March 1, 2009
I strongly encourage voters in the 13th District to oppose Measure B in the election on Tuesday, March 3. While I am a vocal supporter of a citywide solar power plan, I am not convinced that Measure B will provide such a plan, despite the promises of the Measure’s supporters.
Rather, it strikes me, as noted by the LA Times, as a power grab by the Mayor and City Council. In addition to having little to no input from the public and the DWP Commission in its development, Measure B includes a sweeping change to the charter that allows the City Council to make changes to the solar plan without going back to the public for input. If the plan is such a good one to begin with, there should be no need to cut the public out of the process.
In fact, it was my opponent, Eric Garcetti, who failed to disclose the contents of a consultant’s report that pointed out some of the negative consequences of approving Measure B. It’s a shame that the petty, unfortunate politics of Garcetti and his fellow City Hall insiders might derail the opportunity to bring solar power to Los Angeles now.
My sincere hope is that Measure B is defeated and the following day, the supporters and opponents of the plan can come together and start from scratch and engage the public in developing a solar plan that truly works to meet our desperate energy needs.
My campaign wants to give a heartfelt thank you to City Attorney candidate NOEL Weiss (not to be confused with Jack Weiss) who gave his endorsement to me this past week in my bid to represent the 13th Council District in City Council.
Likewise, I endorse and encourage voters throughout the City to support a Noel, a tiredless advocate for the common resident of our City. While there are many great candidates challenging City insider Jack Weiss for City Attorney, in my mind Noel stands apart for his independence, in-depth knowledge of the issues of importance to our communities, and his track record of advocacy on behalf of working families. Noel and I share many of the same principles in our efforts to reform our City government.
February 28, 2009
Today the Hollywood Studio District Neighborhood Council hosted a Candidates Forum at the Music Box. Although my opponent, Councilman Garcetti, said he would participate, he failed to show. Why is Garcetti so afraid to debate?
While the media often labels Garcetti as a “progressive,” this couldn’t be farther from the truth. A true progressive is principled and stands for open democracy. A true progressive would debate his or her opponent. A true progressive believes that money should not corrupt the political process. Yet, Garcetti has done everything in his power to avoid open political discussion. There is an extraordinary gap between his rhetoric and his acitons. A progressive, Garcetti is not.
I am not naive to the conventional political wisdom of not debating your challenger. However, our City needs leadership that does what is right, not what is politically oportunistic.
On March 3, I hope the voters of the 13th District send a powerful to Garcetti that enough is enough. It’s time that we get the type of principled, truly progressive leadership that our district deserves!
February 20, 2009
It has been an incredibly busy February! My efforts to get the media to pay attention have improved, although I am still looking for the LA Times and other media outlets to focus more attention on this race. So often, the print media and bloggers have characterized the candidacy of challengers as “long-shots.” This is disappointing, as the media should refrain from editorializing and let the voters make decisions themselves, once given the facts of the situation.
Here’s is a link to a recent NBC interview I did. I hope you enjoy it!
www.nbclosangeles.com/station/tv_channels/Politics_Raw_City_Council_District_13–_Gary_Slossberg_Los_Angeles.html#wTSZODzzAJwpxuhYfYfxipw15CoB
February 12, 2009
Hi:
Isn’t it amazing to read all about the finances raised by the incumbents? It look like as if THAT is all what is important. It is disappointing that none of the issues are being brought up.
All the talk about fundraisers makes me angry! Since when can a candidate’s seriousness of running for an elected position be measured by how much money he or she can raise? Doesn’t that take A LOT of time away from talking about the real issues that lay before us? Issues like parking, development, homelessness, JOBS!?
I guess going to school and receiving diplomas and achieving degrees does not mean anything as long as you can raise the money later to show how serious you are of putting your knowledge to work! - It also shows that having a respected “day-job” does not mean anything either, since raising money is more important.
Perhaps we can just all save the tuition for our children by not having them go to college, unless that college educates on “how to run a successful fundraiser”.
Jane Usher wrote in an e-mail to me that she and her friends “… support Carmen (Nuch) Trutanich for City Attorney. Based upon campaign dollars raised, Nuch is the only serious challenger to Councilman Jack Weiss …” – Again: What have dollars to do with merits, values, point-of-views? – Shouldn’t the raised amount of money be secondary if mentioned at all?
I thought we live in a democracy and we would like to teach others to be democratic, but all that is taught is that money changes everything, even a city election.
And here I thought that EDUCATION should be the one opening doors to anything!
February 2, 2009
This morning, I was happy to see Rick Orlov’s article in the Daily News regarding the various challengers in the City Council races (“LA council hopefuls press for change”). To date, little media attention has been paid to the challengers, despite the fact that many are running aggressive campaigns against the incumbent.
In the section focusing on my particular race against Garcetti, I was dismayed to read Garcetti’s explanation for why he won’t participate in a real debate with me:
“I think we should have back-to-back appearances, but I don’t want to get involved in anything direct-to-direct negative campaigning type thing,” Garcetti said.
What is negative about having a real debate, where we can respond to questions and engage with one another on the issues affecting the people? Garcetti has been in office for 8 years, and to think that his challenger would not want to question his positions throughout the course of his time in office is absurd. I would not be running against him if I agreed with his approach and policy positions. To say it’s negative to question his record is an attempt to stifle open dialogue.
It is not negative to disagree; in fact, political disagreement is one of the foundations of our democratic system. It is not out of bounds to ask about the contributions Garcetti has received from billboard companies and developers since these contributions very likely determine his policy positions. It is not far-fetched to want to know why he pushed through Prop B with little public dialogue and before disclosing the “secret report” to the public. The public should hear his explanation for supporting high-density developments, even when the developments displace the homes of low-income families and destroy rent control. I further want to know why he failed to agree to accept public matching funds from the City (which entails requiring him to participate in a debate), when he publicly touts his support for campaign finance reform. These questions, and many more, are all fair game, and I’m just scratching the surface.
The public has a right to know where both my opponent and I stand on the issues that affect them. I encourage everyone to contact Garcetti’s office and ask him to participate in a debate. The voters of the 13th Council District deserve it.
January 29, 2009
By Steve Lopez
January 28, 2009
If I could have had it my way, Rick Caruso would be running for mayor of Los Angeles. I don’t know if he would have won, and I don’t know if I would have voted for him. But I love a good fight, and Caruso is rich enough to have raised the small hairs on the back of Antonio Villaraigosa’s neck.
Caruso took a pass, though, realizing it’s lots easier being mayor of The Grove and Americana on Brand, where the trolleys run on time and there are no potholes. And that’s why, on Tuesday morning, I found myself in the Carthay Circle living room of Walter Moore.
Moore is a little-known lawyer with no experience in politics. But that hasn’t stopped him from taking on the mayor. This is Moore’s second time on the ballot with Villaraigosa, a politician he finds so irredeemable he can’t stop himself from nipping at his ankles.
It is fair to say Villaraigosa is not losing any sleep over the threat. Moore has very little money, very little name recognition and very little support. So the Villaraigosa camp acts as if Moore is invisible, ignoring his plea for a debate. Ace Smith, Villaraigosa’s campaign manager, told The Times that Moore is simply not a serious candidate.
“We’re not going to debate Lyndon LaRouche, either,” said Smith, referring to the former presidential candidate who was viewed by many as somewhat of a kook, you might say.
Should Mayor Villaraigosa accept Walter Moore’s debate challenge?
Yes
No
No opinion
4016 total responses
Excuse me, but isn’t that a little arrogant and uncalled for? Does Villaraigosa honestly believe he’s performed so brilliantly as mayor that he shouldn’t have to answer to his challengers?
Sure, Moore can’t match Villaraigosa’s purse. But he has collected roughly $200,000 in donations, making him the only one of several obscure candidates to come anywhere near qualifying for matching funds.
Without a debate, however, his only hope of getting any attention is to paint “Moore for Mayor” on top of a car, pay someone to hijack it and call the TV news stations.
So how does Moore feel about the shabby treatment by his rival? “I don’t feel outclassed,” Moore said, noting that he’s a Princeton man with a law degree from Georgetown. And he passed the bar on his first try, unlike a certain mayor who came up short not once, not twice, not three times, but four times, before giving up the dream.
“It’s not that hard,” Moore whispered of the bar exam, as if telling a secret.
Not that Moore comes without warts. In fact, he is best known for a thorny and divisive issue.
Remember Jamiel’s Law? He wrote it.
The petition, which fell far short of the signatures required to qualify for the ballot, was named for Los Angeles High football player Jamiel Shaw II, who was gunned down last March.
The alleged assailant was a Latino gang member and illegal immigrant who happened to have been released a day earlier from county jail, where he had been held on a weapons charge out of Culver City.
Moore teamed with the victim’s family in an attempt to overturn Special Order 40, an LAPD policy that bars officers from routinely questioning people about their immigration status. Moore told me he understands the desire for work-starved immigrants to come here illegally, but he thinks Order 40 makes Los Angeles a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants bent on crime.
He has a point, but there are more than a few problems with his argument. What we need is national immigration reform followed by strict enforcement, and that’s a federal matter. And, as LAPD Chief Bill Bratton argued, abolishing Order 40 would scare off illegal immigrants whom police rely on for information about criminal activity.
Moore, if you ask me, also goes off the rails with the assertion on his campaign website that Los Angeles is “turning into a Third World dump.” But in person, his arguments are less strident and somewhat more nuanced, and for every thoroughly wrong-headed thought, he’s got two or three decent if incomplete ones.
There should be parks where there are now parking lots, he said, with the parking moved underground. Parking lanes should be eliminated on major thoroughfares and replaced by rapid bus routes. “Subway to the Sea”? Don’t hold your breath, Moore said, because it’ll only be seen by those of us “who have the life spans of redwoods.”
He called the mayor’s solar energy initiative “a vague plan to come up with a plan.” He would derail questionable community redevelopment projects and use the money to hire more cops. He’d stop subsidies and other giveaways to millionaire developers downtown and elsewhere. He’d abolish gang prevention programs run by ex-gangsters. And he wouldn’t allow advertisers to wrap buildings in vinyl ads that block exits.
“How stupid is that?” he asked, going on to say the mayor wasted months of valuable time on a disastrous school takeover bid and then spent far too many weeks on the campaign trail for Hillary Clinton.
If the mayor has so much time for silly photo ops, Moore argued, “why can’t he give me 60 minutes for a debate? Do people want more density or less? Do they want more police or less? Do they want Jamiel’s Law? If people disagree with me, then so be it. But let’s debate it.”
Moore said he’s down to his last dollar after investing in hats, lawn signs, bumper stickers and radio ads. He’s ignored by the media because he has no money, and he has no money because he’s ignored by the media. A debate, he said, is his only chance.
Look, I’m not saying I’d vote for Moore. But has Villaraigosa done so well that he should waltz his way to a second term unchecked?
I say we deserve a debate. I’m happy to moderate, by the way, and Moore said he’s ready to joust with Villaraigosa any time and anywhere.
So what do you say, readers? Shall we put it to a vote?
Do your civic duty and go to www.latimes.com/lopezdebate to make your voice heard. The future of a great city is at stake.
steve.lopez@latimes.com
January 28, 2009
The New Stores of Santa Monica Blvd.
Every week I cull the newspapers, blogs, cable talk shows and radio blowhards for the latest crop of bad news on the economy. This week, there’s plenty to talk about. Last month, the unemployment rate hit 7.2%, up from 4.9% just a year ago. We’re on a pace to hit 10% by the end of the year.
Think about that: one in ten people without a job. And that doesn’t even count the people who have just given up, taken themselves out of the job market. These are people who have moved back in with their parents, tightened their belts as their households downgrade from two incomes to one, or hit the street or homeless shelters.
Just last week, Caterpillar announced it was eliminating 5,000 jobs; Home Depot said it would cut 2% of its workforce, or 7,000 jobs; Sprint, Texas Instruments and General Motors all sent out thousands of pink slips. Even Microsoft is letting 5,000 employees go.
Last year, the U.S. lost 2.6 million jobs. It could lose another 2 million in just the first half of 2009.
What can anyone do to fix this mess? After the inauguration, the satirical newspaper The Onion captured the present moment with its headline: “Black Man Gets Worst Job in the World.” Why would anyone want to take responsibility for this train wreck?
Well, luckily for President Obama, the entire weight of the problem will not be carried on his shoulders. Case in point: On a little stretch of Santa Monica Boulevard, in East Hollywood, between Vermont and Virgil, stands a clutch of small shops with handmade signs and a distinctly local clientele. Just this week – despite the news that consumer confidence is as low as it’s been since they began tracking these things in 1967 – a local entrepreneur opened up a small grocery store.
I walk past the place every day on my way to and from the subway. I watched, day after day, as workers laid tile, painted the walls, installed the light fixtures and, finally, stocked the shelves.
What an expression of hope and confidence this is. What a repudiation of fear and isolation. Circuit City may be closing its doors, but the Santa Monica Grocery is open for business.
A Gary Slossberg Supporter!
This morning, as I walked past on my way to work, the store was open. Customers roamed the aisles looking for things they need: laundry detergent, eggs, milk, bread. Out of the corner of my eye, in my rush to make my train, I noticed a small sign in the storefront window: “Gary Slossberg for City Council.”
Ahhh … . Know hope.
January 26, 2009
Written by Stephen Box, Hollywood Resident and Bike Activist http://SoapBoxLA.blogspot.com
I’m a frequent visitor to City Hall, attending Commission meetings, Committee meetings and City Council meetings and I take quite seriously our right to speak up, to participate and to advise our leadership on the issues that are important to me.
Most recently I attended City Council when the Cyclists’ Bill of Rights came up for endorsement, when the City’s new parking policies came up for review and when the Neighborhood Council File Motion issue came up for approval.
On the first occasion, I attended the City Council session to speak in favor of the CBR and, as the co-author, to respond to some of the anticipated debate from the Councilmembers. There was plenty of debate and lots of discussion but when it came time for public comment, City council Pro Tem Wendy Greuel acknowledged my speaker card but declined to allow me to speak, pointing out that I had already spoken on the issue in a Committee meeting. Ah well, the motion to endorse passed so I left pleased that at least I was able to witness the victory, even if I wasn’t allowed to participate.
On the second occasion, I attended the City Council, hoping to speak in favor of greater outreach to Neighborhood Councils when the City and its Departments are implementing policies and projects that affect our communities. Again, there was much debate and a significant amount of discussion along with obscure references to the Red Line and Marshall High School and all sorts of nonsense. When it came time for public comment, Council President Eric Garcetti acknowledged my speaker card but pointed out that the Council was not required to take public comment, as the public had already had the opportunity to comment at a prior session. Of course, “not required” does not prevent the Council from allowing the two speakers to speak but the will was not there.
On the third occasion, I journeyed to City Hall to engage in the discussion of the proposed City Council File Motion which would provide Neighborhood Councils with the opportunity to introduce files to the City Council, receiving a file number and becoming part of the work product of the City Council. This issue has been brewing for over a year. It is hotly discussed and involves a financial disclosure element that some refer to as the “poison pill.” I turned in a speaker card and this time I was given the opportunity to speak.
I was brief and succinct, finishing before the clock ran out on my two minutes. I simply spoke from the perspective of a community organizer and stated my belief that the financial disclosure element would have a chilling effect on the civic engagement process, all at a time when we are working to involve the community in the business of our city.
I was flattered to hear those same words repeated by a Councilmember at a recent community event. Perhaps somebody was listening.
All of which brings me to the posted picture. I snapped the picture and posted it, chiding Garcetti, Greuel and Rosendahl for having a private conversation while Commissioners Lucks and Abrams were testifying and Councilwoman Perry was responding.
It was gently pointed out to me by one of the participants that there are times that they have to engage in “Council business” which requires them to take their focus off the proceedings.
Fair enough. But the more I think about this, the more resolute I become; I AM Council business. The public is the reason for all of the work that takes place and ultimately, WE are the business of the City. In the grand scheme of things, the two minutes at the podium on an issue that has probably already been decided is less significant that the real need here for a real conversation. After all, great relationships all start with a great conversation.
Here’s to hoping that there are great conversations on the horizon, not just blog entries, not just two minutes at the podium but real conversations with a real dialogue that allow us to better understand each other and to work together on the business of Los Angeles.
January 23, 2009
Civic engagement - youth participating in community service in their neighborhood
Is not the product of good youth-development and education supposed to be civic engagement? If we are going to take Obama’s words seriously and do our part as citizens to get this country back on the right track, the education system should be priority numero uno.
Civic engagement means being involved and taking part in the duties and obligations of belonging to a community, from voting to attending a community meeting to volunteering in some kind of community service. But do we see our young adults crowding the streets to make positive change? Hardly. There is probably an entire web of issues leading to poor civic engagement, but it all starts with education.
I have been thinking a lot about this lately. I think it is pretty obvious that if someone has virtually no education, they will have a low paying job, maybe even three of them, and won’t even have the time to contribute to their community. Or, their lack of education could leave them oblivious to even the most basic structure of their community and how or why they should contribute. Or, like many people, maybe they do know how the system works, but they also feel they have no power or influence to make a difference. Personally, I can mark the exact minute when I became civically engaged – it was when I realized I could make a difference.
That is what education should be all about. Showing our youth how the system works and how to use it or change it to make things better. Empowering our youth will give them the interest and energy to contribute to their communities. That is what is going to revitalize this great nation of ours.
I wish our City Council would focus on, more than anything else, getting youth involved in community change. City Council should have its own White House-like student interns shadowing its council members and staffers at all times, learning the ins and outs of creating change in a highly political system. City Council should work with youth to have them organize and host community events. City Council should be tightly connected with our local schools to ensure that our youth are becoming civically engaged. Maybe City Council could encourage civic engagement of youth through our neighborhood councils.
This is not to neglect the fundamental, crucial problems in the Los Angeles Unified School District education system. Civic engagement should be the measure of how well the system is working, and that is my point. We need to change the system so it does work – so it produces valuable, productive, effective citizens that can change the world for the better. Can City Council do anything to make this happen?
Please share your thoughts.
