Why does it take a guerrilla war by law-abiding citizens to get City Hall to comply with the law, to do what's right for L.A., to respect the people?
It's a silly queston. We all know the answer. Special interests own City Hall. None of our leaders have the courage to stand up for the people. We aren't organized enough to have the power to demand they put the public interest ahead of private interests, to make our elected officials become public servants.
But there are positive signs that change is coming. Discontent runs so deep and so wide that a grassroots movement is being born and growing day by day, inch by inch.
The City Planning Commission approved an ordinance Thursday to impose a six-month moratorium on new billboards in the city while a full audit to identify the estimated 4,000 illegal signs is conducted and a policy to end visual blight, particularly from giant digital billboards, can be formulated.
This morning, the DWP is belatedly and reluctantly providing a dog-and-pony show for Neighborhood Council members on the outrageous solar energy plan approved by the mayor and council for the March 3 ballot. It's outrageous because it will lead to massive rate hikes on top of hikes already imposed and others that are coming, because it will cost way too much and will achieve way too little, because it is nothing but a boondoggle for the IBEW which pours millions into preserving its power in the DWP and keeping servile politicians in office.
Last week, a second lawsuit was filed over City Hall's failure for the last decade to conduct legally-required annual reports on the impact of growth on infrastructure.
The LaBrea-Willoughby Coalition led by Lucille Saunders sued the city five months ago over the issue in an effort to get compliance. It's set for trial in May.
And last week, the Fix The City coalition filed another lawsuit on the issue, according to Ken Draper on City Watch
"The point of filing another suit was to bring Neighborhood Councils into the mix," James O'Sullivan, president of the Miracle Mile Residential Association, said in an email today."There is now an argument that these reports need to be done so NC's can effectively monitor City services and participate in the budget."
O'Sullivan makes the point that the City Charter's requirement to seek the advice of Neighborhood Councils on important city issues is being routinely violated.
It's a silly queston. We all know the answer. Special interests own City Hall. None of our leaders have the courage to stand up for the people. We aren't organized enough to have the power to demand they put the public interest ahead of private interests, to make our elected officials become public servants.
But there are positive signs that change is coming. Discontent runs so deep and so wide that a grassroots movement is being born and growing day by day, inch by inch.
The City Planning Commission approved an ordinance Thursday to impose a six-month moratorium on new billboards in the city while a full audit to identify the estimated 4,000 illegal signs is conducted and a policy to end visual blight, particularly from giant digital billboards, can be formulated.
This morning, the DWP is belatedly and reluctantly providing a dog-and-pony show for Neighborhood Council members on the outrageous solar energy plan approved by the mayor and council for the March 3 ballot. It's outrageous because it will lead to massive rate hikes on top of hikes already imposed and others that are coming, because it will cost way too much and will achieve way too little, because it is nothing but a boondoggle for the IBEW which pours millions into preserving its power in the DWP and keeping servile politicians in office.
Last week, a second lawsuit was filed over City Hall's failure for the last decade to conduct legally-required annual reports on the impact of growth on infrastructure.
The LaBrea-Willoughby Coalition led by Lucille Saunders sued the city five months ago over the issue in an effort to get compliance. It's set for trial in May.
And last week, the Fix The City coalition filed another lawsuit on the issue, according to Ken Draper on City Watch
"The point of filing another suit was to bring Neighborhood Councils into the mix," James O'Sullivan, president of the Miracle Mile Residential Association, said in an email today."There is now an argument that these reports need to be done so NC's can effectively monitor City services and participate in the budget."
O'Sullivan makes the point that the City Charter's requirement to seek the advice of Neighborhood Councils on important city issues is being routinely violated.
James O'Sullvian:
Charter section 216 is an integral part of the system of governance created by the City's Charter. Beginning in July 1, 2000, the Charter created a citywide system of neighborhood councils and the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment to support it. Specifically, the neighborhood council system was established "[t]o promote more citizen participation in government and to make government more responsive to l ocal needs ...." (Los Angeles City Charter, Article IX, Section 900.1.) The Charter mandates that neighborhood councils "shall have an advisory role on issues of concern to the neighborhood." (Id., emphasis added.) The City's Charter also specifies that "Neighborhood councils shall monitor the delivery of City services in their respective areas and have periodic meetings with responsible officials of City departments, subject to their reasonable availability." (City Charter, Art. IX, Sec. 910.)
The neighborhood councils' position in this citywide system is no less important than that of other City boards, commissions, councils and committees. In comparison to many other City boards, the neighborhood councils have broader jurisdiction to advise City leaders on a myr iad of issues, including the right to "present to the Mayor and Council an annual list of priorities for the City budget." (City Charter, Art. IX, Sec. 909.) Article IX of the Charter, applicable regulations, and the Citywide Plan for a System of Neighborhood Councils are designed to give deference to the representative advisory actions of the neighborhood councils and to empower them. Neighborhood councils are entitled to weigh in on City business before decisions are made and are expected to bring issues of community concern to City departments and leaders. However, without the Annual Growth and Infrastructure Reports required by the Framework Element to provide the vital information that Neighborhood Councils need as the basis for their advice to the City's departments and leaders, the Neighborhood Councils, and the larger public that they represent, are unable to participate in City policy deliberations in a meaningfully informed way. Thus, the City's failure to perform its mandatory duty of preparing annual growth and infrastructure reports hamstrings the Neighborhood Councils in their vital role in the participatory system carefully orchestrated by the Charter.
Charter section 216 is an integral part of the system of governance created by the City's Charter. Beginning in July 1, 2000, the Charter created a citywide system of neighborhood councils and the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment to support it. Specifically, the neighborhood council system was established "[t]o promote more citizen participation in government and to make government more responsive to l ocal needs ...." (Los Angeles City Charter, Article IX, Section 900.1.) The Charter mandates that neighborhood councils "shall have an advisory role on issues of concern to the neighborhood." (Id., emphasis added.) The City's Charter also specifies that "Neighborhood councils shall monitor the delivery of City services in their respective areas and have periodic meetings with responsible officials of City departments, subject to their reasonable availability." (City Charter, Art. IX, Sec. 910.)
The neighborhood councils' position in this citywide system is no less important than that of other City boards, commissions, councils and committees. In comparison to many other City boards, the neighborhood councils have broader jurisdiction to advise City leaders on a myr iad of issues, including the right to "present to the Mayor and Council an annual list of priorities for the City budget." (City Charter, Art. IX, Sec. 909.) Article IX of the Charter, applicable regulations, and the Citywide Plan for a System of Neighborhood Councils are designed to give deference to the representative advisory actions of the neighborhood councils and to empower them. Neighborhood councils are entitled to weigh in on City business before decisions are made and are expected to bring issues of community concern to City departments and leaders. However, without the Annual Growth and Infrastructure Reports required by the Framework Element to provide the vital information that Neighborhood Councils need as the basis for their advice to the City's departments and leaders, the Neighborhood Councils, and the larger public that they represent, are unable to participate in City policy deliberations in a meaningfully informed way. Thus, the City's failure to perform its mandatory duty of preparing annual growth and infrastructure reports hamstrings the Neighborhood Councils in their vital role in the participatory system carefully orchestrated by the Charter.
Ron Kaye is the former editor of the Los Angeles Daily News where he spent 23 years helping to make the newspaper the voice of the San Fernando Valley and fighting for a city government that serves the people and not special interests.
Twice in recent years, Los Angeles Magazine listed Kaye among the city’s most influential people, specifically in the area of politics. Kaye has been variously described in the media as the “accidental anarchist,” “the Patrick Henry of the San Fernando Valley” and a “passionate populist.” He is now committed to
carrying on his crusade for a greater Los Angeles as an ordinary citizen. Previously, Ron worked at the Los Angeles Herald Examiner,
Associated Press, Cleveland Plain Dealer and The Australian as well as papers
in Fairbanks, Alaska and Yakima, Wash. He also wrote for Newsweek magazine, The Guardian in London and the National Enquirer.
"Momentum Grows for Change"!!!!!
Hurrah!
This second lawsuit was filed by the very same Tract 7260 and the handful of people from other, overlapping HOAs and an HOA "umbrella group" they cobbled together themselves to make it seem like they have more support than they do. The Tract 7260 active associates (two of whom you named in the Candidates Forum for the CD5 thread you ran recently and use as your source of "facts" about CD5) are the same ones who filed suit on Pico-Olympic, battle the subway/ Expo II/ MTA, every redevelopment on the westside and Century City, and are headed by one Mike Eveloff and Jay Handel, who have chosen their Board Member and puppet Ty Vahedi for a repeat run -- the same old same old cast of characters who've battled everything.
This is hardly "new" except that they've filed another lawsuit, but aren't putting their name front and center since they know that even Jane Usher, the communities' friend in planning, reads them coming a mile away.
If you actually read the petition, it states this in so many words, and Tract 7260 claims to "represent an area with 1000 homes," where in fact many disagree with these self-appointed "leaders" but don't have the time that they do to devote their whole lives to "getting even" for not getting their way on Century City. Some who challenge this old-guard, incestuous "leadership" feel so dissed they just avoid anything to do with Tract issues or meetings.
The City Watch article either doesn't catch it or doesn't want to admit that this "new" group is the same old, same old, one just filing a new lawsuit against the city.
They have a valid point when it comes to the city updating its report, but are just using it as an excuse to block all development and tie the city up in expensive lawsuits, while their battling Pico- Olympic and the subway/ Expo has caused continued greater gridlock, years of delays in implementing long-overdue solutions, and billions of dollars if the MTA adheres to their demands re: Expo II. They don't care about the city as a whole, only one aspect of one demographic of one neighborhood. They don't represent anyone I know and definitely NOT the mainstream.
to Anon 2:31 pm
You don't say who you are so we cannot judge whether or not you represent anyone except yourself, can we? I disbelieve what you say because we have had the same experience and almost everyone in our small neighborhood turned to protest and the entity quit trying to move in.
Not for one moment do I believe that the citizens of this city support your viewpoint.
2:31, Rick Taylor of Dakota Communications? Is that you? I just knew it!
Angelenos complain and continue to reelect these same lame ducks over and over which is why the politicos do as he/she pleases with no accountability to their constituents. Don’t be fooled by the colorful fliers and twenty second media sound bites during elections.
If Angelenos really want change, these Angelenos need to stay in tune with the facts by viewing or listing to City Council and Council Committee meetings that are readily available at the Los Angeles City Website. Follow the money trail prior, during, and after the elections by visiting the Ethics Commission and CA Secretary of State Websites, but most importantly at the end of the day, vote these LA Politicos out of office on March 3, 2009, General Election.
And let your family, friends and neighbors know what is going on and what you think needs to happen on March 3, 2009.
Yes. we can, make a difference.
Notice how 2:31 doesn't comment on the underlying case and just chooses to attack community members and non-profit associations.
2:31 would have just a little more credibility if he (or she) would comment on the substance of the matter rather than trying to push some personal agenda.
Seems like 2:31 is a developer, developer lackey, or a political consultant who stands to lose big if the city is forced to actually obey the law.
2:31 sounds like Larry Levine, maker of illegal campaign contributions, backer of Jack Weiss and someone who now just might have a candidate in the CD5 race.
Keep that blood pressure low Larry. You don't want to pop again.
If any of the CD5 candidates are smart or have smartened up after the first one, they'll avoid the rigged "Candidates Forums" staged by the same handful of people who orchestrated them, the multiple suits against the city against the better interests of the greater district and city population, and their frenetic activities -- let their pre-chosen puppet Ty Vahedi be exposed to all for what he is. And their agenda for the narrow, extremely limited one that is, limited to the objectives of one demographic in one area of the district geared towards one issue.
The lengths to which they go to come up with different umbrella names to hide that they're the same few people, from "Umbrella of HOAs" to "Fix Our City" to allying with and egging on the Sunland-Tujunga group, is the real phenomenon. But enough people have seen behind the curtains of Oz to see the real little wizard(s) blowing the smoke to be fooled.
They're worse than the North Korean, Cuban or other Communist Parties when it comes to trying to engineer "forums" and elections.
We need the candidates to present their real, full agendas to the actual votership and ignore this bunch.
5:58- Your statement raises more questions than it answers. Who is allying with and egging on the Sunland-Tujunga group? Which Sunland-Tujunga group?
You need to be more explanatory.
Los Angeles City Ethics Commission
2009 Municipal Election
March 3, 2009
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa – Over $2 million
Jack Weiss – Over $1 million – City Attorney
Wendy Gruel - $699,802.51 – City Controller
Edurado Reyes – $132,908.00 – District 1
Dennis Zine – $203,708.00 – District 3
Richard Alarcon – $ pending – District 7
Jan Perry – $249,850.00 – District 9
Bill Rosendahl – $200,970.68 – District 11
Eric Garcetti – $471,499.00 – District 13
Janice Hahn - $101,529.78 – District 15
http://ethics.lacity.org/efs/public_election.cfm?election_id=37&RequestTimeout=500#S142