A place where Neighborhood Councils and Neighbors may visit, voice comments and concerns without reservations. Enjoy the freedom of posting your events and voicing your concerns on issues anytime 24/7. Click on Comments/Issues/Events to READ and Scroll down to the end. BLOG: A daily pulpit. A collaborative space. A political soapbox. A breaking-news outlet. A collection of links. Your own private thoughts. Memos to the world.
5 comments:
I hope that many NC STAKEHOLDERS will participate in this blog.
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 12:15:41 -0800
From: dwisemanmd@yahoo.com
Subject: How LA City Works - sometimes bad, sometimes good
To: dwisemanmd@yahoo.com
Friends:
Don't you hate it when someone sends you a really pleasant article but you have to dig it out of an attachment?
Here are two excerpts from Wikipedia followed by a news article from the Independence (California) Journal, reprinted in the New York Times. They show that, when they are forced to do so, the L.A. City Government can do something good and repair a "bad" they did 100 years ago.
Let me explain that last complicated sentence.
First the slightly edited Wikipedia excerpts:
About 100 years ago, WIlliam Mulholland, a not-too-well self-taught civil engineer was charged by the City of LA to build the Los Angeles Aqueduct. The acquisition of water rights had been underhanded and Owens Valley farmers resisted violently, even dynamiting the aqueduct at Jawbone Canyon in 1924, by opening the Alabama gates and diverting the flow of water for four days, and raising prices. Los Angeles was forced to negotiate, and Mulholland was quoted as saying he "half-regretted the demise of so many of the valley’s orchard trees, because now there were no longer enough trees to hang all the troublemakers who live there." The Los Angeles Aqueduct It took water from the Owens Valley in Central California in a project requiring over 2000 workers who built a 233-mile long concrete trench with 164 tunnels. Water reached a reservoir in the San Fernando Valley on November 5, 1913. At a ceremony that day Mulholland spoke his famous words about this engineering feat: "There it is. Take it."
(As you see, Mr. Mullholland "took it" and told us, the citizens of Los Angeles to "take it." My two points are ... (1) that this was a good example of how L.A. Government worked 100 years ago and (2) we should be vigilant to be sure that L.A. Government is not still operating that way, only more "sophisticated."
Well, L.A. certainly did "take it" Many credit the availability of water from the Owens Valley and, later, from the Colorado River, to the monstrous growth and wealth that converted Los Angeles from a desert tinsel town into the collosus it is today.)
The aqueduct drained the 100-square-mile Owens Lake absolutely dry by 1928 and that started the California Water Wars (a fictionalized form of the story was the basis for the film Chinatown).
(The best possible proof of my characterizing Mulholland as a "a not-too-well self-taught civil engineer" and warning you about the tradition of the DWP General Managers is found in the following description of a later Mulholland project, The St. Francis Dam.)
The St. Francis Dam was a concrete gravity-arch dam, designed to create a reservoir as part of the Los Angeles Aqueduct. The dam was located 40 miles (64 km) northwest of Los Angeles, California, near the city of Santa Clarita.
The dam was built between 1924 and 1926 under the supervision of William Mulholland, chief engineer and General Manager of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (then called the Bureau of Water Works and Supply).
On the day of March 12, 1928, Mulholland inspected his construction of the St. Francis Dam. Three minutes before midnight on March 12, 1928, the dam catastrophically failed. It burst opened and sent 12.5 billion US gallons (47,000,000 cubic meters) of water flooding into the Santa Clarita Valley, north of Los Angeles. A 10-story wall of water rolled down the Santa Clara riverbed at 18 mph (29 km/h) towards the sea at Ventura, and the next morning revealed unbelievable catastrophe.
The town of Santa Paula lay buried under 20 feet (6 m) of mud and debris; other parts of Ventura County were covered up to 70 feet (21 m). Disaster recovery crews worked for days. The resulting flood killed more than 600 people.
The collapse of the St. Francis Dam is the worst American civil engineering failure of the 20th century and remains the second-greatest loss of life in California's history, after the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and fire, and it marked the end of Mulholland's career.
Mulholland resigned, took full responsibility for the worst civil engineering disaster in United States history, and during the inquest Mulholland apparently delivered the following characteristically callous comment. He said, "The only people I envy in this thing are the dead."
Well, friends, that was the sad story. Here comes the good news and another caution. The accomplishment of restoring life to the upper Owens River required a major legal decision requiring Los Angeles to abate the huge dust blown out of the dry Owens Lake and River. If you have driven up Highway #395 which goes from Mojave to Reno you have seen it. It was tragic.
Independence is a town along Highway #395 in the middle of the Owens Valley. A great place to stop for lunch on your way to Mammoth, Reno or Tahoe. This article from their paper got into the New York Times and from there into our emails. I'm sorry the picture didn't reproduce on this email but they are in the attachment. Sad, too, isn't it, that this "news" didn't seem to get into the L.A. papers. Why?
from the INDEPENDENCE JOURNAL
A Long-Dry California River (the UPPER OWENS RIVER above the formerly dry OWENS LAKE) Gets, and Gives, New Life
(Map of the area did not print)
By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
Published: January 12, 2008
INDEPENDENCE, Calif. — What Los Angeles took a century ago — a 62-mile stretch of river here in the parched Owens Valley — it is now giving back.
J. Emilio Flores for The New York Times
Workers steer a plant shredder dubbed the Terminator through the Owens River to clear vegetation and keep water flowing. The Owens River now draws plants, animals, even humans.
One of the largest river-restoration projects in the country has sent a gentle current of water meandering through what just a year ago was largely a sandy, rocky bed best used as a horse trail and barely distinguishable from the surrounding high desert scrub.
Mud hens dive for food. A blue heron sweeps overhead. Bass, carp and catfish patrol deep below. Some local residents swear they have even seen river otters.
So much reedy tule has sprouted along the banks, like bushy tufts of hair, that officials have called in a huge floating weed whacker, nicknamed the Terminator, to cut through it and help keep the water flowing — a problem inconceivable in years past.
The river, 2 to 3 feet deep and 15 to 20 feet across, will not be mistaken for the mighty Mississippi. And an economic boon promised to accompany the restoration has yet to materialize.
Yet the mere fact that water is present and flowing in the Lower Owens River enthralls residents nearly 100 years after Los Angeles diverted the river into an aqueduct and sent it 200 miles south to slake its growing thirst.
“This is infinitely better than before,” said Keith Franson, a kayaker pumping up his boat on the banks this week and preparing to explore a stretch of the renewed river. “You got birds, herons, terns, all sorts of wildlife coming back in because life is coming back in the river.”
Francis Pedneau, a lifelong Owens Valley resident who had sparred with Los Angeles city officials over access to fishing sites, said word was spreading among fishing enthusiasts about new spots along the river. Mr. Pedneau said he had actually caught fewer bass this past season, “probably because the schools are more spread out now.”
But Mr. Pedneau, 69, has praise for the project, even though he, like many old-timers, is generally suspicious of Los Angeles, given the tension-filled history behind its acquiring water and land here (the inspiration for the 1974 movie “Chinatown”).
“The river didn’t look anything like it does now,” he said. “I never thought I would live long enough to see this.”
Los Angeles officials are in a celebratory mood. Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa plans to come here next month when engineers temporarily step up the flow as part of regular maintenance.
The flow is carefully controlled, kept at a minimum of 40 cubic feet per second, well above the 5 cubic feet per second in the parts that had still managed to have something of a stream after the river was diverted.
Los Angeles agreed to restore the river as part of a settlement of a lawsuit filed by the Owens Valley Committee, a local group, and the Sierra Club over what it called the excessive pumping of groundwater in the valley in the 1970s and 1980s to increase drinking water supplies beyond what the city was taking from the river.
Under the settlement, Los Angeles, working with Inyo County on the $24 million project, has also taken steps to restore the cottonwoods, willows and wetlands that flourished along the river decades ago and drew an array of wildlife.
Near the river’s delta, the released water is recaptured, with most of it used to control dust on Owens Lake, which the diversion had dried up, and the rest sent back into the aqueduct and on to Los Angeles.
The city still gets about 50 percent of its water, including groundwater, from the valley, down about a third in the past several years because of environmental obligations like the river restoration.
Mr. Villaraigosa, who has promised to patch up relations with the Owens Valley, said ending litigation and reviving the river sent an important message. “By releasing this water, we are demonstrating our commitment to environmental stewardship and a new era in terms of our relationship with Owens River residents,” he said. “We can’t claim the mantle of the cleanest, greenest big city in America if we continue to degradate the environment in places like the Owens Valley.”
(THANK YOU, Mr. Mayor.)
Not all disputes are settled.
The Owens Valley Committee and the Sierra Club, while largely pleased so far, said they would like to see Los Angeles more closely monitor the wildlife and habitat making a comeback. Better management of the burgeoning ecosystem, they say, will ensure its success. “We will have concerns if certain species that should be here are not returning,” said Mike Prather, a birder and a committee member.
Brian Tillemans, who manages the project for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, said it was working on a plan. But the department generally prefers a “build a habitat and they will come” approach, Mr. Tillemans said, which costs less and allows nature to take the lead.
“The best we can do is optimize the habitat, and nature will take its course,” Mr. Tillemans said. Within three years, he said, trees will line the banks, drawing more wildlife and naturally controlling weeds and underbrush.
One species locals hope to see more of is humans.
Some businesses have noticed a slight increase in people coming to see or play on the river, and the Lone Pine Chamber of Commerce, one of the larger business development groups here, plans to revise its tourist guide to play up the restoration.
“People are starting to come at odd times of the year, like now, to visit, but what we look forward to is it making a great deal of difference in the long term,” said Kathleen New, the chamber president and a lifelong resident.
“Right now, it’s a lot of local people going out and getting wet and acting foolish,” Ms. New said. “It’s marvelous.”
Mr. Franson, the kayaker, prepared to launch his inflated boat. Some forays have been long, he said, and others cut short by the tule, but they were all a pleasure.
“I may just get around the corner and I’m stuck,” he said. “But, look, this was completely dry not long ago and now it is not.”
(For those of you who got this far in this long and complex tale, you don't have to .. but you can open the attachments and see the full Independence Journal story ... complete with maps and pictures.
I hope you enjoyed the trip. Go see the Owens Valley ... It really is beautiful.)
Daniel Wiseman
818-635-4033
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE LAS LOMAS PROJECT CONTROVERSY
The Las Lomas Project raises issues that are as big as construction projects can raise:
1. Can it become part of the City of Los Angeles, removing it from Santa Clarita and getting "better" (funded) infrastructure and public services?
2. Do we want to lose this much "open space?" What are we using it for now? What could we be using it for?
3. What are the impacts on the current local residents; traffic, population density, need for schools - shopping - policing - fire safety - etc. - etc. - etc.?????
4. Will it be a source of increased income for the city? Which city? Los Angeles? Santa Clarita? .... or a drain of city funds, resources and services???
5. Can we get enough people with enough varieties of needs and opinions interested in discussing this (in public) to fully represent all points of view and (hopefully) find the most satisfactory solutions?
I suggest that these issues be sent to all NC's Property and Land Use Committees (assuming that they are not "controlled" by the "few") for full gathering & vetting of the issues so that when they come to the full NC Boards a balanced and complete picture can be presented and lead to an informed and effective Board Action.
Daniel Wiseman
818-635-4033
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark R. Edwards [mailto:mark@afriat.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 12:11 PM
To: Anastasia Mann; Cary Adams; Christine S. Chang; Ed Youngblood; George Truesdell; James Cordaro; Jill Banks Barad; Joan Luchs; John Popowich; Judy Price; Kathy Delle Donne; Kathy Graupman; Kelly Lord; Linda Pruett; Paul Wiener; Randall Luse
Subject: The Proposed Las Lomas Development Project
Dear San Fernando Valley Neighborhood Council Board Members,
Our firm represents the interests of the City of Santa Clarita on various issues that deal with the City of Los Angeles. Presently, the City of Santa Clarita, along with a growing coalition of opponents, have very serious concerns about the proposed Las Lomas project that will be developed by the Las Lomas Development Company (owned by Dan Palmer, Jr.). The proposed project area is within the unincorporated section of Los Angeles County at the juncture of the I-5 and Highway 14, and is immediately adjacent to the City of Santa Clarita.
The Las Lomas representatives may have asked or will be asking you for an opportunity to present their ideas for the project to your stakeholders/board. We are requesting an equal chance to present a different viewpoint, which details why neighborhood councils should oppose this project and that there is no need to wait for the Draft EIR to be released before taking a position.
In the interest of context I will share a brief justification for opposing the project:
o The project is not in the City of L.A. and only a small percentage of the project area is even within the City of L.A.’s Sphere of Influence;
o A majority of the project will be within the City of Santa Clarita’s Sphere of Influence;
o The project is within the land use jurisdiction of the County of Los Angeles and their general plan only permits approximately 225 single-family home;
o Santa Clarita’s general plan has the same restriction;
o Within the City of Santa Clarita’s and the County’s Significant Ecological Area
o Finally, a community plan should mean something and what they propose to develop exceeds both plans by a magnitude of 2,000%, which does not include the proposed commercial and industrial uses.
The aforementioned facts are just the tip of the iceberg and we are focused on alerting the SFV to the potential perils of this project. I have attached our growing list of opponents, letters of opposition from key legislators, plus additional information that will clearly justify the need to oppose this project now and not wait for the Draft EIR. Please let me know when we can present to your neighborhood council.
Sincerely,
Mark
- - - -
Mark R. Edwards
Dir. of Government Relations
The Afriat Consulting Group, Inc.
4107 Magnolia Boulevard
Burbank, CA 91505
818.450.2772
818.558.7688 (fax)
www.afriat.com
Advocacy-Campaigns-Land Use
RE: PROP "S"
1. The City can ill afford to lose the $ 270,000,000 that comes from the TUT ... but the fed declared it an "illegal" excise tax.
2. The City Budget of $ 6.8 billion ($ 4.4 General Fund for "discretionary" spending) is stretched tightly over the unchangeable, 85% of those funds, which MUST go to the existing employee contracts (38,000 people).
3. The recent round of employee "negotiations" which increased the cost of 23,000 of those 38,000 by over $ 230,000,000 per year (rising each year) only made things worse.
4. The Mayor, City Council and other City Officials presenting Proposition "S" as a tax "decrease" is a fraud.
a. We paid an additional 10% of our telephone bills (an additional $ 10 for every $ 100 paid to the telephone company) as the "old" Telephone Utility Tax. The "new" Communications Utility Tax which replaces it is called Prop. "S" on the February 2008 ballot. It proposes a 9% tax on our telephone bills.
b. The Mayor and Council are "marketing" Prop. "S" as if a 9% tax is a "decrease" from the former "10% TUT." However, Prop. "S" adds new "coverage" (perish the thought that these are "new" taxes) on some (not all) computer/internet-based communications.
c. We have not been told whether the total package in Prop. "S" will bring in more or less than $ 270,000,000 but I'll bet on more.
d. Truly new taxation requires a 66 2/3% majority of the voters but Prop "S" is "nothing new" (if we believe the Mayor and Council) so it can be passed by a 50% majority
5. Prop. S grants a 5% tax ("break") to those pesky telecommunicators who bother us (usually at dinner time). Do we voters want to give that to them?
It is my guess that Prop. S will fail to get passed by the voters. The City apparently thinks so too and is not actively preparing a "new" budget for this year (FY2007-2008) to take the loss of these and decreases in other revenues (from decreased property values and business tax reforms) into consideration.
The whole process looks like our elected government is short sighted, ill prepared and reactive where they could have been "pro-active."
I recommend that NCs consider these comments, refute them or support them, and send your "advice" to our City Electeds as personal opinions and NC Community Impact Statements (CIS's).
Daniel Wiseman
818-635-4033
From: "Jamie Cordaro"
To: "All"
Subject: "Whistleblowers & the Los Angeles Department of Water an d Power"
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 17:39:25
Hello all concerned Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP) rate payers,
The City of Los Angeles has a Competitive Bidding Process for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP) however; there is a problem with the process that has been taking place. The LA City Council has been aware of the issue of the Vendor that supplies Janitorial supplies to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP). They (the DWP) continue to due business as usual, ignoring the safety of their own employees and the corruption (pay to play) that is taking place. Orders for “No competitive bidding” from the TOP down is still taking place, buying inferior products with your TAX dollar, they are not getting the best bang for your TAX dollar.
Please view the You Tube information from Steve Murphy on the topic of “Whistleblowers & the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power” (DWP) regarding squeezing out small vendors from competing. They (DWP) continue the Waste, Fraud and Corruption within City Government protocols
For more information and to get involved contact Attorney-at-Law Patricia Barry 213-995-0734
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9bm7oZyMcw
Or contact your Los Angeles City Councilmember below:
District 1 - Ed Reyes [e-mail] councilmember.reyes@lacity.org
City Hall Office (213)-473-7001
200 N. Spring Street, Rm 410
Los Angeles , CA 90012
Field Offices
Map of District
District 2 - Wendy Greuel [e-mail] councilmember.greuel@lacity.org
City Hall Office (213)-473-7002
200 N. Spring Street, Rm475
Los Angeles , CA 90012
Field Offices
Map of District
District 3 - Dennis P. Zine [e-mail] councilmember.zine@lacity.org
City Hall Office (213)-473-7003
200 N. Spring Street, Rm 450
Los Angeles , CA 90012
Field Offices
Map of District
District 4 - Tom LaBonge [e-mail] councilmember.Labonge@lacity.org
City Hall Office (213)-473-7004
200 N. Spring Street, Rm 480
Los Angeles , CA 90012
Field Offices
Map of District
District 5 - Jack Weiss [e-mail] councilmember.weiss@lacity.org
City Hall Office (213)-473-7005
200 N. Spring Street, Rm 440
Los Angeles , CA 90012
Field Offices
Map of District
District 6 -Tony Cardenas [e-mail] councilmember.cardenas@lacity.org
City Hall Office (213)-473-7006
200 N. Spring Street, Rm 455
Los Angeles , CA 90012
Field Offices
Map of District
District 7 - Richard Alarcón [e-mail] http://www.lacity.org/council/cd7/cd7contact.htm
City Hall Office (213)-473-7007
200 N. Spring Street, Rm 425
Los Angeles , CA 90012
Field Offices
Map of District
District 8 -Bernard Parks [e-mail] councilmember.parks@lacity.org
City Hall Office (213)-473-7008
200 N. Spring Street, Rm 460
Los Angeles , CA 90012
Field Offices
Map of District
District 9 - Jan Perry [e-mail] Jan.Perry@lacity.org
City Hall Office (213)-473-7009
200 N. Spring Street, Rm 420
Los Angeles , CA 90012
Field Offices
Map of District
District 10 - Herb J. Wesson, Jr. [e-mail] councilmember.wesson@lacity.org
City Hall Office (213)-473-7010
200 N. Spring Street, Rm 430
Los Angeles , CA 90012
Field Offices
Map of District
District 11 - Bill Rosendahl [e-mail] councilman.rosendahl@lacity.org
City Hall Office (213)-473-7011
200 N. Spring Street, Rm 415
Los Angeles , CA 90012
Field Offices
Map of District
District 12 - Greig Smith [e-mail] councilmember.smith@lacity.org
City Hall Office (213)-473-7012
200 N. Spring Street, Rm 405
Los Angeles , CA 90012
Field Offices
Map of District
District 13 - Eric Garcetti [e-mail] councilmember.garcetti@lacity.org
City Hall Office (213)-473-7013
200 N. Spring Street, Rm 470
Los Angeles , CA 90012
Field Offices
Map of District
District 14- José Huizar [e-mail] councilmember.huizar@lacity.org
City Hall Office (213)-473-7014
200 N. Spring Street, Rm 465
Los Angeles , CA 90012
Field Offices
Map of District
District 15 - Janice Hahn [e-mail] councilmember.hahn@lacity.org
City Hall Office (213)-473-7015
200 N. Spring Street, Rm 435
Los Angeles , CA 90012
Field Offices
Map of District
James "Jamie" Cordaro
Post a Comment