Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Mayor Sam's Hotsheet for Wednesday

The LA Chamber of Commerce has been bamboozled! After they managed to get enough signatures to place a referendum on the ballot to overturn the so called "living wage" law, a nervous City Council called business leaders to the table to forge a compromise. Today the City Council approved a new living wage law that is pretty much the same as the old law and is nothing like the compromise the businesses expected.

Martini Republic asks "Grand Avenue - why bother?" Now that the unions, developers, shady corrupt politicians and poverty pimps learned how to make money together by screwing everyone else.

Andrew of Here in Van Nuys decided to do some photography at Van Nuys City Hall - that is until some crazy old lady shouted him down and then tried to chase him with her vehicle. In the strangest of coincidences this old lady turned out to be Miriam - guest of Zuma Dogg and Mayor Sam on our latest podcast show!

Want to get a credit card without giving your social security number or having good credit? B of A is giving them out - but apparently you have to be an illegal alien to get the card.

Don Garza has done some detective work - LA Times scribe Steve Lopez is not Mexican! He is of Spanish descent (like Penelope Cruz).

Fun video from the Monrovia City Clowncil at the Foothill Cities blog. Interesting that the Council opens up with a Christian prayer. But the real fun is during public comment about 17 minutes into the video.

Good news for mobile bloggers. Mayor V is promising free citywide WiFi service by 2010. A number of locations across the city such as the Van Nuys Civic Center and the NoHo Arts District already provide this service albeit in limited geographic zones.


Anonymous Anonymous said:

LA Chamber was S-T-U-P-I-D to agree to a new ordinance. They might as well tell all businesses to move out of the City of LA to surrounding cities as the City Clowncil advances their crazy plan to unionize every worker, student, and housewife in the city.

February 14, 2007 12:29 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Lopez acknowledged his Spanish heritage a long time ago in one of his columns.

February 14, 2007 4:41 AM  

Blogger Patrick Meighan said:

Mayor Sam and Walter, I would think you might want to celebrate this ordinance. After all, you feared that the hotels were about to get sweetheart tax breaks to offset this living wage, and it appears that those tax breaks aren't happening after all. To quote Walter (from back on 1/31):

"The City Clowncil, knowing that voters would reject its illegal attempt to hike wages for one industry in one part of town, decided to compromise by cutting taxes for the hotels in exchange for the hotels using the savings to pay higher wages.

So everyone's happy, except you, of course, will need to make up the difference by paying higher taxes. But they'll wait to announce that part."

So this appears to be a win for Walter Moore and Mayor Sam. It looks like there will be no tax breaks for the hotels. Congratulations on your victory, Mayor Sam and Walter, and congratulations to the hard-working employees of these hotels who now, hopefully, will be able to support their families on their wages.

If Walter is still upset that this ordinance targets just one small segment of our city, I join him in his disappointment and, like Walter, I hope that this ordinance can be expanded to provide a livable wage to all of the hard-working folks across Los Angeles.

Congratulations again,

Patrick Meighan
Los Angeles Greens

February 14, 2007 8:09 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Let's see Clowncil will be sued for
Grand Ave. project
Sued for "living ordinance"
They support ILLEGALS and now B of A is giving illegals credit cards with no social security or credit history or legal documentation. This is really scary and a terrorist issue.

.....Overcoming concerns about conflict-of-interest allegations, the Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday approved a $400,000 contract extension for a law firm led by a former campaign co-chairman for City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo.

The council voted unanimously to extend a $1.2-million contract, without new competitive bidding, with the law firm Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy to assist the city attorney in representing the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power in a $218-million lawsuit against Reliant Energy over natural gas contracts.

A partner in the firm, Joseph W. Cotchett, was co-chairman of Delgadillo's unsuccessful campaign for state attorney general last year and he and other attorneys in the firm contributed $5,500 to a Delgadillo campaign committee in 2004.

As reported last week by The Times, a veteran prosecutor in Delgadillo's office has sued the city attorney, alleging that she was retaliated against after blowing the whistle on a potential conflict of interest involving the Cotchett law fir

What a bunch of morons!!!!

February 14, 2007 8:14 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

LA Slimes once again tries to spins with their headline.

LAPD panel rejects permit for immigrants' protest...Board rebuts charges of bias, citing conflict with annual Golden Dragon Parade on Feb. 24, and urges organizers to move rally to next day.

THE FACT IS THE IMMIGRANTS person sent their permit to the wrong office and it didn't reach the right office until a week AFTER the Golden Dragon Parade had theirs in. Guiterrez the organizer ranted that flyers and publicity was already out in the city. IDIOT should have waited to get permit first. Now he's trying to spin it and say the city doesn't want immigrants voicing their 1st amendment rights.

Losers losers losers. This is what clowncil has done to our city. IF these losers don't get their way they put out bullshit and demand.

February 14, 2007 8:42 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I hope the LAX hotels biz community slaps this ordinance down -- hard. Time to make an example. They have the resources to do so.

February 14, 2007 8:57 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I can’t help but laugh at the turn of events between the LA City Council and the LA Chamber.

With the Chamber just coming off the heals of attempting to give the Council a third term in office, they must of thought they would have been treated better.

Sorry, when you deal with LA Politicians you risk a politician acting like a politician.

Why, You ask? Because they are politicians! They will use and amuse you, but when it comes down to the basics, they are politicians.

Now, lets see if you have learned your lesson. After Prop R is again ruled unconstitutional on April 11th, are you guys going to be dumb enough to fund the councils appeal.

Breaking news soon on Prop R legal challenge and it won’t be like the last “Major Legal Announcement”.

This baby has wings!

February 14, 2007 9:21 AM  

Blogger Walter Moore said:

Patrick --
Who do you think is paying for the $1 million in "improvements," plus the marketing campaign, plus the ESL classes? Do you think it comes from the Revenue Fairy? No, my socialist friend, it comes from the taxpayer. Whether we get reamed through tax breaks for hotels, or additional expenditures, we're still getting reamed.

February 14, 2007 10:14 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Do you even know what a "mexican" really is? In order to be "mexican," you just need to be born in Mexico. Spain controlled Mexico for many years. Many spanairds went to Mexico and introduced their language, customs and culture. The locals were basically "indian" people descended from the aztecs, mayans...with their own languages and cultures. These cultures have changed over time and now we have "mexicans." It's just a name, a word.

February 14, 2007 11:27 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Walter, I grow weary of the two-sided debate between you and Patrick. It's time I weighed in on your Lincoln-Douglas debate, and turned it into an Oxford-style debate.

When are those of us who have lived according to those common-sense laws of the city going to wake up and start getting rid of politicians who want to reward failure (living wage ordinances, for example) and penalize success (higher taxes and tax breaks, for another example)?

According to you, Patrick, you want to increase wages for illegals and dropouts because they "deserve" a better chance of making a living; and want to decrease the profit of business (and therefore decrease the chances of business-owners to make a better living).

This makes absolutely no sense. Patrick, what you fail to consider is that Socialism, for all of its theoretical strengths, fails when put into practice; conversely, free enterprise, for all of its theoretical weaknesses, succeeds when it's also put into practice. The missing element within the two opposing theories (socialism vs. free enterprise) is that of the human element.

In a general historical context, the socialist nations of the former Soviet bloc failed because they failed to take into account the human element - that of people who natively wished to make life better for themselves, and not by being forced by law into doing so for the benefit of the State. For the same reason, this is what made the USA so successful - a willingness to succeed in one's endeavors and thereby reap the benefits. Not all succeeded, but the chance to do so was there.

In our city, the chance to succeed still exists, if only the Gang of Fifteen (plus the mayor) would quit monkeying around by promoting their half-baked Socialist schemes.

I agree with Walter. This ordinance is Federally unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Besides, if hotel workers really want to succeed, they (unlike their counterparts in socialist nations) can always seek employment in another hotel, whether independently or corporately owned and operated.

Patrick, the way I see it, the fundamental difference between you and me is that I don't want to give my hard-earned tax money away to individuals with doubtful intentions. You, conversely, are all too willing to give away more of MY hard-earned tax money - and since you may earn less than me, you are willing to give away LESS of yours.

February 14, 2007 12:35 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

"Render to cesar what is cesars"

From the Bible.

"The meek shall inheret the earth"

go patrick!

February 14, 2007 12:43 PM  

Blogger dgarzila said:

Mexican Americans are the largest immigrant population in Southern California. With Jose Huizar being born in Mexico and now a city council person it is important that those who have made that distinction, such as Steve Lopez, and did not want to be associated with Mexicans , and made sure people knew that they were not of mexican descent , although , there is the possibility that because Steve Lopez has a spanish surname , could be of spanish descent , it shows his willingness to make it known that he did not want to be confused as a mexican.

Many , like Steve Lopez grew up in a time when it was difficult to make it in certain businesses if you were Mexican / American and, of course , he being very caucasian looking , would fit in very well , if he made it known that he was in no way from south of the border, so that he could fit in. Many back in the day called these kind of people sell outs, but many did it to survive.

Now that the large population in Southern California happen to be mexican -americans and even politicians and business people are from MExico , it is in his best interest to now try and assimilate back into allowing people to assume that because he has a spanish surname he is somehow can indentify with the people of color who are of mexican-american descent.

This just needs to be made known that at one time Steve Lopez needed to make sure he was not Mexican. AS if there was a problem with being mexican or even mexican/american.

For many people such as myself, it is no wonder that Steve Lopez can do the things he does with African Americans and Latino kids by writing articles in the LA Times that they don't have to take the maths and the sciences. It should be no surprise that someone like Steve Lopez who apparently is "caucasian" with a Spanish surname did not have to suffer through the discrimination many of us have through the years and then tries to turn the clock back by writing articles in the times that tell students , children of color , that they do not need algebra and that in no way will it help them in the future.

THis is why this is important for people to know that his point of view is not the point of view of the mexican american community , when he prides himself of making the distinction that in no way should he be confused with Mexicans. But now his spanish surname , all on it's own , makes the assumption that he is somehow associated with the Mexican American community . I will continue to out him.

February 14, 2007 12:48 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

12:43 = Failure in education. Consider the spelling... We're supposed to reward THIS?????

I agree with 12:35.

February 14, 2007 1:03 PM  

Blogger Patrick Meighan said:

"Who do you think is paying for the $1 million in "improvements," plus the marketing campaign, plus the ESL classes? Do you think it comes from the Revenue Fairy? No, my socialist friend, it comes from the taxpayer. Whether we get reamed through tax breaks for hotels, or additional expenditures, we're still getting reamed."

I think what you're trying to say, Walter, is that you were clearly incorrect when you said that the hotels were about to get huge tax breaks, you now admit that you were incorrect, and you apologize for being wrong. And the good news, Walter, is that your apology is accepted.

"Patrick, the way I see it, the fundamental difference between you and me is that I don't want to give my hard-earned tax money away to individuals with doubtful intentions."

When it comes to these hard-working hotel workers, I am *not* in favor of giving them your tax dollars. I *am* in favor of allowing them to earn a decent living while working for the very profitable corporations which employ them. In other words, I'm in favor of allowing these people to lift themselves out of poverty. And fewer impoverished people equals less crime, lower rates of alcohol and drug abuse, better schools, stronger families, stronger communities, and less need for public assistance of all sorts. In other words, less of a drain on your tax dollars.

"You, conversely, are all too willing to give away more of MY hard-earned tax money - and since you may earn less than me, you are willing to give away LESS of yours."

Not that it matters, but for what it's worth, I'm quite confident that I happen to earn more than you do. And I can certainly sympathize with your annoyance at having to pay taxes for programs with which you disagree (even though, as mentioned above, the LAX hotel workers won't be receiving your tax dollars, and so it doesn't seem to apply here). I, personally, am pretty bummed at having to pay my tax dollars toward an American military industrial complex that chews up almost a trillion bucks a year. Conservative voters (such as yourself, perhaps?) have long supported the development and expansion of this bloated military budget, and, whether I like it or not, I'm involuntarily required to pay a big chunk it. Well, I don't like it. But pay it I do, 'cause I live in a democracy, and them's the rules. So, again, I sympathize with you. But what're ya gonna do?

"I agree with Walter. This ordinance is Federally unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment."

Seems as though there would have been plenty of minimum wage laws struck down by now, if that were the case (many localities across the nation have minimum wages that are set at all sorts of varying levels, giving certain groups of people advantages that others don't--tipped workers vs. non-tipped workers, for example, or workers in San Francisco, which has a citywide minimum wage, vs. workers in Oakland, which doesn't). Can you cite any cases where minimum wages have actually, in reality, been stricken due to violation of the equal protection clause?

Many thanks,

Patrick Meighan
Los Angeles Greens

February 14, 2007 1:54 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

From Mayor Sam having trouble logging in - but its really me - Walter don't delete this (for proof its me we discussed bamboo the other day)

Coupla thoughts -

I would love to podcast a debate between Walter and Patrick. Lets talk about it.

Don - its possible that Steve Lopez is self-hating or hates Mexicans that he doesn't want to be associated with them. I had always assumed he was Latin American but who cares? On the other hand do you think its possible that Lopez is proud of his Iberian heritage and doesn't want to be mislabeled? There are a lot of Mexicans and other Latin/Hispanic people who bristle at being called Spanish because its inaccurate. I remember a kid in school referring to a bunch of Mexican kids playing handball as Spaniards - and knew he was wrong. One time a friend referred to a Mexican male as a "Spanish man."

Just a thought.

February 14, 2007 2:04 PM  

Blogger Patrick Meighan said:

"I must have missed the meeting where it was decided that scraping toilets and flipping burgers are to be considered long-term careers intended to support families? I flipped burgers for minimum wage when I was 15 years old. By 16 I had a better job. It's amazing what an incentive the minimum wage can be."

I congratulate you on your talents and success and urge you to open your heart to those folks who may not be as blessed as you.

It's not written anywhere that custodial jobs must, by necessity, pay poverty wages. Especially custodial jobs for a very, very profitable business that isn't likely to simply pick up and move elsewhere (such as a mega-hotel near LAX, for example). Long, long ago, grocery jobs and machinist jobs paid poverty wages. But thanks to years of organizing, those jobs became middle-class jobs, lifting many, many non-college-educated workers (and their families) out of poverty. And the communities in which those no-longer-impoverished workers and their families lived benefitted greatly as a result.

There's no reason why the hard-working folks pushing brooms, making beds and preparing food at the profitable LAX hotels today shouldn't be allowed to lift themselves out of poverty as well, and there's no reason why their community (which is to say, Los Angeles, which is to say, you and me) shouldn't benefit from it.

Patrick Meighan
Los Angeles Greens

February 14, 2007 2:04 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Why no Valentine's Day post? All you bloggers single dudes? Get in the spirit of things.

February 14, 2007 2:57 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

No your eyes didn't deceive you, that was Eli Broad at council yesterday - the very same billionare that make believe CD14 council candidate Alvin "Doh" Parra was going to "sell" his wife to during the 2003 school board race so that fat cats Broad and Riordan could gain control of LAUSD long before it was even a gleam in Mayor V's eye -- and without all the court fights.

It was the local politics version of "Indecent Proposal" only Nellie's no "Demi," even at $400K, less than half the movie price, at Alvin isn't even half as smart as Woody Harrelson when he was playin the moron bartender "Woody" on Cheers. (Plus, there, "everybody knows your name" not like in CD14 where it's "Alvin who?".

As Steve "the Spaniard" Lopez sarcastically pointed out in the knee-slapping column that earned Parra the forever-nickname of the "Homer Simpson" of L.A. politics, it's "nice to know that Molina hires only the best and the brightest."

Alvin wants to run the front office in CD14, and he couldn't even last 6 months as a field hand without beging demoted and banished to El Siberia/Sereno?

That's almost as funny as Lopez's column.

Read it for yourself. It's a classic in L.A. politics, and more true today than four years ago:


Here's just a "fair use" snippet (c) 2003, Los Angeles Times:

"Parra has single-handedly managed to raise suspicions about his own wife. And it doesn't help that Broad and Riordan's coalition -- which is dying to unseat David Tokofsky -- has shoveled $121,000 into Rios-Parra's campaign.

In the end, Parra couldn't have done Tokofsky a bigger favor.

How can we think of Rios-Parra as anything but Broad and Riordan's stooge, thanks to her husband?

He'd be lucky to get the couch at this point.

But the deadliest flaw in Parra's get-rich-quick scheme was that even if it worked, he was going to end up sounding like one of the Chipmunks when his wife got through with him. If she hasn't already, she'll hit him where it hurts and ask the following question:

'Did he think so little of her that he believed she couldn't win without his help?'"

Also previously on Mayor Sam's in several locations:


What should Parra have done then, according to the Times' Lopez? Why the same thing he'll be doing at 8:30 p.m. the night of next month's primary:

"You hang your head, you cower, you weep. Wet your pants if you have to. But you never, ever, under any circumstances, try to explain."

February 14, 2007 4:59 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Patrick, your last swipe at minimum wages was a stupid comment. Living wages are not equitable to minimum wages, they (living wages) are actually higher, especially if medical benefits are factored into the equation.

I submit that if council wanted to be a bit more ethical (fat chance), they should have declared a five-mile buffer surrounding LAX as an economic zone in which all businesses within that zone should pay a living wage, not just one industry. Their tactics smack of discriminatory practices against one segment of the business industry, hence the violation of equal protection.

If 12:35 disagrees with my assessment of his argument, I request that he should please post a rebuttal.

As for the "bloated" military budget, I challenge you to cite facts and figures and not act as though you're still living in the Vietnam era. Make certain you allow for the inflation rate since 1976.

I submit to you further that although your income may be higher than 12:35, Walter, or me...quit acting like Henry Gaylord Wilshire, the millionaire socialist.

February 14, 2007 5:43 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

2:57, notice there aren't many comments here? They're all out doing that last-minute Valentine's Day shopping!

MEN! Forgetful as always!

February 14, 2007 5:46 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Good evening ladies and gentlemen (removes hat and bows low):

Sots, who loves you? Does them who love you come from afar, like Florida perhaps? Or are they a little more local from over on the Westside? Do the people you serve love you? Are you REALLY sure about that? After all, you have not been all that love-able as of late.

My crew does not love me and I am quite pleased that they don't. But they do respect me. They trust me. And most of all they tell me that I inspire their confidence, which is what a good leader does, savvy?

I'm not sure who deserves the love of the people more....David Hernandez or Zuma Dogg. What say you, sots? But I am sure that over in the CQ, love is not what it's cracked up to be, or is it?

As I said earlier, I find Par-Que to be amusing. I just love it when he retreats to his office and stares at the phone. And for what it's worth, there's a lot of love in that office these days, savvy?

February 14, 2007 6:04 PM  

Blogger Walter Moore said:

Patrick --
I AM terribly sorry -- sorry that you don't read news stories or my postings more carefully. The news stories I read and recounted here indicated that the "living wage," "win-win" "compromise" would involve tax breaks. The hotels did not buy "compromise," so the City Clowncil is now trying circumvent the referendum process by instead spending taxpayer money in the LAX area. The effect on Joe Taxpayer is the same: more of our money being spent to fund Janice Hahn's uninformed socialist dabbling -- which just happens to inure to the benefit of downtown hotels.

February 14, 2007 8:20 PM  

Blogger Walter Moore said:

12:35 -- Thank you. I don't know if it's so much a debate as tag-team wrestling. Thanks for tagging in.

February 14, 2007 8:22 PM  

Blogger Patrick Meighan said:

"Patrick, your last swipe at minimum wages was a stupid comment. Living wages are not equitable to minimum wages, they (living wages) are actually higher, especially if medical benefits are factored into the equation."

All a living wage is is a minimum hourly wage necessary for a person to achieve some specific standard of living. In this case, that specific standard is, I believe, the poverty line. And in certain places (such as the city of San Francisco), the minimum wage is, in fact, a living wage. Perhaps you didn't know that.

"I submit that if council wanted to be a bit more ethical (fat chance), they should have declared a five-mile buffer surrounding LAX as an economic zone in which all businesses within that zone should pay a living wage, not just one industry. Their tactics smack of discriminatory practices against one segment of the business industry, hence the violation of equal protection."

We'll certainly see if you're right in due time. Personally, if you were, I'd assume we'd've seen plenty of living wage laws across the country struck down by now. The fact that you can't point to a single case, anywhere in the country, where a court has ruled as such leads me to believe that you're not correct. But you may be. Again, I'm sure we'll find out.

"As for the "bloated" military budget, I challenge you to cite facts and figures.."

Well, at the link to follow you'll see that the US defense budget equals roughly that of the whole rest of the world, combined (including our allies):


You may disagree with me that this represents bloat, but that's beside the point. Remember, this was started by Stephen C Foster, who kvetched that other people (such as myself) seem eager to see him taxed to pay for programs that he doesn't support. My point was that I, too, am taxed for programs that *I* don't support, and that that's just the price of living in a democracy. if you, mbm, think that a trillion dollars a year is not too much to spend on our nation's military, that's certainly your right. Just remember that that's OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY you're spending. And, remembering that, perhaps you'll be less quick to use that very same argument next time you're taxed to fund a program with which you disagree. That "other peoples' money" argument cuts both ways. That's all I was saying.

AW, my only point in citing the grocers is that elevated wages can turn subsistence-level workers into middle-class heads of households, and that there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, there are many, many things right with that. If, as you say, local, independent grocers are now withering and disappearing, I think that that has much less to do with an overpaid, overbenefitted workforce than it does with competition from major chain corporations who have bargaining power (due to their economies of scale) that outstrip the abilities of the independents. It's the same thing that's happening to independent booksellers and independent hardware stores, too. No one believes that independent hardware stores are going away 'cause their workers are overpaid.

Patrick Meighan
Los Angeles Greens

February 14, 2007 8:33 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:



First before reading, you must play back in your head the theme music to "DARTH VADER, EVIL EMPIRE". Ready ? (BUMM BUMM BUMM.....) Good.

Yesterday was one for the history books in the "PUEBLO DE LOS ANGELES". "LORD BROAD" descended into the chambers of the "CITY CLOWNCIL" and "BORAD OF ENABLERS" - one, to receive the blessing of his subjects for the CROWNING MONUMENT TO SELF ON A TAY-PAYERS OWNED HILL". "CLOWNCIL" members lined up to "KISS THE RING" and offer tribute in the way of property and tax breaks. "LORD BROAD" was then given time to utter "BROADBASMS" on how his "MONUMENT TO SELF" would give his "FIEFTOM", a worldy sense of place. "LORD BROAD" then made his way to the "BOARD OF ENABLERS" Four line up to kiss the ring of "HIS LORDSHIP" except one lone man of the people (AT LEAST ON THIS OCCASION), who will one day have to face the wrath of "LORD BROAD". "LORD BROAD", the man who would bring reform to our schools, man who would bring the NFL back to our city(WITH TAX BREAKS), the man who would buy the "LA ANTONIA TIMES", Now has his CROWNING ACHEIVEMENT. A hill made into his vision. You and I may not get a chance to work there(5 mile clause). Yet we will pay for this "TRIFORIUM OF A BONDOGGLE". Now "LORD BROAD" I hope that a "NEW REBELLION" will be usher in . A rebellion where tax-payers reclaim their local goverment and blow up the "DEATH STARS" of COPORATE WELFARE. Lets start on the hill !!!!



February 14, 2007 9:18 PM  

Blogger Patrick Meighan said:

AW, if you have some cites about chain grocery stores failing because of overpaid workers, please post them.

Your cite about US auto manufacturers laying off US auto workers only points to a primary difference between US auto workers and LAX hotel workers: LAX hotel jobs can't be shipped out of the country. LAX hotels are gonna be there as long as LAX is gonna be there. LAX hotel workers don't have to compete with hotel workers in Vietnam. And unlike Ford and Chevy, the mega-hotels at LAX are making plenty of money.

In other words, it's apples and oranges, AW.

Patrick Meighan
Los Angeles Greens

February 14, 2007 11:08 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home