Dept. of Neighborhood Destruction: Parking Rules Division
Here’s the announcement from the LA City Planning Department of a public hearing at 2 p.m. Wednesday March 30 in City Hall Room 1010 of proposed changes to city parking requirements — rules changes that many in already dense neighborhoods see as yet another threat to the quality of their lives.(Modified Parking District.pdf)
This
notice is to inform
you of a public
hearing for case number
CPC-2007-2216-CA, a proposed
zoning code amendment that has been initiated by the Department of City Planning. All interested
persons are
invited to attend the public
hearing at which you may listen, speak, or submit written information relating to the environmental determination and the proposed project.Contact: Tom Rothmann, tom.rothmann@lacity.org, 213-978-1370
PROPOSED PROJECT: A proposed ordinance (Appendix B) amending Sections 12.04, 12.24, 12.32, and 13.16 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) to create a Modified Parking Requirement (MPR) District offering eight optional parking requirement modification tools including (1) change of use parking standards, (2) use of a new Parking Reduction Permit, (3) off-site parking within 1500 feet, (4) decreased parking requirements, (5) increased parking requirements, (6) commercial parking credits, (7) universal valet, and (8) municipal garage proximity relief; and create a Parking Reduction Permit to be used exclusively within the MPR District.
PURPOSE: The purpose of the hearing is to obtain testimony from affected and/or interested persons regarding this project. The hearing will be conducted by a Hearing Officer who will consider all the
testimony presented at that time and any written communication received prior to or at the hearing from affected and/or interested persons regarding this Project, as well as the merits of the proposed ordinance as it relates to existing environmental and land use regulations. The environmental document will be among the matters considered at the hearing. After the hearing, Code Studies staff will prepare a report, including a final recommendation, which will be considered by the City Planning Commission at a later date.
By SAM SPERLING, Tolucan Times
Tony Cardenas, opposed by six candidates, had
one huge advantage: He was running as an incumbent.
In Los
Angeles, members of the City Council are authorized to
hire a number of employees to help them with their work. These employees,
called Council Aides, are exempt from Civil Service. They’re appointed by the District
Council Member, who oversees their work, but who won’t tell anyone what Council
Aides really do.
Councilman Cardenas currently employs 18
Aides. They may have been on his team since he was first elected to the
Council. And even if they didn’t get directly involved in the re-election
effort (an unverified assumption), Cardenas’
Aides did, in fact, give him an unfair advantage over the other candidates on
the ballot.
Over the years, Cardenas’ 18 Aides have served the residents
of the Sixth Council District. They’ve responded to requests from every
community, every neighborhood in the District. They’ve helped individuals and
families with various problems, large and small. And they’ve done all that on
behalf of the Councilman.
While it may not have been their primary
purpose, Cardenas’
Aides helped him build a favorable image in the Sixth District. It inclined the
voters to support him, rather than any of his less well-known–but perhaps
better qualified–opponents.
To this point, my focus has been on one
unfair election in one Council District. But the problem is broader than that. It’s
reflected in the outcomes of at least two other elections in Council Districts,
where incumbents with virtually no record of significant accomplishments
retained their seats.
The truth is that the election of Council
Members is inherently unfair. It ensures that any challenger, no matter how well
qualified, will run as an under-dog. At the same time, Council elections almost
guarantee that any incumbent, no matter how undeserving, will have a huge advantage–his
own army of exempt Aides.
Ideally, Council elections in Los Angeles should give
all candidates a fair chance to communicate with the electorate. But if the
incumbent has 18 Council Aides to help him/her win voter approval, what chance
does any challenger really have?
Fort Villaraigosa: Angst in the ‘Hood
By JACK HUMPHREVILLE, City Watch LA On
February 2, the Mayor filed for a variance to the City’s bylaws to
construct a six foot wall around the front yard of Getty House, the
Official Mayoral Residence of Los Angeles. Located in the Windsor
Square Historic Preservation Overlay Zone, five miles west of City Hall,
this English Tudor style mansion is an important architectural and
cultural landmark in the City.
No wonder so many people throughout the
City are upset about the Mayor’s plan to turn Getty House into Fort
Villaraigosa.
And residents of Windsor Square are vehemently opposed to
this “over-in-height” structure. It is inconsistent with the
neighborhood’s open front yards that create a “park like” setting for
this historic neighborhood which the residents have fought hard to
preserve over the years.
Everyone should email this story to all their friends. We all know the incumbents use their staffers to help them campaign. Instead of doing their job they’re paid to do and help constitutents they attend meetings during the campaign and handle phones, send out mailers etc. What is shocking is these staffers are getting paid with my tax dollars to work a campaign instead of provide services to the community. How in the hell can this be fair?
Tom Labonge was accompanied by his staffers at all the election forums.
The Mayor’s wall can also include watchtowers manned by LAPD sharpshooters to get the illegal gangsters living in Windsor Square and a crocodile moat to snap the books from those evil librarians.
WHat the Failure of a Mayor wants to do around Getty is typical of the gang banger mentality. Its all about territory. He wants to protect his territory from outsiders. You can take the gangster out of the hood, but the gangster is still the gangster