Los Angeles City Council corrupt politicians ‘give permission’ for exercise of the rights of Occupy – obtaining in return – a controversial “responsible banking incentive” measure.
Why haven’t the over 1500 Occupy groups adopted the Los Angeles City Council model of ‘doing business?’ Our City of Los Angeles is the sole poster child when it comes to corporatist, special interest money spoiling good government. The Los Angeles City Council politicians, spearheaded by Richard Alarcón and Bill Rosendahl who became local governance’s heroes by bamboozling naive Occupy Los Angeles participants by supporting their Free Speech rights with photo-ops between movie premieres or parties and a broken, corrupt political system.
Though Chris Hedges’ rubric (coming on the heels on this article that began as a facebook note) that the 99% Occupy movement will say no to any co-opting by democrat party politicians or democratic organizations like moveon, Los Angeles city-bred Occupy movement has carved itself out to be an exception to that rule.
The Occupy Los Angeles folks ought to have caught on their role as pawns in the political game in advancing a three year process delay in Council action to implement a controversial “responsible banking incentive” measure – (in a cash-strapped budget) that was tied to: “the continuation of the peaceful and vibrant exercise in First Amendment Rights carried out by “Occupy Los Angeles” on the City Hall lawn.’
How much does this “responsible banking incentive” cost the taxpayers in Los Angeles?
Los Angeles faces tens of million of dollars in additional borrowing costs after the City Council told anti-Wall Street protesters the city intends to cut ties with banks involved in financial wrongdoing, City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana said.
The city may have to pay $27.8 million in termination fees and replacement costs in just one program if it’s prohibited from doing business with banks providing letters of credit for an infrastructure program, Santana said today in a memo to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and city leaders. Additional debt service would cost $14.9 million a year if it has to refinance commercial paper into long-term debt at higher interest rates, Santana said in a telephone interview.
Council members in the nation’s second-largest city by population passed a resolution Oct. 12 in support of the demonstrations and promising to accelerate the issuance of “report cards” rating banks on such things as foreclosures and charitable giving. The vote came after three hours of public comment, much of it by participants in Occupy Los Angeles who’ve camped in front of City Hall since Oct. 1.
“The financial repercussions will be immense” if the city’s governing body instructs his office to stop doing business with many of it current lenders, Santana said in the report.
Council member Richard Alarcon, who sponsored the resolution, said Santana’s reaction showed Occupy Los Angeles is having an effect.
Yes, Los Angeles is on the list. And in deep denial of the cost of “responsible banking incentive” associated with “permissions” resolved to exercise rights.
7 U.S. Cities on the Verge of Bankruptcy
Last week, lawmakers asked city analysts to continue developing a plan to use the city’s financial heft to punish misbehaving financial institutions. On Tuesday, City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana issued a dire warning: Such a move could cost the city at least $58 million.
So it’s not $27.8 million. Only one of a number of costs of Occupy Los Angeles borne by the local taxpayer is now: $58 million. Pass the hat around, Occupy Los Angeles, for the saw has proven true: “Be careful for what you wish for, you might get it” – in terms of ‘permission’ given by corrupt politicians to ‘allow’ ‘Free’ exercise of Constitutionally-protected rights.
Though police brutality is coursing through most other Occupy movements, Los Angeles Occupy has sold out, trading security in exchange for liberty (to act on one’s own behalf) – and losing both. (Ben Franklin)
Occupy Wall Street participants have cause to be wary of ‘progressives’ and Democrats. The Occupy Los Angeles group has a cozy, co-opted, conflicted, and hypocritical relationship with the City Council that represents the Corporatist Financial/Banking Interests – the very target of the Occupy movement world-wide.
Obama’s trail of broken promises and continuation of Bush policies has worsened the disparity between the 400 ruling family elite and the 99% of the rest of us. His beholdence to banksters and their stolen Worker created wealth from Worker productivity over a thirty year period culminated in the explosion of Revolutionary Occupy groups numbering over 200 in the US and over 800 world-wide. The Occupy movement arose from millions of People being foreclosed and losing their incomes after voting for ‘change’ in 2008. So look out for any Democratic attempts to coopt the movement for political purposes cast in the same deception the Repugnantcons used to pressure the Fed to employ a twist (not used in 50 years and then with mixed results) to keep the markets and economy depressed until after the November 2012 elections – to lock-in an executive Repugnantcon win.
“Progressive leaders” and Democrat groups who supported and then betrayed by Obama and his policies – own the suffering wrought by those unjust elite-enrichments at the cost of the middle class – now vanished.
Well, in Los Angeles, the democrat politicians who rammed the sports stadium down the taxpayers’ throats, Have Coopted the Occupy movement with the Los Angeles City Council voting permission for the Occupiers to camp on City Hall grounds.
Last Tuesday, council members Dennis Zine, Eric Garcetti, Ed Reyes and Rosendahl toured the campsite on Temple Street to get a little face time with the L.A. Occupiers – which would make a great name for our new NFL team given the dirty deal in the works to stuff Farmer’s Field down our throats.
For decades, back-room deals have been brokered for the benefit of developers, public unions and other power interests and high rollers, the public be damned! The Occupy Los Angeles protesters are being played for fools by the Spring Street Cynics, another good name for our NFL team. Grateful protesters smiled at Mayor Villaraigosa as he handed out rain ponchos for the benefit of the cameras. But the real smiles are on the faces of developers and union reps when the mayor and council members hand out your money.
Councilman Rosendahl was heard to tell a protester, “We are not your enemies.” Perhaps. But you’re definitely not a friend.
Real spirit of our 99% Occupy movement can be found on the Right Coast:
Hours after it kicked off, the march arrived in Washington Square Park, having lost none of its energy. While doctors in white coats, part of the “Heathcare for the 99 percent” movement, shared heartrending stories of patients without adequate insurance and college kids sat in a circle and planned possible school building occupations, the marchers took a breather and the cops grabbed some food.
Then as suddenly as they appeared, the marchers were off again and it was the cops, reacting slowly, who blocked streets and disrupted traffic.
“Whose streets? Our streets!” boomed the protesters as they streamed out of the park toward a rally in Times Square. As they made a right onto 6th Avenue, the Occupy Wall Street crew began chanting, “We are the 99 percent and so are you!” A crowd soon formed across the broad avenue as daytrippers and tourists snapped photos and shot cell phone video of the crowd.
“Stop watching, start walking,” a young woman in the middle of the march yelled, and she was soon joined by a chorus. Across 6th Avenue, some people waved, some smiled and some looked away. But a woman with a small child holding her hand moved forward and took a tentative step into the crosswalk. The crowd beckoned her forward, and while the young boy looked wary, she coaxed him on. In an instant, the crowd erupted in a loud cheer and gleeful applause as the pair crossed the street and joined the march. With two more recruits in tow, the women and men of Occupy Wall Street seemed to double the decibels as they launched into their signature chant: “We are the 99 percent!”
The flat-foots were caught flatfooted as Occupy Wall Street marchers took to the streets of New York City.
Part of this effect, the above studies show, comes from fixed leisure budgets. If I shell out $50 for a Cubs ticket, that is $50 I would not spend at a local bar or restaurant. Stadiums often “cannibalize” other urban firms, pulling business away rather than spilling it over. Behemoth retailers have long displayed this tendency, with Walmart as the formidable example.
And yet cities, large and small, still cling to these sizable hopes:
Los Angeles: Last month, after years of efforts, the city council unanimously approved a $1.5 billion deal to bring a NFL team to the City of Angels. The arrangement is reportedly side-stepping subsidies, with the financing coming from city in legally binding bonds. Right out of the box, however, Tim Leiweke, the main developer, has tripped in the blighted neighborhood that will host the project.
Mark Bergen reports that there are many research reports on public subsidies for private development, particularly sports stadiums. Bergen writes that “the consensus among economists on solid research is pretty clear: ‘There is little evidence of large increases in income or employment associated with the introduction of professional sports or the construction of new stadiums.’
Yet many cities, even in today’s economic environment, continue to tout similar projects of questionable public value. They include Los Angeles, the Twin Cities, Chicago, Boston, Washington, D.C., Cleveland, and Charlotte. Congress for New Urbanism president—and former Milwaukee Mayor—John Norquist tells Bergen, “Places that have gotten in trouble are the ones that spend way too much money on convention centers, stadiums and malls.”