In Sunday's L.A. Times "Opinion" section, there's a column written by the mayor that is another adventure into polluting the English language with more pure and plentiful crap than we would likely see from any assembled city gridlock of gasoline-fueled internal combution engines. The title is not a bad start, but that's where the whole tale started to go wrong. Quite simply, it is another example of what's been going on for years, Mayor Villaraigosa lies. This time Mayor Villaraigosa lies about the spending so that he can accomplish more of the bad decision-making. The Mayor plans on making bad condions worse, exempting his favor projects from any "shrinking" he talks about. Tony, of course, will be able to walk away from the disaster without any personal responsibility when his term expires in three more years, probably looking for another public office and more voters foolish enough to give him an opportunity to share his "dreams" that turn into nightmares for everyone else.
"L.A.'s mayor: We must shrink city government
For years, spending has outpaced revenue. Solving that problem means cutting or eliminating services we can't afford. Unfortunately, it also means layoffs." By Antonio R. Villaraigosa, February 21, 2010.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-villaraigosa21-2010feb21,0,3201095.story The Mayor is laying off- well, let's say that accurately- he says we
need to lay off more workers. Last week it was 1,000 jobs. Then he said it was not necessarily "people" but the "positions" to eliminate, so that the numbers of people will not be all lost, just the "positions." That's due to some shifting people to city agencies like Airports, Harbor, and the DWP that run on different funds. So what the Mayor says and what really happens or could happen- since we really don't have much to show for layoffs since I heard him say that word at least as far back as January 2009- is not the truth.
Now getting to the article, rather than making this run on and on as usually happens, I will just say that first, I don't think that the Mayor wrote this all by himself. There's a huge staff he's hired since first taking office 4-1/2 years ago, around 200. So I am sure one or two of them do the writing for Tony. Second, although the column is not any masterpiece of wordsmithing, I don't think Tony is up on writing a piece completely by himself. I don't think he's got the interest or the patience to focus on the activity.
Now getting to the content. He uses a lot of really crude devices to set up his arguments by comparing things we could say we reasonably MUST have, like police and fire protection. Then he juxtaposes that with what he wants to scrap, something that is LESS in important, but still may be important all by itself, so you have a hard time to disagree with him in making the choice as he sets it up.
But the idea is to really give you NO choice and to make it look as if this is the only option there is. Clearly no one said "It's the cops or the potholes" so setting up this is all phony but what it does show you is what Tony is setting up as things that are going to be cut. There is a lot that is staying that HE decided has to be that way, in contrast to his often stated "shared sacrifice" approach to managing the situation.
We already saw a big example of his fanaticism with the goal of increasing the LAPD size to 10,000 officers and to do it at all costs to US, the people of Los Angeles. The first step was supposed to do it all and that was by kicking up the trash fees by three times the existing levels of charges of about $11 a month to about $36 a month for most residents. (The DWP does the billing and it comes every 2 months to make the trash bill about $72 each billing period.) All that was NOT spent like advertised by him and MORE money was sucked out of the public that did not get the LAPD levels up to the stated goal. So on and on with this project, and he's still resisting cutting back on LAPD hires when there's no money- but that's why you see him using the
L.A. Times to spread his version. If he says things enought times, people may even believe it.
Now, layoffs are needed to balance the budget as you know the unions have already told Tony to shove it as far as he can if he thinks they will take cuts. They say they already worked out an agreement and any problems with the outcome are all the City's fault now. He screwed up negotiations with the unions on the Early Retirement Incentive Program ("ERIP") and that's costing us money AND the loss of some experienced and talented people that the city might need to run things right. The unions are using, as usualy, their very skilled negotiators and they are not really supposed to look out for the city's interests but only that of their members. That's what the city has negotiators for. The deals have not worked out, lots of things were not worked out properly, delays in taking action by the city let the city go more deeply into the red, lots of ERIP retirees were not from the General Fund and their retirements did not work to whittle down the expenses included within the budget. Only the unions made out well, having job protected from layoffs an raises shifted around to come back to them on new dates later.
What to do? Tony now is ready to sell off (or "long term lease", say 99 years) anything that will get money. A lot of this is revenue generating and the losses that he complains of could have been profits if there were something of a plan in management. Tony doesn't care. He is desperate now that he's looking to go down in history as the worst mayor ever of Los Angeles. Selling off the Zoo, Convention Center, Parking Lots, Meters and so on only make sense to him because he will be gone in 3 more years and he can forget about the other 96 years left on the long term leases.
Suppose parking meters and city owned parking lots go over to a private company. Do you think rates won't jump up and by a lot? Of course. That's the only reason to buy these things, to make money. These "money losers" have created a lot of interested buyers and that's a sign that Tony's story is missing the true picture. Who wants to buy something to LOSE money?
If the city held onto these it as it has, it would not be the purpose of the city to screw everyone for every last dollar in parking money and the rates would be at least a little more reasonable than any private sector business would charge. The city is supposed to provide services to the people at a reasonable cost. The parking is a service, part of city operations for the public. This is all going out the window with Villaraigosa's plan. If the parking meters lose money, take them out and just put up signs limiting the time only. You will never have to pay for fixing meters again and still give tickets for overtime parking with the available workforce as time permits for this task.
The city is not doing anything equtably when it comes to it's own work force. DWP is out of control, getting up to 40% higher salaries for the same jobs as other city departments, getting good deals on top of good deals, getting raises for the next several years while others are on furlough schedules. This is partly due to the inept contract negotiation characteristic of the city and the desire to cater to unions wishes over the needs of the people of the city.
Tony spent much of his career on the side of unions and the unions contribute to his campaign funding. Tony cannont come down too hard on them because he still knows they also have votes and they have a disciplined membership that can mess with his plans for future public office, should he think of running for one. Tony CANNOT really come to pull the trigger on the heavy duty plans as they affect the unions. Instead, he can jack up the departments that are small and will not have such impact against him. He can throw it all back on the public to pay for HIS planning and for his FAILURES to plan.
Wednesday, the SEIU will be coming down to City Hall to show the Council how much they do not like the plans. Tune in to see them wear down the City Council members and see the CMs talk out of both side of their mouths at the same time. Maybe that's why they are the highest paid CMs in the country, pulling in about $15,000 a month for all these talents. One talent that remains missing is competent city management.
Tony is such a hypocrite with spending. He has spent untold thousands of dollars on travel internationally and to D.C. while claiming it's part of the job. He has NOT spent those dollars and the hours that go with the travel on what was supposed to be his job, taking care of city business. EVEN WHEN HE WAS HERE, he ventured into an area clearly out of his jurisdiction- the school, and worked to put his choices into LAUSD and even to go the extra mile to take over some school.
I for one saw that this was crazy. There was not enough work to find in the City business so he has to find OTHER agencies tasks to try to take over? And he was and still is not any expert in the field, so why do this? Ego? Vanity? Probably.
So, is it any wonder now that Tony is trying to convince US that WE have to suffere losses of city services due to the ECONOMY? Economy is not the reason for all this. Other cities have had the same situations but have not dug themselves so deeply into a hole when things started to go sour. SPENDING by the city - and the "city" meand "city council" and "the Mayor" since they make those decisions and put people into jobs to get things done, including finding problems early so that they can be avoided or remedied. That didn't work out too well, did it?
They had a pension fun loss in millions after the person advising them was able to collect some money that were essentially commissions for sending over the business. Now there's some criminal problems happening there, but the money doesn't come back. No, the people supposed to help the city avoid problems were the problems, and expensive ones.
I already went on too long, but there's just too much here to say it all. With L.A. city officials, you will see no one take the blame and everyone take the credit AND they will say, "and thank you for YOUR GREAT LEADERSHIP IN THIS ACTIVITY, COUNCIL MEMBER (fill in the name)." You can take all that flowery language, put it in a bag and take it to your garden and empty it out there for some first class manure application, which is all that congratulating is worth.
In closing, I want to point out how these CMs and the Mayor try to jam each other for the blame without blaming themselves. You have the regular attacks on department heads by Alarcon and now Smith. You have the very annoying cross-examination approach Tony Cardenas uses, often appearing sincere in his unfamiliarity of a topic as he asks fundamental questions, then as if he's another person, he makes a mini-speech where he recites a summary of what the subject area is about, clearly not being in the dark about anything except been terrifically annoying in the entire demonstration.
Read Tony's letter and don't take it as being all that can be done. It is only what Tony wants to do and he's trying to get you to accept that pain so you won't squeal so loudly when it all starts to take effect, showing you then how lousy of a manager he and the city council were in preserving any quality of life like they were supposed to do.
Posts
