U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: WHO WILL YOU VOTE FOR LA MAYOR?
Antonio Villaraigosa 14 30.43%
Walter Moore 23 50.00%
Other 9 19.57%
Voters: 46. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-08-2009, 01:37 PM
 
Location: 90291
23 posts, read 33,138 times
Reputation: 18

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BennyPhoenix View Post
Justin,
The left calls anyone who does not parrot the communist party line as "weird" or some other choice pejorative.
Moore basically said that business as usual in LA is not working. But business as usual is what the powers that be are pocketing money through. To them that is weird.
Left/right. Whatever. Corruption is corruption. It comes in all shades of political colors. I still say, amongst voters, ideologues are in the minority. Supporting corrupt candidates comes more from ignorance and laziness on the part of the voter to really look into what's happening. This campaign for Mayor of one of the largest cities in the country was ignored mostly by the media. Why? I guess they perceived the citizens just didn't care. Sad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-08-2009, 01:58 PM
 
Location: Earth
17,449 posts, read 23,033,012 times
Reputation: 7246
Quote:
Originally Posted by BennyPhoenix View Post
Justin,
The left calls anyone who does not parrot the communist party line as "weird" or some other choice pejorative.
So then, why did the two avowed Marxists do so poorly if that is the case? Even if one considers they were competing for the same constituency and drew votes from each other, they still did really badly. And yes, they were nuttier than Moore, or Rubin, or Zuma Dogg.

Quote:
Moore basically said that business as usual in LA is not working.
That's what ALL the candidates running against Tony said (even the nutty Marxists). As for Moore's nutty positions, his views on animal rights, his "low density above everything" (while I believe some low density areas in L.A. should be preserved, such a solution would worsen traffic even more than today), his focus on auto traffic issues and neglect of public transport issues (not that traffic isn't a severe problem now, but once the economy starts to recover and gas prices go back up auto travel will become really impractical for Angelenos), and - weirdest of all - his proposal to sack Bratton in favor of Joe Arpaio (was Eddie Compass, New Orleans' police chief during Katrina, otherwise unavailable?) I don't regard Moore's views on rent control as being nutty as rent control has a proven record of driving the poor and working classes out of a city. However such a stance is not politically popular even if perfectly sane.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2009, 02:14 PM
 
Location: los angeles
5,031 posts, read 11,074,679 times
Reputation: 1477
Quote:
Originally Posted by majoun View Post
So then, why did the two avowed Marxists do so poorly if that is the case? Even if one considers they were competing for the same constituency and drew votes from each other, they still did really badly. And yes, they were nuttier than Moore, or Rubin, or Zuma Dogg.



That's what ALL the candidates running against Tony said (even the nutty Marxists). As for Moore's nutty positions, his views on animal rights, his "low density above everything" (while I believe some low density areas in L.A. should be preserved, such a solution would worsen traffic even more than today), his focus on auto traffic issues and neglect of public transport issues (not that traffic isn't a severe problem now, but once the economy starts to recover and gas prices go back up auto travel will become really impractical for Angelenos), and - weirdest of all - his proposal to sack Bratton in favor of Joe Arpaio (was Eddie Compass, New Orleans' police chief during Katrina, otherwise unavailable?) I don't regard Moore's views on rent control as being nutty as rent control has a proven record of driving the poor and working classes out of a city. However such a stance is not politically popular even if perfectly sane.
I think you mean the opposite! Rent Control has helped the poor\ blue collar stay in LA. I once realized this many years ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2009, 02:29 PM
 
Location: 90291
23 posts, read 33,138 times
Reputation: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by majoun View Post
So then, why did the two avowed Marxists do so poorly if that is the case? Even if one considers they were competing for the same constituency and drew votes from each other, they still did really badly. And yes, they were nuttier than Moore, or Rubin, or Zuma Dogg.



That's what ALL the candidates running against Tony said (even the nutty Marxists). As for Moore's nutty positions, his views on animal rights, his "low density above everything" (while I believe some low density areas in L.A. should be preserved, such a solution would worsen traffic even more than today), his focus on auto traffic issues and neglect of public transport issues (not that traffic isn't a severe problem now, but once the economy starts to recover and gas prices go back up auto travel will become really impractical for Angelenos), and - weirdest of all - his proposal to sack Bratton in favor of Joe Arpaio (was Eddie Compass, New Orleans' police chief during Katrina, otherwise unavailable?) I don't regard Moore's views on rent control as being nutty as rent control has a proven record of driving the poor and working classes out of a city. However such a stance is not politically popular even if perfectly sane.
You know, I've only heard that bit about Moore hiring Arpaio on blogs. I've never seen a direct quote. He did quote Chief Bratton as saying he (Bratton) needed 3000 more police officers, and he (Moore) said it would be one of his first priorities to get them.

His animal rights stance has to do with having kill-free pounds, free neutering, and a designated beach for dogs to be unleashed. I believe that was the main thrust of his "nutty" position.

As to "low density above everything." Those are your words. What I heard from Moore was we should preserve the beauty of L.A., and not be ripping down all the old replacing with highrise.

I think there may be something more emotional about your dislike of Moore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2009, 02:31 PM
 
1,308 posts, read 3,606,315 times
Reputation: 1097
Quote:
Originally Posted by happ View Post
I think you mean the opposite! Rent Control has helped the poor\ blue collar stay in LA. I once realized this many years ago.
One of the oldest rent controlled areas in the US is Manhattan. It has done a wonderful job of driving out the poor and middle class.

Rent control in LA is not too bad. WeHo's rent control is bad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2009, 03:47 PM
 
Location: Earth
17,449 posts, read 23,033,012 times
Reputation: 7246
Quote:
Originally Posted by happ View Post
I think you mean the opposite! Rent Control has helped the poor\ blue collar stay in LA. I once realized this many years ago.
L.A.'s rent control laws encourage the demolition of rent controlled buildings to be replaced by newer buildings charging higher rents which are not covered by rent control. Even the mandate for inclusion of token "affordable units" has REDUCED affordable housing.

For example, the "Guitar Row" area along Sunset (I'm not sure what exactly to call it; it's commonly referred to as West Hollywood but its not in WeHo city limits - maybe western Hollywood or northern Fairfax?) used to be a great place to find affordable apartments in a decent part of town. Then most of the old buildings were torn down and it became unaffordable (although the many Russian immigrants seem to manage)

Right next door, eastern West Hollywood used to be full of struggling creative types and working class/lower middle class families, and WeHo's rent control laws made the area unaffordable. The WeHo rent control laws also turned western WeHo into "East Beverly Hills". For that matter, at one time Beverly Hills even had a substantial middle class population around Olympic, especially near La Cienega Park. That's largely gone as rent control favors the rich.

Santa Monica used to be overwhelming majority middle class (except for the rich and famous being north of Wilshire, and working class and poor, mostly Latino residents in the Pico Neighborhood) prior to rent control. Rent control ended that and made the entire city affluent (with the exception of the Pico neighborhood - but the area on its borders became wealthy). It also intensified SM's status as "white flight mecca", with SM being one of the few municpalities in CA that's whiter today than 20 years ago. Meanwhile, Culver City has never had rent control, and has remained middle class - making it one of the few middle class bastions in L.A. county. I'd consider Culver City more truly progressive than SM because it's more racially/ethnically diverse and people get along, mainly because economically there is less difference.

San Francisco, NYC and Berkeley have also become less economically diverse due to rent control. The French Socialists under Mitterand outlawed rent control (which had been in place since WW2) because they saw it as subsidizing the rich and making it more difficult for the poor, the young, and ethnic minorities to find housing as a "black market" had developed.

Admittedly, the WeHo, BH, and SM rent control laws are harsher than L.A.'s. But L.A.'s has also had an effect. Perhaps the current decline in rents might correct some of the damage caused by rent control (particularly because the number of rent controlled buildings has decreased). However, everywhere rent control has been put into effect it has driven out the poor, working class, and even the middle class. OTOH, rent control is politically popular even if economically sound, and a politician who campaigned against it like Moore would have little hope of winning an election in LA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2009, 07:51 PM
 
1,308 posts, read 3,606,315 times
Reputation: 1097
LA's rents have gotten, for the most part, so close to market that the price controls are no longer that big a deal. It's the other aspects of the ordinance that are troublesome.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top