Many commentators have called the city budget approved this week a work of fiction based on false revenue and cost assumptions, and warned it will lead to drastic cuts in city services and could force LA into bankruptcy within a few years because it fails to solve the structural deficit and the looming public employee pension crisis.
Councilwoman Wendy Greuel — a long-time Budget Committee member who will become the city’s financial watchdog on July 1 — has a rosier view . Here’s the email blast she sent out:
Dear Neighborhood Council Board Member,
This week, the City Council passed a budget for Fiscal Year 2009-10 that
is both fiscally responsible and keeps our City safe. We had to make
some very difficult decisions while keeping our pledge to maintain the City’s
public safety efforts. The cuts we did make were dramatic, but necessary to
balance our budget. However, if we didn’t make these difficult decisions
now, it would have been even worse next year.
But it wasn’t all
bad news. I am happy to announce that last night the Council approved my
recommendation to restore funding for Neighborhood Councils to $45,000 for
next year. The Neighborhood Council’s will take the same cuts as the
Council, so we’re all going to have to keep working together to do more with
less.
As you know, Neighborhood Councils are very important to me
and I appreciate the many contributions that you’ve made to Council District 2
and the City as a whole. That’s why I made it a priority to work with
the City Clerk’s Election Division and DONE to restore this money. While
there will still be an overall cut shared by the entire City, my hope is with
these additional funds, neighborhood councils will continue the great work
they do to improve communities Citywide.
I appreciate all
of your work and support through the budget process and look forward to
working with each of you to better serve our
communities.
Best,
Councilwoman Wendy
Greuel
is both fiscally responsible and keeps our City safe. We had to make
some very difficult decisions while keeping our pledge to maintain the City’s
public safety efforts. The cuts we did make were dramatic, but necessary to
balance our budget. However, if we didn’t make these difficult decisions
now, it would have been even worse next year.
But it wasn’t all
bad news. I am happy to announce that last night the Council approved my
recommendation to restore funding for Neighborhood Councils to $45,000 for
next year. The Neighborhood Council’s will take the same cuts as the
Council, so we’re all going to have to keep working together to do more with
less.
As you know, Neighborhood Councils are very important to me
and I appreciate the many contributions that you’ve made to Council District 2
and the City as a whole. That’s why I made it a priority to work with
the City Clerk’s Election Division and DONE to restore this money. While
there will still be an overall cut shared by the entire City, my hope is with
these additional funds, neighborhood councils will continue the great work
they do to improve communities Citywide.
I appreciate all
of your work and support through the budget process and look forward to
working with each of you to better serve our
communities.
Best,
Councilwoman Wendy
Greuel
Our City Council is a reactionary government. They should have moved aggressively in cost cutting much earlier instead of patting themselves on the back. You are absolutely correct that this is a false “balanced” budget. I would prefer to avoid any layoffs, but the rest of small and mid-sized businesses that want to survive are cutting back drastically. Just look at the auto companies. The City should freeze the number of police positions, back-filling as employees submit their retirement papers. And if necessary, the City Council should furlough or layoff (again as a last resort) City Employees. Enough hocus pocus.
The city’s budget does not even begin to address the short or long term issues associated with its work force. Until then, the mayor and City Council will be bouncing from pillar to post, until the Reserve Fund is depleted in the late fall.
Don’t forget that the entire council acknowledged WITH A VOTE that we were in a fiscal crisis back when Prop S was on the ballot. They did that so it would only have to pass by 50% plus. The have done nothing since then to face the problem.
I hope Wendy got the message from the voters in the Trutanich election: They want the corruption and real estate developer give aways to stop.
Wendy could be a force for positive change or she could be another screw up.
Gotta love the conclusion arrived at by anon at 9:48a — “She could either do it right or she could do it wrong.” Wow, ya think?
Anon 2:36 pm:
Wendy could also just be quiet and passive. It’s not an either/or proposition.
Throughout his first term, Villaraigosa allowed the budget problems to grow worse and fester, expecting the Feds to bail him out in the last moment. You see, this is the GW Bush’s payback for continuing our “sanctuary city” policy (ie. Bush’s deal with MexIcO). This was his dirty little secret, and it worked. Villaraigosa’s and L.A.’s free spending ways continued with Federal subsidies until the Recession put an end to it and brought light the madness.
But, Obama is not going to be accommodating in that respect. The U.S. Government hasn’t the money to throw at Los Angeles. We don’t have the “big bucks” to bail out L.A.’s excesses. We’re up Sh*t Creek without a paddle. We’d better start bailing, quick.
So, Bernie makes 18 thousand a month on his pension and Council, as a whole, makes alot of money off this city budget. Wouldn’t it be a conflict of interest for them to even vote on this? Could there be such a thing as an independent panel that could address the budget since all who drafted and voted on it are stake holders?
Oh, and in answer to the title of this post: No.
I believe Wendy could be tall or short. It just depends on who she’s standing next to.
I’ve seen Wendy and she could be blonde or blonder.
Wendy is going to be remembered like the man who said, in 1929, that stocks had “reached a permanently high plateau.” The only people who can regard the budget as fiscally responsible are the union workers who depend on municipal extravagance to fund them. “Whew,” they must be saying. “Thank god we don’t work in the private sector where we’d have been laid off by now.”
“Fiscally responsible” indeed. If a private company kept their books that way, they’d all be in jail.
“‘Fiscally responsible’ indeed. If a private company kept their books that way, they’d all be in jail.”
Robert must’ve just stepped out of Sandy Sand’s time capsule — or was he napping during the last (and current) economic meltdown? Oh yeah, private companies have it together all right. Robert, name one banking or auto exec in jail…
L.A. Weekly – Thank you for the REMARKABLE journalism in reporting the FACTS related to issues that are important to Angelenos (FREEDOM OF THE PRESS).
L.A. CITY COUNCIL CLINGS TO STUNNING PERKS AND PAY
They can’t bear to give up those record-high $178,898 salaries
BY PAUL TEETOR
As the budget drama unfolded in City Hall over the past several days, it became clear that the 15 Los Angeles City Council members, who earn 400 percent of local median income — more than members of Congress earn, more than federal judges are paid — are trying hard to avoid taking any personal hits to their growing wealth and freebies.
There’s nothing like this City Council in America’s other big cities. Not Chicago, not New York, not San Francisco. Los Angeles City Council is steeped in huge paychecks, gigantic staffs, eight free cars per council member, $100,000 personal slush funds with virtually no strings — even a special clause that lets them get out of their parking tickets.
Meanwhile, in great contrast to L.A., San Francisco has 11 elected city/county representatives who in that very pricey city earn $98,660 per year, compared with L.A City Council’s $179,789. And unlike the vast personal staffs Angelenos are paying to provide to L.A. council members even in this fiscal disaster, San Francisco’s representatives employ just two paid aides, at $77,922 to L.A.’s $94,718 a year each. Each supervisor gets an extremely modest expense account — $5,000 per year.
“That $5,000 is for lawful government expenses of public funds like letterheads, envelopes and cell phones,” said Madeleine Licavoli, deputy director of the clerk to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
What a contrast to L.A. Here, politicians like Janice Hahn, Richard Alarcon, Herb Wesson and Ed Reyes employ about 20 full-time aides — and that’s apiece. And the council has fought off efforts to take away its controversial and very unusual slush funds of $100,000 apiece, given to them every year with virtually no strings — and hidden from the public in plain sight under the disingenuous budget title “General City Purposes Fund.” (See accompanying story, “Council Tries to De-Fund Its Critics.”)
Licavoli in San Francisco chuckled when asked if that city’s 11 councilmembers-supervisors enjoy anything like the eight free cars financed by L.A. taxpayers for each council member here.
“No, of course not,” she said. Well, what automotive perks do they get in San Francisco? “They each get a reserved parking space.”
In San Diego and San Jose, also very expensive cities in which to live, city council members earn about half what Greig Smith, Wendy Greuel, Jack Weiss and the others make yet somehow get by.
In San Jose, Mark Gerhardt, administrative manager for the city clerk, said the 10 council members earn $90,000, and each has four or five personal staffers. They get a $600 monthly car allowance — not a small fleet of eight cars.
In San Diego, the eight council members earn even less than in San Jose or San Francisco — $75,836 — and each gets only five to eight personal staffers.
L.A. Weekly
http://www.laweekly.com/2009-05-21/news/l-a-city-council-clings-to-stunning-perks-and-pay/
Wendy Greuel is an elitist. She is a true believer of “smart growth”, as is Garcetti, her “twin”. If she had her way, L.A. masses would be commuting via buses and subway (mostly buses). The rich would be living in enclaves, either gated or electronically guarded and secure.
She naively believes that this is the best solution for our city. And if you too naively believe this, then just wait until you are forced to live in it (assuming that you aren’t super-rich). Crime will flourish but will be under-reported. Mass transit will be arduous, time consuming, uncomfortable, and depending on the commute dangerous. Car usage will be exorbitantly expensive, ie. gas, insurance, parking fees. Public schools will continue to generally be of low quality. Fees will continue to increase so that government spending can continue to be wasteful. Under these conditions, reasonable, middle class people will eventually move away, leaving the city of Los Angeles as a place primarily for the rich and the poor, only, a dichotomy.
What’s the alternative. Wake up. It’s obvious.
Ah electronic billboards, the elitists just love it. Just imagine, it’s the ultimate propaganda tool. Remember the book “1984″ and BIG BROTHER? Subtle propaganda is the perfect usage for those electronic billboards. Bombard the minds of those zombie masses with soothing images. For this, it would be better than TV. It would be a 9-5 “intravenous drug”.
7:43a, to answer your question, I believe the best alternative for Los Angeles is that you move to Arizona. Case closed. Next!
I guess this write-up was composed after a significant level of background work.
I’d be inclined to allow with you on this. Which is not something I typically do! I really like reading a post that will make people think. Also, thanks for allowing me to speak my mind!