Jack Hoff's Talk O' The Town
Posted by Anonymous @ 3/20/2008 09:55:00 AM
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Previous Posts
- Thursday Hotsheet at 3 a.m.
- LA WEEKLY "Villaraigosa Autry National Center Hubbub"
- Jack Hoff's "What Were They Thinking?"
- BREAKING NEWS!! Las Lomas voted down 10-5
- LA Press Club Waxes Nostalgic on the Herald Examiner
- Calling for our "BETTER ANGELS"
- Should "Do No Call List" Apply to Political Campai...
- Reader's Hotsheet at 2 a.m.
- When Shawnie Comes Marching Home...
- Political Commentariat on the '08 Presidential Ele...
Mayor Sam Network
Hot Blogs
LA's Blogs
Neighborhood Blogs
Media
Bear Flag League
Sister City Population
Founded 10/21/04
32 Comments:
loves it!
xoxo
Excellent, dude.
"ALARDOG"
Greig definitely rocked yesterday!
Now Mayor Sam just posts pictures without any content? I remember when there would be a story associated to the picture. If you were McDonald's you would now be serving all bun. Zzzzzzzz.
Paul Conrad drew pictures and won a certain Journalistic Prize that starts with a "P".
I also drew pictures, and my mother posted them on the refrigerator.
Where is Jack Hoff's mama when we need her.
Hey! Can somebody PLEASE wake up 12:34p and explain what's been going on in the city for the last seven months?!
Smith was really "on", well informed, and he made an outstanding presentation.
Thumbs up also to speeches by Zine and LaBonge and also to Cardenas who asked the right questions, and also for his statement that developers hold us hostage. They need to know we are on to them.
A "no confidence" to the City Attorney because of his evasive answers. Many times he took the
5th" so to speak, on behalf of the "city" regarding some of Smiths questions. The questions were pertinent and appear that they should be public knowledge anyway. Was it because he didn't know the answers? hmmmm.
We know Alarcon's reason for approval of the motion, but how about the other four? Anyone have an idea what gives? Reyes and Huizar's reasons were really weak, but what's with Parks and Wesson?
I'm just glad that our Planning Dept. doesn't have to spend any more time on a project we don't want and we don't need and has been taking away time from what we do need!
How about Palmer spending his money renovating buildings that are available in the the run down parts of our communities. Or, isn't that enough money and/or prestige for him? His idea of affordable housing is a ruse, a joke and an insult to L.A.!
Kudos to the 10 councilmembers for the making the right decision for our city!
"Anyone have an idea what gives? Reyes and Huizar's reasons were really weak, but what's with Parks and Wesson?'
Reyes & Huizar vote any way that Antonio tells them to vote.Parks supported Wesson for the County job. Not hard to figure.
What I cant figure is why the City of Los Angeles paid Planning and other people to spend our city money in the County?
Hillary Orozco used to work for Huizar and her husband works for Alarcon, a little fly said. They both are tight with Rocky, who's... Rocky.
Reyes may have supported it just because he supports and major, dense development, hoping it will provide new housing for "his people."
I'm glad a woman from an NC went to public comment to tell him off, for attacking all the hard-working people in town who have a home and don't want their neighborhoods trashed by dense developments with little or no parking, which Reyes is pushing for.
Reyes also bashed Zev for standing up for the people's rights now to have their single-family and low- density areas trashed by Reyes' schemes.
Reyes is a disaster as head of PLUM and is even more stupid than he sounds and looks. He's blaming the fact that minority kids are fatter on the lack of parks relative to the westside. And Jan Perry's been telling us it's because they eat too much fast food!
Getting parks will only provide more places for gangbangers to hang out and ruin, like they have McArthur Park, in his district. That was beautiful until the illegals took it over.
Even in Lincoln Heights, his own people don't want the density and traffic, lack of parking, that Las Villas will generate.
Alarcon and Huizar are also for any dense development with no parking. They think it will provide affordable housing for "their" people. Wesson, Parks and Perry, too -- but Perry voted against, maybe she got some brokered deal.
There really is a racially polarized Council and City when it comes to density and parking issues. The Hispanics and blacks generally want what will ruin the nice areas, and they have some liberal idiots on their side, like Mike Woo and some of the clowns in the Planning Dept.
L A should never become New York, like they want. Manhattan is very pricey and almost everyone who lives there has a weekend and summer house "in the country," or they'd go stir crazy surrounded by all that concrete. (With Reyes' low-income people taking over the buildings, the streets would look like NYC in a garbage strike.)
Brady Westwater has a pretty good piece in CityWatch, about how these masses of poor people will never be able to afford the nice new condos anyway, as these socialists dream, so why don't they stop tearing down the old buildings that are still OK and let them just live there.
L A has been special because we have suburbs in the city, but Reyes and the rest "don't get it," and are set to destroy quality of life.
Goldberg said Palmer only paid 30K so far, but Alarcon argued the city has been processing the application since 2002? Something's fishy.
Jack Hoff said...
Hey! Can somebody PLEASE wake up 12:34p and explain what's been going on in the city for the last seven months?!
Um, the Mayor's been eating the burger without the bun?
Any truth to the rumor Kim Thompson's planning to move to Sylmar and run against Richard next year?
doubt it. she's to busy screwing the mayors staff
"Goldberg said Palmer only paid 30K so far, but Alarcon argued the city has been processing the application since 2002? Something's fishy."
Goldberg said her staff only worked on it intermittenly so maybe they only paid for the service they got. What's fishy about that? The part that is fishy is why did we need a motion to assure tht Palmer pay for the service he was getting if he paid as he went? Was that to give it a legal status?
9:15 PM - You have no morals! Her children visit this website. Your comment was unncessary and disgusting and smacks of jealousy. It had nothing to do with the subject of this thread. Shame on you!
Anon 9:33 PM says 9:15 PM - You have no morals.
Tell us something we don't know already.
This is from an L.A. Times article in 1992. Palmer is not the kind of guy you want to tangle with. You'd be safer holding a rattlesnake:
A long-raging battle between a Brentwood developer and the city of Santa Clarita has reached new highs, or lows.
In unusually blunt letters, developer Dan Palmer of G.H. Palmer Associates and Santa Clarita Assistant City Manager Kenneth Pulskamp have demonstrated that the often dry, technical world of development can sometimes get hot, awfully hot.
The letters, written as the builder and city haggle over the financing of a proposed road project, make up the latest tiff in a rocky relationship that has become a familiar part of City Hall life.
In fact, even before Santa Clarita became a city in 1987-largely as a backlash against development-Palmer worked to prevent its incorporation.
Now, for many (Santa Clarita) City Hall watchers, just the mention of Palmer and the City Council brings to mind memories of contentious public hearings, stinging letters to the editor and general bad will.
If the recent letters are any indication, that won't change anytime soon.
"In addition to not knowing what you are doing," Palmer wrote recently, "you just do not like the Palmers, and you intend to continue your obvious pattern of discrimination and attempts to run us into financial ruin."
Pulskamp shot back: "Your antagonistic approach is extremely disconcerting to the City."
... It's not unusual for developers and municipalities to clash. Typically, correspondence with government agencies tends to be formal, cordial and pedestrian. Not so the letters between Palmer and two city administrators.
As Pulskamp pointed out after receiving one of Palmer's barbed letters, "What we're seeing is someone who's been acting in a totally unprofessional manner."
Councilwoman Jan Heidt chose stronger words: "He needs to grow up."
For his part, Palmer declined to discuss publicly the road extension or his latest quarrel with City Hall-a quarrel in which his pique surfaced in letters to Lynn Harris, the city's director of community development.
"Dear Lynn," Palmer wrote on July 2. "Catch-22. It's the City of Santa Clarita's favorite game, and you are at it again. The City has demanded that we post a cash-flow surety bond by July 2, 1992; however, it still remains a mystery as to what the amount of the surety bond is supposed to be."
... Then Palmer wrote to Pulskamp on Aug. 14, insisting that the developers had met all the city's requirements in good faith, only to face "additional stumbling blocks." He was upset that his company was being asked to post its surety bond before the city began selling the bonds that would actually finance the project.
"Requiring us to post a surety bond before the sale of the bonds is putting the cart before the horse," Palmer wrote. "Requiring the sale of the bonds nine to 12 months before the construction of the improvements to be financed is even ready to commence, is crushing the horse with the cart!"
Pulskamp fired back: "This is the latest in a series of distasteful, unprofessional and inaccurate diatribes by you."
It's not the first time Palmer Associates has made headlines in the Santa Clarita Valley.
In January, the development firm agreed to pay $30,000 in fines for illegally laundering campaign contributions in 1987 to a group that opposed cityhood for Santa Clarita and to Los Angeles City Councilwoman Joy Picus, investigators for the state Fair Political Practices Commission said.
The Palmer firm received the maximum penalties allowed under state law after it schemed to disguise that it was the source of $7,000 given to a developer-backed political action committee that opposed an initiative aimed at incorporating Santa Clarita.
Two years ago, the Santa Clarita City Council voted to kill a Palmer condominium project called Santa Catarina, ending months of controversy and the most explosive dispute in the city's short history.
The council had asked Palmer to provide millions of dollars in road improvements in exchange for the city's approval of the project, but the proposed swap became too complex and fell apart.
At that time, too, both sides exchanged heated letters, each accusing the other of negotiating in bad faith.
Also in 1990, an attorney for Palmer Associates raised conflict-of-interest charges against Heidt, asking the FPPC if she should be allowed to vote on two controversial housing developments proposed by Palmer Associates. The attorney contended that Heidt's husband had options to buy land near the projects.
But the FPPC ruled that the Heidt property was not close enough to the Palmer property to create a conflict.
Of Palmer's latest salvos against City Hall, Heidt said: "It's all a little bit of revenge because of what happened to the Santa Catarina project."
Even as both sides hurl invective, they continue to work together, partly out of necessity. Palmer owns substantial undeveloped acreage in the city. The city, meanwhile, needs to unclog its traffic arteries and is hoping new developments such as Palmer's will provide some new roads.
----
In the early 1990's Palmer was documented in a series of Times articles from Political Corruption and payment of record fines to bait and switch activities. And in the 1980's he pulled off more trickery with a project in Joy Picus's district in Woodland Hills.
zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Thank you to my friend for calling me and telling me about these crazy rumors.
Please allow me to respond.
First of all, I have absolutely, positively zero intentions of ever running for City Council and why would you pick CD 7 for me to run in as though I'm some sort of carpetbagger? Which I am NOT. I have no idea who would have said that about me, but it's 100% baseless. I have no intention of moving from my home in Granada Hills either.
Second of all, how can any anonymous blogger say such a thing about me "screwing" someone. That is ridiculous. Just for fun - let's try and imagine me and someone from the Mayor's office?! Where on Earth would that rumor come from? Because I get what I want all the time from the Mayor... oh yeah.. that must be it. LOL See how the Mayor's office gives me such "special attention". You see how I got my way on Sunshine Canyon. It doesn't make sense. The idea is laughable. That is just mean and rude.
I am a married woman and I think that anyone who fabricates such things should be ashamed.
How DARE YOU be a buzz kill when I'm on a "kill Las Lomas high"?? (it's probably one of you paid Las Lomas employees)
And I agree with with 12:03. Greig Smith rocked yesterday in Council. I am going to go watch the meeting now. As some of you may know, I wasn't in chambers because I was up in the Bradley Room getting screwed by someone in the Mayor's office.
Ha Ha Ha - in case sarcasm escapes you.
Kudos to Greig, Mitch and the CD 12 staffers who worked on Las Lomas and also to my neighbors who have been working with me, my NC and all the others who supported us and the entire StopLasLomas team who has been out there 4-5 nights a week! We did it! And a special thanks to all of the other 9 council members who voted against the project. You did the right thing, I promise.
Don't pay her no mind Kim Thompson. The Mayor Sam blog has become a sanctuary city for the L.A. Nut.
Okay, now that I see that ZZZZZZZ comment, I know it was someone from the paid team that would say things about me. Purely made up...
Who else would make that comment about the "boring" story about what Palmer's character and reputation is?
And thank you 9:53 - it's true that my kids came here a few times because I use their computer and I left this screen up. They've read some not-so-nice things about me and they've also read some slightly risque things, which as young boys, they thought were funny. But it's not fun to have your child read mean things (even though they're really tough kids and I'm extremely proud of them) about their mom.
In their eyes, I just want a nice community and City and they don't know why people are haters.
I have to explain about the dumb people who come here and say those kinds of thing and tell them about the average IQ and how low it is. Posting isn't rocket science and posting mean things anonymously is exactly what my boys called it. Anonymous pussies. I had to agree.
11:34 - My last post, I promise.
But I don't even know who the L.A. nut is. So how could she know me and if she doesn't - why would anyone say such things? And if she does know me - why would she just make up random stuff?
God, I'm just an activist without a personal agenda. It's been that way for years. I didn't even know I had enemies.
Okay, I'm done.
Good.
Petra Fried Chicken at 11:53 ect close your mouth and get some shuteye. Tomorrows another day.
Petrafried uterus 1153 has spoken.
Kim Thompson is not Petrafried the LA Nut. Thats some other woman who posted the ugly lie about Kim Thompson and harbors jealousy IMO of Kim.
I bet Hilfenhaus made that up about Kim Thompson. He was mad that he lost Las Lomas and she won. I've seen them huddle at various Democrat meetings but I didn't see him speaking to her at the city council meeting and everyone knows when Hilfenhaus gets mad he starts acting like a middle school kid. Don't know why he picked her out of all those people in opposition though since she was against Las Lomas before he was for it.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sorry kids if you post something that I know for sure (since you mentioned me and something I supposedly did with someone and I had to be there so I know) isn't true I have to delete it.
On another note, its amazing to me that if a woman is strong and opinionated and successful, she's fucking someone.
At worst, a guy is just a dick.
Yes I can absolutely assure you that PetraFried is not Kim Thompson, is not Zuma Dogg and is not some nut who is suing the city. Well at least they are not suing the city. :)
"First of all, I have absolutely, positively zero intentions of ever running for City Council . . . "
I'll bet Mitch will be relieved to hear that.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home