Eric Garcetti for Mayor Phone Poll!

[greggd1]

Anyone is better than our current Mayor. I'd really like to see someone who will put quality of life at the forefront of the agenda. We are blowing big money on projects right now that could go to such better use.

[JohnG72]

I need to be blunt for a moment......

All of you have no clue whatsoever about what is going on.

I'd guess that no on who has posted so far has any sort of clue what an LA city council person makes each year....................

$179,000 per year. All 16 of them. And they get to serve for 12 years. And no incumbent ever gets voted out. Oh, and perks...a car, food, various stipends, etc.

I'll also wager that none of you are aware that the amount the LA City Council members are compensated is the highest in the nation. By about $50,000. Thats right. The Washington DC city council members are paid $130,000 per year(and thats a grossly obscene amount as well).

Not a one of the LA City Council members has proposed a pay reduction to what a city council person should be paid(roughly half what they make now). Not one has proposed reducing their staff. Not one has proposed in any way shape or form any sort of reduction in spending that would directly affect them or their staff.

Including Eric Garcetti.

And all of them are on the payroll of developers. The level of corruption is disgusting.

It constantly astounds me that the citizens of City of Los Angeles allow this to occur without care or worry.

[greggd1]

Originally Posted by JohnG72

I need to be blunt for a moment......

All of you have no clue whatsoever about what is going on.


$179,000 per year. All 16 of them. And they get to serve for 12 years. And no incumbent ever gets voted out. Oh, and perks...a car, food, various stipends, etc.


It constantly astounds me that the citizens of City of Los Angeles allow this to occur without care or worry.

$179,000 sounds high but I certainly dont want the kind of council members that will work for 50k. Then you run into problems. If they do a good job I dont mind paying them for it. Its just when nothing gets done and corruption takes over that it becomes a problem.

[JohnG72]

Originally Posted by greggd1

$179,000 sounds high but I certainly dont want the kind of council members that will work for 50k. Then you run into problems. If they do a good job I dont mind paying them for it. Its just when nothing gets done and corruption takes over that it becomes a problem.

Corruption took over anyway. Greed simply breeds more greed. Scumbag developers with agendas have every city council member in their pocket. Eli Broad, Barry Shy, AIG, etc.

$50K a year is excessive. Half the crap our city council does is ceremonial awards. So since its half, I guess that means handing out worthless certificates to people is worth half of $179K? So the city council members get paid $90K a year to do a minimum wage job?

As to the other half...the city council members should be paying US.

Want real reform? Make the city council a part time position with meetings downtown twice a week and a meeting with their neighborhood councils once a month. Pay em $25K or something.....seems very fair for a part time job that takes them 8 hours a week. No cars...but set up remote attendance from whatever location they are in...for instance have a location in San Pedro, one in Watts, one in Venice, one in Hollywood, one in West SFV, one in Van Nuys. Require them all to come downtown only twice a month or whatever and the rest of the time vote and address the rest of the council and the public from where ever they reside.

Anyway, most cities have part time councils and do just fine and without corruption issues.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by JohnG72

Corruption took over anyway. Greed simply breeds more greed. Scumbag developers with agendas have every city council member in their pocket. Eli Broad, Barry Shy, AIG, etc.

That is how it has worked for the last century, although the names of the developers in question have changed over the years.

In fact that is how the system is DESIGNED to work. L.A. is designed to be controlled by the developers. That's why it is structurally dysfunctional. If one looks at the structure of L.A. government it is a wonder it ever worked at all at any time. When the population was smaller, the structure of government didn't present as much of a problem. Also there were a small number of people in city government who genuinely cared about the city like Bradley.

$50K a year is excessive. Half the crap our city council does is ceremonial awards. So since its half, I guess that means handing out worthless certificates to people is worth half of $179K? So the city council members get paid $90K a year to do a minimum wage job?

Want real reform? Make the city council a part time position with meetings downtown twice a week and a meeting with their neighborhood councils once a month. Pay em $25K or something.....seems very fair for a part time job that takes them 8 hours a week. No cars...but set up remote attendance from whatever location they are in...for instance have a location in San Pedro, one in Watts, one in Venice, one in Hollywood, one in West SFV, one in Van Nuys. Require them all to come downtown only twice a month or whatever and the rest of the time vote and address the rest of the council and the public from where ever they reside.

Anyway, most cities have part time councils and do just fine and without corruption issues.

Another charter is necessary, to obliterate all aspects of the old "Progressive Charter". Riordan tried but the City Council was resistant to giving up its power.

[SalParadise]

Originally Posted by JohnG72

Anyway, most cities have part time councils and do just fine and without corruption issues.

I normally agree many of your posts but I have to disagree here, somewhat.

A part-time council does not guarantee anything. Just look at the city of Bell. Openess and transparency in goverment are more important than reducing salaries or turning the council into a part-time job.

In NYC, the council members are officially part-time and many hold other jobs to supplement their income (Council Members in NYC get $112,000 per year plus tens of thousands more for specific committee assignments).

I would rather have council members who are full-time employees and focus 100% on city business with minimal conflicts of interest from their other jobs or outside sources of income.

Finally, the corruption in the city of LA is nothing compared to many other major cities. Not saying we are perfect but you've made the charge of corruption....but let's here some specifics.

LA style corruption is NOTHING compared to places like Chicago where the classic mantra is, "Vote early and vote often."

[JohnG72]

Originally Posted by SalParadise

I normally agree many of your posts but I have to disagree here, somewhat.

A part-time council does not guarantee anything. Just look at the city of Bell. Openess and transparency in goverment are more important than reducing salaries or turning the council into a part-time job.

In NYC, the council members are officially part-time and many hold other jobs to supplement their income (Council Members in NYC get $112,000 per year plus tens of thousands more for specific committee assignments).

I would rather have council members who are full-time employees and focus 100% on city business with minimal conflicts of interest from their other jobs or outside sources of income.

Finally, the corruption in the city of LA is nothing compared to many other major cities. Not saying we are perfect but you've made the charge of corruption....but let's here some specifics.

LA style corruption is NOTHING compared to places like Chicago where the classic mantra is, "Vote early and vote often."

You got me there. LA cannot compare to some of the other big cities where corruption is basically out in the open.

[SalParadise]

Originally Posted by JohnG72

You got me there. LA cannot compare to some of the other big cities where corruption is basically out in the open.

Ok...fair enough.

One thing that does bother me about LA's politics is our abysmal turn out for municipal elections. I don't have the stats in front of me (too lazy to look it up) but I am pretty certain the turn out for city elections in cities like San Francisco, NYC, etc. is much higher.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by SalParadise

Ok...fair enough.

One thing that does bother me about LA's politics is our abysmal turn out for municipal elections. I don't have the stats in front of me (too lazy to look it up) but I am pretty certain the turn out for city elections in cities like San Francisco, NYC, etc. is much higher.

Turnout in SF, NY, Chicago, etc. is much higher.
Low turnout in LA municipal elections is an intentional result of the system, to prevent any independent political base from easily forming and threatening developer hegemony.
It would be a good idea to have municipal elections in the same year as presidential elections or state elections. It would do wonders for turnout.