Good, Bad and Ugly: Buses, Taxes and Kittens
By Walter Moore, Candidate for Mayor of Los Angeles, MooreIsBetter.comHere's a snapshot of public policy in Los Angeles today:
First, the good. A committee of the City Council decided yesterday to consider a mass transit proposal that's been in my platform from the start: dedicated bus lanes. Specifically, City Council is considering adding one only on Wilshire, and only during "rush hour," whereas my platform calls for bus-only lanes to criss-cross the city, and not just during "rush hour."
Dedicated bus lanes are the only cost-efficient way to make mass transit work in this City. I would love to tell you I thought of this myself, but I instead first heard about it from the leaders of the Bus Riders' Union during a meeting in their headquarters a year or two ago. Anyway, let's hope City Council follows through, and -- since our Mayor is too busy campaigning for his next office -- works with the MTA to expand the concept beyond Wilshire Boulevard, to streets all over the city.
Next, the bad. Another committee of the City Council decided yesterday to start studying the imposition of yet another illegal tax on the people of L.A. The City Council routinely ignores the Constitutional requirement -- adopted through Proposition 13 -- that they obtain approval from two-thirds of the voters before raising our taxes. They think we won't notice it's a tax if they call it a "fee" -- you know, the way we didn't notice the trash tax hike last year.
The tax on the drawing board would be a monthly tax on every single apartment unit in the City. The tax would supposedly split by the landlord and tenant, and would be due each month. (What do you want to bet the final version puts the burden entirely on the landlord?) The revenues would go, supposedly, to the Bureau of Sanitation to pay for bulky item trash pick up -- as if there's no way to pay for that now, with City Hall awash in $6.7 billion in revenues every single year.
Finally, the ugly. Because the Mayor and City Council don't care about treating animals humanely, our City routinely kills perfectly healthy, perfectly adoptable animals. An article in the L.A. Times today points out that the slaughter includes over 5,000 kittens every year. Kittens! These people kill thousands of kittens every year! That's just wrong. And don't tell me we "can't afford" no-kill and mandatory spaying and neutering. The Animal Services budget is less than one-half of one percent of the City's budget.
My platform calls for dedicated bus lanes, elimination of the bus fares, vetos of all tax hikes -- including to those disguised as "fee increases" -- no-kill animal shelters, and mandatory and free spaying and neutering. If that platform appeals to you, then you need to put your money where your mouth is, and contribute today at MooreIsBetter.com. If you don't contribute, you can't complain when the special interests and their career politician cronies continue "business as usual."
Posted by Walter Moore @ 4/26/2007 08:53:00 AM
20 Comments:
Yup, more BS taxes and stupidity on the local level, and more stupidity on the state level from far left Assemblyman Ted Lieu:
A South Bay lawmaker is proposing one of the most far-reaching measures aimed at softening the blow of the rapidly accelerating rate of mortgage foreclosures and the collapsing subprime loan market.
Torrance-area Assemblyman Ted Lieu, who leads the Assembly Banking and Finance Committee, wants to set up a state fund to bail out first-time homeowners who can't keep up with the escalating payments on their subprime loans.
Lieu's bill, AB 1538, is among a handful of proposals nationwide that would assist home buyers who have already bought a bad loan. The bill would create a fund with both public and private money to assist first-time home buyers in restructuring their loans.
Daily Breeze
The GM of Animal Services again lied to the reporter. He didn't foster 204 kittens in March. He sent 37 to fosters. Why does he think that no one will catch his lies?
The City just made a motion for mandatory spay/neuter in LA. The only problem is there is not enough free or cheap spay/neuter for these animals. They estiimate atleast 450,000 pets will need surgeries but we only have 44,000 vouches which just get someone $30 off a $50-$200 surgery.
How did the budget get so bad?
1. Lieu clearly needs to be replaced. Will someone PLEASE run against him?
2. Do NOT believe the "not enough money to treat animals humanely" excuse. As per my post, we spend LESS THAN ONE PERCENT OF THE CITY BUDGET on Animal Services, and 92% of that goes to SALARIES.
ZUMA DOGG IS GAY?????????
ZUMA DOGG IS GAY?????????
Good post, Walter. Why the Internet continues to steal eyeballs from print.
Why the internet steals eyeballs from print:
I still get the Times but I don't know why really. I've already read all the lead stories in greater depth and more up to date the night before on Google news. I do like the Food, Home sections.
Thanks, Joseph.
Good post?! Unbelievable! Why doesn't Walter tell us what he would do with thousands of days-old motherless kittens if no one steps up to hand feed and take care of them 24/7 (which is what they need - you don't just toss them a bowl of food).
He gets so frickin' sanctimonious about animal issues he is completely clueless about. If he doesn't understand the obvious stuff, how can he hope to understand the complicated stuff?
Pffftt...
"He gets so frickin' sanctimonious about animal issues he is completely clueless about. If he doesn't understand the obvious stuff, how can he hope to understand the complicated stuff?"
You must be referring to the GM of Animal Services with your comment.
Walter is smart enough to hire a professional consulting firm to provide a comprehensive business plan for achieving no-kill. It is not HIS job as mayor to write the plan.
The neonates can be cared for in a neonate ward staffed just as emergency veterinary clinics are, 24/7 and with interns. Mandatory spay/neuter at no cost to the public is intended to greatly decrease the number of homeless neonates requiring care.
One would think that you would be pleased that Walter sincerely cares about the City's animals and intends to help them as well as their guardians. Or that you might contribute some helpful ideas yourself. But, you obviously have some sordid motive.
I thought the above poster was talking about Walter not knowing what he was talking about when it comes to complicated issues.
That is clear to most of us. We know that Walter wants something that is impossible to achieve in a short period of time no matter who is feeding him misinformation on the subject.
3:13 a.m. is right. If Walter's plan for animals is to hire a consultant (shades of Dick Riordan - hire consultants to do everything, and then wonder where the money went!), then maybe he should say so instead of mouthing (and writing) ignorant pronouncements like saying over and over again that he'll stop the shelter killing the first day with a phone call, or that the the problem with thousands of newborn kittens is just one of willpower.
If that's what this is about, it sounds like the current rant of some of the loudmouth activists who supported Walter's mayoral candidacy in 2005. It's come to seem like they're simply pimping for a certain highly-paid consultant with an overblown reputation who doesn't have the courage to actually take the L.A. animal job.
If there actually is one, the solution to the animal overpopulation problem - and thus the kill rate (which in L.A. actually is pretty darn low compared to some places in California where they kill 80-90% of the animals coming into the shelters) - is a massive increase in spay/neuter and a lot of hard work over time on a number of fronts. All this talk of solving it with a phone call is a crock and anybody who thinks Walter is right about this needs to do some serious soul-searching.
Actually, though I appreciate the support, I don't think we need another study. We need action, and not particularly complicated action. As per my platform in 2005 and now, we need the following:
1. Mandatory and free neutering and spaying. This is necessary to break the cycle of unwanted births and killings. We need to stop the unwanted puppies and kittens from being born in the first place.
2. Require landlords to accept pets, PROVIDED the landlords will not be liable for damages or injury caused by the pets, and will retain the right to evict anyone whose pet becomes a nuisance (e.g., due to incessant barking, or refusal to clean up after one's pet). This will increase the number of people who can adopt pets, and reduce the number of people who abandon pets when they move.
3. Aggressive marketing for adoption. We need to advertise, get celebrity volunteers, open storefronts in malls, etc. until we get every pet adopted.
4. Use existing resources for the short-term crunch. We're going to have a "surge" in animals for a while because I will stop the killing IMMEDIATELY, but it will take a while for the spaying and neutering to kick in. Does that mean we have to build 50 more "shelters" at $800 per square foot? Hell no. We have a good climate here, and the City owns land all over the place (e.g., Owens Valley, Palmdale). For a while, we may need to erect some chain-link fence and simple structures to shelter animals.
Can we afford to? Yes we can. As noted above, less than one-half of one percent of the budget goes to animal services. Plus, more importantly, it's simply immoral to kill these beautiful animals just because it's supposedly "cheaper." Furthermore, in the long run, it will be much cheaper to break the cycle of unwanted births and deaths. By the end of my term, we may be able to rent out or sell a number of the animal shelters.
But you know what? If we don't even TRY to save these animals, then shame on us. They haven't done anything wrong. It's not their fault they wind up unwanted. It's our fault. Let's do the right thing.
There is a small group of negative people that insist, much to their satisfaction, that not killing innocent animals is unachievable. They seem to revel in this. Other cities such as San Francisco, Philadelphia and Charlottesville are making great progress in achieving no-kill. L.A. is not.
I don't see the disadvantage to hiring qualified consultants with expertise in specialized areas. Why anyone would expect one person, in this case the mayor, to be the sole provider of all the answers and all the solutions to a myriad of issues, and he better get it all right, is unreasonable. A good leader has good ideas for solving problems and solicits the good ideas of others qualified in the field to complement his own ideas. The use of unqualified consultants, corruption in the hiring process, etc. is entirely another matter.
It's obvious that some will insist on being negative rather than contributing useful ideas for progress or being supportive of what is positive. This attitude reflects a real lack of caring for the animals and a limited mind. They spend their time searching for any possible window to attempt to undermine what is good and just, rather than doing good deeds themselves. I don't lend any credibility to them.
6:24 am:
You embarrass yourself with your low level of thinking. I am neither a "loudmouth activist" or "pimping for a highly-paid consultant." It no doubt will pain you to know that I am a philanthropist that donates my time and significant sums of money to causes I believe are worthy.
3:13 am:
Your opinion is not absolute and can easily be categorized as "misinformation" at one's convenience.
The motives are clear. In a demanding no-kill shelter environment those lacking work ethic, the complacent and the negative thinkers will not be in demand.
We can and will stop the killing.
And the person I put in charge of Animal Services will be someone with a track record of actually saving animals and finding them homes, because that's the job. We need, and will get, action, rather than "analysis paralysis" -- which is usually just an excuse to do nothing.
There are plenty of people in this town who know how to save animals, and who do it because they feel morally compelled to do so. I hope to get all of them involved, one way or another. There is no need to bring another Guerdon Stuckey, or Ed Boks, or other outsider. We need a "can do," make-it-happen team and we can assemble one before I even take the oath of office.
We can take over the shelters within minutes after I'm sworn in. I'll have the orders drawn up and signed in advance, and make the call from the podium: stop the killing.
Bravo! I "nominate" Charlotte Laws as GM.
WALTER MOORE HAS A CRUSH ON ZUMA DOGG!!!!!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home