Mayor Sam's Sunday Brunch
Zev Yaroslavsky rolls to an inevitable candidacy for Mayor next year hitchhiking on the development issue. This time it's an op ed piece in today's LA Times. Zev makes a point he's been doing so for a while; that the housing required to accomodate LA's growth can be obtained without LA's elected officials taking a hatchet to zoning laws and community plans. Zev claims than an additional one million housing units can be built within existing code and plans. And he mentions the Coming City Superstorm I've been telling you about; one Zev could ride all the way to Getty House.It's bad enough new Daily News editor Carolina Garcia has to move from Monterey to Woodland Hills; the usual Valley naybobs are chomping at the bit to "acclimate" her to their "vision" of the Valley. Good profile of Garcia at the San Fernando Valley Business Journal.
Charlotte Laws and other Neighborhood Council leaders are pushing for a series of changes to the charter of the Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Congress. The biggest change is to the name of the organization which would become the Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Coalition. Another change Zuma Dogg may be interested in would be that the LANCC's Senate would change it's name to the "Board of Delegates" and those who have enjoyed the title of "Senator" would now be referred to as "Delegates."
Speaking of Neighborhood Councils, the first round of elections for the advisory panels administered by the City Clerk's office are coming soon. Though many of Councils have required stakeholders to present some form of ID in order to run and vote, the City's new policy (which will be uniform in the next round of elections) is to simply allow someone to "self-affirm" their status a stakeholder, which doesn't really matter anyway because the City's new policy is that "you're a stakeholder if say you are" completly eliminating some requirement that Council members have a real connection to the community in which they wish to serve. Perhaps when it comes to taxes we could self-affirm if we owe and declare the basis for it.
Labels: carolina garcia, daily news, neighborhood councils, zev yaroslavsky
Posted by Mayor Sam @ 4/13/2008 10:00:00 AM
12 Comments:
That's how Pedro Espinoza escaped detection as a foreign criminal deportable alien, when he was released from County Jail on March 1st to kill Jamiel Shaw next day:
The Sheriff's dept. and ICE simply asked him if he was legal, and Pedro said, sure! I was born in East L A., and that was that!
No kidding, read the L A Times piece by Andrew Blankstein, 4/9: as spokespeople for the Sheriff's dept and ICE say, this is clearly a huge failing when it comes to US policy, we need a national databank and data sharing. It's BULLCRAP that we can't do that, for illegal alien criminals when we do that with U. S. citizens who want to fly abroad on vacation.
Shaw WAS in an L A database of gangbangers. The excuse, repeated in his Op Ed yesterday by that fat numskull Tim Rutten that this data can't be used to ID illegal gangbangers when stopped by cops, because only a few special gang task force members have access to the database, and LAPD won't run a check for cops on patrol who apprehend a suspect -- is CRAZY AND LAZY.
These criminals are just as much international terrorists and commit many more murders and crimes, and pose a more active daily terror threat.
I drive through North Hollywood on my way to work in Studio City. I eat in North Hollywood at lunch, and am affected by the traffic and construction projects in progress. You could say that I have real
interaction with North Hollyhood, so therefore I am concerned about the decisions the Neighborhood Council makes.
Mayor Sam, does this make me a stakeholder?
Welcome Joe. Please attend our next NC meeting. We are always interested in food reports.
I like the term "delegate" much better than "Congressman" after the way I have seen people throw around the title. It better represents the situation, anyway.
Joe I support your candidacy. Since I've had margaritas twice at Joselitos, kissed a girl in Sunland Tujunga and read the North Valley Reporter I self-affirm and declare the factual basis for my being a stakeholder in Sunland-Tujunga.
Anyone up there want to be my campaign manager?
Now Zuma Dogg can apply to be on any LA NC even when he's based in his east coast HQ.
The neighborhood council system one of participatory democracy. By definition, that means that you don't limit full participation to just homeowners, residents, or white males. It was possible in the past for NC's to require some simple proof that they live, work, or own property in the area. The new election rules that were ramrodded through by DONE and the City Clerk reduced the paperwork part of the election process by allowing, as many NC's already allow, self-affirmation.
It's not about white males or property owners; your insertion of a red herring is disingenuous.
The current situation invites abuse and game playing.
To be on a or vote for the members of the Council you should be a stakeholder. And a stakeholder should be easily verified and documented including any of the following:
Resident
Homeowner
Renter
Landowner
Business owner
employee
organization member
parishoner
student
All based within the boundaries of the NC.
To allow people to affirm they're a stakeholder because they like the area, they went to a movie there, they hang out at a bowling alley, etc. is silly. And again, it invites abuse. We saw what happened at Playa Vista. As it is, the parameters above still leave some wiggle room.
They are Neighborhood Councils. Not interest councils. Not affinity councils. Not idealogical councils.
I also believe that you should not be able to sit on more than one Council.
Are you joking? Pay $3 to read one article in the San Fernando Business Journal? Get real.
Run, Zev, Runnnnn!!!
You have my vote!!!
I'm sure most of the foothill commununities whose ordinances are being ignored will vote for you too! Do you need volunteers!
That's the way it was. Very inclusive. Simple proof required. When enough NCs complained about the trouble of running elections, and wanted the City Clerk to run them, this is the price that had to be paid. The Clerk isn't going to put the time into checking all that paperwork to find out who is a stakeholder. It's one of those "be careful what you ask for" things.
But even your suggestion wouldn't have affected the situation of the workers from Playa Vista voting in the Westchester-Playa del Rey elections. They are legitimate workers. The remedy to that is a simple one -- there are many, many more residents than there are Playa Vista workers. One visit to one church would turn out enough residents to counteract their votes.
Insofar as having a rule that you could only serve on one NC. That's a bad idea. If someone has the time and motivation to bust their butt for the neighborhood they live in, the one their child goes to school in, and the one where they grew up, then fine. You're looking at the glass as being half-full, and letting yourself be driven by the fear of people voting for the wrong reasons. It just doesn't happen that much.
A smart NC would take some of the $50,000 that it has and continue recruit good solid hard-working people to work on community issue, vote, and get their friends to vote.
Remember that the goal is to get people to participate, not to limit their participation.
10:03 you make some good points, however, I don't think it would be that hard for the City Clerk to require you attach some document certifying your stakeholder status, i.e. a utility bill for a resident, a business license for a business owner, a property tax bill for a landowner, a letter from your church, employer, Rotary club, block club, school, whatever certifying you as legit. The CRA did the very same thing for Project Area Committee elections which were run by the City Clerk's office.
As far as limitations, I know of people who serve on 2-3-4 councils. I barely have enough time to serve on one. I don't see how one can do it unless they're retired or independently wealthy and even then there is overlap in meetings, etc. Also, I think allowing people to hold more than one seat actually limits opportunities for others. I was originally going to say limit it to two; that would be it though.
I do agree practically all these Councils could do a far better job of spending their money more wisely.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home