Mayor Sam Candidate Endorsements: Split Decision for CD14
JoeB: I feel sorry for the citizens of CD14 who are forced to choose between these two horrible candidates. Huizar has been a disaster on the PLUM committee, having, among other things,approved Alarcon's Truck Driving School in the middle of an Open Space designated site. Martinez will bring new meaning to the terms "mediocrity" and "incompetence" should he succeed in ousting the incumbent. Either way, it means four more lost years for CD14.
Michael Higby: Rudy Martinez is a dynamic, articulate businessman who represents a stark contrast to the insider Jose Huizar. With Box and Martinez on the Council, along with Krekorian and Parks they could easily lead a new coalition for change in Los Angeles. Martinez is a candidate with big promise while Huizar stands for the failed past. Vote Martinez.
Verdict: One for none, One for Martinez
Labels: cd14, Jose Huizar, Rudy Martinez
Posted by Michael Higby @ 3/04/2011 10:18:00 AM
104 Comments:
Make that two for Martinez and no vote for the guy that CD 2 Councilman Paul Krekorian endorsed
Count Down - 4 Days Left Until March 8, 2011 Election
Here are some things to consider when casting your vote on Tuesday, March 8, 2011.
1. The current Los Angeles Council constantly violates their Council Rules as “Council Is Awaiting A Quorum” as usual due to arriving late to work.
In January 2011 the Council was able to start the Council meeting on time only once after Eric Garcetti cancelled a meeting because councilmembers were late to work. This is a ratio of 83% of the time the council arrives late to work, one out of 12 scheduled meetings, to conduct the peoples business.
In February 2011 again the council was on time only once. This is a ratio of 90% of the time the council arrived late to work, one out of 11 scheduled meetings, because the February 25 meeting was cancelled due to a funeral.
In March 2011 the council has already arrived late to work on their 3 scheduled meeting which is consistent with their habitual pattern.
The consequences for the councilmembers are that constituents continue to reelect these same councilmembers, but complain thereafter.
2. According to the Los Angeles Weekly, each council seat is worth $178,789 in yearly salary, plus subsidized health care, plus taxpayers provided CARS, GASOLINE, and $90,000 in plush funds for each to spend as they wish. If councilmembers remains in office for 12 years, the Weekly estimates, a Los Angeles City Council seat is worth $3 million.
Are these current councilmembers really worth this much money?
3. This council continues to rubber stamp the major’s over spending budget and serving special interest groups, including the mayor and council’s pet projects, with NO checks and balances. The council and mayor fail to cut wasteful spending while continuing to raise citation fees, parking meter fees, trash fees, DWP rates, etc.
Vote on March 8, 2011!
October 14, 2010 LA Daily News
"Tardiness is but one symptom of a troubled political leadership"
Joe B. gets 1/2 a point for pegging Rudy M. correctly, but otherwise, you're all "wrong" for the district.
Vote for Jose for another 4 years, then let's see what else we can scare up.
(He's been way better than ADV© Tony Villar).
Grrrrrr!
NO, seriously, I mean it. No spin; no sarcasm.
Vote for Huizar.
(I'm an online cartoon caricature of an unethical and soul-less political campaign hack, and I'M MORE QUALIFIED to run CD14 than Rudy Martinez will ever be!)
How does Joe. B.'s "no choice" constitute a "split decision" for the blog?
DOH!
Alvin Parra has endorsed Rudy Martinez.
All you need to know about how to vote here is that the "Homer Simpson of L.A. Politics" (L.A. Times), is supporting the challenger.
BUH-bye Rudy Rich.
Of the three blog writers here, it should be pointed out, only one (Rid Spurt) lives in, can vote in CD14, or will be directly affected BY the vote here - so (frankly) who cares what the other two think, right?
And if RS votes anything like he types the English language, he'll probably vote for Huizar BY MISTAKE, anyway.
SO, it's all good!
Hoooooo, ha!
Your time would be better spent helping Rudy Rich pack his bowling trophies to take back to Glendale, when he re-locates (again), in 5 days.
11:08,
We thought through that protential issue and decided that your mom would fill in the bubble for Rudy and plant a wet one on the ballot for good luck.
Higby, (and Joe B., for that matter), have either of you even MET Rudy Martinez?
Dynamic? Oh, HELL no! Unless you want someone to sell used street sweepers from the City lots while no one's looking.
He's a bumper-sticker quoting snake oil salesman who has YET to answer any questions put forward to him directly about ANYTHING... his sordid past, his "plans" for the future (which boil down to: "I'll listen to ALL 300,000 stakeholders, I'll provide EVERY service you want or need, and I'll do it with LESS money, AND balance the budget better.")
There's a term for people like that, that's applied to their medical chart right before they stick them in a rubber room.
If Rudy Rich is "dynamic" then Scot Johnson is "urbane"!
"Yo mama" jokes, from the ultimate out-of-touch eastside White guy?
How quaint!
Love you Joe B, but your wrong about Rudy.
11:24,
are you refering to "Scot Johnson" the Highlander or the politically astute blogger Scott Johnson?
Martinez?
Articulate?
You haven't been paying attention, Higby, except perhaps to Red Spots rabid rants.
Rudy-isms will go down in the local lexicon like Joe Biden-isms and GW flubs do on the national scale.
Rudy Rich is the the guy who keeps saying he'll work "effortlessly" (meaning he WON'T work) for the district, and that's just ONE of the many recurring malaprops.
(This is a joke, right? You guys just want someone who's easier to make fun of for the next 4 years).
TOO BAD!
What do unicorns, and the:
"politically astute blogger Scott Johnson?"
...have in common.
Easy, both are imaginary.
Correct, Joe is wrong about Rudy but give him credit for not endorsing Huizar like Councilman Krekorian did.
A few months before Rudy Rich decided to run for City Council in one of the most environmentally sensitive areas of the City (Northeast L.A.), he rips the only street tree out of the blighted, sterile concrete in front of his dive bar?
What more do you need to know that Joe B. is EXACTLY right about him, that he'll "bring new meaning to the terms 'mediocrity' and 'incompetence'"
That's the most correct thing posted on this blog in years.
Was any of this a surprise here?
Like you have to TUNE back in to see what this blog would do in terms of CD14?
Pfaaaaah!
These obviously don't matter - it's all over but the counting.
Rudy Rich is down to shoe leather, still hasn't reached most of the district, was unknown a few months ago, has no record of service to the district, is out of money (and unwilling to pour any more into the rathole of his own creation), hasn't had a new "jarring" accusation to shoot at Huizar in weeks, and in 3 months has appeared at public forums attended by less than 1 percent of the people in the district.
Meanwhile, Huizar's been using his incumbency at ribbon cuttings and the like to show his face to 10 times as many people in the same period of time.
BUH-bye Rudy.
11:52
And, this weekend, many dozens of the "known" people in CD14 who serve the community, from the hundreds listed who endorse Huizar will be on the phones at his campaign offices getting out the vote.
Martinez and his family members, plus a few known malcontent, unrelated supporters will be knocking on doors and trying to explain the answer to the still obvious question, "Rudy WHO?"
Huevon Huizzy can't muster the energy to walk precincts and lets not get started on Huizzy's voting record regarding protecting open space at Playa Vista, lopez Canyon, Las Lomas and the best one, his dubious legal deal to perserve Elephant Hill.
(I'll repeat the obvious... This blog, and especially Higby, have NEVER picked the winner in a CD14 contest in the history of the blog).
'nuff said!
12:10
Let's "not get started" Rid Spot, because, just as you always do, you have no real facts to "start" with?
Blowhard!
(BTW, re: the ONLY one in CD14 you reference... that "dubious" deal is one of the main reasons Huizar enjoys massive support where YOU live, and the support of most of YOUR neighborhood council's board).
Enjoy being lonely. You got another 4 years of not mattering.
Rudy Rich better not "muster the energy" or he'll be watching his losing election returns from a hospital bed again.
The pansy!
12:13,
Check your facts regarding Huevon Huizzy's supposed "majority support" of the LA 32 Neighborhood Council. 6 out of 21 does not constitute a majority.
12:29
Rid Spurt typical BS word play.
OKAY, how about "A MAJORITY OF THOSE ENDORSING ANYONE!"
Better yet, how about "100 PERCENT of the people from LA32 listed as endorsing EITHER candidate" (apparently you didn't get your "paperwork" in in time; were you taking tips from Tony "no-signatures" Butka?).
Or how about, Huizar has MORE people endorsing him from YOUR LA32 neighborhood council along (six) than RUDY has endorsing him from ALL 8-9 of the NCs in CD14 COMBINED (only THREE)!
Does that change anything except make you look even more like a loser for opening the door to an even WORSE comparison?
Hooooo ha!
The LA32 "recoding secreetry" has trouble with counting, too.
4 days; Rudy's bags are packed and his goose is cooked.
Not sure what he's going to do next, flipping houses is a bum business now, and he told Boyle Heights the business at his eateries is down 30 percent.
(Funny, I thought he was such a DAMN good SMALL businessman).
(Mini-Meg Whitman) Rudy Rich's probably been laying off people there, too.
Really, Scottie?
In "El Serreno" - where your supposedly leaked campaign poll yesterday showed Martinez as having a somewhat better chance (along with Eagle Rock), to wear away at Huizar's big lead...
...not ONE of the 21 NC board members was willing to put their name down for Rudy Martinez?
Not even you, apparently?
(Also, no real visible support for him in the other "weak" area of eagle Rock from community leaders). And he owns a BUSINESS there.
Damn! That's pitiful.
Better bottle-cap this one and get onto something "hot" - like re-reporting something another blog discussed last week.
Memo to Wordsmith,
Nice try at redirect, but you should take notice that the LA 32, including those who were listed as "Huevon Huizzynistas", voted Wednesday night to support Governor Jerry Brown's efforts in reining in CRAs state-wide. Only one person (a Huizar supporter) voted aginst the Action Item.
This should highlight the fact that some listed as supporters, were either tepid endorsees or did not know that their name was included on Parke's original list of 150 supporters.
Political numbers can be spin to define the message of choice,kinda like the memo regarding Huevon Huizzy's "push poll. But the only numbers that will matter are the final tally of votes on Tuesday.
12;50PM,
You would think that after six years of representing CD 14, Councilman Huevon Huizzy with his steller record of accomplishments (meant taking credit for other's past political deed), would not even merit an challenger for re-election.
But being a "political huevon" who was only spur to action by Rudy Martinez and a good kick from Papi Villar, will have a political price on Tuesday.
12:59 and 1:12
Yeah, yeah, we know Rid SPurt, you hate Huizar.
No DUH!
Otherwise, you couldn't support a dufus like Martinez.
The votes for Huizar's re-election are already in. You can "root" all you want to Rooty Rich, but you can't even BEGIN to predict he'll win, because he NEVER stood a chance.
(Frankly, while Huizar isn't anywhere near as "lazy
as you seem to think he is, I'll still take a "lazy" smart guy over a dimbulb one-line spinning, investigation-fleeing, grave-robbing carpetbagger anyday.
And, by the way, CD14 has a very definitive record of NEVER electing the carpetbagger, when given an option. That won't change on Tuesday.
Rudy just needs to pick his fat lady to sing to him, signalling that it's all over, and then they can both be in bed long before midnight. (If he can afford to hire one anymore?)
Did I mention it's already over?
It is.
Yeah, yeah.
We hear this B.S. EVERY damn time one candidate has a TON more endorsements than another... "people didn't know they were on the list."
SHOOT, they are old folks at retirement homes listed on Martinez's TINY list of supporter that don't even know WHAT he's running for, let along having endorsed him.
They're just waiting for the jello to be served in the dining room.
What a TOTAL loser candidate, had to hit up senile nursing home patients to fill out a small list.
Hell, that makes Bernie Park's "dead people" supporters almost look like a good idea. At least THEY can't complain.
1:12
Take a deep breath, Scott and watch your blood pressure.
That post didn't even make sense.
Not that many do...
Ever notice how uncomfortable Huizar looks in that picture of Rudy hugging on him in that picture, you and others use?
A little creepy, you know?
If there were people on Huizar's list of endorsements who didn't want to be there, why didn't they ask to be removed?
If they ask, they have to be.
The latest version he sent out (with the HUGE slick pictures of happy supporters in every community) has an even LARGER list.
So, his support is growing - despite all the Rudy slime, not shrinking. AND there are people listed on there who had the infamous NEGATIVE numbers - which Rudy promptly mailed to ALL of them, to get them to switch.
Did any "switch" once they found they were on the "enemies" list?
NOPE. don't believe so. Haven't heard of a SINGLE one.
BUH-bye Rudy.
We won't miss you, because you were never really "here" with us in CD14, except to carpetbag.
How can Mayor Sam's blog bash a carpetbagging Alarcon and support a carpetbagging Rudy Martinez?
Hypocrisy?
Yup, I think that's pretty obvious.
Memo to 1:26Pm,
Grab the defib paddles for this hit to the ticker.
"I supported Councilman Huizar in 2007".
In addition,I voted to endorse Councilman Huizar as a member of the Los Angeles County Sierra Club Political Committee that same year.
Alvin Parra will surely remember the meeting at Antigua Coffee Shop that he walked in on (or was tipped off to) that included the likes of former Chief of Staff Joe Avila, LA County Sierra Club Political Chair Susana Reyes, Martin Schleger of the Coalition for Clean Air and three other members of the Sierra Club Central group Political Committee that included myself.
Reyes and Avila who now work with one another at DWP, did their best to endorse Huizar outright, but it was fair to all three candidates in 2007, to bet treated equally in their respective endorsement interviews.
Now four years later, with parks under the threat of being privatize, mixed with Huizar's voting record on the likes of Lopez Canyon,Las Lomas,Playa Vista and his six-year delay in finishing Ascot Park. One can easily see why someone would seek a change.
Ah hell, Rid spot, all that means it you're just getting dumberer every year.
It happens.
Too bad.
Memo to 1:42PM,
Did the counting on Huevon Huizzy's mailer of note and came up with a total of 154 name.
Which give us a grand increase of FOUR names from the inception of the original list.
Time to offer more payoffs from the CLARTS Fund.
WHO is "mas huevon"?
(Watch for the common thread...)
Eastern Group Publications: "We were disappointed that after nearly a year on the campaign trail Martinez had not become better versed on a number of complex issues facing the district and the city..."
L.A. Downtown News: [Martinez's] campaign platform frequently relies on generalities and hopes rather than the political realities required to do the job . . . he lacks the important and, well, wonkish knowledge Huizar possesses.
La Opinion: Huizar has a clear knowledge of the issues that confront the city on questions of budget and urban growth. At the same time, he has also demonstrated his ability to use funds wisely for the purpose of improving the quality of life of those in his district.
All three endorse Huizar (because, simply put) Rudy Rich is CLUE-less). When you got almost a year to LEARN what the district needs, and the common theme from supporters of the other guy, is YOU DIDN'T there are only two possible explanations: either TOO lazy to do the work to learn (easily to kock on doors and regurgitate slime and simple-minded solutions), or TOO DAMN dumb to do the job.
Either way, anyone who would vote for this chearleading simpleton (a "Tom LeBonge" for the eastside), deserves to waste their vote with the minority of others.
It means that Huevon Huizzy fail.
2:07
Grasping at straws, Redd Splint.
I happen to know that at LEAST 4 of Rudy Rich's nursing home patients "endorsers" have died of old ago since he started his list.
(DEAD, like his campaign).
Red Spot, you were with the SIERRA CLUB and you're supporting the street-tree-killing Rudy?
Daaaamm!
That is some DEEP seated Huizar hating.
The more you tell about yourself, the more hypocritical you appear.
Passion before principals, right? Ends justify the meanies?
154 names (listed) supporting Huizar.
Known entities, dozens of which will be contacting their buds and colleagues all weekend long to get out the vote.
Rudy Rich don't own enough shoe leather to fight that.
BUH-bye Rudy.
1:52
What choice did you have... Alvin "DOH" Parra?
Hell, he probably didn't even vote for himself.
How many Huizar supoorters left the list, and went over to Martinez?
Or did they just all LAUGH if off, like one of the other blogs reported?
The same way they laughed off his advances from when his mama stole the lists and he tried to use them for proselyting... and got NO where in 6 months.
One of Rudy's BEST "political bullets" - the subject of several targeted mailings, and all it did was make Huizar supporters giggle and snicker (like they'll do at Rudy again Tuesday night).
2:07 p.m.
Time to offer more payoffs from the CLARTS Fund.
NOW, Mr. Johnson, you CAN'T have it both ways...
You can't HONESTLY (key word) say that Huizar spent the CLARTS funds for NON-amenities like "massive salaries" (which are set by City statutes anyway) and then ALSO say he "bought" the loyalty of community leaders with it (on those same kind of amenities that he supposedly DIDN'T supply).
Caught yourself in another LIE didn't you.
Just NOT your day (or election).
All of Huevon Huizzy's "wonkish political knowledge has equated to what? Oops! I remember now, the lazyest councilman as coined by his colleagues within the horseshoe.
Can you state to me one policy issue that Councilman Huizar conceived on his own that has come to fruition?
2:09 ("not Michael")
So, basically what Joe B. was saying... incompetent.
Pretty much sums up what I've though all along.
No way I'm voting for a guy who's been on the campaign trail since last spring and still knows less than an average neighborhood council board member learns in 3 months about how the City actually works.
What a disaster. What a fumbling, bumbling mess that would be. And the very first time he has to deal with competing opinions within a community (Week #2?) about what should happen there, he'll crumble into a mass of quivering jelly.
2:27
Pfaaaaaah!
(Wouldn't matter what I'd say, you say he DIDN'T really do it).
Do I look as dumb as you sound asking that?
FUNNY, how none of Huizar's colleagues are supporting the challenger.
If they think he's so "lazy" (and NO ONE was quoted, so I'm PRETTY sure the Weakly made that up), then they must think Rudy Martinez would be even WORSE to work with.
Yup, he would.
Hmmm, smart and lazy (able to get other people to do the work for him).
versus
DUMB, and "hard working" (but not hard working enough the LEARN anything about CD14 in nearly a year).
No contest.
Vote for the LAZY Huizar over the DUMB Martinez, any time.
We got enough DUMB skulls of much on City Council.
I got to wonder just how "lazy" Red Spot is, blogging away all day, on a work day?
Does your boss know this?
I'll best someone reading this knows who that is.
Memo to 2:22PM
No lies here except for the FACT that Huevon Huizzy sneaked multiple transfers totaling $1,045,000 dollars from the CLARTS Fund in the CBO' mid-year report, to be use for salaries.
That said, why can the "wonkish one" formulate some reports how the money was spent?
...and yes, how can you say that Huevon Huizzy is not buy votes with CLARTS proceeds?
2:41
Again, not even in English.
Take an extra 30 seconds, Red Spot. There's no point in trying to keep up with the other poster is no one can understand your rebuttal.
1:52
This is probably the best evidence I've seen yet that Red Spot is not a representative opinion in CD14.
As more and more community leaders and activists support Huizar (including many who supported Pacheco and even Parra in the past), and now even during a nasty campaign, Red spot has headed the OTHER way.
WAY, out of touch. (I'm amazed you can even remember how to drive home).
It's really not a "memo" Scott.
You're blogging? Do you pretend the phone's ringing when you text people, too?
Geez!
"Lazy" enough to win elections by landslides 4 times (5 by Tuesday night) in the past 10 years.
Hoooo ha!
All bloggin smack but no bloggin whack (ie. answers).
Try retorting with answers like for example, what policy iniative has Councilman Huizar conceived and implemented?
Why didn't district "frenemies" of Huizar jump ship to Martinez?
These were obviously people that didn't get the "graft" of CLARTS that people think is the reasons other ones stuck.
No movement, means there's NO support to Rudy and he's someone who, without his own money, wouldn't even still be in the race.
CD14 also deserves someone who'd invested here, like Huizar, and not someone trying to buy an office with his personal wealth.
2:58
Okay, just to keep the Spot busy.
...
for the elderly, mentaliy and physicaliy handicapped persons, and others in need of care
in residential surroundings
WHEREAS, existing law allows facilities that serve six or fewer residents to be
considered residential uses of the property, allowed to locate in any residential zone without local
land use permission, but facilities serving more than six residents must be licensed by the State
and are not aliowed to be located in residential zones without locai land use permission; and
WHEREAS residential care facilities provide rehabilitation and support services for those
who live in them; and
WHEREAS, there is no intent to stop the creation of residential care facilities for six or
fewer people; and
WHEREAS, there is a growing problem in some cities and parts of cities where
residential care facilities for six or fewer people are being over-concentrated in neighborhoods;
and
WHEREAS, the over-concentration of residential care facilities presents unique problems
and concerns for the community surrounding them, and can diminish the very residential
character these facilities wish to offer their patients and which the patients seek; and
WHEREAS, only certain categories of residential care facilities serving six and fewer
people are regulated by State law requiring a distance separation between like facilities of 300-
feet; and
WHEREAS there is a strong need to apply one state law to all such residential care
facility arrangements fairly and equitably; and
WHEREAS, this problem has been aggravated by differing Health and Safety Code
provisions (see chart attached, 1500, 1520.4, 1520.5, 1527, 1566, 1568, 1569 and 11834) for
differing types of residential care facilities for six or fewer people, all of which are regulated by a
number of State agencies, and all of which are preempted from local land use regulation per
State and federal law; and
WHEREAS, on September 8,2007, the General Assembly of the League of California
Cities supported the application of one State 300-foot distance separation law for ali new
residential care facilities for six and fewer people; and
WHEREAS, the City has historicaliy supported efforts that would prevent the overconcentration
of rehabilitation facilities in residential areas, including support for AB 3005 and AB
3007 which were not enacted;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, with the concurrence of the Mayor, that by the
adoption of this Resolution, the City of Los Angeles, hereby includes in its 2007-2008 State
Legislative Program SPONSORSHIP of legislation that would implement uniform distance
regulations for all new residential care facilities serving six and fewer people that will be
consistent with federal law. .' ~ ß __'
PRESENTED BY: ~!._l7
JOSEýfUI
C~ilmerrber, 14th District
seCONDr/ED ", ~'~
NOV 3
...
WHEREAS, the current foreclosure crisis has caused cities to suffer financially with lower
revenues, a spike in crime, and an increase in vacant properties leaving once thriving neighborhoods
destabilized and neglected and the target of vandalism; and
WHEREAS, this crisis is considered to be the result of unscrupulous lending practices by
lenders offering low rate subprime mortgages that have adjusted and resulting in households unable
to pay; and
WHEREAS, the foreclosure crisis has deepened and shifted to households, who are unable
to pay their primary mortgages and further exacerbating the symptom of this crisis; and
WHEREAS, the federal government has acted to address foreclosures by approving
legislation to stabilize neighborhoods in the most affected cities with recently approved legislatiou
such as the Neighborhood Stabilization Act (H.R. 3221) and the recent financial bailout ($700
billion) for banks, which includes a provision to assist homeowners with foreclosure prevention
services; and
WHEREAS, several States and cities have taken a more aggressive stance against
foreclosures by proposing a moratorium on foreclosures to allow households time to negotiate loan
modifications with their lenders; and
WHEREAS, legislators have proposed a similar policy to temporarily postpone foreclosures
for families making good faith efforts to pay their mortgage and negotiate with their lenders
favorable repayment terms to allow them to keep their homes, and
WHEREAS, the City should support and/or sponsor legislation that would prevent
homeowners from losing their homes to foreclosure including the establishment of a federal
moratorium on foreclosures to allow banks to renegotiate loans with homeowners;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that with the concurrence of the Mayor, that by
adoption of this Resolution, the City of Los Angeles hereby includes in its 2007-08 Federal
Legislative Program SUPPORT and/or SPONSORHIP oflegislation, and/or administrative action
which would impose a moratorium on foreclosures for a limited time to allow banks to renegotiate
loans with homeowners.
PRESENTED BY: =-=::f:-::==~=--------
JO
OCT 28 2008
AG
...
On June 30, 2006, the City of Vernon applied to the California Energy Commission for
certification to build a 943 megawatt combined-cycle power generating facility in Vernon
(CEC docket nurnber 06-AFC-4). Vernon's certification proceeding is ongoing.
The proposed power plant will produce much more energy than required for the City of
Vernon's power needs. In addition, introduction of a fossil fuel-fired power plant will most
certainly have a negative impact on air quality for generations.
Vernon's Application for Certification states that the proposed power plant, when operational,
will emit 432,248 pounds of nitrogen oxides, 32,431 pounds of sulfur oxides, 119,864 pounds
of volatile organic compounds, 453,431 pounds of carbon monoxide and 294,133 pounds of
PM10 particulates per year. These emissions are dangerous; they are associated with smog,
cancer, asthma and other respiratory diseases. The South Coast Air Quality Management
District, moreover, has estimated that emissions from the power plant will result in an
increase in annual adult mortality of 4-12 persons in the area that would be typically modeled
as part of the preparation of a health risk assessment.
These power plant emissions will not only affect the residents of Vernon, they will directly and
dangerously affect children and families of neighboring communities including Boyle Heights.
The unpredictability of prevailing winds are such that emissions from the power plant are very
likely to blow towards the City of Los Angeles. Many neighborhoods in eastern and southern
Los Angeles are already heavily impacted by pollution from industrial facilities, diesel trucks
and other harmful emission sources.
It is imperative that the City of Los Angeles protects the interests, health and well-being of its
residents. We have consulted with the City Attorney who strongly supports the City's
intervention in the ongoing proceedings.
I THEREFORE, MOVE that the Los Angeles City Council oppose development of the
City of Vernon's proposed new 943-megawatt power plant due to the likelihood of increased
adverse health impacts on children and families in Los Angeles due to the increased toxic
emissions produced by the proposed power plant;
i FURTHER MOVE that Council authorize the City Attorney to intervene, on behalf of
the City of Los Angeles, in California Energy Commission docket number 06-AFC-4 (City of
Vernon power plant) for the purpose of insuring that toxic emissions from the proposed
Vernon power plant are reduced and mitigated to the maximum extent possible using Best
Available Control Technologies to ensure the health and welfare of our City's residents are
being protected.
PRESENTED BY: ~
SECONDED BY:
J E UIZAR
ouncilmember, 14th District M fL
, ,-i ._,"".~ 01-371/
£
...
WHEREAS, as of July 1,2010 the Department of Recreation & Parks no longer offers a State
licensed child care program for school-aged kids and the staff positions involved have all been
eliminated; and
WHEREAS, over 900 children took part in this program and while many are currently enrolled
in summer Day Camp programs their parents will struggle to find places to take care of them
while they are at work once Recreation & Parks' summer programming ends on August 27; and
WHEREAS, Recreation & Parks still offers limited Childcare programming after school, but is
limited by State law under 16 hours of weekly service, which makes it unrealistic for many
parents, who are at work unable able to arrange transportation to their local Childcare center; and
WHEREAS, the City of Los Angeles employs many of the same safeguards for its employees
that work at its Childcare centers as the State mandates for licensed facilities, such as performing
criminal background checks on all employees to ensure that they are not dangerous; and
WHEREAS, the Girl Scouts, Boys Scouts, Boys Clubs, Girls Club, Camp Fire and other groups
such as the YMCA are exempted from State licensing rules due to their nonprofit status and long
track record providing recreational services to young people; and
WHEREAS, LAUSD is implementing "sh011 days" every other Tuesday for its students this
coming school year, has shortened its school calendar by approximately two weeks, and is also
holding more staff training days as cost cutting measures; and
WHEREAS, the City should seek the same kind of flexibility that community-based nonprofits
that offer similar services current receive, with 25 hours of service allowed per week and an
extension of the number of exempt weeks that service can be provided from 12 to 16; and
WHEREAS, without action by the State to loosen its rules around Childcare service hours, the
City does not appear to have the resources to re-launch a full-fledge Daycare program;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, with the concurrence of the Mayor, that by the
adoption of this Resolution, the City of Los Angeles hereby includes in its 2011-2012 State
Legislative Program SPONSORSHIP of legislation to provide municipalities with greater
flexibility in dealing with the California Code of Regulation's Title 22, Section 101158(7)(A)(1)
and 101158(7)(A)2 limited hour and weeks requirement of operating a "municipally certified"
Childcare center, provided that they first adopt local laws that parallel State protections for
children by performing background checks on their employees and provide for staff training,
PRESENTED BY: Joe Huizar
...
WHEREAS, the City of Los Angeles has the highest number off oster youth of any City in the
State of California; and
WHEREAS, as of December 2007, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family
Services reported that approximately 8,341 foster youth were enrolled in the Los Angeles Unified School
District (LAUSD); and
WHEREAS, Latino students compromised the largest proportion offoster youth (57 percent) and
while African-American students comprised 11 percent of the overall LAUSD student body, 35 percent
offoster students were African-American; and
WHEREAS, it is estimated that foster youth are moved to a new place of residence once every six
months and recent research suggests that they lose an average of four to six months of educational
attaimuent each time a residential move occurs accompanied by a change in school placement; and
WHEREAS, these educational disruptions and other obstacles lead to foster youth frequently falling
behind in school; and
WHEREAS, according to a recent report by the Child Welfare League of America, the number of
changes in a youths' foster placement creates at least one severe academic skill delay, which leads to lower
graduation rates for foster youth; and
WHEREAS, an estimated 50 percent offoster youth graduate from high school compared with 70
percent of their peers, and of these high school graduates, only 20 percent enroll in post-secondary
education compared to 60 percent of their peers; and
WHEREAS, currently pending before the State Assembly is AB 167 (Adams) which would allow
foster youth in grades 11thand 12thwho have transferred to a new school district to earn a high school
diploma based on state graduation requirements;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE ITRESOL VED, with the concurrence of the Mayor, that by the adoption
of this Resolution, the City of Los Angeles hereby includes in its 2009-2010 State Legislative Program
SUPPORT of AB 167 (Adams), which would permit foster children who transition to a new school district
in their junior or senior year to be only required to meet state standards for high school graduation and not
the graduation requirements that may be imposed by tho governing body of /".r:OOI district. ,
PRESENTED BY: HJose Huizar
...
WHEREAS, existing State law authorizes the governing board of a school district to establish a
security department under the supervision of a Chief of Police, as designated by, and under the
direction of, the superintendent of the school district; and
WHEREAS, AB 1390 (Blumenfield), would require that a school security or police department
report in writing any incident of criminal activity involving a firearm that occurs on a school site
under control of the school district to the appropriate law enforcement agency having jurisdiction
over the area in which the incident occurred within 24 hours; and
WHEREAS, the bill also calls for the seizure or surrender of a firearm to a school security
officer or school peace officer to be reported; and
WHEREAS, this information is important to collect in a timely manner so that local law
enforcement agencies can coordinate patrols to respond to any new crime trends; and
WHEREAS, the Los Angeles School Police Department already has such a policy for incidents
that occur on and LAUSD campus and regularly reports incident to the LAPD or LASD; and
WHEREAS, the State Constitution ensures that the State will reimburse local districts for the
cost of providing this information to local law enforcement agencies as this bill would impose a
state-mandated program; and
WHEREAS, this simple measure will ensure that local law enforcement agencies have a full
picture of what is happening on and around school campuses, allowing them to provide support
for those areas that are in need of additional patrols.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, with the concurrence of the Mayor, that by the
adoption of this Resolution, the City of Los Angeles hereby includes in its 2009-2010 State
Legislative Program SUPPORT for AB 1390 (Blumenfield), which would require that all school
security or police departments report in writing any incident of criminal activity involving a
firearm that occurs on a school site under control of the school district to the appropriate law
'enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the area in which the incident occurred.
PRESENTED BY; Jose Huizar
...
I MOVE that the Rules & Elections and Budget & Finance Committees' Reports and
amending motion (Huizar-Garcetti) relative to removing the cap on the maximum
allowable amount that can be contained in the Matching Funds Program Trust Fund,
Item 27 on today's Council agenda, be amended as follows:
1) REQUEST the City Attorney to prepare and present a ballot title and resolution that
would amend the City Charter to remove the cap on the maximum allowable amount
that can be contained in the Public Matching Funds Program Trust Fund and make
other changes. The ballot measure should also include the following components:
a) Amend Section 471 to allow, during a fiscal year in which the Council has
declared an official fiscal emergency or that one remains in effect, suspension of
any amount of that year's annual appropriation, as defined in Section 471(c)1, so
long as the Public Matching Funds Trust Fund balance is greater than
$8,000,000 in 1990 dollars adjusted based on the CPI, upon a 2/3 vote of the
City Council. The language should make clear that Council must consider input
from the City Ethics Commission regarding estimated public funding required for
the next four years before taking the vote to suspend the annual appropriation.
b) Amend Section 471(a) to update the "findings and purposes" section of the
City Charter to better comply with recent court decisions. The goal of this
change is to reduce City exposure to potential costly legal challenges, similar to
the action the Council recently took in adopting the City Attorney's suggestions
for removing language that might be vulnerable to a lawsuit (CF#10-1012).
c) Amend Section 706(c) and Section 470(0)(2)(B) of the City Charter to increase
maximum allowable administrative penalties for repeated ethics violations such
as illegal contributions from 3 to 5 times the violation amount. The goal of this
change is to further enhance penalties against those who violate City laws.
2) INSTRUCT the CLA, in collaboration with the California Clean Money Campaign and
the City Ethics Commission, to report to the Rules & Elections Committee within 90
days with their proposals for how to best strengthen the City's current public matching
funds system for all elected officials, per the Council instruction on July 5, 2006 (Motion
Garcetti/RosendahI/Greuel-Cardenas, CF#05-1536).
PRESENTED Jose Huizar
...
I MOVE that the Rules & Elections and Budget & Finance Committees' Reports and
amending motion (Huizar-Garcetti) relative to removing the cap on the maximum
allowable amount that can be contained in the Matching Funds Program Trust Fund,
Item 27 on today's Council agenda, be amended as follows:
1) REQUEST the City Attorney to prepare and present a ballot title and resolution that
would amend the City Charter to remove the cap on the maximum allowable amount
that can be contained in the Public Matching Funds Program Trust Fund and make
other changes. The ballot measure should also include the following components:
a) Amend Section 471 to allow, during a fiscal year in which the Council has
declared an official fiscal emergency or that one remains in effect, suspension of
any amount of that year's annual appropriation, as defined in Section 471(c)1, so
long as the Public Matching Funds Trust Fund balance is greater than
$8,000,000 in 1990 dollars adjusted based on the CPI, upon a 2/3 vote of the
City Council. The language should make clear that Council must consider input
from the City Ethics Commission regarding estimated public funding required for
the next four years before taking the vote to suspend the annual appropriation.
b) Amend Section 471(a) to update the "findings and purposes" section of the
City Charter to better comply with recent court decisions. The goal of this
change is to reduce City exposure to potential costly legal challenges, similar to
the action the Council recently took in adopting the City Attorney's suggestions
for removing language that might be vulnerable to a lawsuit (CF#10-1012).
c) Amend Section 706(c) and Section 470(0)(2)(B) of the City Charter to increase
maximum allowable administrative penalties for repeated ethics violations such
as illegal contributions from 3 to 5 times the violation amount. The goal of this
change is to further enhance penalties against those who violate City laws.
2) INSTRUCT the CLA, in collaboration with the California Clean Money Campaign and
the City Ethics Commission, to report to the Rules & Elections Committee within 90
days with their proposals for how to best strengthen the City's current public matching
funds system for all elected officials, per the Council instruction on July 5, 2006 (Motion
Garcetti/RosendahI/Greuel-Cardenas, CF#05-1536).
PRESENTED BY: Jose Huizar
You probably wouldn't even post the "policy" initiatives, Rid Splurt.
They'd make you look stupid for saying tehre are none.
...
WHEREAS, the City of Los Angeles believes displaced workers and their families need as much
assistance as possible in these tough economic times from all levels of government; and
WHEREAS, the County of Los Angeles had a 12.3% unemployment rate as of June 2010; and
WHEREAS, food banks and other charitable organizations have seen increases in the number of
people waiting in line for food and have been unable to keep their pantries filled; and
WHEREAS, an estimated 5 million tons of usable food are wasted annually in California; and
WHEREAS, in September of2009 the City endorsed SB 35 (Oropeza) to create a food-donation
database which contains information for those interested in donating and receiving food to
improve the communications between food banks and restaurants (CF#09-0002-S99); and
WHEREAS, the bill also called for including a section in all contracts for food catering that
informs the purchaser of the availability of food collection agencies to pick up unused food from
events as well as how to find out the location of nearby food banks and pantries; and
WHEREAS, based on concerns about the potential cost of a State-operated database Senator
Oropeza this year submitted SB 1269 as a preliminary step in seeking the goals of SB 35; and
WHEREAS, SB 1269 directs the state Department of Food and Agriculture and the Department
of Public Health to post information on food donation liability protections and tax deduction
information on their Web sites to help reduce legal concerns among potential donors; and
WHEREAS, the liability information would be a reflection ofthe protections currently afforded
under federal (Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Donation Act) and state law (California's Civil,
Health and Safety and Food and Agriculture codes).
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, with the concurrence of the Mayor, that by the adoption of
this Resolution, the City of Los Angeles hereby includes in its 2009-10 State Legislative
Program SUPPORT for SB 1269 to facilitate food donations by notifying donors of existing
liability protections.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Legislative Analyst be directed to investigate what
steps would be required for the City or County to pass legislation requiring local caterers to
include in any contracts for catering information about how to donate unused food to charities.
PRESENTEDBY:~Jose Huziar
...
The Mayor recently released the City budget and today the Budget &Finance Committee
will hold the first of several hearings to review it. As part of this effort, the City's website
includes links to all of the relevant documents. The idea behind this is to make it as easy as
possible for the public to inform itself about what is being proposed in order to respond.
One area where the Council's budget process could be enhanced, is as it pertains to the
City's three proprietary departments. While not technically under the Council's purview,
events of the past few weeks have shown how interconnected all City departments are,
whether it be the Power revenue transfer or efforts to move employees of the General Fund.
While on the same fiscal schedule as the rest ofthe City, proprietary departments often
release their budgets toward the end of the Council's budgetary process. Regardless, the
public has a right to know where its money is going, regardless of whether a department is
proprietary or not, and to see if any of it is being used in a wasteful manner.
ITHEREFORE MOVE that the Information Technology Agency be requested, with the
assistance of the Harbor Department, LAWA and Department of Water & Power, to post
copies of the proposed budgets for the City's three proprietary departments on the City's
website, along with other budget information, as soon as that information is released.
PRESENTED BY: Jose Huizar
...
I HEREBY MOVE that Council approve the following recommendations relative to using
Vote-by-Mail elections in certain elections:
1. REQUEST the City Attorney, with the City Clerk, to prepare and present an Ordinance to
amend the City's Election Code to allow the City Clerk to conduct the next
unconsolidated single Council District Special Election with all voters receiving Vote-By-
Mail ballots in conjunction with in-person voting at a traditional number of polling places.
2. DIRECT the City Clerk to report back to Council with the results of the subject Special
Election with findings and recommendations for future single-district Special Elections.
PRESENTEDBY __ ~~~-= __
JOSE HUIZAR
Councilmember, 14thDistrict
...
On January 26th
, 2010 the Council adopted Ordinance No.. 181069 regulating
Medical Marijuana Collectives in the City .. On April 23rd, the Council adopted Ordinance
No. 181157, the corresponding fee ordinance which outlines the costs and processes
associated with processing, monitoring and enforcement of collectives.
These Ordinances do not specifically mention mobile medical marijuana
collectives; however, such means by which to deliver and/or distribute marijuana are
already a crime under state law and there is no authority for them under the City's
medical marijuana ordinance. Transportation of medical marijuana is still a crime, with
no medical marijuana defense, except where the transport of medical marijuana is by a
qualified patient for his/her personal medical use or by a primary caregiver for use by
his/her qualified patient. The definition of a primary caregiver is very narrow and the
delivery services that are now appearing in the City and on the Internet win not likely
meet that definition.
The City has received dozens of complaints regarding this new ruse that has
arisen in an attempt to circumvent City and state regulations governing the City's
collectives. As such, it will be in the best interest of the City, and provide clarification to
the public, if the Council were to explicitly prohibit any delivery service unless it operates
in full compliance with Ordinance No. 181069 and existing state law, both of which
prohibit the transportation of medical marijuana to a qualified patient except by his/her
primary caregiver.
I THEREFORE MOVE that the City Attorney be requested to prepare an
amendment to Ordinance No. 181069 on an emergency basis, to clarify the ordinance
and explicitly ban all marijuana collectives, clinics, dispensaries, delivery services, or
operations that transport medical marijuana to a qualified patient or to a primary
caregiver, except where the transport. is occurring by a qualified patient for his/her own
personal medical use, or by a primary caregiver for the personal medical use of his/her
qualified patients.
PRESENTED BY: Jose Huizar
More bloggin smack minus the whack. Shall we examine?
Why didn't district "frenemies" of Huizar jump ship to Martinez? (Thousands have. After all, every constituent on Huevon Huizzy should consider equal).
These were obviously people that didn't get the "graft" of CLARTS that people think is the reasons other ones stuck. (Then there are commission appointments, non-profit contracts and CRA contracts that could handle their needs.)
No movement, means there's NO support to Rudy and he's someone who, without his own money, wouldn't even still be in the race. (Give the man credit for banking on himself and not Special Interests like the Huevon one)
CD14 also deserves someone who'd invested here, like Huizar, and not someone trying to buy an office with his personal wealth.(Idiot said, idiot post statements without knowing of Martinez's investments in Eagle Rock).
Huizar's sponsored more policy initiative since Jan. 1, 2011 than the last guy (ONE-BILL Tony V.) did in his whole 24 months on council.
I don't recall Nick Pacheco being a big "policy" by, either.
Rudy Rich has NO choice but to self fund.
He collected less than HALF what that idiot Parra did, 4 years ago, from others. And Rudy started his campaign MOTHS before Parra did.
When someone has only ONE way to get into office, I don't give them "CREDIT" for doing it that way.
Sometime the lack of FINANCIAL SUPPORT for a candidate is CLUE #1.
He CAN'T do the job, so why would anyone help HIRE him?
Part of "investing" in the community is running a BAR in a college town?
SH*T don't waste my time with that STUPID response.
One cranky woman in Boyle yelling at Huizar about LIQUOR licenses, when she's supporting a candidate who HAS TWO liquor licenses HIMSELF, including one for a SLEAZY bar in a neighborhod that JUST didn't NEED any more.
Invest also means TIME and PRESENCE. The carpetbagging GLENDALE Republican gets credit for NEITHER.
Let me browse your hany work for a moment......
Rid Spurt, for each policy posted that Huizar authord, there's 12-15 others on his Website - some minor, some more major, including some ON the current ballot for next Tues.
(When was the LAST time a CD14 councilmember put something ON the ballot for US to decide on... NEVER??)
And, NO, they're NOT just from the last year when Rudy presented a (fake) challenge. They're from EVERY year Huizar has been in office.
You have time to prove that all 100+ or so of these Council motions were not "REALLY" Huizar's policy moves, or are you just gonna wallow in your own "lack of whack".
You've been lulled to sleep by your own hatred, and ignore the actual record.
Huizar has been VERY busy policy wise. Whether you agree with them or not, he's put more things forward to improve L.A. than the last 3 councilmembers combine.
Sorry, you're just FLAT wrong, and blinded by anger.
How many were implemented as laws?
BTW, you forgot about the "DWP Ratepayer Advocate" or did you not want to cite that example.
3:19
Yeah, then when you're done with these select few, let me know when you want the other 100+ Huizar POLICY motions pasted here...
Hoooooo, ha!
(that oughta keep you from knockin on doors for Rudy Rich; not that you would have anyway... all "SMACK" - no "WHACK!"
3:24
I "forgot" 100 others...
Just say when?
When does the "whack" back start, Rid Spurt.
So far, just "smack" from you, when confronted with REAL evidence.
OH, but the one RUDY's against, to keep POT shops off every corner in L.A. IS there.
If Rudy Rich SOMEHOW got elected to 3 full terms he'd be lucky to sponsor ONE initiative, and it would probably be to allow CIGARETTE SMOKING inside City Hall again, or maybe to issue each councilmember a POLICE BADGE, so hey can pretend to be COPS and pick up coeds.
Did you ever even bother to look on Huizar site or City, for policy initiatives?
All "smack" Rid Spurt.
You've been shut down.
I count one possible new city ordinance out of the whole bunch.
.... and we know Medical Marijuana is still a growth business in Eagle Rock.
Take care my friend and update the resume.
But this also plays to the earlier point, about Rudy not having any plan to move things forward
As several local media pointed out, after 8-12 months trying out for the job, he's still talking vague generalities.
Not even first inkling of a "policy" he'll actually implement, if elected, or what it would require, whether it's even legal, can be paid for, etc.
Nothing!
Rudy's got squat!
BTW, time to go play kickball on the I-5
3:34
You're full of Sh*t Red Spot, this is exactly whats someone else said you'd do, BS out once your HUGE lie was exposed, that Huizar HAS created tons of positive legislation for the City
Coward.
You want the next 50 posted?
Nah, you'll say the same cowardly exit statement. No guts, no intellect to read the major moves taken.
Each of those policies did, or have the potential to effect and improve the lives and livings of thousands within L.A.
You lose; your guy is still clueless and Huizar HAS been improving Cd14, more so than the last three guys in that chair, by FAR.
(And my resume has NOTHING to do with working for the City of L.A., unlike a certain "loser" and COWARD who posts here).
I actually EARN my living from private funds.
3:39
Another cowardly dismissal.
I hope you carry mace, cuz' you'd be a real pussy in an actual streetfight on the eastside..
Red Spot takes his bow, tucks tail between his legs, runs away, and keeps hoping for the day when every corner has a sleazy Rudy Rich bar on it.
Are you going to endorse the School Board and Community College Board?
Heard today that the LA Times cut a deal to NOT weigh in on the Community College Board because then the LA Times would have to endorse the reform candidates (after the current LA Times investigative series on LACCD finishes running). Wouldn't want to advocate for reform... right LA Times Editors?
Bloggin notice to the vile poster between 3:40-3:42,
Pay quick attention to your comments before deletion takes place.
Try engaging in the discipline of rhetoric without resorting to verbaige that congnates violence.
Please note that future posts will merit deletion. Lets debate within reason.
Thanks,
Scott
3:40
Don't get frustrated. Everyone who comes here who actually knows anything about CD14 knows Red Spot is full of it.
What he reports he mostly makes up, and what proves him wrong he ignores.
Complete and utter cognitive dissonance; lying to himself as much as to everyone else.
Hey, RS, didn't your NC just ASK for a bunch of CLARTS funds (er, um, "bribery for support") at a recent meeting?
Suddenly is a "good" thing to get Huizar to "quin pro quo" you? (But, I suppose out of "principle" you voted against the GRAFT).
You're going wait for Rudy to take office and then have him tell you to VOLUNTEER some funds to YOURSELF!
Hoooo ha!
Since you ask.......
Yes, The LA32NC did ask Councilman Huizar to use CLARTS Fund to take care of several issues.
After all, what is fair and funded for Eagle Rock, should be also done for the El Sereno Community.
Aw, that's just petty B.S. Reed Spit. You call someone out saying Huizar don't do policy, he call you it it posts a dozen, says there's another hundred on Huizar's Website (where YOU said the CLARTS breakdown should go - to be fair).
Then you just say, "not important" because you obviously never heard of any of them, or don't care about the issues.
THEN, in a final wave-off you just try to pretend that person works for Huizar, or that they're getting personal, so you can just IGNORE their posts or not publish them.
It's probably one of Huizar 154 ENDORSERS posting against you. (Rudy's endorsers are still sharing one manual typewriter at the nursing home.)
If you're not up to the fight, don't call people out, RS.
I ask a simple question which I will state again "Name me one policy iniative conceived and implemented by Councilman Huizar".
This was a simple request, pain and simple.
But your retort...
You call someone out saying Huizar don't do policy, (your words cut and pasted).
Is false and merits no further response.
"merits no further response"
Is what's known in the "debating" trade as a cop out.
You came armed with a slingshot, Red Spot, and thought everyone else was just gonna show up with pea-shooters.
Dude, you're a waste of blog space.
Please tell us ONCE AGAIN, how there's NO alcohol allowed in Rec & Parks facilities!
(Hooooooo , ha!)
It's just SO easy!
Weasel words, Rid Splout.
You got bested by some anonymous person with a search engine and a link to Huizar City site.
Called your bluff, and has more to post...
http://cd14.lacity.org/YOUR_LEGISLATION/index.htm
DOZENS of different policy initiatives in categories you can't even SPELL.
Leaving so soon, Scott.
The "debate" just got started?
OH, you're "offended" by having to actually READ and THINK.
(Not usually how you post things here, huh?)
From LA Times:
"Advertisers said that at the peak of the real estate boom three years ago they could make as much as $100,000 a month by placing one supergraphic on a high-rise.
CBS Outdoor has long been a player in the city’s billboard policies, supporting candidates and retaining lobbyists at City Hall.
On Thursday, the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission reported that CBS Outdoor spent $12,000 on billboards in Highland Park and Boyle Heights promoting Councilman Jose Huizar, who is running Tuesday for reelection.
Huizar serves on the council’s powerful Planning and Land Use Management Committee, which reviews billboard issues".
Why would anyone want to elect this corrupt Huizar supported by the scourge of LA; THE BILLBOARD COMPANIES.
That's pretty funny, 5:13 p.m.
Rudy's dumped about $20-25K into paying the L.A. Times for their "endorsement" since it came out, in ads.
YOU KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE WITH HUIZAR. I THINK THE CHOICE IS CLEAR. WHY STICK WITH THE SAME BRAND THAT POISONS YOU, THAT'S STUPID! RUDY MAYBE BETTER THAN YOU THINK. LOOK AT YOUR OPTIONS. YOU COULD HAVE RUN. SADLY ELECTIONS ARE CONTROLLED BY ELITE POWER BROKERS WHO DEPEND ON YOUR IGNORANCE AND APATHY TO WIN ELECTIONS. THEY USE MONEY AND POSITION TO TIP THE ODDS THEIR WAY. ELECTIONS SHOULD BE OPEN TO AVERAGE CITIZENS NOT JUST POLISHED TALKING HEADS RUN BY A GROUP OF RICH POWER ELITISTS. THIS WHY WE NEED TO CLOSE THE MONEY GATE. IT'S A START AT TRUE REFORM. BY LAW ALL CANDIDATES SHOULD HAVE THEIR FUNDS DIVIDED EQUALLY AMONGST EACH CANDIDATE THEN WE WILL ALL SEE HOW THEY SPEND THOUGH'S FUNDS. IT COULD OPEN ELECTIONS TO PEOPLE WHO SHOULD WIN NOT THOUGH'S WHO DO.
CD14 WILL NOT VOTE FOR HUIZAR, HIS EMPLOYEES ARE ON THE BLOGS 24/7TRYING TO KEEP THEIR JOBS, LITTLE DO THEY KNOW, EITHER WAY THEY WILL NOT HAVE A JOB. hUIZAR IS TRAILING BEHIND AND SOME ON THE PHONE AND WALKERS FOR BOYH CANDIDATES KNOW THAT VERY WELL. PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT HUIZAR WOULD CONTINUE HIS WAYS AND WILL BE WORST. HUIZAR HAS COMMITED MORE SERIOUS CRIMES ON THE PEOPLE OF HIS COMMUNITY AND THE INVESTIGATION WILL BE CONCLUDED AFTER MARCH 8. WHY IS WENDY GRUEL KEEPING SILENT ON THE CLARTS FUNDS AUDIT? THEY CANNOT DISCLOSE ANY INVESTIGATIONS DURING THE LAST PART OF THE CAMPAIGN. HUIZAR IS USING PEOPLE TO WIN, MAKING THEM STAND WITH HIM ON LIES, WAIT TILL THEY FIND OUT,,, AND THEY WILL, BECAUSE THEY ALREADY LOOK UNINFORM, VERY MINIMUM EDUCATION, SOME HAVE NEVER LEFT THEIR COMMUNITY, AND BELIEVE JOSE IS HONEST, AND CHURCH GOING, FAMILY MAN, HOWEVER THAT IS THE ONLY POSITIVE THING HE CAN PRESENT HIS WIFE AND CHILDREN.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home