Income Property, Flip Flop, And Saturday Survey
By Walter Moore, Candidate for Mayor Of Los Angeles, MooreIsBetter.com.ISSUE NO. 1: L.A.'S SOVIET ECONOMICS FOR INCOME PROPERTY
City Hall does not require grocery stores to stock any particular mix of foods. Nor are local car dealers required to maintain any particular ratio of compacts, sedans and convertibles. Doctors in our city determine what types of illness they will treat.
But Heaven help you if you try to build a new housing complex in L.A., or if you buy an apartment building built before 1978! When it comes to housing, the career politicians at City Hall think they own your property, not you.
If you're trying to build a new apartment or condo complex, City Hall is now requiring you to substitute its judgment for your own -- even if you're spending your own money, and are not receiving a dime in subsidies. The career politicians are requiring developers to set aside 25% of their units for "affordable housing," regardless of what the people investing their own hard-earned money in the construction project deem to be the most profitable mix of units.
We do not accept this in other industries in this city, and we should not accept it in the housing industry. If the City wants to provide aid to poor people to help them pay for housing, fine. But don't foist that burden onto private investors. If it is a burden that our society has decided to undertake, then it should be paid for through general revenues, not heaped entirely on people who are investing their money -- repeat, THEIR money -- to build new housing.
The same goes for people who own apartment buildings constructed before 1978, i.e., apartments subject to rent control. Why should those people have to subsidize the cost of housing for their tenants -- especially since rent control is not dependent in any way on the income or net wealth of the tenant? And, if these people want to transform their own property into condominiums, why should they have to pay the tenants for the privilege of doing so? The tenants don't own the building; they rent it. But the comrades at City Hall don't care. They don't set the prices of cars, groceries, and medical care, but they set it for housing.
If I may borrow from Karl Marx: "Property owners of the City, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!" And the rest of us better unite with them, unless we're willing to scare away people who are willing to put their own money into building housing in L.A.
ISSUE 2: FLIP FLOP
LAUSD Board Member John Lauritzen, like the many criminals who claim to have "found Jesus" once they're convicted and sent to prison (e.g., Chuck Colson of Watergate fame), has decided, suddenly, that he really really likes charter schools, and would like a do-over on his recent vote. That was the vote, you will recall, that prevented Green Dot from opening eight new charter schools to rescue students from the LAUSD train wrecks they now attend. Too little, too late, Mr. Lauritzen.
Whoever writes the press releases for Mayor Villaraigosa's pawn candidate in the election, Tamar Galatzan, hit the nail on the head: ""This is a man who has had a very clear legislative history of opposing charter schools at every turn, so any flip-flopping now is obviously politically motivated and the voters are going to see right through it."
ISSUE 3: SURVEY SAYS
I want to pick your brain for my mayoral campaign. Tell me the top three issues, in order of importance, confronting our city. You can post them here, or e-mail me directly at WalterMoore@mac.com. I'm thinking "traffic" is number one with a bullet to most people. But I want your thoughts on the matter.
Posted by Walter Moore @ 4/07/2007 07:34:00 AM
13 Comments:
This is a perfect way to show that I am involved, and as the community leader of Rose Hills, I have credablity answering this question. (ISSUE 3) I have already brought this to the attention of the council offices of the 14th District because I do walk the streets and I know for certain the answer to the top 3 as they pertain to my communty and the others close by.
It would be much more compeling if other community leaders verified the same but at least you know what the issues are in CD14.
In priority (not mine but the hundreds that have expressed this to me.......(1) PARKING ~~ as it relates much to traffic, homeowners, renters, and businesses all bring up the issue of having no place to park when they come home from being stuck in traffic. Hard to believe but his is the word of the people, I get out that much that I have asked this very question to pin point the cities top 3 problems as the residents see it.
I am giving these to you in the order of priority as part of the residents of Rose Hills have expressed to me. check in with other communtiy leaders in the city to get an over all aspect of how we can serve our neighbors.
(2) CONDITION of the streets and walkways/sidewalks. Some of the residnet here have lived in the same home for decades (like 50-60 years) and are upset that no street improvements have been implemented. Also since we live in a community of *HILLS* pedestrians feel it is unsafe to walk in the same area as vehicles. (meaning there are absolutely NO sidewalks.) They have to share the road with a car, again this is something I have addressed to the council members that have been somewhat effective and have resurfaced more than a 1/2 dozen of the streets in the area. (THANK YOU) Many more streets needing improvement should be tended to promplty and sidewalk put in before it becomes a liability for the city, if some one gets hit by a vehicle.
(3) SAFETY, since every one wants to be able to walk to the store with out being approached by 'Social groups with negative impacts' and feel that having a picknics at the park is not a place to be targeted of violence. People want to have the comfort of living with out the fear of being assulted while jogging, washig your car without fear of someone wanting to steal it.
Thank you for asking these simple questions, it shows that we really can get the input to make change. This is what the residents seek, I am the provider, now we have someone else asking these questions, use the informatin to do something. Traffic falls in 4th place on the list when I knock on doors to get a response, would you believe I have been asked to remodel a kitchen...... LOL
You get the details if you ask. I ask, that's how I am able to give you this insight. I bet everyone else is just going to give you thier own 'personal' opinion, I reflect the opinion of hundreds.
'CITY GUY'
ROSE HILLS REVIEW@YAHOO.COM
ANTHONY MANZANO
#1 - S.O. 40
#2 - S.O. 40
#3 - S.O. 40
Walter, I think traffic is a symptom of other maladies affecting this city. if we treat the underlying diseases then the traffic symptom will abate (somewhat).
1. the BIGGEST issue by far is the state of the justice system. The prisons, LAPD and the attorneys are all intertwined and collectively they affect the City.
Bratton's broken windows theory arrests lots of minor offenders (i.e. breaking a window, jaywalk, minor drug possession), these guys end up clogging up the courts and jails, and the hardened crims who know the system, know that time does not equal crime any more, and early release is inevitable. If prison loses its deterrent nature, then criminals become more brazen and bold and with gang crime up 15% according to reports, then the proof is on the table.
Solution: don't re-hire Bratton, clear out the prisons to ensure violent offenders do serve maximum time, instruct city attorneys to stop prosecuting the homeless, and tackle the street level gang violence.
2. Homeless - and they're homeless because if they pay rent, they have no money to live. better to live on the street than starve in a room. This capitalist nation is moving forward, the market determines the price, and if you can't afford Los Angeles then don't live here.we need to induce the homeless to move somewhere they CAN have a home. its a big country.unfortunately its warm here too, but so is Phoenix and Dallas. by having rent control we're keeping people in places they shouldn't be and making other people travel who would afford to live there instead without rent control, and with 'affordable' housing we're subsidizing more people to come here and clog the streets. Problem is: the rich are making their money from having the poor do the construction work ( condo conversions), so those poor people either have to live here, or commute. eventually they can't afford to live here, cause they've unwittingly helped convert everything into unaffordable housing. now if all the owners stopped being cheap with labor, and hired citizens and paid more, maybe those conversions would be less financially appealing, and perhaps the ones that do go ahead provide a nice income for the worker, enabling him to also live nearby and not have to commute.
3. Illegal entry. Los Angeles bears the brunt of this federal failure to keep a secure border. This city needs to hold the Mayor accountable for failure to make this an issue. Too many illegal immigrants dilutes the job market, they all compete for existing work, will lower the wage standard by that market force, hence the recent living wage order. The hotels don't mind the labor glut, and its not their fault theres so many willing workers who will work for cheap. These workers need to cramp into housing, strain the infrastructure, and also clog the streets driving to the condo conversions in neighborhoods they can't afford. All three issues end up being related. the illegal workers all share rent and cramp into accomodation, but the social problems begin there when their home life becomes miserable from crowding, the kids have to 'get out' and end up finding 'acceptance' and 'friendship' in the local gang.
next step: prison.
its a circle, that's ever widening unfortunately, and until we instil a real fear of prison in people, then they will continue to come, and continue to run amok, just like the guy on the PCH who killed two people.
Mel Gibson should have gone to jail- now that would have been something. maybe people stand up and take notice of that.
Instead they're arresting citizens like Michael Hunt for minding his own business selling shea butter for god's sake, on the Venice Boardwalk, with a City issued permit. Using two undercover LAPD officers to make the 'sting'.
Jamming up courts with jury trials, and continuances, and then appeals, etc etc. Anybody see my points here?
Traffic
Business
Immigration
Jobs
No surprise here, without a doubt #1 is illegal immigration. This impacts everything: crime, gangs, population density, education, health care, emergency services, depletion of funds for better roads, traffic, housing etc.
Still, (and related to above) is traffic, and then the systemic corruption in City Hall that allows CMs and the mayor to be bought and paid for by developers who continually cram high density down our throats while they retreat to their own gated communities.
BTW Walter, I know it's still early, but if you can divulge, how's the hunt for a campaign manager?
The absolute biggest issue in 2009 is going to be apathy--so any chance you have to speak to a crowd, try to promote involvement above all, because chances are even people who belong to City groups are not especially involved with more than one dimension of City politics--and most citizens are involved with none.
The biggest true political issue will be housing, followed closely by traffic.
Walter,
I can't believe Lauritzen who once wanted to put a morotorium on all charter schools now wants to lead the charge to give Green Dot it's charter a week after denying it.
I suppose several negative articles in the LA Times, Daily News and bad press all over talk radio was enough to have Lauritzen "see the light".
As a Westerchester parent who sends his son to a charter school it astounds me how obvious this flip-flop is -- i mean he tried to deny granada hills high school from turning into a charter school -- and they are the local academic decathlon champs.
traffic
crime
Very interesting input! Thank you!
The most surprising issue to me was "parking." One thing I've seen done in France that I'd like to do here is promote underground parking complexes, with nice parks on top. I saw that in several cities.
The local government bought an existing, ugly, above-ground parking structure -- though you could do this with any existing property -- then tore it down, built plenty of parking underneath, and put a beautiful park with trees and a fountain on top.
The other issues people identified were helpful, too, and I think my platform should do a pretty good job on them.
Matt's point about everyone not being able to afford to live here is, to me, a great one. This is the big city. It's not hillbilly country. People who drop out of high school and have three kids and no skills at age 23 need to move elsewhere, where a minimum-wage job is enough. That skill set and lifestyle just won't cut it in a big city, and we should not try to turn our world upside-down to accomodate people who make exceptionally bad choices in life.
That may sound "way harsh," but that is life, and we need to teach children early on that if you study, work hard and play by the rules, you can succeed, but if you screw around, well, life is just much harder when you're not qualified to do anything but reproduce.
As for voter apathy, that might actually work in my favor in 2009. People who think the status quo is fine -- i.e., the uninformed -- are not going to go out of their way to cast a ballot for Villlaraigosa. But people who are fired up and want change will show up to vote. That's my base.
As for the hunt for campaign manager, I need to get back to a guy, and I have a couple of other leads, but the more I think about it, the more I want direct contact with voters, etc. As you all know, I write my own material and come up with my own policies. I'm not someone who needs to be told what to say. But I would like someone with experience at raising vast sums of money. It's not in my nature to ask people to give me money, but I'm doing it anyway because I know that's the only way we can fix this city.
Walter, I agree that more greenery is desirable in a city, BUT, be careful where you advocate for placing parks.
The unintended consequences of parks is that they are gathering places for gangs, unless thoroughly thought out as to visiblity, access (especially in evenings), able to be effectively policed, and area where sited.
The cost of digging down and installing parking is exponential as you go lower; each floor costs several times the cost of the floor above it.
Talk to some architects and some police managers to get informed on these issues before you hang your hat on them. This is a tough issue to run on, I think.
Phil -
If I'm elected mayor, we're going to have enough police and enough jails to keep parks safe. We're not going to give gangs and the homeless a veto over improvements to neighborhoods.
As for the costs, of putting parking below ground to have parks on top, it's worth it. There's only so much land and sky here. We should improve the quality of life by having open spaces within walking distance of everyone's home. We need to "humanize" this city more, and to me, that means put big ugly parking structures underground whenever possible, and create open space whenever possible. Know what I mean? Cars don't need a nice view from four floors up while they're sitting there waiting for you to return with the keys.
But point taken re costs. Cost do indeed matter, and will have to be factored in. I just figure that, if you amortize the cost of below-ground parking over the course of the several generations' worth of enjoyment a park would bring, it's going to be a bargain.
Walter, there is ONLY one issue in LA and the entire country...ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION! It is the root of all evil and the only way to rectify the problems of this city is to eliminate illegal immigration and start enforcing the laws! First off...eliminate SO 40!
All of our problems i.e., failing schools, hospital closures, traffic, overcrowding, taxes, etc. are the DIRECT RESULT of the invasion.
Our future depends on only ONE ISSUE! Illegal immigration!
if you amortize the cost of below-ground parking over the course of the several generations' worth of enjoyment a park would bring, it's going to be a bargain
You don't have to go to France to see how this would play out in Los Angeles.
Downtown Los Angeles has two large parks built upon underground parking garages: Pershing Square and the Civic Center Mall. Neither is known to have brought several generations worth of enjoyment.
Pershing Square has long been a magnet for the homeless and crime. Last year, large portions of it were restricted by police tape simply so no one could "enjoy" it. Check the archives on blogdowntown for this sad story.
Few people know that the expansive Civic Center Mall exists; it is primarily enjoyed by bureaucrats on their lunch break. It is recognized as such a dismal failure that the City and County want it to be completely rebuilt as part of the Grand Avenue Project, with Related spending $50 million.
Not quite a "bargain" in either case. Promises to duplicate such efforts Citywide are not likely to garner much support.
In residential areas, there is not a need for underground parking garages, so you can't build parks that way. The only way to build parks is through eminent domain, i.e. kicking people out of their homes, which has never been popular in Los Angeles, even for the "greater good" (review the battles over LAUSD school sites). Yes, people want parks, but they want "active" parks with sports fields and the like. Acquiring parcels with the number of acres necessary would likely bankrupt the City before you factor in the costs to maintain and police them.
In commercial areas where parking is really needed, the costs for land are even greater. To amortize underground parking structures, you need to charge a lot, and customers will choose business districts with free parking or cheaper metered spaces. There's a reason that "the market" is already not building underground garages. The City shouldn't spend precious public funds on such an endeavor.
Above-ground parking structures may not be aesthetically pleasing, but they are a necessary evil. To remedy the negative impacts, the City could simply require ground-level retail or "wrap-around" buildings with commercial and residential uses to shield the garages from view. If the City builds such garages, they could be amortized (in part) by these other revenue-generating uses. You can also institute design standards that make garages better looking and/or buffer them from adjacent residential areas with setbacks and landscaping.
In sum, I echo Phil's concerns. The top three issues in this City are all one: how this City will grow in the future. That is what people are most interested in, and traffic, parking, parks, and new development all factor into that. Walter, you are on the right track by focusing on this mega-issue, but you owe it to yourself and the residents of this City to be thoroughly informed and present recommendations that are practical. Before you publicly state your recommendations, you have to run them through a "reality check."
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home