Among the comments on Agenda Item 10 (shown below) that passed unanimously:
By Jose Huizar, CD-14:
"We are preparing the workforce for the jobs of the future"
"We want to show the rest of the county that we are on the cutting edge."
By Ed Reyes, CD-1:
"We are creating industrial zones right next to residential zones"
and that we want " …. to find way to create these jobs so they are near to our homes….. " will alleviate some traffic.
==========================================
The comments like those above that come up before the votes on matters of course are mostly rhetorical and not subject to any questioning, but I just get tired of all the gratuitous comments that ignore things that were done before by the same persons or groups, or that are illogical considering what's been going on.
For Huizar, the workforce preparation was interesting since you usually consider the local schools to be doing some of that. In our case in L.A., LAUSD is doing an unsuccessful job in addressing that, hitting near 50% dropout rates in some schools.
What jobs are they being prepared for with that level of education?
There was a report a few years back that reported that a good many of LAUSD grads would not be suited for hiring for jobs available locally. I don't think that was given too much notice since we are years past that and it looks like the same condition may exist.
(Also relating it all for Huizar's case: CM Huizar was formerly the LAUSD Board President for years immediately prior to election in CD-14- he should know best what is happening and what has happened in the LAUSD area, and it's not been good.
For Ed Reyes' comment,
I just want to remind him of the continued changes that ELIMINATED industrial and manufacturing areas and there is still a little left on the eastside of downtown where there once were huge areas. Times change but there was widespread elimination for what I think could be called "redevelopment" and converting to residential areas.
Many residential developers did not see nearby manufacturing/industrial areas as "selling points" for their projects. Thus, eliminating those and converting the areas to compatible or enhancing uses to the projects would serve to BOOST the value of the properties of the developers. I see that's what's happened.
There's not a lot of the same type of manufacturing and industry in the future as was the case for the original site occupants practiced. Yet the area's zoning should have been preserved for ideas of return to be able to fit in with a new era of industrial use. Things like that don't get reversed, so losing that industrial zoning means loses that area forever. All residential and no "industry" to be the employer? But the change also is in the PRICING OF THE NEW HOUSING- that's UPSCALE, and geared mostly for financially well-off when a redevelopment occurs. Different populations now are there as residents.
The idea that Reyes speak about in making jobs for people living locally with a side benefit of limited need to travel. Nice concept but it assumes too much that is hard to imagine. What would the jobs be? Service industry? Professions such as law, medicine and other areas where graduate school is usually required? Would the people want to live IN the city as it is now?
=======================
Just another comment on the proposal today on RAISING RATES as part of DWP Water Conservation -
WHY does Council speak of the need to conserve and then they continue to DEVELOP areas for the "DENSIFICATION" or packing more people in to the smaller areas that were LESS populated before?
It is only logical to see that more people will NEED more water, even with conservation. Is the conservatioin REALLY to ENABLE more "Densification" and to make the NEED to conserve a man-made (council-made) matter of urgency?
THIS GOES FOR POLICE SERVICE, TOO- "We need more police" is what most agree would help living conditiions. Then why does the Mayor and Council continue to PUSH to add more people to come to the city? It puts more pressure on all resources. Is that a hard concept to get a hold of? Really, it's money that they are trying to pull in and meanwhile the living conditions continue to slide downhill in the city.
Until the infrastructure is under control or even closer to control, WHY work in the opposite direction? There is just so much contrary action all through what is done in city government. The right hand does not know what the left hand is doing just is not the right description- it doesn't go far enough. And that's assuming that the flaws in operation are accidental or unintended, but the real picture cannot be that hidden from the lawmakers, so "intentional" acts are what we see.
It's like trying to set up campfires in the middle of a high-risk fire season- You are ASKING for trouble. Council should stop "lighting the fires" until the risks have been handled. The continued practices just show the Council deceit in its motives and goals.
=========
"ITEM NO. (10) -Motion Required
06-1963
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY and ORDINANCE FIRST CONSIDERATION relative to establishing the Green Retrofit and Workforce Program, including creation of a Green Retrofit Development Interdepartmental Task Force and a Green Retrofit Development Advisory Council.
(Housing, Community and Economic Development Committee report to be submitted in Council. If public hearing is not held in Committee, an opportunity for public comments will be provided.)
(For background reports and materials related to this matter, contact the Legislative Assistant for the Housing, Community, and Economic Development Committee at 213-978-1080.)
(Information Technology and General Services Committee waived consideration of the above matter.)"
Posts
