Just a quick note to point out another way that City Council is looking for ways to get out of their economic jam and put you there instead. They now want to have the homeowner pay the bill for fixing sidewalks in front of their property. That's not a cheap proposition, either. (That' why they want to make the change, of course.)
From the L.A.Times news blog, "L.A. NOW," we have this story on that clever little move from the Council Members: "L.A. may stop footing bills for sidewalk and driveway repairs." Martha Groves, May 9, 2010 http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/05/la-may-stop-footing-bills-for-sidewalk-and-driveway-repairs.html
Now, if there were better management of city spending and some attention paid to forecasts, we might not see the CMs go into the "money-grubbing" gouging of the public modus operandi that is becoming nearly all they do these days. The idea that the economic downturn is the major reason for the chaos is really a lot of B.S. but then that would mean that they would have to take some of the blame for the bad decisions they made, and you know that's not going to happen. They would be better off not saying anything about the causes than to blame it on Wall St. or anything besides their own lack of planning and foresight.
True, the outside economic forces did foul up a lot, but to use that as the excuse for the city's slow but continuing slide to insolvency is a real smokescreen for more personal failings. I can say this, that these men and women of the city council and the other guy in the Mayor's office have all done a poor job of representing the people of the city. On the other hand, that would be something of a disappointment if you EXPECTED them to do the right thing.
Other than working on keeping their jobs as professional politicians - here on the Council at the rate of $15, 000.00 a month salary- there's not much else that they put all their energy on that happens to coincide with doing a responsible job, the job that they were supposed to be doing because of their election to the office.
A big concern now is that "bankruptcy" is not a word you hear them say now. It's the "B-word" that it's called, like if you don't say it, it won't happen. That's a pretty mature way to handle the situation.
But let me assure you that these folks do not want to be known for being the political counterpart to the Titanic's captain. They will not sit still to let the city go into a bankruptcy filing and, no, it's not because they are in any way noble people. On the contrary, they are totally into selling off every asset that the city has to get some quick cash to bail themselves out of this mess. This is the way burglars operate- They steal property and sell it at an amount that is all profit to them since they never paid for any of it to begin with. So for City Council members, they don't see it as a loss- but the larceny is in the transferring of property for the any amount that is LESS than the proper and full value. Council does this when they "gift" a city asset as recently done with a fire engine given as "surplus property" for $1.00 to a firefighter's organization for "training purposes." This is not the time to "give" away any assets that could be used to reduce ANY of the deficit. But they do it anyway.
This movement has none other than the Mayor with the bright ideas that shine only upon his own personal interests and those of his pals, but leaves the rest of us in the dark, in some ways, nearly literally so whenever a DWP transaction is involved.
There are city parking facilities planned in the budget that are not yet sold, but counted anyway. The mayor wants these 99-year leases on parking meters like Chicago did to get a lump sum of cash for the city. Nice move, Tony. First, it's not approved as far as I see it. Next, that would be bad since that asset category GENERATES money, money that will come no longer if this change happens. But for now, and "now" is all they care about- when they leave office, it's all history to them and they will wash their hands of it- but they will leave the city short on some cash-generating ability.
The sidewalk repair idea would not be happening if they did not screw up things so badly over the years. Council President ERIC GARCETTI, I want to add, is very much a part of this movement to jack you up on fees and taxes. He said, about 3 months ago, in a reply to city workers seeking an alternative to losing jobs, that he believed that L.A. "has long been tax-starved." What's that meaning? Very clearly that more taxes would be in order. That's the way Eric thinks. He's got no real grip on what people have to deal with, although he constantly likes to put himself into the picture as a regular guy who is just trying to help you.
Cutting expenses is only happening now, and done extensively- aside from NOT reducing personnel which might be useful. (The "early retirement incentive program"was an expensive program, was done without much oversight that let in 400 retirements that were NOT paid out of the "general fund" category, therefore, it added the COST to the city for the premium retirement-ERIP- and those DID NOT CUT DOWN the salary expenses for the "general fund" that was the whole reason for the program. Second part of the problem was that the ERIP nearly wiped out the experienced people in many departments, so there was a need to cover those jobs and do some backfilling that again weakened the impact of the retiree's exit from the city workforce. Too tough for anyone to figure out in advance, I suppose, and plan so these things would NOT happen.
Creating more costs by funding non-profits that don't always have a clear or proven effectiveness is what they do best. Then they continue to do it and with more money usually requested for each renewal. And non-profits will not be subject to any part of any layoff plans, either, no matter what the city does. Stopping the spending and checking on waste, fraud and abuse are simply beyond the capacity of the Council. Wendy Greuel was part of the CM body until last July. What did SHE do as a CM for the problems? ("Nothing" might be a good choice here). Now she's another Mayor candidate and some good PR is very important to her now. I said "good PR" and not "Good achievements," two separate things.
And the additional danger to the city that I want to bring up is that Garcetti is one of many on the Council seeking a shot at the Mayor's job when Tony leaves office. For my two cents, the ones on the Council now who have plans for sitting in the Mayor's office in 3 more years would mean just a different person than Tony who will be creating a new disaster for the city.
Let's see how the Council continues to justify putting more on the backs of property owners and city residents. And if you think they have no choice, you need to give the whole picture another look. And there's more of this kind of "bail out" thinking that you will be seeing coming as a budget has to be settled upon by the end of June. You just saw last week how the dog owners were viewed as a source of some really quick cash by the CMs.
Posts
