Los Angeles Politics Hotsheet for Tuesday
Redistricting is underway for the County Board of Supervisors. Efforts are underway to draw districts as such so that County Supervisors of certain ethnicities are more likely to be elected. I might be wrong, but seems to me that was made illegal long ago.
Here's some more dispatches from the Nanny State Gazette:
In an interesting twist, nanny staters who want to control what people eat offered a "fruit for soda" exchange in Koreatown. Two individuals showed up to trade soda for fruits. We certainly do want people to eat more fruit and drink less soda. But it's up to people to make these choices as organizers of the exchange found out. Let's hope this doesn't motivate them to seek government to mandate people must turn in their soda for fruit.
In addition to banning circumcision (which by the way has been opposed by Assemblyman Mike Gatto) San Francisco now wants to ban the sale of pets in the city. When that happens San Franciscans will just go to Milbrae or San Mateo or Palo Alto or Oakland to get their pets. Apparently San Francisco has no other problems than men without foreskin or children with guinea pigs.
Labels: circumcision, dwp, lausd, nanny state, pets, redistricting, san francisco
Posted by Michael Higby @ 6/28/2011 12:02:00 AM
12 Comments:
What is the Red Spot's stance of the issues of today?
In the redistricting process, groups will submit plans that give their side the greatest opportunity to own one or more of their own. Then the compromising begins.
One thing that the Federal Voting Rights Act doesn't allow is for lines to be drawn in a way that prevents certain minority groups from a legitimate opportunity to vote as a block. You can't divide ethic groups in order to hold them down.
Latinos are nearly 50% of the County's population. You would think, therefore, that 2 of the 5 supervisors would be Latino.
In the end, the courts may have to decide.
Higby,
In the future, please learn how to spell a person's name correctly.
Like Steve S-O-B-O-R-O-F-F.
I would have pointed this out yesterday, but I don't like you.
Perhaps the DWP rates for LAUSD should be linked to the % of each class that graduates.
A step to eliminating corruption and increase accountability is to at least double the number of city council members and county supervisors.
The more there are the more it takes for special interest groups to buy them. So that would be a challenge for them.
Second, lowering the number of constituents they represent will increase accountability.
Of course, this would mean cutting their pay, preferably by $70K.
Isn't Soboroff spelled "A - H O L E"?
WASHINGTON - A former chief of staff to Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) wrote Tuesday that his former boss is "decidedly" not ready to be president.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2011106280331
Trojan:
Without changing the system all you will get by adding more City Councilmembers who don't care and who keep getting into trouble.
The idea was on the ballot in 1999 and was soundly defeated. Come up with some new, compelling arguments.
There are 435 members of the House of Representatives. How's that working out? Their approval rating is down to about 17%.
For those who don't know, OBAMA IS AGAINST GAY MARRAIGE.
2:27...
There's aren't enough members of congress either!!!
The reason it was defeated before was because special interests don't want it. They don't spend that much to buy 8 or 9 votes. You think they want to buy 20?
Now, imagine if your council district was cut in half.
You don't think it would be easier to get the clown to do his/her job or facing losing it?
By increasing the number we are changing the system.
Trojan is right...
Here is a good way to fix the problem..
The City of Paris has 20 arrondissements that define physical neighborhoods. Each arrondissement has a council and a Mayor. The arrondissement mayor represents the district at Citywide meetings. This means there are about 163 Council member for 2.2 million people and one Mayor. This type of system could work very easily in Los angeles, replacing both the City and neighborhood Council systems. Our Council people have too much power and have stopped working for the people of Los Angeles. The neighborhood Councils have no power. We can fix this with a new City Charter.
The reasons that the charter amendments to increase the size of the City Council failed were (1) nobody was convinced that adding more of the same kind of people would make things better, and (2) that costs would go up.
Once a legislative body gets too big, like Congress, state legislatures, and some City Councils blocs and parties take over. The blocs have leaders who call most of the shots. Each House Representatives voice isn't 1/435th of the whole. Like being part of a gang, if you don't vote with your party or bloc, you're punished.
In the City Council, each member is an equal from the start with the Council President being a slight exception.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home