Y.J. Draiman would take Mayor Eric Garcetti’s job by boosting business. David Hernandez would supplant the mayor by building infrastructure. And Garcetti would be re-elected mayor by having already led Los Angeles.
They were among the dozen candidates to formally declare they would run for mayor before the deadline ends at noon today. Candidates have until Dec. 7 to collect enough signatures to get onto the March 7 city election ballot.
“We have people filing even today for mayor,” said Tom Reindel, public services administrator for the Los Angeles City Clerk-Election Division, which remained open during the Veterans Day holiday.
“If someone shows up at 12:01 p.m. (today), they will not be processed.”
Besides the mayor’s race, elections will be held for city attorney, controller, eight-odd numbered council districts and even-numbered Los Angeles school board and community college districts.
Garcetti, a native of Encino, was voted into office in May 2013 after a bruising battle with former City Controller Wendy Greuel, a native of North Hollywood.
Highlights during his term include passing a $15 minimum wage, a new contract with Department of Water and Power workers, a Los Angeles bid for the 2024 Olympics, and the recent passage of the Measure M transit tax.
After announcing he’d run again more than a year ago, he has raised $2.25 million toward his re-election bid, according to a Sept. 30 campaign filing, the latest available.
Among the dozen challengers for the $249,000 mayoral seat were five from the San Fernando Valley: Draiman, a Northridge East Neighborhood Council board member from Northridge; Hernandez, a community advocate from Valley Village; Rudy Melendez, a laborer/artist from North Hollywood; Eric Preven, a writer/producer from Studio City; and Diane “Pinky” Harman, a retired educator/actor from Northridge.
Draiman, a retired real estate developer, had run for mayor three years ago. He says he’s running again to make a difference: in energy and water conservation; and in bringing business back to Los Angeles.
“That is key to this city,” said Draiman, 67, a registered independent. “You bring business back to the city, and you employ the unemployed. I am very determined. I want this city to move forward. It’s ridiculous; we’re going backwards.”
http://www.dailynews.com/government-and-politics/20161111/a-dozen-hopefuls-step-up-to-the-starting-line-for-los-angeles-mayoral-race
http://www.capoliticalreview.
http://www.citywatchla.com/index.php/archive/9119-two-major-lawsuits-claim-la-illegally-collected-more-than-2-billion-in-taxes
Two Major Lawsuits Claim LA Illegally Collected More Than $2 Billion in Taxes
Good grief—it looks like the City of Los Angeles stole as much money as Bernie Madoff—and he is in jail and those responsible for the LA thefts get re-elected. Criminals in the courtroom (illegal aliens can now be attorneys in California and New York). In LA the city stole billions by illegally charging taxpayers and ratepayers.
I guess they hoped they would never be caught. Now the problem will be returning the money to those they decided to steal from.
“The first lawsuit, Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, was filed in December, 2009. It alleges that that the 10% Telephone Users Tax was an illegal tax, resulting in the collection of approximately $750 million between 2006 and 2008. With interest, the potential liability to the City is more than $1 billion.
The second class action lawsuit, Patrick Eck v. City of Los Angeles, was filed in April, 2015. It alleges that the undisclosed 8% Transfer Fee levied by the Department of Water and Power is an illegal tax. This has resulted in the collection of over $1.25 billion from Ratepayers since the passage of Proposition 26 in November, 2010.”
Obama famous said, “so sue me”. Guess that disease has spread to all of government—try to get away with criminal action; refusal to enforce the laws, then when caught say, “so sue me”. Billions stolen is not a math mistake—it is a criminal act. Maybe Eric Garcetti should need a good attorney.
Photo courtesy of channone, flickr
Two Major Lawsuits Claim LA Illegally Collected More Than $2 Billion in Taxes
Written by Jack Humphreville, City Watch LA, 6/9/15
LA WATCHDOG-The City of Los Angeles is the defendant in two major class action lawsuits alleging that the City illegally collected over $2 billion in taxes from the Taxpayers and Ratepayers that were not approved by the voters.
The City, Mayor Eric Garcetti, City Council President Herb Wesson, Budget and Finance Chair Paul Krekorian, and the rest of the City Council have a massive conflict of interest as they attempt to minimize the return of our money that was illegally collected while we, their constituents, want full recovery of our hard earned money.
The first lawsuit, Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, was filed in December, 2009. It alleges that that the 10% Telephone Users Tax was an illegal tax, resulting in the collection of approximately $750 million between 2006 and 2008. With interest, the potential liability to the City is more than $1 billion.
Parenthetically, in a special election held in February, 2008, 66% of the voters approved the 9% Communication Users Tax (Proposition S). This replaced the 10% Telephone Users Tax.
The second class action lawsuit, Patrick Eck v. City of Los Angeles, was filed in April, 2015. It alleges that the undisclosed 8% Transfer Fee levied by the Department of Water and Power is an illegal tax. This has resulted in the collection of over $1.25 billion from Ratepayers since the passage of Proposition 26 in November, 2010. The plaintiff is requesting the elimination of the 8% Transfer Fee ($266 million for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2015) and the return of over $1.25 billion to Ratepayers.
Another lawsuit, Tyler Chapman v. City of Los Angeles, was filed in January, 2015. It also involves the illegal the 8% Transfer Fee.
The City has been less than transparent about the potential liability involving the $1 billion liability associated with Ardon litigation. To the contrary, the City failed to disclose its potential liability in the contingency section of its audit financial statements, referring only to a class action litigation. The City is continuing to fight this litigation and its certification as a class action, all on our nickel.
