Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098

Sunday, November 25, 2007

Sunday Morning Mimosa

JM, Birds on a wire, Rowena and Hyperion, 11.19.07

Malibu Corral Fire could be up to 50% contained today, AP reports. Forty-nine homes have been destroyed.

° ° ° ° °

Gated community? Playa Capital Company (which you know as Playa Vista) suddenly erected a six-foot fence on its south side, to keep Cabora Road hikers out. The development cites leashless dogs as the reason. But most dogs can't get over a three-foot fence---why six feet, one hiker wonders.

At the go-to Westchester blog, "Westchester Parents," a commenter says, "I just got back from a walk, and laid eyes on this fence for the first time. I nearly gagged. I had to temper my reaction because my kids were there… but this is COMPLETELY outrageous...." The blog says the fence purportedly went up because of the persistent complaints of a single person, a professor at LMU.

You're inclined to wonder: the City's leash law is not enforced in Pacific Palisades, in Woodland Hills, even on the sidewalks of Los Feliz---why should it be so strictly enforced on the bluffs of Westchester?

° ° ° ° °

That guy at the Westchester blog is also a bit of a water wonk.

° ° ° ° °

LAOpera: La Boheme opens today at the Dorothy Chandler, 2 p.m. curtain, for a run that will extend through December 16. Don Giovanni opened last night and runs through December 15.

° ° ° ° °

The Los Angeles Times ed and op-ed page will not dramatically change with the departure of Matt Welch. But the editorial department will be diminished by the fact that there is one less editorial voice at the paper who cares about local issues.

Before Matt's arrival, it wasn't unusual to see an entire Sunday paper devoid of local editorial commentary. That changed when Matt got there, and the City was a bit better off because of it.

Senor Welch from his libertarian POV also was one distinct editorial voice willing to look at the proceedings of the Mayor's office with a circumspect eye. Expect fewer qualms over supporting new costly city bonds issues from the Mattless Times.

° ° ° ° °

Finally, here's a retraction and a regret: I have implied in the past few days that the Daily News might be looking for a City editor. That's not true at all. By all accounts and every measure, Judi Erickson has been doing an enormously great job as City editor at the Daily News since her promotion in September; word even came that she was in on her day off yesterday to handle the Corral Fire story. I regret implying anything contrary to the fact that Everyone Loves Judi.

Labels: , , , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said:

The Westchester idiots will ultimately have to have that fence taken down because (1) they do not have a permit to put it up and (2) it's NOT THEIR PROPERTY!

Mayor Sam - can you please put someone on this?

November 25, 2007 7:48 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

A private property owner putting up a fence to keep dogs out isn't "enforcing the leash law." It's a reminder that there aren't enough off-leash dog parks in L.A.

Why? Apart from the same land shortage that that plagues other public uses like parks and schools, dog parks also have their own group of NIMBYs who can't stand the thought of hearing dog barks or having a few more cars in their neighborhoods. They say the same things about parks and playgrounds, except there they complain about the sound of children playing. (Wow, what an intrusion on their privacy!)

Maybe Playa Vista, with all that property a few feet away from the trail they've fenced off, could carve out an acre or two for its own dog park and solve the problem pretty quickly, at least in that neighborhood. What? You say the anti-Playa Vista folks will object that a dog park would destroy the Ballona Wetlands?

It all gives new meaning to the term "it's a dog's life."

November 25, 2007 7:49 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

7:49am, that's a GREAT idea!

But like all GREAT ideas, the locals would need a BRAIN to recognize it.

I'd like to clarify that the fence is not on public property. It's public property and will ultimately come down.

November 25, 2007 8:51 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Sorry, I meant to write that the fence IS on public property, and that's why it will ultimately come down.

November 25, 2007 8:52 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Someone install a couple of pet doors unto the fence? Duh.

November 25, 2007 9:13 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Fence snips? Cut out a 5x3 door on fence.

November 25, 2007 9:16 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Congrats to the LMU professor for taking the initiative to try to stop dog poop from her area. Just because the no-poop laws aren't enforced all over the city doesn't mean they shouldn't be -- what a stupid argument you make.

When I see dog owners pooping by my house, I ask them to clean up -- some are nasty, like it's their god given right to have their dogs shit in front of your house, where you can step in it, drive on it into your garage, and it attracts other dogs, flies and is a source is disease.

These people range from "yuppies" to rich gays to retired people who think their dogs are kids.

But after a while, most people have their dogs do it in an easier area, or pick it up. Many people do pick it up, and that is not unusual in wealthier areas where lots of people are angry about this. Maybe you should live in a better area OR do something about it instead of attacking the people who correctly complain.

I have seen "dog police" in a couple of hiking canyons, like near Mulholland and Laurel -- people are shocked at first, but most of us thank the "cops" since we hate having to step in dog shit.

There is another "dog park" nearby, with a playground that you have to cross the dog park to get to, and it's disgusting to walk through all that shit with your kids, and worry if they get bitten.

Dog owners can be real selfish jerks who spread disease and filth, endanger kids.

All these people on your blog writing, destroy the fence, let the dogs shit and bark and annoy -- shows the class of people you have.

Go, LMU professor!

As for your complaining that a Times editorial writer is leaving, will make it a less locally-focused and critical paper: since you've all just called it the L A Slimes anyway, now you want to praise it in retrospect? What a hypocrite.

November 25, 2007 10:25 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

10:25, you complain about the nature of the people who read and participate in this blog, yet you fail to mention that YOU'RE ONE OF US!

You also unilaterally label "all" dog people as being inconsiderate, or elderly, or gay, or whatever while failing to recognize that the fence is on PUBLIC ground.

Let's see if you're such a stranger to this blog that you don't happen upon THIS comment and just feel the need to respond again. I bet you can't resist.

November 25, 2007 10:46 AM  

Blogger Valley Doll said:


:: oh snap!! ::

(non-inconsiderate, non-elderly, non-gay, non-selfish dog owner. love you daisy! that's a good girl!)

November 25, 2007 11:10 AM  

Anonymous stephen c. foster said:

It's time for me to comment.

I agree with 10:46. 10:25 strikes me as a bit of a ditz.

I own a dog. I usually don't take my dog for a walk around the neighborhood as I have a dog run in my backyard. But enough of this.

In my opinion, there are too many people unwilling to take personal responsibility for their pets, and clean up after them. If dog owners who take their pets out for a tour of their neighborhoods would just take along a pooper scooper (or a plastic bag), there would be a lot less ill feelings toward dog owners.

Now I turn my attention to the fence on public property: did the property owners go through the proper procedure to request a permit to erect said fence on public property? If the answer is "yes", then the fence should stay up. If the answer is "no" however, then it's time to dismantle the fence.

Since it appears the fence was not duly authorized by the City to be erected on public property, it should be dismantled - LMU professor notwithstanding. The LMU professor should erect a fence on her OWN PROPERTY, and quit being such a busybody about property not owned by her. As for her (and 10:25's) objections about barking dogs, the both of them should stop barking about dog owners, and concentrate more on the larger issues that directly affect the quality of life here in Los Angeles.

Finally, concerning the issue of the L.A. Times columnist: I've noticed that many of the Times' reporters fail to write stories in an objective vein, preferring instead to place opinion in what should be factual news stories. Many of these reporters should go back to journalism classes for a refresher course in what should constitute responsible reporting. In my college days, I took some journalism courses, and I was taught that any news story should contain the basic five "W's": who, what, when, where, and why. This is sadly lacking in the journalism of the present day.

November 25, 2007 12:05 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Why is coming in on your day off a good thing? Fires come and fires go, the news never stops. Playing the role of martyr for some supposed noble purpose (the dedicated city editor -- a stereotype if ever there was one) merely plays into the hands of corporate owners, who were probably on the golf course yesterday. So folks, let's not be naive about this.

November 25, 2007 12:08 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

What a pompous "state of the blog address" by stephen foster, who of course knows everything.

Barking dogs do affect quality of life, the individual's quality of life. As does stepping in dog shit, which he inconsistently agrees should be picked up (but dogs can bark outside that LMU prof's window all day?). When dog owners are cited for their dogs pooping not cleaning it up, most hikers are pleased. Unless they've just done it themselves.

Dogs bite 800,000 people a year, many of them kids who they mistake for a snack. Their poop spreads filth and disease. All this is the fault of their owners -- people who don't take personal responsibility and have to be kept out with fences.

Of course this is in keeping with the kinds of people who think it's appropriate to go to City Hall without changing out of their garb as homeless bums or Venice street vendors with the N word, suing the city for his "right" to do so. These people would take their dogs to City Hall if it weren't banned.

(But z dogg is now giving his his stock investment advice? I begin to think his homeless van act is a hoax -- that he's really living in some Malibu manse and puts that crap on just for City Hall.)

Foster's pontifications are absurd, anyway. Like his recent argument that all "city servants" should have their salaries capped at $100,000 precisely because they're supposed to be his/ our "servants."

Fight on for your rights, LMU lady prof. Irresponsible dog owners do not have the right to spread their poop, barks and potential biting into your personal space.

November 25, 2007 12:42 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I love the "it's time for me to comment" line from Stephen C. Foster. Before this, I always thought Zuma was the expert on poop scooping, but I guess I was wrong. Mr. Foster is the king of poop.

November 25, 2007 1:31 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Fences - Both gated developments AND the lots with supposed general access required on a corner of their lot are blocking off fireroad/trail access right and left. They put in locks and as long as they let the LAFD know then they are off the hook - this is a huge issue in my area. There are lots of reasons but none of them worthwhile since these homes were built with specifications allowing public access. Unfortunately they do not want the unwashed masses in any form, responsible or not from being near their property....

November 25, 2007 1:53 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Speaking of annoying dogs barking and annoying people. I want to compalin about this two legged Mutt. The Zuma Mutt is very annoying to those of us who attend city council meeting.

Could somebody bring a big pooper scooper and pick up this smelly poop.

Third Floor Spinster

November 25, 2007 2:26 PM  

Anonymous wants zuma on stories said:

Third floor spinster,

You are a spinster because you are so easily annoyed. Try being amused. It will work better for you and might even make you a former spinster.

If you work on the third floor and hang out in Council Chambers, you just have to deal with Zuma Dogg. I guess it's annoying for him to confront your boss. So sad for you whiner.


Constituent who appreciates Zuma.

November 25, 2007 9:27 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Playa Vista already has TWO dog parks.

November 25, 2007 9:45 PM  

Anonymous bradkz said:

Anonymous 12:42 is amusing, but off the point. I live right there on the bluffs, and there is no parade of pooping, barking dogs in these ravines. You might see a couple in a day, because they would be going FAR off the beaten path to approach lady LMU professor's home. Nor is this about "personal space," since the land in question is NOT lady LMU professor's... it's public access on PV land. This is an overreaction to one person's persistent complaints, and all who want and need access to open space will suffer because of this. We who are affected need to make our voices heard.

November 28, 2007 12:43 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home