Zoo Meets Circus at City Hall Today
This issue goes before the full Clowncil on 12-3-08.
UPDATE: The Budget and Finance Committee voted 3-to-2 to kill the Zoo's Pachyderm Forest project. Parks, Huizar, and Rosendahl for, Greuel and Smith against. Rosendahl missed all of the public comment on the subject, citing more important concerns (a sewer pipe in Venice.)
This opens the door for passage of Cardenas's other motion -- to spend all that money by having the City of LA go into the Sanctuary business.
This is also precedent-setting in that it opens the door for the Clowncil to revisit any and all other previously-passed council motions... something they've refused to do in the past even when faced with evidence demonstrating that they probably should...
Your suggestions for what they should review next?
---
Today at 1pm, the City Clowncil's Budget and Finance Committee considers one of the two controversial Zoo-Elephant motions recently made by Guido Cardenas. The meeting will no doubt be a total circus, complete with a ringmaster (Parks), lot of clowncil clowns, the freak show barker (Cardenas), the puppet master (Alarcon), the fat lady preparing to sing (LeBong), the guy being shot out of a canon (Zoo GM John Lewis), the ubiquitous elephant in the room (Billy), and a crowd of alternately thrilled and horrified onlookers.
The proposal being heard today is CF 08-2850, which calls for all work to stop on the Los Angeles Zoo's $40 mil Elephant Pachyderm exhibit and to actually outlaw all future elephant exhibits at the Zoo. It also requests yet another CLA/CAO report on the costs associated with transferring the remaining elephant (Billy) to an elephant sanctuary, the alternative uses for the current Elephant Pachyderm exhibit and the possible transfer of other zoo animals into the intended Elephant Pachyderm Exhibit, the status of elephant exhibits that have closed and currently do house elephants on the zoos premise throughout the United States; and the fiscal implications for closing the elephant Pachyderm Exhibit.
Once again, the public will queue up to plead for Billy's future. Unfortunately, few public comments will be about the bigger issues that impact the citizens of Los Angeles: money and land. Guido and the Zorro Marxist are looking to take control of a substantial portion of that $40 mill, while benefiting rich developers in their district through the theft of public lands. Meanwhile, LeBong sees this as an opportunity to steal more of Griffith Park by taking part of Harding Golf Course to expand the Zoo footprint.
The future of Cardenas's other motion, CF 08-2849 which calls for a brand new “Elephant Satellite Sanctuary Advisory Group (ESSAG)” to search for 60 acres on private OR PUBLIC lands in the City to create a new elephant sanctuary, probably relies on what happens to this afternoon during the Budget and Finance Committee hearing.
With the City facing an ever-increasing deficit, let's hope the important fiscal fiducial issues and responsibilities aren't lost to the very committee tasked with these things during the tertiary animal rights discussion.
This opens the door for passage of Cardenas's other motion -- to spend all that money by having the City of LA go into the Sanctuary business.
This is also precedent-setting in that it opens the door for the Clowncil to revisit any and all other previously-passed council motions... something they've refused to do in the past even when faced with evidence demonstrating that they probably should...
Your suggestions for what they should review next?
---
Today at 1pm, the City Clowncil's Budget and Finance Committee considers one of the two controversial Zoo-Elephant motions recently made by Guido Cardenas. The meeting will no doubt be a total circus, complete with a ringmaster (Parks), lot of clowncil clowns, the freak show barker (Cardenas), the puppet master (Alarcon), the fat lady preparing to sing (LeBong), the guy being shot out of a canon (Zoo GM John Lewis), the ubiquitous elephant in the room (Billy), and a crowd of alternately thrilled and horrified onlookers.The proposal being heard today is CF 08-2850, which calls for all work to stop on the Los Angeles Zoo's $40 mil Elephant Pachyderm exhibit and to actually outlaw all future elephant exhibits at the Zoo. It also requests yet another CLA/CAO report on the costs associated with transferring the remaining elephant (Billy) to an elephant sanctuary, the alternative uses for the current Elephant Pachyderm exhibit and the possible transfer of other zoo animals into the intended Elephant Pachyderm Exhibit, the status of elephant exhibits that have closed and currently do house elephants on the zoos premise throughout the United States; and the fiscal implications for closing the elephant Pachyderm Exhibit.
Once again, the public will queue up to plead for Billy's future. Unfortunately, few public comments will be about the bigger issues that impact the citizens of Los Angeles: money and land. Guido and the Zorro Marxist are looking to take control of a substantial portion of that $40 mill, while benefiting rich developers in their district through the theft of public lands. Meanwhile, LeBong sees this as an opportunity to steal more of Griffith Park by taking part of Harding Golf Course to expand the Zoo footprint.
The future of Cardenas's other motion, CF 08-2849 which calls for a brand new “Elephant Satellite Sanctuary Advisory Group (ESSAG)” to search for 60 acres on private OR PUBLIC lands in the City to create a new elephant sanctuary, probably relies on what happens to this afternoon during the Budget and Finance Committee hearing.
With the City facing an ever-increasing deficit, let's hope the important fiscal fiducial issues and responsibilities aren't lost to the very committee tasked with these things during the tertiary animal rights discussion.
Labels: billy the elephant, griffith park, la zoo, Richard Alarcon, tom labonge, tony cardenas
Posted by Petra Fried in the City @ 12/01/2008 08:32:00 AM
29 Comments:
Nobody cares!
Give it a rest. . .
This post has been up all day long, with "anonymous" posted allowed again, and NO one has commented.
Will Billy be all alone in his
new 85 acre elephant retirement home?
Who's to stop Cardenas's gangmember friends from breaking into his elephant sanctuary with guns? Cardenas should let the elephant go and focus on the rotten HUMANS in his own council district.
No, even though the area proposed for Billy is completely torched from the recent fires, there are still
some crows hanging around, and occasionally a coyote or two.
Make sure the animal rights people don't get duped into the sanctuary in CD7.
So what happens if Billy goes to
this new reserve that the City funds,
and another fire sweeps through the area? How do you evacuate an elephant
in 30 minutes or less?
Hey, Joe B., what's going on with Home Depot? Has City Planning made a determination yet?
9:33,
Nope.
Joe you're absolutely right and the word needs to get out that we CAN FREE BILLY without BUILDING GUIDOLAND!
MS,
I think your suggestion that Billy should go to the Arkansas reserve is the best idea yet.
It's also affordable and Billy has a better chance there (not to mention that he will have some friends to hang out with) than he would in the tinderbox known as the North Valley!
Yup there are several preserves including some in California that would be great.
I don't even care if some company or organization built a preserve in LA.
But it can't be with taxpayer money.
Lloyd Levine made a very good point - sure it would be great to have elephants in LA for us to look at. But elephants aren't from here. We don't have glaciers in LA but we're not going to bring one here.
Male elephants group together much like females do.
There are two males in the PAWS Sactuary right now, and Billy would be as happy as Ruby if he were there.
The elephant exhibit should be scotched and if people want elephants in LA, the santuary proposed by Cardenas makes sense.
Why not put it to a vote of the People? Ever hear of a "referendum"?
11:15 pm = Cardenas Staffer or Carenas himself. It would be INSANE to let Cardenas and Alarcon create a "an elephant sanctuary" in his district for Billy alone, the one elephant in question. Of course, if they were going to follow through on their arguments that Billy needs "companions" they'll have to buy a bunch of them, for a huge bundle $$$ and then there's the upkeep (them elephants EAT a WHOLE LOT), staff (lots, including vets), insurance (LOTS), above the cost of land.
Insurance is for elephant illness and injuries to visitors AND for the fire-prone land.
This is crazy, and no way justified by cost. Since the council decided to scrap the Zoo enclosure as not worth the extra money with the controvery, they should authorize the remaining $30 mil that would have gone to that, to human needs. THAT is the rest of the Lloyd Levine statement, to which Higby's referring: Put Billy in an already existant sanctuary, but Do NOT take our city money while we're in such dire straits to create this crazy idea of a "Cardenas Sanctuary."
Put the $30 Million back into the General Fund toward Parks And Recs (that's the amount Janice Hahn wanted to "raise" by taxing the homeowners for "her" gang tax), toward youth programs etc. -- the Parks & Recs budget has been frozen or due to cut back. THEN put the balance toward cops and fire, public safety, which the public is demanding: for which the homeowners have been hit for trash tax fees, and gotten nada, because all the money for cops is being diverted into "gang reduction" zones into the worst areas - which tend to be tenements NOT paying the trash fee hikes. (Bldgs. over 4 untis do NOT get city trash pickup, they contract for their own, or NOT, making the residents dump behind buildings -- that other messy issue we heard about recently.)
Meanwhile, to raise a few hundred thou here and there, law-abiding legal citizens are paying MORE for parking fees, meters, fines, must pave their own sidewalks, etc.
NO TO CARDENAS AND ALARCON'S SCEME TO CON THE CITY INTO PAYING FOR THIER CRAZY SANCTUARY.
Once again the CLOWNCIL SHOWS WHAT A BUNCH OF FUCKING IDIOTS THEY ARE. What a waste of taxpayer dollars with all the meetings fighting for the elephant exhibits and these idiots voting to spend $40 million and now more time wasted saying ooppss we made a mistake. Goes to show they don't know what the hell they're doing and what is best for the city and our money.
11:15pm, if you're a staffer then you must be waaaaay out of the loop because the Zoo Pachyderm Forest project WAS approved by a vote of the people. An LA County bond measure approved a chunk of the funding for LA Zoo Master Plan projects, of which the elephant exhibit was one. City Council then selected which specific project.
That IS a vote of the people.
You can see what the Budget and Finance Committee thinks of the people's will.
7:53pm, it's really not my problem if no one else has had anything to blog... if you've got something you wanna see here, give the old MS hotline a jingle and clue us in.
12:51am,
It is not as simple as putting back all the money into the General Fund. I wish it was.
Here's the financial info...
The entire exhibit *budget* is $42 mil. The breakdown looks like this:
This includes a 15% contingency rate. The City typically includes a 10% contingency rate and the B&F committee questioned this. However, with construction costs increasing 10-15% per year, 15% is actually a reasonable contingency to build in. (Thumbs up to the guy who had the foresight to use 15%).
The funding sources:
MICLA: $14.5 mil
GLAZA: $4.9 mil private donation
Prop CC (city): $8.5 mil
Prop A2 (county): $11.9 mil
Zoo Trust Fund: $2.3 mil
-----------------------------
approx $42 mil
To date ~$12 mil has been spent, ~$10 mil of that is from voter approved bonds and will have to be repaid if the project is canceled.
GLAZA, Zoo Trust Fund, Prop CC, Prop A2 sources are not funds that could be 'put back' into the General Fund.
However, of the $19.1 mil budgeted for the entire Zoo operations in FY09, $5.2 mil comes directly from the General Fund. If enough allowed capital expenditures unrelated to the elephant project from Prop A2 and Prop CC could be made, perhaps some or all of the $5.2 mil could be left in the General Fund.
Does that make sense?
Here is the proverbial 'hitch in the gitalong' Guido will be using to build GUIDOLAND for Billy on public or park land instead of sending him to PAWS or a similar sanctuary:
Cost to ship Billy: $<16,000>
Private pledge (Bob Barker): $(100,000)
Cost of new barn and enclosure on PAWS property (according to PAWS): $<2,000,000>
Supposed net cost to send Billy to PAWS: $1,916,000
Questions that must be answered --
1. why was the cost of moving Ruby to PAWS only $16,000?
2. why exactly is a new barn necessary for this one elephant?
3. Does this have anything to do with the fact that Billy has not been castrated and they feel the need to keep him alone in the sanctuary? (Uncastrated males are not usually accepted by sanctuaries).
How ironic that poor Billy may end up alone in a sanctuary!
Higby, it's not a PRESERVE, but a RESERVE.
It's not jelly.
Speaking of which, to answer the question of how one evacuates an elephant in 30 minutes, just yell out JAN PERRY, PLEASE EXIT THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS!
Jelly is jelly and NOT preserves. But I digress, Billy should go to Arkansas. Surely he's been out here long enough to learn good Spanish. He could work for Tyson in the daytime, processing chickens and retire to his reserve in the evening.
CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS – TRADE
Dec. 2, 2008 – 4:00 p.m.
Rep. Becerra Offered Trade Representative Post
By Jonathan Allen, CQ Staff
Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., has been offered the post of U.S. Trade Representative in the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama, according to Democratic sources.
Becerra is weighing whether to give up his House seniority and newly won spot as vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus to take the Cabinet-level post, a source close to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus said. But another Democratic source said the job has been offered and accepted.
Obama spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said she could not confirm that Becerra would become USTR and noted that the post will not be announced at Obama’s scheduled Wednesday press conference.
If Becerra does take the trade post, his departure could touch off a scramble for the leadership job he won just two weeks ago by defeating Ohio Rep. Marcy Kaptur by a vote 175-67.
It also would open a coveted seat on the Ways and Means Committee, where he is a senior member.
Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida and Joseph Crowley of New York were among the Democrats who chose not to challenge Becerra for the vice chairmanship, which opened up when Rep. John B. Larson of Connecticut ran for and won the caucus chairmanship left open by Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., who will be leaving the House to become Obama’s White House chief of staff.
Whoever becomes the next U.S. Trade Representative will face some difficult challenges. Most congressional Democrats — and some Republicans — have become increasingly disillusioned with free trade agreements, worrying about their impact on domestic industries and jobs.
Change of Direction
Obama has been a critic of Bush era trade deals, and may be slow to enter into new ones. At a minimum, his administration is likely to insist on stronger labor and environmental standards in countries looking for trade deals with the United States.
President Bush has pressed the current Congress to approve a pending free trade deal with Colombia before adjourning for the year, but Democrats have shown little inclination to do so.
Unions and other critics of trade liberalization argue the Nov. 4 election results were a clear signal that the public is opposed to further trade agreements, and Democratic action on the Colombia deal would prompt a backlash from organized labor and other groups.
While Bush was able to push through several trade initiatives during his eight years in office, including a 2002 renewal of fast-track trade negotiating authority and 2005 passage of the Central American Free Trade Agreement, the pace has slowed considerably since Democrats captured control of Congress in 2006.
In 2007, the White House and congressional Democrats reached a deal on how labor and environmental standards should be dealt with in trade pacts. But only one — with Peru — has won approval since then. Becerra voted for that deal (PL 110-138) in 2007 after opposing the 2005 CAFTA deal (PL 109-53).
Earlier in his career, the California Democrat , who was first elected in 1992, voted for the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement negotiated by the administration of President Bill Clinton. That 103rd Congress was the last time a Democratic president was presenting trade agreements to a Democratic-controlled Congress.
— Joseph J. Schatz contributed to this story.
Source: CQ Today Online News
Round-the-clock coverage of news from Capitol Hill.
© 2008 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All Rights Reserved.
CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS – TRADE
Dec. 2, 2008 – 4:00 p.m.
Rep. Becerra Offered Trade Representative Post
By Jonathan Allen, CQ Staff
Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., has been offered the post of U.S. Trade Representative in the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama, according to Democratic sources.
Becerra is weighing whether to give up his House seniority and newly won spot as vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus to take the Cabinet-level post, a source close to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus said. But another Democratic source said the job has been offered and accepted.
Obama spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said she could not confirm that Becerra would become USTR and noted that the post will not be announced at Obama’s scheduled Wednesday press conference.
If Becerra does take the trade post, his departure could touch off a scramble for the leadership job he won just two weeks ago by defeating Ohio Rep. Marcy Kaptur by a vote 175-67.
It also would open a coveted seat on the Ways and Means Committee, where he is a senior member.
Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida and Joseph Crowley of New York were among the Democrats who chose not to challenge Becerra for the vice chairmanship, which opened up when Rep. John B. Larson of Connecticut ran for and won the caucus chairmanship left open by Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., who will be leaving the House to become Obama’s White House chief of staff.
Whoever becomes the next U.S. Trade Representative will face some difficult challenges. Most congressional Democrats — and some Republicans — have become increasingly disillusioned with free trade agreements, worrying about their impact on domestic industries and jobs.
Change of Direction
Obama has been a critic of Bush era trade deals, and may be slow to enter into new ones. At a minimum, his administration is likely to insist on stronger labor and environmental standards in countries looking for trade deals with the United States.
President Bush has pressed the current Congress to approve a pending free trade deal with Colombia before adjourning for the year, but Democrats have shown little inclination to do so.
Unions and other critics of trade liberalization argue the Nov. 4 election results were a clear signal that the public is opposed to further trade agreements, and Democratic action on the Colombia deal would prompt a backlash from organized labor and other groups.
While Bush was able to push through several trade initiatives during his eight years in office, including a 2002 renewal of fast-track trade negotiating authority and 2005 passage of the Central American Free Trade Agreement, the pace has slowed considerably since Democrats captured control of Congress in 2006.
In 2007, the White House and congressional Democrats reached a deal on how labor and environmental standards should be dealt with in trade pacts. But only one — with Peru — has won approval since then. Becerra voted for that deal (PL 110-138) in 2007 after opposing the 2005 CAFTA deal (PL 109-53).
Earlier in his career, the California Democrat , who was first elected in 1992, voted for the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement negotiated by the administration of President Bill Clinton. That 103rd Congress was the last time a Democratic president was presenting trade agreements to a Democratic-controlled Congress.
— Joseph J. Schatz contributed to this story.
Source: CQ Today Online News
Round-the-clock coverage of news from Capitol Hill.
© 2008 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.pawsweb.org/master_plans.html
Copy and insert in your browser; this is the PAWS website.
PAWS is where Ruby presently resides in peaceful tranquility and great joy. Check out the videos and the photos. This is where
Sorry, premature whatever...
PAWS is where Billy needs to end his years and his nodding...
No elephants "nod" at PAWS; wonder why, John Lewis?
Take a guess...
oh I see, my comments are not 'approved'.
lol.
So, Petra, are you concerned at all about Billy's fate or the needless expenditure of public dollars, or are you mostly just concerned with not having a sanctuary in Guido and Zorro's district(s)?
By the way, PAWS has two Bull Elephants there already and Billy would be an easy addition.
Phil,
1. I am concerned about all three, and the devil is in the details.
2. Why is PAWS asking for a $2million shelter for Billy, then?
They are asking simply because the money is there to be given, considering the balance that will be saved. If they don't ask, they surely will not receive.
When push comes to shove, they'll take anything they can get, but for sure, they'll never turn Billy down, even if the number from the city is zero. Pat Darby has too big a heart and love for elephants.
The activists will donate hundreds of thousands, maybe millions.
Billy needs to go before he hurts himself or someone.
Me, I think the local reserve would be nice, but I don't care, one way or another about it, as long as they kill the exhibit at the Zoo or use it for other large mammals who do much better in captivity, like Rhinoceri, Giraffes, et al.
Besides which, we need the millions for police, teachers and lots of other uses.
Free Billy!!!!
Cool Phil. I'm with you on this. So...
FIRST: Free Billy! Whoo-Hoo!
(No $2 mil barn but healthy charitable contributions! If Billy goes to PAWS, I will write a check myself and put what little money I have where my ample mouth is.)
SECOND: No expansion of Zoo by stealing/"repurposing" of park/public land (Lopez Cyn, Griffith Park, etc.)
THIRD: I could see a situation with GLAZA or another 501(c)3 purchasing private land and financing a Zoo satellite. However, since much of the impetus behind Guido's motions is ostensibly financial, this absolutely cannot be through predominantly public funds or benefitting a private business/individual. No way.
GLAZA says they can raise even more bucks to keep the exhibit here, let that money be used for the acquisition of the acreage in Tony/Richard's district.
The elephants costs @ $100,000 a year each to maintain, so ten, plus mating stuff will be an extra Million a year from public funds.
If they have the bucks, God bless them, but I'd rather have more cops, schools, etc.
Meanwhile, free Billy.
Petra, go to the PAWS webside and check out Ruby's arrival at PAWS and her assimilation. You will cry.
Those who made that happen will get their reward in heaven. Euby is there now. Waiting for Billy.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home