RSS Feeds
Money talks, this city listens
1.
I don't agree its a matter of money to be heard. "Be heard" by what? I think its a matter that there's little real intelligence in City leadership. They're just bland, uncreative conformists and that's why they have the jobs they have.
What we really have is a choice between their leadership in the public sphere or ignoring it all together and living in a "private" worl d (the real two cities).
Don't use their facilities - liibraries, parks, schools, community centers and let them go bankrupt of revenue. USe the revenue in the private sphere to support it rather than 'public' ciity, which City politicians control.
2. In this case money did talk and it will cost us all a lot more time and money. We all louse including the Cheviot Hills and West of Westwood people.
3. But the best example of money talking on the Westside is the Cheviot Hills and West of Westwood neighborhood groups stopping the very important Expo line in its ”tracks”. They were able to add a ridicules detour off the direct route to a longer dog legged route down Venice and Sepulveda. By adding this detour additional EIR’s, EIS’s and delays were added and the line was broken into two phases. With out the “pressure” to add this detour the Expo Line would be complete now and built for less all the way to Santa Monica for less than it will now cost to build the Line to Culver City only.
4. One way streets are local business killers and to top it off there is very limited parking on the side streets due to permit parking. This idea is not good for the merchents, neighborhoods along the way or the city of Los Angeles.
5. Ironic that this is allegedly about losing some meters a few hours a day -- the city agreed to let meters stay on one side of the street permanently rest of time, although it will slow down traffic by tying up one lane. When the city offered the businesses permits, it was the same groups filing suit who opposed it -- putting on their residents' hats. What they want is NO solution and the EIR is just an excuse, they don't care about costs to city for lawsuits. Bill Rosendahl's spineless defection when this group lobbied him personally swayed the judge --ironically his plan to raise meters to $4/hr from $1 now is what WILL kill those shops.
6. Plus why are they doing a environmental study? is cars going the same way more hamful the cars going both ways?
7. It has to be some sort of coruption. If an elected offical has a seat on a council that can make decsions that may or may not effect business, they should, by law, not be allowed to own any businesses or investments that could be a conflict of interest. If I owned a small business on a busy street, and I was to vote on weather to ban parking on that street, that would make traffic alot easier, then I shouln't be allowed to vote, simple. Easly I could put a no vote to make my business keep going. That's not fair at all. Am I the only one who see's this?
8. This is true when it comes to LA vs outlying areas too. Think "Chinatown/Owens Valley" and compare it to the current plan by the LADWP to destroy the Joshua Tree area with giant, unnecessary powerlines and wasteful "renewable" power plants (Green Path North), while refusing us affordable PV and mini-wind on properties in their domain. Kill wilderness, steal homes, destroy views, and prevent sustainable solutions. Great. "Shove our garbage, smog, housing, water and power issues onto rural areas and keep disgusting, unsustainable consumption cranking in LA. Let others absorb the costs of our unsustainable policies." Same thing.
9. From across the continent: Does "Latino immigrant . . ." refer primarily to "illegal" or "legal" status? And what is the proportional distribution according to status?
10. It certainly appears that Mr. Rutten has not driven down Pico lately and looked at the businesses that would be affected by these changes. They are not trendy Westside, Santa Monica Promenade type stores. They are mostly mom-and-pop storefronts that used to exist all over the city but have been tossed out by outrageous rent increases. ALL of the residential streets between Olympic & Pico are resident-permit restricted and traffic-humped -- so there is no alternate parking available . When this was brought to Villaregosa and Wright's (who does not represent this district) attention, they were peremptorily overriden.
Submitted by: steh
2. In this case money did talk and it will cost us all a lot more time and money. We all louse including the Cheviot Hills and West of Westwood people.
Submitted by: Alan Fishel
3. But the best example of money talking on the Westside is the Cheviot Hills and West of Westwood neighborhood groups stopping the very important Expo line in its ”tracks”. They were able to add a ridicules detour off the direct route to a longer dog legged route down Venice and Sepulveda. By adding this detour additional EIR’s, EIS’s and delays were added and the line was broken into two phases. With out the “pressure” to add this detour the Expo Line would be complete now and built for less all the way to Santa Monica for less than it will now cost to build the Line to Culver City only.
Submitted by: Alan Fishel
4. One way streets are local business killers and to top it off there is very limited parking on the side streets due to permit parking. This idea is not good for the merchents, neighborhoods along the way or the city of Los Angeles.
Submitted by: Alan Fishel
5. Ironic that this is allegedly about losing some meters a few hours a day -- the city agreed to let meters stay on one side of the street permanently rest of time, although it will slow down traffic by tying up one lane. When the city offered the businesses permits, it was the same groups filing suit who opposed it -- putting on their residents' hats. What they want is NO solution and the EIR is just an excuse, they don't care about costs to city for lawsuits. Bill Rosendahl's spineless defection when this group lobbied him personally swayed the judge --ironically his plan to raise meters to $4/hr from $1 now is what WILL kill those shops.
Submitted by: susan
6. Plus why are they doing a environmental study? is cars going the same way more hamful the cars going both ways?
Submitted by: Wake up people
7. It has to be some sort of coruption. If an elected offical has a seat on a council that can make decsions that may or may not effect business, they should, by law, not be allowed to own any businesses or investments that could be a conflict of interest. If I owned a small business on a busy street, and I was to vote on weather to ban parking on that street, that would make traffic alot easier, then I shouln't be allowed to vote, simple. Easly I could put a no vote to make my business keep going. That's not fair at all. Am I the only one who see's this?
Submitted by: Wake up people
8. This is true when it comes to LA vs outlying areas too. Think "Chinatown/Owens Valley" and compare it to the current plan by the LADWP to destroy the Joshua Tree area with giant, unnecessary powerlines and wasteful "renewable" power plants (Green Path North), while refusing us affordable PV and mini-wind on properties in their domain. Kill wilderness, steal homes, destroy views, and prevent sustainable solutions. Great. "Shove our garbage, smog, housing, water and power issues onto rural areas and keep disgusting, unsustainable consumption cranking in LA. Let others absorb the costs of our unsustainable policies." Same thing.
Submitted by: sheila
9. From across the continent: Does "Latino immigrant . . ." refer primarily to "illegal" or "legal" status? And what is the proportional distribution according to status?
Submitted by: Gonzaga
10. It certainly appears that Mr. Rutten has not driven down Pico lately and looked at the businesses that would be affected by these changes. They are not trendy Westside, Santa Monica Promenade type stores. They are mostly mom-and-pop storefronts that used to exist all over the city but have been tossed out by outrageous rent increases. ALL of the residential streets between Olympic & Pico are resident-permit restricted and traffic-humped -- so there is no alternate parking available . When this was brought to Villaregosa and Wright's (who does not represent this district) attention, they were peremptorily overriden.
Submitted by: Cliff