voted for Gruel.....gil garcetti is a low-life piece of shit and i can't believe that his son would be any better.
By Hillel Aron
By Joseph Tsidulko
By Patrick Range McDonald
By David Futch
By Hillel Aron
By Dennis Romero
By Jill Stewart
By Dennis Romero
Bicycle advocate Alex Thompson isn't one of those lazy, uninformed Angelenos you might have read about in The New York Times who doesn't vote. In fact, he has already voted, having mailed in his absentee ballot last week.
"I just don't believe in making choices like that," he says, his voice laden with the sort of grimness one has after contracting a stomach virus. "The only positions they differ on are just taken for the purposes of trying to win the race."
Thompson doesn't see much difference between Greuel and Garcetti, two friendly, intelligent, nonthreatening City Hall functionaries who are both white, pro-union, liberal Democrats. Both have campaigned with a sort of election-season amnesia, ignoring their own records as two of the nation's highest-compensated politicians, instead explaining what they may — or, just as likely, may not — do once elected: balance the budget, pave the streets, fix the sidewalks, achieve a consensus between business and labor, and so on.
The media has been complicit in this conspiracy of forgetfulness as it monotonously covers each promise-filled press conference, debate, talking point, television ad and strategist-on-strategist spat. The campaign at times resembles one of those 1980s sitcom where each episode stood perfectly on its own, without reference to the past.
Maybe that's why, in the March 7 primary, voters emitted a collective "meh." Voter turnout was 21 percent of those registered — a number that excludes, by the by, a vast population of eligible citizens who've never registered.
The numbers who vote to elect a new Los Angeles mayor on May 21 don't promise to be much higher.
"I don't know that I've ever seen a mayoral election in Los Angeles with so much disinterest," says Doug Epperhart, a San Pedro community activist and member of the city's Board of Neighborhood Commissioners. "There is no enthusiasm. I had a neighbor say to me, 'The only reason I'm voting for Wendy Greuel is because [City Councilman] Joe Buscaino endorsed Garcetti and I hate Joe Buscaino."
That perfectly captures what so many feel about two candidates with inoffensive yet less than stellar records who have spent much of the past decade awarding themselves and their colleagues gold stars for modest victories.
South Los Angeles community activist Shawn Simons sums the race up with even more bitterness:
"You've got two assholes who have been in City Hall for a decade, driving our city toward insolvency," she says. "It's not like they've been saving their good ideas for when they're mayor."
His opponents, derisively, call him Prince Eric. And there is something rather princely about Eric Garcetti, a former child actor and unabashed idealist who speaks in an almost melodic cadence, and whose father, Gil, was famous as L.A. district attorney thanks in part to the O.J. Simpson trial.
Simons initially was impressed and charmed by Garcetti, who had invited a number of community activists to meet with him. He reminded her of a character on the now-defunct NBC series Heroes.
"And then I started to watch him a little," Simons says. She started attending more City Council meetings and couldn't help but notice that Garcetti, and most other council members, openly ignored residents who had taken time off work and traveled to City Hall to comment on city proposals. Often, she says, Garcetti and the others rudely yucked it up with each other and staffers.
"You watch them tweet and chat and not spend a second listening to the people who come down there," Simons says. "You get a real distaste for them."
One of Garcetti's talents is his ability to be all things to all people. He can size someone up and know exactly the right compliment to offer, the right thing to say, to make the person believe he's on their side.
But that talent has left many critics and activists feeling that Garcetti is a likable phony with a veracity problem. Like Greuel, he has carried water for the widely hated Department of Water and Power, but he has been slicker than Greuel at avoiding political fallout.
In late 2008, Garcetti quietly hid a city report by PA Consulting that warned of the staggering costs of Measure B, a plan to hand unionized DWP workers an exclusive deal installing solar panels on government buildings and parking lots. The report called the plan "extremely risky," with projected costs in the billions.
While keeping the City Council in the dark, Garcetti convinced them to vote to hurry Measure B onto the ballot. When the Los Angeles Times discovered Garcetti's sly move, it helped fuel an anti-DWP uproar among bloggers, activists and neighborhood councils. Popular outrage scuttled the solar plan at the ballot box in 2009.
Koreatown activist Grace Yoo describes Garcetti like this: "It's, 'I'm your friend, I'm your friend. ... Oh, I'm not gonna be your friend in this instance.' "
Garcetti's successor as City Council president in early 2012 was Herb Wesson, who secretly masterminded the city's redistricting process last fall to punish his enemies, reward his friends and pack his own district with heavy donor potential, all the while claiming the process had been "clean."
Wesson grabbed a large chunk of Koreatown's bustling bars and restaurants by redrawing the voter boundaries of his own City Council District 10.
Yoo and other activists fought against this slicing and dicing of Koreatown, demanding it be kept whole. That meant placing it all within Garcetti's District 13. When the proposed gerrymander came to light, Koreatown leaders massed to protest at raucous, packed public hearings — and were ignored.
Garcetti, Yoo says, implied that he backed the Koreatown activists, then voted to cut it up. The top political winners of the gerrymander were council members Herb Wesson, Jose Huizar — and Garcetti.
"If he had been straight up, I would have been OK with it," Yoo says. "Instead he just danced around the issue."
Garcetti's favorite statistic — that his district has been No. 1 in job growth on his watch — is a bit misleading. In fact, the Wesson-led gerrymander allowed Garcetti's District 13 to swallow up thousands of jobs in surrounding districts — jobs he had nothing to do with.
Garcetti has been preoccupied with unanimity and order, perfecting the ability to put a happy face on things even amidst fiscal crisis. A think tank discovered that, in more than 1,800 City Council votes, the city council behaved like a puppet kingdom, voting unanimously more than 99 percent of the time.
Garcetti insists he didn't prearrange the clone-like votes. But, even setting aside the City Council's many procedural and symbolic votes (like establishing Bob Marley Day, or honoring actor and UCLA football star Mark Harmon's "enviable" career), the astonishing harmony has served to shield much debate from public ears.
Take Proposition R in 2006, which extended term limits for City Council members to 12 years. It was proposed in July 2005 by the Chamber of Commerce and League of Women Voters, both of which wanted to weaken term limits. In practically no time at all, two weeks after it was proposed, Garcetti — aided by then–council member Greuel — hurried Proposition R onto the ballot.
They attached a big sweetener for voters: promises of "ethics reform" to reduce lobbyist influence at City Hall.
As the Los Angeles Times later discovered, Proposition R was written by Sutton Law Firm, a prominent firm "that represents lobbyists" in L.A. Proposition R's reforms were so weak — lobbyists could no longer give money to politicians but could bundle donations and fund raise instead — that city ethics commissioner Bill Boyarsky slammed it and the L.A. Daily News called it a move by "sleazy, unprincipled politicians."
As the Los Angeles Business Journal has reported, $41 million was spent on City Hall lobbyists last year — more than before Proposition R. It is spent by such businesses as Clear Channel and Walmart to convince Garcetti and others to lend them a sympathetic ear.
This week, Garcetti gave Proposition R a rousing defense, arguing that lobbyists have a First Amendment right to do their jobs — and that if voters don't like the current situation, they can pass a new law.
Billboard lobbyists proved their worth in September 2006, when the City Council approved, after almost no debate, a sweetheart deal granting Clear Channel Outdoor and CBS Outdoor permission to erect hundreds of digital billboards citywide, each containing 449,280 ultrabright LED bulbs whose glow penetrates people's curtains.
Only about 80 of the billboards were erected before a lawsuit put a stop to it. They have been deemed illegal and were recently turned off — under court order.
When Garcetti rushed this deal through, he owned 200 shares of Clear Channel Communications stock, as L.A. Weekly reported in February. At the time, Garcetti spokesman Jeff Millman insisted his boss "was not aware that Clear Channel Communications retained any control of Clear Channel Outdoor," an odd statement from a former Rhodes Scholar.
Asked what stands out about Garcetti as a leader, longtime City Hall watcher Epperhart says sheepishly, "I have to tell you, I can't think of anything he did as council president that stands out. The guy's really smart, he's really wonky and interested. The frustration for us is, you have to translate that into action."
"Eric's failed to lead on budget issues," Humphreville says. "He doesn't have the balls to face up to the unions."
In 2009, a meeting took place between Wendy Greuel, her political consultant John Shallman, and Richard Katz, a former assemblyman who is a strong ally of Greuel's and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's. Greuel had just been elected city controller.
"Controller's an awful job," Epperhart says. "You can lift up the rug to see the dirt underneath it, but you don't have a vacuum cleaner."
Shallman's advice was simple: Greuel should be like her predecessor, Laura Chick, a fiery controller who was publicly beloved for her energy and independence. When Villaraigosa in 2008 convinced voters to approve the cellphone tax, Proposition S, promising that the money would pay for 1,000 new cops, Chick made news by all but calling him a liar — and making clear the revenue would go to the general fund to be spent as the City Council wished.
Shallman advised Greuel to pattern herself after Chick, and the 2013 mayor's race would be a cinch. Katz reportedly disagreed. He said that was the problem with government: too much finger-pointing, too much fighting.
Neither Shallman nor Katz recalls this meeting but both agree with the characterizations.
"I think Laura's approach worked for Laura in a number of ways," Katz says. "But it also limits your role. If you go into that mode, you're going to be great at pointing out problems but not solving problems."
It now seems clear that, as controller, Greuel went with Katz's approach, behaving more nicely and being less outspoken than Laura Chick.
During the primary, a common Greuel talking point was that she found $160 million in "waste, fraud and abuse," a phrase popularized by Ronald Reagan. Upon examination, that number collapsed like a rickety tree house.
A large chunk of the $160 million turned out to be cash the city could have raised had it sold even more advertising space on "street furniture," the city-owned bus benches and advertising kiosks that force-feed the services of bail bondsmen and lawyers to waiting bus riders.
This wasn't waste, fraud or abuse. The City Council had simply, in a rare moment of restraint, listened to constituents who didn't want their every field of vision turned into advertising clutter, in the city dubbed the illegal billboard capital of the world.
"She was never in this to be controller," says Kevin James, a Republican talk show host who failed in his bid for mayor and now avidly backs Garcetti. "She was in this to be mayor. And I think the city suffered for it."
Greuel never audited LAPD or the fire department, although she did report on fire department response times — in reaction to an exposé by the L.A. Times. She surveyed a number of programs at DWP, yet never performed a major audit. Her website admits she found zero dollars of waste, fraud and abuse within the department made infamous in the classic film about civic corruption, Chinatown.
Does anyone actually believe that the DWP — publicly owned by residents of Los Angeles but hated as arrogant and bloated — wastes no money?
Greuel often has taken the totemic utility at its word. Take, for instance, the spring of 2010, one of the wildest seasons at City Hall. In March, the DWP and Villaraigosa asked the City Council to raise water and power rates by a staggering 28 percent — to pay, or so they claimed, for a transition to green energy.
In a bold moment of brinksmanship that made national news, DWP tried to get the 28 percent hike by blackmailing the city for $73.5 million — money it annually hands over to the general fund as part of a needlessly complex franchise deal, supposedly in lieu of paying property taxes.
The City Council, shaken but not stirred, approved a smaller rate hike. Villaraigosa went ballistic. Greuel then declared that L.A. could run out of money without the DWP funds and Villaraigosa panicked, suggesting a partial shutdown of nonessential services. Moody's lowered the city's credit rating in response to the antics.
Then, lo and behold, city officials found some money lying around, the DWP handed over the $73.5 million and, urged on by Garcetti, the City Council approved a huge, if slightly smaller, rate hike.
Greuel's promises to audit the DWP never really materialized. What audits she did do, Millman says, "didn't go after cost drivers — salaries and benefits of employees."
Those employees are represented by the powerful and unpopular International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), which has spent millions of dollars on a super PAC that supports Greuel for mayor.
A report on DWP salaries finally was undertaken by Fred Pickel, the official ratepayer advocate for utility customers. Pickel found that IBEW members are paid, on average, salaries 25 percent higher than people in the same jobs at private utilities — at a massive cost to residents.
Like Garcetti, Greuel is well liked by many community leaders. Damien Goodmon, of the Crenshaw Subway Coalition, recalls asking for a meeting between Greuel and his group. "Her staff got back to us within two days with a date [just] a week and a half away," Goodmon says.
Shawn Simons, who is friends with Goodmon, has a different take on this. "So many of the neighborhood council people are up Greuel's bum. We're a group of disenfranchised shmucks who get kicked around all the time. And when someone comes around and pets us, we roll over and give them our belly."
City Hall watchdog Humphreville, who is very sour on Garcetti, doesn't think much of Greuel either. Like bicycle advocate Thompson, Humphreville is considering abstaining from the vote for Los Angeles mayor on May 21.
"I may not vote for either one of them," Thompson says. "It's one of those things where you just say, 'Fuck 'em.' "
Reach the writer at email@example.com.
voted for Gruel.....gil garcetti is a low-life piece of shit and i can't believe that his son would be any better.
If GARCETTI got the UNION support that HE WANTED.. he would be singing another tune..
He voted to increase their pay trying to garner their support when time came for his campaign. Surprise..they did no support him. His shrewd operating campaign has turned this Union stuff around on Greul..so as to avoid the truth from coming out about HIS responsibility. He does have trouble taking resonsibility for ANYTHING..oh, except his fictions and lies about saving Hollywood. But you cant be Mayor based on maunfactured nonsense. Selling a city (Hollywood) to developer/funders, giving them carte blanche, against all opposition across all of LA and communities that will be virtually destroyed by these developments, ignoring and dismissing all of them FOR THE MONEY.. to recreate in some west coast version of Manhattan.. unlimited height and density developments..skyscrapers bordering the famous Hollywood Hills..blocking them out from view, having no respect or caring for whatever is left of Hollywood History, including The capitol Records Building, a Historic Cultural Monument (#857) Landmark, that HE HAS ALLOWED this developer to RAPE, dwarfing it and obstructing it with his massive skyscrapers.. is despicable and inexcusable, and supporting unions is NOTHING compared to his MISMANAGEMENT. We CANNOT put our City in this criminal's hands!.
I see 10 bad things Garcetti has done for the 3 or 4 that Gruel is accused of. I will strike off my list lobbying for higher salaries at the DWP because I think they deserve High pay. I don't want the people who provide me with clean water and Consistent power to be living in relative poverty in some outlying area of LA. Yes they are paid more than a Utility worker in Stockton CA. but you cant own a home in LA with less than $100k a year income.
This article is so true about Garcetti talking out of both sides of his mouth..He IGNORED/DISMISSED communities in his area about the controversial much opposed over densification /over development, pushing through his Hollywood Community Plan to accommodate projects like Millennium's skyscrapers and unprecedented density (his campaign financier) ..then claims to be opposed to MIllennium projects the day they were approved by The Planning Commission! Projects that will surely destroy many communities bordering them, cause more gridlock traffic, worse air, absolute chaos in the area..EMS even warned against HIS higher density HCP, they wont be able to get to people and 'people will die, fires will burn out of control!" Garcetti responded to everyone to not be afraid, and proceeded in getting it passed! He did nothing to protect HIS constituency..THEN claims to be concerned about and protecting the residents against LAX expansion! Is he kidding? SO he votes to oppose the LAX expansion, and becomes those communities hero! WARNING!! Truth is, he knew it would pass. He and LaBonge are BUDDIES(Voted to support)It was a very no risk position to take, all for SHOW(FOR VOTES!!) There is no way he would ever really stop the expansion of LAX, so he voted to oppose it, pandering again! Rosendahl, totally opposed to displacing his communities for this LAX expansion, did not support Garcetti for Mayor. Garcetti goes the way the potential votes go and as far as opposing Millennium ? ALL FOR VOTES, TOO! He is a FRAUD.
Wasn't it the City Council, LED BY PRESIDENT GARCETTI, that voted for those overblown DWP salaries? LA Times endorsed Garcetti and sadly has given on going unbalanced picture of him..giving him FREE PASSES and beating up on Wendy constantly. LA Times is pro overdevelopment, and could care less about communities fighting to save them,(so WHY would we buy their rag?) from Garcetti's developer funders..They love all of it! Very UN BALANCED REPORTING. Can't wait for that paper to be taken over..it is a shadow of what it used to be years ago..In Garcetti's area, his developer funder supported Hollywood Chamber and his developers support him while the many communities he screwed don't. In the valley area BID, Studio City Chamber and developers are supporting him and communities are not. The only hope for communities of LA, and their QUALITY OF LIFE, of not spending their lives fighting GARCETTI to save their communities from his developers, is getting rid of Garcetti.
We could have avoided all this by just voting for Kevin James. But he has an R on the ballot so he must be evil, greedy, racist and wants to keep "ya'll in chains."
Thank you Scott Z No one could have expressed it better. Garcetti is a crooked criminal, as those who have experienced him KNOW.. From someone whose face he has lied right to..without flinching, and I am NOT the only one, from first hand experience I to have watched him in action over the years... And he is a FRAUD and scary! Slick but did not get away with this behavior this time!How he has gotten away with this for this long is mindboggling. One example is denying Millennium projects existence at debates and The Hollywood Community Plan's existance before that, as Hollywoodians IN HIS DISTRICT were attending hearings for them downtown. Crazy? Ge gets away with it!. THEN finally coming out in the final hour opposing millennium, when he realizes how many votes his non position cowardly silence will cost him, AS it is about to be APPROVED! COME ON!!He is funded by Millennium. He has lied, denied and misrepresented things to Hollywoodians for years. As he spews at every debate how he saved Hollywood, it is hard for many not to VOMIT! He must think if he says false things and LIES enough, they will become truths. They WONT. He has somehow pulled the wool over other's eyes. This article gives the best most clear analysis of THE REAL Garcetti (IF there is ONE!). He seriously should be INVESTIGATED, But instead, he is running for MAYOR! ANOTHER FREE PASS FOR ERIC! God help LA!
I thank Scottzwartz for his illuminating comments and Hillel Aron for this article for clarifying Garcetti's bogus claims about being "#1 in job growth." Only The Weekly had done any real digging at all in this election and I am grateful for that.
Why, though, quote James saying Greuel is only controller to be Mayor? Why is Garcetti in the City Council? Come off it.
The LA Times reported today that Greuel did request an audit of DWP. Also, why is it unfair to cite a possible source of revenue like "street furniture"? I'll take "street furniture" any day over digital billboards, Hollywood Towers, etc.
The article does not really scratch the surface. Garcetti and Greuel are not Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee with some possible misdeeds. Garcetti is actually a very bad person. [I know almost nothing about Greuel, so my comments are based on what I know about Garcetti.)
The 1,800 unanimous votes are due to a Garcetti led criminal conspiracy in violation of both the Brown Act and Penal Code, 86. One cannot have 1,800 votes be unanimous over 99% of the time without a prior agreement to always vote Yes. What are the odds of spinning a roulette wheel 1,800 times and having red appear over 99% of the time?
The agreement, as perfected while Garcetti was council president, and which it seems has been abandoned under Wesson, had all councilmembers agree to vote YES on every item. The council vote tabulator would even vote YES for a councilmember who had left council chambers. That voting agreement is criminal! Just read Penal Code 86. OK, you can get a migraine trying to read PC 86. Briefly, it says a councilmember may not sell or trade a vote in return for another vote. The Brown Act says all deliberation must be in public. A prior agreement to vote YES precludes public deliberation and public voting; the real votes were cast in secret when the voting agreement had been hatched.
This criminal voting conspiracy allows massive corruption. That's how Garcetti got the council to approve the Paseo Project in Garcetti's district for Juri Ripinsky, convicted felon (real estate fraud) and generous campaign donor to Garcetti. There is no reason for any other councilmember to look into the Paseo because they had not choice but to vote YES. Garcetti did not advise the council members that they were approving a project by a felon who had been convicted of real estate fraud and had served 4 years in federal prison.
This is another of Garcetti's corrupt patterns -- withholding information from the council to deceive councilmembers. The article explains how Garcetti deceived the council on Proposition B by withholding a crucial document. This practice appears to be standard operating procedure for Garcetti.. ["While keeping the City Council in the dark, Garcetti convinced them to vote to hurry Measure B onto the ballot."]
This same type fraud appears in Garcetti's CRA project, 1601 N Vine. Steve Ullman who owned property he wished to sell to the City [the CRA] had had prior trouble with "developer appraisals." Thus, they involved Hal Katersky to act as a middle man between Ullman and CRA. The CRA obtained an appraisal which said that the property was worth $4 Million while Garcetti-Katersky-Ullman got a "developer appraisal" placing the value at $5.45 Million. When the proposal went to the city council, Garcetti never disclosed the lower CRA appraisal, but instead based the sale on the $5.45 M developer appraisal. As a result, the city over paid $1.4 Million for the land. A few years later, Garcetti had the CRA sell the land back to Katersky (Ullman) for only $835,000.00. While the CRA allegedly owned the land, the true owners of the land never had to make any mortgage payments which saved them millions of dollars. There is much more to this corrupt saga. http://bit.ly/17XJxQJ
Garcetti's own Hollywood Community Plan is similarly based on fraud. Garcetti's plan falsely states that Hollywood had 224,426 people in 2005, and thus, planning for 250,000 people in 2030 was reasonable. [FEIR 3.0 Responses to comments, 11-3-2011] Per 2000 US Census, Hollywood's population was only 210,794 in 2000. If the population had increased by 14,000 persons in the prior five years, then planning for an additional 25,000 ppl over the next 25 years seemed reasonable. However, the 224,426 number was a lie - it was not a mistake -- it was an outright lie. Garcetti's Hollywood Community Plan continued that lie through the June 19, 2012 council session where the City Council unanimously approved the Hollywood Plan. In reality, Hollywood's population has been declining since 1990 when it was 213,883 ppl. By 2010, the population was down to 198,228 ppl. There is not one scintilla of evidence that Hollywood's population ever exceeded 214,000. In 2005, the population was about 204,000 ppl.
Apparently, the City Attorney wrote the councilmembers in April 2012 advising them that the Hollywood Plan should not be adopted but instead it needed accurate environmental data, e.g. the correct 2005 population upon which the entire HCP was based. Garcetti refused. On June 19, 2012, the council unanimously passed the Hollywood Community Plan.
People can see the reason for this fraud -- The Millennium Project. Garcetti needed his falsified Hollywood Community Plan to be adopted in June 2012 in order to justify the 1.1 Million sq foot Millennium Project. If the Hollywood Community Plan had truthfully said that Hollywood had been steadily losing population for over 20 years, what banker would finance The Millennium? How will Garcetti get The Millennium approved when everyone knows that the projected Hollywood population for 2030 is actually 190,000 or fewer people?
The Fraud that killed Angelenos: In January 2011, the Garcetti's City Council took $200 Million away from the paramedics and firemen. Once again, it was based on a fraud. The LAFD deployment 1-12-2011 report falsely said that Los Angeles had good response times for emergencies and the LAFD could give up $200 Million. Back in 2005, USA Today had published an article showing that L.A.'s emergency responses times were so bad that people were needlessly dying. http://usat.ly/Qhh4Ab In 2006, Garcetti's response to the article was to cut the new FS 82 by 75%. Each year the emergency response times became worst.
In 2011, there was no evidence whatsoever that the emergency response times had improved, but the mayor and council President Garcetti wanted a bogus report to justify their raid on the LAFD budget. By this time, Garcetti had been on the council for 10 years and had been council president for 5 years. Garcetti knew the sorry state of our first responder times and the troubles with the LAFD 911 system. He knew that Angelenos were still needlessly dying. Yet, in 2011, Garcetti took an additional $200 M from the first responders based on the lie that the responses times were so good that the LAFD did not need the money. More people needlessly died! About the same time, Garcetti had the City give $52 Million to billionaire Eli Broad to build a garage for his art museum.
What a foul piece of trash from what used to be a respectable magazine.
This piece is nothing but a bad hack job. Take this for example, "Garcetti has been preoccupied with unanimity and order..." Gee, I always thought mayors were SUPPOSED to be the central authority in a city whose job is to promote 'unanimity and order', yet the Voice makes it sound like Tuesday's fish.
And one has to go to PAGE THREE to even begin to find what you have to say about Greuel, but when you get there, there's mostly the same mushiness about Greuel that you have to say about Garcetti.
Actually, based on all the 'worsts' you come up with helps me decide that Garcetti is truly the best candidate for mayor, since he obviously has the characteristics and intentions best suited to run a city like Los Angeles. Greuel should have remained controller to find more dirt under the rug.
@Guest Yep, Garcetti has been implicated in all the things abut which people complain, but windy is too inept to say anything. She had a chance at the USC LA Times Channel 5 debate to say,. "Yes Garcetti is dishonest," and then rattle of 5 reasons before the two pro Garcetti moderates could make he be quiet, but Windy was too much of an Air Head and instead she said that Garcetti was honest. Yeah and water is dry!
It would be really bad for an air head like Greuel to be mayor, but it will be much, much worse when Garcetti is elected. Garcetti will make Tony V look like Saint Tony.
@scottzwartz Quit wasting our time with this BS. Write one paragraph like everybody else does.
@skywatcher888 in regards to "Greuel should have remained controller to find more dirt under the rug."--WHICH WAS NOTHING. I'm sure we've all see the LAT article on DWP salaries this morning. Are you telling me as Controller she NEVER looked into this or questioned the inflated salary increases at DWP. As the City's chief Rate Payer Advocate, she never did her job and that is why Garcetti and Greuel called for the creation of a Rate Payer Advocate to monitor the out of control spending at the LADWP.
There is a lot of information to convey and with newspapers like the LA Times covering up Garcetti's misdeed, it falls to the LA Weekly to inform Angelenos. LA Weekly, however, does not have all the background data. Investigative journalism is expensive.
I try to insert links for more information for people who want to know more about how LA is run. I provide facts to support my positions and I believe that it is helpful to readers for someone to show have the facts fit together. I am fortunate to have more time than others, and thus, I can provide readers with facts, citations, and commentary. No one, as far as I know, is compelled to read anything I write.