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.

The City Council and City Attorney's Office on a Rocky Road to an MMD Ordinance.

The City Council members in a joint meeting of the Public Safety and the Planning and Land Use Committees on Monday held a hearing that was memorable, to say the least. (Right: file photo- Ed Reyes, Council Member for CD-1 and Chair of the "Planning and Land Use Management['PLUM']" committee.)

On the city political view, the hearing on Monday was really a battle between the Council members and the Deputy City Attorneys office. The CMs seemed peeved since there was that "threat" of jailing Jan Perry if the AEG signs were allowed to be erected, according to CM Jan Perry's account of a conversation with CA Trutanich. The CMs also appear to be pulling rank in trying to put the City Attorney's office "in it's place" as an "advisor" and that it's the Council that has the final word. The CMs are dopes.

PUBLIC COMMENT supporters were using threats of litigation (probably heard somewhere that LA CITY Council is preoccupied with avoidance of litigation in much of their decision-making.

The idea for many who spoke in public comment was to use this issue as a foot-in-the-door to on the way to simply legalizing marijuana, more so than achieving the limited use that Prop. 215 allows.

The angle that there could be tax dollars realized by allowing the MMDs to operate, apparently with little restriction.

That "sales" language that leads to TAXING possibilities has some of the CMs absolutely drooling at the thought of getting some more revenue in. The City Attorney's office deputies said that the STATE LAW does not allow "sales" and the brilliant CMs tried an assortment of approaches clearly attempting to circumvent that interpretation.


The opponents of the proposed ordinance were made up of persons appearing to focus on the need for access to marijuana as patients with a medical need, and those persons who seemed to have more of a recreational usage and freer access to obtaining marijuana as their motivation. References were made to marijuana as a "medicine" very often, and many from both of these groups pushed the “compassion” aspect.

There was little acknowledgement from either the objectors and supporters of the fact that MMDs were opening without any compliance that a more conventional business venture would have to follow. The Building and Safety Department is pretty much a neutered city department but should have issued something like a certificate of occupancy in connection with a city business license to operate.

I don't think that the MMDs forming after the City’s Interim Control Ordinance, aka, “the moratorium” on opening more MMDs, had given any thought to following the law, using the ambiguous “hardship exemption” to justify their application. This was only AN APPLICATION, and not permission to open up shop, but that detail didn’t stop anyone.

Clearly, they moved along to open up and conduct business in the face of the then-existing "moratorium" on any additional MMDs. The loosely framed "hardship exemption" APPLICATIONS were treated as PERMISSION TO BEGIN BUSINESS and "following the law" was certainly not a component of the process. Neither the spirit or letter of the law was followed- the MMDs popped up like their product: weeds.

The committee members, most vocal among them, Reyes and Cardenas, appeared to square off with the Dep. City Attorneys appearing there in the special joint committee meeting. More than once, the CMs reminded the City Attorneys that they were only there to advise the Council and that it was the Council that would follow or reject the advisements. Someone among the Council members mentioned that the Council in the past has sought out their own counsel apart from the CA's office where there was disagreement in the past. That was during the “Rocky Delgadillo, City Attorney” period.

I don't know why the Council members wish to act with these chips on their shoulders. Maybe I am the only one noticing that nuance.

It was particularly noticeable when "sales" was the word that the CA advised NOT be used in the language since the STATE LAW does not allow "sales," under the interpretation of their office. The CMs were pretty stubborn and appeared not to grasp the idea that using "sales" invites a challenge to the validity of any ordinance, as "sales" under the state law were a prohibited action. Putting “sales” as a term into the language of the ordinance would be inconsistent with the language of the state statute.

Nevertheless, some of the CMs were looking at ways to circumvent that aspect. It comes down to the CMs, in their constant quest to collect revenue by hook or crook, setting the stage here with some ripe ground for levying taxes on sales.

CM Cardenas appeared to be annoyed at the cautions that the CA was giving and finally said, "If we use 'sales' are we going to be sued?" Cardenas asked that in his usual challenging style of his that he employs when conducting questioning of persons in Council meetings. This time that tone was used in the questioning of the City Attorney and you again gather that there's some hostile attitudinal issues involved.

But the City Attorney, in an effort to explain their insistence on NOT using the word, “sale,” explained that the ordinance COULD state that a transaction for money did not constitute a sale so that it was "not a sale" under the city’s ordinance, BUT the facts could constitute a crime and subject persons relying on the ordinance to be prosecuted by the attorney general.

The CA’s actual reply was, "No, but someone relying on the ordinance and believing they are in compliance could still be prosecuted if the Attorney General decided that they violated the state law."

It was pretty obvious that many CMs want money to come to the city and see this as an opportunity to squeeze some money out for the city. The "fees" aspect was described and you could see by the questioning of the CAs that the CMs were headed to recouping money by imposing fees as distinguished from taxes. “Fees” however are not allowed to be imposed without limit and some showing of a relation to actual expense of a service has to be established rather than simply having an arbitrary value assigned. And you could already tell that's what the CMs had in mind- if they couldn't have a “Sales Tax” since there is not “sale” occurring, they could set a high "fee" to make this bring in some big bucks. Well, they can't do that, at least not legally.

That sound bite of Sen. McCain came to mind: "You can call it a banana if you want" when a choice of wording was brought up as he campaigned for President, meaning in the bare bones analysis, that the underlying facts will show what something is, regardless of the label you want apply. Another phrase used during that campaign was similarly brought to mind; "It's like putting lipstick on a pig." And that's pretty stark in demonstrating that you still have a pig after all is said and done.

There was a lot of this nitpicking on words and the CMs seemed to be like children at a candy story who wanted to do what they wanted to do, and any type of suggestions by their parents was treated as meddling. Here, the CMs did not want the CA to meddle.

The other problems that I saw were more of a land use nature. The 500 foot radius, and the1,000 foot radius sorts of things were complicating all of the job at hand in arriving at an ordinance to vote upon.

My view here is to make an ordinance that handles “how” to dispense the substance (and avoid calling it "medicine" as was happening there), and just work that out. Then, separately, as to zoning and the details like the distances from schools and so on, leave that task to the Planning and Land Use committee or the Council as a whole.

Keeping the physical facilities and related subject matter SEPARATE would do much to ease the task of finishing the ordinance- they could add some language like, "The facility shall be in compliance with the requirements specified in the city's Planning and Land Use directives and subsequent ordinance” Mixing both areas, the legal scheme of distribution with the physical location and facility, just make it out to be the city version of the Rubic's Cube. The task just never ends as more adjustments are added.

Just to close now, and there was so much more that comes out in listening to hearings instead of only reading about the actions in the newspaper- Zine was saying towards the end of the hearing, to paraphrase, "Let's use W. Hollywood as a model go ahead to get an ordinance- we have wasted to many years already."

The lawsuits were among the topics mentioned- or threatened- during Public Comment. The passage of the ordinance would result in "costly litigation" according to some opponents speaking at the hearing. Dennis Zine stated later, paraphrased here, "We are going to get sued anyway so let's pass an ordinance and go from there."

I was wondering months ago why they didn't adopt the approach taken by any of a number of other cities where the situation has been managed without so much commotion. The West Hollywood ordinance may have a flaw in that is uses "sales" in the language and the City Attorney remarked on that but the CMs still seem to try to pull rank on their legal counsel more than listen to the REASON for the advisement.

Zine got lots of applause, but his thought process in saying we should be getting an ordinance out now and then amending as needed was not earth-shaking in any way since even I thought of that before as the City constantly re-invents the wheel in it's plodding along with city business.


====================
MAJOR POINT OF THE STATE LAW:
COLLECTIVES are what everybody did not want to deal with- and COLLECTIVES ARE what the state law allows.

In a COLLECTIVE, there's not an outright payment for the product, but a shared endeavor to raise the weed from planting to harvesting and using. So this is not conducive to any current models of the MMDs in L.A. and was glossed over by those in favor of trading money for weed as has been done so far.

"PROFIT" AND "for Profit" were terms bounced around but they miss the point. Non-Profits do this all the time, getting some "employees" wealthy and then not showing a book "profit." If you check a lot of the non-profits you will see that there’s some good salaries getting paid out to the managers- and that is what it’s all about for many non-profits getting money from the city. Non-profit groups can be very profitable.

Using “out-of-pocket expenses” and “actual expense” “with documentation” would be better choices to try to screen out a lot of padding that goes on. But the CMs were not on that track anyway.

ANOTHER MAJOR POINT
”CAREGIVER” and “PATIENT” or “QUALIFIED PATIENT” are separate categories of persons that can be authorized under the law to obtain the marijuana. A “CAREGIVER” is somebody who very literally gives continuing care to the patient. A Medical Marijuana Dispensary is not giving a patient such personal and continued care and is not considered under state law to be a "CAREGIVER."

The "PATIENT" is one who becomes qualified under the terms of the statute and thereby can obtain and use the marijuana.

If you may recall, the "compassionate use" that underlies the passage of Prop. 215 envisioned the circumstances where many people had HIV and were dying from AIDS as well as persons afflicted with cancer. THIS is how the CAREGIVER fits in as often times the patient is disabled and cannot personally go get any marijuana, so the caregiver is allowed to do it. (The CAREGIVER is effectively the proxy or agent for the Patient).

THE LEGAL EFFECT ignored by City Council-
Because money for a product in the "sales" framework of operation clearly doesn't match this state law's picture of compliance, all this profiteering by MMDs is actually in violation of the state law and the City cannot make it legal by “proclaiming” in the words of a statute that it is legal. The State law is still the ruling this area, and under Federal law, marijuana is still illegal all by itself, compassionate use or not, with some deference given to states passing laws such as California’s “Compassionate Use” statute passed by voters as Proposition 215.

The CMs in their actions Monday, apparently trying to show their version of "leadership" here, continue to fumble along and air their arrogant attitudes with the City Attorney's office regardless of how appropriate the interpretations appear to be.

CONCLUSION
The City Council committee members don't get to the point, ignore legal advice, have their eyes full of visions of tax dollars coming in and totally are incapable of doing a competent job of making a clear law to end this MMD explosion in the city.

They don't learn anything and need to get a pay cut and move to part time so that they stop spending so much time showboating but instead get down to business and stop all the back-stabbing and back-slapping that has become an addiction to the current crop of CMs (and Mayor).

In the end, the city dropped the ball and is now trying to find it to continue the game. And they are really bad at this game.

And, this is my opinion, of course.

MMDs and "Hardship Exemptions"- what a combination.

The Tuesday Council meeting on the MMD issues of amending the ICO and hearing some of the applications was for the most part overshadowed by the City Employees pleading, informing, requesting, demanding and threatening during the public comment that centered on the actions, the proposed furloughs and potential layoffs.

The sheer numbers of hardship exemptions, well over 500 pending, is going to be a task for the Council members and the PLUM (Planning and Land Use Management) committee chaired by Ed Reyes. Since late 2007 when the ICO (the moratorium) became effective, not a single hardship exemption was heard by the PLUM committee or the Council. The "Exemption" carries with it no standards or guidelines of any specific nature. The inclusion of the guidelines was done at the direction of the City Attorney (Rocky Delgadillo) and he's been on shaky ground as an authoritative source of information since at least that time. One CM mentioned during the Council meeting that maybe they should not have relied solely on the City Attorney's advice. Too late now.

Some of the Council members were in agreement that there were more MMDs for Los Angeles that they would like. But the added comments that they will cast a "No" vote when deciding the hardship exemptions is a little disturbing since the idea of deciding on matters by a public entity is that it will be done fairly by them, and at least it will have an appearance of following due process. Announcing a vote before hand like that without even hearing any facts of a particular case is a pretty good indication that you have a sham process and comments like the ones made on Tuesday can create the possibility of more potential litigation and supply the ammo, as well. Sometimes people need to say nothing, and the City Council is the unlikely place to see that kind of self-restraint happen.

Well, that's still an open matter and speaking of shams, there will be more applications for "hardship exemptions" filed before it finally does take effect, which is not just yet. I said the Council members shouldn't prejudge a matter, but there's a lot of filings just to try to make some money off the situation that create the overkill of MMDs. The Council members just have to sort out what is there.

MMD-Medical Marijuana Dispensaries flourish- and City Council gets itself bogged down in the weeds.

The City Council's 2007 decision to put a moratorium on openings of new Medical Marijuana Dispensaries has come back to haunt them. The Council is trying to deal with the rush of "hardship exemption" filings as included in the Moratorium called the"ICO," the "Interim Control Ordinance." There is a link to the ICO-related "Frequently Asked Questions" attached (a .PDF file). http://la.curbed.com/uploads/marijuana.pdf The item also includes a proposed ordinance yet-to-be-approved to handle the situation. Note that the dates on all of these papers is either March 2009 and February 2009- this year, not 2007 or 2008. Looks like they just got around to dealing with this.

That information came from the blog, "Curbed L.A." [this blog earlier was misidentified as "L.A. Observed." Ed.] with their posting today, "Illegal Pot Dispensaries Are the New Billboard," by Dakota, http://la.curbed.com/archives/2009/05/you_may_not_be_able.php The posting mention there that the Building & Safety inspectors are on the job now but you still have a condition that going to remain a problem until all the needed versions of the law are approved, still a ways down the road. The Building & Safety inspectors were supposed to be on their job, citing illegal billboards and especially important since the moratorium on new ones last year. That remains out of control with B&S overwhelmed with that task late last year with just identifying which city billboards were authorized and legal and which were illegal and should not be up.

The L.A. Times has another story today that addresses the City Council's dilemma, "L.A.'s medical pot dispensary moratorium led to a boom instead; A ban meant to prevent new dispensaries from opening included a loophole that entrepreneurs have exploited. Where four years ago there were only a handful, now there may be 600 dispensaries," By John Hoeffel, June 3, 2009. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-medical-marijuana3-2009jun03,0,6866563,full.story Since CM Huizar announced his motion to eliminate the "Hardship Exemption" there has been a river, if not a flood, of applications made. That was not a result that was anticipated and surely not desired by CM Huizar and the PLUM committee or City Council.

The PLUM committee, "Plannning and Land Use Management," chaired by Ed Reyes (CD-1), is composed of Council members Jack Weiss (CD-5), and Jose Huizar (CD-14)- the mixture of membership I'd say was enough to mishandle this condition by that fact alone. The Times' story has Ed Reyes saying that they will be handling the processing of Hardship Exemptions, but a report of the meeting with PLUM committee members related that the "Committee" rejected CM Huizar's request to begin handling the processing with some intensity to reduce the backlog. Publicity might be what changed Reyes' tune, but the CM, a seasoned politician, will no doubt rationalize-out any inconcistencies in his statements with self-serving clarifications. They all do that.

The L.A. Times' story also noted that Reyes earlier considered hearings would be unnecessary because the exemptions would become moot upon enactment of the permanent ordinance. I would like to hear his analysis of the situation to cause him to arrive at that conclusion, but it's not apparent to me that an outcome like that would happen. There were zero exemptions heard up to this date since 2007 by the PLUM committee. Don't expect Jack Weiss to put in much time now. Since Jack lost the election to Trutanich for City Attorney (a Just and Proper result for the City's benefit), he's not likely to want to start anything he didn't start on this in the last year and a half. Jack will be out of office as CM on July 1, when a new CD-5 CM Paul Koretz takes office.

This topic also made the blod, "the LAist" http://laist.com/ as a posting, "Loophole in Medical Marijuana Dispensary Ban Nearing Closure," http://laist.com/2009/06/02/loophole_in_medical_marijuana_dispe.php that has the text of the motion introduced by CM Jose Huizar (the frame may or may not display readily- click around to display the text). After the ordinance takes effect, there's still all those filings to go through. The change only stops NEW filings of exemption applications, and the old ones continue under the law as it was.

SEE THE VIDEO ON KCET: - http://kcet.org/socal/2009/05/marijuana-clinics-up-in-smoke.html- as referenced in my earlier posting on this blog recently at http://lincolnquicknotes.blogspot.com/2009/05/kcet-on-mmds-medical-marijuana.html if you haven't already viewed it.

The video may open your eyes to a couple of things: how the MMDs have taken off as a commercial, for-profit enterprise (but aren't "co-ops", or "cooperatives" supposed to be "not profit making activities" to benefit co-op members?); and, how the City Council handles things so poorly as it can be handled- and waiting only until strong complaints from a neighborhood council were ultimately made about the numbers of MMDs setting up in the area. The city process didn't even charge for applying to open an MMD. Nor did it charge for any licensing fee to actually operate an MMD. See the information in the video that's just over 11 minutes long and packed with information.

KCET on MMDs- Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Sprout In L.A. As Quickly As Their Products

"The Highest Paid City Council in the Nation" (and probably the planet) has let the Prop. 215 Medical Marijuana Dispensaries flourish in this city without any orderly regulation- that condition is something that is featured in "SoCal Connected," a KCET-TV production that is available online at http://kcet.org/socal/2009/05/marijuana-clinics-up-in-smoke.html. It's a very informative production that tells you about the numerous MMDs opening, but also a little bit of the in-fighting that's gone on at City Hall to let it get that way.

This video is nicely done as to be highly engaging (and entertaining but disturbing). It moves quickly so watch for the mentions of the fact that the Council was to have a moratorium for a year on the MMDs opening so that they would not grow in number. The moratorium was also to allow ample time for the Council to create a strict and appropriate regulation scheme, developed to prevent what we now have, I can only assume. They did nothing, according to the video.

Well, keep watching because there's lots of shifting of blame here. The law - the moratorium- has an "exemption" for 'hardship" and that's very ambiguous. What is that all about? No one seems to be able to pin it down exactly. The dysfunctional relations between the City Attorney, Rocky Delgadillo, and anybody else he should be working with in City government have had an impact- More MMDs opening in L.A. than anywhere else in the state. The idea of an "exemption" is odd since there has to be some hearing when that provision is inserted into laws, but that has to happen BEFORE the business can open up. Here in L.A., the "exemption" is used as a "foot in the door" to ENABLE OPENING which the city allows- and from there, things get worse.

"PLUM"- not a fruit, but the City Council committee on Planning and Land Use Management- is the one to decide the hardship exemptions. They should have called them simply "applications" to be more functional in how the forms should be handled, since the mere mention of exemption seems to give everyone the notion that it's a done deal and business can begin upon filing the forms.

The video program shows that PLUM has not heard a single application - part of the problem; now there is a growing backlog. And what happens when the burden of demonstrating facts to support the "hardship" cannot be met by the applicant? Fold up your tent and leave? I doubt that all will take that decision as the final outcome, so expect LITIGATION since that might bog down the city further,and the MMDs could continue operation pending a final decision. All this is about money now. Servicing the people that Prop. 215 had in mind is no longer the focus.

Council Members Huizar (CD-14), Ed Reyes (CD-1) and Jack Weiss (CD-5) are the committee members, with Ed Reyes as the chair to run the committee, and not "into the ground," as he seems to have done on this issue, another avoidance device of government, but with major consequences here. All of these guys don't need more negative history on their Council job performance. But don't expect their pay to be affected- and that topic comes up later- keep reading.

According to "SoCal Connected's" presentation, only CM Huizar and CM Zine would appear on camera. Where's the accountability and transparency in government now? I can see that Reyes has nothing to gain from this, so keeping himself scarce is a good move for now.

In the meanwhile, CM Huizar introduced a motion at a Council meeting early May to abolish the exemption. This done after hearing detailed complaints from the Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council of the problem of increasing MMDs in Eagle Rock. "SoCal Connected" noted that the "unintended consequence" of announcing his motion was to have a flurry of filings of the applieations for hardship exemptions. I think this could have been avoided if there was some strict application of a restrictive interpretation of what they have NOW for regulations. I think the new City Attorney, Carmen "Nuch" Trutanich, will probably more functional for the City as he replaces Franklin High alum, Rocky Delgadillo, on July 1. This could have been another matter of orderly business. Now, they strugle to get this under control- but Huizar's motion to end the "hardship exemption" still has to be approved by council and signed by the Mayor before it becomes effective.

Even if and when the hardship exemption provision of the law is ended, all currently filed applications still have a right to be decided. And unfortunately, the businesses are not being prevented from opening during the waiting process, but instead, they just open for business while waiting for their hardship exemption application to be processed. The law probably could be interpreted like common sense would have it- first apply, then if you are approved, you can open. Until approval is received, you can't open. Not in L.A.

"SoCal Connected" shows the actual statute involved on camera, and contradicts what some CMs say about what it's about and what it contains- and also, THEY wrote it. Actually, somebody was assigned to put it together and these CMs sign off on it and most don't know anything beyond what they get as a summary, not bothering to read all that they approve. With the pay they get (almost $15,000.00 a month each) and the staff of 20 authorized to each CM, you'd think they might get around to being responsible for each matter brought up. Too many? Then maybe there's too much unnecessary production of laws in the first place.
Like I said before the council is the highest paid in the nation- AND it's not just in cash salary since there's another $100,000.00 you can count in. I forgot that the L.A. Weekly has some revealing information on the pay for city council and how it stands compared to other cities. One of the latest articles is:

"L.A. City Council Clings to Stunning Perks and Pay;
They can't bear to give up those record-high $178,898 salaries," by Paul Teetor, May 20, 2009. http://www.laweekly.com/2009-05-21/news/l-a-city-council-clings-to-stunning-perks-and-pay/

You really are not getting your money's worth here when you look at the MMDs getting out of control. The city council for all it's tax and fee gouging of residents, clearly missed a golden opportunity to charge some hefty fees for all the prospective work the MMDs would create- but it didn't. The fees for L.A. for MMDs? ZERO dollars. That's got to have the CMs kicking themselves for letting that slip through. Maybe they were too busy thinking of parking meter hikes they quadrupled, or the extended hours of restrictions, the "Districts" that they could create to bring in more money, and maybe their attention was taken up with thoughts of other fees to tack onto the DWP bill besides the trash collection fees that they tripled.

But look at this L.A. Weekly article- and there's more of these articles besides that one- to show you we are not getting A-1 performance from the premium pay they pull down. At the Council meeting this past Wednesday, Eric Garcetti replied to a speaker's criticism on their pay and performance during public comment segment on a matter. Council President Garcetti seems to be very defensive lately and spewed a Wikipedia's page-worth of "facts" that he must have had ready for such an occassion to defend their pay and performance. He sure can't claim poverty. Past items in the L.A. WEEKLY have examined this topic, too. See the especially revealing one that came out a week before the March 3rd city election, "Los Angeles on $300,000 a year; Why next week's City Council "coronation" will cost you far more than money," By Patrick Range McDonald, Published on February 25, 2009, L.A. Weekly. http://www.laweekly.com/2009-02-26/news/los-angeles-on-300-000-a-year/


Garcetti is wasting his breath and like all of the CMs, is not honest about the situation. Indeed, I'd say, since THE PAY is what lures them to "PUBLIC SERVICE" in City Hall. (If you lower the pay to about $90,000.00 to $95,000 and trim some CM benefits to realistic proportions, I am sure that alone would still be a healthy paycheck and would filter out a quite a few who claim they are "dedicated" to public service.

Garcetti's defense Wednesday was all very hollow (and annoying) since the AMOUNT of pay- scandalous in its own right- was laid off by Garcetti to be the fault of a 1990 City Charter amendment that sets pay. That City Charter amendment itself was a cleverly decptive device. The state court judges' pay is used as the control CMs pay rate- and when judges get raises, which is normally annually, then the Council gets raises. The part that Eric left out was that it was a charter amendment that was generated by City Council. City Council was responsible for the creation And it was purposely created JUST TO HAVE AN EXCUSE, the one Eric used here, "It's not within our control." It might have been done by THIS cast of Council members, but THESE ones there now could have fixed it. Sure, they could have put in an initiative to change the pay back to local control and be ACCOUNTABLE- they haven't been shy to create initiatives for the ballot before, but then why should they? They don't want a change and everyone falls for "We can't control it" story without challenging the basis.

Jose Huizar was going to have a press conference this morning at 9 a.m., set for "Friday morning to urge City leaders to quickly adopt a Control Ordinance to regulate and monitor Medical Marijuana facilities in the City of Los Angeles." That was cancelled at the last minute but then it was arranged at the last minute, too. Huizar has to follow through on trying to be responsive and fix this and he needs to have Ed Reyes, the Chair of the PLUM committee pull his own weight, too. Who else can Reyes blame for not hearing a single Exemption application since they were created? This is unique to government. Private sector would have replaced non-performers with others to get the job done. If they operated this like a private sector business, there might be some improvement, but I still believe the system can be twisted by these folks to still foul it all up. Meanwhile, they will make out well, financially speaking, of course.

See the video, at 11 minutes, it's packed with some things to think about- one might be "How can I open up my own MMD?" There's a company featured in the video that has classes on how to do that. Everybody's making money here it seems.

Stay tuned for more developments in the City Council on this topic. [And if you are interested in finding a MMD, the L.A. WEEKLY print edition is the place. The paper is available for free all over the city in stores, book stores, public libraries, and other public places.]