Reform of LA City, County and the MTA WAS Re: Decline of LA
Michael Higby
mca...@wavenet.com (Don McKenzie) writes:
>I've been here 50 years. Immigration, including that from other states, has
>been mind-boggling except for the few years of our recent recession. Sure,
>it's been a source of problems; we haven't coped with the increased population
>at all well. But, although I'm no fan of Riordan, I do believe he's right in
>laying much of the blame on our city charter, which gives total power to our
>city council. Because the council members' primary loyalty is to their local
>constituents, they seem unable to deal with problems on a citywide scale.
>It's like the former government of Yugoslavia, composed of warring
>factions. The LA County supervisors are no better, which adds to the city's
>problems.
>If you read the LA Times, you know that Riordan is trying to get an initiative
>on an early '97 ballot to ameliorate the situation.
Its not just the council, because populists get elected and can be effective,
if strong. The problem is with the myriad of city commissions that actually
weaken the power of the elected mayor and council. The commission members are
almost like a landed nobility with czar-like powers over the daily operation
of the city. All of these commissioners come from an exclusive club of well
heeled political donors, downtown lawyers and developers, public employee
union officials and special interest group "leaders." The commissioners are
nearly impossible to remove from office (other than being strongarmed to
resign) and are answerable to no one. Worse, the heads of each city
department report only to the commissions and are accountable only to them.
Other than some minor changes to allow the Chief of Police to be removed (a
response to the reign of Daryl Gates), it is nearly impossible to remove a
department head. Since most of the commissioners do not come from the
communities in which they serve, local residents voices are not heard at City
Hall.
The only answer, in my view, is to completely restructure LA city government,
starting with the abolishment of all these commissions. We need a New York
City style of borough government, where decisions are made in the local
communities in which they occur. If residents want to redevelop a local park,
it would be decided upon in the local neighborhood. Local issues would be
decided locally. Each community would have its own borough or neighborhood
council, made up of members elected locally. They would also send their
represenatives to the larger City Council, a part time body that would decide
the city budget and deal with issues larger than a neighborhood focus. In
order to provide checks and balances, citizens could appeal controversial
decisions by their neighborhood council to the City Council, if necessary.
Department heads would be appointed by the mayor and approved or rejected by
the City Council. A majority of neighborhood councils could overturn a
confirmation or veto of a mayoral appointee by the City Council. The
department heads would report daily to the mayor.
I also think the MTA (Metropolitan Transportation Authority) should be
reformed as well. First off, their board should be elected so that they are
accountable to the public. Secondly, they should be broken up so that their
only mission is to build rail systems and provide inter-city transportation
(commuter bus, etc.). Individual cities would take over their own local
intra-city bus operations (as many already do) and merge them into the various
public transit operations they already run (such as the City of LA's DASH).
Cities unable to run their own operations, could contract with other
cities, the MTA or private concerns.
While we're at it, get rid of LA County. County government is a throwback to
a more rural time. Now that LA County is nearly all urban, there is no need
for this extra layer of government, which has been more ineffective than
anything else.
County functions (many of which are duplications of city functions) could be
turned over to the respective citites. Unincorporated areas and smaller
cities could contract out their services to either the larger cities (who
could compete for these contracts!) and/or private enterprise (where
appropriate).
Unfortuanately, the powers that be are so entrenched, reform is unlikely on
all three fronts. The public employee unions, developers, lawyers and special
interest groups are far too powerful, and, until they are reined in, true
reform and good government is unlikely.
-----
BooZoo Comics - The Net's Newest Zine
Meet Jennifer, our sweetheart.
Visit Also Our El Chupacabra Page And
North Hollywood, our hometown. Go now to
http://www.primenet.com/~mhigby/index.htm
-----
Colin R. Leech
Michael Higby (MHi...@Primenet.com) writes:
> Department heads would be appointed by the mayor and approved or rejected by
> the City Council. ... The
> department heads would report daily to the mayor.
This seems like such an obvious way to structure a municipal government
(perhaps substituting "council" for "mayor" appointing the heads, but
that's a minor quibble) that I find it amazing that this isn't already the
case.
> While we're at it, get rid of LA County. ...
> Now that LA County is nearly all urban, there is no need
> for this extra layer of government, which has been more ineffective than
> anything else.
Ditto.
> County functions (many of which are duplications of city functions) could be
> turned over to the respective citites. Unincorporated areas and smaller
> cities could contract out their services to either the larger cities (who
> could compete for these contracts!) and/or private enterprise (where
> appropriate).
No need for duplication. There should not be any unincorporated areas -
somebody has to provide a government.
--
##### |\^/| Colin R. Leech ag414 or crl...@freenet.carleton.ca
##### _|\| |/|_ Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice.
##### > < Opinions are my own. Consider them shareware if you want.
##### >_./|\._< "If you can't return a favour, pass it on." - A.L. Brown
Tom Wetzel
---
Michael Higby writes:
> While we're at it, get rid of LA County. ...
> Now that LA County is nearly all urban, there is no need
> for this extra layer of government, which has been more ineffective than
> anything else.
There are many areas where policies need to be agreed on for the
metropolitan region as a whole. Balkanizing the region will tend
to make worse the competition and inconsistencies between cities.
Policies with regard to things like air pollution,
regional development issues, and public services like health care
and transportation, need to be dealt with at the level of the
metropolitan area. The problem with the County is the woefully
undemocratic nature of its government structure...a parliament
of 5 "little kings" (they've added some queens in recent years)
is ridiculous for a county with 10 million residents. This is
larger than some states. What is need is to create a County
Assembly, about the size of a state legislature...at least
100 representatives. The Board of Supes could then remain as
the cabinet, subject to approval at any time by a majority
of the Assembly...as in a parliamentary system. I.e., the
Board of Supes would be the Executive Committee of the Assembly,
made up of members of the Assembly, as in a parliamentary
system. If they democratized the County government in this way, they
could do away with the MTA, with the transportation agency becoming
just one department of the County.
Tom Wetzel
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
thomas...@eng.sun.com
Michael Higby
ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) writes:
>No need for duplication. There should not be any unincorporated areas -
>somebody has to provide a government.
Thanks for your "endorsement" of my "platform" in the snipped part.
I agree regarding unincorporated areas in LA. I think most of the previously
unincorporated areas have become cities of their own. Most of the
unincorporated areas now are populated by jackrabbits, but there may be a few
communities with significant populations left in LA County. East LA may be
one. Lets get those incorporated and then dump the county.
-----
BooZoo Comics - The Net's Newest Zine
Visit North Hollywood, our hometown.
Michael Higby
t...@Eng.Sun.COM (Tom Wetzel) writes:
>Michael Higby writes:
No, no, no, no! The last thing we need is a County Assembly with 100 more
politicians. We're aiming at less government in which local issues are dealt
with locally.
The issues that affect the whole area, such as those you mention, can easily
be dealt with by the existing multi-county authorities such as AQMD.
The MTA could turn its regional rail operations, such as the Green Line and
Blue line over to Metrolink, and local intra-city bus and rail operations
could be handled in the cities in which they live.
As far as health care - that's the last thing LA County should be involved in!
Ray Mullins
In article <MHigby.306...@Primenet.com>,
Michael Higby <MHi...@Primenet.com> wrote:
> ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) writes:
>
>>No need for duplication. There should not be any unincorporated areas -
>>somebody has to provide a government.
>
>Thanks for your "endorsement" of my "platform" in the snipped part.
>
>I agree regarding unincorporated areas in LA. I think most of the previously
>unincorporated areas have become cities of their own. Most of the
>unincorporated areas now are populated by jackrabbits, but there may be a few
>communities with significant populations left in LA County. East LA may be
>one. Lets get those incorporated and then dump the county.
>
An alternative plan is to merge City and County services, a la Miami and
Seattle. Of course then you have the standoff between Chief Willie and
Sheriff Peter, which is easily solved by sending them both off on a
prepaid trip to Las Vegas and hiring someone from outside to run things.
You will still need a county-level government, which should be expanded to
between 9 and 15 supervisors. I believe the 5 comes from something in the
California Constitution that limits supervisors to 5, which worked in the
early 20th century.
But 100? Egad, then you have another Congress.
Later,
Ray
--
M. Ray Mullins, Arlington TX (the largest city without a transit system,
and site of the regional headquarters of the FTA)
m...@lerami.lerctr.org
http://www.lerctr.org/~mrm; SoCalTIP: http://socaltip.lerctr.org
Mark W. Schaeffer
In article <Dw4o4...@lerami.lerctr.org>, m...@lerami.lerctr.org (Ray
Mullins) wrote:
Far more serious than a city police vs sheriff is getting the cities
involved to agree on consolidation.
A few anecdotes that suggest that to me.
(1) There's a monument in Beverly Hills, at Beverly Drive and Olympic
Boulevard, dating from around 1963 and honoring people in "the business"
who fought to keep B.H. as a seperate city, to paraphrase the inscription.
(If you're looking for it, it has a spiral that looks like movie film).
Are they going to let any of their fought-for autonomy go?
(2) South Pasadena has been fighting the Long Beach Freeway over thirty
years now, and they can because they are an independent city, and a city
along a proposed freeway can block construction there. Would they give up
the source of their clout freely?
(3) There are at least 82 cities (this may not include Malibu or Santa
Clarita) in LA County and many of these have a strong class, race or
industrial orientation. Will they give up their power and identity?
I am in favor of consolidation of our overly layered government structure,
and believe that there's too many people benefiting from the status quo
for change to come any time soon.
--
Mark W. Schaeffer | The man who is turning mothballs
mark...@ucla.edu | into a Ph.D.
http:\\web.chem.ucla.edu\~mws\
Tom Wetzel
---
Michael Higby writes:
[..]
>No, no, no, no! The last thing we need is a County Assembly with 100 more
>politicians. We're aiming at less government in which local issues are dealt
>with locally.
You're begging the question. In what way is air pollution and transportation
and health care issues solely for this or that small city rather than the
region as a whole? You need to provide an argument.
Anyway, you don't seem to realize that in fact you are not advocating
"less government" but more government by private capital, i.e. government
by private corporate/developer decision-making, with no public input.
Decisions will be made. The question is, Who should make them? Should
decisions that affect the citizenry of the metro region by made
democratically, with the whole populace having the right to have a say
over decisions that affect them? Or will huge centers of private
power be able to continue to dominate?
You're also forgetting about issues of economies of scale. For example,
only a city of the size of L.A. could afford a fabulous library like
the new main library. Things like emergency dispatch systems and
general hospitals are also institutions that are most efficient when
there is a certain scale of operations.
>The issues that affect the whole area, such as those you mention, can easily
>be dealt with by the existing multi-county authorities such as AQMD.
These are undemocratic, unresponsive bureaucracies. This guarantees that
private capital, which has far more resources than the average person
for influencing these bureaucratic entities, will dominate. Without
democratic institutions, decisions will not be made that are in the
interests of the majority of citizens. This should be obvious.
>The MTA could turn its regional rail operations, such as the Green Line and
>Blue line over to Metrolink, and local intra-city bus and rail operations
>could be handled in the cities in which they live.
And each city will be competing with each other for investment capital
by lowering taxes, so that there will continue to be a downward spiral
in the overall level of public services.
>As far as health care - that's the last thing LA County should be involved in!
And that is where you are fundamentally mistaken. Whatever the case for
public transit, an even stronger case can be made for public provision of
health care services.
Tom Wetzel
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
thomas...@eng.sun.com
Ray Mullins
In article <markscha-140...@ts17-14.wla.ts.ucla.edu>,
I advocated consolidation of the City of Los Angeles and County of Los
Angeles agencies, not condensation of all 83 L.A. County city agencies plus
L.A. County. Cities such as Burbank and Torrance can keep their own
PD's. Cities like West Hollywood and Temple City would have to make
a choice; continue contracting out their services to the new unified
PD or set up their own. San Fernando would be interesting; they are
currently served by LAPD and LAFD.
While we're at it, since transit agencies can span counties, what
about making transit police a division of the California State Police
or Highway Patrol? (If you don't know, the State Police is the agency
which protects state facilities and other specific types of law
enforcement.)
Syd
Michael Higby (MHi...@Primenet.com) wrote:
: I agree regarding unincorporated areas in LA. I think most of the previously
: unincorporated areas have become cities of their own. Most of the
: unincorporated areas now are populated by jackrabbits, but there may be a few
: communities with significant populations left in LA County. East LA may be
: one. Lets get those incorporated and then dump the county.
Yes, East LA is still unincorporated, along with most of the Baldwin Hills,
Florence, Hacienda Heights, Marina Del Rey, parts of what would generically
be called South Central, and Carson. If I'm not mistaken it's only
somewhat recently that West Hollywood and Malibu were incorporated.
--
Dennis P. Hilgenberg
s...@cyberverse.com
Michael Higby
m...@lerami.lerctr.org (Ray Mullins) writes:
>An alternative plan is to merge City and County services, a la Miami and
>Seattle. Of course then you have the standoff between Chief Willie and
>Sheriff Peter, which is easily solved by sending them both off on a
>prepaid trip to Las Vegas and hiring someone from outside to run things.
>You will still need a county-level government, which should be expanded to
>between 9 and 15 supervisors. I believe the 5 comes from something in the
>California Constitution that limits supervisors to 5, which worked in the
>early 20th century.
This is not a bad idea, but it still concerns me that the size of government
would be too big. The only way I could go for it is if the County/City was
only responsible for the yearly budget and issues that affect the region as a
whole. Day to day stuff should be handled by local community councils.
-----
BooZoo Comics - The Net's Newest Zine
Visit North Hollywood, our hometown.
Michael Higby
m...@lerami.lerctr.org (Ray Mullins) writes:
>I advocated consolidation of the City of Los Angeles and County of Los
>Angeles agencies, not condensation of all 83 L.A. County city agencies plus
>L.A. County. Cities such as Burbank and Torrance can keep their own
>PD's. Cities like West Hollywood and Temple City would have to make
>a choice; continue contracting out their services to the new unified
>PD or set up their own. San Fernando would be interesting; they are
>currently served by LAPD and LAFD.
I don't see merging LA County and LA City as being anything much different
than dissolving LA County all together. The only thing it might do is allow a
few bureaucrats to keep their job in the merger. That is not acceptable.
BTW, San Fernando is served by LAFD, but has its own police department. This
is behind the reason why they no longer sell fireworks in that fine city.
LAFD told SF that if they sold fireworks, they would not sell them fire
services. Apparently, SF was not able to field a fire department of their own
and needed the LAFD. The unfortuanate part was that a number of charitable
groups in San Fernando depended on those fireworks sales, as all sales had to
be handled by non-profits. My alma matter, San Fernando High School, funded a
lot of its great athletic program with fireworks sales.
>While we're at it, since transit agencies can span counties, what
>about making transit police a division of the California State Police
>or Highway Patrol? (If you don't know, the State Police is the agency
>which protects state facilities and other specific types of law
>enforcement.)
I believe the State Police and CHP are planning to merge, if they have not
already. I would be opposed to the state handling law enforcement for local
transit agencies due to the local control issue. Plus, we want law
enforcement to be of the community here, not commanded from Sacramento.
Michael Higby
s...@rodelo.cyberverse.com (Syd) writes:
>Michael Higby (MHi...@Primenet.com) wrote:
West Hollywood actually has been incorporated since 1984! Santa Clarita
incorporated I believe in 1990 and Malibu in 1992.
The other areas you mention should either be incorporated or annexed to LA (or
maybe Long Beach in the case of Carson). Then, dump the county.
I thought Marina Del Rey had recently incorporated. I know they've wanted it
for years.
Ray Mullins
In article <MHigby.306...@Primenet.com>,
Michael Higby <MHi...@Primenet.com> wrote:
>
>>I advocated consolidation of the City of Los Angeles and County of Los
>>Angeles agencies, not condensation of all 83 L.A. County city agencies plus
>>L.A. County. Cities such as Burbank and Torrance can keep their own
>>PD's. Cities like West Hollywood and Temple City would have to make
>>a choice; continue contracting out their services to the new unified
>>PD or set up their own. San Fernando would be interesting; they are
>>currently served by LAPD and LAFD.
>
>I don't see merging LA County and LA City as being anything much different
>than dissolving LA County all together. The only thing it might do is allow a
>few bureaucrats to keep their job in the merger. That is not acceptable.
So you would then make places like Gorman and Elizabeth Lake part of the
City of L.A.? That wouldn't go over very well. The idea is to merge
services like FD, PD, public works, and have an independent board manage
them, separate from the Supervisors and the City Council. Yes, more
politicians, but I really can't see a good way to merge the entire City
and County governments.
>
>BTW, San Fernando is served by LAFD, but has its own police department. This
>is behind the reason why they no longer sell fireworks in that fine city.
>LAFD told SF that if they sold fireworks, they would not sell them fire
>services. Apparently, SF was not able to field a fire department of their own
>and needed the LAFD. The unfortuanate part was that a number of charitable
>groups in San Fernando depended on those fireworks sales, as all sales had to
>be handled by non-profits. My alma matter, San Fernando High School, funded a
>lot of its great athletic program with fireworks sales.
I stand corrected, and you're right, I'd forgotten about the controversy
when LAFD came in. I remember that SFPD does call on LAPD a lot for backup.
That's probably where my mistaken impression came from.
>
>>While we're at it, since transit agencies can span counties, what
>>about making transit police a division of the California State Police
>>or Highway Patrol? (If you don't know, the State Police is the agency
>>which protects state facilities and other specific types of law
>>enforcement.)
>
>I believe the State Police and CHP are planning to merge, if they have not
>already. I would be opposed to the state handling law enforcement for local
>transit agencies due to the local control issue. Plus, we want law
>enforcement to be of the community here, not commanded from Sacramento.
>
How about training, payroll, etc. by Sacto but the local transit oversight
agency (MTA, OCTA, etc.) doing day to day? One of the biggest problems
with crime on buses is figuring out which local jurisdiction to call
(which side of the street is the bus on), and the MTA force is too small
to even be deployed effectively.
Brian Humphrey
A variety of contributors posted:
>>BTW, San Fernando is served by LAFD, but has its own police department.
That is correct.
>>... the reason why they no longer sell fireworks in that fine city.
>>LAFD told SF that if they sold fireworks, they would not sell them fire
>>services.
That is correct.
>> Apparently, SF was not able to field a fire department of their own
>>and needed the LAFD.
Less money for better service. A Fire Department that had a monocular
focus and few resources was absorbed into the nation's preeminent full-
spectrum life safety agency, I think that the citizen's in that 2.1
square mile hamlet got one hell of a bargain.
>> The unfortuanate part was that a number of charitable
>>groups in San Fernando depended on those fireworks sales, as all sales
>> had to
>>be handled by non-profits. My alma matter, San Fernando High School,
funded a
>>lot of its great athletic program with fireworks sales.
The so-called "unfortunate effects" were greatly outweighed by the
positive.
San Fernando residents not only assumned a "Class 1" rating with their
"new" Fire Department (which lowered their fire insurance rates), but
they also gained Paramedic services, Haz-Mat response and a myriad of
other services that have saved their neighbors lives over the years.
While folks in LA may take it on the chin for smog, crime, traffic and a
whole other host of issues - nobody, and I mena NOBODY can point a
finger in the chest of an LA City resident and tell them that they have a
second-rate Fire Department.
BTW, private fireworks will someday be a thing of the past in the Golden
State.
>>I believe the State Police and CHP are planning to merge, if they have
not
>>already.....
They already have, several months ago.
Stay Safe!
Brian Humphrey
Public Information Officer
Los Angeles City Fire Department
Tom Wetzel
---
>You will still need a county-level government, which should be expanded to
>between 9 and 15 supervisors. I believe the 5 comes from something in the
>California Constitution that limits supervisors to 5, which worked in the
>early 20th century.
There is no such limit mandated by the state constitution.
For example, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors
has 11 members. There have been various unsuccessful efforts to raise
the number of L.A. County Supes in the past. The number of 5 actually
goes back to the 19th century, I believe.
Tom Wetzel
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
thomas...@eng.sun.com
Michael Higby
m...@lerami.lerctr.org (Ray Mullins) writes:
>>I don't see merging LA County and LA City as being anything much different
>>than dissolving LA County all together. The only thing it might do is allow a
>>few bureaucrats to keep their job in the merger. That is not acceptable.
>So you would then make places like Gorman and Elizabeth Lake part of the
>City of L.A.? That wouldn't go over very well. The idea is to merge
>services like FD, PD, public works, and have an independent board manage
>them, separate from the Supervisors and the City Council. Yes, more
>politicians, but I really can't see a good way to merge the entire City
>and County governments.
No! That's totally opposite of what I have been saying. The idea is simple -
dissolve LA County, an unnecessary, anachronistic, duplicative layer of
government. Cities then assume the duties of the county in their own
jurisdictions. Smaller areas and unincorporated communities could contract
out services they're incapable of providing to the best bid they receive. Or,
they could fold into nearby larger cities, merge together, etc. Larger
unincorporated areas such as East LA, Ladera Heights, Marina Del Rey, etc.
would just incorporate.
>How about training, payroll, etc. by Sacto but the local transit oversight
>agency (MTA, OCTA, etc.) doing day to day? One of the biggest problems
>with crime on buses is figuring out which local jurisdiction to call
>(which side of the street is the bus on), and the MTA force is too small
>to even be deployed effectively.
What's the point? We need more local control. Ever since Prop 13 we signed
ourselves over to the state and have been the worse for it. MTA's
jurisdiction is on transit systems, period.
Herc Wad
Mike Higby wrote:
>I also think the MTA (Metropolitan Transportation Authority) should be
>reformed as well. First off, their board should be elected so that they
are
>accountable to the public.
The MTA board realizes why they can hold power over a transit agency and
not be elected to their positions: the L.A. citizens apathy towards our
public transit agency. Like I said, 99% of people's knowledge of a bus is
get on, pay fare, find stop, get off. The other 1% are right here on the
Internet, and these are the people that have all the right solutions! The
board uses the MTA to collect PAC money from lobbies (all that security in
the tower downtown---all to prevent PUBLIC lobbying. The smoke filled room
is on the 17th floor) to finance their campaigns for
council/supervisor/mayor. Besides, if people had the chance to vote for
the board, most people would be so piss-in-the-dark clueless, they'd vote
for the people on the board because of name recognition. If there was an
elected MTA board:
Gsoma for MTA chairman!
Yeah, get someone who'd actually worked for the MTA, driver, union leader
(I wouldn't go that far), planner, someone who knows what they are doing
and not getting greased palms. Or at least someone who rode a bus in their
life! I am only 17, and I could run the MTA better than anyone on the
board right now.
>Secondly, they should be broken up so that their
>only mission is to build rail systems and provide inter-city
transportation
>(commuter bus, etc.). Individual cities would take over their own local
>intra-city bus operations (as many already do) and merge them into the
various
>public transit operations they already run (such as the City of LA's
DASH).
>Cities unable to run their own operations, could contract with other
>cities, the MTA or private concerns.
That's the problem. One of the MTA's effective points is that they are the
workhorse for L.A. County. If you were to break up the MTA to such
localities like Chatsworth, there would be too many difficluties in
planning, and untmately, the rider will be the one inconvenienced.
My advice would be to preserve MTA's workhorse system, but do planning on
a Division by Division basis. All coordination would not be done by
regions, but rather divisions (maybe kill 6 and redistribute buses to
other yards). That would be the best form of planning.
Chicago Truckers Union motto: "Da bigger dey are, da farder dey haul."
SoCalTIP, Southern California's Comprehensive Transportation Information
Page:
<http://socaltip.lerctr.org> (Still under major construction, so it ain't
THAT comprehensive)
Word of the week:
dichotomy-removal of one's penis
Michael Higby
NKH...@prodigy.com (Brian Humphrey) writes:
>While folks in LA may take it on the chin for smog, crime, traffic and a
>whole other host of issues - nobody, and I mena NOBODY can point a
>finger in the chest of an LA City resident and tell them that they have a
>second-rate Fire Department.
No doubt. I've seen the LAFD do some fantastic things. They get little
press, unfortuanately.
>BTW, private fireworks will someday be a thing of the past in the Golden
>State.
That's sad. All our traditions out the window.
>Brian Humphrey
>Public Information Officer
>Los Angeles City Fire Department
Ahh - Now I know his angle! :>
-----
Michael - MHi...@primenet.com
See The North Hollywood Pages!
http://www.primenet.com/~mhigby/noho.htm
-----
Charles P. Hobbs
MHi...@Primenet.com (Michael Higby) wrote:
> NKH...@prodigy.com (Brian Humphrey) writes:
>
>>While folks in LA may take it on the chin for smog, crime, traffic and a
>>whole other host of issues - nobody, and I mena NOBODY can point a
>>finger in the chest of an LA City resident and tell them that they have a
>>second-rate Fire Department.
>
>No doubt. I've seen the LAFD do some fantastic things. They get little
>press, unfortuanately.
>
>>BTW, private fireworks will someday be a thing of the past in the Golden
>>State.
>
>That's sad. All our traditions out the window.
>
Is that necessarily *bad*? *Smoking's* a "Tradition" too that's fading
out (and just as dangerous as fireworks)
Michael Higby
"Charles P. Hobbs" <tra...@primenet.com> writes:
>Is that necessarily *bad*? *Smoking's* a "Tradition" too that's fading
>out (and just as dangerous as fireworks)
I disagree. Smoking is way more harmful than fireworks. How many states are
suing over fireworks compared to cigarettes?? Fireworks can be handled
safely. Granted, some people do not handle fireworks safely, but some people
don't handle cars safely. Should we ban cars too? Cigarettes can not be
handled safely. They will harm the user, no matter what.
I also don't see cigarettes as a tradition. People don't get all choked up
(well maybe they do) over cigarettes, in an emotional way, as they do over
fireworks.
I am very sorry to see the fireworks stands in San Fernando to have gone bye
bye. How much more do we have to have government protect ourselves from?
Charles P. Hobbs
MHi...@Primenet.com (Michael Higby) wrote:
> "Charles P. Hobbs" <tra...@primenet.com> writes:
>
>>Is that necessarily *bad*? *Smoking's* a "Tradition" too that's fading
>>out (and just as dangerous as fireworks)
>
>I disagree. Smoking is way more harmful than fireworks. How many states are
>suing over fireworks compared to cigarettes??
I think this whole business about states suing tobacco companies is
a big money grab. If people are dumb enough to smoke, that's their
problem.
Fireworks can be handled
>safely. Granted, some people do not handle fireworks safely, but some people
>don't handle cars safely. Should we ban cars too?
No, just don't make it so easy to get (and keep a license).
> Cigarettes can not be
>handled safely. They will harm the user, no matter what.
>
>I also don't see cigarettes as a tradition. People don't get all choked up
>(well maybe they do) over cigarettes, in an emotional way, as they do over
>fireworks.
You haven't read "alt.smokers.rights" or seen some of the responses
on editorial pages, talk shows, etc., about all the new non-smoking
rules in restaurants and other public places.
>
>I am very sorry to see the fireworks stands in San Fernando to have gone bye
>bye. How much more do we have to have government protect ourselves from?
>
They'd like to censor parts of the 'net if they could, but that's
been found unconstitutional.
I'm just not crazy about these fireworks stands anymore, especially
with all of the fires we've been having these past few years. Why
buy trouble, even for the sake of "tradition".
Michael Higby
"Charles P. Hobbs" <tra...@primenet.com> writes:
>>I also don't see cigarettes as a tradition. People don't get all choked up
>>(well maybe they do) over cigarettes, in an emotional way, as they do over
>>fireworks.
>You haven't read "alt.smokers.rights" or seen some of the responses
>on editorial pages, talk shows, etc., about all the new non-smoking
>rules in restaurants and other public places.
I didn't mean that people don't get emotional over cigarettes, what I meant
was that fireworks touch our hearts as Americans.
>>I am very sorry to see the fireworks stands in San Fernando to have gone bye
>>bye. How much more do we have to have government protect ourselves from?
>>
>They'd like to censor parts of the 'net if they could, but that's
>been found unconstitutional.
Exactly. Same as the ban on fireworks. I'd like to see how much money the
professional pyrotechnics firms have donated to lawmakers to ban safe and sane
fireworks.
>I'm just not crazy about these fireworks stands anymore, especially
>with all of the fires we've been having these past few years. Why
>buy trouble, even for the sake of "tradition".
The fires are hardly the result of fireworks.
Charles P. Hobbs
MHi...@Primenet.com (Michael Higby) wrote:
> "Charles P. Hobbs" <tra...@primenet.com> writes:
>
>>>I also don't see cigarettes as a tradition. People don't get all choked up
>>>(well maybe they do) over cigarettes, in an emotional way, as they do over
>>>fireworks.
>
>>You haven't read "alt.smokers.rights" or seen some of the responses
>>on editorial pages, talk shows, etc., about all the new non-smoking
>>rules in restaurants and other public places.
>
>I didn't mean that people don't get emotional over cigarettes, what I meant
>was that fireworks touch our hearts as Americans.
>
your heart" than cheap sparklers from a roadside stand.
>>They'd like to censor parts of the 'net if they could, but that's
>>been found unconstitutional.
>
>Exactly. Same as the ban on fireworks. I'd like to see how much money the
>professional pyrotechnics firms have donated to lawmakers to ban safe and sane
>fireworks.
The same companies make the "safe and sanes" too, and also lobbied all
levels of government to keep them legal. Sometimes they did more than
lobby. Ever hear of Patrick Moriarty?
>
>>I'm just not crazy about these fireworks stands anymore, especially
>>with all of the fires we've been having these past few years. Why
>>buy trouble, even for the sake of "tradition".
>
>The fires are hardly the result of fireworks.
>
In the past, some have been. There have also been some injuries and
even fatalities, even with "safe and sane" fireworks.
Michael Higby
"Charles P. Hobbs" <tra...@primenet.com> writes:
>Then go to a professional show. That'll do a better job of "touching
>your heart" than cheap sparklers from a roadside stand.
Ahh, but there's some true Americana to standing out on the sidewalk with mom
& dad & the kids holding your sparkler.
But I guess the new thing is to spend 20 bucks to see some concert with aging
doo-wap stars, followed by 20 minutes of lights and a tribute to Colin Powell.
>>The fires are hardly the result of fireworks.
>In the past, some have been. There have also been some injuries and
>even fatalities, even with "safe and sane" fireworks.
But there are more fires from blow dryers every year. Do we suggest we ban
them too? Its time for us to accept more responsibility for ourselves and not
expect government to do it all for us.
Charles P. Hobbs
>
>But I guess the new thing is to spend 20 bucks to see some concert with aging
>doo-wap stars, followed by 20 minutes of lights and a tribute to Colin Powell.
>
Many displays are free or low-priced (the local high school at my
home town charges $5 for their show).
>>>The fires are hardly the result of fireworks.
>
>>In the past, some have been. There have also been some injuries and
>>even fatalities, even with "safe and sane" fireworks.
>
>But there are more fires from blow dryers every year. Do we suggest we ban
>them too? Its time for us to accept more responsibility for ourselves and not
>expect government to do it all for us.
Well, how do you feel about
a. legalizing drugs (marijuana, cocaine, heroin, the works)
b. NO speed limits.
c. dismantling welfare, affirmative action, and other programs.
d. guns! guns! guns!
Michael Higby
"Charles P. Hobbs" <tra...@primenet.com> writes:
>Well, how do you feel about
>a. legalizing drugs (marijuana, cocaine, heroin, the works)
All for it, with controls of course. The war on drugs has been a failure,
and, as we have found out with the recent reports on the Reagan-Bush CIA being
involved in drug sales in South Central.
>b. NO speed limits.
It works in Montana. But, wanting to legalize safe and sane fireworks has not
much to do with speed limits. Obviously, speed limits depend on the area.
>c. dismantling welfare, affirmative action, and other programs.
Clinton's for it!
>d. guns! guns! guns!
See answer #2.
Charles P. Hobbs
MHi...@Primenet.com (Michael Higby) wrote:
> "Charles P. Hobbs" <tra...@primenet.com> writes:
>
>>Well, how do you feel about
>>a. legalizing drugs (marijuana, cocaine, heroin, the works)
>
>All for it, with controls of course.
>>b. NO speed limits.
>
>It works in Montana. But, wanting to legalize safe and sane fireworks has not
>much to do with speed limits. Obviously, speed limits depend on the area.
can drive? Or should that be left up to us?
>
>>c. dismantling welfare, affirmative action, and other programs.
>
>Clinton's for it!
Are you?
Charles P. Hobbs
How about open container laws. (No open container of an alcoholic
beverage
allowed in a vehicle in California).
Not every state has those. In Texas (unless they've changed the law),
one could drink beer and drive, as long as one was not intoxicated. . .
Michael Higby
Yes, but not the same way the Republicans are. We have to eventually break
the cycle of dependence on government, and move to a model where the
government and empowered citizens are partners in what needs to be done.
Syd
Charles P. Hobbs (tra...@primenet.com) wrote:
: How about open container laws. (No open container of an alcoholic
I absolutely swear that New Orleans has DRIVE-THROUGH liquor stores
and, even worse, DRIVE-THROUGH daiquiri stands (you get a 32-ounce
styrofoam cup with a lid and a straw). I couldn't make this shit up.
In many parts of the deep south it's common to find cans/bottles of beer
in big barrels full of ice at gas stations (like you see with soda and
the like here). Motorists can buy ice-cold beer by the bottle and pay for
it with the old Texaco card.
Ray Mullins
In article <509l1d$a...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>,
Charles P. Hobbs <tra...@primenet.com> wrote:
>How about open container laws. (No open container of an alcoholic
>beverage
>allowed in a vehicle in California).
>
>Not every state has those. In Texas (unless they've changed the law),
>one could drink beer and drive, as long as one was not intoxicated. . .
>
"Change your laws or else you lose all your federal highway funds" tune
from the federal government.
Not that I condone drinking (I have a tendency to drink too much when I
do, so I drink very rarely and never when I'm driving), but I think the
feds wield this sword too much.
Later,
Ray
Brian Humphrey
MHi...@Primenet.com (Michael Higby) wrote:
>Ahh, but there's some true Americana to standing out on the sidewalk
with mom
>& dad & the kids holding your sparkler.
Really? Please explain.
Michael,
I have nothing against you. In fact, I have truly enjoyed many of your
posts.
You have an interesting wit and a dry sense of humor.
I say that so that you will know I am not interested in bashing you
personally.
I must say however that -purely- in regards to Fireworks and Safety, your
statements are obviously based on denial and ignorance. This doesn't make
you a bad person. It just means that on this issue, you (a fellow
Republican! <grin>) should be more concerned with -facts- than emotion.
Think about it.
I have spent more than a dozen years with the LAFD as a
Firefighter/Paramedic and now work as a Public Information Officer.
I spent the last ten years as a Director of the Alisa Ann Ruch Burn
Foundation.
Without sounding too heady, I have worked hard to earn my status as an
authority on the Fire, Safety and Emergency Services. I am routinely
interviewed by respected journalists from throughout the world. I would
like to think that the reason I show up in your morning paper or the TV
and Radio is because I know what the hell I am talking about.
Anytime....and I mean A-N-Y-T-I-M-E you wish to follow me into the burn
wards at Sherman Oaks, Torrance or LAC-USC Hospitals, just let me know.
The only joy I get from visiting such places is the knowledge that such
hard working Doctors and Nurses labor around the clock to save the lives
of those who have suffered the worst injury a human can suffer and
possibly survive.
When you have to cup your hands over your ears to block out the incessant
screaming of a six year-old girl who screams around-the-clock "please let
me die" while Doctors and Nurses peel off layer after layer of bloody and
pus filled dead skin, you'll know why I am personally and professionally
opposed to even the so-called "Safe and Sane" fireworks.
After you have run to the parking lot and vomited for five minutes and
dry-heaved for another twenty, you will share my passionate opposition to
the personal use of pyrothechnics. I guarantee it.
Mr. Hobbs has made some very wise statements. It is rewarding to know
that at least some folks seem to "get it".
Again Michael, no personal affront is intended.
Remember, I put my life on the line for you every day.
Brian Humphrey
Firefighter/Paramedic
Public Information Officer
Los Angeles City Fire Department
E-Mail: <la...@prodigy.com>