ValleyVote Update for 3-9-01We are sending you this E-mail as you have requested to be notified concerning ValleyVote. If your friends want to be added to our E-mail list to be notified about meetings and issues please send an E-mail with ValleyVote as the subject. We have added links to data referred to in the stories. Interesting items have been highlighted and a few comments added in green. |
| Questions | Xavier Beccera | Kathleen Connell | Jimmy Hahn | Steve Soboroff | Antonio Villaraigosa | Joel Wachs |
|
1. If LAFCO approves a proposal to allow voters to decide whether or not to create a separate Valley city, do you promise to work to make sure Los Angeles voters will be able to vote on the proposal in November 2002? |
Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
|
2. If elected, will you make sure that the City gives to LAFCO all information, data, etc that LAFCO requests from the City in a timely manner? |
Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
|
3. Assuming that the City Council or other interest group goes to Court to block or delay a vote on a LAFCO scheduled election, would you oppose such efforts? |
Yes [1] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
|
4. LAFCO has stated that it intends to place on the November 2002 ballot the issue of the Valley becoming a separate City if the proposal complies with State law. Do you support that position? |
Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
|
5. If LAFCO recommends a Joint Power Authority for water and power, would you support that recommendation? |
Yes[1] | No | [3] | Yes | Yes | Yes |
|
6. If elected, will you support the creation of an independent Valley school district or districts? |
No | [2] | No [3] | Yes | No | Yes |
|
7. If elected, as Mayor serving in your capacity as an MTA Board Member would you support the creation of a Valley Transit Zone? |
No | [2] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Question 3 - Yes, unless legitimate legal grounds necessitate my review of the cases before the court
Question 5 - Yes, unless legitimate legal grounds preclude the formation of a Joint Power Authority
Question 6 - I am focused on increasing the performance, accountability and achievement of our students in the Los Angeles Unified School District, and I will support any measures that achieve that goal. It is unclear if the latest innovations will succeed in this regard, but I believe that time should be given to allow them to show positive results.
Question 7 - I am currently conducting an audit of the MTA to determine if they are using their funding appropriately and effectively. I would only support a transit zone if existing union contracts were honored in accordance with legislation signed by the governor last fall.
Question 5 - I will support whatever decision is reached by the voters on secession.
Question 6 - I do not support breaking up LAUSD at this time and would work in partnership with the school district to make our system work for Los Angeles families. However, if LAUSD cannot show positive results quickly, I would look at breaking up LAUSD as a potential solution.
By Rick Orlov Staff Writer
Under strong pressure, the Los Angeles City Council failed in an effort Tuesday to overturn plans by the Recreation and Parks Commission to seek new bids today for the operation of the Greek Theatre. Council members seeking to force the panel to make a choice between the Nederlander Corp. or the House of Blues fell three votes short of taking over the matter and forcing a decision between the two politically connected firms.
"This issue has shamed the entire city," Councilman Joel Wachs said. "This is an example of government at its worst. We are costing the city millions of dollars." Councilwoman Rita Walters, who said she believed the House of Blues should win the lucrative concession because of the greater amounts it offered the city, cited a report from the Parks Department showing that issuing a new request for proposals will result in months of delay and cost upward of $150,000 to bring a consultant on the job. "There are so many uncertainties," Walters said. "We have an opportunity to bring in much more money from one of these bidders and we shouldn't delay action."
Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski said the delay presented further problems in that Nederlander -- which has had the concession for 25 years -- is not on a month-to-month contract and could cause difficulty in bookings for the coming year.
But, Councilman Nick Pacheco -- one of three members opposing the council taking over the matter -- said he was not convinced of the need to overturn the Parks Commission's decision. "I am not going to be brought into the political gamesmanship that is going on here," Pacheco said.
The Greek Theatre concession has been going through a torturous journey since officials decided 15 months ago not to grant a five-year extension to Nederlander in return for its promised improvements at the Griffith Park facility.
Council President John Ferraro wanted to grant the extension, but was forced to agree to allow opening the process to bidding -- resulting in a proposal from House of Blues Concerts Inc. to make $11.1 million in improvements and $1 million more in payments to the city than Nederlander offered.
Two weeks ago, the Parks Commission ended a 2-2 stalemate and decided to start from scratch. The City Council had until Tuesday to try to change that decision, and the commission is scheduled today to approve the new bidding procedure.
Mark Armbruster, a spokesman for Nederlander, said he was pleased with the council's action. "This is the appropriate thing to do," Armbruster said. "This will put everyone on equal footing."
Part of the problem has been that the commissioners, with a vacancy on the panel, were divided between the two bidders. Mayor Richard Riordan is expected to nominate someone for that post this week, but that person would not be involved in the Greek Theatre decision because of the time it will take to go through confirmation proceedings
By Jason Kandel Staff Writer
SHERMAN OAKS -- An illegal sign on a Sherman Oaks office building has stubbornly remained in place for three months despite a community's best efforts to wrench it loose from its moorings and the intervention of a city councilman. And it could be several more months before the sign's fate is known because its owners have filed an appeal with the city, which insists the sign is too large and lacks a permit.
[Question can you continue to disturb the peace with a loud all night party day after day and appeal it because their are other loud noises in the city or would the police just arrest you. But it is OK for visual blight which is no more then commercial graffiti to stay up for months]
Meanwhile, residents must wait for the appeal to wend its way through the city's bureaucracy while the building owner and the sign company continue to collect thousands of dollars in rent. Infuriated residents say the sign's daily presence is the latest example of a city government unresponsive to local needs.
"This is a typical problem in the city," said Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association President Richard Close. "This billboard company knows the billboard is illegal, but they know that the city is the toothless tiger. It's more profitable for the billboard company to play with the city for six to eight months and then finally take the billboard down.
"They can't get away with this game in Burbank or San Fernando but the city's rules are so weak that they can put up illegal billboards and laugh all the way to the bank."
According to city building and safety officials, there is no permit for the sign, which has hung from a building on Ventura Boulevard between Beverly Glen Boulevard and Stansbury Avenue since November. City officials also say the 8-foot-by-30-foot sign is about 1 1/2 times larger than allowed under the municipal code.
New York-based MassiveMedia, which owns the sign, maintains it is legal and plans to appeal its case to the Board of Building and Safety Commission next month. While they pursue legal avenues, company officials argue they have a right to rent the sign to Philips Electronics TV for $5,000 a month.
"While the appeals process is going on, the sign is legally allowed to be hanging where it is," said Robert Rukstalis, owner of MassiveMedia, which owns about 40 signs in large cities nationwide. "We have filed a formal appeal to the code enforcement division to have the sign permitted as is."
The sign saga began in November, shortly after it was installed, when Sherman Oaks residents lodged complaints against it, charging that it blights the community. The city issued a Dec. 8 order telling MassiveMedia to comply with municipal codes by applying for a permit and reducing the size of the sign, or removing it. The company filed an appeal contesting the city code. "There are signs all over L.A. that are much bigger than this one," Rukstalis said.
City officials said they understand residents' frustration with the sign but said the company has a legal right to appeal its case. "There are legal processes in place to handle people who are in violation of sign codes and ordinances," said Bob Steinbach, a spokesman for the city's Building and Safety Department. "They have due process. Some people want instant action, but it doesn't happen instantly. It's going to take more time than some people will like."
Sharon Mayer, field deputy for City Councilman Mike Feuer, said she's asked the city to aggressively enforce the law. "We've been after the enforcement agencies to follow through on this," she said. "The owner is trying every administrative and legal avenue he can to keeping this billboard up."
Close said he and other residents are frustrated by the sign company's tactics and want the loopholes in city law closed. "It's unfortunate when our councilman and our city attorney can't effectively enforce city rules," Close said. "Everyone acknowledges that the sign is illegal. Everyone acknowledges that it's been up since November. The fact that they (MassiveMedia) want to change the rule, should not allow the sign to remain in place. There should be a legal action filed against them. "This is not a Sherman Oaks problem. This is probably happening all over the city."
NOTHING likely will change in Los Angeles until the mass of voters gets fed up with a bankrupt and corrupt municipal government that has both mismanaged the city's business and been insensitive to the values, interests and needs of many of its residents.
The 15 Sun Kings and Queens who pass themselves off as the City Council have set up a scenario for disaster that will someday drive L.A. into bankruptcy or further diminish the paltry level of public services. Quite simply, they are spending money -- our money -- they haven't got without regard to priorities or the consequences of their actions.
On Tuesday, the council members ignored the advice of their own counsel, the City Attorney's Office -- refusing even to discuss particulars of how they would pay for it -- and agreed to lavish demands by the state Water Quality Control Board to clean all trash out of the Los Angeles River.
On paper, it sounds good. The public is sensitive about environmental concerns and certainly wants the Los Angeles River free of trash and debris. But a sound policy that cleans up the river must be coupled with a realistic plan to pay for it -- one that doesn't squeeze out other programs.
Council members approved a $736 million, 10-year program and then refused to answer questions on what programs they cut to pay for it. Will cleaning up the river take precedence over hiring more police? Is a clean river more important than hiring more paramedics and firefighters?
Is the council going to place a bond measure on the ballot in November to pay for $409 million to install capture devices on storm drain outlets?
Voters last November were lulled into approving yet another bond measure, to build additional fire stations and animal shelters. But cleaning up the river now seems to take precedence over all else, because the city won't have the money to staff the stations or animal shelters or libraries or fix sidewalks, pave streets, hire more police, man ambulances, put out fires, trim trees, staff libraries, buy books or fund after-school programs.
If the economic slowdown continues much longer, the city's surplus of our tax dollars will begin to evaporate. We have yet to hear any of the candidates who are campaigning for your vote in the April 10 city primary speak out convincingly about the bankruptcy of City Hall and how they would fix it.
The people who pay the bills have a right to better government
* Re "Riordan OKs Hefty Raises for Top Officials," Jan. 30
It must be nice to receive a median salary of $164,000. Especially appalling is the raise that LAPD Chief Bernard C. Parks received, making him the highest-paid official in the city. What has he done to merit such a salary increase? The Police Department is mired in controversy and scandal. My neighborhood has received less rather than more under Parks. We used to have Neighborhood Watch, and now we don't.
I'd be glad to do any of those City Hall jobs for half of what those folks get. Where can I send my resume?
JOYCE STILLWELL Van Nuys
By Harrison Sheppard Staff Writer
Hoping to get more timely information from the city of Los Angeles, the county agency studying San Fernando Valley cityhood on Wednesday set November 2002 as the target date for an election on the issue.
Although the decision is not binding, the Local Agency Formation Commission hopes the time-line will eliminate costly delays blamed on the city of Los Angeles, which has been slow to produce reports and other information needed to analyze the impact of breaking it up.
"I think we should make it very clear our intent would be to have this (election), should it go forward," said commission member and City Councilman Hal Bernson. "So everybody understands we're not seeking to delay, nor would we excuse any delay by anybody."
November 2002 has always been the informal date that secession supporters have been working toward, but this is the first time the commission has formally confirmed that goal. Due to a change in state law four years ago, the issue can only be on the ballot in even-numbered years, meaning if the deadline is missed, the next possible election would be the spring primary in 2004. Secession supporters want all three proposals -- the Valley, Harbor Area and Hollywood -- on the ballot at the same time, in order to increase voter turnout citywide.
LAFCO officials have complained that the city has been slow to provide data, and then provided incomplete answers, risking a delayed cityhood study and forcing a postponement of the election. City officials, however, have repeatedly denied that they intentionally tried to delay the study process, instead saying they've done the best they can to answer the numerous complicated questions posed by LAFCO.
Bernson's motion calls for LAFCO's work to be done by March 27, 2002, so it can have time to decide whether to place it on the ballot.
The one dissenter, James DiGiuseppe, said he agreed the election should be held in November 2002, if not sooner, but said setting the March date might give the city a further excuse to procrastinate until the last minute. City officials, he feared, would aim to complete their studies by March 2002, rather than the earlier time-lines established for individual phases of the project.
See our Website and all the Updates are archived on our site.
AOL version 6.0 now properly reads HTML mail . I would recommend it to all AOL users. Get the free update from AOL. It will make all your HTML mail work so you can see the formatting and highlights and use the jumps to see referenced documents.
But until you get it to see the update and use the jumps you need to go to the website http://www.ValleyVote.org/updates/index.html and read the update from there with all the information that AOL strips.
** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use," without permission of the copyright owner. **If you friends want to be added to our E-mail list please send an E-mail with ValleyVote as the subject. We share our e-mail list with no one. Charles Brink Webmaster. If you want to have your name removed from the list just reply with remove as subject |