This is an archive of a past election. See http://www.smartvoter.org/ca/la/ for current information. |
| |||||
| |||||
Candidates Answer Questions on the Issues Council Member; City of Los Angeles; District 4 | |||||
|
The questions were prepared by the League of Women Voters of Los Angeles and asked of all candidates for this office.
See below for questions on
Most Important Issue,
Budget Shortfall,
Your District
Click on a name for candidate information. See also more information about this contest.
Answer from Sheila Irani:
Answer from Step Jones:
What makes me different? I'm not interested in legislating your social affairs; my only tenet is that you don't harm other people.
Things your previous and present City Council do will continue to affect your life morally and socially, I believe we can make our own social and moral decisions.
Vaping, condoms, Iran, elephant trainers, creating days for different things: eg. renters day, El Salvador day, and Jiff the Pomeranian day, Rialto schools, Philippines independence, meatless Mondays, banning genetically modified crops in the City of LA, and Fresno.
I plan to focus City of LA's budget of 8 Billion dollars a year, not including forward obligations.
I believe the LAPD should be the highest paid police department in the country, and with being the highest paid zero tolerance in performing their duties.
Fire and paramedics should be the highest paid in the country, and with being the highest paid zero tolerance in performing their duties.
Streets need to be repaved.
Sidewalks need to be fixed.
Homeless should be taken care of with a coordinated effort between public and private agencies.
Parks need to be maintained and beautified.
Our streets need to be better illuminated in many areas and junk needs to be picked up.
Jobs.
Seniors.
There are serious issues in our City so it is imperative to stay focused on what's important to our lives.
I will not be engaged in your moral or social affairs.
Voting for me will be a vote to stop the non-sense so we can get back to running the City of Los Angeles. Answer from Rostom "Ross" Sarkissian:
We consistently spend more than we take in because of the skyrocketing costs of pensions and health care. We will continue to face budget deficits until we fundamentally address these issues. Answer from Tomás O'Grady:
Answer from Teddy Davis:
As Council Member, I would push for Measure R 2.0, a county-wide half-penny sales tax on the 2016 ballot, with the following provisions:
(1) Connect the Valley to the Westside with transit;
(2) Accelerate the subway down Wilshire;
(3) Connect our transit lines to the airport;
(4) Convert the Orange Line dedicated busway to rail; and
(5) Build More Parking at Local Transit Stops
Let's get it done in 10 years instead of 30! Together, we can leave behind a more livable Los Angeles. Answer from Fred Mariscal:
1- We need structural reform of the City's financial affairs by placing on the ballot a measure that requires the City to "Live Within Its Means."
This common sense amendment would require the city to develop and adhere to a Five Year Financial Plan, approve two year balanced budgets based on Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and, over the next ten years, provide adequate funding for the elimination of the City's unfunded $10 billion pension liability and the repair and maintenance of our streets, parks, sidewalks, and the rest of our crumbling infrastructure. Answer from David Ryu:
I plan to deal with this as a Councilmember the same way I am running for Council - by listening to residents. CD4 residents' voice is my voice, and residents can expect to be in communication with me on the issues that matter most to them - development, mansionization, open space. Being elected to City Council is a position of trust, and I intend to fulfill that trust if elected. Answer from Jay Beeber:
The next most important issue is over development. As a city, we have not done a good job in this area and it has negatively impacted our quality of life. City Council districts have traditionally been run like individual fiefdoms. This is especially true with regards to land use issues and development. Development projects which require zoning changes or variances are either approved or not at the whim of the Councilmember. Far from being a "nation of laws, not men", when it comes to development in LA, the "men" rule, not the laws. This must change. City Council members must be made to adhere to the zoning rules, and especially the Community or Specific Plan, and this must be enshrined in our city code and/or charter. We must also rein in the abuse of the 245 motion Councilmembers use to overrule the decisions of the planning commission. I would favor a prohibition on Council Members from using a 245 motion to overrule planning decisions for the benefit any political contributors.
In addition, for large projects, we should begin to view development from an area-wide perspective, not property-by-property. The are some areas of the city which are so overdeveloped that critical services, such as public schools, police and fire services, water and sewerage, as well as transportation infrastructure cannot reasonably handle the added impact of new major construction. Large development projects in these areas should be deferred unless those impacts can be mitigated.
We must also speed up the reforms to the city's Mansionization Ordinance. This ordinance, which was enacted in 2007 has never worked to accomplish what it was meant to do. We currently allow too much house to be built on too little property. This drives up the price of housing and makes LA unaffordable for the middle class. After seven years, the council is finally getting around to tackling this issue. But they tell us it will take another 18 to 24 months to come up with a new ordinance. There's no reason it should take this long to fix something that's been broken for seven years. I'll commit to pushing for changes to be finished within 6 months of my taking office.
I have pledge to have the most transparent city council office in the history of Los Angeles. I will:
1. Promptly disclose whenever my office is officially approached about a development project in CD 4, whether by the developer or any person or group representing the developer. This information will be posted on my Council office website. Neighborhood Councils and other groups (homeowners/residential/business) in the area of the project will be promptly notified to check for information on this website.
3. Immediately post any changes contemplated in CD 4 by any City Department that would make changes to the Community Plans, i.e. Bike Plan, Mobility Element, and Recode LA. Too often the majority of stakeholders receive no advanced notice of these changes.
4. Faithfully follow the policies for decision makers as outlined in each Community Plan in CD 4, as well as Policy 3.3.2 of the Framework Element.
5. Require the City to officially document and demonstrate that the infrastructure in the area of any contemplated project (requiring discretionary approval) will not be threatened in relation to user needs. This would include particularly critical services, such as water and sewerage, as well as public schools, police and fire services, and transportation infrastructure. Answer from Joan Pelico:
Three key issues I will address once elected are:
Bringing Real Customer Service to City Hall + On day one every resident and business in the 4th District will get fantastic, friendly, responsive and effective service from my office and staff. Public service is exactly that but somehow that message has largely been lost within the City bureaucracy. I believe part of implementing Mayor Garcetti's "back to basics" approach to government is assuring that every City employee has been trained in customer service, that every call to City Hall is returned within 24-hours if not within the same day, and that every service from pothole repair to bulky item pick-up has specific performance goals based on data, that performance is tracked and reported and that Department leadership is held responsible for that performance.
Finding Realistic Solutions to Fix Our Infrastructure + Streets, sidewalks, trees, water pipes, power lines, sewer pipes: these are the backbone of City and they are broken, crumbling, exploding and leaking. The good news is there are solutions. My passion is Public Works and I will continue the work I have already done to restore services like tree-trimming, expand street resurfacing through efficiency, partnership and partnering with the County and private-sector to acquire more asphalt and aggregate for less. I will expand ongoing efforts to bring transparency to DWP and will establish a goal and implementation plan to upgrade our water and power infrastructure. I have too much experience helping residents and businesses recover after DWP water pipes, over one-hundred years in age, exploded and spilled water and damage in all directions. Fixing our infrastructure is not just about cost-avoidance, liability and reliability, it is about creating a world-class city that has a solid, stable background where families and businesses can take roots, grow and flourish.
Development and the Ability to Bring Stakeholders Together + I have worked every day and will work every day to find solutions all sides can support but in the real world you often have controversy and passionate disagreement. Whether it is the development of a new hotel, a small restaurant asking for an alcohol license, or the finding the right permit parking solution, I have a track record of bringing folks together, easing tension and finding solutions. My ability to roll-up my sleeves, mediate disputes, and find solutions means projects will move forward fasters, it will mean less expensive litigation and it will mean a more business-friendly Hollywood. Answer from Steve Veres:
Answer from Wally Knox:
Answer from Mike Schaefer:
Answer from Wally Knox:
Answer from Tomás O'Grady:
Answer from Steve Veres:
Answer from David Ryu:
Answer from Joan Pelico:
To address the structural deficit we have to limit future liabilities, both in terms of pension and healthcare but also trying to reduce the lawsuit buffet that is sidewalk slip and fall, lapd and lafd legal settlements. Most of all however we have to deliver services efficiently and we have to grow. Growth in employment and investment will do much more for improving our budget than yet another round of cuts to public services.
My five priorities for the budget include:
1. Challenging existing service delivery to do more with less + as I mentioned my passion is Public Works. The problem with our streets for example is not just an issue of funding. It is an issue of the equipment used, how the asphalt is purchased, inefficient labor rules and practices, and targeting individual problems rather than systematically upgrading our entire system. We can correct these issues and be able to do more with less. Answer from Mike Schaefer:
Answer from Teddy Davis:
The growth in pension costs is adversely affecting the city's ability to deliver basic city services like fixing streets, repairing sidewalks, and trimming trees.
I have leveled with folks about the need for city employees to contribute more towards the cost of their pensions and health care.
We need to take on pension reform to ensure a secure retirement for workers and funding for basic city services. Answer from Sheila Irani:
Answer from Step Jones:
"Work out your own salvation"
When I was growing up in La Porte, Indiana my mother had this huge needlepoint above the sink in our kitchen that had these words on it.
You may think this needlepoint had religious overtones, but it really didn't. What my mother was trying to get through to the kids is mind your own business, and work to better yourself. Don't worry about what other people where doing, worry about what you are doing with your life.
That brings us the current council, they spend a lot of time worrying about other communities and countries, instead of worrying about the City of LA. The council spent time on Iran, Fresno, the Philippines, as an example.
What should we be worrying about and fixing is the budget of LA, which is over 8 Billion dollars a year. Really don't you think the City Council should keep its nose in Los Angeles?
Let us talk about the elephant in the room, (although the City Council this year took up elephants and bull hooks, but the law doesn't take effect until 2017, so you have time to park your elephant outside the city. I know I am looking for a parking space now.)
Of the 8 billion dollar budget over a billion dollars in going to pensions. Perhaps the City made bad deals in the past, but just because they made some bad deals, doesn't mean we can't take a look at what is going on the pension arena.
Here is a peek at what is going on reported by the LA Times pensions per year. The median income in LA per person is $9,567.
Deaton, Ronald F
Department of Water and Power $317,876
Salas, Frank
Department of Water and Power $290,707
Parks, Bernard C
Police and fire $265,090
Lane, Kathryn E
Department of Water and Power $217,843
Hokinson, Thomas C
Department of Water and Power $207,891
Gascon, David J
Police and fire $206,780
Driscoll, John
Other agencies $205,794
Seaton, Bruce
Other agencies $203,917
Davis, Julius I
Police and fire $203,360
Gewe, Gerald A
Department of Water and Power $199,906
Mathis, Darrell G
Department of Water and Power $195,989
Bamattre, William R
Police and fire $189,582
Neamy, Robert D
Police and fire $187,752
Comrie, Keith
Other agencies $186,368
Kawasaki, Lillian Y
Department of Water and Power $181,848
Horii, Robert
Other agencies $181,565
Carey, John
Other agencies $179,001
Moore, Betty
Other agencies $178,118
Mccarthy, Thomas J
Department of Water and Power $175,612
York, Margaret A
Police and fire $174,882
Pannell Jr, Willie L
Police and fire $174,709
Manning, Donald O
Police and fire $174,340
Pomeroy, Martin H
Police and fire $174,238
Miyoshi, Kenneth S
Department of Water and Power $173,705
Lee, Jerald
Other agencies $170,088
Sporrer, Louis L
Police and fire $169,737
Moore, Maurice R
Police and fire $169,413
Bostic, Michael J
Police and fire $168,650
Smith, Bradley
Other agencies $167,751
Collins, Jack G
Police and fire $167,293
Nichols, Norman E
Department of Water and Power $167,129
Puglia, Frederick
Department of Water and Power $166,541
Wickser, James F
Department of Water and Power $166,062
Parker, Thomas P
Department of Water and Power $165,763
Howe, Con
Other agencies $164,873
La Chasse, Royal S
Police and fire $164,722
Brunengo, Gino P
Department of Water and Power $164,364
Bergmann, Ronald W
Police and fire $163,976
Mattingly, Joseph
Other agencies $163,652
Burt, Robert C
Department of Water and Power $163,053
Burt, Raymond C
Department of Water and Power $162,593
Gil, Robert S
Police and fire $161,996
Spring, William K
Department of Water and Power $161,852
Spease, Robert A
Department of Water and Power $161,198
Weber, Kenneth G
Department of Water and Power $161,085
Rock, Robert F
Police and fire $160,805
Munson, Scott J
Department of Water and Power $160,049
Koenig, Daniel R
Police and fire $159,584
Mccarley, William R
Department of Water and Power $159,382
Miera, Antonio
Other agencies $159,325
Miroballi, Daniel E
Department of Water and Power $159,151
Currie, Phyllis E
Department of Water and Power $159,073
Powers, Norman J
Department of Water and Power $158,923
Vernon, Robert L
Police and fire $158,654
Duncan, Charles F
Department of Water and Power $158,341
Mollinedo, Manuel
Other agencies $157,983
Chase, Robert
Other agencies $157,928
Clark, Stephen A
Department of Water and Power $157,442
Leap, John M
Police and fire $157,261
Mc Murray, James S
Police and fire $157,261
Hamer, Bruce N
Department of Water and Power $156,992
Kuebler, Bruce W
Department of Water and Power $156,435
Parker, Junior L
Police and fire $156,397
Furuta, Sam
Other agencies $156,106
Parsons, Davis R
Police and fire $155,625
Fratt, Jack
Other agencies $155,592
Thomas, Thomas
Other agencies $155,512
Howery, Donald
Other agencies $155,471
Drummond, Craig G
Police and fire $155,264
Giordano, Anthony E
Police and fire $155,048
Miller, Donald
Other agencies $154,399
Carter Jr, Cayler L
Police and fire $153,784
Iannone, Marvin D
Police and fire $153,484
Holmes, Fontayne
Other agencies $153,411
Cathey, Dean E
Police and fire $153,233
Mc Coy, Ronald A
Department of Water and Power $153,104
Bisson, Wilfred W
Police and fire $152,385
Roberts, Alfred J
Department of Water and Power $151,627
Wah, Linda
Department of Water and Power $151,622
Yamamoto, Noriyuki
Department of Water and Power $151,526
Lorenzen, Thomas W
Police and fire $150,667
Paniccia, Valentino
Police and fire $150,611
Waters, Daniel W
Department of Water and Power $150,419
Keddington, Leon H
Department of Water and Power $150,263
Cotton, Eldon A
Department of Water and Power $150,204
Butler, William K
Department of Water and Power $150,187
Monk, B.C.
Department of Water and Power $150,080
Sosa, Estella F
Department of Water and Power $149,500
Pearce, Ward
Other agencies $149,161
Martin, Robert S
Department of Water and Power $149,148
Russell, Frances M
Department of Water and Power $149,144
Evansen, Allen R
Police and fire $148,572
Pinney, Garry
Other agencies $148,518
Feldman, Jack J
Department of Water and Power $148,349
Hillmann, Michael R
Police and fire $148,304
Donohugh, Patrick
Other agencies $148,192
Aguallo, Robert
Other agencies $147,810
Schumann, John W
Department of Water and Power $147,795
Vigue, James D
Department of Water and Power $147,541
Yee, Stephen
Other agencies $147,523
Banks, Ronald C
Police and fire $147,298
Kodama, Mitchell M
Department of Water and Power $146,796
Berg, Gregory R
Police and fire $146,580
De Feo, Robert J
Police and fire $146,574
Robles, Manolo C
Department of Water and Power $146,515
Haase, Carl D
Department of Water and Power $146,433
Gobler, Pat
Other agencies $146,410
Johnson, Gerald L
Police and fire $145,675
Noyes, Kent W
Department of Water and Power $145,402
Millard, Robert
Other agencies $145,061
Kroeger, Frank
Other agencies $144,904
Shepard, Dorothy A
Department of Water and Power $144,895
Custer, David E
Department of Water and Power $144,522
Ward, William B
Police and fire $144,292
Wong, Patrick P
Department of Water and Power $144,011
Spratt, John M
Department of Water and Power $143,955
Bastian, Robert B
Department of Water and Power $143,474
Wemmer, Ricard C
Police and fire $143,264
Blain, Alvin
Other agencies $143,177
Williams, Gary S
Police and fire $142,727
Merritt, Bradley R
Police and fire $142,727
Peterson, Dennis E
Department of Water and Power $142,288
Powell, F. Rennie
Department of Water and Power $142,205
Wyss, Gerard A
Department of Water and Power $141,856
Tubert, Patricia
Other agencies $141,628
Scott, Gregory
Other agencies $141,249
Bayne, John F
Department of Water and Power $141,131
Kasner, Kenneth B
Department of Water and Power $141,129
Howe, Merton W
Police and fire $140,808
Holmes, Lawrence
Other agencies $140,799
Dinse, Charles F
Police and fire $140,564
Badgett, John D
Police and fire $140,473
Mukai, Yoshiko
Other agencies $140,446
White, John D
Police and fire $140,366
Kroeker, Mark A
Police and fire $140,366
Mahoney, Marilyn E
Department of Water and Power $140,280
Wade, Barry M
Police and fire $139,998
Billesbach, Jon L
Department of Water and Power $139,887
Valkoff, Michaelyn
Department of Water and Power $139,878
Hall, Vernon
Other agencies $139,720
Jensen, Robert
Other agencies $139,441
Escalante, Jessie T
Department of Water and Power $139,400
Bonneau, Richard E
Police and fire $138,961
De Vore, Charles L
Department of Water and Power $138,876
Vallow, John R
Department of Water and Power $138,671
Hansohn, Robert B
Police and fire $138,622
Cudio, Carlo S
Police and fire $138,534
Kawaguchi, Bobby H
Department of Water and Power $138,471
Tillman, Donald
Other agencies $137,956
Wong, Dora
Department of Water and Power $137,644
Conner, Thomas
Other agencies $137,641
Fricke, Allen D
Department of Water and Power $137,547
Gates, Daryl F
Police and fire $137,534
Cordova, Arnold R
Department of Water and Power $137,477
Washington, Murdie
Other agencies $137,401
Lawler, Gordon
Other agencies $137,368
Callahan, John W
Police and fire $137,058
Pesqueira, Paul S
Police and fire $137,010
Gorman, Orpha
Other agencies $136,895
Rowe, Stephen
Other agencies $136,866
Wainer, Richard
Other agencies $136,797
Sizemore, Marcella M
Department of Water and Power $136,705
Buehring, Norman L
Department of Water and Power $136,508
Longley, Edward
Other agencies $136,452
Brennan, Gary J
Police and fire $136,435
Lewis, Bayan
Police and fire $136,362
Sturdevant, Thera
Other agencies $136,157
Krokes, Lawrence J
Police and fire $135,931
Orosel, James R
Department of Water and Power $135,808
Haynie, Glenn E
Department of Water and Power $135,580
Spitser, James
Other agencies $135,467
Schlotman, Edward
Other agencies $135,436
Georgeson, Duane L
Department of Water and Power $135,316
Farrell, Edward
Other agencies $135,256
Peters, Oscar
Other agencies $135,125
Beck, George N
Police and fire $135,116
Pentram, Robert A
Department of Water and Power $135,065
Van Deest, Ronald D
Department of Water and Power $134,625
Langewisch, Gary R
Department of Water and Power $134,607
Platt, Raymond J
Department of Water and Power $134,600
Bartel, Joan
Other agencies $134,587
Hernandez, John
Other agencies $134,433
Vranicar, Martin
Other agencies $134,217
Werlich, John
Other agencies $134,002
Bonaventura, Thomas
Other agencies $133,756
Flodine, Ronald L
Department of Water and Power $133,599
Lanski, Thomas A
Department of Water and Power $133,401
Martin, Robert
Other agencies $133,131
Hunter, Marciene
Department of Water and Power $132,645
Forsyth, Robert C
Department of Water and Power $132,429
Martin, Patricia A
Department of Water and Power $132,282
Shiner, Philip
Other agencies $132,276
Wilkinson, Michael A
Department of Water and Power $132,255
Yoshimura, Robert Y
Department of Water and Power $131,927
Reddick, Ronald
Other agencies $131,922
Zimmon, Garrett W
Police and fire $131,867
Hilker, Mary Lou
Other agencies $131,861
Giles, Kenneth
Other agencies $131,835
James, Curtis W
Police and fire $131,595
Szymanski, Jerry C
Police and fire $131,581
Birkenbach, Adam
Other agencies $131,331
Frankle, Ronald A
Police and fire $131,091
Simmons, Robert L
Department of Water and Power $131,079
Olsen, Raymond A
Police and fire $131,000
Ward, John
Other agencies $130,877
Voors, David B
Department of Water and Power $130,848
Lillo, Eric A
Police and fire $130,545
Bustos, Richard
Department of Water and Power $130,494
Hunt, Matthew V
Police and fire $130,440
Mathieu, Odell
Department of Water and Power $130,254
Carr, Robert W
Department of Water and Power $130,253
Levant, Glenn A
Police and fire $130,058
Culling, Claudia
Other agencies $130,006
Littleton, Michael E
Police and fire $129,953
Kalish, David J
Police and fire $129,947
Mcreynolds, Laurent
Department of Water and Power $129,821
Holland, Heber L
Department of Water and Power $129,506
Davis, Judith B
Department of Water and Power $129,450
Lembke, Eldred M
Police and fire $129,413
Monroe, Jack L
Police and fire $129,315
Dotson, David D
Police and fire $129,303
Agopian, Robert P
Department of Water and Power $129,253
Chambers, William M
Police and fire $128,827
Kirkwood, Bernadette S
Department of Water and Power $128,646
Whitney, Dennis B
Department of Water and Power $128,506
Buccat, Michael W
Department of Water and Power $128,503
Booth, William D
Police and fire $128,479
Garcia, Benjamin C
Department of Water and Power $128,274
Pardave, David
Department of Water and Power $128,067
Kim, Paul M
Police and fire $128,057
Davis, William P
Department of Water and Power $127,943
Moran, William
Other agencies $127,791
Langley, James
Other agencies $127,666
Biagi, Delwin
Other agencies $127,640
Glenn, Byron E
Department of Water and Power $127,625
Ward, Mark S
Department of Water and Power $127,507
Herrera, Jess J
Department of Water and Power $127,258
Beal, Laura Johnson
Other agencies $127,183
Culotta, Albert J
Department of Water and Power $127,100
Cowen, Alan R
Police and fire $126,831
Martinez, Frank
Other agencies $126,828
Menkus, Royce
Other agencies $126,824
Rollo, Bruce
Other agencies $126,726
Osugi, Victor
Other agencies $126,593
Pinder, Wilma
Other agencies $126,461
Buchholz, Duane D
Department of Water and Power $126,375
Really?
Step Jones for City Council let's take on the issues that matter to LA. The City first and always. Answer from Rostom "Ross" Sarkissian:
These options included compensation reform, consolidation, Fire department reform, strategic outsourcing, use of part time employees, and public private partnerships, among others recommendations. This serves as a starting point in acting honestly to eliminate the City's greatest threat, insolvency. Answer from Fred Mariscal:
2-I'm adding my voice and calling for a no cost-of-living increases for the City's workers and pushed for employees to pay 10% of their health insurance premiums.
3- We must identify and eliminate wasteful spending, and make City Hall more transparent. We need start thinking about hiring a "City Manager."
4- We need Pension Reform.
5- We need to make LA a more business friendly City. I'm originally from Mexico City, and I know of a lot of businesses and companies who would like to do business in Los Angeles. Answer from Jay Beeber:
The City Administrative Officer has recommended no raises or cost of living adjustments for City employees and that civilian workers will contribute 10% towards the cost of the City sponsored health plan. I not only support this but would work to achieve it. It's one thing to say you agree with something, it's another thing entirely to work to implement it. With regards to employees paying more into their healthcare costs, I'd push for an even higher contribution amount if we could get it. When I ran a five doctor veterinary hospital with about 40 workers, we offered health insurance at an 80%/20% split. This is about average for the private sector. There's no reason the city should be more generous with taxpayer dollars than businesses are in the private sector.
I also support the unanimous recommendation of the LA 2020 Commission to establish an Office of Transparency and Accountability to oversee the City's finances as long as the office had some real teeth and could act, rather than just make recommendations. We saw how the Ratepayer Advocate's role was watered down by the City Council and we need to avoid a repeat of that.
Pension Reform
In 2003 the city's share of pension payments was 3% of budget expenses. It is now over 21%. Granted, the much lower percentage in the early part of the last decade was due to the city underfunding the pensions, but even without that, we have had an explosion in pension costs due to elected officials giving unsustainable benefit increases and padding the city workforce. The city has underfunded the pension plans for over a decade and we realistically can't expect to fix the problem in the short term. However, we must begin the process now or it will be too late. First, the city must create a new tier of pension benefits for new hires and we must vigorously oppose any attempts to eliminate or delay this reform. This is critical or we will never get our pension costs under control. Second, we must hold the line on any salary increases. As salaries go up, so do pension costs as they are directly related. Third, the city must negotiate with the unions to get city workers to pay a larger share of their retirement costs. City workers get a guaranteed payout upon retirement regardless of what happens in the economy or the vagaries of the market. If employees wish to continue getting a guaranteed payout, then they must pay more into the system for this privilege. Currently, they have the best of all worlds + low pay in, no risk, guaranteed reward. That is an unsustainable formula.
In the long term, I believe we must move away from a Defined Benefit Plan system and move towards a plan where payouts are somewhat dependent on the return of the invested funds. For example an "Adjustable Pension Plan" could work to protect both workers' retirement benefits and taxpayers.
Further, I support the LA 2020 Commission's proposal to form a Committee on Retirement Security that will report its recommendations on how to "achieve equilibrium on retirement costs by 2020" Again, the devil is in the details and we must ensure that any such committee is made up of independent experts insulated from the influence of the unions and politicians.
Answer from Wally Knox:
Answer from Mike Schaefer:
Answer from Step Jones:
Answer from Sheila Irani:
Answer from Teddy Davis:
1. Utilities owe the City of Los Angles $190 million for cutting up our streets. Let's collect that money and bring it back to our neighborhoods; Answer from Rostom "Ross" Sarkissian:
We can begin to deal with this issue by: 1. expanding the neighborhood bus system; 2. building more parking near transit stations; 3. synchronizing more lights and; 4. working with the private sector to integrate ride share options into the "first" and "last" mile of the public transportation process, which keeps riders from utilizing the options that are currently available to them. Answer from David Ryu:
I believe in government, and I've seen first hand the good work that government can do when it is responsive to communities rather than special interests. Residents will respond when they see government working for them - and that is how you fix apathy within the District. Answer from Jay Beeber:
Here's my plan for reducing traffic:
1. Expand commuter transit lines - We need to identify where most of the commuter traffic flows from and to, and then create convenient transit options between those points. For example, we need to create dedicated transit between the West Side and the Valley. It's unconscionable that we endured a huge construction project on the 405 including roadway closures and the rebuilding of major bridges, yet our elected officials didn't think ahead and include the creation of a dedicated transit line similar to the Orange Line Busway which could then be converted to light or heavy rail once the funding became available. This was a major failure in leadership. We also need to complete the other transit lines currently on the drawing board, especially an east-west and north-south transit connection to LAX. In addition, we must begin to interconnect our transit system and create transit hubs where commuters can park conveniently or arrive by another convenient form of transportation such as a Dash Bus.
2. Eliminate roadway choke points - While it's true that we cannot build our way out of our traffic problem with significantly more roadway, we can improve what we have now to alleviate some of the major choke points. This includes fixing the 101 north to southbound 405 interchange by eliminating the jug-handle exit ramp that currently exists and building a "flyover" ramp to more efficiently move traffic between the two highways. Also, we need to fix the 101 south to the 101/134 split by adding an extra lane from the 101 onto the 134 providing three lanes exiting onto both roadways. We also have to identify and fix the engineering problems causing the continual back-up on the 101 south between Melrose and the 110. On the 101 north near Universal, the design causes a lane reduction south of the Ventura Ave bridge and the lane resumes on the north side of the bridge. This causes huge backups every weekday. We must redesign the roadway so traffic does not lose a lane in this area. On local roads, we need more dedicated left and right turn lanes with dedicated turn arrows.
3. Incentivize Telecommuting - A large part of our traffic problem comes during the morning and evening rush hours as hundreds of thousands of people travel to and from work. Currently about 5% - 6% of the workforce works from home. If we can increase that to 10% or 15% or 20%, that will significantly decrease traffic during commuting times. Technology has advanced to the point where this is entirely doable and many workers would eagerly join this movement as it would improve their quality of life. The city can lead on this issue by creating incentives and programs for city workers to telecommute. For the private sector, the city can create other incentives such as tax breaks and restrictions on regulations for businesses that increase the percentage of their workforce that works from home. The best thing about this proposal is that we don't have to spend billions of dollars building new infrastructure to accomplish it.
With regards to infrastructure, the City Council plays a very clever shell game with our tax dollars. First, they spend the money on something the populace would never vote for, such as the 5 year, 5% annual raise for city workers (30% overall) passed in 2007 by the city council along with Mayor Villaraigosa. Meanwhile, they starve our infrastructure of needed funds, allowing our roads and sidewalks to deteriorate to the point where we cry out for relief. Then they tell us we need to vote to raise our taxes if we want our streets and sidewalks fixed. We don't need another tax increase. Instead, I'd put a bond measure on the ballot to raise the needed funds to fix our infrastructure now rather than later. If we rein in our other costs and get the budget under control, we could pay for our infrastructure bonds out of the general fund, not by raising taxes. Answer from Tomás O'Grady:
Answer from Joan Pelico:
Answer from Steve Veres:
Answer from Fred Mariscal:
I believe in Smart neighborhood oriented development that takes into account traffic, parking, and our quality of life. However a lot of the development around the District has been done without taking into account traffic, parking, and quality of life issues.
1-We need to make sure that developers take these issues seriously into account, and listen to their communities. I will protect our neighborhoods as I'm already doing.
2- Many areas are being hit hard with the 'Mansionization' of newly built large homes on small lots.
A) I support the reduced Floor Area [RFA] to limit the size of new construction and remodeled homes.
B) I support the creation of Historical Preservation Overlay Zones [HPOZ] to protect the traditional and historical character of neighborhoods who are threaten by Mansionization.
C) We need to plug the loopholes in the BMO's bonuses and exemptions that are allowing builders to construct homes far larger than 50% of lot size.
D) No new home construction under the ICO be allowed to exceed 50% of lot size, per the BMO amendment's changes.
The order of the candidates is random and changes daily. Candidates who did not respond are not listed on this page. |