|
|
 |
|
|
|
Today In the News
|
Hollywood Community Plan Fiasco |
 |
 |
 |
|
Written by James O'Sullivan
|
|
Tuesday, 24 January 2012 22:16 |
|
As the Hollywood Plan Update inches through the planning approval process it should give people all over Los Angeles a preview of what is planned for their neighborhoods, and it ain’t good! Tired of complaints from residents over quality of life issues and having their dream of Manhattan in Los Angeles stymied by people that don’t want to live in Manhattan the Mayor and City Council are going for the planning Kill Shot. Having chipped around the edges with large and small tweaks of the Municipal Code they are rolling the dice on a plan so outrageously flawed that if it is allowed to stand will ruin every neighborhood from San Pedro to Sylmar and all points in between.
It is one thing to dream big as long as that dream includes all the elements necessary to promote a quality of life we require and deserve. It is not alright to drop 50 story buildings right up against the Hollywood Hills and not mitigate the environmental impacts the increase density will bring. It is not alright to claim that 5 subway stations make a transportation system that can tolerate up to 50,000 additional residents. It is not alright to admit that this plan will increase Green House Gasses but by building in Hollywood it will preclude others from building elsewhere in the region. It is not alright to claim that the City will provide more police and fire service if necessary when the City is beyond broke and is losing first responders not gaining them. Already on Halloween a Paramedic Ambulance from Rancho Park was positioned in Hollywood for several days leaving the area around Century City without a Paramedic ambulance. Hollywood will only be able to provide adequate police and fire resources by cannibalizing resources from other area’s. Yours will be next.
This Community Plan Update uses flawed data and timelines and provides no funding for mitigations the California Environmental Quality Act requires. If you are wondering how this affects you since you don’t live in Hollywood, your area is probably next for an update. If this plan is unchallenged in the courts and is adopted then when they come to your area you will be up the creek without the proverbial paddle. You probably won’t be legally time barred from filing a lawsuit but for all practical purposes the precedent will have been set.
One group is organizing to file a suit once the Council adopts this plan and the Mayor signs it and others are also seeking council to mount a challenge. None are against development, what they are against is an unresponsive government that thinks it knows best, that would put their way of life and lives at risk.
Stay tuned, they will not go quietly into the night.
|
|
|
Fix The City Appeal Brief Filed |
|
|
|
|
Written by James O'Sullivan
|
|
Sunday, 30 October 2011 20:30 |
|
Fix The City filed a brief that challenges the failure of the City of Los Angeles ("City") to fulfill its legal obligation to implement and monitor a critical measure required to mitigate growth impacts associated with its 1996 approval of the General Plan Framework Element ("General Plan Framework" or "Framework Element"). The City's General Plan Framework Enviromnental Impact Report ("EIR") contained a well-defined system that was found to be feasible in reducing growth impacts that were predicted to be significant even with mitigation. That mitigation system required annual monitoring of the infrastructure, reporting about it, and, if any aspect of the infrastructure was threatened, that threat would be addressed through adding infrastructure capacity or limiting development. The City has failed to implement this system for controlling the adverse impacts of growth. Fix the City asks this Court to require the City to implement the reporting and mitigation measure monitoring as required by state law and as promised by the City when it adopted policies in its General Plan Framework to ensure mitigation would occur.
|
|
Last Updated on Tuesday, 01 November 2011 08:15 |
|
Written by Scott McNeely
|
|
Thursday, 07 April 2011 10:27 |
Thermal Depolymerization How about using our trash to produce OUR OWN oil? Sound good now? Is this something we should think about? Read the Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changing_World_Technologies In the meantime, it deserves consideration with some of the claimed benefits of: greener technology, considerably less dependence on foreign oil, greatly reduces the need for landfils. |
|
Last Updated on Thursday, 07 April 2011 10:50 |
|
|
INFRASTRUCTURE LAWSUIT APPEAL FILED |
|
|
|
|
Written by James O'Sullivan
|
|
Tuesday, 26 April 2011 12:34 |
|
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Infrastructure Lawsuit Moves to Next Phase An appeal was filed today by several Los Angeles community groups to overturn a Los Angeles Superior Court judge’s denial of their landmark lawsuit to force the city to produce and implement its Annual Report on Growth and Infrastructure. Superior Court Judge John Torribio ruled the City of Los Angeles need not follow mandatory duties and mitigation measures set out in its General Plan Framework Element, the City’s “land use constitution”. The appeal requesting review of the decision was filed in the Second District Court by group attorneys Sabrina Venskus and Doug Carstens. The original complaint was filed in 2008, case number L.A.S.C. BS115435.
As part of its General Plan update, the City promised to monitor and report upon its infrastructure, including public services, and population growth, and further to put building controls in place if growth was found to outpace infrastructure availability. The City has not produced and implemented an Annual Report on Growth and Infrastructure since 2000.
“With fire services being cut, police hiring being frozen, roads deteriorating, libraries schedules being cut, park staff and hours being cut, traffic gridlock, water main breaks occurring and water rationing put into effect, there is little doubt that the infrastructure is more than threatened – it is collapsing,” said Lucille Saunders of the La Brea Willoughby-Coalition, one of the groups suing. “ Now we know why.
Many of the city’s community plans clearly describe the required monitoring and mitigation set forth in the General Plan. Those community plans state: “…if this monitoring finds that population in the Plan area is occurring faster than projected; and, that infrastructure resource capacities are threatened, particularly critical ones such as water and sewerage; and, that there is not a clear commitment to at least begin the necessary improvements within twelve months; then building controls should be put into effect, for all or portions of the West Los Angeles Community, until land use designations for the Community Plan and corresponding zoning are revised to limit development.” The City provided further clarity in their mitigation program for the General Plan. It states: “Lastly, the policy requires that type, amount and location of development be correlated with the provision of adequate supporting infrastructure and services” Unfortunately, the City has failed to implement its own mandated policy, resulting in the predictable: existing residents and businesses are dealing with an utterly dysfunctional government that fails to improve its infrastructure and provide adequate public safety services. Jim O’Sullivan of Fix the City, another group involved in the suit, stated: “We will pursue this lawsuit as far as necessary to force the city to do its job as required by law. The city’s failure to ensure adequate infrastructure is costing us police and fire coverage and putting public safety at risk. We just are not going to let that happen.” ### Contact: Jim O'Sullivan (213)840-0246
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
|
|
Transparency is needed on Library Ballot Measure |
|
|
|
|
Written by James O'Sullivan
|
|
Monday, 03 January 2011 11:52 |
After the 2009, No on Prop B battle I swore I would never get involved with another Proposition battle. We succeeded but what I experienced during that struggle gave sausage making a bad name.
So it is with great reluctance that I am once more involved with a group taking on City Hall and saying No to Measure L, the Library initiative. I have no allusions about the fight that lies ahead. Already our arguments have been labeled false and misleading, which was the same argument leveled against the No on Prop B people. That time legal action was brought to remove our language from the ballot. We will see what happens this time. Signing the statement labeling our arguments as false and misleading was my own Councilman, Tom LaBonge.
Those arguing in favor of Yes on Measure L, (Public Library Funding Act) say it provides emergency funding to keep neighborhood libraries open, our kids safe, literacy and job placement help for job seekers, with no new taxes and strict fiscal accountability.
What could possibly be wrong with that? Nothing if it is true, but it does raise a question or two. For instance, how will it be paid for if there are no new taxes? Simple says the City. We will just incrementally increase the Charter mandated amount of funding the Library gets from .0175% of property taxes to .0300%. In next years budget that could mean an extra $6,000,000 in funds for the library department. I love libraries and use them all the time but I wonder which department will get their funding reduced by $6,000,000? The General Fund only has so much money which is why the Library funding was cut in the first place, so where is this extra emergency funding coming from? Will it be Fire Department or Police, Transportation, Parks and Recreation Departments that lose additional funding? The Chief Administrative Officer has reported the measure will increase the projected budget deficits and that the Mayor and Council will need to identify other General Fund service reductions to offset the impact of the increased appropriation. Hopefully Councilman LaBonge will explain his support for the measure during his re-election bid.
Not identifying additional revenue and pretending that funding can be increased in one area without a decrease in another is insane but unfortunately business as usual for this City Council. Already the LA Times is reporting that the Los Angeles Fire Department will impose a new round of reductions in fire staffing starting January 2, 2011, as part of its effort to slash expenses in a bad budget year. Fire Chief Millage Peaks said the department will further decrease by seven the number of fire companies that are on duty across the city. That means 22 of the department’s 153 companies will be closed each day on a rotating basis. A company can be a four-person fire engine or a six-person hook-and-ladder truck accompanied by a pump vehicle.
Peaks said the latest plan will help the department erase a $30-million shortfall in a way that minimizes the effect on public safety. But Pat McOsker, president of the United Firefighters of Los Angeles City Local 112, said he was troubled by the proposal and warned it would lead to delayed responses by emergency personnel and “preventable deaths.”
“During high-incident episodes there will be fire station districts with no fire companies in them, meaning whole neighborhoods will go unprotected,” he wrote in an e-mail.
Things are expected to be equally difficult for the department after July 1, when the city faces a new $350-million shortfall.
The argument in favor of Measure L claims it requires strict fiscal accountability and Taxpayer protections. I’d love to believe that, I really would, but the trust me, one more time line just doesn’t work any more. The Council needs to lay out exactly what pot of money the emergency funding will come from and what services will be reduced as a result of increased Library funding.
The Citizens of Los Angeles have a right to know all the facts. They have the right to know what they will be getting and what they will be losing. Full disclosure is the real power to the people. Demand it! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calendar |
 |
January 2012 |
 |
|
|
|
