A Threefold 'Thank You' to Los Angeles
Dear Los Angeles: I'm Thankful For...
-thumb-110x110-213475.jpg)
A Photo Gallery of the Things I am Grateful for This Year
I LOVE L.A.! My Thanksgiving Thanks
10 Random Albums To Be Thankful For
Twice in a week, major news outlets have hammered down on Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. The LA Times endorsed him for reelection noting that they could not support any of the opposing candidates. They said he was a "good" mayor and are holding out hope that he can become a "great" mayor. And to the mayor's credit, it was he that really pushed for the "subway to the sea" and he was right to pursue control over LAUSD, although his tactics to do so failed miserably with educators.
Today, Forbes columnist and local historian Joel Kotkin writes on "the decline of Los Angeles," citing Villaraigosa's failed initiatives like planting a million trees and making LA more business competitive with smaller cities like Burbank. "By most accounts, he has been at best a mediocre mayor, with few real accomplishments besides keeping police chief Bill Bratton, a man appointed by his predecessor."
One of the more talked about issues with Villaraigosa is his constant public appearances. The LA Weekly called him the 11% mayor because most of the time he's at news conferences and out in the public eye, but the Times calls that "naive," saying he needs to be out making deals, as long as it's not all about progressing his career and not taking the city along for the ride.
To us, just get the job done. A mayor doesn't need to be at his desk all day doing paperwork, but needs to be keeping on his appointed department heads to make sure the city is running as efficiently as possible. One thing you can say for sure about city hall, it's hardly close to be a lean and mean efficient machine and Villaraigosa has proved little on his effort in those regards.
Next week denizens will go to polls to vote on the Mayoral primary, among others. Some have called on you to vote on any one but Villaraigosa, as to keep the conversation going until the next election (if he doesn't get 50% of the vote it goes to a run off in June) and others like the Times and Forbes know the fate of this all too well--it's inevitable that he'll win and if you want him gone, you'll have to hope and then vote if and when he runs for Governor during his next term.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Isn't his approval rating still at like 60 percent? I guess all we want is a mayor who tries too hard to look pretty while doing very little else.
ZUMA DOGG!!!
I'd take Villaraigosa over Hahn any day. Hahn was totally corrupt. All you had to do was look at Hahn's list of donors of the city ehtics commission web site to see that.
The closest thing to a contender to Villaraigosa this time around is Moore, and he wants to micro manage Bratton. I don't think Bratton would go for that.
So Villaraigosa by default. I'm mailing in my ballot even as I write this.
JRB, i am convinced that you do drugs.
Hahn was not corrupt, he had corrupt officials around him. Mayor Tony smeared Hahn in the campaign but all of the allegations turned out to be false, and when the light was shined, Hahn turned out to be an honest guy. Hence, his appointmet as a judge.
Mayor Tony is the one who is corrupt. And ANY news organization or media outlet that endorses him, or plugs him for the job, is being bought or pressured.
Look at Tony's donor list. Look at the rampant and illogical growth of this city. His lack of over sight of what happened in the city. His lack of forsight.
He didn't fail because he tried too hard for too much. He failed because his only focus was being the center of attention. His ideas and plans were/are vauge and empty. Ploys just to get on TV and in the newspapers.
Crime is down because of Bratton who implemented all of the stategies he sucessfully used in Boston and NY. Why should Mayor Tony get the accolades for the accomplishments of someone he didn't even hire?
And gues what Zach, yes the city needs a mayor that sits behind his desk at this office for more than an hour. How else will he get updates on what is going on, fully understand the ideas being presented and how they will play out?
He heard plant a million trees while his eco friendly SUV was blazing the streets of LA. How'd that turn out?
Forget all his big dreams that were illogical.
How about his failure to see what was happening in our real estate market and economy? Instead of thinking ahead and understanding we were in a bubble, he expected the property tax boon to continue.
But for whatever reason he gets a pass for that.
He has the power to tell the city attorney to go after the criminal mortgage brokers, but he hasn't. He has the power to go after the supersigns that Zach gripes about, but he doesn't. He has the power to direct the city attorney to go after illegal billboards, but he doesn't.
Tell me, he's good enough how?
There are no qualified candidates on the ballot, including Tony, and any nwe organization that endorses him because of his experience, or lack there of, desrves to be in bankruptcy (LA Times). There's a reason why liberal radio doesn't exist and liberal newspapers are going out of business (LA Times, NY Times, SF Chronicle... and much more) people want UNBIASED news, and a Mayor Tony endorsement is probably most biased endorsement, short of the Times endorsing Hugo Chavez, and liberal news organization could make.
I really wanted their to be another candidate on the ballot worth voting for but sadly there is not; so I simply didn't vote on that particular part of the ballot.
Everyone else on the ballot seems to either be republican, libertarian, or oh-my-god-we-need-to-legalize-pot-right-now nut jobs.
Now that's an interesting way to look at it, torrmoz. How many people will opt not to vote for any mayoral candidate, thus leaving the section blank?
You didn't vote? Chickenshit!
Decline of Los Angeles? I mean maybe things haven't gone as well as they could have as of late, but I think it is ridiculous for Kotkin, or for that matter anyone who has lived in LA for more than 10 years, to say the city was better off then than it is now.
I agree we should always look ahead to an improved future, but we should not discredit the length we've come.
I need to research on his actual accomplishments. Since, I had so much bias towards him for being such an attention whore. He reminds me of a 2pac song "All Bout U."
I agree with paul that the city is better than it was 10 years ago (minus the traffic congestion) but it should also be credited to local district's politician.
Government is a reflection of the people it serves... take a look in the mirror Los Angeles.
I know Craig X well and while he might come across as a oh-my-god-we-need-to-legalize-pot-right-now nut jobs, he's incredibly well read and informed.
Of course he's a good mayor.. the roads are in better shape than before, and crime is (was) at the lowest level in 40 years, he got Prop R to pass. I think his problem was that he tried to do too much.. he should focus on a couple of key things for his 2nd term..
Given a choice between mediocre and nothing else I'll vote mediocre thank you very much. And I WILL vote. We all should if we are able.
I will never vote for Tony Villar. Scumbag changed his name to get latino votes and avoid having the press find out about his previous convictions. Who here would feel good about sending their kid to a public school in LA? Why do I see more graffitti and trash around the town than ever before? Why are businesses leaving LA? Tony "villaragosa" Villar.
He did not change his name to get Latino votes. I'm offended that you think Latino voters only care about a last name. That's like saying Barack Obama paraded out his Kenyan absentee-father to win the black vote. (Which I don't believe at all)
It is public record that he changed his name and it is public record about his convictions. So it's not like he was really trying to hide anything. He could have had his record expunged and thus, completely sealed to any reporter worth his/her credentials.
I wouldn't feel good about sending my kid to a public school because the Los Angeles city council and School Board is corrupt and out of touch with the realities facing the school system in Los Angeles. Last time I checked, the mayor of LA is not in charge of the school system. He is not in charge of the policing. If you have issues with graffitti and trash around town perhaps you should be more careful in who you elect to represent you in the city council. LA is a progressive era city government, which means that the power is not focused on the mayor as is the case in NYC or Chicago.
As for businesses leaving LA, last time I checked our governator has done a terrible job keeping business in the entire state. Villaraigosa has gone to a lot of trouble to court overseas interests on behalf of the city.
Get your facts straight.
Latino voters do vote for latinos based on name, just like some women voted for Hillary because she's a woman, and how Obama got 92% of the black vote. You HOPE people to vote that way, but they do.
I too wish there was some stronger competition for mayor. It's unfortunate that there isn't, it allows Villaraigosa to spend the city's political capital, all while many have claimed that his behaviors have demonstrated a disregard for ethics and accountability.
I also wish there was stronger competition because I'm not a fan of Villaraigosa. Right off the bat he presented no real power to save the South Central Farm; many of his downtown development priorities are backwards in my mind; his much-touted Safer Cities initiative with Bratton has been hugely expensive and has caused human rights violations.
And more recently, he and the folks at the Simon Weisenthal Center publicly stated that Israel should use whatever force it desires to defend itself from Gaza rockets (by the way the simon weisenthal center sponsors the Museum of Tolerance. ahem). And after the public's outcry against the statement, he still defended it.
With all this, whose interests does he really have in mind?