Mr. Mayor, regarding those trash fees??
This is a good reason why one would want to be in Washington D.C. today.From this afternoon at "L.A. Now" by David Zahniser.
Remember the plan by L.A.'s mayor to pay for more police officers with the proceeds of a trash fee hike? Turns out the city collected twice as much money as it needed, then used the extra cash on other things, says David Zahniser, our man in City Hall:
The trash fees, imposed in 2006 as part of the mayor’s plan to expand the Los Angeles Police Department, have generated $137 million in new revenue, according to a four-page report released Tuesday by City Controller Laura Chick. But since the new officers have cost only $47.2 million, the remainder has been absorbed into other parts of the LAPD budget, Chick said.
A representative of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. voiced little surprise, saying he expected that much of the trash fee revenue would go toward other parts of the budget, including a three-year package of police raises. “Often what happens to tax increases in this city, instead of getting more employees, we just get better-paid employees,” he said.
Villaraigosa initiated the higher fees in 2006 as part of his LAPD expansion plan and is now more than halfway toward his goal of reaching 1,000 new officers. The trash fees went from $11 to $26 per month for homeowners between 2006 and June.
All of which leaved us wondering -- what's going to happen to the city's plan to hike fees by another $36.32 per month?
One may want to start filing those extra trash bags for Ron Kaye's "trash dump" on City Hall.
Labels: David Zahniser, lapd, mayor antonio villaraigosa, Mayor Antonio Villarigosa, trash tax
Posted by Red Spot in CD 14 @ 7/08/2008 04:18:00 PM
19 Comments:
As long as it goes to LAPD I'm glad to pay instead of it being absorbed into the general fund. Why is it ok for DWP to transfer millions into general fund and no one says a damn word. LAPd officers still are using outdated radios in the field and some in fact have to use their cell phones, SLO's blackberries were taken away because of budget so what's the hooopla about.
I'll be there for Ron's Bastille Day bash with bells on!
Here is where the increase in trash fees will be allocated.
The Los Angeles Police Department brought disciplinary charges against 17 officers and two sergeants for their roles in the May 2007 MacArthur Park melee, in which immigration protesters and journalists were injured by police, officials said today.
LAPD Cmdr. Rick Webb told the Los Angeles Police Commission today that the charges revolved "mostly around the force issues," but he didn't provide specifics.
May Day melee Photos: May Day Report ReleasedAt least 29 LAPD officials were investigated for breaches of department rules in the clashes as police in riot gear forcible cleared the park.
In a scathing report last year, LAPD officials blamed the MacArthur Park incident on a series of decisions by police commanders that escalated hostilities and resulted in a widespread breakdown in behavior by officers.
The LAPD action sparked widespread outcry. TV news footage showed officers swinging batons and firing less-than-lethal rounds at journalists and immigration rights protesters gathered at the park for an afternoon rally.
The melee left 246 protesters and journalists with injuries; 18 police officers also were injured, and more than 250 legal claims have been filed against the city. Los Angeles County prosecutors and the FBI are continuing to investigate the incident.
The report painted a disturbing picture of commanders who failed to adequately plan for the rally, refused to bring in more officers when tensions escalated, issued confusing and sometimes contradictory orders and failed to control officers. It found that officers repeatedly used their weapons in ways that violated LAPD policies and appeared not to follow basic training guidelines.
Police Chief William Bratton and other officials must still decide what level of discipline to impose. Punishment can range from an official reprimand to termination. The officers have the right to challenge any discipline dispensed by the department.
It's unclear whether the officers cited in the case would go before an internal disciplinary body known as a Board of Rights, which holds trial-like hearings; the LAPD formerly conducted them in public but now holds them behind closed doors. Two command officers and one civilian would consider the evidence, hear testimony and decide if the officers were guilty or innocent of misconduct.
"The fact that officers have been served recommended discipline by the department does not mean that the administrative process is over for the officers," Tim Sands, president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, said in a statement. "Through the administrative process, we trust that each of the officers involved will be given a fair review that will evaluate their actions in the context of what they had been ordered to do, the tools and training they were given to accomplish those tasks, and the conditions under which they were operating."
Sands added: "As Chief Bratton once said, 'Policing isn't pretty.' Skirmish lines are not pretty, and, as we all know, the events of that day were exacerbated by command and control problems that have already been brought to light."
For decades, attorneys for officers accused of misconduct have successfully used the wording of various department bulletins to suggest that their clients' missteps were the result of poor training or inconsistent policies.
The L.A. district attorney's office is still reviewing officers' actions to determine whether their conduct was criminal.
richard.winton@latimes.com
If it goes to pay the police better, and for no other purposes, what's wrong with that? And no, I'm not with the police union nor do I have any LAPD in the family.
This should be a "bitch to spin" for those on the Third Floor.
Hey, folks, the trash fees do go into the general fund. To do otherwise would require taking a specific tax measure to a public vote. So, what this means is that the folks at City Hall get to play with everyone's money from their big multi-purpose bank account called "the general fund."
You people are crazy. For what LAPD has to put up with like politicans who support illegals and gang bangers we owe them big time. They have some of the most outdated equipment and it took those idot lazy ass, leaderless council members two damn years to aprove the videos in patrol cars. They bitch when LAPD needs better equipment and pretend to be sad and show up at their funerals for photo ops. Can you beleive those assholes never even asked Officer Ripatti who sacrificed her life going after a felon and was paralyzed to go to city hall and present her with certificate yet they give them out to anyone else. I'm tired of the LAPD bashing and LA Slimes is down 40% and I'm glad. BOYCOTT THAT PIECE OF SHIT NEWSPAPER.
You've got your figures wrong, Higby. The Daily News quotes the report as saying about half, some $85 million, went to hiring cops, and the rest for other public safety matters. (Prop S is for "public safety" including LAFD not just cops, when that's audited.)
Chick's satisfied with the legality of the spending, but I agree with her, the city's got to put into place strong safeguards that this will continue to be the case after the current crop of Councilmen like strong cop-supporters Jack Weiss and Wendy Greuel move on.
The trash fees were almost grabbed by Parks' Budget Committee for the General Fund, except these two got the Council to agree to keep their promise about how the trash fees would be used. I think Zine spoke strongly for using the fees for cops, too; Cardenas sided with Parks, who hopes to be Supervisor.
The allocation of funding can't be left upto the whims of the Council makeup each year.
The LA Times and David Zahniser have been S-U-C-K-I-N-G U-P to Villaraigosa ever since he left the LA Weekly.
This lack of public trust is part of the reason why the LA Times is pink slipping much of its newsroom.
This is too little, too late.
Parks? Supervisor.
Lots of luck in the runoff. He is going to need it.
Parks' years of being a do-nothing, nice guy isn't going to cut it.
"As long as it goes to LAPD I'm glad to pay..."
THAT is the issue. The money from lots of sources just gets spent on whatever council approves, and they are pretty generous, starting with themselves.
If the money went to upgrade things needed for better performance and effectiveness of the police, then great. However, lots of the money does not find its way to that destination, and, if it is not so required, you can bet it is just too irresistible to leave alone.
The LAPD management also makes a lot of its own problems. They skimp on training and supervision, and when things go wrong, everyone "in charge" looks to see how they can avoid getting blamed. The May Day event is one vivid example of this. The police officers assigned to that May Day event were not responsible for planing their own training courses for crowd control and to be sure that everyone was up-to-date on that. That's the responsibility of their bosses. They were not themselves the ones making the assignments and deploying personnel for that day, either.
So now the people that were not trained have to bear what all the shortcomings in the training yielded. The institution of the LAPD is and has been penny-wise and pound-foolish. It is how LAPD has been since even before the Rodney King disaster. And in the end, what is the result? The taxpayers will ultimately cover the lawsuits and settlements while management continues to try to catch up.
It's a characteristic that the city leaders do not appropriately address. Then citizens will suffer from the level of operations not up to a level where it should be, and the cops suffer from having to work without clear and fair application of policies and being trained in the best way to do their job. And when things go wrong, the officers in the field will take most of the blame.
I am not blaming the cops who take the orders, it's a problem in two parts: the management of the LAPD and the handling of the funds. If police service was really a priority, the council should determine all the money they need for it as the FIRST budget item, and then work around THAT item with the rest of the city budget- PRIORITIZATION of the needs to get done what needs to be done.
Isn't that how people handle things for personal and business dealings? Then why is government so averse to that idea? They can't get things done. Weiss can't even get the Zine motion out of the committee for the council to handle it since he won't get the committee moving. But he's not been around lately. How much of his time is occupied with thoughts of his run for City Attorney? He follows the mayor's lead- now THERE's someone MIA, but more accurately, AWOL, working on his own political future at city expense.
All this piecemeal approach to problems has a benefit, from a politician's point of view, of creating the opportunity for more "funding" to be "generated" to support the "needs" that must be "met".
So we see proposals for more taxes, fees, and on and on. It shouldn't be this way.
SHAME ON YOU TONY VILLARRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMEE
ONNNNNNNNNNNNNN
YOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!
6:43 are you brain dead? First off this post was by Red Spot; secondly the figures are the LA Times.
Christ, do you get your jollies trying to pretend everything on this blog is wrong?
The MAYOR along with the NO CHECKS AND BALANCE COUNCIL is having a field day with constituents and it's NOT over yet, as DWP implements the rate increases. Hmmmmm...
Let's hope someone can prove, other than City Controller, the trash money is going to LAPD???
Higby's developed a case of Zuma-itis, overblown arrogance and pomposity -- your figures ARE wrong, and if you or your burro Spot post something, use correct figures. Double-check against other media and the original.
That's exactly the kind of thing we're losing with the quality papers like the Times used to be -- now, any fool posts and misinterpretations of figures, and other fools respond, and on it goes.
Some of us post as a duty, to correct all the falsehoods floating out and off of this blog.
NO GANG TAX. Speaking of taking advantage of taxes these assholes are going to vote on Friday whether to put a gang tax on ballot. Idiot Hahn who didn't give a shit about gang bangers until last year with Cheryl Green now thinks its important when we've been living with gang violence for years. I say HELL NO. They waste millions on special event waivers and give political payback favors to their friends. They are nothing but a bunch of over paid, lazy, brainless, lacking leadership, and morals group of idiots this city has seen in decades. Because of many in this group LAPD has been short of cops for years and they didn't think public safety should be a priority.
What the council should be doing is levying taxes on gangs, instead of the taxpayers.
why aren't they going after the damn parents? If landlords didn't rent to them they wouldn't have a place to live. do what ARizona is doing and put all the gang bangers in a tent city. That way our jails wouldn't be overcrowded and these losers sure would change for the better faster. We have politicans who cater and make excuses for these criminals who are violent. Give them a second chance they say.
From the Los Angeles Times
Good riddance to L.A. Bridges
But City Council members shouldn't go back to their old way of funding anti-gang programs.
The L.A. Bridges anti-gang program is being phased out, and good riddance. A great idea -- hiring experts to divert Los Angeles kids from gang life and to intervene in gang conflicts before they became violent -- became a bad idea, in large part because of political opportunism. Despite a lack of measurable results, City Council members kept renewing the program in exchange for their cut. Two cuts, actually. First, members made sure city contracts went to their supporters, and second, they landed L.A. Bridges programs for their own districts, whether they needed them or not.
Earlier this year, after considerable foot-dragging, the council agreed to disband L.A. Bridges and to relinquish much of its control over anti-gang programs. The rule of 15 -- under which a slice of each city dollar is doled out to each council district -- came to an overdue end, at least in the gang services arena.
Or did it? The council will decide this week whether to ask voters for a parcel tax to fund the city's anti-gang effort, now under the direction of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. We'll leave aside for the moment the crux of the matter -- whether it's far too early to ask residents to pay for a program when the mayor has not yet demonstrated that he can use his new resources to produce better results than the council did, or whether it's pointless to expect the mayor to get anything done with the current level of funding.
Councilman Dennis Zine raised a more troubling threshold issue: Shouldn't the council, before putting the measure on the ballot, make sure that the money it raises is spent equitably around the city?
No, it should not. Guaranteeing ahead of time that special gang funding carry some kind of geographical spending requirement brings the city right back to the destructive rule of 15, in which politics, rather than need, directs city action. The San Fernando Valley has experienced a tragic upsurge in gang violence in recent months, and the city should be free to direct all its spending there when the circumstances warrant -- and away from the Valley when they don't.
It took City Hall a decade to acknowledge that its 15-way solution to the gang problem served politicians more than citizens. Now that the council and the mayor have chosen a different path, largely at the instigation of Controller Laura Chick, voters should be wary of any effort to return to the old way under the guise of geographic equity.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home