City actions and "How does this help US?" questions

First, I want to lay off the mayor today- and I don't mean "employment-wise" even though, now that I think of it, it doesn't sound like a bad idea. No, I mean I won't put in my criticism of his activities in today's posting- and there's been a few in the last couple of days that I will leave that for others to present, and that crowd is an ever growing one. Instead, I will point out a few of the actions in city council by our CMs that might cause you wonder, "Why the big push over such things?"

LACTATION ROOMS IN CITY BUILDINGS
First, CM Tony Cardenas was into creating "Lactation Rooms" in city buildings- and I supposed either rented OR owned- where there are at least 250 occupants. I still don't know if this is about breast feeding babies by city employees at work, which I doubt. Or, is this for the public's benefit? And the idea seems to be to promote pumping of breast milk for later use for infants.

I mentioned this here in this blog when it came up in November and it was a bad itdea then when the city wasn't so heaving into treading water for financial survival. http://lincolnquicknotes.blogspot.com/search/label/tony%20cardenas It's now a worse idea.

On the agenda:

"ITEM NO. (18) - Motion Required - Two Reports on One File
09-1950

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS and ARTS, PARKS, HEALTH AND AGING COMMITTEES’ REPORTS relative to the feasibility of creating lactation rooms for mothers with newborns in City facilities with 250 or more occupants."

There's more in print but this is the core of it.

No matter what, THIS is a bad time to even study it, which is what City Council approved during Wednesday's meeting. "Study the feasiblity of creation of lactation rooms" What is this? It can't happen without money and Cardenas voiced his idea that maybe a corporate sponsor would come forward for this. That's doubtful as well, since they would look as out of place with putting their money on this accessorizing the Titanic as it's going down. No, looking for contributions for flotation gear would be more appropriate if we are going anywhere with the metaphors.

You know there's less city employees by way of the Early Retirement Incentive Program. 2400 have chosen that as their manner of exiting city service. So the work remaining for all areas has to be covered by what or whoever is left. I need to ask, is this assignment of a study REALLY necessary? Does anyone think it ranks above, say, keeping library functions open, or police on the job? Why intentionally divert city "man-hours"- or as a gender-neutral observation, city "person hours"- to this task? What is the study going to tell us that would be really ABSOLUTELY USABLE NOW and worth whatever charges will be created for the task?

I say, CM Cardena, stop trying to gear up for the next Mayor's race with such thkngs when you see the city ready to be sold off, piece by piece to cover management mistakes.

NEXT- NO SMOKING IN RESTAURANTS AT ALL

The council on Wednesday banned smoking in the outdoor areas where it was the last place smokers could go publicly to puff on the tobacco goods. Does the city have to spend time on this kind of thing? A CM mentioned that this was the kind of law adopted by an adjacent city and that it was then predicted to cause a loss of business for restaurants, and it did.

You have now the city controlling pot, and none too well from the history as proof, and you have Jan Perry's ban on more fast food franchises in South L.A. (formerly "South-Central L.A." but what's in a name anyway) because those residents are not mature or educated enough to make proper decision on food to affect their health. So Jan Perry steps in to fix it. No new franchises opening? A business-friendly city, indeed, Mr. Council President Eric Garcetti. Garcetti last month chastised a critic - "Don't lecture me about being business friendly" and then cited what he deemed cleared him. And why do this when the people will just travel to whatever place has their desired fast food, making this kind of regulation very ineffective in the end and penalizing businesses that already have to deal with a bad economy, too? Does that kind of consideration ever cross paths with the thought processes of the Council Members? It surely seems not to happen all too regularly, much to the detriment of the quality of life in L.A.

"L.A. council extends smoking ban to outdoor cafes - Starting next year, restaurant patrons will be barred from lighting up within 10 feet of outdoor dining areas and within 40 feet of mobile food trucks. Violators faces fines of up to $250." By Maeve Reston, January 21, 2010 http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-smoking21-2010jan21,0,6071802.story

All this is an excursion in to Nanny Statehood where the public is too stupid to live life by their own choices so that the City is the new Nanny to take care of the care-needy folks. Tell us what to eat, and tell us now about running restaurants and smoking. If a restaurant is annoyingly smokey to patrons, they will not be eager to eat there, business dwindles and changes in the market place will occur. But now, regardless of the DEGREE of intrusion if any into passersby or patrons, the city says, "Can't smoke there anymore- bad for us passing by." CM Greig Smith from what I heard of the meeting was a real complainer and I really wonder how much scientific basis for any of his claims exists. OF COURSE, you know if smoke is annoying, but will you just fall over and die if you walk past any of these areas or do you have to stay for a certain time to be irrevocably harmed? Too many unchallenged assumptions with this, as with every item of city motions to affect free choice.

And if the FIXED areas were enough of an intrusion, THE TACO TRUCKS aka "MOBILE FOOD KITCHENS" will have a buffer zone of smoking-prohibited for a 40-foot radius. So if you are out in the street and light up, look around to see if there's a mobile food truck that's pulled up to withing 40 feet of you. If so, you are in violation. All city council continues to do is put the real problems on the back burner. There are some books that have as the theme, "Don't Sweat the Small Stuff" that talks about what's important to worry about and what's not so important. Such lack of prioritizing has been the curse of City Council for years and continues to be the ongoing practice. (Incidentally, the author of those books died a few years ago but I imagine he did not create his own demons out of nothing while he lived and maybe helped some people to live a better life by seeing a bigger picture).

Nanny State- or Nanny City- as the case may be. We don't need it. It's representative of a government that disregards the choices of its populace and their right to make their own mistakes or successes. As for businesses, all the rules are burying business. Yesterday's L.A. Times had a story about auto repair shops in Glassell Park and Cypress Park and the desire of some to cull the herd of some of them to spruce up the area. Whether this is a move toward gentrification, I don't know, but it does seem that uses that were there for a long time and that provide a livelihood are being rejected more easily in these days where you want to at least not eliminate jobs since the city is very bad at creating jobs in the private sector. The city IS GOOD however with public jobs, creating a lot that they now have to cut due to "no money."

Any way you look at it, the Council is out of touch with things and what is important to a coucil member is what gets the attention, regardless of the real utility, cost or need. Business as usual.

Replacements will be needed when the next elections come around. Think about changing the status quo. And one thing to consider, a lot of this candidates for any office are just the aides and staff chiefs who move up to "take over the family business" so to speak. It's constantly the product for L.A. that you can see by tracing the paths in most council districts. We need DIFFERENT people, not "family members."

News from the week on local matters- Los Angeles

Looking back on the week in local matters, here are a few comments that I passed along yesterday to another group for sharing that I think might be worth repeating generally, and so, here it is as a sort of "weekend update":

A FEW NEWS ITEMS

1. CITY AUDITS: City Controller Wendy Greuel has presented some findings this of audits on some aspects of city government, including the Neighborhood Councils, with Highland Park's NC one with problems. "Neighborhood Councils Accused of Misspending Public Money." By EGP News Service http://egpnews.com/?p=15333 DONE [Dept. of Neighborhood Empowerment] has been working with them since at least the summer to resolve the problems with their operations and maintain their status as a certified NC. You many have read of some of the issues affecting their operations appearing in the Boulevard Sentinel over the past months. http://www.boulevardsentinel.com/ .

2. AUDIT- CITY PHONES WASTING MONEY. A news item in the past week showed a huge cost to the city of phones that were apparently unused- [from] NBC news, "LA Wastes $237,800 a Month on Idle Phone Lines- Wendy Greuel calls the city on its wasteful hones." By OLSEN EBRIGHT and CHRISTINA VILLACORTE http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local-beat/LA-Wastes-237800-a-Month-on-Idle-Phone-Lines-81564507.html

Among the problems was the failure of the call-blocking feature that allowed international calls to the Phillipines, Canada and Mexico. The Daily News report shows that corrections have begun on the problems. "Audit: 12,000 idle phone lines cost city $3 million." By Rick Orlov, Staff Writer. Updated: 01/14/2010 10:32:21 PM PST http://www.dailynews.com/ci_14191733?source=most_emailed

3. DA'S PUBLIC INTEGRITY DIVISION AT WORK. An investigation into CM Alarcon living outside of his council district is under way. "Alarcon says his legal residence isn't safe, so he's staying elsewhere- The councilman says he stopped living there after an October break-in and has been living outside his district." By David Zahniser and Maeve Reston, January 16, 2010- L.A. TIMES. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-alarcon16-2010jan16,0,2218965.story Neighbors said he's not lived there for months and the CM has an explanation that he says supports his actions.

4. SHOWTIME FOR THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT. And probably the most bizarre item among city-related matters involves the Mayor and Council President Eric Garcetti as reported in the new, with a representative report linked here: Friday, January 15, 2010, 6:54am PST, "Villaraigosa, Garcetti to appear on 'All My Children.'" Los Angeles Business from bizjournals http://losangeles.bizjournals.com/losangeles/stories/2010/01/11/daily28.html

You can read the particulars yourself. I will comment on the significance of things like this that we see too often from people who might look at themselves with a bit more scrutiny. Role models? Getting down to business? Doing their best for you, the public?

I have to say -and it's all personal opinion- that this is typical of the way "leaders" continue to put the business of the city on the back burner while they engage in self-indulgence that continues to operate as a distraction from the urgent business of city survival. In a few weeks or months we will be seeing services cut back and city employees facing reduced hours or no work at all. Wendy Greuel told us at her appearance at our meeting that the city was spending a million dollars a day more than it was taking in, and where does that leave us? Not with time to waste, I'd guess. And that is why this dalliance into show business adventures is so irritating to me.

Until the financial picture of the city is in a presentable condition, things like this are "inappropriate." Some may say "stupid." City "leaders" should be in a 24/7 mode to address the crucial issues (and there's more than enough to go around), which would exclude a lot of their recreational activities. I don't see them doing that in the least. It's just my own opinion, but I don't think it is any more crazy than what you see happening with the electeds and appointeds around town.

REMINDER - THE amended MMD ordinance is coming back to council chambers on Tuesday. Many speakers are really distorting the picture in their public comments. The fact is that an ordinance to allow MMDs to operate is going to occur. The maximization under the most lax provisions is what many "pro" speakers are really looking to accomplish. There are many speaking as if there will be a complete cut off of this method of obtaining med. marijuana. Already noticed is the usage by CMs of "medicine" in place of marijuana. The City is trying to fix a condition that shouldn't exist but already an "entitlement" attitude appears present since laxity in this area was the rule for so long. The recreational usage is blending in with the separate purpose that the state law carved out for this drug.

Many on the Council are really in favor of complete legalization but that is not what is before the Council. Instead, a system of regulated operation of MMDs is the goal. Those CMs have to remember that and focus. They had the option to completely reject MMD operations in the city as many other cities have chosen, but that choice, as convenient as it would be to end the matter for now, is history. I think that the intimidation factor that large numbers of speakers creates is at work with this issue. I have to give credit to CM Huizar's restrained operations approach here, and he appears to be in the minority.

SIDE NOTE- Mention of proposal at the State level, I believe, to legalize and tax marijuana has been made. The proposed tax would be $50 an ounce. A matter of dollars in their eyes has overtaken some legislators. The value is arbitrary and may even make illicit street sales more economical, promoting instead of reducing the trade of marijuana on the illegal market.

"Marijuana legalization bill approved by key Assembly committee- The measure, which would tax and regulate pot for users 21 and older, is unlikely to get additional consideration until next year." January 12, 2010By Patrick McGreevy
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/12/local/la-me-marijuana13-2010jan13


And that's it for city business as usual as it is.

DWP works for YOU? More reasons for Santa to skip that stop.

Christmas is a week away and the City Council is on their "holiday" or "seasonal" or whatever break they accept as the politically correct term to use in place of a "Christmas" break. Regardless, they are off and no bad decisions can be made until next year.

Meanwhile, the DWP is ending the year with the H. David Nahai "consultant" contract coming to an end. You remember that Nahai, the chief of the DWP, appointed by Mayor Tony and approved by the City Council, resigned from his $325,000.00-plus per year job. "Outgoing DWP chief Nahai would keep full salary as consultant under proposal." by David Zahniser, October 5, 2009, 2:28 pm.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/10/outgoing-dwp-executive-nahai-would-keep-full-salary-as-consultant-under-proposal-.html

The DWP employees have raises for 5 years- approved by the council by some sort of rationale that is a math that defies my limited comprehension of the explanation of HOW a raise, and NOT a one-time raise, will be cheaper for the city than NO RAISE. My own view remains that City Council, is hopelessly intertwined with special interests, including the IBEW union here, and could not make a needed deal to save its life. And we are talking about saving the life of the city. They need to be replaced but money to keep them or their clone replacements is readily provided by the special interests.

The story at the DWP stage is here: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/12/dwp-appointees.html DWP approves 5-year contract with employee union by David Zahniser and Phil Willon at City Hall,
December 1, 2009 3:42 pm

The city approval was soon after at a city council meeting. If you are an employee of the DWP, you have to breathe easy compared to lots of other workers in the City who face layoffs and already seeing furloughs. It's the management that's the problem, at thi s point, S. David Freeman is the chief, taking the job after H. David Nahai resigned (and maybe Antonio likes appointing people with a name starting with an initial, or maybe just coincidental).

THE BEST COVERAGE OF DWP's actions
See http://www.ronkayela.com/ for what I think is the best coverage of what DWP does. From yesterday on his blog, Ron Kaye L.A., "Your DWP: Hollow Promises, Cheap Talk, Insider Deals, Mismanagement, Secrecy, Illegalities, Lost Credibility, Waste...FAILURE!" By Ron Kaye on December 18, 2009 6:09 AM
http://ronkayela.com/2009/12/your-dwp-hollow-promises-cheap.html

WHAT NEXT?

I will end there and you can go into more on that blog for other dealings that will never be revealed by our elected politicians and so-called "leaders" of the city. There's lots more to see happening about DWP, but, like they say, "too little time," so a lot I want to present has to be left to other sources for views and coverage, so I will try to include at least those references instead of skipping over topic altogether as has been done to this time. And truly, with all the gifts city council and the DWP management manages to get for themselves, usually with a cost to the rate-payers (city dwellers), they already have a better deal that whatever Santa could bring.

Council plans to ban more outdoor smoking

"L.A. officials express support for smoking ban in outdoor dining areas,"
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/10/a-los-angeles-city-council-committee-voiced-support-for-a-ban-on-smoking-in-the-citys-outdoor-dining-areas-tuesday-but-or.html Something that the L.A. City Council does to pass time instead of deal with real issues of budget, crime or traffic, not to mention soaking the public for as much as they can in as many ways as they are able to invent- parking meters, trash fees, traffic tickets raised, telephone tax created, fee waivers as special events to unqualified events, and on and on.

The one of the originally published versions of this story in the L.A. Times had incorrectly stated that a ban would extend to a 40-mile radius from a taco truck

The actual application of the proposed city ordinance is "40-foot radius of mobile food trucks and refreshment kiosks." Note: "mobile food trucks" appears to be the current descriptive title for the more common term, "taco trucks.' And historical note: Does anyone remember the label, "Catering Trucks?" Those were trucks that had a route to stop by businesses daily for breaks and lunch but the food was already preapared instead of a carrying cook and kitchen on board. At that time the franchise fast food places were not found everywhere like today, and McDonald's was still establishing its place on the horizon. Now you find McD's, Burger King, Wendy's, Taco Bell, and many other franchises in a short drive, or even walk, from whereever you work, go to school or live.

Well, first, a while back, the city wanted to limit where taco trucks could park for any length of time before they had to move on. The courts struck that law down, so now the city goes the other way, and constructs a zone that appears to be more accommodating of their operations and including them within conventional eating establishments. Right about here, I think it's a good place to remind you that City Council is known neither for its consistency or proper prioritization of any issues.

The comments on the L.A. Times blog responded to the story's initial typo banning smoking within a "40-mile radus" instead of 40-foot radius from a taco, or, "mobile food truck" or "food kiosk.'

Some samples of comments from the version, "L.A. council to consider banning smoking in outdoor dining areas," October 26, 2009, at http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/10/la-council-to-consider-banning-smoking-in-outdoor-dining-areas.html,


That's a tough new law. I don't think you can ever be 40 miles from a taco truck in California.
Posted by: Omond October 26, 2009 at 06:52 PM

What? Within 40 miles of a mobile food truck? That has to be a typo. If it were county wide that'd mean if there's a truck in San Gabriel I couldn't smoke in Pasadena.
Posted by: Matt Reed October 26, 2009 at 06:55 PM

How will I know if I'm within 40 miles of a mobile food truck?
Posted by: Kevin October 26, 2009 at 07:12 PM

How will I know if I'm within 40 miles of a mobile food truck?
Posted by: Kevin October 26, 2009 at 07:12 PM



The City Council will spend hours in a hearing on ONE agenda item and still bungle the outcome. To offset this time imbalance, many times they will then pass agenda items in other important areas very quickly with unanimous votes after little or no discussion. (Where there is public comment on an "agenda item," within seconds of the last speaker, they call for the vote and you get in ALMOST EVERY CASE, a UNANIMOUS vote that makes you think what the speakers said mattered not a bit. I think it's the case and you'd have been paid more attention speaking a foreign language instead of English. (That's because you would have an interpreter there, and everything you say will come out twice.)

There are lots of blogs around that chronicle these things so I won't go on any longer with my own list. www.ronkayela.com is one place each day to find so many examples of a malfunctioning city government that you really have to wonder, "Who elects these people anyway?" ANSWER: usually a "majority" of a 12% to 18% turnout- barely 1/5 at most, of the registered voters. . In other words, a different outcome could result with way less than 1/4 to 1/3 of the REST of the registered voters choosing differently.