope to get.
The legal challenge to Proposition R is alive, well and more important, funded!
See you in court 4-11-07
Walter Moore said:
Geez, Archie. . . .
I'm not saying I'm necessarily running, or even staying in L.A., but it would be nice to be asked....
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home