Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Mayor's Office Chickens Out from Walter Moore Phone Tax Radio Debate

Walter Moore reports that he was "un-invited" from a scheduled public radio debate on the phone tax mesaure, Proposition S, at the request of the Mayor's office.

According to Moore radio station KPCC was told representatives of the Mayor's office would not appear on a debate over the measure if Moore were to appear presenting the con side of the argument - even though Walter is the designated opponent in the official City sample ballot!

Their alternate choice? Our own Joseph Mailander, who recently published his own anti-Prop S take in the local fishwrap of record.

What is the Mayor's team afraid of? That Walter would clean their clock? Indeed he would. But so will Joe.

Its also interesting to note that a number of Neighborhood Councils have invited Walter to present his views on Proposition S had recently canceled his appearance at the last minute. Did they receive back room pressure from the Mayor's office? Correction: It was scheduled proponents of Proposition S who cancelled THEIR appearances ostensibly upon hearing of Moore's scheduled appearance. Moore was however allowed to make his presenation and in the cases where the Council in question took a vote on Proposition S, they all voted to oppose the tax measure. Still a number of Neighborhood Councils have endorsed a NO vote on Proposition S including the Northridge West Neighborhood Council, the Sherman Oaks Neighborhood Council, the Reseda Neighborhood Council and the Sunland-Tujunga Neighborhood Council. During many of Walter's appearances at such meetings, City staffers would stand up and speak and say "I'm not allowed to campaign for or against Proposition S," following which they would begin to campaign for Measure S.

I saw exactly this myself at the Mid Town North Hollywood Neighborhood Council when a representative of the Mayor's office did the very same thing.

Update: I had requested my own Neighborhood Council agendize discussion of Proposition S at it's last meeting and was essentially denied such without securing participation of someone from the Mayor's office to speak in favor of it. Still, a number of Council board members did express their personal opposition to Proposition S and this came from several people who rarely agree with one another on anything.

When you have a Mayor who puts a mis-leading tax increase measure on the ballot, one that will tax your landline, text messages, internet service, etc., runs dishonest television commercials featuring the Chief of Police, illegally uses city staffers to campaign for the measure and then chickens out on a debate, you realize how sad things have become in Los Angeles.

Vote No on Proposition S!

Labels: , , , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said:

Did you guys know that telemarketers only have to pay 5% phone tax under Proposition S but you have to pay 9%?

January 29, 2008 11:02 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

We knew.
Why is Antonio avoiding Walter? Let's ask insider Jack Hoff. Oh Jaaaaaaaak....?

January 29, 2008 11:21 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Guess Walter did well at those Neighborhood Council meeting he attended. The Mayor got wind of that and wont let his paid supports ( his staffers) play with Walter.

January 29, 2008 11:23 PM  

Blogger Walter Moore said:

Correction: NO NC's cancelled my appearance. Rather, they scheduled forums, and several times the Prop S proponents wimped out 24 hours beforehand.

I went ahead and presented the facts, and the NC's that voted uniformly voted "no."

January 29, 2008 11:25 PM  

Anonymous Jack Hoff's Archive Librarian said:

Don't waste your time. Anything Jack Hoff posts he'll delete two hours later.

January 29, 2008 11:27 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

RFK was afraid to debate Reagan and look at how that turned out.

January 29, 2008 11:31 PM  

Blogger Valley Doll said:

Antonio is avoiding Walter because Antonio knows that Walter is THE TOTAL HAWTNESS!!!!

First of all, Walter scores mega points by just walking into the building and being too adorable.

Secondly, Walter is so on top of his game right now ... your head would never stop spinning once he threw down the No on S beat down. Walter is AMAZING. And that would have been the most fabulous radio listening EVER and I'm sad that I won't get to hear it.

But on the other hand (strokes her Topol in Fiddler on the Roof beard) ...

They want Mr. Joe Mailander instead?

::happy dance::

Oh my gawd, it's just a PARADE OF HAWT AND MORE HAWT and I think my head is going to explode!!!

Can I just say "me" and "ow" right now and be done with it? Thnx.


January 30, 2008 12:45 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

LA Times endorses Proposition S but doesn't disclose it is EXEMPT from the tax. One thing to talk about the telemarketers at 5%, but what about those business that will pay 0?

January 30, 2008 1:22 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Welcome to Los Angeles folks where we have a corrupt, slimey Mayor who does everything on the down low to get his way. He does have his staffers make calls to anything going on in the city he doesn't like. Dying to see whay slimey move he makes tomorrow nite of debate at Kodak Theater. Wouldn't surprise me if he buses in loads of illegals outside. This Mayor is without a doubt the worst Los Angeles has had in decades. Everyone who voted for him now are sorry. No accomplishments, never in the city, wasting millions of tax dollars, put city in budget crisis, embarrassed the city with his torrid affair to the entire US, and the list goes on.

January 30, 2008 7:00 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Shut up Kevin James.

January 30, 2008 7:07 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I live in the City and I'm voting No on Measure S. If they were not so disingenuous about it, I would have supported it, but I believe they need to learn a lesson on how the liars at City Hall have portrayed this.

Also, they have known about this for at least four years. If they had budgeted accordingly, there would not be a need for this measure.

January 30, 2008 7:28 AM  

Anonymous zuma's press deputy said:

I heard the CAO's office says at least 80% of city officials live outside city limits and won't have to pay into this new phone and internet use tax.

If that's true, next time someone from LA City is telling you why should vote "yes" on this new tax, ask them if they live within city limits and if they will be paying the tax, theyselves. (Not the biggest deal in the world...but one of those angles I hear about that annoys the hell out of me.)

January 30, 2008 7:52 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

"I heard the CAO's office says at least 80% of city officials live outside city limits and won't have to pay into this new phone and internet use tax."


January 30, 2008 7:58 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I saw Walter at the CHULA convention. He was the best speaker. He knew the issues and spoke well. He would have easily out debated Antonio. Antonio doesn't speak well, rarely bothers to learn the issues, goes "uhhh" "errrrrr" a lot. Antonio almost stutters when he talks, especially when he's put on the hot seat.

Walter, this is politics. The Mayor is not ethical or fair. He'll use anything to his advantage to get what he wants. He has no problem lying, cheating, stealing.

January 30, 2008 8:05 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The LA Times and other media companies are exempt from the tax under S. So are City Council members and the Mayor.

January 30, 2008 8:45 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

By the way, did you know that about 3-4 council members DO NOT live in the City of LA?

January 30, 2008 8:46 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Typical Antonio and Parke Clintonian response - do anything to avoid a public beat down.

Maybe Antonio can get his son, a Princeton student to debate the Princeton grad Walter.

On that Princeton note the Times takes another jab at Jose Huizar's integrity:

"The oddest part of all this is that the two city officials who have their name on this proposal -- Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and City Councilman Jose Huizar -- know better. The councilman not only immigrated from Zacatecas as a boy, he has a master's degree in planning from Princeton to go with his diploma from UCLA Law. They have to know that what's being proposed here is to displace the working-class Latino shoppers and the merchants who serve them from a street they've called their own for more than three decades. They're going to be replaced by more upscale merchants with more affluent patrons from whom the city can collect far more in sales taxes."

The opinion piece goes on to mentions Huizar's own immigrant roots and humble origins - can you say VENDIDO>

January 30, 2008 8:48 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Someone should audio or video tape the mayor's staffers campaigning for Prop. S and send it to the Ethics Commission. If it's video, put it on You Tube.

On the other subject, the Supreme Court long ago determined that it is not legal to require to require city employees to live within the city limits. And if you could do it, you wouldn't want to. LA needs the best people possible working for it. Some of those cannot afford to live in the city, or want their kids to attend better public schools.

January 30, 2008 10:10 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The fact is that Prop. S was initially announced as a tax REDUCTION. No way. 9% instead of 10%. How about a 9% tax when it was actually going to be ending, so 0%? The manipulation of facts to deceive the public seems to be the norm of the day in politics.

Now, the proponents try to spin it differently- but they got caught AGAIN in the lie. The measure is there to legitimize and EXPAND a tax that is really on the way out.

The Police Chief was recruited now, making his pitch for a "yes" vote on "S", again talking about the idea that there won't be a police response when needed.

If Sp. Order 40 would be dropped, there might be less crime and the police would have a lighter load. How much lighter? Well, who knows, since it seems no one in the city keeps track of immigration status for anything.

If the “police” were the priority that they continue to say that it is, then the Council and the rest of city government would always act on that FIRST and attend to the rest of business AFTER- all the time. That doesn’t happen. You can see that the council has much more that they would rather deal with- safer things- and only work on the “priority” in critical times- when they want more dollars to handle. And they handle that usually ineptly and selfishly.

A "NO" on S is called for. A YES would not guarantee anything but more taxes. We need better management, more efficiency and accountability and less waste and greed.

Remember how the Trash collection tax came in very quietly for the most part. On top of that, the purpose for this tax still received only a partial benefit.

Honest and forthcoming politicians would be a welcome change.

It is too bad that these guys successfully pushed the city’s term-limit ballot measure in the last city election. It was a totally self-serving deception presented to many unwary voters. (A “No” vote on 93 at the state level, by the way, is an opportunity for an indirect recall of sorts.)

Skeptical in CD-14

January 30, 2008 10:14 AM  

Anonymous Sparrow said:

(Helmsman, Rudderman and Bard are sitting at a table at the Pantry having breakfast):

HM: I’ve got some information.

B: You do? Say on then.

HM: Right. Apparently with His Nibbs out of town campaigning for a certain someone, he’s not available to debate with the Lawyer Walter, and he’s been advised to tell his staff to NOT debate the Lawyer Walter for two reasons (takes sip of tea).

RM: And what two reasons would that be?

B: (Laughs) A pair of bosoms belonging to someone’s wife?
(Helmsman and Rudderman give Bard a dirty look. Bard looks contrite) Sorry then. That was rude. Say on.

HM: Right. As I was saying, the two reasons are: One, there is a certain amount of “control” in play and if a staffer engages in debate in His Nibbs’ absence then all the “control” goes out the window. Second, if whatever debate between the Lawyer Walter and the staffer does take place and the staffer gaffs it up badly, whatever damage that is done can’t be fixed with His Nibbs on the road.

RM: (Looks suspiciously at Helmsman) How did you find this out?

B: Say, you went to that house party the other night with the Navigator, the Grinderman and the one from Robert’s crew, didn’t you?

HM: I did.

RM: Was this the same party that DeMarisco also went to and saw the arm twisters outside twisting arms on the lawn?

HM: It was.

RM: And was this also the same party where you heard two of the arm twisters talking about how as long as nobody from the Mayor’s office or the Clowncil’s offices actively debate the issue then all will be well because the public is too stupid to realize they’ve been had?

HM: (Rather dryly) Your deductive reasoning always manages to leave me in a awe-filled state.

B: Oh piss off. This was starting to get interesting.

HM: Right. Now here’s where the Lawyer Walter comes in. Walter has information. Useful information for us but harmful information for others. Walter also isn’t afraid to tell it like it is. This chafes certain hides because the more the Lawyer Walter speaks, the harder it is to lubricate certain palms. Walter and others like him make it hard for business to be done.

B: Are you saying that Walter has influence? (Smiles) Imagine that. The Lawyer Walter is an influential person! Hoot, hoot or whatever it is that Zuma Dogg says.

RM: If I were the Lawyer Walter, I would do three things. First, I would openly demand a debate between myself and Jam Toe Jimmy on Proposition S on live television this weekend, for we all know that the Jam Toe is lodged internally to the point of being a tongue and not a toe. And whatever the Jam Toe says, he says on behalf of His Nibbs. (Speaks confidentially) And we all know that the Jam Toe makes a better bully than orator. And I would do it post haste. (Bard and Helmsman nod) Second, I would see what the City Charter has to say about the number of days a Mayor can be physically away from the City on non-City business and whether or not that calls for qualification of job abandonment. And the last thing I would do is call out every single organization that has endorsed Proposition S to see WHO is pushing for this particular endorsement. And I would wager that there is more to that than meets the eye for His Nibbs has a loyal pair of titties in every corner he does. It’s information like this that comes in handy later.

B: Coo-ee, look at you. Calling out the titties. (Smiles) I feel a song coming on.

HM: (Rolls eyes) Splendid. Just what we need. An Irish baritone singing about tits in a grease pit. (Pulls out money to pay for breakfast) This one is on me. (Rudderman and Bard thank Helmsman. Helmsman looks around and motions the others to lean into the table) There’s rumoured to be some payout this weekend at that certain sporting event with respect to not only the arm twisters but those who have deflected attention away from S. Some are calling it the “cash advance in lieu of paid vacation.” Some of the Yes on S muckey-mucks will be lunching with them that build things. (Winks) Remember, it pays to tip the waitress well.

January 30, 2008 10:55 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I wanted to state that I don't read or post to your blog since your introduction of blogger Zuma Dogg, but I did wish to leave you with news of the WIN for Venice Beach vendor's rights. Vendors can now sell, according to LA City Council's new amendment to LAMC, if they sell items made by the vendor, in some manner (free speech issue). So for example, if they sell sunglasses they need only paint an artsy doodad on the sunglass "face" to exhibit the item's vendor-made status, and therefore be a legal sale.

10:00 A.M.
ITEM NO. (56) - Motion Required
CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF COMMUNICATION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY and ORDINANCE FIRST CONSIDERATION relative to repealing provisions of the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) Section 42.15.
Recommendation for Council action, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MAYOR:
PRESENT and ADOPT the accompanying ORDINANCE repealing provisions of Subdivision 2 of Subsection (c) of Section 42.15 of the LAMC prohibiting vending of items that are inherently communicative and have nominal utility apart from their communication on public beach lands and adjacent public properties, and repealing portions of Subsection (f) of Section 42.15 of the LAMC pertaining to the regulation of noise.
Fiscal Impact Statement: None submitted by the City Attorney. Neither the City Administrative Officer nor the Chief Legislative Analyst has completed a financial analysis of this report.

An ordinance repealing portions of Subdivision 2 of Subsection (c) of Section
42.15 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code prohibiting. vending of items that are inherently
communicative and have nominal utiity apart from their communication on public beach
lands and adjacent public properties, and repealing portions of Subsection (f) of
Section 42.15 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code pertaining to the regulation of noise.

Section 1. Subdivision 2 of Subsection (c) of Section 42.15 of the Los Angeles
Municipal Code is amended to read:
(2) Any individual or organization that vends the following items,
which have been created, written or composed by the vendor: books,
cassette tapes, compact discs, digital video discs, paintings, photographs
or sculptures.

January 30, 2008 11:10 AM  

Blogger Zuma Dogg said:

Total victory, y'all! Shirt, incense, shea butter and jewelry are back...plus all that other stuff like CD/DVD/etc. And they beat back the sound restrictions.

In other words, on April 4, 2006 -- WE TOLD YOU SO!!! And it looks like ZD, Dowd and Hunt never even should have stepped into Council Chambers in the first place, you corrupt, lying assholes!

HA - HA - HA - HA - HA...HA, F*CKING HA! John Brady, you are a loser of historic proportions!

Hey Matt, buy me some food with the check.

January 30, 2008 12:18 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


SHAME ON YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

January 30, 2008 12:26 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

A very appropriate poster at the Doo Dah Parade in Pasadena,
that took place last January 20th. At the top it read “LOS ANGELES CITY HALL CLOWNCILMEN,” in the center the pictures of Mayor Villaraigosa and Councilman Huizar next to City Hall. At the bottom it read: “ETHICS FOR SALE”.

January 30, 2008 12:48 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

This is just the starting point; we all have to continue supporting each others in opening up issues and make them public. "Is the Age of Transparency and Accountability". It won't happen if we allow the politicians to continue dictating, as in dictator, what is good for us. We have to take responsibility too for what happens in government. We do not get paid but is still our responsibility if we want to preserve our freedom.

January 30, 2008 1:11 PM  

Anonymous Taks Mi Moe said:

Someone should audio or video tape the mayor's staffers campaigning for Prop. S and send it to the Ethics Commission. If it's video, put it on You Tube.
Walter spoke at an NC and a Mayor's staffer made some "factual corrections". A reporter wanted to quote the staffer afterwards, but was not given permission. That kinda scared the staffer. Wonder why?

January 30, 2008 1:51 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Internal polling shows S in trouble. The Mayor is telling everyone to show up.

Possible high voter turnout due to Obama-Hillary could hurt S. More kids showing up, don't want to pay any more for text messages.

January 30, 2008 3:33 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

What a blow that would be if Prop S failed!!! Interesting the Mayor is saying he'll cut cops yet he's collecting a trash fee for more cops. So where are all those millions of dollars the city has already collected???????

January 30, 2008 3:48 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

3:48 - look in villar's pocket.

January 30, 2008 4:21 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

"A reporter wanted to quote the staffer afterwards, but was not given permission. That kinda scared the staffer. Wonder why?'

A reporter with any cajones would have written what he said and no one can tell him not to. Especially if the comments are in a public forum!

January 30, 2008 4:24 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

They have to know that what's being proposed here is to displace the working-class Latino shoppers and the merchants who serve them from a street they've called their own for more than three decades. They're going to be replaced by more upscale merchants with more affluent patrons from whom the city can collect far more in sales taxes."

HUIZAR knew that tearing down Wayvenwood in East La will put out over one thousand poor families and he could care less. The only poor people he cares about are the good looking young chicks who can convince him that they need a "good

January 30, 2008 4:29 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

How much is this costing us to have Antonio out of the city so much with his security detail we are paying for??? Its Beauty and the Beast (Newsom the Beauty and Antonio the Beast next to him)

...Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa will join the mayors of San Francisco and Oakland today in a three-stop California tour on behalf of Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign. Villaraigosa, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums will begin the campaign swing at Oakland's Merritt College, discussing how Clinton's economic stimulus proposal will help Californians, a campaign aide said. The tour is scheduled to end with a 5 p.m. appearance at Clinton's East Los Angeles campaign office, again boosting her economic plans.


January 30, 2008 4:49 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Reyes has to be the stupidest person alive. Even stupider and slower than he sounds.

He's quoted in the L A Times today saying that if enforcing the financial disclosure regs as written currently for gang cops, means hundreds of them quit, he says fine, so what, let them. The city will hire new ones to replace them. He says his "poor" constituents are hurting meanwhile.

Doesn't this lumphead have any idea how expensive it is to train each cop, hudnreds of thousands of dollars worth each, and how hard it is to recruit good cops as it is, with the way they're dumped on in this city? And how much harder still, to replace experienced gang beat cops quitting for cause?

IF we lose hundreds of cops each costing hundreds sof thousands of dollars to train, that's over $300 million lost right there -- plus rookies on the street, if at all.

That more than offsets the loss of the current phone tax, which may or may not be replaced by Prop S. IF S doesn't pass, that's a net loss of $600,ooo,ooo MILLION dollars.

Of course Reyes doesn't care -- that moron's constituents don't pay for anything anyway. He has a Robin Hood "take from the 'rich'" mentality when it comes to his immigrants, illegals and street vendors needing protection from each other. (God forbid he should advocate sending illegal criminals back "home" to Mexico -- no, just keep sucking at the "rich," who are really middle class and blue collar.)

Reyes is also the idiot who's pushing for "affordable housing" in the heart of pricey Hollywood, the Westside, West Valley, Venice -- all with no parking available, to "reduce parking and traffic problems." He's the worst kind of Hispanic pol, tied with Alarcon on stupid policies, but much stupider.

The Mayor is a downright genius compared to Reyes. If the Times were really such a lackey to the Mayor and his associates, they would have pointed out how stupid and inconsistent Reyes's "ideas" are on this: "screw-the-cops/ so let them quit, we'll get new ones and more taxes from the selfish rich and middle class for my poor."

The Mayor, Weiss, Baca, DA Cooley and all the law enforcement officials are united on the impacts this disclosure would have. Maybe they've got a compromise, in at least assuring that defendants suiting cops couldn't subpoenae their financial, personal records.

If they keep cops on the job and morale from sinking further, that's good. The only allies Reyes has are those who routinely bash the cops, liberal activists, Warren Christopher (who cares), and some groups who buy Reyes' dumb logic.

300 + -300 = -$600 million.

Losing Phone Tax/without Prop S +
Losing another $300million invested (and needing to be reinvested) = $600,000,000 MILLION lost tota

People all over the city, from Hollywood to the Valley to Westside are waking up to the class and socioeconomic sucking noise coming from Reyes and his cronies: it's not just a bunch of blue-haired, reactionary westsiders anymore.

It's new westsiders with kids, the struggling double-income middle and working classes, Hispanic, black, Asian and white. People who can add.

WHERE is the Times on all this? If they don't speak out, Reyes and his "activist allies" will do more harm than can even be fixed.

January 30, 2008 5:28 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

January 30, 2008 4:49 PM

That's the big one.

January 30, 2008 5:54 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Hillary's brother got $200K from Vignali's dad to get President Clinton to let the kid out of jail. Wonder if Tony got a cut...

January 30, 2008 6:04 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Reyes es elstupido, alright, even more estupido than Don Quixote and the other multiple personalities on this blog.

I'm not sure about your math, though.

If each lost gang cop would cost $300K, a mere 10 lost gang cops would be $3 million so it would still be over $100 million plus other costs. That's if any new recruits would even want to take the place of experienced ones who are quitting because they're not being trusted or listened to.
Then IF they were hired, they wouldn't be up to speed for years.

Here's an idea: have Reyes and Zuma go mano a mano on the math, and who ever comes closest wins.

Wins what? A good toupe, maybe?

Voice and elocution lessons? Reyes speaks as slowly as zuma speaks too fast -- for Reyes, each syllable is literally a sentence with a period.

Even that's too fast for his mind.

January 30, 2008 8:05 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


January 30, 2008 8:25 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Consider this a compliment!!!

Shows Villar is shaking in his boots at the thought of you getting well deserved publicity and a little 'face time'! He knows you are going to beat the shit out of him next year...and he's not about to let the public get a sneak preview!!!

January 31, 2008 9:45 AM  

Anonymous matt dowd's press office said:

Top Ten Reasons to Vote Yes

10. children will die from lack of emergency response.
9. fires will ravage communities and property
8. fires will claim lives
7. the City will have to borrow money to cover the loss, and then pay additional interest on that.
6. City could be sued and lose millions for not providing that basic service.
5. City business must move ahead even if the management is not Deming 101
4. City staff need to be paid
3. the nay sayers are just tight wads with expensive computers and poor priorities.
2. The elected representatives of the people say we need it.
1. This blog deletes comments supporting S cause they're frightened by the truth. MS is communist propaganda, not democratic in the least.

January 31, 2008 11:48 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home