AEG’s Tim Leiweke is in hard-sell mode, running all over town promoting the idea that he can bring the National Football League back to Los Angeles for a third try at no cost and no risk to the public.
That’s his story and he’s sticking to it, right up to the July 31 deadline he has set for the mayor and City Council to sign off on the deal or he’s picking up Staples Center and LA Live and leaving town.
Only it’s not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
You can take the City Council’s word for it that the negotiations under AEG’s ultimatum will be completely transparent and open and that no public money will be used for the deal or put at risk.
“There are no backroom deals,” Councilman Ed Reyes said at a meeting Thursday of the Council committee tracking negotiations.
Lead city negotiator Chief Legislative Analyst Gerry Miller offers his own assurance:“The point of this is not to get a football team The point of this is to leverage a football team and a stadium to generate economic activity and generate money we don’t have today to fix a convention center that has to be fixed. We’ve got to fix it one way or another.”
Clearly football has nothing to do with it and freeloading mayor and Council members would never take complimentary tickets from Leiweki or political money or favors would they?
The trouble with this deal is simple: Even as Leiweke changes the deal from week to week, the basic premise is the same in that all the profits from tickets, concessions, digital billboards, naming rights, even a lot of the tax revenue goes straight into Denver billionaire Phil Anschutz pocket and any tax or other revenue that comes to the city goes to pay off the roughly $750 in debt the will be carrying for a white elephant Convention Center.
The Convention Center, like the billboard signage, are among the issues the transparent and open City Council doesn’t even want to talk about.
But if AEG picks the artchitect, Populous, to design the rebuilt wing of the Convention Center which will be an integrated part of the stadium and the city is ready to completely privatize the Convention Center, who do you think is going to run it and reap what Leiweke claims will be spectacular profits because downtown L.A. will suddenly be the hottest ticket in the country.
Maybe yes, maybe no. The same goes for all the other vague claims about luxury hotels on every corner and how tens of thousands of jobs will be created and billions of dollars will come flooding ito town and we’ll all be rich again.
As for the billboards, Dennis Hathaway of Ban Billboard Blight has brought his expertise to tracing how City Hall has been setting up a giveaway worth tens of millions of dollars in digital signage to AEG but never finalized the terms of the sweetheart deal.
Understand that whatever benefits Staples Center has brought the city and the far from successful LA Live has produced, they both were heavily subsidized by taxpayers and make no mistake — Leiweke’s claims to the contrary — when a business gets to keep the taxes customers pay for its goods and services, it is a subsidy, a $300 million subsidy in the case of the hotel/condo complex at LA Live.
As things stand, the only Council member who has raised questions about this deal is Bill Rosendahl and he’s taken to accepting non-answers to his questions as answers and talking more and more like the football is the most important thing L.A. needs to restore its pretensions to greatness.
So we are left with former Councilman Nate Holden to stand up for the public interest as he did before the Council committee Thursday and at Rosendahl’s town hall in Mar Vista on Monday.
IN this horrible economy all professional teams are losing revenue. The NBA and NFL are in trouble and look at the mess with Dodgers. Why in the hell should the taxpayers of LA help out billionaires like Anshultz and AEG when the first responders like police and fire are getting a chicken shit raise in 2012 for only 3%. I don’t see what Nate Holden has been saying about how AEG left the City holding the bag on Staples deal in any of the news media. Where is the transparency? AEG asked the idiots on council to allow them to pay for a consultant. Talk about bias BS. NO, THEY BETTER VOTE NO ON THIS CORRUPT DEAL
Its time for son of measure B
If this project makes sense, then let AEG purchase any properties outright with their own private financing or any waiver’s of taxes.
Rosendahl and Koretz will wimp out and totally support this project.
Doggonnit!
The City and the taxpayers would all be better off if they just torn down the Convention Center and built a huge doggie park!
Bruno’s and my poop is a lot easier to clean up and deal with (and it’s biodegradeable) than crooked deals, noise, traffic, congestion, pollution and eye-blight that goes with this deal.
Grrrrrrr!
Bruno’s Pal,
G.
The biggest problem in LA is that we have no civic-minded leaders. The public offcials are all corrupt even as they play musical chairs for the next position within their tight little circle. The private wealthy are all using these morons to get even more wealthy. The unions continue to rip-off the city. Just how much money does an uneducated cop need for the 3-day work week they put in. Regardless, they got a 5% pay increase. Let them leave if they don’t like their jobs. Where will they go – to city of Costa Mesa? The laundry list goes on and on. A few people may complain here about the state of affairs, but the same idiots keep getting elected again and again. All I can say is that we are historians who are witnessing the slow but steady decline of a great city. The one thing I’m sure of is that this will happen and AEG will get the moon, sun and stars as long as the worst Mayor and City Council are in power.
AEG’s Tim Leiweke is in hard-sell mode and the dead-line for a deal convolutes everything. Tim Leiweke would not make a deal that did not have full support of the People of Los Angeles, and a great contract for the City.
Give nothing to Rich Men. The Property Value in Los Angles is worth a great sum, and leasing it would help the City of Los Angeles.
The City of Los Angeles can not afford any compromise and Tim would be smart to allow the this matter to be fully VETED. Besides, even if the deal is JACK SHIT for the City, the ground breaking won’t be for a while. What is the Rush Tim?
Dear neighbor’s and taxpayers, who know my ethics on the job as a City employee; this AEG proposal is no different than the recent misleading DWP high-pressure sales presentation’s you’ve received, regarding utility rate increases. Pay no attention to the confusing details created by AEG’s sales presentation. Ladies and gentlemen, please vote an absolute ‘NO’ to AEG. Let’s call their bluff. Let them pick-up, and get out of town, and pray, they take ‘villaraigosa’ with them.
The simple test question: If this project is so profitable, then why can’t AEG, a professional development company, convince professional private investors to invest in this project?
Answer: Venture-capital analysis, have declared this project, “high-risk” and it “sucks” as bad as the mayor and city council.
I ask you respectfully to observe the tell-tale signs of our America here in Los Angeles. Highest unemployment, foreclosures, sales taxes/fees, utility rates, vacant stores, gang injunctions, red-light camera’s with extortion penalty fees, and now, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, setting up shop in our local government to conduct it’s investigation.
It’s time to break the relationship with your local councilmember so we can return City Hall back to the taxpayers. And you can start with voting for CRAIG HUEY for Congress if his name appears on your ballot, this July 12th, instead of Ms Janice Hahn.
Respectfully, your civil servant,
I’m former city council candidate David Barron
w.barron4cc.com
Hey Ron,
Where’s your Amazon link? How are you going to feed Bruno?
If AEG is so positive the tax payers won’t pay ONE dime for this crap and to make those of us and there are 1,000′s of us who are skeptical be more relax then have Anshultz give the City a guarantee of the bonds. Lieweke said he won’t do it. Then to damn bad. No deal until he does. Nate Holden also said on Monday night that AEG got CRA money millions and they weren’t suppose to on the Staples Deal. That needs to be investigated. I’m saying emphatically people in this city don’t have the money to spend on going to an NFL game. The damn parking just to go to LA Live is $20. None of the councilmen have the balls to say NO and the imbecile females are worse then the men. A bunch of low life whimps and bafoons running this City
“I ask you respectfully to observe the tell-tale signs of our America here in Los Angeles. Highest unemployment, foreclosures, sales taxes/fees, utility rates, vacant stores, gang injunctions, red-light camera’s with extortion penalty fees, and now, the FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, SETTING UP SHOP IN OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION.”
I sure as hell like to hear more about this! because I’ve been saying for months that we need the FBI to investigate the entire city government.
Who in the City’s administrative-brain-trust completed a basic cost-benefit-risk analysis?
Hhhmmmmmm? No one?
By the way, the AEG propaganda squad is working overtime, “outreaching” to neighborhood council shills and civic-leader-con-artists, all in the guise of public education.
city hall are all crooks and liars
no no no on this scam they cam all go to hell
Just get a letter of credit, better yet follow the advise of Mr. Barron.
The Hotels’ valet overnight parking on Figueroa starts at $30 plus…but if you get a package deal, it is free…
I find it very surprising that AEG isn’t asking the LANCC to attend their meeting to give their presentation. why? Because the LANCC has great, intelligent people that know the truth and would tear it apart. People like Paul Hatfield who is a CPA and Jack Humphreville who can also dissect it with the truth. You would think the LANCC has more NC’s attending then any other meeting Citywide yet AEG hasn’t asked to attend. That is their MO of being sneaky and deceitful. No one I know trusts these guys. Since when is the City a piggy bank for millionaire developers. I can’t think of any other developer that has gone this length with the City’s help on this. Our economy and City AN’T AFFORD THIS DEAL NOW
Ooops I forgot to include this “”"An email from Jimmy Blackman — now chief of staff for City Councilman Dennis Zine — showed up this week in documents from the Gold Card Desk, which transportation officials set up as a way to handle ticket appeals sought by City Hall officials”
I want to pose a question to the lawyers and accountants out there. Can’t it be perceived as a BRIBE if City Council members have received FREE tickets to any AEG concerts, basketball games, events and now are in a position to vote on their development? Where is the City Attorney on this issue? For instance if Jan Perry has received thousands of dollars of FREE tickets and now will vote YES on AEG NFL deal woldn’t that be a crime?
To Anonymous on July 2, 2011 6:36 PM,
The City Attorney has decided to take the position that he has a attorney-client privilege with the City Council, Mayor, and Dept Executives (expect when the Mayor and City Council decides to let them be the fall guy).
Based on that interpretation, the City Attorney won’t be the person to speak up against any bribery, ethics, or corruption issues related to the City Council or Mayor. That would be up to the LA County DA, or the California AG, or the Federal AG.
There is an alternate opinion as stated by Attorney Noel Weiss and Walter Moore that there is no such requirement and that the City Attorney should represent the City’s interest (I may not be quoting them right).
You are quoting me correctly. When Nuch ran for office, he said he would be the attorney for the people. When he got into office, he changed his mind. . . a virtual ’180′. As such, he has turned into ‘Rocky-II’, giving the City Council cover to protect both the political interests of the Council members and (as in this case) the special interests (AEG – with its vast array of lawyers, consultants, campaign contributions, free tickets, and otherwise).
Here’s my view: The City of Los Angeles is a ‘public trust’. The members of the Council sit as ‘trustees’ of that ‘public trust’. . and we, the people, are the beneficiaries of that ‘public trust’. The Council members do not sit as a ‘board of directors’ of a corporation. . . and we, the people, are not ‘shareholders’ of any such corporation.
The Charter uses the word ‘public corporation’ to define the City, but nowhere in the Charter, or in law as I can find (if someone else can, I’d be grateful for the reference) is the term ‘public corporation’ defined. Perhaps the authors (city insiders) put that language in to purposefully maintain ambiguity, I don’t know. . .But it represents gross political malpractice to use terms in a document as important as the Charter which are undefined and susceptible of manipulation.
That aside, the relationship of a lawyer to a client which is a ‘corporation’ (including a non-profit corporation or any other private corporation) is vastly different than the fiduciary relationship a lawyer has to a ‘trust’. Unlike a corporation (which has shareholders and a board of directors), a ‘trust’ has a ‘trustee’ and a ‘beneficiary’.
A corporation is a creature of the state. . It owes its very existence (as a ‘legal person’) to the franchise granted by the state. In that sense, it is different from the rest of the real ‘people’ (humans) whose rights do not emanate from the state, but from (as Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence) our creator’s ‘endowment’ (i.e. the ‘king’ works for us; we don’t work for the ‘king’ (a truly revolutionary concept back in 1776 – in which one-third of the people believed, one-third did not believe, and one-third were either agnostic or independent. . . The important thing was that the ‘big boys’. . and the major property interest and business owners believed it (Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, etc.) and were prepared to sacrifice everything they had for an idea and an ideal. . . a core principle. . . Think about it. . Who in America’s upper echelons of wealth, status, and prestige today would be prepared to make that kind of sacrifice. . .That’s the kind of spirit we need to bring America back. . . stop the decline and the mediocrity. . . and excite and ignite our passions and our capabilities).
A ‘trust’ is something entirely different. It is a function of contract law. . . a private contract between people where property and rights are transferred by a ‘trustor’ to an ‘entity’ called a ‘trust’. . .which property and/or rights are administered by a ‘trustee’ for the benefit of a ‘beneficiary’ in accordance with the terms, conditions, rights, and responsibilities set out in the document (the contract) creating the trust.
‘Trusts’ were formed by monopolists back in the 19th Century as a way of concentrating economic power in private hands. . . The oil trusts (headed by Rockefeller) and the railroad trusts (headed by Harriman) and the manufacturing trusts headed by JP Morgan (mixing banking and industry. . . kind of what we have today with Goldman Sachs. . . This practice of ‘mixing’ and ‘matching’ was banned during the Great Depression by the Glass Steagall Act as a way of ‘breaking’ up concentrations of economic power. . It worked fairly well. . . as we didn’t have another depression or major economic catastrophe until the Great Recession of 2008. . . One of Bill Clinton’s last acts as President was to repeal Glass-Steagall in December, 2009. . . The predictable happened. . . we had a renewal of economic concentration with Wall Street selling to the world sub-prime mortgages. . . pumping up the stock market. . . which led to another calamity of the type not seen since the Great Depression. . . Thank you Bill Clinton (Obama brought into his inner circle the same people who got us into the mess. . . Summers, Geithner, etc.. . . and reappointed Ben Bernake to Chair the Federal Reserve. . . not the ‘change’ for which people voted. . . That, among other things, is what makes Obama a phony-populist).
These ‘trusts’ (these concentrations of private economic power) were not favored by Theodore Roosevelt and the Republicans. . So in the 1880′s, John Sherman (brother of the famous Civil War General – William Tecumseh Sherman) (Republican of Ohio) got a federal law passed which was designed to break up these large ‘trusts’. It is called the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
In those days, such measures were considered capitalist friendly because (unlike today when such measures would be considered too much government regulation). Theodore Roosevelt and other top Repubilcans believed more in citizen empowerment and they understood that large concentrations of economic power in private hands was the bane of true capitalism because monopolistic conduct impeded progress, denied true competition, and resulted in needless waste and high prices; all to the detriment of the ‘little guy’ and the broader economy as a whole.
It was this law, for example, that Theodore Roosevelt used to break up the railroads. . and later was used to break up Standard Oil into six different oil companies (a result which made John D. Rockefeller even richer because he got a share of each company, and the total of the six companies grew to a combined level which exceeded the size of standard oil. . . Thus validating this form of ‘government regulation’ as ‘business friendly’, job friendly, and wealth-creation friendly. A classic example of how ‘true’ capitalism, when properly applied, can expand the pie. It is also an example of why concentration of private economic power must be met with a check and balance by the exercise of public counter-pressure by the government since no citizen alone has the power to stop or ameliorate such concentrations of power.
In short, the core value is that we dislike any intense concentration of power. . . be it in the private sector, or the public sector. But if we’re going to have intense concentration of economic power in the private sector, then we need to balance that out with counter-government action. Those that want to diminish the size of government first have to come to terms with the fact that we have to at the same time break up concentrations of private economic power as well. . . as on Wall Street (too big to fail banks), health insurance monopolies, agribusiness, and others.
Going back to the main point (forgive the diversion. . . but it is important to understand the difference between a ‘corporation’ and a ‘trust’ (in this case a ‘public trust”). . . we the people pay the City Attorney. . . We elect (choose) the City Attorney. . . The City Attorney works for us. . . not the Council. . . We the people are supposed to be sovereign. When the City Attorney brings a misdemeanor prosecution, he does so in the name of the ‘People’ versus the Defendant. . . Not ‘The City of Los Angeles’ versus the Defendant.
There is substantial case law to the effect that the attorney for a ‘trust’ owes fiduciary duties not just to the trustee of the trust, but also to the beneficiaries of the trust. One classical application of this principle is a rule which says that if an attorney who drafts a trust which is part of an estate plan, and screws up, and that error causes the intended beneficiaries of the trust to be denied the inheritance contemplated by the Trustor (the person who set up the trust), then that attorney can be sued by the beneficiaries for malpractice.
That is just one simple example. . . There are many others.
On the other hand, if an attorney for a corporation screws up, it is the corporation who maintains the right of action against the attorney for the attorney’s malpractice. . . the shareholders can’t sue the attorney. The attorney of a corporation owes the corporation a fiduciary duty. . . The shareholders have their own representation.
So applying these principles to our local governance structure, it means that the City Attorney owes us, the people, the beneficiaries of this public trust known as the City of Los Angeles, a fiduciary duty. That means, for example, the City Attorney can’t ethically represent the pension plan (a creditor of the City) at the same time the City Attorney represents the City Council (or the City) in connection with the issues attendant to the pension plan. That is because the City (this public trust) is a debtor of the pension plans. . . How comfortable would any of you be if you had your attorney also representing the other side of a transaction in which you were either debtor or creditor.
The same obtains with regard to the proprietary agencies (DWP, Airports, and the Harbor). To get the best result, each agency needs its own lawyer (and can afford it). . . while the City Attorney can and should represent the people’s side of the transactions and policies. The people of this City are ill-served by a City Attorney who represents both sides and all sides of very significant public policy issues. It cannot be competently done. . . It represents both political and legal malpractice. The people are hurt by it; the City is hurt by it. . . It is not right.
Same with the CRA. . . Same with the Housing Authority.
By having the City Attorney on both sides, both sides are denied competent legal representation. What if there is fraud, waste, or abuse at the DWP? If the City Attorney represents every side of the problem, then we simply can’t get a fraud, waste, or abuse. That’s why during the budget debates every year, the words ‘fraud, abuse, and waste’ are never used. The Council doesn’t want to deal with the problem (kind of like “BP” not wanting to know how much oil was spilling into the Gulf). . . and the City Attorney has failed the City and the people by neglecting to raise such problems (where everyone hides behind the attorney-client privilege. . . how convenient is that?).
This, ladies and gentlemen, is why we have the problems we have. . . We ran into this just recently with the CRA, where the City Attorney, representing both the CRA and the City Council, gave advice to both (horrid advice I might add). . . and now we’re stuck in the mire of confusion, ambiguity, and difficulty (the problem will be renewed shortly now that the Governor has signed a pair of bills (conditionally) designed to do away with the CRA.
Then when we get to policy issues like AEG and the downtown stadium, the City Attorney can conveniently serve the political interests of the Councilmembers and their (and maybe the City Attorney’s) special interest friends by having advice given in secret (again hiding behind a so-called (and mislabeled) the attorney-client privilege). . . Thus aligning the City’s interests with those of AEG and against those of the broader public interest (which, in this case, I define, as being able to have an honest, thoughtful, thorough, open, and transparent debate and discussion, which includes a discussion of all of the legal ramifications of the proposed transaction(s)).
This was also done (clumsily) the last time the Mayor wanted to sell off the parking lots to his special interest buddies on Wall Street (by the way, guess what is part of the Greece bailout protocol? Major government owed assets (like ports and airports are going to be sold to the private sector. . .Guess who is buying? The Chinese. . .So the combination of capitalism’s excesses, mediocre political leadership, and an unwillingness to demonstrate the courage needed to meaningfully confront our social and economic challenges might result in the Chinese ‘winning’ the battle without having fired one shot. . . not a pleasant vision).
The City Attorney should give make his legal opinions public on public policy issues. . . Thoughtful, cogent, thorough. . so we, the beneficiaries of this public trust, can get an understanding of the legal and practical dynamics attendant to these matters.. . . It would, of course, force the Councilmembers to do their job and think about what they are doing, and why. . . and then maybe we could actually have a debate which is informed, thoughtful, and thorough.
Lastly, just to make this simple. . . Let me postulate one other simple example of how the City Attorney should be working for the people instead of protecting the political interests of the Councilmembers. Rule 27 of the Council rules says that to be considered ‘present’, each councilmember must be physically within the four corners of the Council chamber. . .not in the bathroom. . . not in a conference room. . . not in the anteroom. . . In the Council chamber.
This is logical and important because as we all know, they all have their buttons switched to ‘automatic’ ‘yes’ 99% of the time. . . This means that if the rule is not enforced (they lose a quorum when less than 10 members are present) they can enter and exit at will, and still be recorded as having voted. The records of the Council’s actions are thus rendered false because the clerk is attesting to the Councilmember’s having been present to vote when such was not the case.
This is not right. . . . If they don’t like the rule, then change it. . . (This conduct is not permitted in Committee. . . Why is it permitted in Council?). . No Councilperson has the guts to stand up and ask for a quorum call when it is obvious that a quorum has been broken because it embarrasses the body. . . Better to ignore the rule. . . This is what breeds a sense of ‘entitlement’ or a feeling by the Council that they are above the rules. . . Again, not right.
Now. . . what does the City Attorney do when he sees this happening? A big fat nothing. . . My view is that as the attorney for the people (the beneficiaries of this public trust), the City Attorney has a duty and responsibility to call this to the attention of the President or presiding officer and insist that a quorum call be made (which, by the way, the rules allow for a voice roll call where each member has to say ‘here’. . . Something that they obviously could not do if they were outside the chamber (so this acts as an enforcement mechanism of the core rule).
I have witnessed a number of votes which were taken when only 8 or 9 people were in the Chamber. . . So I would encourage all of you when you are at council to be aware of this and watch for it. . . and if you have a really important matter before the council to video the vote so as to be in a position to challenge the vote if need be. . .
But honestly, it should not ‘be’. . . But the Deputy City Attorney who sits in Council remains silent in the face of a clear violation of the rules. I asked him one time why he did this. . . His answer: “I’m not their baby-sitter”. . .
No sir, you are not. . . But you are the attorney for the people and you owe a fiduciary duty to the people and to the system to see to it that the Council obeys its own rules. . . So here we have a clear indication of how the City Attorney’s office ignores the broader public interest in favor of both the narrower political interests of the Councilmembers and their special interest friends.
Of course, if the City Attorney angered the City Council, would they cut his budget? Does the fact the Council raised the City Attorney’s budget this past year mean that the Council gets a pass on what amounts to ‘favorable’ (secret) legal rulings on behalf of the councilmember or the special interest for which the Councilmember is advocating?
The rich and powerful in this City already have their high-class and well paid lawyers to make sure their interests are taken care of. Whom do the people have?
It should be their City Attorney. . . Someone they choose and someone they pay. If the City Attorney can’t do it, or is unwilling to do it, or the City Council (in the name of openness and transparency) can’t waive the attorney-client privilege, or the City Attorney can’t see his way clear to get the State legislature to pass legislation removing whatever ethical obstacles he perceives currently exist (instead of continually making excuses for maintaining a status quo which prejudices the public’s right to know or understand the core legal (and at times) practical issues), then the City Attorney should just be honest and say that his promise to the people to induce them to vote for him and to represent the people’s interests over the political interests of the council or the special interests will no longer be honored because politics has now intervened and he simply lacks the guts and the fortitude to do what it takes to make this system work the way it can and (given our current circumstance) the way it must.
I really, really hope the people can begin to vigorously insist on the office of City Attorney doing the job for the people. . . and if he can’t, then holding him (and the members of the City Council) accountable by continuing to point out these simple, basic shortcomings. That will help facilitate some real change.
We can start with the simple idea of enforcing Rule 27. . . when a quorum is lost, the Council stops. . . period, end of story. . . . If members of the Council are hungry or have to use the restroom (and it is really unseemly for these councilpeople to eat at their desks. . . Have they no sense of how horrible they look doing it? Or how it undermines the taste and class of the City Council as an institution? How out of touch are these people?), then just take a 30 minute recess. . . But don’t ignore the rules.
Noel Weiss
Thank you Noel Weiss and Mr. Barron-you are both right on the mark.
What LA (and America) is turning a blind eye to is China’s purchasing of our debt and any semblance of hard assets we have. They, in turn, are dumping our debt dollars for hard assets in other countries. We cannot continue to reshuffle our debt, invest in shady deals and sell off any semblance of hard assets this way. Our dollar continues to be devalued and soon countries, such as China and Russia, will cease to even trade in dollars. We will be left holding a piece of paper (the dollar) that has less value than toilet paper.
Heck, we’d be better off buying a zinc mine in Brazil than investing in AEG’s high risk endeavor. But, then, it’s those money begging narcissists that are running the show and they are not in it for the welfare of the people or the future of our city.
Sadly, the very premise of what it takes to win an election is counter to who is needed to win an election. I don’t see any campaign finance reform coming round the bend. The last attempt (State Controller) was defeated by the voters.
Cant WE the PEOPLE file any type of lawsuit against City Council members or file a public document to find out just how much each council member has received from AEG? Its pathetic the media isn’t doing this nor have they included in any of their stories of how much AEG has given 9 of the City council members for their election campaigns. I’m sure this year AEG has given to Perry for her mayoral campaign which in itself is a joke
To Anonymous on July 3, 2011 6:41 AM
Good point. The Ethics Rules (and, I think, laws) state anyone with such a conflict must recuse himself/herself from voting on such a matter.
If the number of recusals result in lack of a quorum for a vote, it’s to go to the board of referred powers. Ironically, those board members (Council members) probably can’t vote either.
I wish one of our legal minds (Noel, Walter?) would file an injunction or whatever the appropriate filing would be against Council on this one. We can wait ’til election day and cry boo hoo on the results, or we can fight now and at every turn.
“We can wait ’til election day and cry boo hoo on the results, or we can fight now and at every turn. ” You are entirely correct.
We have gone the wait and see route long enough. We must help ourselves. Putting up and shutting up has us in a whole lot of trouble.
And legally, if I remember correctly, if we wait too long, we shall have no recourse. So
what are we waiting for?
Those pressing for litigation solutions are looking up the wrong alley. . . . We didn’t create this country out of a lawsuit. . . but positive, practical, citizen political action.
Legislation by litigation is incredibly inefficient. A set of judicial bureaucrats or the decision of one Judge (or 3 Court of Appeal Judges or 7 Supreme Court Judges) will not solve our problems.
It is the people we elect to debate and decide policy that will directly impact and influence our future. . . The Courts can help, but only by enforcing the laws already on the books. City leaders hide behind Judges just as they hide behind the City Attorney. . . It costs them nothing because the members of the City Council don’t pay the bills. . . we do. If there was a policy that the budget of the City Council would get cut as a result of adverse litigation decisions, there would be a lot less litigation. Litigation is in many ways a reflection of failure. . . Sometimes it is necessary, but only as an absolute last resort.
We need to look to ourselves and our ability to effectuate the change we want. . .That means people being involved. . . at this point, I’d settle for one-third over the 10%-15% we have now. . . After all, during the revolution (we celebrate this weekend), we had two-thirds of the people on the other side of the fence. . . One-third for the British, one-third ‘undecided’ or agnostic.
For those who feel the urge to hold the City accountable between elections, since the City Attorney is not doing the job, we need a true ‘citizen advocate’. . . an Office of Public Advocate/Inspector General. . . . armed with subpoena power (perhaps checked by the City Council).
Combine that (which needs to be an elective Charter Office) with a very strong whistle-blower protection ordinance, and then we’d be ‘cook’in’. . . . .
At a minimum, I’d love to see a debate on the subject. The Mayoral and City Council candidates will start talking about it when the people communicate to the status-quo current power structure that they (a) want change, and (b) want a vibrant, informed, respectful, thorough, and thoughtful debate on the subject.
Maybe we need our own ‘new’ LA City Declaration of Independence. . . Independence from the mediocrity. . . Independence from status-quo apologists. . . Independence from those who limit their vision and continue to cite all the reasons why we ‘can not’ do what we need to do to preserve and expand the middle class. . . the key to passing the torch ‘lit’ to the next generation is a growing middle class. For the past decade we have seen the largest transfer of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the financially well-endowed in the history of the United States – Savers have lost; Stock Market investors have lost out (the market is no higher in real or absolute terms than it was in 2000); Wall Street speculators continue to lunch and brunch on their tax breaks (as Warren Buffet has noted many times, he (Buffet) pays less tax as a percentage of his income than does his secretary. . . )
The solutions are all around us. . They come from a balanced reasoned debate. . . from the entrepreneurial, ‘can-do’ approach that grew our country in the 20th Century under the leadership of Theodore Roosevelt (a Republican) and FDR (a Democrat).
We have the heart. . . We have the skill. . . We have the capability. . . to figure out a way over, under, around, or through any obstacle. We just need to make up our mind that we’re ready to move forward. Right now, we are just running in place.
These issues are not partisan. . . Potholes are not partisan. . . and the policy solutions need not be partisan. They should, however, reflect our core social values.
We need true citizen empowerment solutions which is one of the reasons I am so strong an advocate of the people (not the City) owning the Dodgers. . . No one single change would do more to unite the city and empower the people politically and economically in a positive way.
The status-quo power brokers are afraid of losing their power and influence. . . a truly good sign the idea is a good one. . . Can’t be done, they say. . . . Impossible. . . . Not practical. . . . What does that tell us about how the special interests and their allies in City government view the people? Do they respect the power of the people; do they respect the capability of the people; or do they hold the people in contempt (including the 10%-15% of the people who vote)?
Why is their vision so narrow, so ‘status-quo’? We don’t need phony populism. . . We need the ‘real deal’. . . not this ‘raw deal’ we’re getting now from the City Council, the Mayor, the City Attorney, and the Controller.
What they don’t like (and fear), of course, is uncertainty. Our political leaders love Democracy (or say they do), but then they rig the election protocol so that the possibility is maximized that only their voters actually vote. . . That way, our City Council members can better predict or control the desired outcome (their election). In many ways, it is pure pander and pretense.
The solution, of course, is an easy one. . . . Just vote. . The fact that so few people vote represents a magnificent opportunity for us because every vote counts even more. . . It takes less votes to defeat these people. . .That’s one reason why we beat them on Measure B. . . .
The spirit of the July 4th Holiday should inspire, ignite, excite, and unite us toward a common effort to find a way to turn their fear into our gain. That will require some collective courage on our part to make firm, principled commitments, in the face of an uncertain result. We know that uncertainty can create anxiety and fear. . . something which the vested interests and existing power structure know how to exploit. It is very tough to make a psychological and emotional (let alone a financial) commitment in an unknown result. People don’t want to be disappointed. . . It’s only natural.
But it’s time to start confronting these uncertainties and begin to debate and discuss new ways of doing things; of evaluating issues; of insisting on what the Declaration of Independence proclaimed: The right to ‘pursue’ happiness against a backdrop of respect for core human values and principles (which admittedly have grown (changed) over time – as our culture has found the meaning, importance, and necessity of empowering women, blacks, and other minorities).
Just think. . . Citizen ownership of the Dodgers would create true equity (100% equity). . . no debt (aren’t we indebted enough.?). . . and a true ‘public/private partnership. (in Green Bay, 60% of the concession revenue is goes back to the City’s youth community. . . This is very analogous to what Peter Uberroth did after the 1984 Olympics by re-cycling the profits from the Games back into the City (to this day, those dollars help youth athletic programs and community sports infrastructure).
Dodger Stadium will be packed for every game. . . families will be able to attend games again. . . and a socialist/monopolistic model (Major League Baseball – the ultimate ‘rich guys club’) will be changed as baseball will be democratized. . . on all levels.
Regardless of one’s perception on the merits or demerits of this idea, the fact remains that what is lacking is a competent, coherent public debate on the subject (it’s coming though. . . Hopefully. . . If Janice Hahn gets elected to Congress, she will introduce a bill to take away Baseball’s (judicially created) anti-trust exemption). . .
A true open, transparent public debate is precisely what the special interests and the existing power structure fear the most. That’s one reason why the City Council continually goes out of its way to hide behind the veil being held by the City Attorney under phony-erroneous legal pretenses (like ‘attorney-client privilege’), while continuing to ignore on-going unethical conflicts of interest (like the City’s dual representation of the pension plans, the proprietary agencies, the CRA, the Housing Authority, and the City Council. . . as well as the City’s officers. . . representing ‘everyone’ at the same time representing ‘no one’).
The people of this City can have whatever they want. . . Conceive, Believe, and Achieve. . . All they have to do is ‘step-up’. . .It was George Burns who said that “90% of life is just ‘showing up”
When 85% of the registered voters sit on their hands, the current status-quo power structure is enhanced and maintained. I understand the need to pick our battles. . . But right now, the message of the American Revolution is that revolution can be turned into positive evolution. . . We’ll get there with positive energy applied toward practical imaginative solutions. . . Some will work, others will not. . . It’s ‘ready, fire, aim’. . . . With patience, persistence, perseverance, all backed by the power of love (from which courage and strength evolve (courage from love given; strength from love received)), there is absolutely nothing we cannot do. . . individually or collectively.
I respectfully suggest therefore that the following three core (simple) principles be considered and applied as we continue to meaningfully confront life’s inevitable (and necessary) obstacles:
1. The antidote to anger is forgiveness;
2. The antidote to fear is gratitude; and
3. Happiness comes in disguised packages.
Happy 4th of July to all.
Noel Weiss
all right Noel Weiss, will you please help us?
What you write sounds clean and decent and appeals to the finer side of human beings.
Thank you Noel, for the time and effort you put forth in your writing…especailly during this holiday week-end. Very informative.
Walter Moore nailed-it with; issue some subpoenas, hold some hearings, and go over some documents.
If only we had a printing press to get this info out to the 85% non-voters.
I’m always willing to participate to get out the vote.
For now, we’re headed out to the Cicada Club tonite, for a pre-July 4th celebration.
Respectfully,
David Barron
Hi Noel-
I respectfully disagree with your second comment about not taking legal action.
Any establishment of a citizen’s advocate will become another layer set up by the very people we wish to hold accountable.
You are correct, this country was not established by a lawsuit. It was established by a revolution. Since I don’t see such a revolution occurring, nor would I like to see one, I believe that legal recourse is the best route. Such recourse should be by way of an injunction–to ensure Council upholds/abides by ethics laws already in place.
Clearly debate and public discourse means nothing to our elected leaders. Demanding, by way of a judge (much like Howard Jarvis did with DWP and prop 218), that these politicians obey the law seems to be our only recourse at this time.
LaLa Land:
You made my point in your example. . . Prop. 218 came about by citizen political action. . A referendum put on the ballot. . . That required people to vote. . .
When we’re talking about core policy decisions, under our system, they are made by the legislature, not the Courts.
The last thing we need is judicial bureaucrats making policy decisions for the rest of us. . . .
Howard Jarvis and his people felt at the time (and properly so) that they ‘revolutionized’ our politics. . . Every ‘revolution’ is, in essence, a return to core values. . . Our revolution was inspired by what was then ‘progressive’ ideals drawn from the ancient Greek democracies which had become subverted by political authoritarianism (concentration of political power in the King). People felt burdened by the lack of control over their own affairs. . . The people of the colonies wanted to decide for themselves when and how to tax. . . British ‘joint-stock companies’ (precursors to our modern corporations) were state-sanctioned monopolies. . . concentrations of economic power to match the concentration of political power enjoyed by the King.
So ‘revolution’ was ‘progress’. . . a return to core principles of citizen empowerment. . In short, trickle-down from private monopolist concentrations of power (the 19th Century version of ‘too big to fail’ wasn’t working in 1776 any more than it works today to sustain or grow a middle class (as Theodore Roosevelt noted in his time, it resulted in regressive social conditions. . . child labor. . . poor quality products, etc.). . . In 1776, as today, people wanted a level playing field, politically and economically. . .to the extent the culture and traditions of the time permitted it.
So, in a way, this is really a kind of ‘Back to the Future’. . .returning to our roots. . . .
But ‘LaLa Land’, don’t expect Judges to solve your problems. . . If you want to make a change, the first place to look is in the mirror. . . .
Go down to public comment and insist the Council abide by Rule 27 and the members stay in the Chamber when they vote. . . A simple request. . . You don’t need a Judge to ‘order’ the Council to do this. . . You just need the City Attorney to go on record in writing with a directive to the Council to obey the law. . . .
The Council are just a bunch of kids with power. . . Like any toddler, they’ll test the limits. . . Like any ‘parent’, we can’t fight every single battle. . . We have to pick our battles. . . lose a few. . . learn our lessons. . . but win the important ones. . .
The biggest battle, however, is within. . .Our conscience. . . our commitment. . . our focus. . . our discipline. . . our ability to rise to the challenge we see (individually and collectively) as compelling. . .and, as noted above, our ability to demonstrate and practice love and compassion because LaLa Land, nothing worthwhile or long-standing was ever built on negative energy. . . .
That’s not to say litigation and legislation are mutually exclusive. . . . Legal action is important. . . but more important is the duty of interested and informed citizens to vote and to let their feelings be known. . . .
Judicial rulings on non-constitutional matters can often be overturned. . . or mitigated (qualified). . . .
The Declaration of Independence speaks eloquently of our inherent god-given (or ‘nature-given’ for those who are agnostic) right to ‘pursue’ happiness’ via liberty, solely by virtue of our very ‘being’ (that miracle we call ‘life’).
The ‘free’ pursuit of liberty can only occur if minority rights are protected. . . That’s the core of our political system. . . Authoritarianism can obtain and persist even in a ‘democracy’ solely by virtue of a ‘tyranny of the majority’ just as much as by the tyranny of a king. . . That’s the basis of Benjamin Franklin’s definition of liberty as he draws a distinction between ‘democracy’ and ‘liberty’. . .
“Democracy”, Franklin said, “is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch”.
“Liberty”, on the other hand, is “a well-armed lamb”.
Putting our fate and faith into the hands of Judges is not something on which we should rely on a regular basis. Sometimes the Judges get it right (as with Brown vs. Board of Education), sometimes they get it wrong (as with the Dred Scott decision (which held that slaves could never be US Citizens, they were not protected by the Constitution because they were ‘chattel’, and they had no standing in US Courts to sue for their freedom)). Obviously, a perverse, obtuse, outrageous decision. . . but at the time, represented the views of a substantial number of people. We were thus forced to confront our core social principles regarding the inherent rights of man (and woman) with the reality of what was ‘good for the economy’. The intersection where ‘principle’ meets ‘reality’ is not well traveled. Usually our political leaders (with our consent) take a detour. . . fearful of having to reconcile the two. We grow when we allow our doubt to foster faith and commitment, all of which (together with love) leads to greater knowledge which, as Einstein noted, only leads to more doubt (the natural order of things). Ignorance, in the long run, is not bliss. Self-deception as a coping strategy is a formula for mediocrity and decline. As Vince Lombardi noted, excellence is the residue of all of the efforts exacted toward perfection. So while we never reach perfection, we can and do capture excellence as we endure, maintain, and sustain the journey)).
The ultimate solution to the gap between the principles and the practices of our founders as it related to slavery came after a Civil War with Constitutional amendments abolishing slavery, imposing due process and equal protection requirements on the states (which many of those in the South felt was excessive ‘federal regulation’). . . . among other things..
We now have the specter of a Supreme Court in recent rulings on political speech giving ‘life’ to what is otherwise an artificial legal ‘fiction’ (the corporation) who gets its ‘life’ and ‘franchise’ not from God. . . but from the ‘state’.
Equating ‘corporations’ with ‘people’ in this way for the purpose of evaluating political action and political speech has its drawbacks (the Declaration of Independence does not say that all ‘corporations’ are created equal). . . But we have checks and balances in this Country and the people can, if they want, equalize the scales. . . via Constitutional amendment in the face of a an incredibly poor Supreme Court decision.
Want another one? How about Oliver Wendell Holmes writing in 1922 that the US Supreme Court had chosen to create (by judicial fiat) an exemption from the anti-trust laws for the institution then known as a ‘professional baseball league’. Why? Holmes said it was because the anti-trust laws applied to ‘businesses’ and organized baseball was really just a ‘sport’, not a ‘business’. How’s that for legal ‘fiction’. . and that’s from Oliver Wendell Holmes. . . considered by everyone a really, really smart guy. . . Just goes to show you, that people can, when they want, rationalize anything. . . .
Still want to leave your fate to a Judge? In many ways, it is nothing more than a throw of the dice. . . Oftentimes, LaLa Land, in litigation, the question is not who is right or who is wrong, it is who has the staying power. . . I assure you that the special interests and the well-connected have the staying power. . . The one thing and the best thing we have going for us is ‘people-power’ and the opportunity given us, by our wonderful system, to effectuate real change through positive political action. . . Each of us has to do our part. . . Together we can and will move mountains. . . step, by little step. . . The Chinese have a saying: “Every thousand mile journey starts with a single step”.
We will find a way LaLa Land to return to our roots, not by regression, but by progression. . . by forward movement to renew and reinforce our core social values. . .
When it comes to our future, it lies in our hands, not in the hands of Judges. Litigation is just a means to an end, not an end in and to itself. Working in tandem with political action, litigation can assist in the accomplishment of our political objectives.
But in the end, our freedom remains in our hands. We are free to succeed, just as we are free to fail as we succeed. . .
‘Failing our way to success’ is a principle that lies firmly at the heart and the core of our proud (and justly so) American tradition.
At this time of the year, this is no better exemplified by George Washington. . . he was a man who was one of the richest men in the Country and as one of the leaders of the Revolution, a man who had everything to lose and nothing to gain by participating in the revolution. . . Yet he did it anyway. . . failing numerous times. . . . . and only succeeding after having to endure, through the exercise of persistence, patience, and perseverance, overwhelming challenges, obstacles, difficulties, uncertainties, anxieties, political intrigue, infighting, and a poorly functioning (and indecisive) Congress.
Standing for principle is easy when there’s nothing on the line. The true ‘value’ of something is reflective of the price one is willing to pay for it. . . What are we prepared to ‘risk’ (both in terms of material resources, but human resources (including our own individual emotional, intellectual, and psychological energies) to accomplish the objective? Just a little investment by each of us in the broader effort can and will yield benefits beyond what we can conceive. The alternative is to suffer a gradual erosion of our liberties. . . be it via the exercise of excessive concentrations of economic power, or by the exercise of excessive concentration of political power.
Destiny’s answer awaits.
Noel Weiss
Noel Weiss for City Attorney.
Hi Noel-
I need to read your reply again. ‘Just wanted to quickly clarify about HJ and prop 218.
I was referring to their lawsuit against the city for violating 218. Of course, after the judge ruled in favor of HJ I understand Council did what they could to beat the ruling.
My point, however, is a legal action was taken because the city would not abide by the law and it worked.
Okay–back to reading your reply.
Thanks-LaLa Land
Hi Noel-
Okay, thanks for the reply. We might agree. I would never rely, solely, on judges to fix what’s wrong. However, when the public comments and the mighty pen (or keyboard), yield little (if any) results, I do believe filing injunctions or lawsuits (depending on the circumstance) is a valid and necessary recourse. Sometimes that is what it takes to ensure the wrongful action is corrected and/or not repeated. And, yes, a judge’s ruling is not always the correct ruling. But, then there’s always appeals and Civil Wars.
Hope springs.
Happy July 4th.
LaLa L.
Can Walter or Noel or whoever simply file a public records document to find out how much AEG has given in FREEBIES to each City Council member? We all know the Dodgers gave thousands of FREE tickets to them. However, the fact they will be voting on a development deal for AEG makes this a huge conflict of interest and Noel stated an ethics issue.
To Anonymous on July 4, 2011 6:04 AM,
You don’t need Walter or Noel, you can do it yourself: http://www.firstamendmentcoalition.org/cpra/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-cpra/sample-cpra-request-letter/
Now get off your ass and do it yourself instead of counting on others to lift the ball for you.
That’s why things aren’t changing for the better. Less complaining and more action is the way to get things done.