Blog Los Angeles

L.A. City Mayoral Candidate WENDY GREUEL in HOT WATER with L.A. Times On Home Depot Disclousre Issue: ADDITIONAL SHADY DETAILS (MUCH WORSE) THAT L.A. Times DID NOT Include (Audio/Blog Post) http://LACityMayor.com EXCLUSIVE!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:32:00 -0800

EXCLUSIVE: DID L.A. MAYORAL CANDIDATE WENDY GREUEL HIRE A PR FIRM TO RUN ANTI-HOME DEPOT CAMPAIGN, CAUSE SHE OWNS COMPETING BUILDING SUPPLY COMPANY?

AUDIO: @ZumaDogg tells ALL the details, including HOW he came across this EXCLUSIVE INFO (on the PR campaign, detailed below). WHAT the L.A. Times did NOT publish, today:

02-18-13 NOTE FROM Z-DOGG: You bloggers/reporters don't seem to care. BUT, you know who cared...THE FBI! You know what usually happens when you call the FBI? They hang up, FAST! You know happened when ZD called with THIS INFO? (ZD spoke till exhausted.) BUT, he forgot something...So Z called back, the NEXT day. And was told, "I took the file upstairs, and gave it to the agent who specializes in City Hall and knows more about it (City Hall)." - FBI agent to Zuma Dogg (I am willing to publicly post this, and can pass a polygraph test, regarding that quote, relating to THIS info -- and due to the fact, this was told to me FIRST HAND, I was willing to call about it, without fear of getting in trouble for giving FBI bullshit.) Point is, FBI agent felt it was worth opening a file for, AND TAKING TO THE FBI "UPSTAIRS" SUPERVISOR.

From Zuma Dogg's "LA Daily Blog" (Originally posted: Wednesday, September 7, 2011)

[PICTURED: Los Angeles Mayoral Candidate Wendy Greuel says, "YIKES! I think he's on to me..." (That's her, "I want to hear from you," face. See constituent talking.]

When Sunland-Tujunga Home Depot was a big issue, someone who runs their own East L.A. based PR firm, told Mr. Dogg, that then CD 2 Councilmember Wendy Greuel (secretly) hired her, to run an anti-Home Depot campaign in Sunland-Tujunga.

Zuma Dogg, then discovered, when it was told to him by someone inside city hall, that Wendy Greuel's mother owned, "Frontier Supply," a building supply yard, that certainly would have been CRUSHED, if not put out of business, if the nearby Home Depot was to open.

Wendy Greuel is now the owner of Frontier Supply.

Wendy Greuel was against the Home Depot project.

Did she disclose her family's competing business, of which she is now owner, when she voted "NO" on Home Depot.

If it is true that she privately hired a PR firm to thwart Home Depot's effort, that is conspiracy to tilt economic scales for your own personal enrichment?

Furthermore, Zuma Dogg was told by someone, inside City Council chambers, if one were to check the list of project approvals in Wendy Greuel's district, while she was Councilmember, would it show there was "quid pro quo" in getting CD2 project approvals? In other words, if you agreed to use, "Frontier Supply," for the project, was project facilitation, "fast-tracked?"

These are two separate allegations, from two separate people, about one Los Angeles Candidate for Mayor.

ZD's reply to source who was there, with me: "All i can say, if Dianna really was hired by Wendy Greuel to run anti-home depot campaign, Greuel ain't gonna make it thru the mayor campaign; and I DO remember Dianna said that (the PR stuff mentioned above). It was day of Greuel's inauguration, and she said she visited Wendy's office, that day (July 1, 2009). A day that lived in the mind of ZD, and will now live on in infamy. Since Dianna visited Wendy's office, that day, her name is in the GUEST BOOK, you sign when you visit her majesty Wendy, at the Controller's office." - ZD/Sept 2011

BREAKING 02-18-13: CLEARLY, Zuma Dogg is most effective political operative/citizen voice/overall "the man" in L.A. history, with THIS STRAW that breaks it: After I blasted the above story, last week on twitter and my LACityElections.com site, TODAY, L.A. Times grills Greuel on this issue, mentioned above. LOL! Score (a big) ONE for The Dogg. And you fuckers wouldn't RT or repost it, and I don't have a cent to my name, and as Rosendahl how my weekend went. FUCK ALL OF YOU!!!! LA TIMES STORY THAT ZUMA DOGG BROKE.

Greuel may missed red flags in fight against Home Depot

When former Los Angeles City Councilwoman Wendy Greuel led the successful charge to prevent Home Depot from opening a new store in her district, she talked about the potential environmental and traffic drawbacks and accused the chain store of flouting local development rules.

AND FOLLOW UP:

Mayor Sam Politics Blog (Michael Higby) - Monday, February 18, 2013

Times: Greuel may have missed red flags in fight against Home Depot

Public Advocate of the Community

Something I learned this week...always listen to Zuma Dogg.

Completely plugged in, even in retirement, and nearly always prescient, the former radio executive turned performance artist turned community advocate has really never steered me wrong.

Last week, ZD brought to my attention a story that I thought was irrelevant, old news and not likely to catch attention in the milieu of the Mayoral race.

I was wrong.

Today, the LA Times published a story that, in seeking to block a controversial Home Depot in Sunland-Tujunga, at the time part of her then City Council District, Greuel may have failed to disclose her business interests in a local building supply firm.

Full disclosure, I was for the Home Depot before I was against it and currently live less than a quarter-mile from the site. I still believe, for many reasons, blocking the Home Depot was good for the community.

Co-Owner of Frontier Building Supply
Wendy Greuel, Candidate for Mayor

In the Times story by Jack Dolan, several ethics officials remark that Greuel should have recused herself from votes on the Home Depot matter. The story alludes the matter could come before the state's Fair Political Practices Commission.

Greuel's position is that her business would not be affected by the Home Depot.

Beyond the surface level issue of Greuel's ownership of Frontier Building Supply, a San Fernando Valley based construction supply firm with a branch in Oxnard, Zuma Dogg presented additional potentially even more damaging allegations against Greuel.

In a blog post last week, reprinted from a 2011 post authored by Mr. Dogg, the advocate/blogger presents claims that City Hall insiders told him that Greuel allegedly hired a PR firm to assist her with the Home Depot fight.

###

...WHEN YOU GOT Zuma Dogg AND Mayor Sam blogs pumpin' a story...IT'S OVER!

L.A. City News (Aka: L.A. City Hall Mafia-Corruption Update) for Friday, December 21, 2012: Herb Wesson Makes You Wanna VOMIT ALL OVER HIM, WHEN YOU HEAR THIS ONE! (#Godfather Mafia In L.A. City Council Chambers)

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 02:19:00 -0800

BEST OF 2012: As soon as he was elected (and before), @ZumaDogg said, "Herb Wesson is gonna serve the shortest L.A. City Council Presidency in City history." I think he's proving the point. And more highly-orchestrated mafia-corruption, executed by a bunch of dumb, hot-head dummies, who can control themselves, or the city.

Villaraigosa Has Wesson Appoint BOTH OF THEIR CONNECTED CRONY CHRIS PAK'S WIFE...TO ETHICS COMMISSION: (Like Michael Corleone's Wife Being Appointed To L.A. City Ethics Commission -- WHAT A CORRUPT FUCKING MAFIA JOKE -- ON THE TAXPAYERS/VOTERS/SUCKERS of Los Angeles! READ DETAILS HERE, AND VOMIT!

L.A. City News EXPOSES Chris Pak/Villaraigosa/Wesson CORRUPT "Sweetheart Deals" as WESSON Appoints Pak's Wife to Ethics Commission! (REAL GODFATHER MAFIA TACTICS, GOING DOWN AT CITY HALL -- AND YOU ARE GETTING SCREWED!!!] @ZumaDogg EXCLUSIVE (NOT L.A. Times SOFTBALL CONJECTURE! REAL CONNECT-THE-DOTS to MAFIA CORRUPTION!

L.A. City News - L.A. Daily Blog -- "Best of 2012" (But this is about L.A. City Hall, so, it's "Worst of 2012." I guess.)

Los Angeles Daily Blog Update: Posts from 7 L.A. Political Blogs & Tweets by L.A. Times David Zahniser: L.A. City Council & 2013 Election Coverage:

NOW , it's gonna cost the city BIG TIME/MONEY outta Trutanich's office. Keep appointing people, cause their mafia-councilmember kids: BREAKING: D.A. sends Andrea Alarcon child investigation case to Trutanich

RECENT POSTS: "Best of 2012" (But this is about L.A. City Hall, so, it's "Worst of 2012." I guess.)
12-20-12 FEATURED TWEET: "Wesson's choice of fundraiser's wife for #ethics panel criticized" lat.ms/WwqBph by @DavidZahniser & @katelinthicum #lapolitics
Los Angeles Daily Blog Update: Posts from 7 L.A. Political Blogs...
READ HERE: L.A. City Hall Mayoral Candidates Greuel vs Garcetti...
NEW: @DavidZahniser Tweets at LACityNews.com -- in...
L.A. Daily Blog: Tues., Dec., 18, 2012: Most Recent Posts...
@ZumaDogg - LADailyBlog.com Launches www.LACityEle...
@ZumaDogg at LACityNews.com: 15 TOP posts on L.A. ...
THIS BLOG POST on L.A. City Hall MAFIA RACKETEERIN...
LADailyBlog: "Best of 2012" -- Los Angeles Housing...
HEADLINES - Monday, December 17, 2012: News, Talk,...
The HISTORY of Los Angeles City Hall PENSION FRAUD...
@ZumaDogg Tweets on L.A. City Politics [2013 L.A. ...
L.A. Daily Blog: Monday, December 17, 2012: Watch ...
LACityElections.com: Official Certified List of Ca...
LAMayoralElection.com: KABC-7 L.A. City Mayor Cand...
Los Angeles City News for Sunday, December 16, 201...
WATCH HERE: 2013 L.A. City Mayoral Campaign Debate...
Los Angeles City Council Elections: Neighborhood C...
The History of Los Angeles City Hall Fraud, Waste ...

Free Soundclick MP3 Downloads: Top 10 Chart Hits -- NEW/ORIGINAL Holiday/Christmas Music MP3's: 99CentBeatStore.com PROMO!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 18:22:00 -0800

NEW: @DavidZahniser Tweets at LACityNews.com -- in ONE EZ Read Blog Post: HEAR WENDY GREUEL & ERIC GARCETTI TRADE "Ninja Barbs" [EXCLUSIVE "HIDDEN" AUDIO by Zahniser, HERE! Plus, LA City Election Coverage] www.LACityNews.com

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:31:00 -0800

NEW: @DavidZahniser Tweets at LACityNews.com -- in ONE EZ Read Blog Post: HEAR WENDY GREUEL & ERIC GARCETTI TRADE "Ninja Barbs" [EXCLUSIVE "HIDDEN" AUDIO by Zahniser, HERE! Plus, LA City Election Coverage] www.LACityNews.com

THIS BLOG POST on L.A. City Hall MAFIA RACKETEERING, just BLEW ROOF off PAGE VIEWS STATS @ www.LADailyBlog.com: A DAY'S WORTH OF VIEWS IN ONE HOUR!!!! THIS POST IS ON FIRE...L.A. RICO MAFIA EXPOSED...IT'S VILLARAIGOSA'S L.A. CITY HALL! FBI PROBE UNDERWAY!!!!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:51:00 -0800

Los Angeles City Hall RICO-RACKETEERING CORRUPTION EXPOSED, in the HOTTEST POLITICAL VIDEO, in U.S. HISTORY! REAL LIFE POLTICAL MAFIA EXPOSED...WITH REAL NAMES!! (THEY ARE THE ELECTED OFFICIALS OF LOS ANGELES CITY HALL!!! -- MUST SEE VIDEO!!!)!

Los Angeles Housing Deparment REINSATES MERCEDES MARQUEZ...THE RICO MAFIA HAS THEIR GAL BACK IN L.A., AFTER BARACK OBAMA KICKED HER OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE, BACK TO ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA...

THIS IS L.A.'s #1 RACKETERING/CORRPTION ISSUE=AFFECTING LIVES! WATCH @ZumaDogg ALL TIME RICO-MAFIA RACKETEERING

THIS BLOG POST & VIDEO RANT=EXPOSES REAL INFORMANT INSIDER INFO!!! -- CLICK HERE.

BLOG LOS ANGELES: L.A. City News: Election Info: Certififed Candidate List, KABC-7 Mayoral Candidate Forum Video, Pension Fraud EXPOSED, L.A. Housing Deparment Under Scrutiny & CD 5 Paul Koretz vs Neighborhood Council FOUNDER/BOARDMEMBER/LIFELONG RESIDENT: www.LACityElections.com

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 04:42:00 -0800

Monday, December 17, 2012

The HISTORY of Los Angeles City Hall PENSION FRAUD (Connect The Dots BLUEPRINT: Pension Fraud 101 for Dummies...cc: Barack Obama, Eric Holder, FBI...ALL INCLUDED in "DUMMIES!" cc: list.)

@ZumaDogg Tweets on L.A. City Politics [2013 L.A. City Elections -- And ALL BLOG POSTS for Monday, Dec. 17, 2012: Watch KABC-7 Highlight Replay of 2013 L.A. Mayoral Candidate Forum, HERE! [www.LACityElections.com]

L.A. Daily Blog: Monday, December 17, 2012: Watch KABC-7 Highlight Video of 2013 L.A. Mayoral Forum; Paul Koretz vs CD 5 Neighborhood Council Founder/Boardmember -- AND BEWARE LOS ANGELES HOUSING DEPARTMENT & MERCEDES MARQUEZ (Even OBAMA Couldn't Take Her B.S.!)

LACityElection.com: 2013 Mayoral Candidate Poll - Vote For YOUR Favorite Candidate on POLL WIDGET. POLLS OPEN, NOW! [www.LACityElections.com]

LACityElections.com: Official Certified List of Candidates: 2013 Primary Elelections [City of Los Angeles: Mayor, City Attorney, Controller, City Council, LAUSD (Los Angeles Unified School District), LACCD (Los Angeles Community College District)] & Write-In Candidate Information: www.LACityElections.com

"Pothole" Paul Koretz FORCED to run a re-election campaing/be held accountable, as NC Founder/Boardmember Makes It On March 2013 L.A. City Council Ballot! Link To Videos

LACityElections.com: Official Certified List of Candidates: 2013 Primary Elelections [City of Los Angeles: Mayor, City Attorney, Controller, City Council, LAUSD (Los Angeles Unified School District), LACCD (Los Angeles Community College District)] & Write-In Candidate Information: www.LACityElections.com

Featured Article: Dec. 17, 2012

The City Clerk has certified the following candidates to appear on the March 5, 2013 ballot in
this order:

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

MAYOR
JAN PERRY, Los Angeles City Councilwoman
EMANUEL ALBERTO PLEITEZ, Technology Company Executive
ERIC GARCETTI, Los Angeles City Councilmember
WENDY J. GREUEL, Los Angeles City Controller
ADDIE M. MILLER, Citywide Advocate
KEVIN JAMES, Radio Broadcaster/Attorney
NORTON SANDLER, Factory Production Worker
YEHUDA “YJ” DRAIMAN, Neighborhood Council Secretary

CITY ATTORNEY
CARMEN “NUCH” TRUTANICH, Los Angeles City Attorney
NOEL WEISS, Attorney/Community Advocate
MIKE FEUER, Assembly Member/Attorney
GREG SMITH, Public Safety Attorney

CITY CONTROLLER
ANKUR PATEL, Student/Labor Organizer
RON GALPERIN, Efficiency Commissioner/Businessman
DENNIS P. ZINE, Los Angeles City Councilman
ANALILIA JOYA, Disability Advocate/Teacher
JEFF BORNSTEIN, Business Owner
CARY BRAZEMAN, Local Company Executive

(more)

MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT NO. 1
JOSE A. GARDEA, Councilmember’s Chief Deputy
GILBERT CEDILLO, California State Lawmaker
JESSE ROSAS, Businessman

MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT NO. 3
JOYCE J. PEARSON, Certified Accountant/Attorney
STEVEN E. PRESBERG, City Investigator/Advocate
CARY T. IACCINO, Independent Business Owner
BOB BLUMENFIELD, Assembly Member, State of California
ELIZABETH BADGER, Small Business Owner
SCOTT SILVERSTEIN, Businessman/Boardmember

MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT NO. 5
MARK MATTHEW HERD, Neighborhood Council Boardmember
PAUL KORETZ, City Councilmember

MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT NO. 7
NICOLE CHASE, Education Advocate
KRYSTEE CLARK, Actor/Community Volunteer
FELIPE FUENTES, California State Legislator
JESSE DAVID BARRON, Housing Inspector/Activist

MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT NO. 9
TERRY HARA, Deputy Police Chief
CURREN D PRICE, JR, State Senator/Professor
RON GOCHEZ, Teacher
ANA CUBAS, Councilmember’s Chief Deputy
MANUEL “MANNY” ALDANA, School Council Boardmember
DAVID ROBERTS, Community Development Advocate
MIKE DAVIS, California State Assemblyman

MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT NO. 11
TINA HESS, Prosecutor
MIKE BONIN, Councilmember’s Chief Deputy
ODYSSEUS BOSTICK, Teacher
FREDERICK SUTTON, Community Advocate

(more)

MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT NO. 13
MITCH O’FARRELL, Councilmember’s Senior Advisor
ROBERTO HARALDSON, Small Business Owner
JOSH POST, Deputy Attorney General
OCTAVIO PESCADOR, University Professor
JOHN J. CHOI, Commissioner/Community Organizer
EMILE MACK, Assistant Fire Chief
SAM KBUSHYAN, Neighborhood Council Boardmember
ROBERT NEGRETE, Senator’s District Director
MICHAEL SCHAEFER, Small Business Owner
MATT SZABO, Deputy Mayor
JOSÉ SIGALA, Neighborhood Council President
ALEXANDER CRUZ DE OCAMPO, Charitable Foundation Director

MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT NO. 15
JAMES T. LAW, Minister/Disability Advocate
JOE BUSCAINO, Los Angeles City Councilmember

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, DISTRICT NO. 2
MÓNICA GARCĺA, Member of the Board of Education
ANNAMARIE MONTAÑEZ, Teacher/Doctoral Candidate
ROBERT D. SKEELS, Educator/Education Researcher
ABELARDO DIAZ, High School Teacher
ISABEL VASQUEZ, Teacher/Community Advocate

MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, DISTRICT NO. 4
STEVE ZIMMER, School Boardmember/Teacher
KATE ANDERSON, Parent/Child Advocate

MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, DISTRICT NO. 6
MARIA CANO, Education Advocate/Organizer
IRIS ZUÑIGA, Nonprofit Executive/Parent
MONICA RATLIFF, Fifth Grade Teacher
ANTONIO SANCHEZ, Educator/Community Organizer

(more)

LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SEAT NO. 2
MIKE ENG, College Teacher/Legislator
JOHN C. BURKE, College Accounting Professor

MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SEAT NO. 4
JOSEF “JOE” THOMAS ESSAVI, Los Angeles County Commissioner
ERNEST HENRY MORENO, Retired College President

MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SEAT NO. 6
TOM OLIVER, Retired College President
NANCY PEARLMAN, Community College Trustee
MICHAEL “MIKE” ALDAPA, Community Organizer
DAVID VELA, School Board Member

WRITE-IN CANDIDATES: Any interested individual who wishes to become a write-in candidate
may obtain the Declaration of Intention to Become a Write-In Candidate. The document must
be filed with the Office of the City Clerk - Election Division by Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at
5:00 p.m.

Official List of Candidates: 2013 Los Angeles Primary Elelections [City of Los Angeles: Mayor, City Attorney, Controller, City Council, LAUSD (Los Angeles Unified School District), LACCD (Los Angeles Community College District)] & Write-In Candidate Information: www.LACityElections.com

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 01:00:00 -0800

ALL LA CITY ELECTIONS info at LACityElections.com:

LACityElections.com: Official Certified List of Candidates: 2013 Primary Elelections [City of Los Angeles: Mayor, City Attorney, Controller, City Council, LAUSD (Los Angeles Unified School District), LACCD (Los Angeles Community College District)] & Write-In Candidate Information: www.LACityElections.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

For Media Inquiries: Kimberly Briggs
(213) 978-3281
Kimberly.Briggs@lacity.org

CITY CLERK CERTIFIES OFFICIAL LIST OF CANDIDATES
2013 PRIMARY NOMINATING ELECTION

LOS ANGELES (December 14, 2012) — Los Angeles City Clerk June Lagmay released today the official list of 77 candidates who have qualified to appear on the ballot for the March 5, 2013
City of Los Angeles Primary Nominating Election. A random alphabet drawing conducted
publicly in the City Council Chamber on December 10, 2012 determined the order in which
candidates are listed in each race.

WRITE-IN CANDIDATES: Any interested individual who wishes to become a write-in candidate may obtain the Declaration of Intention to Become a Write-In Candidate. The document must be filed with the Office of the City Clerk - Election Division by Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 5:00 p.m.

At the time of submission of the Declaration of Intention, write-in candidates must either pay a
filing fee of $300 or submit valid signatures of at least 500 but no more than 1,000 qualified,
registered voters within their district.

For more information, call the Election Division at (213) 978-0444 or toll free at (888) 873-1000.
Additional information can be found on the Election Division’s website under the “Candidate
Information” section.

The Office of the City Clerk - Election Division administers elections for the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Unified School District, and the Los Angeles Community College District. The City’s Primary Nominating Election will be held March 5, 2013 and the General Municipal Election will be held May 21, 2013. More information can be found on the Election Division’s website at: http://cityclerk.lacity.org/election/.

The City Clerk has certified the following candidates to appear on the March 5, 2013 ballot in this order:

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

MAYOR
JAN PERRY, Los Angeles City Councilwoman
EMANUEL ALBERTO PLEITEZ, Technology Company Executive
ERIC GARCETTI, Los Angeles City Councilmember
WENDY J. GREUEL, Los Angeles City Controller
ADDIE M. MILLER, Citywide Advocate
KEVIN JAMES, Radio Broadcaster/Attorney
NORTON SANDLER, Factory Production Worker
YEHUDA “YJ” DRAIMAN, Neighborhood Council Secretary

CITY ATTORNEY
CARMEN “NUCH” TRUTANICH, Los Angeles City Attorney
NOEL WEISS, Attorney/Community Advocate
MIKE FEUER, Assembly Member/Attorney
GREG SMITH, Public Safety Attorney

CITY CONTROLLER
ANKUR PATEL, Student/Labor Organizer
RON GALPERIN, Efficiency Commissioner/Businessman
DENNIS P. ZINE, Los Angeles City Councilman
ANALILIA JOYA, Disability Advocate/Teacher
JEFF BORNSTEIN, Business Owner
CARY BRAZEMAN, Local Company Executive

(more)

MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT NO. 1
JOSE A. GARDEA, Councilmember’s Chief Deputy
GILBERT CEDILLO, California State Lawmaker
JESSE ROSAS, Businessman

MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT NO. 3
JOYCE J. PEARSON, Certified Accountant/Attorney
STEVEN E. PRESBERG, City Investigator/Advocate
CARY T. IACCINO, Independent Business Owner
BOB BLUMENFIELD, Assembly Member, State of California
ELIZABETH BADGER, Small Business Owner
SCOTT SILVERSTEIN, Businessman/Boardmember

MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT NO. 5
MARK MATTHEW HERD, Neighborhood Council Boardmember
PAUL KORETZ, City Councilmember

MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT NO. 7
NICOLE CHASE, Education Advocate
KRYSTEE CLARK, Actor/Community Volunteer
FELIPE FUENTES, California State Legislator
JESSE DAVID BARRON, Housing Inspector/Activist

MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT NO. 9
TERRY HARA, Deputy Police Chief
CURREN D PRICE, JR, State Senator/Professor
RON GOCHEZ, Teacher
ANA CUBAS, Councilmember’s Chief Deputy
MANUEL “MANNY” ALDANA, School Council Boardmember
DAVID ROBERTS, Community Development Advocate
MIKE DAVIS, California State Assemblyman

MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT NO. 11
TINA HESS, Prosecutor
MIKE BONIN, Councilmember’s Chief Deputy
ODYSSEUS BOSTICK, Teacher
FREDERICK SUTTON, Community Advocate

(more)

MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT NO. 13
MITCH O’FARRELL, Councilmember’s Senior Advisor
ROBERTO HARALDSON, Small Business Owner
JOSH POST, Deputy Attorney General
OCTAVIO PESCADOR, University Professor
JOHN J. CHOI, Commissioner/Community Organizer
EMILE MACK, Assistant Fire Chief
SAM KBUSHYAN, Neighborhood Council Boardmember
ROBERT NEGRETE, Senator’s District Director
MICHAEL SCHAEFER, Small Business Owner
MATT SZABO, Deputy Mayor
JOSÉ SIGALA, Neighborhood Council President
ALEXANDER CRUZ DE OCAMPO, Charitable Foundation Director

MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT NO. 15
JAMES T. LAW, Minister/Disability Advocate
JOE BUSCAINO, Los Angeles City Councilmember

(more)

LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SEAT NO. 2
MIKE ENG, College Teacher/Legislator
JOHN C. BURKE, College Accounting Professor

MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SEAT NO. 4
JOSEF “JOE” THOMAS ESSAVI, Los Angeles County Commissioner
ERNEST HENRY MORENO, Retired College President

MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SEAT NO. 6
TOM OLIVER, Retired College President
NANCY PEARLMAN, Community College Trustee
MICHAEL “MIKE” ALDAPA, Community Organizer
DAVID VELA, School Board Member

(more)

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, DISTRICT NO. 2
MÓNICA GARCĺA, Member of the Board of Education
ANNAMARIE MONTAÑEZ, Teacher/Doctoral Candidate
ROBERT D. SKEELS, Educator/Education Researcher
ABELARDO DIAZ, High School Teacher
ISABEL VASQUEZ, Teacher/Community Advocate

MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, DISTRICT NO. 4
STEVE ZIMMER, School Boardmember/Teacher
KATE ANDERSON, Parent/Child Advocate

MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, DISTRICT NO. 6
MARIA CANO, Education Advocate/Organizer
IRIS ZUÑIGA, Nonprofit Executive/Parent
MONICA RATLIFF, Fifth Grade Teacher
ANTONIO SANCHEZ, Educator/Community Organizer

###

LACityElection.com: 2013 Mayoral Candidate Poll - Vote For YOUR Favorite Candidate on POLL WIDGET. POLLS OPEN, NOW! [www.LACityElections.com]

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 00:22:00 -0800

Click here to embedded POLL WIDGET, to VOTE: LACityElection.com: 2013 Mayoral Candidate Poll - Vote For YOUR Favorite Candidate on POLL WIDGET. POLLS OPEN, NOW! [www.LACityElections.com]

Click for your favorite candidate on right column on this site.

The City Clerk has certified the following candidates to appear on the March 5, 2013 ballot in
this order:

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

MAYOR
JAN PERRY, Los Angeles City Councilwoman
EMANUEL ALBERTO PLEITEZ, Technology Company Executive
ERIC GARCETTI, Los Angeles City Councilmember
WENDY J. GREUEL, Los Angeles City Controller
ADDIE M. MILLER, Citywide Advocate
KEVIN JAMES, Radio Broadcaster/Attorney
NORTON SANDLER, Factory Production Worker
YEHUDA “YJ” DRAIMAN, Neighborhood Council Secretary

http://LACityElections.com - http://LAMayoralElections.com - http://LACity2013.com

LADailyBlog.com, LACityNews.com, LACityElections.com, LAMayoralElection.com, LACityMayor.com, iTalkStream.com: COVERAGE OF: L.A. City 2013 Elections, L.A. City Mayoral Election 2013, News, Talk, Politics

ALSO:

LAMayoralElection.com: KABC-7 L.A. City Mayor Candidate Forum Recap & Paul Koretz FORCED to run a re-election campaing/be held accountable, as NC Founder/Boardmember Makes It On March 2013 L.A. City Council Ballot! Link To Videos

via - KABC-7 (12-15-12): DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES (KABC) -- The Los Angeles mayoral debate was held Saturday in Downtown Los Angeles. The debate was hosted by the Los Angeles League of Conservation Voters in partnership with the League of Women Voters.

ABC7 Eyewitness News anchor Marc Brown moderated the debate, with questions generated by the League of Conservation Voters.

WATCH 2 minute video highlights HERE: 2013 L.A. City Mayoral Campaign Debate Highlights on KABC 7: Jan Perry, Kevin James, Wendy Greuel & Eric Garcetti [March 05, 2013 L.A. City Election] www.LACityElections.com

The four candidates who led in fundraising participated in the debate, including Councilman Eric Garcetti, City Controller Wendy Greuel, Councilwoman Jan Perry and former assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin James.

It appeared the creation of jobs and a green economy took center stage.

"I have a plan to clean our air, and our water, and to create 20,000 local jobs -- good jobs, green jobs," said Garcetti. [ZD: WAY to connect with voters. In a recent poll, ""I have a plan to clean our air, and our water," came up #213 in issues people are most concerned about, this year. And you already LOST the jobs, so the second part is fantasy hot-air, if not total flat-out, shameless bullshit.]

The candidates also played up their accomplishments in office. Perry noted the creation of two wetlands in South Los Angeles, and Greuel played up her developments on solar power. [SOLAR POWER? #1 priority of NO ONE, except we now know Wendy is obviously backed by solar money. SOME PRIORITY! THAT'S GONNA KEEP COPS ON THE STREET, AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT SHOWING UP?]

But outsider Kevin James contends he's the one to provide new leadership.

"The city has never developed a comprehensive environmental sustainability plan," he said. [Oh, no...THAT'S what they quoted. Zzzzzzzz.]

[WATCH THE VIDEO FOR ALL THE OTHER PHONY B.S. THAT MEANS NOTHING IN REALITY, but makes people feel like they know what they will be getting with each candidate...and remember, it ALL comes true. Just, whatever you do...DON'T VOTE FOR WENDY OR ERIC! - ZD]

The election for Los Angeles mayor is March 3, 2012. Coverage at www.LAMayoralElection.com. CANDIDATE PROFILE of the candidate who comes off, "most mayoral": LACityMayor.com

MORE:

Sunday, December 16, 2012

LACityElections.com:

Los Angeles City Council District 5

As to be listed on ballot by L.A. City Clerk - Elections Division for March 05, 2013 election:

Mark Matthew Herd (Neighborhood Council Boardmember)
Paul Koretz (City Councilmember)

THIS WILL BE FUN!: Here is Mark Matthew Herd asking L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa about the mayor's PENSION COMMISSIONERS, who lost BILLIONS in city general fund; with many of them now resigning, or in jail. HE CRUSHES OBAMA'S PUPPET, ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA, IN THIS PACKED TOWN HALL AUDITORIUM! HANG ON, PAUL KORETZ!

SEE POST: Los Angeles City Council Elections: Neighborhood Counci Boardmember MARK MATTHEW HERD -- ONLY CANDIDATE Challenging Incumbent " L.A. City Councilman Paul Koretz [WATCH MARK HERD IN ACTION -- AS HE CRUSHES VILLARAIGOSA Before PACKED Town Hall Meeting!]

###

LADailyBlog.com, LACityNews.com, LACityElections.com, LAMayoralElection.com, LACityMayor.com, iTalkStream.com: COVERAGE OF: L.A. City 2013 Elections, L.A. City Mayoral Election 2013, News, Talk, Politics, Zuma Dogg, Paul Koretz, Mark Matthew Herd, Antonio Villaraigosa, Eric Garcetti, Jan Perry, Mike Feuer, Noel Weiss, Carmen "Nuch" Trutanich, Truanich, 2013 Los Angeles City Attorney Election, Wendy Greuel, Kevin James L.A. Mayoral Candidate, Zuma Dogg, Barack Obama, Pension, Pensions, Los Angeles Housing Department, LAHD, Department of Building and Safety, LADBS, FBI Probe of L.A. City Hall (2012), Talk Radio, Los Angeles Times, LATimes.com, LA Weekly, LAWeekly.com, David Zahniser, Los Angeles Daily News, DailyNews.com, Rick Orlov, Jill Stewart, Steve Lopez, Venice, CD 5, CD 11, Mike Bonin, LAPD, Los Angeles Neighborhood Council
Los Angeles Daily Blog [LADailyBlog.com] - Los Angeles City News [LACityNews.com] - LA City Elections [LACityElections.com] - LA Mayoral Election [LAMayoralElection.com] - LA City Mayor (2013) [LACityMayor.com] - Zuma Dogg [ZumaDogg.com]

Interpreting W. Edwards Deming's 14 Points ("Methods for Management of Quality and Productivity") [Read Article & Watch New YouTube Webinar Series, HERE, FREE!]

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 00:12:00 -0800

NEW - December 17, 2012: See embedded YouTube webinar, applying these 14 Points at LACity2013.com. (Link to this article, there, too.) Click here to open this same article, on the blog with the embedded videos.

Interpreting W. Edwards Deming's 14 Points ("Methods for Management of Quality and Productivity")

This synopsis captures the "tone" of "Quality & Productivity" talk.

Dr. Deming sent a fax after reading this saying, "Well Done. I thank you and appreciate it much." - Dr. W. E. Deming. (NO RED INK!) So you can read in confidence. "Fabulous." - Tony Robbins. "I enjoyed it, very much." - Bob Pittman

From: QUALITY DIGEST/June 1994
Long after Deming's death, his 14 points will continue to transform U.S. industry.

Interpreting Deming's 14 Points
by David Saltsburg (Aka: Zuma Dogg)

[Editor's note (From "Quality Digest," Not ZD's): W. Edwards Deming died December 20, 1993. The following article analyzing his famous 14 points was written before his death. Fortunately, Deming had the opportunity to review this analysis.]

His name is W. Edwards Deming, the American who taught the Japanese about quality.

Back in the late 1940's and early 1950's, Japan was in an economic crisis. They had just lost the war and it was time to rebuild. They took Deming's methods for management and productivity and put them to use in industry. The rest of this economic miracle is history. They listened when no one else would.

How can WE bring our industry and our nation "out of the crisis"? Let's review Deming's 14 points of transformation:

1. Create constancy of purpose toward improvement of product and service, with the aim to become competitive and stay in business, and to provide jobs.

Pretty complex point. What does it mean?

Think long-term. Set the course today to be in business tomorrow. "Doing your best" is not good enough. Everyone is already "doing their best". First, you must know what to do, THEN do your best. Know what business you are in, THEN commit to constant improvement of quality. Innovate continuously.

Take the vacuum tube industry, for example. Once the transistor was invented, the vacuum tube quickly became obsolete. Could workers "do their best" to produce a better tube? Of course not.

Those who fail to improve constantly and innovate will eventually find themselves out of business. To improve, you must predict customers' needs. Customers rarely point out the need for improvement. The electronics industry didn't ask for the transistor. Someone who was committed to improvement predicted that the innovation would be accepted.

2. Adopt the new philosophy. We are in a new economic age. Western management must awaken to the challenge, must learn their responsibilities and take on leadership for change.

What characterizes this "new economic age"? Rapid change, turbulent environment, constant technological breakthroughs. Consumers demand instant gratification. Technology changes so quickly that we don't even have time to catch up with the changes. By the time a new product hits the market, a new innovation occurs before you can get the old ones off the shelf.

It has become much tougher to predict and forecast in this turbulent environment. Today, predicting the future means shaping and controlling the future and adapting to what you cannot control.

3. Cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality. Eliminate the need for inspection on a mass basis by building quality into the products in the first place.

The United States builds the product first, then inspects for defects later. By then, it's too late! You've already spent the time, effort and money on production. Catch the defect after the fact, and you have to send it back to be fixed or scrap the whole thing. It's usually a lot tougher to repair a product than it is to build it right in the first place. Meanwhile, you've spent twice the time, effort and money.

We spend too much time defining what IS and ISN'T acceptable, then checking to see if and why the parameters were met. We chase out tails around, never exactly sure, always adjusting and readjusting; doing more harm than good.

SEEK PROFOUND KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROCESS. Understand what variations (defects) are inherent to the process (common causes) and work to control those variations. Improve the system. If a variation occurs outside the range of common cause, you have a "special cause". Only special causes should generate effort to uncover the reason variation occurred.

4. End the practice of awarding business on the basis of price tag. Instead, minimize total cost. Move toward a single supplier for any one item on a long-term relationship of loyalty and trust.

The bottom-line price tag doesn't always tell the whole story. Some one in my area started a local painting business. When he first started his business, he purchased the cheapest paint so he could make more profit.

Turns out he needed to double the amount of coats to get the job done. Therefore, he used twice as much paint, and it cost him twice the time and effort.

In addition, the paint cracked sooner than other paints. He lost the repeat business, as the dissatisfied customers spread the word to neighbors of the bad experience with his company. What advantages come from moving toward a single supplier?

* Customer and supplier work together to create a system of optimization for mutual gain and satisfaction. (Work with each other instead of against each other.)

* Customer and supplier can work toward long-term (constant) improvement of quality of design and service. (They can adapt to each others' changing needs.)

* Lower and lower costs occur by constantly improving quality and efficiency. (It's cheaper and more efficient if a supplier gets a higher volume of a customer's business. Both benefit.)

If you have five suppliers for one part, that's five times the amount of headaches that can occur. (Five times the ordering, five times the accounting procedures, five times the effort. This results in reduced efficiency.

5. Improve constantly and forever the system of production and service, to improve quality and productivity, and thus constantly decrease costs.

We set standards, run through the process and analyze the results. As long as we fall within the range of "what has been deemed acceptable," we did our job. If the output isn't falling within the specified range, management will "demand improvement." They'll say: "Do a better job!" "Less Defects!" Or, "Do a better job inspecting for defects."

How many people have been fired from jobs for unsatisfactory results only to have the problem persist with the new employee? Deming says, "Don't blame the individual, fix the system for them." Improving quality and productivity only comes by IMPROVING THE SYSTEM.

The customer of worker almost never tells you anything is wrong. Chances are, they don't know themselves. Management must strive to predict and uncover the need for improvement. Don't blame the individual, fix the system for the individual.

Some other examples of improving the system: The telephone is an improvement of the telegraph. The fuel injector is an improvement of the carburetor.

How does improving the system help decrease costs? If florists can predict how many roses will be needed next Valentine's Day, they can have the proper amount of inventory on hand, so as to fill every order; but not have excessive leftovers to spoil.

Continuous improvement is a cycle: Recognize the opportunity, test the theory to achieve the opportunity, observe test results, act on the opportunity.

6. Institute training on the job.

U.S. Management (and Government) is VERY BUSY. They don't have time for these kinds of details. Managers view training as an expense because they view employees as a commodity -- not an asset. When new employees show up for work on the first day, how many times does a coworker show them what to do?

Management wants the job done right. They institute the rules, regulations and procedures. Each time one employee teaches the next, more is lost in the translation. Mistakes are passes down the line. What gets left out? One person should be responsible for teaching everyone the same skill.

7. Institute leadership. The aim of leadership should be to help people and machines and gadgets to do a better job. Leadership of management is in need of overhaul, as well as leadership of production workers.

Deming on leadership: "What is a leader? As I use the term here, the job of a leaser is to accomplish the transformation of his organization. How may he accomplish transformation?

First, he has a theory, a vision of his organization as it would be if transformed. He understands why the transformation would bring gains to his organization and to all the people that his organization deals with.

Second, he is a practical man. He has a plan, not too difficult. A leader must guide his organization through the stages of transformation. But what is in his head is not enough. He must convince and change enough people in power to make it happen. He possesses persuasive power. He understands people." [ZD: Sorry Deming kept saying "he", ladies. He was born in 1900 and probably meant "he" as in "MANkind."]

8. Drive out fear, so that everyone may work effectively for the company.

Fear is a cause of un-measurable waste and loss. Someone who is fearful takes whatever action necessary to remove the source of fear. These actions do not reflect the company's best interest. Fear robs people of pride and joy in their work and kills all forms of intrinsic motivation. It prevents people from thinking for themselves. They instead concentrate on removing the source of fear (getting the fear "off their back").

For example, a factory worker must build 100 widgets by week's end. His boss tells him, "If you don't finish all these widgets, you're fired!" So, of course the worker gets then done, and they're shipped off to the customer. (Twenty-five are defective, but the employee still hit the quota and has his job.)

Managers who rely on fear believe those working under them are not capable, and this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Management must create a work environment where workers can take pride and joy in their work. Don't blame the individual -- fix the system for them.

9. Break down barriers between departments. People in research, design, sales and production must work as a team to foresee problems of production and in use that may be encountered with the product or service.

Have departments work together at all production stages. Everyone must share knowledge in a cooperative (not competitive) effort. In the United States, departments work independently of each other. In Japan, departments work interdependently at all production stages. It doesn't do any good to design a flawless product the sales department can't sell ot the production department can't produce. [ZD: Massive City Hall applications here.]

For example, an automotive design team makes a minor adjustment in the design of their 1995 model. This change would require the production department to make a major overhaul in their process that is not possible. So the design must be sent back and reworked. Meanwhile, production is delayed and time is spent reworking the project. Had both departments cooperated and involved each other from the start of the process, this inefficiency could have been presented.

10. Eliminate slogans, exhortations and targets for the work force asking for zero defects and new levels of productivity. Such exhortations only create adversarial relationships, as the bulk of the causes of low quality and low productivity belong to the system and this lie beyond the power of the work force.

Management likes to hang up a lot of posters with such exhortations as "Zero defects!", "Safety is YOUR responsibility!", or "Our goal is to please the customer at all times!" These slogans seem harmless enough, until they backfire.

How about the company demanding "zero defects", not realizing that a 12-to-15 percent margin of error (defects) is a built-in function of the system, no matter how hard the worker tries. Deming tells of a poster he saw claiming, "Safety is YOUR responsibility", next to a set of factory stairs that had no railing and steps that needed repairing.

To further illustrate, I look back to an experience I had with a rude salesperson. When I asked, "What about the sign over there that says, 'Customer satisfaction is our number one goal", he replied, "I don't know anything about that sign, my boss hung that up."

Management would like to think such exhortations take the responsibility off them and put it on the employee. However, there is no substitute for leadership. Defect elimination, a safe workplace, customer satisfaction, all start in the boardroom. [ZD: In this case, YOUR office, y'all.] It is management's responsibility to improve the system for the individual.

11a. Eliminate work standards (quotas) from the factory floor. Substitute leadership. 11b. Eliminate management by objective. Eliminate management by numbers, numeric goals. Substitute leadership.

Quotas and numerical goals are the leading cause of fear in the workplace. They rob individuals of intrinsic motivation and force them to work in a counterproductive manner.

For example, a research worker must fill out 15 surveys a night. Sometimes, this presents no problem. As a matter of fact, sometimes he finishes all 15 early and has time to roam around and do nothing. (Or even worse, bother other workers.)

Other times, it's close to quitting time on Friday, and the market research worker only has 12 surveys completed. How will they his the quota? It's easy. You call a friend (13), let someone through the screener who shouldn't have made it into the survey (14), and make one up entirely (15). (Have a nice weekend!) Either case (finishing early or not at all) hurts quality and efficiency.

If we remove quotas, how do we ensure the worker won't "slack off"? Again, there is no substitute for leadership. Eliminate fear, improve the system, create an environment where the worker can take pride and joy in their work. Employees are your organization's #1 asset. If you can't trust your workers, you are in for trouble.

12a. Remove barriers that rob people in management and in engineering of their right to pride and workmanship. This means, inter alia, abolishment of the annual or merit rating and of management by objective.

THIS IS THE TOUGHEST PILL FOR CORPORATE AMERICA TO SWALLOW. This point calls for eliminating ranking of individuals, grades, gold stars, incentive pay (bonus money) and commissions. Ranking and merit systems please the boss, not the customer. These forces create conflict, competition and humiliation. They rob the individual (and our nation) of intrinsic motivation, cooperation, dignity, self-esteem and joy of work.

If you rank workers, why help a new employee, or someone at the bottom who needs help? That low end MAKES YOU LOOK GOOD. Forget what's best for the company. It's a given that some people perform better than others. In ANY ranking system, you will ALWAYS have a top, middle and bottom. Ranking will not eliminate the middle and bottom, it will only demoralize the majority of individuals.

A grade is a permanent label, a branding. A grade tells children what is expected of them, the rest of their life. Students who get bad grades become demoralized, are viewed in a different light, experience fear and lose self-esteem. They become victims of self-fulfilling prophecy.

Again, there is no substitute for leadership. Fix the system for the individual.

What's wrong with a commission? It forces salespeople to sell customers the wrong items. When customers realize what happened, they will be upset and tell others of their bad experience. Some sales people won't even bother with a customer if the commission doesn't look big enough. If you get a $1000 bonus for selling 100 widgets a month. After widget 100, it's time to start "putting off" turning in new orders, and save them toward next month's totals. They can wait a few days.

13. Institute a vigorous program of education and self-improvement. Point 6 deals with training regarding "the skill and knowledge necessary to do the job." Point 13 addresses the need to encourage and provide resources so that people may develop. Just as we reinvest in other sources, we must reinvest in a company's most important asset -- it's people.

Management must make clear, in the beginning, their commitment to this concept. They must take time and make an effort to institute the continuous improvement concept into the system.

14. Put everybody in the company to work to accomplish the transformation. The transformation is everybody's job.

The transformation must start with top management, for they have the most leverage and influence. They are the leaders. Once the decision has been made, middle management, supervisors and workers must come on board. It takes training and removal of inhibitions (fear, competition, barriers and divisions). We must fully cooperate with each other to constantly improve the system. THINK HOLISTICALLY (systematically).

In order for the transformation to occur, management must see things in a new light. Don't be in the business of increasing profits. Be in the business of constantly delighting customers and workers. Then you will find your profits constantly increasing.

In conclusion, I would like to thank Dr. W. Edwards Deming, Ed Baker, Bill Scherkenbach, Kosaku Yoshida and Jim McIngvale for investing their time, effort and knowledge.

References: Deming, W. Edwards, Out of the Crisis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study (1982), Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Zuma Dogg ZumaDogg@Gmail.com 213-785-7272

CONFIDENTIAL MEMO (EXHIBIT "A") FROM L.A. REDISTRICTING "MINORITY REPORT" (REPRESENTING THE MAJORITY!) SEE INSIDER DOCUMENT, ANDREW WESTHALL TRIED TO KEEP OUT OF THE REPORT!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 3 Mar 2012 10:08:00 -0800

CONFIDENTIAL MEMO (EXHIBIT "A") FROM L.A. REDISTRICTING "MINORITY REPORT" (REPRESENTING THE MAJORITY!) SEE INSIDER DOCUMENT, ANDREW WESTHALL TRIED TO KEEP OUT OF THE REPORT!

THIS IS OVER MY HEAD, BUT I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE CLOSELY FOLLOWING THE LOS ANGELES REDISTRICTING EFFORT. THE FINAL MAPS ARE IN CITY COUNCIL'S HANDS, FOR CERTAIN APPROVAL...UNLESS THE RICO RACKET PROCESS CAN BE STOPPED VIA EXPOSURE OF THE PROCESS:

HERE IS SOMETHING THAT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION, THAT I HAVEN'T SEEN POSTED, ELSEWHERE. IT'S EXIBIT "A" FROM THE MINORITY REPORT...AND SOMEONE WANTED TO MAKE SURE ZD SAW IT, SINCE HE'S SUCH A BLABBER MOUTH, THESE DAYS!

READ AWAY, EXPERTS AND THOSE READY TO FILE A LAWSUIT, WHICH ANDREW WESTHALL HAS ALREADY ASKED MONEY TO BE APPROVED, TO HIRE OUTSIDE COUNSEL, FOR.

FYI: Andrew "A-Hole" Westall didn't include Exhibit A in the hard copies that he distributed to the Commission and to the public on 02/29/12. And he initially excluded Exhibit A from the Commission's website on the grounds that it was "attorney-client privileged." But, there was no City Attorney involved in any of the communications, so sounds like more L.A. RICO MAFIA MOB IRRATIONAL, NON-LOGIC.

After Commissioner Helen Kim went to L.A. City Attorney for clarification of the Westhall bamboozlement, Exhibit A WAS included...and HERE it is...the document Westhole didn't want you to see. DOH!

READ PDF REPORT EXHIBIT "A" HERE!

New Posts by Zuma Dogg on L.A. City Hall at http://LACityNews.com

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 22:53:00 -0800

This blog is not update regularly. Go to http://LACityNews.com for new updates on the latest shadiness spewing out of L.A. City's TOP MONEY LAUNDERING FACILITY...L.A.City Hall, under Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and L.A. City Council President Herb Wesson. (Add it all up...you got FBI IN THE HOUSE!)

LACityNews.com

ZumaDogg.com - Los Angeles City News (LACityNews.com) ONLINE NEWSPAPER EDITION for 01/07/12 - Plus @LACityNews, @LACityCouncil, @CarmenTrutanich & @ZumaDogg Tweets [Embedded]

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 7 Jan 2012 01:14:00 -0800

CLICK HERE FOR NEWSPAPER FORMAT [Better than the embedded widget. You can scroll widget, if you can find scroll bar.] ALSO NEW AT LACityNews.com:

NEW FOR 2012: Each link contains embedded tweets for the accounts named in the headline. So, catch tweets STREAMING LIVE in embedded columns on right side of LACityNews.com; then catch up on the past round, if you missed them, captured in these updated blog posts.

L.A. City News - by Zuma Dogg

Subscribe to this Feed

BLOGGING INNOVATION for 2012 by @ZumaDogg

UCLA Announces Los Angeles Mayoral Candidate Debate for April 2012. Details Here.

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 23:22:00 -0800

via LACityNews.com

Dear Mr. Dogg,

My name is [UCLA Student Body President],

I am writing to you on behalf of the student government at the University of California, Los Angeles. We are proud to be hosting a debate for the 2013 Los Angeles Mayoral Election and we would like to extend you an invitation to participate.

The debate is set for the evening of April 27, 2012, in UCLA's Ackerman Student Union. This debate will allow you to both articulate your positions, and show the people of the city of Los
Angeles, particularly students, why you should be their next mayor.

Members of the press will also be present. The major theme of the
debate will be education and public services, especially in context with the current budgetary situation. [Leave Easter Bunny BULLSHIT in you Easter Bunny Basket, at home, Garcetti.]

Happy Holidays, and hope to hear from you soon!

All the Best,

USAC Student Body President
UCLA

http://www.usac.ucla.edu

[PICTURED: Guy on the left, says, "no way guy in the right will show up, now that Zuma Dogg will be there to expose him. "No-money" student vote doesn't matter to Garcetti. That's alright, students...you never learn anything worthwhile about reality from HIM!]

They DID hear from Mr. Dogg, already -- and the President is thrilled Mr. Dogg will be in attendance, hopefully, OFF THE CHARTS BIPOLAR that day...for some GOOD rants on Eric Garcetti & Wendy Greuel. Zuma Dogg Public Comment, comes to L.A. Mayoral Debates...AND ERIC CAN'T CUT ME OFF!!! DOH!

Site Maintence Post

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:08:00 -0800

Go to LACityNews.com for current blog posts.

MEDIA ALERT: 12 Venice Beach performers beat City of L.A. in FEDERAL COURT over illegal Venice Beach ordinance. 1st Amendment ruling.

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 17:47:00 -0700

BREAKING NATIONAL NEWS ON FEDERAL FIRST AMENDMENT RULING vs The City of Los Angeles: STORY HERE

Plus MORE postings on the implications of this COURT ORDER INJUNCTION at http://LACityNews.com

IT IS SO ORDERED: Federal Court Order Against The City of Los Angeles (Injuncting Their First Amendment FEDERAL Violations) ATTORNEYS....READ ENTIRE FEDERAL COURT ORDER HERE

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:49:00 -0700

o GO TO http://LACityNews.com for full coverage on this FEDERAL 1st Amendment Court Order Against the City of Los Angeles. Plaintiffs now ready to file for MASSIVE damages. Contact LACityNews@Gmail.com.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF C~LIFORNIA

MATTHEW DOWD; PETER DAMIAN:

EDWARD LA GROSSA; ANTHONY

BROWN; NATHAN PINO, WILLIE

LEE TURNER; DAVID ZUMA DOGG

SALTSBURG; THOMAS BURRUMl

JNR; MARVIN SIMS; JESSE

BROWN; LOUIE GARCIA; RENK

CASTRO,

Plaintiffs,

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a

municipal corporation,

Defendant.

I . BACKGROUND

Case No. CV 09-06731 DOP (SSxl

ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S

MOTION TO DISMISS AND (2)

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN

PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Motions filed on october 8,

2009, and October 16, 2009]

The Venice Beach Boardwalk is a major tourist attraction in

the City of Los Angeles. LAMC § 42.15 {A) (1) (a).

It is

historically significant as a traditional public forum for its

performance and visua artists, as well as other free speech

activity." Id. During the summer and on weekends, the Boardwalk

is filled with street performers, including “instrumental

musicians, singers, jugglers, acrobats, mimes, comics, magicians,

prophets, fortune tellers, and other assorted entertainers."

City of Los Angeles Dep't of Recreation & Parks,

http://www.laparks.org/venice/venice.htm (last visited Nov. 8,

2009). Plaintiffs, appearing pro se, are thirteen street

performers and artists who make their living on the Venice Beach

Boardwalk by, among other things, dancing, singing, painting,

unicycling, playing music, as well as selling or accepting

donations for items related to their performances, such as CDs,

works of art, and T-shirts.

Over the years, the defendant the City of Los Angeles (the

"City"), has adopted and amended a number of versions of Los

Angeles Municipal Code ("LAMC") § 42.15, in order to address its

concern that unregulated vending negatively effects the

character, safety, and economic vitality of the Venice Beach

Boardwalk and in response to litigation.

In 2005, the City

suspended the 2004 version of § 42.15, in response to the legal

challenge raised in Venice Food Not Bombs v. City of Los Angeles,

No. CV 05-04998 DDP (SS) (C.D. Cal. 2005), and later adopted an

amended version of the ordinance as part of a settlement

agreement in 2006. The settlement agreement was the culmination

of intensive meetings and negotiations between the parties and

community stakeholders, with the aid of the Court, in an effort

to draft an ordinance that would address the City's concerns

about unregulated vending while protecting the rights of those

who engage in activities protected by the First Amendment on

Venice Boardwalk.

The City's adoption of the 2006 version of § 42.15 did not

end all controversy concerning the vending ordinance and further

litigation ensued. On January 14, 2009, this Court ruled in Hunt

v. City of Los Angeles, 601 F. Supp. 2d 1158, 1170-72 (C.D. Cal.

2009), that the 2004 version of LAMC § 42.15(C) was

unconstitutionally vague, because the exception to the vending

ban for "merchandise constituting, carrying or making a religious

political, philosophical, or ideological message or statement

which is inextricably intertwined with merchandise," presented "a

real risk of arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement because it

fail[ed] to provide sufficient guidance to those who would

enforce it." The Court did not reach the merits of the

plaintiffs' facial void-for-vagueness challenge to a similar

provision in the 2006 version of the ordinance, finding that the

plaintiffs lacked standing to raise the claim. Hunt, 601 F.

Supp. 2d at 1175.

In the face of such litigation, the City again amended §

42.15, with the latest draft taking effect on May 19, 2008. In

enacting the 2008 version of LAMC § 42.15 , the City found that

(1) tourists are deterred from visiting the Boardwalk because

they are harassed by unregulated vendors, (2) the limited amount

of space on the Boardwalk should be assigned in order to avoid

frequent altercations, (3) vendors and their equipment impede the

ingress and egress of emergency and public safety vehicles, and

(4) unregulated vending creates excessive and annoying noise on

the Boardwalk that negatively affects nearby workers, visitors,

and residents. Id.§ 42.15(A) (1) (b) (i)-(vii).

In response to

these findings, LAMC § 42.15 (2008) provides that "[e]xcept as

specifically allowed in this section, no person shall engage in

vending" along the Venice Beach Boardwalk. Id.§ 42.15 (A) .

The latest version of the ordinance divides much of the

available space in the heart of the Boardwalk into individual

spaces designated as P-Zone spaces and I-Zone spaces. Id.§

42.15(2). In the P-Zone spaces, "persons can perform, engage in

traditional expressive speech, and petitioning activities, and

vend the following expressive items: newspapers, leaflets,

pamphlets, bumper stickers, patches, buttons, or books created by

the vendor or recordings of the vendor's own performances.

Id.§ 42.15(2) (a).

In the I-Zone spaces, "persons may engage

in activities permissible in the P-Zone, and also engage in

vending of expressive items created by the vendor, or the vending

of expressive items that are inextricably intertwined with the

vendor's message.

Id.§ 42.15(2) (b).

With certain limited exceptions, anyone wishing to use a P-

Zone or I-Zone space during Peak Season must apply for an annual

permit and enter into a lottery system by which spaces are

assigned each day. Program Rules at pp. 2-3. The person to whom

the space is assigned has priority to use the space. But, after

12:00 p.m., anyone (with or without a permit) may use any

unoccupied space, so long as she engages only in activities

approved for the P-Zones and relinquishes the space to the

permit-holder if she returns.

Outside of the P and I-Zones, anyone may engage in any

activity permitted in the P-Zones and vend expressive items

"inextricably intertwined with the vendor's message," so long as

she does not "set up a display table, easel, stand, equipment, or

other furniture, use a pushcart or other vehicle .

Id.§

42.15(D) (1) (a). On the West side of the Boardwalk, outside of

the P and I-Zones, anyone can engage in any permitted P-Zone

activity as long as it is "not vending and does not substantially

impede or obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic, subject to

reasonable size and height restrictions on any table, easel, or

other furniture .

Id.§ 42.15 (D) (1) (b) .

The ordinance and Program Rules also include noise

regulations. LAMC § 42.15(F) (1) provides that noise levels must

not exceed seventy-five decibels when measured at a distance of

twenty-five feet away or ninety-six decibels when measured from

one foot away between nine o'clock in the morning and sunset.

Furthermore, LAMC § 42.15(F) (4) bans the use of amplified sound

anywhere on the Boardwalk except in specially designated P-Zone

spaces between 17th Avenue and Horizon Avenue and between Breeze

Avenue and Park Avenue. The Program Rules clarify that amplified

sound "is permitted only in the designated spaces in the P-Zones

in the locations specified in Section 42.15 between 9:00 a.m. and

sunset, and is prohibited after sunset and before 9:00 a.m."

Program Rules at p. 4.

Following the City's adoption of the 2008 version of §

42.15, the Ninth Circuit decided Berger v. City of Seattle, 569

F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) , holding that a similar

designated-performance-space and permitting system established by

the City of Seattle for the Seattle Center was facially

unconstitutional under the First Amendment. In so holding, the

court noted that the Supreme Court "has repeatedly concluded that

single-speaker permitting requirements are not a constitutionally

valid means of advancing [the government's] interests because,

typically (1) they sweep too broadly, (2) they only marginally

advance the government's asserted interests, and (3) the

government's interests can be achieved by less intrusive means."

Id.at 1038

(internal citations omitted). While acknowledging

that such Supreme Court decisions involved permitting

requirements for door-to-door solicitation, the court held that

"it stands to reason that such [single-speaker permitting]

requirements would be at least as constitutionally suspect when

applied to speech in a public park, where a speaker's First

Amendment protections reach their zenith, than when applied to

speech on a citizen's doorstep where substantial privacy

interests exist." Id. at 1039. As a result, the court stated

that it was "not surprising that we and almost every other

circuit to have considered the issue have refused to uphold

registration requirements that apply to individual speakers or

small groups in a public forum." Id.

Shortly after the Ninth Circuit published its decision in

Berger, 569 F.3d at 1039, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit raising

facial and as-applied challenges to the 2008 version of LAMC §

42.15 and its implementing Public Expression Permit Program Rules

("Program Rules") (revised April 2, 2008), arguing that they

violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments.l The facial

challenges to the 2008 ordinance at issue here appear to be

threefold: First, Plaintiffs argue that the permitting and

designated performance space system is not a reasonable time,

place and manner restriction and grants unbridled discretion to

licensing authorities. Second, Plaintiffs assert that the

ordinance's use of the phrase "inextricably intertwined" renders

it unconstitutionally vague. Third, Plaintiffs claim that the

amplified sound ban is not a reasonable time, place, and manner

restriction.

In order to voice their concerns over the ordinance and its

enforcement, Plaintiffs Dowd and Saltsburg began attending Los

Angeles City Council meetings and speaking during public comment

sessions. Plaintiffs Dowd and Saltsburg raise facial and as-

applied challenges to the City Councilis Rules of Decorum. With

Several Plaintiffs also claim that the

enforcement of the prior version of LAMC § 42.15 (2006)

violated their constitutional rights. However, this

aspect of the Complaint is not at issue with respect to

either motion.

respect to their facial challenge, Plaintiffs argue that the

Rules-- which prohibit making "personal, impertinent, unduly

repetitive, slanderous, or profane remarks" and "utter[ing] loud,

threatening, personal or abusive language"-- "are content based,

vague, and thus do provide for discretionary enforcement based on

subjective analysis by the City Council members." (Compl. ~ 58.)

With respect to his as-applied claim, Plaintiff Dowd claims that

the City violated his First Amendment rights by ejecting him from

a meeting after he stated during a public comment session that

the President Pro Tempore was "pathetic and hopeless and is not

doing a very good job" and complained about the "inextricably

intertwined" language in the ordinance because "there's no

guidelines for what that fucking means."

(Leung Decl. ~ 7.)

Similarly, Saltsburg raises an as-applied claim because he was

ejected from the same meeting after stating during public comment

that one member of the Council was "one of the most shadiest,

most troublesome, problematic council members in the history of

the city itself .

(Id. )

II. MOTION TO DISMISS

On October 8, 2009, the City filed a motion to dismiss the

facial challenges to LAMC § 42.15 (2008) on the grounds that the

ordinance is constitutional on its face. For the reasons

discussed further below with respect to Plaintiffs' motion for a

preliminary injunction, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs'

facial challenges to the permitting system and the amplified

sound ban have merit. Therefore, the motion to dismiss is DENIED

with respect to those claims. However, because Plaintiffs' lack

standing to raise a facial challenge to the vending ban on

vagueness grounds, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss with

respect to that claim.

A. Legal Standard

A complaint will survive a motion to dismiss when it

"contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.

When considering a 12(b) (6)

motion, a court must "accept as true all allegations of material

fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to

the plaintiff." Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.

2000). Although a pleading need not include "detailed factual

allegations," it must be "more than an unadorned, the-defendant-

unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949.

Conclusory allegations or allegations that are no more than a

statement of a legal conclusion "are not entitled to the

assumption of truth." Id. at 1950. Where, as here, the

plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court applies the motion to

dismiss standard against the backdrop of the general rule that

courts liberally construe the pleadings of pro se litigants. See

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).

B. Facial Void-for-Vagueness Challenge

The City moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' facial, void-for-

vagueness challenge to LAMC § 42.15(C)'s vending ban. Plaintiffs

appear to challenge the vending ban on the grounds that its

exception for expressive items that are "inextricably

intertwined" with the speaker's message renders the regulation

unconstitutionally vague.

"A government regulation may be unconstitutionally vague for

two reasons. First, the regulation may fail to give persons of

ordinary intelligence adequate notice of what conduct is

proscribed; second, it may permit or authorize 'arbitrary and

discriminatory enforcement.'" G.K. Ltd. Travel v. City of Lake

Oswego, 436 F.3d 1064, 1084 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).

"'[T]hese vagueness concerns are more acute when a law implicates

First Amendment rights and, therefore, vagueness scrutiny is more

stringent.'" Id. (quoting Cal. Teachers Ass'n v. State Bd. of

Educ., 271 F.3d 1141, 1150 (9th Cir. 2001)).

In order to satisfy the Article III case or controversy

requirement, a plaintiff must establish that it has suffered a

constitutionally cognizable injury-in-fact. Lujan v. Defenders

of Wildlife, 504 u.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) (stating that the

"irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three

elements: (1) injury-in-fact, (2) causation, and (3) a likelihood

that a favorable decision will redress plaintiff's injury"). It

is true that with respect to laws that implicate First Amendment

rights, "[iJn an effort to avoid the chilling effect of sweeping

restrictions, the Supreme Court has endorsed what might be called

a 'hold your tongue and challenge now' approach rather than

requiring litigants to speak first and take their chances with

the consequences." Cal. Pro-Life Council, Inc. v. Getman, 328

F.3d 1088, 1094 (9th Cir. 2003) (quotation marks and citation

omitted). Thus, a plaintiff will have standing to challenge a

vague statute if she has "suffered the constitutionally

recognized injury of self-censorship." Id.at 1095.

But, the Ninth Circuit has not "suggest [ed] that any

plaintiff may challenge the constitutionality of a statute on

First Amendment grounds by nakedly asserting that his or her

speech was chilled by the statute. The self-censorship door to

standing does not open for every plaintiff." Id.Rather, "[t]he

potential plaintiff must have 'an actual and well-founded fear

that the law will be enforced against him or her. ,,, Id.

(internal citation and alteration omitted). "In the free speech

context, such a fear of prosecution will only inure if the

plaintiff's intended speech arguably falls within the statute's

reach." Id.

Here, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs lack standing to

challenge the vending ban as void for vagueness.

First, the

Plaintiffs engage in activities that do not fall within the ambit

of the anti-vending regulations, as they are street performers

who engage in traditional expressive speech, vend expressive

items they have created, and sell recordings of their own

performances.

In fact, none of the Plaintiffs claims to have

been chilled from performing or vending any items based on the

anti-vending regulations; rather, they all claim to have been

chilled by discriminatory enforcement of other provisions of the

ordinance not at issue here.

(See, e.g.Comp I . <]I 47 ("Saltsburg

has quit performing at Venice Beach" after being "harassed by the

police for performing on a street"); id.'j[ 48 ("Demian has been

forced to quit his expression at times, because upon arrival at

the Boardwalk, he finds spaces filled, and the queue of waiting

performers would stretch beyond sunset, whereupon his performance

would be in violation of the rules").)

Insofar as the Plaintiffs allege they have suffered any

injury at all based on the ordinance's use of the phrase

"inextricably intertwined," they complain that the City "has

oversubscribed the I zone lottery, with vendors who mayor may

not qualify as 'intertwined, '" and that, as a result, "many of

the more traditional vendors who sell

. photos and paintings,

have moved back into the P zone, into the P zone lottery, and are

taking spaces which are amplifier only blocks."

(Compl. 'j[ 25.)

In other words, Plaintiffs have not claimed that they are chilled

from engaging in expressive activity because they fear that the

vending ban will be enforced against them. Rather, they

apparently fear that it is not being enforced with sufficient

frequency against others, which results in increased competition

for the P-Zone spaces they seek to use. This is not the type of

injury that would permit Plaintiffs to challenge the vending ban

on vagueness grounds. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the City's

motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' facial void-for-vagueness challenge

to the vending ban and its exception for expressive items

"inextricably intertwined" with the speaker's message.2

II. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

A. Legal Standard

The Supreme Court recently set forth the standard for

assessing a motion for a preliminary injunction in Winter v.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., - - - U.S. - - - 129 S.

Ct. 365, 376 (2008). "Under Winter, plaintiffs seeking a

preliminary injunction must establish that (1) they are likely to

succeed on the merits; (2) they are likely to suffer irreparable

harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of

equities tips in their favor; and (4) a preliminary injunction is

in the public interest." Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey, 577 F.3d

lOIS, 1021 (9th Cir. 2009).

Following the Supreme Court's decision in Winter, the Ninth

Circuit has re-affirmed the vitality of the "serious questions"

approach to preliminary injunctions. Alliance for Wild Rockies

v. Cottrell, - - - F.3d - - -, 2010 WL 2926463 (9th Cir. 2010).

"In other words, 'serious questions going to the merits' and a

However, insofar as the Plaintiffs argue that

the permitting scheme grants unbridled discretion to

licensing officials because of its incorporation of the

"inextricably intertwined" standard, that claim survives

,the City's motion to dismiss.

hardship balance that tips sharply toward the plaintiff can

support issuance of an injunction, assuming the other two

elements of the Winter test are also met." Id.at *4.

When the plaintiff seeks to enjoin a law or regulation that

violates the First Amendment, the courts recognize that "[t]he

loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of

time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury." Elrod v.

Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976). In addition, the Ninth Circuit

has "consistently recognized the significant public interest in

upholding free speech principles, as the ongoing enforcement of

the potentially unconstitutional regulations would infringe not

only the free expression interests of the plaintiffs, but also

the interests of other people subjected to the same

restrictions." Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584 F.3d 1196,

1208 (9th Cir. 2009). Therefore, if a plaintiff demonstrates

that she is likely to succeed on her claim that the challenged

law or regulation violates the First Amendment, a preliminary

injunction should issue.

A. Rules of Decorum

Plaintiff's seek a preliminary injunction "to enjoin

enforcement of Rule 12 of the Los Angeles City Council Rules of

Decorum" because it "contain[s] vague and impermissible terms,

making [it] facially unconstitutional, and allow[s] for

discretionary and arbitrary enforcement. " (PIs.' Mot.

5:19-21.) Plaintiffs argue that Rule 12 is facially

unconstitutional because it is overbroad and vague.

The Court denies the motion for preliminary injunction

because Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their

facial challenge to Rule 12.3 In White v. City of Norwalk, 900

F.2d 1421, 1424-25 (9th Cir. 1990), the Ninth Circuit upheld

identical city council rules of decorum against a facial attack.

Although the rules prohibited making "personal, impertinent,

slanderous or profane remarks," the court construed the rules

narrowly to permit removal only "when someone making a proscribed

remark is acting in a way that actually disturbs or impedes the

meeting," and held that "[s]o limited, we cannot say that the

ordinance on its face is substantially and fatally overbroad."

Id.at 1424, 1426. In addition, the court held that "[the same

narrowing construction defeats the plaintiffs' contention that

the terms 'personal, impertinent, slanderous, or profane' are

unconstitutionally vague." rd. at 1426 n.6.

Because Plaintiffs' facial challenge to the rules of decorum

is unlikely to succeed on the merits, a preliminary injunction is

not warranted.

B. Amplified Sound Ban

Plaintiffs also seek a preliminary injunction enjoining the

amplified sound ban. The use of a sound amplification device is

protected by the First Amendment. Saia v. New York, 334 u.s.

Plaintiffs Saltsburg and Dowd also raise as-

applied challenges based on two incidents in which they

were ejected from City Council meetings, and the Court

expresses no opinion on the merits of those claims.

558, 561 (1948). Although Plaintiffs bear "the general burden of

establishing the elements necessary to obtain injunctive relief,

the City has the burden of justifying the restriction on speech."

Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584 F.3d 1196, 1201 (9th Cir.

2009). In order for a regulation of amplified sound to comport

with the First Amendment, it must (1) be "'justified without

reference to the content of the regulated speech,'" (2) be

"'narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest,'"

and (3) "'leave open ample alternative channels for communication

of the information.'" Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 u.S. 781,

791 (1989) (quoting Clark v. Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence, 468

u.S. 288, 293 (1984)).

In this case, LAMC § 42.15(F) (4) and the Program Rules ban

the use of amplified sound anywhere on the Boardwalk except in

specially designated P-Zone spaces between 17th Avenue and

Horizon Avenue and between Breeze Avenue and Park Avenue.

Plaintiffs assert that LAMC § 42.15 and the Program Rules "den[y]

the use of amplifiers on twelve out of seventeen blocks on the

Boardwalk."

(Compl. ~ 19.)

"The eight most northern blocks of

(Id.)

Venice Boardwalk have a complete ban on amplified music."

Because "all of the five 'amplifier allowed' blocks are

designated within the P zone, all musicians and performers who

use an amplifier must vie for space within those five blocks."

(Id.) Only fifty-six spaces out of the 205 total spaces on the

Boardwalk permit the use of amplified sound. (rd. ~ 21.)

Plaintiffs argue those fifty-six spaces do not provide ample

alternatives because, "[m]any of the amplifier prohibition blocks

contain .

cafes where Plaintiffs were performing with permits

issued by the City prior to May 2008."

(Id. 'IT 19.)

The Court concludes that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on

the merits of their claim that the amplified sound ban is

overbroad. The amplified sound ban is content-neutral on its

face. But, even assuming that it leaves open ample alternative

channels for communication, it is not "narrowly tailored to serve

a significant government interest." Ward, 491 u.s. at 791

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The government has an interest in protecting its citizens

from excessive noise that constitutes a public nuisance. Kovacs

v. Cooper, 336 u.s. 77, 87 (1949). Furthermore, the government

has a "significant interest in protecting the integrity of the

home and a person' 5 feelings of well-being, tranquility, and

privacy.'" United States v. Doe, 968 F.2d 86, 88-89 (D.C. Cir.

1992) (quoting Frisby v. Shultz, 487 u.S. 474, 477 (1988)). And

yet, nothing in the Supreme Court's decisions concerning the

government's interest in promoting tranquility "remotely suggests

the existence of any generalized government interest in

maintaining the same level of quiet in all public spaces." Id.

at 89. "Indeed, the very concept of a situs being designated as

a 'public forum' for First Amendment purposes presupposes that

the situs has 'been used for purposes of assembly, communicating

thoughts between citizens and discussing public questions.'" Id.

(quoting Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496, 515-16 (1939)).

The City asks the Court to take judicial notice of the fact

that the portions of Venice Boardwalk subject to the amplified

sound ban are adjacent to residential areas, and argues that it

has a significant interest in "ensuring the safety and enjoyment

of its residents." (Def. 's Opp'n 17:3-8.) In support of its

position, the City cites Kovacs, 336 U.S. at 87, in which the

Court upheld a restriction on amplified sound emanating from

trucks insofar as such sound was loud and raucous. The Court is

not convinced that the government's interest in regulating noise

is a significant interest when it comes to a traditional public

forum like Venice Boardwalk. But, even assuming for the sake of

argument that protecting residents from excessive noise emanating

from the Boardwalk is a significant interest, the total ban on

amplified sound at all hours on the Boardwalk is not narrowly

tailored to serve that interest.

The ban on amplified sound on the Boardwalk does not appear

to materially advance the City's interest in protecting

neighboring residents from unwelcome noise. Plaintiffs argue

that the locations in which they are banned from using amplified

sound "are still noisy because the bars, cafes and shops along

those blocks employ live music or blare out prerecorded music

(Pls.' Mot. 16:20-24.)

Indeed, it appears that the

ordinance applies to public beach lands, beach properties

adjoining the waterfront, and immediately adjacent boardwalks,

sidewalks or public ways, LAMC § 42.15(A), but not to the stores

and restaurants that are located on or near the Boardwalk.

Furthermore, within the residential areas themselves, the

operation of sound amplification equipment for noncommercial

purposes is only prohibited between 4:30 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. LAMC

§ 115.02. As a result, while the plaintiffs would be perfectly

free to actually enter the residential neighborhoods at issue and

use sound amplification equipment prior to 4:30 p.m., they would

be prohibited from using the same equipment farther away at the

Boardwalk. For these reasons, the amplified sound ban on the

Boardwalk bears little relation to the stated purpose of

protecting neighboring residents from excessive noise.

At the same time, the amplified sound ban "burdens

substantially more speech than is necessary" to further the

government's stated interest. Ward, 491 u.s. at 799. The ban

applies at all times, even during the day when many residents are

likely at work or otherwise out of their homes. In addition, the

City already has several other, more narrowly tailored

regulations of excessive noise that would apply in the absence of

the amplified sound ban on the boardwalk.

41.57 (regulating loud and raucous noise).

See, e.g., LAMC §

The City has offered

no explanation for why the existing regulations are not

sufficient to protect nearby residents from excessive noise and,

if they are not, why the total ban on amplified sound on the

Boardwalk is narrowly tailored to achieve that end.

Other courts have struck down amplified sound restrictions

less sweeping than the total ban on amplified sound on the Venice

Boardwalk. See, e.g., Deegan v. City of Ithaca, 444 F.3d 135 (2d

Cir. 2006) (holding noise regulation as applied to prohibit any

sound that could be heard 25 feet from its source in downtown

pedestrian mall was not narrowly tailored); Doe, 968 F.2d at 89

(holding regulation prohibiting operating an audio device in a

manner exceeding 60 decibels at 50 feet was not narrowly tailored

as applied to Lafayette Park because "[b]y no reasonable measure

does Lafayette Park display the characteristics of a setting in

which the government may lay claim to a legitimate interest in

maintaining tranquility"); Beckerman v. City of Tupelo, Miss.,

664 F.2d 502, 516 (5th Cir. 1981) (holding ban on amplified sound

in residential zones overbroad because "the ordinance extends its

total and non-discretionary prohibition to areas which have not

been shown to be incompatible with sound equipment"); Reeves v.

McConn, 631 F.2d 377, 384 (5th Cir. 1980) (holding amplified sound

ban in downtown business district was not narrowly tailored

because "there is probably no more appropriate place for

reasonably amplified free speech than the streets and sidewalks

of a downtown business district"); Burbridge v. Sampson, 74 F.

Supp. 2d 940, 951 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (Collins, J.) (granting

preliminary injunction against rule banning amplified sound on

community college campus except in three "preferred areas"

because the defendants "failed to rebut Plaintiffs' claim that

the 'preferred areas' do not meet the 'ample alternatives for

communications' requirement for reasonable content-neutral, time

place, and manner regulation"); Lionhart v. Foster, 100 F. Supp.

2d 383 (E.D. La. 1999) (holding that law "regulat[ing] the

production of sound in excess of 55 decibels within 10 feet of

hospitals or churches during posted services" was "unreasonably

overbroad in the context of normal activities on public streets

and in public parks") .

Of course, even in a traditional public forum, reasonable

restrictions on the use of amplified sound are permitted, so long

as they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government

interest. But, because "streets, sidewalks, parks and other

similar public places are so historically associated with the

exercise of First Amendment rights . access to them for the

purpose of exercising such rights cannot constitutionally be

denied broadly and absolutely." Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 u.s. 507,

515 (1976) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The Cit:y's

absolute ban on the use of amplified sound twenty-four hours per

day on the Boardwalk except in a limited number of specially

designated spaces simply sweeps too broadly and does not

materially advance the City's proffered interest.

Because Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that

the amplified sound ban is facially overbroad (and because, as

mentioned earlier, the balance of hardships and the public

interest weigh in favor of enjoining regulations that violate the

First Amendment), the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for

preliminary injunction with respect to LAMC § 43.15 (F) (5).

c. Permit and Lottery System

Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the permit and lottery system on

the grounds that it is an unconstitutional prior restraint.

Plaintiffs argue that the permitting system (1) grants unbridled

authority to "issue permits under the vague term 'inextricably

intertwined' which lacks guidance for issuance, denial and

enforcement," (Pis.' Mot. 13:5-7) and (2) violates Plaintiffs'

right to engage in anonymous and spontaneous speech, (id. 18:15-

20) .

The Ninth Circuit recently struck down a similar, though not

identical, permit system employed by the Seattle Civic Center in

Berger, 569 F.3d at 1029. In 2002, the Seattle Center issued

rules requiring street performers to obtain permits before

performing at the Center and to wear a badge displaying the

permit while performing, as well as a rule limiting street

performances to sixteen designated locations, available on a

first come first served basis. The Court noted that "[t]he

presumptive invalidity and offensiveness of advance notice and

permitting requirements stem from the significant burden that

they place on free speech," in terms of procedural hurdles, as

well as limitations on anonymous and spontaneous speech. rd. at

1037-38. Further, the Court observed that "the Supreme Court has

consistently struck down permitting systems that apply to

individual speakers- as opposed to large groups- in the one

context in which they have been put in place with some

regularity: solicitation of private homes." rd.at 1038. Thus,

"[a]lthough the Supreme Court has not addressed the validity of

single-speaker permitting requirements for speech in a public

forum," the Ninth Circuit held that "it stands to reason that

such requirements would be at least as constitutionally suspect

when applied to speech in a public park, where a speaker's First

Amendment protections reach their zenith, than when applied to

speech on a citizen's doorstep, where substantial privacy

interests exist." rd.at 1039.

The court held that the Center's permitting requirement

failed the narrow tailoring requirement for several reasons. rd.

at 1041. The court rejected the argument that the permitting

system promoted the government's interests in (1) deterring

wrongful conduct by threatening the loss of a permit and (2)

identifying rulebreakers and notifying them of alleged

violations. The Court held that such goals could be accomplished

just as effectively by requiring a person observed violating the

rules to identify herself and an after-the-fact penalty, such as

the loss of the right to perform or a fine. The court held that

the permitting system was an impermissible prior restraint

because the "state could achieve its purported goal of protecting

its citizens from wrongful conduct by punishing only actual

wrongdoers, rather than screening potential speakers .

Id. at 1044.

The Court noted, however, that "[aJlthough we do not uphold

the Center's designation of sixteen performance locations in the

present record .

. we also hold that the delineation of

performance areas, particularly in the most sought-after locales,

might pass constitutional muster on a more developed factual

record." Id. at 1045.

"If so, a valid designated-location plan,

in combination with the City's existing first-come-first-served

rule, would achieve the same improvements in the coordination of

multiple uses without a permitting system as it would with one."

Id. "Conversely, if the designation of performance locations is

not constitutionally valid, then the permitting scheme cannot be

justified as enhancing the enforcement of an invalid

designation." Id.

The permitting and lottery system in this case differs in

several respects from the system struck down in Berger. First,

street performers may still perform anywhere else on the

Boardwalk, although they are limited in terms of what items they

can use (i.e., push-carts and tables). Second, the lottery

system assigns spaces to a particular person (or large

performance group) for a particular day. However, after 12:00

p.m. each day any person, with or without a permit, may use an

unoccupied p-zone space and any person with an I-zone permit may

use an unoccupied I-zone space, so long as she relinquishes the

space should the lottery winner return. Third, insofar as an

applicant seeks an I-zone permit, she is required to disclose (1)

her name and mailing address, (2) a description of the goods or

merchandise for which she seeks a permit, and (3) a declaration

that the goods or merchandise are expressive items inextricably

intertwined with the applicant's message.

In light of the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Berger, the Court

concludes that Plaintiffs are likely to establish that the

permitting system is not narrowly tailored to promote a

significant government interest. The Court is mindful of the

fact that the City has made significant efforts to bring the

ordinance into compliance with the First Amendment, and the Court

has been involved in that process through settlement negotiations

in prior litigation. However, intervening authority makes it

likely that the permitting system fails constitutional muster.

The Ninth Circuit in Berger expressly rejected the City's

argument that the permitting system advances its interest in

deterring wrongful conduct and identifying wrongdoers. Id. at

1043-44. The purposes of the permitting requirement are to (1)

"regulate the use of the limited space on the Boardwalk to

prevent conflicting claims for the space and to allocate the

limited space available fairly to all who desire to use it for

lawful purposes," and (2) address a multitude of problems

associated with unregulated commercial vending on the Boardwalk.

LAMC § 42.15(A) (1) (a)-(b). But, as the Ninth Circuit observed in

Berger, 569 F.3d at 1045, "a valid designated-location plan, in

combination with [a] first-come-first-served rule, would achieve

the same improvements in the coordination of multiple uses

without a permitting system as it would with one." This is

especially so in light of the fact that anyone (with or without a

permit) is entitled to use an empty p-zone space on a first-come-

first-served basis after 12:00 p.m., so long as she relinquishes

the space to the permit holder if she returns. There is no

explanation as to why this system manages conflicting claims to

limited space any more effectively than a simple first-come-

first-served rule. Insofar as the City wishes to deter

unregulated vending, "the City need not rely on a pre-

registration scheme to determine the identity and addresses of

problematic" vendors, nor would a system of after-the-fact

enforcement of the anti-vending regulations be any less effective

than a pre-screening requirement. Id.at 1044-45.

In light of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Berger, 569 F.3d

at 1044-45, the Court concludes that the permit requirement is

likely to violate the First Amendment and that, as a result,

Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction enjoining the

permit requirement. The Court therefore need not address

Plaintiffs' alternative argument, that the permitting scheme

grants unbridled discretion to licensing officials.

500. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Plaintiffs seek to enjoin various other provisions of LAMC §

42.15, including the prohibition on setting up or taking down in

a designated space before 9:00 a.m. and after sunset, the

prohibition on using items over a certain height within the

performance spaces, and the provision that groups in the large

act performance spaces may be rotated every hour. Plaintiffs

have not demonstrated, at this stage, that they are likely to

succeed on the merits of their facial challenges to those

provisions and therefore DENIES the motion for preliminary

injunction as to them.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the City's motion is GRANTED IN

PART and DENIED IN PART and Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary

injunction is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Court

dismisses Plaintiffs' claim that LAMe §42.15(C)'s vending ban is

void for vagueness because Plaintiffs lack standing to raise such

a claim. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary

injunction with respect to (1) the amplified sound ban and (2)

the permitting and lottery system. The Court orders Defendant to

submit a proposed preliminary injunction consistent with this

Order forthwith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 21, 2010

DEAN D. PREGERSON

United States District Judge

BREAKING NEWS: Federal Judge Issues Injunction Over L.A. City's Venice Beach Ordinance Banning Amplified Sound & Entire Lottery and Permit System (STUNNING FEDERAL DEFEAT FOR L.A. CITY HALL!)

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 00:05:00 -0700

Breaking news on the stunning defeat in FEDERAL COURT by L.A. City Attorney Carmen Trutanich's L.A. City Attorney office regarding the amplified sound ban and lottery/permit system at Venice Beach Ocean Front Boardwalk. After all some of these performers went through over the past four and half years, since the March 2006 L.A. City ordinance went into effect, should make the Tennie Pierce settlement over one scoop of dog food seem small in comparison.

READ THE STORY AT http://LACityNews.com

Los Angeles City News for Saturday, August 21, 2010

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 23:00:00 -0700

Click here for full page.

MUSIC VIDEO: "Take Back The City, Clean Sweep City Hall" (Politcal Action, Get Out The Vote Song)

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:38:00 -0700

NEW: Zuma Dogg's political action, get-out-the-vote song, inspired by the "Clean Sweep" effort: "Take Back The City, Clean Sweep City Hall." (Lyrics by Zuma Dogg, Music by Genesis)

(From: http://ZumaShow.com)

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo "In The Matter of WETHERLY CAPITAL" (24 Page INVESTIGATION Document)

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:15:00 -0800

NOTE: TO SEE EACH FULL PAGE YOU MUST RIGHT CLICK ON PAGE, THEN CLICK "VIEW IMAGE."

A Conversation with (FAILURE) L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 20:08:00 -0800

Antonio Villaraigosa: I don't take these decisions lightly.... In no small part I think all of us kind of look in the mirror and feel good or not feel good about the person we seen in the mirror in no small part because of the jobs we have. So laying people off is not something I do lightly, it's not something I relish. In fact, I haven't used that word previously, but it pains me greatly to lay one person off. And I've said that I intend to think of every person that I lay off as possibly a single mom with three kids, one of whom may have health needs and need health insurance. I also didn't say, but I will say here -- I mean look, we've had a structural deficit since 1997 every year. I reduced that by 97 million my first year, and I think a hundred and some odd million the second year, and then the fact is I've contributed -- I'm part of the problem, I'm not here to point fingers at anybody, notwithstanding the fact that I think some people feel, and you guys love the battle between the mayor and the council. I'm not looking for a battle with anybody, neither the council nor our labor partners. I certainly acknowledge the work that our employees do ... and I get to see them up close in a way that a lot of you don't. You know, when those fires and those floods, you know, we got -- it's not just the police officers and the firefighters that are the best anywhere.... Our engineers and our architects, we have talented people who are librarians.

So these decisions aren't made lightly, they're not made because of some philosophical bent or ideological desire to reduce the size of government; they're made simply because we cannot sustain the size of our workforce, the cost of our payroll and pensions, and if we don't move quickly and decisively to identify new revenue options, to make these cuts and layoffs that are without question going to be part of the equation here, we will only put ourselves in a more serious financial predicament than we are in currently.

So with that I'll be more than happy to answer your questions. The one thing -- and you can put that on the record -- I push back. I think you all know that I'm not a guy who -- you know, I push back. You all have a right to ask your questions, and I have a right to push back, and I do. So with that caveat in mind, ask your questions....

Nick Goldberg, L.A. Times: Let me start this out by asking you a little bit about how you're going to get that done. I mean, last year, as I understand it, you guys went in and arranged an early retirement deal, and my understanding is that it took so long to work it out, it took so long to get the program underway that a lot of savings were lost. What can you do? ... What are you going to do this year? How are we going to get this done? What's going to keep the dickering and bickering from holding this off?

Villaraigosa: You can write whatever you want here, and again, I'm not going to go off the record because I'm just going to say what -- I hope you don't put too much of the strategy in there, but you guys write whatever, I'm not going to tell you not to -- but look: I negotiated the early retirement program. CAO comes in, he tells me, "This doesn't cost out. What are you doing? You gotta kill it." I did; he then negotiated the early retirement. He comes back to me; I said, "Hey, you're the one who told me mine was no good. What, yours isn't much better." I said I'd veto it, if you remember, he had to make $78 million in concessions, they had to go to 7%. All of that, while it was important to do, and you editorialized that it's important to remove as many of these people as humanely as possible, it also had to pay for itself. And as you know, all we paid for was the incremental cost. It is more expensive to ERIP than to lay off.

So while we did that once, and we may even do that for the other 360 employees if they pay the incremental cost, and right now they're saying they won't pay the incremental cost, what we're saying is, we can't keep ERIPing here. The fact is we can't afford that either.... I want to do this humanely, but I also -- there is a bottom line here. So it took us way too long.

Now I believe -- I'm the one that brought in win-win bargaining, as you know, and I believe in it. But in a crisis, the win-win bargaining just, it's like, molasses, and we can't afford to wait that long. What we didn't have, because we didn't know I could last time. You're probably thinking someone's going to ask, "How come you're ordering layoffs now and you didn't order them before?" I'll tell you why: Because last time, it was in the context of negotiations. You have to have an MOU, the council has to approve the MOU. With my new lawyer that just came on board, we found out, hey, guess what, you actually have the power through your general managers to order layoffs and not go to the council.

Let's be honest: What's going to happen if I have to go to the council? We're not going to approve you right now, but we may ultimately approve them, and I said that to them, and I think ultimately they'll do it, but it might not be approving them for six months, nine months, while we're negotiating. If we don't order these layoffs -- and yes, it's true, not all of these people can be laid off because with some we have an agreement that they can't be laid off until July 1. If we don't start identifying them now, it takes nine months to lay off people. It is going to be a legal battle with every single layoff, because what happens under our system, when you lay off one person that isn't necessarily the person you're laying off; they can bump all the way through the system.

So once it was clear to me that I had the power through my managers -- and all [City Attorney Carmen Trutanich] said what that I had overreached. I don't have power over the city attorney because he's duly elected, but as you know I wrote him a letter saying I still want you to lay these people off, and I said that in public at the City Council meeting. And I don't have power over the city controller, but [ Wendy Greuel] has already agreed to lay off her five. Why does he have a hundred and she have five? Look at his budget; he's got a way bigger budget; he's got a lot more people. This wasn't personal ... it was proportionate to the size of the budget....

I'm going to be ordering another 1,200 to 2,000 layoffs. If we don't start identifying the people now and go through the process, we'll never be able to get these people off the payroll quick enough. Even with that it's going to be a nine -- it'll probably be ultimately a nine month, six to nine -- they say as short as three. You know, good luck, I've never seen -- this could be a nine-month exercise. So if I don't order them now, I'll never be in a position where people -- and this is what I said, if everybody -- OK, last year we were able to get people to defer their raises. That was no small feat, but it was a deferral. We still have to pay them. In two years we're not going to have the money to pay them. We got the police to defer cash overtime. What's the force and effect of that? Taking 600 officers off the streets of L.A.; that's the force and effect of that. But it's about a $5,000 cut to their salary per year.... The firefighters: Firefighters with modified coverage -- there's no such thing as a "brown-out," because within hours we can order all those people back. There's no brown-out, please, that nomenclature is a nomenclature used by the union in order to make this something that it isn't. But there is a reduction in staffing at any given time. That reduction has resulted in firefighters getting about $1,000 a month, on average, hit to their budget. So some of them have taken some cuts....

There's no scenario where there won't be layoffs. What we're talking about is the magnitude.... So I have to announce these now, not because we're going to lay them off tomorrow, but because we have to start the process, and because the only, this is the strategy, the only way to get people to sit down and even talk about -- a 5% cut ... is $150 million, 10% is $300 million, a 15% is $450 million; $450 million is roughly the problem we have. Now, I know no union's going to be able to talk their members into a 15% cut -- I know that. But we won't even talk about a 1% cut if there aren't layoffs, because one of the things I intend to do, if I was on the school board, I told the superintendent they ought to be doing, the union has to partner with us here. They're in control of the number. If they agree to cuts, increase in pensions, the size of the layoffs doesn't have to be as great.

But at the end of the day, if everybody wants to make me look like the whatever here, I am going to make these decisions. I am not going to recoil from them. I recognize -- and you haven't said it, but I'll say it -- that I'm part of the problem. You know, the structural deficit that I began to work on kind of got beyond us. We reduced it, and then it went back up, and the fact is as much as we've gotten concessions from the unions, we should have gotten more. But I kind of learned from that. I am going to force these concessions or we are going to make the cuts now, because we cannot let time be our enemy....

David Lauter, L.A. Times: Let me ask you two things. You announced 1,000 the other day, now you're trying an additional 1,200 to 2,000. My first question would be, are you reasonably confident that that's going to be enough or do you think you may have to go deeper? And the second question is that you were talking about a sense of urgency, you'd like the unions to come to the table and give something back. What's the deadline for that? How long do they have before it becomes too late?

Villaraigosa: On the first question, $1.8 billion is roughly 18,000 employees?

Aide: That's assuming $100,000 per employee, so that would be 18,000, right?

Villaraigosa: You do the math, you're better than me.

[laughs]

Villaraigosa: But I think it's like 18,000 employees. We couldn't cut 18,000 employees from our workforce, which is why we're not just looking at layoffs. We're look at the revenue -- parking -- and what I've asked the council, by the way. Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not we should do parking meters, OK? You guys know about that experience in Chicago -- but, we're not going to study it? They wouldn't fund the study? Come on, we gotta fund the study. Let's figure out how we can structure it and maybe not get as much but protect the public too and not have gouging and maybe have, kind of, hikes that are kind of moderate over time or something. There are a lot of ways to structure it, and that's why you want to study it. So I asked them -- they gotta study it. They can't just say no to the study, because that's where the real money is. Parking garages are only one to $200 million

Aide: Sorry, can I say something about the 1.8 billion figure so that we're all clear? The $1.8 billion figure that has been bandied about the council and CAO assumes -- basically what we have is a structural deficit of about 500 million, and that is assuming that over the next three years we don't do anything to solve this structural deficit, and that all of the budgets are balanced through one-time furloughs, et cetera, and that would compound over the four years to achieve that 1.8 billion if we did nothing, which is why the mayor is taking action right now, to prevent that from being reality.

Villaraigosa: That's a good point, thank you for that, and I meant to say that at the council.... Obviously if we make these now we won't have a $1.8 billion deficit. But I mean look: Even with the decisions we made with the early retirement, which also reduced -- that number would have been greater it would have been two-point-something, had we not done the ERIP, because that removed people from pensions, salaries as well. It has a structural impact....

Lauter: Timetable? How long do they have?

Villaraigosa: Well, under the agreement they have 40 days from when we initiated it, and I think --

Aide: Twenty days.

Villaraigosa: Twenty days ... or we're going to move -- we're already moving on them....

Lauter: But I hear you saying, if I'm understanding you correctly, that several thousand additional layoffs would be necessary if the council isn't willing to go along with at least some of the other revenue-raising proposals that you've talked about.

Villaraigosa: I think they're going to have to agree to all of them. I think we're going to have to agree to all of them, we're going to have to do them quickly, we're going to have to -- but not just that -- we're going to have to cut. There will be some layoffs. It's not just the revenue options, people are going to have to take cuts. They have to agree to take cuts and raise their pensions ultimately....

We intend to balance next year's budget so that we're not in a position of having a $1.8 billion structural deficit. But we have to balance it not with one-time, but with decisions that affect the structural deficit.

Dan Turner, L.A. Times: You mean, basically, in order to get the union to go along with salary cuts, you have to give them more generous pension benefits, right?

Villaraigosa: No. We're going to have to raise the pensions --

Turner: What do you mean by raise the pensions?

Villaraigosa: Raise the contributions.

Turner: I thought you meant raise the benefits.

Villaraigosa: We can do that, by the way -- I know you guys wanted us to do, and this is where I push back. You can't say on the one hand --

Newton: We're not really pushing against you.

Villaraigosa: On one hand, put it on the ballot, then I raise money, and then all of you are checking who I raise money from, and I'm fighting to, you know, $8 million campaign? Of course I don't want to put it on the ballot. I mean, somebody ought to think through that. Yeah, I'm not going to, because you're going to beat -- no matter what I do, I'm going to get it.

So I'd rather, I told the council, you could pass by ordinance for civilians -- for new people, not for current. We have to negotiate with them for current. But for new people you could pass it by ordinance, so why put it on the ballot so that I'm involved in an $8 million campaign that, you know, and they're going to make it -- and by the way, just so you know, I've polled it. You would think people are for it, but they're not. They're all getting beat up. They're not for layoffs, they're not for cutting services, they're not for raising pensions. You would think they would be because a lot of them don't have pensions like that. But I polled it -- this is, these are, it's much better to do it by ordinance. Now, with fire and police we'd have to do it by charter amendment, but we're hoping to negotiate that with them and say hey, because at some point, I mean, we've already cut -- the force and effect of the cash overtime is that we're taking 600 cops off the street, and you guys gotta know that. Six-hundred cops off the street -- that's what [ LAPD Chief Charlie] Beck has told me. The force and effect of the modified staffing plan is that there are not as many firefighters on any given day now. At a moment's notice, and you've seen we've done this, we put them back, but on any given day there's a reduced number of -- so that means, yes, you guys --

Aide: Ten percent fewer.

Villaraigosa: Huh?

Aide: Ten percent fewer. Ten percent.

Villaraigosa: Ten percent, but it also means slower response times. Of course, again, everybody now wants to go to this person, you know -- yes, it's going to mean slower response times, and ultimately that's not something we want to do. So we want to keep, protect public safety as much as possible, and I'm not doing it because, again, I've changed my stripes. I've seen the benefits of a safer city. I am a believer, and look me in the eyeball: I am a believer. I have seen the -- L.A. Live exists today not just because we ... said by hook or crook, we're going to make this happen. I'll tell you something: It exists today because it's safe down there, man. People would not be down there if it wasn't safe. And all the clubs and all the restaurants that are opening downtown exist because it's safe. And South L.A. is a different place today, and even with that there's too much crime there. What I've said there, you know, I couldn't believe that somebody said to me, don't lay off people, don't consolidate departments, don't privatize parking structures and parking meters, but by the way cut police and fire.

Uh-uh. That's the last thing we're going to cut....

Phil Willon, L.A. Times: Will you allow the LAPD to decline through attrition?

Villaraigosa: Well we're already doing that. That's why I said, hey, hold it. They're saying, hey. First of all, we made a commitment to the people when we passed the trash fee that we were grow 1,000, but I saw -- I have the public's support, by the way, I didn't have the council's support for it, so I agreed to slow it down for attrition. I thought it was the reasonable thing to do given that we were cutting the other services as much as we have. But no, I am not going beyond attrition, is the answer, until we consolidated every department, looked at every revenue opportunity, given up -- I asked for a loan, on a permanent basis, the council controlled funds. We're not cutting police and fire beyond where we are today until all of those things are done, because the most important responsibility of this city is the public safety.

You know, every one of these people have stood with me, and you've all seen them, when we announced that we've got a new class, when we announced that we're growing it, and now all of a sudden it's my ideal. Well, you know, you can't have your cake and eat it too. I am prepared to defend police hiring and attrition, and will defer the growth for now, but not forever. I expect that once we're out of this crisis, we're going to keep growing the police department.

Look, 84% -- you saw the Harvard study -- 84% support for the police. Why? Because they get to get out of their cars once in a while now. They talk to people. They realize once they're talking to people that not everybody is a criminal. The old model of policing when you have a few thousand officers, it doesn't work. It requires a very aggressive policing model, and that results in lack of community support, a lack of community collaboration, which is a big reason why we're safer. We're not just safer because there are 800 cops; we're safe because people see that we're working with them better.

I really believe that, and maybe I'm wrong. I mean, I've been wrong before, I'm wrong about a lot of stuff, right?

Goldberg: I'm sorry to belabor this, but I still don't understand what happens if the council says no to parking meters, no to parking garages, no to consolidating departments. What happens then? Every indication that we've had so far indicates that that's what they're going to say, unless they have a conversion.

Villaraigosa: I think what's going to happen is, I am going to – and if there are no concessions, real concessions and cuts – I'm going to move beyond even the number I just mentioned.

Goldberg: Beyond the thousand, 2,000?

Villaraigosa: No, I'm already going to move. There's no -- we're going to move beyond that, because remember, a lot of that, as you asked, a lot of that is going to be people that are transferred, 360 of that is people that are transferring into special funded or proprietary positions that are unfilled today. And they're unfilled because of ERIP. A lot of people from those departments also took advantage of ERIP. There's another 700 positions that are going to be relinquished because of ERIP in those departments. They'll fill up those.

So why did I identify – by the way, just so you know, only a couple hundred people have taken advantage of the opportunity to transfer until I ordered the layoffs, then 2,000 people took advantage of it. Layoffs is the only tool I have to be relevant here, otherwise I am at the mercy of forces beyond my control. I can control layoffs, I can't control that the council will pass anything. I don't have a vote on the council. And I made it clear today, and it wasn't in any way a hostile act toward any individual, but I said I will veto every council control fund, and they're all – and you haven't written about that yet, but I know you will. They're making resolutions now to spend the council controlled funds.

Maeve Reston, L.A. Times: I did write about it.

Villaraigosa: Oh you did write about it. OK, that's right, I'm sorry.

Well, there's more coming, and I can't -- the ones that already happened before I made that statement, I made it clear to everybody that we want to loan it, that money, and while I can't guarantee that they'll vote for that, I can guarantee that I will veto. We believe that they will override it my veto, but I think it will be – I think they will override it, but I think ultimately, they're going to have to understand there's no way for us to do this without those dollars, the revenue options, the cuts, there's just, it's a finite – and look, these guys know more than I do by far. I'm not making this up….

First of all, because I'm not a chest thumper, I recognize right now, the battle requires all of us to work together, even this damn newspaper of record. Excuse me, yes. I mean, that's why, I'm not using that word. And it's not because I'm avoiding – I'll tell you something, and I know you guys said it tongue and cheek, "We know he'll never do it," and I know what you meant by it, my big ego or whatever, you're right: We will never be in that situation under my watch if I have anything I can do to control it, and one thing I have are layoffs….

Robert Greene, L.A. Times: Mayor, some people have described the layoffs, the cuts, et cetera, as right-sizing the city, the implication being that for a long time the city had a payroll that it shouldn't have had, that it was performing services that it shouldn't. And there were other people who described it as a crisis, the implication being that after a set period of time, the economy recovers, we can begin to rebuild and do the things that we were doing before. What is your view of it? Which way are we going?

Villaraigosa: Is that when you guys editorialized on that? And you said that I should have said I should have some number about what the right size is. Hey, the CAO doesn't have it, the CLA doesn't have it. I don't know why I should have it. I don't know what that right number is, because frankly, as I understand it, we're not that much bigger for the number of people we have. Our budget is not that bigger, the size of our employee force as I have been told by the CAO and others. But I don't, because you said, "Well, he doesn't know," do you know what that number is? No, none of us do.

Newton: Well, but, let's be fair, mayor --

Villaraigosa: Listen, we push back.

Newton: All right, OK, me too. If you're at this enterprise, we try to suss out how much we can do, how much can we afford to do, are we doing enough, should we add people over here. It seems like in order to get to the enterprise that you want to run, you need to know what it should do.

Villaraigosa: Hey, but I'll push back. The people who are making those decisions are killing this damn newspaper.

Newton: Well OK, fair enough. But if you want to be better than that, then you've got to have some idea of what you want to do.

Villaraigosa: Well, and I'm asking them. I'm asking them.

Newton: It's a little late for that though, right?

Villaraigosa: The CAO doesn't know. We don't -- here's an example: To do the job the way, I mean, one could argue that we don't have enough employees to do all the potholes, even though I've tripled and almost quadrupled of the previous administration, all the left-hand turn signals, all the which I've done three or four times as well…. The answer is, maybe you're right, maybe I should know. Go ask (Chicago Mayor Richard M.] Daley, go ask [New York City Mayor Michael] Bloomberg if they know. I don't know anyone who knows what that right number is. I do know this: One thing that will happen when we downsize the size of this workforce, we'll see what the implications are, what the impacts are. So that's one way we're going to find out. We're going to find out that in some places the cuts were too deep, and in other cases, more than likely, they were able to handle them.

ZUMA DOGG L.A. City News -- NOW STREAMING LIVE VIDEO 24/7

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:59:00 -0800

VIDEO: CAO Miguel Santana's Report To L.A. City Council Budget & Finance Committee (2.1.10)

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 1 Feb 2010 14:46:00 -0800

California Supreme Court Strikes Down Limits on Medical Marijuana Possession

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:56:00 -0800

California Supreme Court strikes down limits on medical marijuana possession
January 21, 2010 | 11:50 am - latimes.com

The California Supreme Court today struck down the state's limits on how much medical marijuana a patient can possess, concluding that the restrictions imposed by the Legislature were an unconstitutional amendment of a 1996 voter-approved initiative.

The decision means that patients and caregivers with a doctor's recommendation to use marijuana can now possess as much as is "reasonably related to the patient's current medical needs," a standard that the court established in a 1997 decision.

"I'm very pleased. They gave us exactly what we wanted," said Gerald F. Uelmen, a law professor at Santa Clara University who argued the case for Patrick K. Kelly, a medical marijuana patient from Lakewood who was convicted of possession and cultivation. "This makes it very clear that all of the rights of patients under the Compassionate Use Act are fully preserved."

The initiative did not limit the amount of marijuana that a patient could possess or cultivate other than to require it be "personal medical purposes."

In 2003, the Legislature passed a law intended to clarify the initiative and give guidance to patients and law enforcement officials. The Legislature decided that patients could have up to 8
ounces of dried marijuana and grow as many as six mature or 12 immature plants. The law also allowed a patient to have more if a doctor stated that amount was insufficient.

The court concluded that those restrictions improperly amended the Compassionate Use Act, which was approved by voters and includes no provision that allows the Legislature to amend it.

-- John Hoeffel

Blog Los Angeles

L.A. City Mayoral Candidate WENDY GREUEL in HOT WATER with L.A. Times On Home Depot Disclousre Issue: ADDITIONAL SHADY DETAILS (MUCH WORSE) THAT L.A. Times DID NOT Include (Audio/Blog Post) http://LACityMayor.com EXCLUSIVE!

EXCLUSIVE: DID L.A. MAYORAL CANDIDATE WENDY GREUEL HIRE A PR FIRM TO RUN ANTI-HOME DEPOT CAMPAIGN, CAUSE SHE OWNS COMPETING BUILDING SUPPLY COMPANY?

AUDIO: @ZumaDogg tells ALL the details, including HOW he came across this EXCLUSIVE INFO (on the PR campaign, detailed below). WHAT the L.A. Times did NOT publish, today:

Mayor Sam Politics Blog (Michael Higby) - Monday, February 18, 2013

Times: Greuel may have missed red flags in fight against Home Depot

L.A. City News (Aka: L.A. City Hall Mafia-Corruption Update) for Friday, December 21, 2012: Herb Wesson Makes You Wanna VOMIT ALL OVER HIM, WHEN YOU HEAR THIS ONE! (#Godfather Mafia In L.A. City Council Chambers)

NOW , it's gonna cost the city BIG TIME/MONEY outta Trutanich's office. Keep appointing people, cause their mafia-councilmember kids: BREAKING: D.A. sends Andrea Alarcon child investigation case to Trutanich

Free Soundclick MP3 Downloads: Top 10 Chart Hits -- NEW/ORIGINAL Holiday/Christmas Music MP3's: 99CentBeatStore.com PROMO!

Holiday & Politcal Originals

NEW: @DavidZahniser Tweets at LACityNews.com -- in ONE EZ Read Blog Post: HEAR WENDY GREUEL & ERIC GARCETTI TRADE "Ninja Barbs" [EXCLUSIVE "HIDDEN" AUDIO by Zahniser, HERE! Plus, LA City Election Coverage] www.LACityNews.com

THIS BLOG POST on L.A. City Hall MAFIA RACKETEERING, just BLEW ROOF off PAGE VIEWS STATS @ www.LADailyBlog.com: A DAY'S WORTH OF VIEWS IN ONE HOUR!!!! THIS POST IS ON FIRE...L.A. RICO MAFIA EXPOSED...IT'S VILLARAIGOSA'S L.A. CITY HALL! FBI PROBE UNDERWAY!!!!

Los Angeles Housing Deparment REINSATES MERCEDES MARQUEZ...THE RICO MAFIA HAS THEIR GAL BACK IN L.A., AFTER BARACK OBAMA KICKED HER OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE, BACK TO ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA...

THIS IS L.A.'s #1 RACKETERING/CORRPTION ISSUE=AFFECTING LIVES! WATCH @ZumaDogg ALL TIME RICO-MAFIA RACKETEERING

BLOG LOS ANGELES: L.A. City News: Election Info: Certififed Candidate List, KABC-7 Mayoral Candidate Forum Video, Pension Fraud EXPOSED, L.A. Housing Deparment Under Scrutiny & CD 5 Paul Koretz vs Neighborhood Council FOUNDER/BOARDMEMBER/LIFELONG RESIDENT: www.LACityElections.com

Monday, December 17, 2012

Featured Article: Dec. 17, 2012

Official List of Candidates: 2013 Los Angeles Primary Elelections [City of Los Angeles: Mayor, City Attorney, Controller, City Council, LAUSD (Los Angeles Unified School District), LACCD (Los Angeles Community College District)] & Write-In Candidate Information: www.LACityElections.com

ALL LA CITY ELECTIONS info at LACityElections.com:

(more)

###

LACityElection.com: 2013 Mayoral Candidate Poll - Vote For YOUR Favorite Candidate on POLL WIDGET. POLLS OPEN, NOW! [www.LACityElections.com]

Click for your favorite candidate on right column on this site.

http://LACityElections.com - http://LAMayoralElections.com - http://LACity2013.com

ALSO:

Sunday, December 16, 2012

###

Interpreting W. Edwards Deming's 14 Points ("Methods for Management of Quality and Productivity") [Read Article & Watch New YouTube Webinar Series, HERE, FREE!]

NEW - December 17, 2012: See embedded YouTube webinar, applying these 14 Points at LACity2013.com. (Link to this article, there, too.) Click here to open this same article, on the blog with the embedded videos.

Interpreting W. Edwards Deming's 14 Points ("Methods for Management of Quality and Productivity")

CONFIDENTIAL MEMO (EXHIBIT "A") FROM L.A. REDISTRICTING "MINORITY REPORT" (REPRESENTING THE MAJORITY!) SEE INSIDER DOCUMENT, ANDREW WESTHALL TRIED TO KEEP OUT OF THE REPORT!

New Posts by Zuma Dogg on L.A. City Hall at http://LACityNews.com

ZumaDogg.com - Los Angeles City News (LACityNews.com) ONLINE NEWSPAPER EDITION for 01/07/12 - Plus @LACityNews, @LACityCouncil, @CarmenTrutanich & @ZumaDogg Tweets [Embedded]

UCLA Announces Los Angeles Mayoral Candidate Debate for April 2012. Details Here.

Site Maintence Post

MEDIA ALERT: 12 Venice Beach performers beat City of L.A. in FEDERAL COURT over illegal Venice Beach ordinance. 1st Amendment ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED: Federal Court Order Against The City of Los Angeles (Injuncting Their First Amendment FEDERAL Violations) ATTORNEYS....READ ENTIRE FEDERAL COURT ORDER HERE

BREAKING NEWS: Federal Judge Issues Injunction Over L.A. City's Venice Beach Ordinance Banning Amplified Sound & Entire Lottery and Permit System (STUNNING FEDERAL DEFEAT FOR L.A. CITY HALL!)

Los Angeles City News for Saturday, August 21, 2010

MUSIC VIDEO: "Take Back The City, Clean Sweep City Hall" (Politcal Action, Get Out The Vote Song)

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo "In The Matter of WETHERLY CAPITAL" (24 Page INVESTIGATION Document)

A Conversation with (FAILURE) L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa

ZUMA DOGG L.A. City News -- NOW STREAMING LIVE VIDEO 24/7

VIDEO: CAO Miguel Santana's Report To L.A. City Council Budget & Finance Committee (2.1.10)

California Supreme Court Strikes Down Limits on Medical Marijuana Possession