Correction: Zine DID Vote for $1.6 Million for Book Fair
We reported Wednesday that Dennis Zine was the lone no vote on a plan by Tom LaBonge and Jose Huizar to ship $1.6 million to a country whose name it is racist to mention for a book fair.That no vote came from Council Member Greig Smith.
There was an issue with the playback of the Council Meeting video at the time I watched it and it appeared that Zine had voted no.
From all of the information I have received, though there is no confirmation on the City's website, Smith voted no on the proposal and Zine voted yes, despite speaking against the scheme.
By the way to save the spinner's time from posting here on Mayor Sam, let me give you my official Mayor Sam talking points on this issue.
- Where the money was sent to is irrelevant. The need is in the City of Los Angeles not other cities, states or countries.
- The supporters of this scheme say that these are Federal funds that can not spent on local concerns. They don't tell you that they APPLIED for this grant specifically for the book fair in the place we can't mention because it's racist to do so. They could have spent just as much time and effort applying for grants for local programs.
- I support the arts and am an artist myself. However I really am not comfortable with the idea of government funding the arts.
- Kudos to Greig Smith
- Shame on Dennis Zine
Labels: "COUNCILMAN LAST SEEN AS JOSE HUIZAR", dennis zine, department of cultural affairs, greig smith, tom la bonge
Posted by Michael Higby @ 8/13/2008 11:28:00 PM
18 Comments:
I respectfully disagree about the relevance of where the money was sent.
1. Money from the NATIONAL endowment for the arts should be spent in OUR nation, not a foreign country.
2. Our city tax dollars are being spent paying people to apply for this grant, and will be spent paying them to administer same. City tax dollars should be spent to benefit our city.
3. That the particular country benefitting from this boondoggle is Mexico is also relevant. This is part of a broader pattern of burdening American taxpayers to benefit Mexico and Mexicans. Recall the recent story of our "selling" four ambulances to a Mexican city for four dollars. City Hall, moreover, aids and abets illegal immigration from Mexico. When you call 3-1-1, the Mayor's message isn't in French, or German, or Korean; it's in SPANISH and English, and then you must press one for English.
4. Don't be intimidated into remaining silent about the FACTS. The facts are that Villaraigosa and City Hall bend over backwards to benefit Mexico and Mexicans, to the detriment of taxpaying American citizens, and in violation of federal law prohibiting aiding and abetting of our immigration laws. These people should be indicted. Don't be intimidated by "political correctness" and phony claims of "racism." "illegal" isn't a race; it's conduct.
Let’s face reality and agree that politics revolves around monetary contributions. The developers and special interest groups dominate our politicians which is an accepted form of democracy. However, this does not mean that constituents should not be informed as to what groups are making these generous contributions and determine their dividend.
I encourage concern constituents to expose the root of the politicians’ decision making to the general public because the news papers just touch on the surface of the contributions.
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s Ballot Measure Committee, visit CA Secretary of State Website. Mayor’s Committee for Government Excellence and Accountability – Filed on 7/31/08.
Visit Link:
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1283003&session=2007&view=electronic
Again, they did NOT "ship the money to a foreign country." They paid Anegeleno artists to attend an arts fair in a foreign country and promote LA art and artists. Who will attend this festival and possibly support LA arts and artists (and our economy) was never addressed amidst the idiotic argument between the Mexican Councilmembers crying racism, and Higby who can't understand the motion.
Then we have idiot of all idiots, wanna-be mayor Walter Moore, opining that all money from the NEA to promote arts in America abroad, be spent only in America. Can anyone with an IQ imagine having these fools choosing our future leaders and direction of the city? (And no, I'm not a fan of Antonio, but he has people around him to save him from this level of stupidity.)
Anonymous, you are either misinformed or dishonest. Read the agenda item. Of the $1.6 million, $300,000 goes directly towards building a pavilion in MEXICO. The balance goes into a trust fund dedicated 100% to the book fair.
Another source of criticism of this “project” is the language that comes from the agenda item itself- and this is in the future so it has not been “paid” as an earlier post terms it, but it WILL BE, AND money WILL GO TO MEXICO by the following language:
“ITEM NO. (36) - Motion Required
08-0320
...
4. AUTHORIZE the General Manager, DCA, to:
a. Prepare and release a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the design, construction, and implementation of a showcase pavilion in accordance with the requirements of the NEA and the technical and security provisions of the Guadalajara International Book Fair for an amount not to exceed $300,000.
b. Include in that RFP a requirement that the selected firm subcontract with a Mexican construction firm to build and install the showcase pavilion in Guadalajara, as recommended by the NEA.”
The artists (if that’s what you call “book fair” participants now), of course, would love such an opportunity at this aside from the source of funds or location for expenditures, just as a person wandering in the heat of the desert would desperately crave ANY water, and might not be too concerned with whether that water came from Evian, Costco or maybe even reclaimed through technology. That enthusiasm for the "project" is not questioned.
Unclear still is the source of funds for travel, lodging, meals and other expense incident to the “project” while actually at the Guadalajara site. And that is not all of the potential non-U.S. expenses involved in this "project."
AS ANOTHER ITEM ON THE SAME TUESDAY AGENDA, was the $1 a piece sale of four “surplus” ambulances to a city in Mexico:
“ITEM NO. (17), 08-1982,
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT relative to the sale of surplus equipment to the municipality of Tlaltenango, Zacatecas, Mexico.”
The fiscally relevant term here is:
“2. AUTHORIZE the sale of four surplus ambulances to the municipality of Tlaltenango, Zacatecas, Mexico, for the below market price of $1.00 each in accordance with LAAC Section 22.547”
At times when we have City Council searching high and low for ways to impose more charges on us for any and all things, a $4.00 sale price is another giveaway that is not justified given our budget crisis. There is not even a REASONABLE MARKET VALUE estimate appearing on these documents that might show the real cost of the transaction.
These city vehicles would at minimum have a resale value to put something into the city pot. THIS action is a financial equivalent to (1.) SPENDING that amount of money (2.) outside the city and country, (3.) that does not help the local economy.
Why is this done NOW? Could there be another taxation measure reduced by NOT giving away City property?
I for one do not like the idea that city tax funds will be spent for emergency vehicles (that aren’t cheap) only to be given away for a $1 each and not even staying within the U.S. economy or for its benefit. (And these vehicles ARE not “Junkers”- so forget that justification for the deal.)
THIS is why MAYBE we tend to have a natural tendency to REJECT proposals for imposition of more charges put upon us and it SHOWS real examples of GIVEAWAYS that we have NOT BEEN INVOLVED IN DECIDING.
And now for supporters of this, there are “humanitarian” reasons as enabling language for the transactions. Applying common sense here, that ABILITY to do it has to be outweighed by THE REALITY of the severity of our city budget woes and these “REPRESENTATIVES” don’t care.
I am sorry, critics of my position, but we just can’t afford to do these things now- maybe later IF things improve.
We might need a new council crew to get there, however, if these incumbents still can’t see how their “humanitarian” acts to help a city in Mexico are done while they continue to whip the local taxpayers and whille they preach fiscal "necessity" and city survival to us for those hikes.
a view from within CD-14
Another source of criticism of this “project” is the language that comes from the agenda item itself- and this is in the future so it has not been “paid” as an earlier post terms it, but it WILL BE, AND money WILL GO TO MEXICO by the following language:
“ITEM NO. (36) - Motion Required
08-0320
...
4. AUTHORIZE the General Manager, DCA, to:
a. Prepare and release a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the design, construction, and implementation of a showcase pavilion in accordance with the requirements of the NEA and the technical and security provisions of the Guadalajara International Book Fair for an amount not to exceed $300,000.
b. Include in that RFP a requirement that the selected firm subcontract with a Mexican construction firm to build and install the showcase pavilion in Guadalajara, as recommended by the NEA.”
The artists (if that’s what you call “book fair” participants now), of course, would love such an opportunity at this aside from the source of funds or location for expenditures, just as a person wandering in the heat of the desert would desperately crave ANY water, and might not be too concerned with whether that water came from Evian, Costco or maybe even reclaimed through technology. That enthusiasm for the "project" is not questioned.
Unclear still is the source of funds for travel, lodging, meals and other expense incident to the “project” while actually at the Guadalajara site. And that is not all of the potential non-U.S. expenses involved in this "project."
AS ANOTHER ITEM ON THE SAME TUESDAY AGENDA, was the $1 a piece sale of four “surplus” ambulances to a city in Mexico:
“ITEM NO. (17), 08-1982,
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT relative to the sale of surplus equipment to the municipality of Tlaltenango, Zacatecas, Mexico.”
The fiscally relevant term here is:
“2. AUTHORIZE the sale of four surplus ambulances to the municipality of Tlaltenango, Zacatecas, Mexico, for the below market price of $1.00 each in accordance with LAAC Section 22.547”
At times when we have City Council searching high and low for ways to impose more charges on us for any and all things, a $4.00 sale price is another giveaway that is not justified given our budget crisis. There is not even a REASONABLE MARKET VALUE estimate appearing on these documents that might show the real cost of the transaction.
These city vehicles would at minimum have a resale value to put something into the city pot. THIS action is a financial equivalent to (1.) SPENDING that amount of money (2.) outside the city and country, (3.) that does not help the local economy.
Why is this done NOW? Could there be another taxation measure reduced by NOT giving away City property?
I for one do not like the idea that city tax funds will be spent for emergency vehicles (that aren’t cheap) only to be given away for a $1 each and not even staying within the U.S. economy or for its benefit. (And these vehicles ARE not “Junkers”- so forget that justification for the deal.)
THIS is why MAYBE we tend to have a natural tendency to REJECT proposals for imposition of more charges put upon us and it SHOWS real examples of GIVEAWAYS that we have NOT BEEN INVOLVED IN DECIDING.
And now for supporters of this, there are “humanitarian” reasons as enabling language for the transactions. Applying common sense here, that ABILITY to do it has to be outweighed by THE REALITY of the severity of our city budget woes and these “REPRESENTATIVES” don’t care.
I am sorry, critics of my position, but we just can’t afford to do these things now- maybe later IF things improve.
We might need a new council crew to get there, however, if these incumbents still can’t see how their “humanitarian” acts to help a city in Mexico are done while they continue to whip the local taxpayers and whille they preach fiscal "necessity" and city survival to us for those hikes.
a view from within CD-14
While this bunch of fools misleads the public about the NEA grant into thinking it's local money being spent in Mexico, digging themselves in further with every thread and post, they miss THE story of the day: approval of the Housing Element which will require EVERY new condo project in Brentwood and Studio city and everywhere, to include units for "the poor" (LA Times) and, from Daily News, will build 113,000 houses "for the poor." Which we know includes the illegals.
And then, DN adds, we're supposed to help "the poor" buy some of the foreclosed houses, because they're way below the line that banks would grant them loans for -- homes that working residents, including citizens, just lost. All while the city hasn't revised its community plans or general plan in years, and therefore even Councilmembers who want to help constituents fend off these projects can't, because challenges are based on community plans.
Instead of pointing this out, this gang of xenophobic clowns is obsessed with sending artists to a fair in Mexico and building a pavilion for them. But they're always screaming at the wrong people and targets -- if I were Reyes and Alarcon who got a total pass for their "master plan," I'd thank my lucky stars that they're so dense.
walter moore for mayor.
He's not scuuured of no city council lying bunch of no goods.
you tell'em walter.
Notice how "anonymous," when confronted with the facts, tries to change the subject.
First he claims the money won't go to Mexico. When the facts prove otherwise, he fails to admit that.
Instead, now he claims it's not "local money." In fact, it is TAXPAYER money, and if the City is going to go to the trouble of obtaining a federal grant, the City should spend that money IN THE CITY.
Then he switches gears completely, to the subject of housing density.
This is the calibur of staffer hired to "spin" the blogs: zero integrity, zero accuracy, and zero future but for nepotism.
Wacko Walter: Someone who never lets actual "facts" intimidate him into silence - because he seldom comes in contact with them!
(And he's NEVER silent).
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
Here is what this whole arena of politics, money, and fraud is all about:
Remember Albert Robles?
* Robles graduated from the University of California Los Angeles[2] and was a former aide to a Mexican-American legislator.[3]
* In 1991 Robles became the youngest mayor of South Gate at the age of 26.[4]
* In 1992 he was elected to the South Gate City Council by a predominantly Mexican-American electorate.[3]
* Between 1996 and 2001, Robles was elected to and served on the Central Basin Municipal Water District.[3]
* In 1997 Robles was elected to the city treasurer position while continuing to serve on the Water District.[3]
* In 2002 Robles was appointed by the City Council to the Deputy City Manager position.[3]
* In 2003 Robles was recalled along with Mayor Xochitl Ruvalcaba, Vice Mayor Raul Moriel, and Councilwoman Maria Benavides in an election that was monitored by Los Angeles County by order of Governor Gray Davis.[5] Robles retained his position as Deputy City Manager.[3]
* In 2005 he was convicted on federal corruption charges then sentenced the following year to 10 years in prison
The LA politicians are following in the same direction, they all play musical chairs, they all vote against the benefit of the Angelinos, they all disregard the Need of the Many, and concern themselves whith the Need of the Few (themselves). beware of three words and three letters:
Albert Robles = Prision
F B I
Remember Albert Robles?
* Robles graduated from the University of California Los Angeles[2] and was a former aide to a Mexican-American legislator.[3]
* In 1991 Robles became the youngest mayor of South Gate at the age of 26.[4]
* In 1992 he was elected to the South Gate City Council by a predominantly Mexican-American electorate.[3]
* Between 1996 and 2001, Robles was elected to and served on the Central Basin Municipal Water District.[3]
* In 1997 Robles was elected to the city treasurer position while continuing to serve on the Water District.[3]
* In 2002 Robles was appointed by the City Council to the Deputy City Manager position.[3]
* In 2003 Robles was recalled along with Mayor Xochitl Ruvalcaba, Vice Mayor Raul Moriel, and Councilwoman Maria Benavides in an election that was monitored by Los Angeles County by order of Governor Gray Davis.[5] Robles retained his position as Deputy City Manager.[3]
* In 2005 he was convicted on federal corruption charges then sentenced the following year to 10 years in prison
beware of the three letters
F B I
What about Lou Moret's relationship with Albert Robles??
Who is getting the no-bid contract?
I'm sure those backroom connections will be fascinating.
How is it legal to get a grant for a foreign country?
Since when is LACC involved in handing out international aide?
Why aren't the asking for grants for L.A.?
WALTER MOORE for Mayor is so far the only
way LEGAL citizens of Los Angeles can
make their voices heard over the
Illegal Alien Promoters in Tony Vilar's
Gang of anchor baby fifth columnists!
NUMBERSUSA
ALIPAC
Your comments are inflammatory. This is a Mexican city.
What in the hell is going on here??? Paying "artists" to go to what could only be described as a tenth rate 'art' festival in that banana republic on our southern bordcer? (A foreign country??? Oh, that's rich)!!!!
Are these so-called 'artists' the same 'artists' who spray paint our city with their gang insignias???
What the f*ck!!!
LA is a kleptocracy of the same magnitude as Messico! Send their asses back to that dumpy sh*t hole!
Of course that will mean visits on the taxpayer dollar to visit Mexico.
Is there no way to dump these current batch of crooks and replace them with a new batch? (of crooks)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home