-
Jmoranpalos 02/22/2012 4:52:00 AM
The center does not hold.
-
SHAWN NAEEM 02/15/2010 11:46:00 AM
I AM WRITTING PLANS TO START A NON PROFIT THAT WILL BRING THE TAX PAYERS VOICE TO ALL DECISIONS MADE BY GOVENMENT.
TAXPAYERS WANT TO KNOW WHAT THIER MONEY IS BEING SPENT ON.
TAX PAYERS WANT TO, MORE THAN ANYTHING, TO MAKE SURE THIER MONEY IS NOT BEING WASTED BY EMPLOYEES , AT ALL LEVELS.
THUS, A DAILY AUDITING SYSTEM WILL BE PROPOSED SO WE CAN DETERMINE WHAT EVERY EMPLOYEE DOES ON A DAILY BASTS AND THE TAX PAYERS WILL DETERMINE IF THEY ARE EARNING THIER PAY.
I SEE CITY PARKS AND REC WORKERS SITTING AROUND THE PARK ALL DAY, DOING NOTHING BUT WASTING GAS AND TIME. ALL THAT TIME AND GAS AND MONEY FOR THIER SALARIES IS LIKE THROWING MONEY DOWN THE TOILET.
ALL OF THE WASTING OF TAX PAYERS MONEY NEEDS TO STOP.
WE CAN SAVE 60% OF THE MONEY THAT IS CURRENTLY SPENT. THATS HOW MUCH IS BEING WASTED.
CITY COUNSELS PAY SHOULD BE BASED ON PRODUCTIVITY WHICH INCLUDES, SAVING AND MAKING THE CITY MONEY.
CITY COUNSELS PAY SHOULD BE JUST LIKE IN A PRIVATE CO. BASED ON PERFORMANCE, ON WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DO , DAY TO DAY, AND US TAX PAYERS WILL DETERMINE IF THEY DESERVE TO HAVE A GOV. JOB AND WHAT THIER SALARY SHOULD BE.
WHO EVER PRODUCES THE RESULTS, GETS THINGS DONE THAT HELPS TO SAVE OR MAKE THE CITY MONEY, THEY GET THE MOST MONEY.
IT SHOULD BE BASED ON A , SORT OF , COMMISSION. A SALES PERSON ONLY GETS PAID WHEN THEY MAKE A SALE. A GOV. EMPLOYEE SHOULD ONLY GET PAID WHEN THEY ACTUALLY DO SOME WORK THAT MAKES A POSITIVE IMPACT TO THE TAXPAYERS. THIS IS THE PROBLEM
THEY KNOW THEY CAN JUST DO NOTHING ALL DAY AND GET A HUGE SALARY.
THIS GOES FOR EMPLOYEES, FROM CITY PARKS TO CITY COUNSEL. YES, I KOW , THE COUNSEL WORKS HARD AT SITTING IN THIER OVER SIZED, OVER PRICES LEATHER CHAIRS, MAKING DECISIONS THAT EFFECT TAXPAYERS AND THEY DO , APPARENTLY , THE BEST THEY CAN. OBVIOUSLY THEIR BEST IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING GOOD ENOUGH.
THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO CHANGE ITS WAYS AND I WILL DO MY BEST TO REPRESENT TAX PAYERS TO THAT THEIR VOICE IS HEARD AND SO THAT LAWS , BILLS, INNICIATIVES, ETC , GET PASSED TO PROTECT THE TAX PAYER AND THIER MONEY.
-
Alicante Property 01/04/2010 12:08:00 PM
Great... I m very impressed with the above blog. It was quiet interesting too. The blog was very enlightening, and in a way it really helped me gain some insight on this topic��. posted by http://www.propertysalespain.co.uk/alicante_property.htm
-
cash advance 12/30/2009 8:05:00 PM
Greate Job Keep It Up
-
Northeast Resident 12/28/2009 2:21:00 PM
I just read this article a few months after it was written. ha haa ha...i couldn't stop laughing...but Alvin Parra? Alvin Parra? The stuff he says here, isn't it the same stuff he has said each time he runs for CD 14, against alatorre, pacheco, and after he campaigned for villaraigosa? He says the same thing about each councilmember that holds that office. he sounds like a BSer, that guy should be appointed to something, sounds like he really wants the power for himself. i live in northeast, activist, and contributor to la weekly blogs, and i am currently happy with councilmember huizar, say what you will parra.
-
Donna Daniel 03/13/2009 11:07:00 PM
thank you for your informative, nauseating article on our "city council". If only there was a way to dump all of them and somehow to elect people who are actually interested in our city. I'm sure there citizens who would be only too glad to accept a smaller salary than these bozos and work at their jobs every day. Of course one has to be wealthy or in someone wealthy person's pocket to afford to run for office. So disheartening. I admire you for being able to slog through the bog of what should cause a taxpayers uprising.
-
Donna Daniel 03/13/2009 11:05:00 PM
thank you for your informative, nauseating article on our "city council". If only there was a way to dump all of them and somehow to elect people who are actually interested in our city. I'm sure there citizens who would be only too glad to accept a smaller salary than these bozos and work at their jobs every day. Of course one has to be wealthy or in someone wealthy person's pocket to afford to run for office. So disheartening. I admire you for being able to slog through the bog of what should cause a taxpayers uprising.
-
Kate 03/08/2009 2:32:00 PM
I need to give kudos to Tom LaBonge, even though he isn't perfect, he will follow up with everyone including returning phone calls personally and helping people outside his district. I live in District 13 and when I can't get responses from my Councilman, I have had Tom LaBonge, District 4 help me out. Kevin Butler formally of the Hollywood Independent (LA Independent) did an interesting article about LaBonge. Someone called LaBonge the "Cal Worthington" of the City Council. He is a little Pollyanna and it wouldn't surprise me if he cozies up to developers a little (such as Griffith Park). But ultimately, he will be steered toward the community when they are cohesive, unlike his neighbor, Garcetti who will plow through a project and not recognize opponents who wish to speak before the main City Council body which is televised.
-
Carmen Olsen-Bree 03/07/2009 1:56:00 AM
If there was a TMZ for politics, this article should be included.
When did journalism become a forum to gossip?
was it when the newspaper business crashed and online clicks mattered the most? seriously, do some real investigative reporting before you print this nonsense.
You find absolutely nothing worth noting about any district? nothing positive going on?
As an El Sereno resident, CM Huizar has done plenty for lots of families. At the xmas toy give away, i met a woman who had lost her job, whose husband was working tirelessly to put food on the table and pay her bills, and who wanted to offer her kids a really great xmas.
honestly, a terrible situation, and she was so thankful that her kids got to have some fun and got some presents.
When the senior center was robbed, who helped refurnish it? our councilman did.
I have seen this man work 12 hour days, for weeks on end! in council, in the community with lapd and students, list goes on.
but you cited a former opponent as a credible source?! oh my.
yeah, that is REALLY good reporting!
I dont know what's going on in other districts, and i may not always side w/ our elected's, but come on.
this has gossip written all over it.
Articles like these is why i stopped picking up the LA Weekly.
-
LaChata 03/07/2009 1:45:00 AM
For the woman complaining about BH Liquor license, seriously? what's wrong w/ liquor? i say we need more of it!
times are depressing! drink up! and share w/ your 8 kids!
-
Jack Humphreville 03/04/2009 7:15:00 AM
If only it were $300,000.
The cost of medical benefits, pensions and post retirement medical benefits probably adds another $50,000 to $75,000 a year.
Then you have office holder accounts funded with constituents� donations that are $75,000 a year if I remember right.
I guesstimate that the total cost of the City Council, including staff, benefits and other related costs, at around $50,000,000 a year.
It might be worth it to pay more so they don't come to work.
-
Laura Foti Cohen 03/04/2009 12:00:00 AM
Why the gratuitous snarkiness about LaBonge? OK, he likes sports. But if that's the worst you can say about him, why not just spotlight him as one of the good ones, or omit him from this monstrous tale altogether?
I live in LaBonge's district and he is the personification of what a politician should be. He is accessible and, along with his team, gets things done for his constituents, from the lowly to the lofty. At first I thought he was too good to be true: responsive, seemingly everywhere at once, on the job 24/7, in love with Los Angeles and eager to spread that love. Now I know I'm just lucky to live in District 4.
-
Eugene Hernandez 03/03/2009 7:50:00 AM
Loved you story. But there is a couple of things missing. One is: Public Speakers used to have 3 minutes of time to speak on topics. Due to Zuma Dog's outbursts which outraged City Council members, this was reduced to a full minute.( Although the City Council members are usually talking to lobbyist and not paying attention anyway). Even Neighborhood Council members, which by definition are elected leaders in their community, have the same I minute limit. This 3 minutes does not apply to other public officials. The second point is that most of the City Council solicts campaign donations from the very developers and big builders/businessmen who are given permission to ravage open spaces in Los Angeles. The aides to City Councilmen are the bag men for their bosses. One such offender was former City Councilman, Richard Alatorre, which resigned under a criminal and legal cloud. He represented two very famous clients- Las Lomas development and big box client, Home Depot in Sunland. He has not even registered as a lobbyist.
Third- while most of the story was good, there should be mentioned that East Los Angeles was by-passed when plans for the Metro were implemented, Reyes does have a valid point in bringing this up. And Richard Alarcon has been more accessable to members of his community and the Neighborhood Council. (I served on the Sylmar NC for two years).
-
Freda 03/02/2009 11:59:00 PM
Thanks so much for your article. I thought I was expecting too much of my city council and had unrealistic goals.
I've spent many days trying to explain to my employer (and employees who cover when I'm out), why I must again attempt to attend one of the committee meetings/hearings that's been post-poned or canceled.
Each council member should be required to spend one month (one with 31 days) living in and commuting to/from the district they have been elected to represent. They should be required to enjoy what they've dumped on us. (Like, an electronic billboard flashing brightly in your face at night on the Alvarado offramp of the 101N).
It's too bad many voters aren't making informed decisions (or actually voting) in the upcoming election.
-
Cavender 03/01/2009 1:02:00 PM
Thomas Saenz is on his way to D.C. to make sure that the L.A. political scene has a chance to spread throughout the country.
-
Jennifer Chun 03/01/2009 9:20:00 AM
This is outrageous! What a waste; and I have to say, I'm not surprised. I interned with the city of Los Angeles as a Grad students a couple of years ago and witnessed first hand what a disgusting waste of time the LA city council is. They are a bunch of over payed, greedy, lazy, wasteful bureaucrats! I live in the South Bay, but this bull$#it makes me want to pack up as a soon as possible and move to LA JUST to be able to vote in LA city elections and get these idiots off of the council!
This is a disgrace!
-
Jennifer Chun 03/01/2009 9:18:00 AM
This is outrageous! What a waste; and I have to say, I'm not surprised. I interned with the city of Los Angeles as a Grad students a couple of years ago and witnessed first hand what a disgusting waste of time the LA city council is. They are a bunch of over payed, greedy, lazy, wasteful bureaucrats! I live in the South Bay, but this bull$#it makes me want to pack up as a soon as possible and move to LA JUST to be able to vote in LA city elections and get these idiots off of the council!
This is a disgrace!
-
Nick Antonicello 03/01/2009 7:32:00 AM
Mr. McDonald's insightful expose on government waste and abuse in light of a $400 million dollar deficit in this year's operating budget only proves how broken city government has become downtown.
How can any council member justify a salary of nearly $175,000 and another $100,000 in perks when the unemployment rate for the county of Los Angeles is now approaching 11%?
More importantly, how do people like Council member Wendy Greuel justify seeking another office when she's enabled the city's work force to swell to nearly 50,000 employees of which 21,000 earn more than $70,000 and 6,000 earn more than $100,000?
How does Bill Rosendahl with his bombastic and clown like approach to government service earn more than a US Senator or United States Congressman? Can old Bill look voters in the eye and tells us with a straight face that he should make more than the state's Lt. Governor ($159,14), Secretary of State ($159,134), Controller ($169,743), Treasurer ($169,743) or Speaker of the State Assembly ($133,639)?
And while examining outrageous pay scales for elected officials, how about the $200,000 plus salary for each county supervisor and the nearly $400,000 in salary for the county's CEO, William Fujioka?
The time for structural reform of city government is now. That means doubling the size of the Los Angeles city council, introducing partisan nominating primaries and ending term limits with highly competitive legislative districts.
-
Luz de Verdad 03/01/2009 5:14:00 AM
Honest Latinos everywhere will agree that I am right in what say here. In the main the surnames of L.A.'s mayor and city council members have a lot to do with what is going on in HomeyLand. The latinization of L.A. has corrupted it forevermore. If you need a model to compare to L.A., try any South American capital, like Lima, Peru for example! The only difference between Lima and L.A. is that the Limeno pols have to steal everything not nailed down because they are not paid dirt. But in L.A., "carumba chico," the mayor and council wahoos (euphemism) make the entire population of L.A. look positively "estupido" for reelecting them. The gang running L.A. is not unlike a drug cartel's main junta. L.A. is "...basura man, totalmente hecho!" City government in L.A. will only begin to serve the people again if it is dismantled completely, redesigned with the focus on giving power back to the people and with most of the decision making power passed directly to the citizenry via a system of online plebiscites. If L.A. continues as it is "hoy" it's all over. The city is as dead as a stray dog being prepared for dinner in the Pueblos Jovenes of Lima. "Triste, no?"
-
Haskell 03/01/2009 5:03:00 AM
In a nutshell...thanks for the update Patrick(not everyone will agree with you, but that's tough sh**), great information and I knew our entire city council have not been working for constituents in their districts, but rather mostly for themselves. I will say they do a terrific job in scheduling photo opportunities year after year and as one reader commented about their outrageous salaries, budget and staff - it's ridiculous!
-
Terry 02/28/2009 5:52:00 AM
Interesting information on Councilmen Huizar, Although, Parra is not a viable informant, I may agree.
The community of Boyle Heights part of CD14, is plague with many problems, one is 249 liquor licenses, in a 10 square miles of Boyle Heights (BH). Just this week we had a hearing with ELA Planning commissioners, for a new full liquor licenses for El Mercado located at Lorena and east First Street, the community opposed it, Huizar supported the business that has continue to ignore City Planning by allowing many permits to expire without final approval. El Mercado presently owns (5) five liquor licenses, located in census track 2039 that only allows a total of (5) liquor licenses, and holds a total of (13) thirteen, so how does Councilmen Huizar justify his actions, when the BHNC, BHSA, BHRH, BHNO motion against any new liquor licenses in Boyle Heights (BH) until a study and review of the licenses have been done, to start reducing the number of licenses specially around a predomenant residential area. It is the irresponsibility of the Councilmen, ABC, and LACity Planning commissioners,or ELA Planning commissioners. When Evidence was presented on the crimes around El Mercado, but their justification, was that they could not prove the crime was from El Mercado . I guess our Councilmen, ABC and the city Planning Department have not read the Caldera Bill passed in 1995 regarding issuing of liquor licenses in an area as problematic as BH 249 liquor licenses..
-
STUCK IN THE 3RD WORLD 02/27/2009 10:45:00 PM
The reason Alarcon's place in Panorama City is a dump (the property is owned by his current wife) is because it's not where he REALLY lives. He lives most of his time at his wife's much lovelier home and property In Shadows Hills, which by the way, is NOT in his district. Do you think he'd have his baby daughter and wife living in that place in Panorama City? Think again.
-
Micah 02/27/2009 6:05:00 AM
Disgusting. This should make us all puke. Seriously. Now, what do we do about it? Can we cut their pay? Is there an effort underway?
-
Sandy 02/27/2009 2:42:00 AM
Patrick,
Thank you for writing this article that illustrates so well the problems with our current city government. I might also ask where our city attorney is (poor advice to the councilmembers on so many topics?), the ethics commission (to disclose the ethics violations), the district attorney (to prosecute those ethics violations that you noted), and the residents of LA (to vote the bums out!!). I echo the "anybody but Jack, anybody but Wendy and anybody but Antonio" sentiments--remove the bloat, eliminate the troika and elect people who will honestly address the problems in the city of Los Angeles.
Sandy Hubbard
resident of Valley Village "Vote No on Wendy"
-
Jack 02/27/2009 2:06:00 AM
If Councilmember Jan Perry owns a condomium within 500 feet of the Grand Avenue Project and stands to personally financially benefit from increased value of her property, Government Code Section 1090 makes it illegal for her to vote on the Project and it may even invalidate all project approvals she participated in.
It may not trouble her ethically-challenged colleagues at Los Angeles City Council that she was put on the Grand Avenue Authority Board, but why is District Attorney Steve Cooley and Attorney General Jerry Brown so asleep at the switch? Why is Brown or Cooley not investigating Perry and prosecuting her for failing to disclose her conflict of interest and recusing?
The culture of corruption in Los Angeles City Hall persists because Cooley will terrorize little cities like Maywood and Temple City but continues to do nothing about the stinking corruption at Los Angeles City Hall. The ghost of the corrupt Mayor Shaw is treading the halls of City Hall and no one with authority will lift a damn finger to stop it.
-
SoapBoxLA 02/27/2009 1:57:00 AM
Patrick,
Great article!
I've invested way too much time chasing the City Council on the
hamster wheel, showing up in committee to testify only to have the
meeting canceled, showing up in Council only to get snubbed.
In the last six weeks I've made four visits to City Council:
I visited the City Council to speak in favor of the Cyclists' Bill of
Rights, a document that I co-authored, only to have Greuel pass on my speaker card, explaining "Mr. box has already spoken on this item in committee."
I visited the City Council to speak on the parking meter increases,
only to have Garcetti acknowledge my speaker card but explain "We're not required to take public comment on this item."
I visited to speak on the Council File motion for Neighborhood
Councils and was allowed to speak.
I visited the City Council when Griffith Park was up for Historical
Monument status and was invited to "stand with all of the
supporters" in lieu of actually speaking. Public comment was reduced to public standing for that item, my loss because I was already standing!
60 seconds of commentary and a public standing, and it only cost me the best part of four days of my life!
Anyway, I enjoyed your article, it allowed me to sit to the side and
laugh at the comedy that prevails. If I didn't laugh, I'd cry. Thanks
for writing this piece. I'm going to hold it in my hand as I Storm
the Bastille on Friday.
Stephen Box
http://twitter.com/SoapBoxLA
http://SoapBoxLA.blogspot.com
-
Real Reform 02/26/2009 5:55:00 PM
Term limits aren't the problem - just about everything else about the Council is.
Drastically increase the council to reduce the size of the districts (45 is good for 90K people each district)
Create a no-carpetbagger rule (must live in the district 5 years prior)
Institute real campaign finance reform (no donations from anyone coming before the council 10 years past)
Let them keep their cars (all of them should be hybrid or electric), but reduce their salaries (cap it at $100K should allow everyone to comfortably raise their families)
Then we'd have a system where average Joes can challenge any of these guys and better hold them accountable. It's also much harder for a council member representing just 90K people to hide.
Institute this type of reform and I have no problem lifting term limits. We might actually get people focused on the long-term vision for their districts and city.
-
Sam 02/26/2009 2:45:00 PM
I like the article and think that this council needs to be reigned in big time. However, I don't appreciate the comments about blight. Other than the ugly fence, Alarcon's home is pleasant and normal. Blight is used by many local governments throughout the state to gentrify areas and throw out average people. It really sucks. In these horrible economic times with many homeowners facing foreclosure, I think the weekly is way out of line on picking on Alarcon for the appearance of his home. I also have sympathy for Perry regarding her tax liens and any perceived financial problems. Obviously despite their "good pay," these two councilmen aren't living it up.
-
Billie 02/26/2009 2:17:00 PM
I like Miki Jackson's comments. There is a weird PR campaign over the last few years that attempts to put unpopular projects in areas and then use the expressions YIMY (Yes in my Back Yard). In reality these projects are championed by the service agencies who will be getting the governmental funding. The heads of the organizations and their supporters don't actually live were these Yimby projects reside. Furthermore, as Miki eluded, the Council members pushing these projects reside far away from their impact in quiet hill-side homes or Condos with concierges.
-
Jonas 02/26/2009 1:58:00 PM
The LA City Council originally had to raise their own salary and had great difficulty because they had to do it under public scrutiny. I remember when Council member salaries were very low and raises didn't occur for several years. Then Michael Woo tied their salaries to judges so that they would get raises automatically without public discussion. That is partly why their salaries are so high. Woo did this under a ballot Measure that was advertised under "Reform" and the adds for this measure didn't focus on the Salary issue. Similarly, Eric Garcetti championed another Reform measure. The real change under his reform measure was to extend his term from 2 to 3 terms (from 8 years to 12 years). Neither of these measures benefited the Citizens, they only benefited the office holders that placed these measures on the ballot saving money on signature gathering.
Neither one of these officer holders showed leadership. It would be nice to see all of these benefits reduced and the term limits brought back to 2. With or without real reform, the incumbent has a major advantage and that is the argument for real term limits. But I don't see these changes taking place even if unknowns got in office. Call me cynical, but even if fresh faces got in, I see them adapting to the old ways like their predecessors have done.
We need more Gadfly's to put the pressure on the City Council and other governmental offices. I also liked the job Laura Chick did as Controller shining light on bad practices. But as the show down with the City Attorney exposed, the Council members sided with Rocky because they were worried that they would be next. And under the current City Council leadership, public comments are diverted from video coverage by clamping down on the public when they speak in council chambers and holding "public hearing" off-camera in Committees and then denying requests for public speaking when items hit the Council for voting. This is unprecedented and didn't happen 4 years ago.
On another note, Zuma Dogg has matured and addresses issues intelligently. I still consider him lacking in depth, but I am inclined to vote for him, because he is the utlimate Gadfly, makes the most sense. If elected however, I think he would take the Mayor's limo down to Venice and party all night!
-
Kate Barner 02/26/2009 12:33:00 PM
I didn't know about the "walking around money," On another note, here are links ot the City Council President's challenger, Gary Slossberg:
Home Page: http://www.gary4citycouncil.com/
Flyer: http://www.gary4citycouncil.com/images/GarySlossberg-mailer.pdf
Comparison of the two candidates: http://www.gary4citycouncil.com/whysupport.html
On other seats I like:
Noel Weiss for City Attorney or "Anybody but Jack"
Controller: Nick Patsaouras or "Anybody but Greuel"
Don't reward the arrogant behavior of incumbent candidates including those seeking other City Offices after damaging the City for the past 4 to 8 years.
-
Bob Blue 02/26/2009 12:02:00 PM
If you the read the LA Weekly, the LA City Council races are already over. Almost half of the City Council seats are up for election (five of which are contested) on March 3rd, but according to the LA Weekly February 25, 2009 article titled "Los Angeles on $300,00 a year," "Each will be easily re-elected in a primary election few Angelenos know is taking place."
Surely, the LA Weekly has a civic responsibility to cover the very races that affect the future of this city and its citizens. We are at a crucial crossroads amidst a major national economic crisis, but the LA Weekly policy seems to be to coronate the winners before the races are decided.
Apparently, the LA Weekly is not willing to invest the resources to cover all the candidates and all the races citywide. For example, the race in Council District 13 is not just any race, but a race against the president of the city council itself--Eric Garcetti. Garcetti has only one opponent, Gary Slossberg, a Harvard Law School Graduate, former LA Unified teacher, public interest attorney and elected neighborhood council member. Slossberg is obviously a viable candidate to challenge the entrenched city council power structure, yet the LA Times seems to have a hands-off policy with regards to LA City Council challengers to incumbents. The result is to marginalize all the legitimate challengers who merely lack the financial resources to mount a traditional campaign.
How many resources does it take for the LA Weekly to cover all of five races with one challenger a piece? Are five phone calls or in-person interviews so financially prohibitive that the Times has pre-emtively decided to call all these critical races before allowing the residents of these council districts to decide their own futures for themselves?
The Weekly would do well to remember that in 1990 an unknown and under-funded challenger named Paul Wellstone successfully unseated a very well-funded and entrenched incumbent US senator. Wellstone was similarly dismissed by the media, as was Jesse Ventura some years later before he became Governor Ventura. Wellstone became a revered and successful legislative leader in the US senate who affected this nation as a whole. Both Wellstone and Ventura pulled ahead in their respective races after public debates against their better known and financed opponents. So, if a challenger successfully gets enough signatures to get on the ballot and runs an informed and substantive campaign, then it would seem not only the duty but the most fundamental responsibility of the LA Weekly to cover all candidates for office. Real democracy depends on the press doing its job and not merely acting as a tool of the existing power structure.
How will the effective leaders of tomorrow rise to key positions if the press decides that democracy is determined simply by the number of dollars raised as opposed to the real and critical issues that we face? If the LA Weekly and other key media outlets create a litmus test based on money alone, than only the rich and entrenched will ever be considered suitable candidates.
A perfect example is the Weekly extensive coverage of the speculation surrounding whether or not billionaire real estate developer Rick Caruso would run for Los Angeles mayor ("The Caruso Factor: October 15, 2008"), even though he never became a candidate. While the LA Weekly thoroughly covered this non-story, the actual LA City Council candidates were all but ignored by the Weekly and other critical media sources.
Democracy without public debate and real press coverage cannot survive. True representative government requires aggressive reporting on both the issues that we face and those who seek to represent us. For the LA Weekly to meekly go along with the status quo is a shameful dereliction of its responsibility to all of the citizens of this city.
-
Miki Jackson 02/26/2009 11:59:00 AM
And this is just the part we know and the Weekly was able to dig up and squeeze into this one article. The truth is that our city council members don't seem to be living as large as bling ridden rappers or raking in the dough like failed wall streeters - their chief problem is a "good enough for thee - but not me" approach. They go out of their way live on hill tops and in condos that keep them well out of the way of the crummy decisions they make for the residents who can't buy their way out of the areas the city sultans are blighting with ill conceived density, deliberate lack of parking and miserable overblown signs. They aren't so out of touch they don't know how bad it is to live under those conditions - that's why they don't. No one knows better what areas to avoid than the people who dis serve them.
-
Phil Jennerjahn 02/26/2009 11:23:00 AM
Vote Phil Jennerjahn for Mayor on March 3rd.
Visit the website and watch the videos.
http://www.philjennerjahn.com/
You will probably like what you see.
-
Gary Slossberg 02/26/2009 10:04:00 AM
Thank you for exposing the unpleasant reality of our City Council leadership. It's critical that the public knows what their elected leadership is doing with their money.
Where I think the article missed the mark was in its assessment that the incumbents up for election are assured victory on March 3. As a candidate for City Council in District 13 (the only candidate challenging Council President Eric Garcetti), I have run a professional, energized campaign and fully expect to be successful in the election.
It is self-fulfilling prophecy when this article and others like it brand challengers as "long-shots" and assure the re-election of our City's unaccountable incumbents. The job of the media should be to inform the public, not to make the decisions for them, and I hope that the LA Weekly will follow this philosophy as it reports on elections in the years to come. If we truly wish to see change, we need to believe it can happen, not simply fuel the cynicism.
