Dick Riordan
is there for his pal Austin Beutner to help launch of his dark horse mayoral
campaign.
“The
basic thing is jobs, jobs, jobs,” says the former two-term mayor and
long-time civic leader.
Well, not
exactly. The basic thing is leadership and managing the operations of a $6 billion
government and its airport, harbor and DWP. But I get it. Friends stand up for
friends and Beutner is a good guy.
When
Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig finally comes down on Frank McCourt, the only
person who comes to the defense of the Dodgers owner is Steve Soboroff who had
just stepped in as the team’s vice chairman in an effort to save his pal.
“We
need more people like Frank McCourt,” says Soboroff, who just happens to
be a pal of Riordan and Beutner as well as McCourt and a lot of other important
people.
OK, I get
it. Friends stand up for friends. But let’s face it, we need more people like
Frank McCourt in jail, not running around living like kings while destroying a
beloved community asset like the Dodgers.
Now we
learn, thanks to the LA Weekly, that the deal to lure the local office of the global
architecture firm Gensler from Santa
Monica to downtown LA includes among its many
subsidies is the gift of $1 million in federal community block grants that were
intended to help downtown’s army of homeless people.
Gensler isn’t
just a guy who knows a guy. He’s such good friends with Tim Leiweke that he’s
designing the Farmers Field football stadium that is being shoved down the
public’s throat because Leiweke has so many friends at City Hall, he can get
just about anything he wants.
One of
those friends is Beutner who, as the city’s jobs czar, put together the three-year
tax holiday and the $1 million homeless subsidy to move a few jobs a dozen
miles inland to help fill some empty office space owned by the king of downtown
development, Jim Thomas, who just happens to have gotten $74 million in city tax
rebates to rebuild the Wilshire Grand Hotel. Jobs, jobs, jobs.
On hand at
the February press conference for the Gensler relocation announcement were
Beutner, Thomas, the queen of downtown developers Councilwoman Jan Perry and the
one and only friend of everybody who matters, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.
You see it’s
all just a circle of friends, of one hand looking after another.
It’s what passes
for family in this post-cultural society of ours, a modern form of tribalism.
It doesn’t matter if they are good people or bad people, or whether what they are
up to is good for others, or harms them. It’s all in the family, just friends.
Joining
this family of friends requires money or power and one more thing, an
acceptance of the unspoken, unspeakable rules, a kind of code of silence that
recognizes the pseudo-aristocratic manners and mores of this ruling class.
They are
surrounded by a vast servant class of bureaucrats and technocrats, sycophants and
jesters.
Don’t kid
yourself, the rest of us are merely beggars pleading with our hands out for
crumbs from their tables.
Such is
what passes for democracy in a city that boasts it is a bastion of liberalism.
For 30
years, it has been at war with the middle class, chasing away hundreds of
thousands of people to make more room for the poor who suffer mercilessly
because of lousy jobs if there are any, rotten schools, unenforced housing laws
and the theft of money intended to ease their burdens.
Let’s see all
these candidates for mayor – even one of them — stand up in public and talk
about this, about how they will open up the doors of power, break up this
family of friends, run this city for the benefit of all the people in all the
diversity of their needs and values.
A city with
four million people who feel friendship with each other, who see all our fates
are bound together – that’s the Los Angeles of my dreams.
Ron,
You would gain many more followers if you stopped acting like this stuff is a recent phenomenon. LA has always been a tight little circle. Reread your Mike Davis if you have to.
Apparently for most of your career you didn’t care until now when you found yourself at the margin. But if you want to be relevant again, you have to offer the citizens of LA (and the most critical subset of them, those who vote) something better than you have so far.
Might I suggest crusading to eliminate the huge public subsidy given to wealthy elderly homeowners and commercial property owners that has distorted real estate markets and public finances for several generations. Just because you bought your own before 1978 doesn’t mean our society has to twist itself in knots to keep you in a house you can’t afford absent the huge public subsidy that allows you to fail to pay the real tax burden (the tax burden that helped make California the great state it once was before the Jarvis cry-babies decided that running a complex dynamic and growing economy should be free).
T0 “What is your name?” 8:47am
We have been “taking it” all these years (since 1970′s) because we trusted these jokers.
Finally someone is researching and writing about
it!!!! It is called getting educated. Most residents havn’t been in on the beginning. So they do not know any better.
Thank you, Ron, for what you are doing -I know it must be exhausting. Most of us have neither knowledge nor ability. TH
Thank you, Ron, for educating us. We trusted these people. They acted like they knew what they were doing. They sure did – taking advantage of all the rest of us.
Those who are lucky enough to get your blog appreciate you.
Ronnie, GREAT Post. And to the 8:47am poster I have news for you. Ron has done more this city posting information and telling us what is really going on in City Hall because the local media with the exception of LA Weekly still is nothing more then a pr spin for City Hall corruption. Because of Ron’s posts and info we copy and email out to our groups. You will notice some of Ron’s posts also get picked up on National Web sites. So, go back under your rock and let Ron continue to do his great work keeping us up to date. The little circle of friends should be called MAFia because that’s how they behave. Just like the lying, crooks, thieves, slime balls they all are. Thanks Ron. You just gave me the best campaign slogan of all against Beutner.
To Same As It Ever Was: Ron said this has been going on for 30 years or more! Well, maybe you missed your reading comprehension classes at LAUSD.
Speaking of classes minus the “cl,” you need to educate yourself on Prop. 13 and stop being a jealous anti-13ite who propably bought his California bungalow after ’76.
Prop. 13 save thousands of home owners — young and old — from going belly-up in their homes. Without “13″ thousands would have been forced out of their homes years before the real estate crash.
If it weren’t for “13″, property taxes would have gone up so drastically that everyone would be paying more in taxes for one year than they would in mortgage payments for the same year, and the idiots who run the government would still be crying poverty.
Even though times were good when Prop. 13 passed, it was a loud and clear message to the powers-that-be that instead of gouging us for more and more money, they should have been watching how they were spending our money.
They got less income from property taxes, yet kept spending more and more, all the while looking for ways to sucker-punch us out of more and more money.
Now quit your bitchin’ because blaming the little old lady who’s managed to hold on to her house until now because of Prop. 13 isn’t the problem; politicians and complainers like you are!
People, the truth is — it doesnt matter who the next mayor is. There are fewer & fewer jobs in LA. This combined with unrealistic high real estate prices, low quality of life, sprawl, and traffic — forget about it.
Riordan has done NADA for LA, just a rich busybody who thinks he knows everything.
To: 8:47a.m., although the other comments have addressed Proposition 13, I want to just add this salient fact – there is an inequality in the way the law was written – commercial property owners have ended up not paying their fair share. Turnover on those properties aren’t on par with that of single family homes. As a result, many commercial properties pay at a much lower rate which means less money for the state. I am not advocating revisiting this law, mostly because all property owners would end-up paying much higher taxes than they already do. That 2% per year raise adds up very quickly.
As for Riordan and Beutner – we can thank Riordan for increasing the pension plan obligations the city is facing. So, any endorsement of his automatically leads me to be suspect. Ron’s right – it’s not only about jobs, it’s about leadership. And, none of the candidates will have that ability because they don’t answer to us. And haven’t for a very long time.
I’d also like a definition of jobs – wouldn’t you? Are we talking about jobs like the middle-class used to have, or jobs that barely allows someone to live in a costly city like Los Angeles?
Just once when someone says “this will mean jobs, jobs and more jobs” they’d be specific.
What jobs? Where jobs? Whose jobs? What kind of jobs? Union jobs? Mimimum wage jobs? In what industry(ies) jobs? Temporary jobs? Permanent jobs? Good jobs? Menial jobs?
Of course, they won’t; they can’t because they’re blowing smoke from their nether regions!
McCourt didn’t enter the scene until the Hahn days. But, I understand Riordan is guilty because he is a friend and colleague of Steve Soboroff and because he endorses Beutner. It all gets too cozy.
Not understanding the ins and outs of Dodger Stadium politics, and to be fair, I have a question about something I read. Could someone explain to me how blocking McCourt’s ability to enter a 3 billion dollar a year deal with Fox might have impacted what went down with finances? Is McCourt saying that his hands were tied on what he could do? Were there past deals with prior owners and networks that made the flow of cash more available? Is it implied with regard to McCourt that monies were misspent? If so, how?
I’m not suggesting any innocence, especially when it comes to the lack of security (like, what do you expect when alcohol is served to a crowd that large). I just am trying to consider all sides here and am curious if this is, in any way, something to be factored in.
To: 5:58. . . . .
McCourt is way, way overleveraged. . . . A ‘go-go’ speculator who ‘borrows and spends’, he is now bereft of funds because his ‘piggy-bank’ (the LA Dodgers) has been taken away from him. When he has to borrow money to pay the players and secure that loan from the proceeds of a fictitious malpractice lawsuit, that tells you (and it told Bud Selig) that McCourt is in trouble financially. . . and the broader interests of baseball dictate that a major, historical franchise like the Dodgers not be abused. . . . Selig doesn’t want to see other owners doing the same thing. . .it burdens the whole.
When the McCourts bought the Dodgers, they entered into a very special ‘partnership’. One of the terms of the ‘partnership’ is that the MLB Commissioner is given the power to take over a club in the event of problems. . . So in that sense, McCourt’s hands have always been ‘tied’.
There’s obviously more to the story. . . What McCourt has told the Commissioner. . . and whether he has any credibility with the Commissioner. . . What Selig wants now is to educate himself on what the situation is. . . Thus, his order to appoint a ‘de facto’ Receiver to look into the books and report on what the situation is.
That will give Selig the detailed data and information to see if McCourt has been deceptive in his private comments to the Commissioner and whether both McCourts have been using the Dodgers as their personal ‘piggy bank’. . . and if so, to what extent.
Right now, the Commissioner is on a ‘fact-finding’ mission. . . if, for other reason, so that the other owners (members of this exclusive rich person’s club) know what is going on.
The people need to purchase the Dodgers (100,000 x $10K per person is $1 Billion). . . It would help unite the City and empower the people economically and politically. Like with any other new idea which smashes the status quo, we all get stronger challenging the legal and practical impediments that exist. . . This represents a mulit-generational opportunity of untold dimensions. . . . . Cities, States, and ‘people’ who take advantage of such opportunities find themselves on top after all is said and done.
We say we believe in capitalism and citizen empowerment. . . Citizen-ownership of the Dodgers represents true ‘economic democracy’. . . .
The resources exist. . . The competence and capability exists. . . The only question is whether the will exists. . . .
Time to put our beliefs into action.
Noel Weiss
Thank you for the explanation Mr Weiss.
It appears Riordan didn’t have much, if any, of a part in this recent turn of events-the beginning and end of the McCourt chapter, that is. Perhaps his premature endorsement of Beutner, for whatever that’s worth, and past affiliation with Soboroff placed him in the cross fire. ‘Not sure why Soboroff needed to defend McCourt short of some sense of loyalty and that may be neither here nor there with regard to the bigger picture. Or, is it part of the bigger picture?
‘Not being much of a baseball spectator, I don’t know what network(s) broadcast the games and what reason blocking a deal with Fox existed and whether that even matters.
I like what you say about the people needing to purchase the Dodgers. How does that translate into taxes, income generated, operations, new/old policies in that regard, etc?
Again, thank you. — 5:58 PM
Thank you for the explanation Mr Weiss.
It appears Riordan didn’t have much, if any, of a part in this recent turn of events-the beginning and end of the McCourt chapter, that is. Perhaps his premature endorsement of Beutner, for whatever that’s worth, and past affiliation with Soboroff placed him in the cross fire. ‘Not sure why Soboroff needed to defend McCourt short of some sense of loyalty and that may be neither here nor there with regard to the bigger picture. Or, is it part of the bigger picture?
‘Not being much of a baseball spectator, I don’t know what network(s) broadcast the games and what reason blocking a deal with Fox existed and whether that even matters.
I like what you say about the people needing to purchase the Dodgers. How does that translate into taxes, income generated, operations, old/new policies in that regard, etc?
Again, thank you. — 5:58 PM
If the Los Angeles media wasn’t so tabloid journalism and they reported more facts and the corruption within City Hall maybe just maybe the clowns and morons who are running our City would get a reality check and stop behaving like criminals they are. Just today the LA Slimes has over 7 stories in LA Now on Lindsay Lohan, same goes for the other local tabloid papers and online tv news. How pathetic and short changed LA residents are because we have such horrible reporting. I guarantee if the media reported half the stuff Ron posts here they would clean up their act. That’s how it started to fall apart for Bell. We should boycott our local papers until they get it right
I’ve been besieged by this blog and want to weigh in on this:
1/ I’m a grifter, I take, take, take, take, and take and give NADA to no one but myself
2/ I’m like Bratton, I’m an arrogant Eastern who can’t pronounce a sentence without sounding like I’ve just passed my first ESL class.
3/ I did cater to the thugs, because with no White People left in L.A., whoelse do you know is going to sit in the cold dark night and pay me for it?
4/ I had that Fox T.V. deal, until that MLB SuperThug stopped it. Damn, I had 4 escrows in Malibu pending with that baby. So I’m stuck with only 10 mansions, instead of the 14 I truly deserve.
5/ Jamie is actually a Man, that’s why I had to leave her, I found out recently
6/ Noel Weiss is an agent of Bud Selig just trying to take my team!
7/ Steve Soboroff is senile, wealthy, and stupid, 3 great qualities I always solicit in any successful business deal.
8/ I’ll NEVER sell the team: I’m the Mohamar Khadaffi of Dodger Blue! I’ll keep the Dodger stronghold!
9/ I’m going to miss Mayor Villar, but I’ll like this Beutner guy, he’s another RETARD I’ll have no trouble controlling.
So to sum it up: I’m a great businessman and great father. I’m a billionaire and all of you are my minions. Oops, have to go…just got a call on another mansion for sale….
I love you all. . . .
Citizen ownership of the Dodgers means a packed stadium for every game; it means living wages for the people who work at Dodger stadium; it means concessions reasonably priced; it means the middle class and the lower economic classes being able to attend games (what’s the cost now for a family of 4? $200? per game? Are you kidding me?); it means money for sports programs (the 1984 Olympics (a ‘private’ quasi-public trust) was profitable and those profits are still serving youth sports programs today); it means the citizens of LA being empowered politically and economically (a threat to our current crony, corporate, crisis capitalistic model); it means expanding the pie; and it means returning baseball to the middle class.
Taxes would be paid just like with every other business. . . . but with 100% equity (and no debt), the club can afford to do things its competition would not be able to do (like lower ticket prices for a segment of our city that today can’t afford to go to a baseball game with their family).
For those who view this as ‘socialist’, I have a three word response: “Sarah Palin’s Alaska’ (the oil royalty trust that gives every citizen of Alaska an ownership interest in the oil taken out of the ground anywhere in Alaska. . . and with oil at $110 per barrel, you’ve got to know the people are loving it. . . . all the people). . . .
Let’s return baseball to the middle class. . . to the people. . . Competent management will run the club. . . just like with the Green Bay Packers. . . .
100,000 people at $10K per person is $1 Billion. In a City of 4 Million and a County of 10 Million, the money exists. . . . What’s the size of Dodger Stadium? 56,000 people?
Baseball’s anti-trust exemption can be repealed (both Republicans and Democrats support the idea). . . . and the City will be united around the team. . .
Noel Weiss
Hi Mr Weiss-I don’t get what you mean by 10K per person. Would you please explain how that works?
Would everyone have to be taxed or just those taxes off tickets, concessions, etc? I already pay a lot for my water and would rather not pay a tax for something I do not attend.
Would the city (ideally that equates to “the people”) get revenue from networks broadcasting the games?
Thanks-5:58 (yesterday)
To 5:58 and 8:19 (same person):
By $10K, I mean $10,000 per person. . . So if 100,000 people (out of a City of 4 Million and a County of 10 Million) invest $10,000 apiece, that total is $1 Billion.
This is absolutely doable.
No one would be taxed unless and until the investor sold his share. . . But to avoid ‘speculation’ and keep to the real purpose of the vision, anyone wanting to sell would sell back to the entity (probably a ‘non-profit’ formed for the express purpose of owning the team. . . just like the Green Bay Packers (Superbowl Champs)).
Taxes on ticket sales and food concessions would be paid just like they are now.
The City government of LA would have nothing to do with this. . . The best analogy I can think of is the 1984 Olympics where a group of private individuals got together and put on the Olympics. . . The ‘enterprise’ made money (a profit) which was (and still is) being returned to the community (the people of LA) through youth sports grants. In addition, sports facilities for kids have been built with some of the money. . . .
Because the ownership entity would be completely non-leveraged (i.e. no debt, but 100% equity), ticket prices for the middle class and the less fortunate could be lowered so they could attend games (after all, the park holds 56,000 and there is no reason why lower priced tickets for a lot of games can’t be sold to families who can’t afford to spend what it takes today to go to a game (around $225 for a family of 4. . . . that’s one game. . . That could go down significantly).
I would not envision the City of Los Angeles getting any money from the broadcasting of the games. . . The entity that owned the team would get that revenue. . . more money to use to subsidize lower ticket prices and food prices for the people who can’t afford to go to games now. . . . Those added dollars could also be used to pay the people who staff the games a decent and fair wage; and the team could afford to attract the top players (as well as invest in a decent farm system (where, by the way, the local teams could also be owned by the people of their communities. . . thus creating a solid vertical (supporting foundation)).
The fact that the people of LA would be focused and united behind the Dodgers would mean a continually packed stadium and many listeners and viewers on radio, tv, and the phone (maybe phone apps could be sold or given away). . . More people mean more revenue. . . We’d get on a virtuous, positive cycle. . . instead of eliminating people, we’d be adding people. . . That’s capitalism at its best. . . expanding the pie. . . and thereby expanding the revenue. . . . . and the growth opportunities (both economically and politically).
I hope this answers your questions.
Noel Weiss
To 5:58 and 8:19 (same person):
By $10K, I mean $10,000 per person. . . So if 100,000 people (out of a City of 4 Million and a County of 10 Million) invest $10,000 apiece, that total is $1 Billion.
This is absolutely doable.
No one would be taxed unless and until the investor sold his share. . . But to avoid ‘speculation’ and keep to the real purpose of the vision, anyone wanting to sell would sell back to the entity (probably a ‘non-profit’ formed for the express purpose of owning the team. . . just like the Green Bay Packers (Superbowl Champs)).
Taxes on ticket sales and food concessions would be paid just like they are now.
The City government of LA would have nothing to do with this. . . The best analogy I can think of is the 1984 Olympics where a group of private individuals got together and put on the Olympics. . . The ‘enterprise’ made money (a profit) which was (and still is) being returned to the community (the people of LA) through youth sports grants. In addition, sports facilities for kids have been built with some of the money. . . .
Because the ownership entity would be completely non-leveraged (i.e. no debt, but 100% equity), ticket prices for the middle class and the less fortunate could be lowered so they could attend games (after all, the park holds 56,000 and there is no reason why lower priced tickets for a lot of games can’t be sold to families who can’t afford to spend what it takes today to go to a game (around $225 for a family of 4. . . . that’s one game. . . That could go down significantly).
I would not envision the City of Los Angeles getting any money from the broadcasting of the games. . . The entity that owned the team would get that revenue. . . more money to use to subsidize lower ticket prices and food prices for the people who can’t afford to go to games now. . . . Those added dollars could also be used to pay the people who staff the games a decent and fair wage; and the team could afford to attract the top players (as well as invest in a decent farm system (where, by the way, the local teams could also be owned by the people of their communities. . . thus creating a solid vertical (supporting foundation)).
The fact that the people of LA would be focused and united behind the Dodgers would mean a continually packed stadium and many listeners and viewers on radio, tv, and the phone (maybe phone apps could be sold or given away). . . More people mean more revenue. . . We’d get on a virtuous, positive cycle. . . instead of eliminating people, we’d be adding people. . . That’s capitalism at its best. . . expanding the pie. . . and thereby expanding the revenue. . . . . and the growth opportunities (both economically and politically).
I hope this answers your questions.
Noel Weiss
Give me old fashioned Chicago politics-where you got what you paid for!!!!!!!!!!!!
Audit|Federal
The City of LA has used FED money for purposes other than what is was specified for and constitients must request a FEDERAL AUDIT.
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has decided to spend $1 million in federal grants — money that had been avidly sought by residents of Skid Row — to instead help out San Francisco–based Gensler , a 2,800-employee giant that enjoyed $463 million in revenue last year.
CDBG|Audit Time
During budget hearings last year department managers reported to L.A. City Council employees were transferred to open positions associated with County, State and Federal gran awards.
Amen about getting the word out – Big deal – the Times won a Pulitzer for reporting on the City of Bell – when will the investigative team undertake the same effort regarding the City of Los Angeles – there aren’t enough trees to print the whole story of giveaways, fixes, corruption, rampant spending, nepotistic awarding of contracts, unethics (is that a word?), a overall general failure to abide by laws, etc., that is the day-to-day norm in the City of Angels.
Where are Woodward and Bernstein when you need them?
Hi Mr Weiss-It’s me again-5:58 (initially). Thank you for your reply. Okay, I see what you mean. Of course more questions pop up, but I won’t trouble you with all of them (just a few).
Now that I get that the 10K is voluntary, I like it. I’d even consider investing in that. The questions pop up in the “doable” category-salaries, liability concerns,the establishment of a non-profit, etc.
Hmmm…this is very interesting and so worthy of consideration. What are the chances of this becoming a reality (or, at least, a real consideration) given the present players?
Hank534-
if the Times just covered why the City Controller does not disclose the possible impact unfunded pension liabilities have on the city’s financial condition, or question the pension boards about the earnings assumptions they use, the paper would not only win the Pulitzer Prize, but it could earn millions off the movie version.
Justin Bieber would play Wendy. He would win the Academy Award.
LOL good one Paul. Yeah, all Dumb ass Wendy does is audit with no real solutions or resolve. I agree with poster about all the Federal Grant money not going where it was intended. There’s a list all over city hall. The Gangster Mayor only takes care of his non profit kiss asses and those who do him favors out in communities. This City is so rife with bullshit its amazing its still functioning. To the attorneys who come on here where do we start to get the FEDS to investigate about their grant money? I also heard the Gangster Mayor has transferred a lot of money to the gangster programs intended more for other community projects. But we shouldn’t be surprised. He put the biggest gangsters in City Hall, Homeboy Industries.
To the comment from By Same as it ever was… on April 22, 2011 8:47 AM,
Instead of picking on Proposition 13, the real problem is Redevelopment which takes all the real estate valuation increases since a project area is formed (in LA it can go back to 1959) and directs it to the Redevelopment agency to subsidize wealthy developers.
So leave Prop 13 alone, and tell your Republican friends in Sacramento that they are full of it when they protect Redevelopment for their rich friends. Get them off the fat asses and vote with the Gov to torpedo Redevelopment in all of California.
I would consider investing $10K in the purchase of the Dodgers. What a legacy I could leave to my heirs. The Dodgers are a public institution and should be owned by the public. If only we could get Tommy Lasorda and Peter Omalley to back such a plan. With those two we would have a decent chance of seeing this happen. Steve Garvey and his private investors are in it for the money and we have seen where that has led us. They don’t make owners like the Omalleys anymore and the economics are different from when they owned the dodgers. Public ownership is the only option that will lead to putting the brakes on ticket prices and concessions, thus making it affordable for the working class to enjoy a dodger game or two during the year.