AEG’s Tim Leiweke issued his ultimatum to the city a week ago: Approve the basic terms of the deal for his downtown NFL stadium with all its tax breaks, massive loans and hidden subsidies by July 31 or its dead.
It did not take long for city officials to unconditionally surrender to his threat — not that anyone should be surprised since this has been a done (back room) deal from day one.
On Wednesday, the City Planning Commission started the process of fast-tracking the formality of making sure Leiweke and his Denver billionaire boss Phil Anschutz get whatever they want whenever they want it.
Using the frequently abused “Special Meeting” provisions of the law, the Planning Commission’s President, architect William Roschen, put this item on today’s agenda (Planning Agenda 6-9.pdf) with just 24 hours notice to the public of the 8:30 a.m. meeting:
Discussion of creation of a subcommittee to review and discuss with City staff the proposed Convention Center Modernization and Farmers Field Event Center Project. The Project Site is generally bounded by Chick Hearn Court on the north, Figueroa Street on the east, Venice Boulevard on the south and the 110 Harbor Freeway on the west.**
The bold face type and asterisks are the commission’s, presumably a nod in the direction of what passes for transparency at City Hall these days.
It’s as if the commission is saying, “See, we made it perfectly clear that we are creating a subcommittee so it can sit in the back room where the deal is being concocted and allow us to pretend we thoroughly examined what’s planned and can waive all laws, rules and policies that might queer this project.”
The only thing that makes this a matter of urgency that could justify a special meeting is Leiweke’s ultimatum — the second time he’s put a deadline on approval.
The last one expired in March without action by the city because it isn’t so easy to give away the farm for Farmers Field when libraries are closed, fire stations are shutting down, streets are crumbling and the financial situation is getting worse every day.
You have to wonder why city officials are even going through the pretense of a public process.
The mayor has been aboard for two years, probably because he’s guaranteed his own luxury box for the rest of his life, and only one Council member, Bill Rosendahl, has raised any questions about protecting the public interest.
The problem is constructing a narrative that justifies the city paying to tear down half its debt-laden Convention Center, borrowing $350 million more to rebuild it as part of “stadium/events center” to enrich an out-of-town billionaire.
We only have Leiweke’s gold-plated word that L.A. will be besieged with conventioneers and tourists by the millions because the NFL is back in town and that luxury hotels will sprout all over downtown thanks to Farmers Field.
What we do know for sure is that to get a luxury hotel at LA Live and rebuild the Wilshire Grand the city gave up hundreds of millions of dollars in occupancy taxes to the owners as well as granting them lucrative rights to giant digital billboards.
Leiweke, in his altruism, insists the low-wage service jobs created by the stadium and hotels will solve L.A.’s 14 percent unemployment problem as well as City Hall’s insolvency problem.
This is “the best deal
that’s ever been made for any city in the history of the NFL,” he
says, without a hint of irony that it’s the best deal ever proposed for the
benefit of AEG which will reap all the profits from having not one but two
teams playing at Farmers Field.
MORE CORRUPTION….L.A. Coliseum official profited from numerous side deals. Todd DeStefano, collected tens of thousands of dollars in private payments from liquor and soft drink companies, television and movie firms.
Everyone call the FBI and tell them to go after those bastards in City Hall. This is corruption at its worse. DO NOT VOTE FOR GARCETTI, PERRY, LABONGE, or any of these bastards running for Mayor. Call them on it at every meeting, lunch, dinner or event you see them at. Let everyone know how corrupt they are. Post it on every blog, email this story to your groups and get the word out on these corrupt assholes.
FBI Los Angeles
11000 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: (310) 477-6565
I did call the FBI on the building permit investigation. I believe what I had to say and offer was worth an investigator’s ear and consideration. The guy that answered the phone was not interested.
We have not seen any finacial information, so how can we even begin to make a decision.
The FBI must investigate the Planning Commissioners, especially the Mayor’s chief lackey, Bill Roschen.
How can we find out when Michael LoGrande started speaking with the NFL on traffic issues and the deal hasn’t been approved? HE was dumb enough to mention when he was keynote speaker at the LANI breakfast.
What will be accomplished by knowing when LoGrande started speaking with the NFL. Do you think the corrupt Mayor will take any action against his corrupt appointee.
Jack Humperville said it correctly, that’s exactly what I though: What are the Costs?
For the City, and by the way to call up like that and threaten to take the deal off the table without NUMBERS and the Opportunity to Understand it’s impact on city assets – is still UNKNOWN.
Paul K. said, it could make or break. Magic Johnson tweet his sentiment, which was “applying pressure” on the City.
That’s not Cool Magic, cause the City has to go through the OPERATIONS of everything.. and Magic don’t come down here with that NO LOOK PASS. The People love the City BUT
Magic Johnson was loved as an athlete. He is a businessman and of no consequence now. Ignore this greedy man.
I called the FBI, too. Offered them two items. One on housing department. Almost hung up on me immediately. Then I said, “And pension corruption tied to the Mayor of Los Angeles.” He said, “Keep talking.”
Magic Johnson should “also be” aside from pre and post-game show supportive of the Great City of Los Angeles.
Prestige is not a reason to build a new field. It will require much wear and tear on our roads during construction; demand on infrastructure.
The Controller of Los Angeles should be able to put together the cost; in the same way grants are applyed for. AEG wants this deal as much as the City of L.A. The only way to provide a level of Comfort on the DEAL the Contract Offered should spell out it’s points. Upon review the City should be able to come up with elements that make the terms conducive to everyone.
Don’t let GREED get in the way of Success. We have Civil Obligations to our Citizens, by and for the Great People of L.A. (Water, Infrastructure, Peace Officers, Utilities, Traffic,)
I challenge AEG to find a better place and if you move, then you turned your back on those who helped you succeed.
Shalom
If AEG wants the City to float bonds that AEG will guarantee, then AEG should open it’s books so that the City knows they can make good on that guarantee.
We don’t want another McCourt situation where when it comes time to pay the bill, we find out they’re overextended like a Wall Street bank.
The City could be forced to keep AEG afloat if we find out down the road they don’t have the finances to make good on their guarantee.
Demand that the City Council requires AEG to open it’s books before we float them one dime.
I believe that any subcommittee formed by the commission is probably bound by the Brown Act and, therefore, a quorum of the committee cannot meet behind closed doors.
Progressive: The Controller probably should not be the body that puts together the costs–as logical as that may seem, lest we are assured (via public documents) that anyone involved in this endeavor did not contribute to her campaign.
How can we have a Planning Commission intimately involved with a project which does not even have an EIR and has not been presented to the public. This is unprecedented. Maybe, it is legal, but certainly a very unethical way of doing business. And, if they have so much free time, why are they not studying more important issues like the impacts on the infrastructure of the unnecessary density they routinely approve or whether they have produced any affordable housing through SB1818.
Ron and Readers:
At yesterday’s CPC Hearing, the City Attorney indicated that the Brown Act did not apply to these City Planning Commission sub-committee hearings on the AEG Downtown Stadium. . . A bad decision which validates the lack of openness and transparency. . . .
The City Attorney is falling down on his obligation to the people. . . . The CPC should abide by the Brown Act (notice hearings. . . . not discuss matters outside of public hearings) regardless. . . . . The analogy here is to City Council Committees made up of less than a majority of City Council Members. . . The City Attorney’s opinion is that those City Council Committees are subject to the Brown Act.
So why would sub-committee of the City Planning Commission not be subject to the Brown Act?
This is yet another ‘special interest’ ruling which undermines openness and transparency. undermines Nuch’s pledge to the the attorney ‘for the people’ (a pledge is he continues to violate) and violates the social contract he made with the people to represent the broader public interest in public interest matters over the private special interests or the political interests of the Councilmembers.
For those looking for an antidote, my suggestion is to take the following two steps:
1. Establish a true ‘attorney for the people’ by way of the establishment of an Office of Public Advocate/Inspector General’; and
2. Pass a thorough, competent whistle-blower protection law so that we can get at fraud, waste, abuse, and political corruption.
AEG is paying a lot of money to its lawyers and lobbyists.
The people need a seat at the table. . . The City Attorney (someone who is chosen by the people and paid by the people) has a fiduciary obligation to the people (the beneficiaries of this public trust (known as the City of Los Angeles). . . to insure the people’s interest in this debate is heard.
The City Attorney needs to issue a written opinion on this subject detailing why the Brown Act does not apply to sub-committee hearings of the CPC on the AEG Downtown Stadium proposal. Regardless, the City Council needs to instruct the CPC to abide by the Brown Act and hold its sub-committee hearings in public and not engage in secret, closed-door discussions about this very important matter.
The alternative is a formula for more litigation. Why would the City Attorney render advice which promotes more litigation (over the Brown Act), undermines openness and transparency, and engenders needless contention? How is this good for business? AEG should itself insist on openness and transparency and a ‘partnership’ with the people on this issue.
Noel Weiss
Noel Weiss said, a ‘partnership’ with the people on the AEG NFL Construction and I agree as of of you probably do also. No closed door – work it through the process legally. But let’s not lose focus on the REALITY, the financing, and the income for the City as part of having access to so LARGE a MARKET.
What are the financial incentives to the City? What income will the NFL Stadium pull in to make it work?
Is there a team ready to relocate?
If the ‘project’ was financed with 100% equity (i.e. by the people. . . 100,000 people at 10K per person is $1 Billion. . . AEG could still make its millions – just not off the backs of the middle class, lower middle class, and poor). . . Ownership by ‘the people’ would be a dose of ‘true citizen-empowerment capitalism’ (as opposed to the corporate-crony capitalism we have today) then there would be no debt. In this day and age, we should begin to favor ‘equity’ over ‘debt’.
Likewise the Convention Center. . . Which, if it was turned into a ‘citizen-owned’ enterprise’, there would be property taxes owing to the City.
The Green Bay Packers are owned by the people of Green Bay. . . (likewise, a number of minor league baseball teams owned by the people of their communities (not the government – the people). . .
There would be a ‘living wage’ for people working at the stadium and convention center. . . . That will put real dollars into the pockets of the people. That would help the local economy.
In Green Bay, 60% of the concession revenue gets recycled back into the community (including educational and youth athletics programs). . This would be akin to the positive investments made into LA by the profits generated by the 1984 Olympics (something skeptics said could not be done and/or should not be done).
So with little ‘debt’ (we’re too much in debt already), and true ‘equity’, the business model is appropriate and workable at this point in the economic cycle and the history of LA.
Furthermore, the middle class and the poor might actually be able to attend football games and events and partake in this avalanche of ‘riches’ that AEG says will descend on LA as soon as the people decide to put billions (or hundreds of millions) in their (AEG’s and Phil Achultz’s) collective pockets (another discredited ‘promise for performance’ deal. . . we give the ‘performance’ (the entitlements and development rights) in reliance on their ‘promise’ (everything will be just great). . . On a national scale, that’s called ‘socializing the losses’ and privatizing the riches. . . Enough already. . . . Why can’t the people be truly empowered economically and politically and a ‘true’ public (100,000 people @ $10K per person)/private partnership be created?).
If AEG and Phil Anshultz were ‘smart’ and forward looking, they would look to ‘partner’ with the people rather than make ‘demands’ and insist that the (potential) billions (in net worth) or tens of millions of cash which would be put into their pocket will somehow ‘trickle down’ to the people of Los Angeles. . . . (and I’m not talking about the legal or lobbyist fees).
That’s 19th and 20th Century Thinking. . . . We are in a new citizen empowerment era. . . It would be nice if those possessed of financial resources and control would be see how they could be further enriched by expanding the middle class, rather than shrinking it.
Noel Weiss
Bill Roschen gave a presentation at our staff meeting in the Planning Department. Hey Bill, you may have a kindred soul in Logrande, but some of us can’t stand your corrupt face. Hope FBI gets you.
It is my understanding that the City Planning Commision subcommitte is a standing committee and subject to the same rules as the Commission ie. they cannot meet without agendizing their meetings and allowing the public to attend. Absent that, they are in violation of the Brown Act, and should be prosecuted accordingly.
Noel is right. The City Attorney at the CPC meeting stated that the Planning Commission subcommittee would meet in secret to review the Farmer’s Field Proposal.
Noel seeks in on the GRAB while at the same time pretending to be all about the Brown ACT.
How about $250.00 per person in Los Angeles
Shalom
Always a brother
That’s just like the mayor and city council; giving up hundred’s of millions of dollars in tax breaks, subsidies, and occupancy taxes to enrich the billionaire owner. Then, to make up the difference for all their give-aways, they had the city’s Finance Department create a way to send a $417,000 surprise occupancy tax bill, to my 90 year old friend, who has owned a small motel in the valley in good standing, for years.
A story like this, is not, what the mayor would want reported to his T.V. fans.
The way City Hall treats the hard-working taxpayer is disgusting.
Former city council candidate
Mr Barron, as you well know, the only way to succeed in this city both within CH & in elections is through corruption. The more crooked you are the greater the rewards.
giving up hundred’s of millions of dollars in tax breaks, subsidies, and occupancy taxes to enrich the billionaire owner(s), i.e. The W Hotel. And all the other billionaire friends will buy the bonds make interest on their investment while running a hotel next to the NFL Stadium; with a promise of no Hotel Tax.
City Hall does business like the GOP: Two Tax Cuts while spending Trillions on WARS.
Mr. Weiss is correct about process and the brown act. Imagin that, the City of L.A. holds a LOTTERY so X number of Rich People can donate a lump sum of 10,000 dollars. I say, $250 per citizen if you want it to be with Equity to all.
But more than anything, if the deal “abuses” the City of L.A. and the Rich Partners and NFL put nothing on the table for the City – that really stinks. If Rich people are like that, it’s never conducive when you hold public office to give away “assets” to Billionairs/Millionairs NBA Super Stars and the LIKE.
Nice to have Full Library Service, Nice to have Full Fire Service, Nice to have full employment, and housing “Affordable” – But what WE get is Greed on top of Greed. And Now they are back pounding on the door. Yes, what can we do for you? They want Bonds to Pay for it, then when it’s up and running, the City sees ZIPO
, but what we have not heard are the TERMS.
Any commission, committee, or board, whether permanent or temporary, decision-making or advisory, created by a formal act of another Brown Act body is subject to the Brown Act.
Am I to assume that the Planning Commission is neither an advisory or decision making board?
I hope someone challenges the City Attorney’s opinion. Attorneys have been known to be wrong. Remember, his is an opinion. I passed a law.
“For those looking for an antidote, my suggestion is to take the following two steps:
1. Establish a true ‘attorney for the people’ by way of the establishment of an Office of Public Advocate/Inspector General’”…..
The people need a seat at the table. . . to insure the people’s interest in this debate is heard”.
Noel, I appreciate your comments here, but you gotta be living in a dream world, sometimes. First, the people already pay the City Attorney’s, the Mayor, City Council and the 50,000, mostly useless bureaucrats’ wages. Why should we pay for yet another person?
Second, just who will pay this person’s wages. Some rich individuals like Broad? He’ll give 10,000 and extract a million. A corporation like AEG? They’ll give 10,000 and extract 10 million. The people? Who are they. Surely, you don’t mean the long suffering folks who can’t even sell their homes without taking a huge loss or the ones who can’t find jobs or are under-employed. But we do have a population of nearly 4 million, don’t we. They could chip in a buck can’t they? Well……Look at the woeful statistics and the population that occupies LA and the reality will sink in.
Third, what power will this poor individual have against the wretched power base & bureaucracy in City Hall? Whom will he turn to as doors are shut in his/her face. Yeah! the people. The same miserable folks who elect the same wretches again & again.
Lastly, will that individual be able to fight the politicos and the bureaucracy on his own? Who’ll fund him when our City Attorney funded by taxpayer dollars uses his power to fight the people to defend the corrupt City Hall. Is this not what is going on anyway? A handful of good citizens file a lawsuit on let’s say the non-production of the Growth & Infrastructure Report, lacking which, no growth should be allowed in the city. Such a report would benefit the entire city. But, the Mayor and Councilmembers have accepted money/bribes from developers and growth must continue regardless of its impact on communities. Yeah! who defends the corrupt politicians and developers. Our own taxpayer funded and elected City Attorney.
That our City structure is messed up within and our city is a mess outside seems to be of little concern to anyone. Once again, Noel, I appreciate your comments. I have no answers either. At least, you are trying. But don’t put too much hope in the people, cause the people are the ones who elected these corrupt parasites and they’ll do it again.
Hello to 10:05 pm. . . Here’s my response to your questions:
1. We need to pay for a Public Advocate/Inspector General because the office (elected by the people with a protected budget in the City Charter) would act as a ‘check and balance’ to the political power of the special interests as reflected in the Council, the Mayor’s Office and City Attorney’s office. While it can be argued that this is redundant, it is not. . . It fills a ‘hole’ which currently exists in our system. . . Government (democratic government) reflects a number of conflicting economic and political interests. The goal is to have a vibrant, vigorous, open debate on the policy issues facing the City. That means having the law and the facts laid out by those elected by the people to represent their interests. What we have now a City Attorney elected by the people, paid by the people, but who responds less and less to the people, but to the special interests, the political interests of the Council members, and those who contribute to his campaign. This distorts the public debate and requires an alternative point of view. It allows numerous conflicts of interest to obtain. Having multiple legal opinions is not a bad thing. . . . Having a public advocate with a deputy in each Council office would facilitate the resolution of problems, and deny the Councilmembers the ability to disclaim knowledge of the problems they purport to want to resolve. It is worthwhile and necessary expense that would more than pay for itself assuming the office is backed by a strong ‘whistle-blower protection ordinance’.
2. The salary and support for the office will come from the general fund, protected by a Charter provision which allocates a budget minimum for 15 deputies (one for each Council office), the person at the top, an executive assistant, and support staff (one secretary for both individuals).
3. The power possessed by the office would be to ‘cut-through’ the City Bureaucracy to investigate fraud, waste, and abuse and to back that ability with subpoena power (concerns over abuse can be mitigated by requiring City Council approval of all subpoenas). The office would also opine (legally) on all matters of public interest and public policy on behalf of the people. So, for example, when the City Attorney says that a sub-committee of the City Planning Commission can meet in secret and is not subject to the Brown Act, the Public Advocate can provide a contrary written opinion. Where conflicts of interest abide, the Public Advocate can opine on why such conflicts exist and offer alternatives to ameliorate and eliminate such conflicts. Where the rules are violated and the City Attorney, the Controller, the Mayor, and the Council fail to do their jobs, the Public Advocate can provide an alternative legal opinion.
These saying the entire situation is hopeless serve only those in power who benefit by the status quo. We all want to pass the torch ‘lit’ to our kids. . . No one campaigns for office promising to screw things up. It would appear that once in office, the idealism and enthusiasm gets sapped away. . . . If a public advocate/inspector general reminds us what we are doing, and why. . . helps enforce the social contract for all of the people. . . . and helps keep the Councilmembers ‘honest’ to themselves and their stated principles, then we will have captured the ability to make the system work better for all of us.
There are a lot of hard-working bureaucrats who want to do a good job. . . But that becomes more challenging when the City Council fails to do its job of making policy and passes the buck to the next year as it fails to confront its responsibilities. . . . This is not unique to City government; we have the same problems in Sacramento and in Washington. . . . This is not perfection. . . it is the pursuit of perfection which, even if not achieved, can (in the words of Vince Lombardi) lead to an embrace of excellence.
The people have the power. . . . should they choose to use it. . . The special interests have their seat at the table. . . There is no reason why we can’t use the power we have to make the system more responsive in how governmental services are delivered for the benefit of the broader body politic.
I appreciate the comments and encourage those who read this blog to consider all the alternatives because it is out a vibrant debate that the best public policy can emerge. They said we could not defeat Measure B. . . But we did. . . Numerous other examples of accomplishments perceived as ‘unlikely’ or ‘impossible’ exist.
We need to see these challenges as an opportunity and not as an obstacle to growth.
Noel Weiss
Noel, these are not solutions but more layers of bureaucracy. If the electeds are not performing then vote them out.
NOEL, 10,000 individuals out of 4 Million Voted. How can you find 10,000 people with 10K?
Leiweke, in his altruism, insists the low-wage service jobs created by the stadium and hotels will solve L.A.’s 14 percent unemployment problem as well as City Hall’s insolvency problem
Ron is right about that. It’s not the minimum wage jobs AEG is offering besides that’s part of their Operations and Slavery Tactics, BUT what we need in the City IS MONEY to restore Basic Serivices 100%
Where will the City get money when all those Prisioners are Released? Ron Artest can’t save them ALL!
Excellent Points raised by ‘Progressive’ and “2:56 pm”.
Here’s my response:
1. Voting the people out only works if the voters are well informed. If those in power aggressively (or passively) work to deny voters needed information (that can only come through a vibrant public debate), then the idea of voting people out of office is an ephemeral illusion. . . Nice in theory. . . Not realistic in fact. These politicians are very adept at gaming the system so that only ‘their’ voters go to the polls (that was one of the purposes of Measure B – To draw sympathetic voters to the polls to elect the incumbents). . . That’s the residue left from the ‘viral’ campaign consultants who leech off our political system. Bottom line: Anything that promotes openness and transparency and a vibrant public debate is a good thing. Sometimes that means ‘more bureaucracy’. . . The ‘Articles of Confederation’ (where the executive, judicial (to the extent it existed) and legislative power was consolidated in one entity (the Congress)) was very efficient. It was also ineffective. So we ‘created’ more government bureaucracy under the US Constitution. . a judicial branch, an executive branch, and a legislative branch (after all, having a ‘King’ was very efficient. . . one guy (or gal). . . But not very democratic). So the new Colonies experimented with a limited democratic system (limited because who could vote was limited to men holding real property. . . But it has expanded nicely since then). In addition, we created more ‘bureaucracy’ by splitting power between the national government and the states. . . and within the states, more bureaucracy still with further subdivision of government. Why? Because true citizen-empowerment depends on the ability to ‘tweak’ the system. . . to make it work for the people. . .and to be able to reconcile conflicting economic and political interests. Yes, there may be more money paid to and for these officials. . .but the evaluation has to be not just the cost of providing those services, but the opportunity cost of not providing them.
Can anyone honestly say that our current City Governmental system where all of the power (legislative, judicial, and executive) is vested in one body. . . The City Council. . . with limited checks and balances is effective?
In summary, voting the incumbents out does little if the new occupants have to deal in the same ‘reality’ as those who were voted out. . . . A media which is a mouthpiece for the status quo; a failure of the City Council to make critical policy decisions (what do the voters (i.e. those few who vote) reward, really?. . . bold policy-makers, or ‘status quo’ elected bureaucrats?), and bureaucrats who, by their very nature, will refuse to stick their neck out only to see it chopped off. . . We get mediocrity not because the people are mediocre, but because we do not reward excellence to the level we need to. . . That’s why having a ‘public advocate/inspector general’ (elected by the people) is only half of the solution. The other half is to have a competent, well thought-out whistle-blower protection law to protect those within the bureaucracy who speak out against fraud, waste, or abuse.
The real bottom line is whether we want to confront our challenges or maintain a state of denial. In good times, few changes can be made because we get complacent. In bad times (when the changes are needed), complacency turns to cynicism. . . and changes are made more difficult as a result. . . So if we can turn from complacency and cynicism to activism, competence, and faith, willing to make principled commitments in the face of uncertainty, we will be well on our way to capturing excellence (very possible) in the pursuit of perfection (we will never be ‘perfect’ (thank goodness)).
2. As for the 100,000-$10K plan, I believe that Dodger season ticket fans comprise (today) 22,000. When things were going great for the Dodgers, I believe the total season ticket holders was around 30K. . . So getting one-third should be relatively easy. As for the other two-thirds, we live in a County of 10 Million people. Getting 66,000 people out of that large a population base is very realistic. . . Again, that’s true capitalism. . . economic democracy. . . citizen empowerment. . . people ‘voting’ with their dollars.
3. The ‘low wage’ service jobs should be jobs which pay a living wage. . . AEG is not making any guarantee that those hard working Angelenos who work the venue will be paid a living wage. . . It needs to do that. . . Having zero debt and 100% equity will facilitate that objective. . . This is making the system work for all the people, not just the ‘rich’ guys.
4. The City’s tax base will be raised by virtue of the economics of citizen-(private equity) ownership of these quasi-public assets. When the owners of the airport hotels were forced to pay a living wage to their hospitality employees, did they go out of business? On the contrary, they are doing very, very well. . . The hospitality workers have an added $25 Million in their pockets. . . which went back into the local economy. . . in the form of sales taxes paid for the goods they purchased (and needed) with those extra dollars. The same principle applies with regard to a citizen purchase of the Dodgers, a citizen purchase of an NFL stadium and team, and a citizen purchase of the convention center. Once the people are empowered economically, they will be empowered politically. . . Then we get more people to vote. . . and we get a more informed electorate. . . and we get results which are reflective of our core social values, including the social value which says we strive for excellence in the pursuit of perfection.
Noel Weiss
Noel if you want to truely make it a Public DEAL make it $250 per Person, another words Make it Affordable to the Citizens.
Do you think the avg., worker who makes around $50K per year can afford $10K with Rent eating 35% of Net Salary after paying taxes with at least ONE CHILD?
You are acting like them, the corrupt ones because everyone should be able to make money off the deal, everyone. But buying Bonds is not on their MINDS the ones who earn 50K. So I propose the Sale of Bonds be open to Citizens First starting at with no less than $250 dollars and the MORE means that the chance to sell the total Value of the Bond, “efficient & fair”.
You mentioned 30K for Press Box but a game behind home plate is about 400.00 dollars. Since Dogers don’t play Orioles this Season, not going and not going to get MUGGED. That’s why I always leave the GAME when I go early or because the Dodgers ARE BORING-
You think in terms of your Peers when I think in terms of giving everyone a chance to see the game behind home plate.
Lets see, on average behind home plate is only 25%-35% full. But if that guy who earns 50K can watch a game for 200.00 I bet MONEY that Dodgers can fill the PARK and earn the same with lower attendence for higher prices.
Being Progressive mean to me, that if I make 50K per year I should be able to afford to see a Dodger GAME. Want to fill the Park, want to life people together.. don’t talk about the PEOPLE and devise a profit scheme for yourself and friends. That’s the little groups, the inner groups for all the Wrong Reasons. The guy who saw a game behind home plate for 200 dollars may also be a VET – so let’s Not Talk about Profits cause I can surely Make Dodgers money if they Though about “the fans” not the HOTDOGS.
Weiss is on a role – heard him yelling at City Council a few months ago raising the “public investment” proposal. I guess the City Council did not pay attention.
On Public Investment, now lets talk serious, when you bring everyone Mr. Weiss to the table, the ground will rumble. If I invest money in the City of Los Angeles I am a Stake Holder on top of a Constituent. If my neighbor invested 2,500 dollars or 250.00 he or she TOO is “vested” in the Cities Success, and I can assure you, if avg. JOE or SALLY (Jose or Tanya) invests – He/she will show up AT the Ballot Box. And, do something like GO SEE A DODGER GAME.
I LOVE DODGER DOGGS Y’ALL. (JUST TEASING)
The talk of corruption is true. I am finding that when Leaders are corrupt the NFL is not “DOWN with that”.
Politicans are here for a short time but I think I want an NFL Team (not that I care about the game cept for the 49ers, sorry guys, girls)
No, AEG does not have to put up gurantees to the city about what they pay “Angelenos”. There are federal state and local, but the State and Fed take presidence, such as the Minimum Wage Law.
We don’t want to get ALL INTO their Business and How much THEY (AEG & their Associates) earn.
However, without question money for the Construction/Doing the EIR and all that and making it happen should be paid for by the Private Sector because, THEY beneift fom City Services, infrastructure, and administering and doing legal work. AEG charges for simular services otherwise they too may go out of business, LOL>
Mature MEN with the Right Goals and, by the way if any one feels the city should have a people referree I think Ron has the Cameras and connections to show Transparency.
Now here is an important deal. Don’t muck it up with too much over the shoulder of AEG but certainly the City of LA. AEG & the City understand the Financial Dangers, all we can do is SCREAM from the Sidelines and hopefully they will take points here and there from everyone. Including me.
And by the way @Stzlyee on twitter
Must need AEG money for his DA run.
Both the FBI and the DA’s office are looking for a blatent financial quid pro quo for Corruption investigation.
I would like to see the FBI and the DA go beyond this simple rule – Even without a smoking gun, elected officials in LA go out of their way, breaking both guidelines and laws, in ram-roding development projects through the approval processs.
The only ones who will be caught are the poor saps at the bottom of the rung who were dumb enough to take cash, unlike our sophisticated Mayor who has attorneys advising him on how to have a good life and beat the rap. Same for other “power” folks in City Hall.
Noel, still don’t agree with your solutions. If people are that stupid, then they don’t deserve democracy. What happened to the Neighborhood Councils you vouch for. Should they not have have at least taught rudimentary democracy to the constituents they purport to represent for the 45,000 they get from the taxpayers. Let’s face it that scoundrels who know the score will keep getting elected again & again and unfortunately that is the bain of democracy. So be it, since there is no other better system.
But creating layers and layers of watchdogs who as you admitted get corrupted by the system is no solution. Either there are hardly any honest people left here (the corrupt Bldg & Safety head Bud Ovrum said that the inspectors were dishonest cause there weren’t enough supervisors to oversee them) or just accept the fact about the decline of LA caused by people like Bud Ovrum and the Mayor he represents. There is a far deeper decline in the culture in LA, which thousands of watchdogs can’t cure.