Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098
mayorsam@mayorsam.org

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Guess Who's Paying For The Pay Raise At Airport Hotels?

Hint: it's the same person whom Time magazine named person of the year.

Give up?

It's YOU!

The "compromise" solution is, as usual, to soak you, the middle-class taxpayer.

The City Clowncil, knowing that voters would reject its illegal attempt to hike wages for one industry in one part of town, decided to compromise by cutting taxes for the hotels in exchange for the hotels using the savings to pay higher wages.

So everyone's happy, except you, of course, will need to make up the difference by paying higher taxes. But they'll wait to announce that part.

Here's the Daily News article.

30 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said:

What underhanded bullshit. Again sneaky way clowncil does business without telling us. Antonio never made a statement on the issue until now and will take credit. I hope a tabloid reporter asks him why NOW is he getting involved and how much is this going to cost us.

....As part of the negotiations, sources said a proposal was made to create an economic overlay zone for the airport-area hotels. Such an act would bring in the possibility of tax offsets for the hotels in return for the higher pay for workers and a city commitment to invest in the area to bring in more business for the hotels.

January 31, 2007 9:12 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Great, the LAX hotel workers got their meager raises. I'm sure this will increase their standard of living. Now call ICE and arrest any illegal alien workers and hotel executives who hired them.

January 31, 2007 9:17 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Oh no no no. We can't call them illegal. How heartless of you. They are properly called "undocumented."

January 31, 2007 9:26 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Too bad. I would have preferred Antonio and his 15 merry men got their ass kicked in the referendum. Have we had enough of all labor all the time downtown yet?

January 31, 2007 9:28 AM  

Blogger Patrick Meighan said:

"The City Clowncil, knowing that voters would reject its illegal attempt to hike wages for one industry in one part of town..."

Walter, it was obvious that this living wage was gonna pass handily, which is why the Chamber of Commerce was so quick to cut a deal to keep this from hitting the ballot, even after they paid a cool $2M to put it there in the first place.

A polling of likely voters just two days ago had it passing by a margin of 75/25. Yeah, those were labor-friendly pollsters, and yeah, the Chamber *claimed* it had poll numbers indicating the opposite, but why do you suppose they never *released* those numbers? Hint: because they don't exist!

And if the Chamber were so sure this living wage measure was "illegal," then, again, why'd they cut a deal? Why spend the millions in extra wages for their scofflaw workers rather than simply take it to court and get the law stricken from the books in short order? Answer: 'cause this living wage is not illegal, and they know it.

Denial is not an attractive quality, Walter. Face it: the Chamber caved on this one, 'cause they knew L.A. voters would hand them an ass-whupping in May.

Patrick Meighan
Los Angeles Greens

January 31, 2007 9:46 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

9:26
Yes, you're right. How cruel of me. They just misplaced their paperwork and don't currently have the proper documents.

January 31, 2007 9:58 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I look forward to Walter's evisceration of Patrick's post.

January 31, 2007 10:03 AM  

Blogger Mayor Sam said:

The hotels backed down because the city gave them a piece of the pie.

The airport area is probably one of the most economically viable and productive areas in the city. Its criminal to make it an empowerment zone.

When all the middle class people move out of LA, who is going to pay the bill?

January 31, 2007 10:06 AM  

Blogger Patrick Meighan said:

"The airport area is probably one of the most economically viable and productive areas in the city."

Which means that when the Century Blvd. hotels claimed they couldn't afford to raise their poverty-wage workers' salaries, they were lying.

So which is it? Is the airport area an economic wasteland that can hardly sustain jobs of any wage, much less jobs that pay a livable wage?

Or is the airport area a thriving, productive, and economically viable wonderland in absolutely no need of empowerment zone designation?

Y'all need to pick one.

Patrick Meighan
Los Angeles Greens

January 31, 2007 10:14 AM  

Blogger Patrick Meighan said:

"The City Clowncil... decided to compromise by cutting taxes for the hotels in exchange for the hotels using the savings to pay higher wages... So everyone's happy, except you, of course, will need to make up the difference by paying higher taxes. But they'll wait to announce that part."

If, in fact, the city gets the LAX-area designated as an enterprise zone, that results in a tax cut of STATE and/or FEDERAL taxes for the hotels effected. It does NOT impact city or county tax revenue whatsoever (in other words, no city tax cut for the hotels, and no subsequent city tax raise for L.A.'s middle-class). A middle-class taxpayer in Los Angeles is not, in any way, impacted by the impostion of a STATE or FEDERAL enterprise zone on the LAX-area any more than a middle-class taxpayer anywhere else in the entire state or nation.

However, a middle-class Angeleno is substantially benefitted when his poverty-level neighbors get a raise, as crime goes down, communities get safer, families get stronger, drug and alcohol use decrease, public health expenditures diminish and schools get more effective.

Patrick Meighan
Los Angeles Greens

January 31, 2007 10:36 AM  

Blogger Mayor Sam said:

Patrick - the hotels could be making a 10000% profit and it means bupkis as far as how much the employees are paid.

Now in an employment market like Los Angeles its a dumb business move to not offer competitive salaries. But its your right to be a dumb businessperson.

If one hotel pays better than another guess which hotel gets to pick the better workers.

There is no God given right to a "living wage" whatever that is. The sooner you and the Clowncil get that through your thick skulls the better off we will all be.

Your example of crime is a red herring. Studies have consistently proven that crime breeds poverty not the other way around. There are plenty of decent, honest poor people who never break a rule. There are plenty of rich crooks too.

A job as a janitor was never meant to be a middle class job. There are plenty of folks who started off as janitors, worked hard to improve themselves and moved on to better careers and/or to own their own businesses. Larry Elder's dad is a great example of this.

This is the consistent battle that we have with liberals is that government is not the solution to our problems, it is the problem. We can go down a laundry list of great government social experiments that did not solve the intended problem and only made things worse. Even some government programs that were succesful never knew how to end once the goal was met - the TVA comes to mind.

In this case it looks like everyone involved makes out like a pirate. I'd sure like to know how much these labor groups that are supposedly "advocating" for the poor are getting in these settlements and how much those people in their leadership are making. (For an example of an unrelated but similiar victocrat scam artist, check out the link in our links section for "Truth About the BRU.")

January 31, 2007 10:48 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I have a big problem with city government telling the private sector how much they should pay their employees. Why this segregated section of LA hotels is this living ordinance happening to? What about all the 1000's of employees throughout LA who are making minimum wage doing hard labor? Are they not important enough to consider cause of the area of the city where they work? I think this is discriminatory to all employees who work in the city. Why did the clowncil speak out only for this small portion of city workers??????

January 31, 2007 11:05 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

GOOD BLOGGIN MORNING,

"FOLLOW THE MONEY"

Hotels get tax break, hotel workers get raises, unions get more dues money, "Clowncil" gets dues money in contributions, "HIS POLLONESS" gets some from "MADAM LABOR MARIA".

"RED SPOT OF REASON IN CD 14"

January 31, 2007 11:11 AM  

Blogger Patrick Meighan said:

"Why this segregated section of LA hotels is this living ordinance happening to? What about all the 1000's of employees throughout LA who are making minimum wage doing hard labor? Are they not important enough to consider cause of the area of the city where they work? I think this is discriminatory to all employees who work in the city."

Great points, 11:05. You start a push to bring the living wage to *all* the workers in Los Angeles (perhaps exempting the truly small businesses), and I'll support you, 100%.

Patrick Meighan
Los Angeles Greens

January 31, 2007 11:12 AM  

Blogger Patrick Meighan said:

"Studies have consistently proven that crime breeds poverty not the other way around."

Prove it. Let's see some of those studies.

"There is no God given right to a "living wage" whatever that is. The sooner you and the Clowncil get that through your thick skulls the better off we will all be."

Mayor Sam, the vast majority of Angelenos believe that, though we live in a free market, the market should operate according to some rules. And one of those rules is that people who work hard and play by the rules should be able to earn a decent wage for their work and support their familes. That's what the majority in Los Angeles believes, Mayor Sam. The sooner you come to grips with that, the better off we will all be. Or at least the better off you will be.

Patrick Meighan
Los Angeles Greens

January 31, 2007 11:18 AM  

Anonymous Matt Dowd said:

Greig Smith is my new hero.
he just raked the city attorney over the coals on CH 35. over this living wage.
he called it smoke and mirrors. no action. no significant changes.
please explain.
they couldn't.
this living wage is a joke, the problem is in the cost of living, not the wages.
like everything in this town, see y'all in court.
eye roll

January 31, 2007 11:26 AM  

Blogger Walter Moore said:

Patrick, see, this is why you think you can't "afford" a house despite a $200,000 annual income.

The hotel owners turned this into a financial triumph: the tax break they receive will exceed by far the minor increase in wages they pay.

As for the claim that the ordinance would have passed, how nice that you have a crystal ball that takes into account the advertising campaign that the business community would have mounted against them.

As for the legality of the measure, will everyone here with a license to practice law please raise your hand? That's what I thought.

January 31, 2007 11:49 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I once earned minimum wage and I LIVED WITHIN MY MEANS.

January 31, 2007 11:50 AM  

Blogger Walter Moore said:

P.S. Patrick, who do you think pays federal and state taxes? South Africans? Czechs? Also, do you have any cite you can provide us to show the City Council is not going to give these hotels a tax break? I would love to see that.

January 31, 2007 12:01 PM  

Anonymous Matt Dowd said:

Noel Weiss is actually sickening me. his excessive adulation of Janice Hahn severely clouds his judgment and credibility.
he may be a nice guy, but I'll never believe a thing he says in reference to Hahn.
he's killing his own credibility by gushing incessantly over everything she does.

January 31, 2007 12:02 PM  

Blogger Walter Moore said:

"The market should operate according to some rules."

It does. If you goof off, do not get an education, do not work hard, have no skills, have several children early in life, then, as a rule, you're not going to do terribly well financially. Oh, also, it helps to speak the language of the country in which you live.

Now, while we're on the subject of how there should be some rules, just what kind of rule justifies singling out one type of business, in one neighborhood in town, to suffer a greater burden, or enjoy a lighter burden, than all the other businesses in all the other parts of town?

January 31, 2007 12:31 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Dowd, is it possible that Janice might be Noel's new girl, a la our midget mayor?

January 31, 2007 1:02 PM  

Anonymous Matt Dowd said:

hi walter, its called compelling government interests, to protect some significant investment or group of people.
I'm not taking a side, but invariably it'll end up in court for a decision on whether this is compelling or not.

now you know how we felt at Venice, when they singled out certain items as illegal, while others were deemed not.
judge now indicates the language was vague and unconstitutional.
(the language describing that which is legal or illegal)
City claimed it could do this for its compelling reasons of blah blah blah.
compelling reasons allow narrow tailoring i.e. singling out specific activities or interests, for regulation.
are there compelling reasons for singling out hotels on Century corridor, or not? that's the question the court will eventually decide.

January 31, 2007 1:41 PM  

Blogger Walter Moore said:

No, there is no such compelling state interest. Rather, the Clowncil is trying to save face by spending our money, rather than simply admitting the ordinance was a bone-headed idea, and rather than having voters slap it down.

January 31, 2007 1:58 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Walter, did you really quote the Protocols of the Elders of Zion last week or was that someone spoofing you?

January 31, 2007 5:59 PM  

Blogger Walter Moore said:

What?! That would be spoofing.

Unfortunately, many of the people who "oppose" me are unable to attack my logic or evidence. But they don't let a detail like that stop them. Rather than think about whether they should therefore re-think their position, they instead resort to name-calling or try to tarnish my reputation by signing my name to horrible and/or imbecilic statements.

Their posts typically include typos, so look for those, or for racial slurs, which I don't use.

Long story short: never assume that any of the "comments" is actually come from the source identified.

January 31, 2007 6:48 PM  

Blogger Patrick Meighan said:

"P.S. Patrick, who do you think pays federal and state taxes? South Africans? Czechs?"

Everyone across the country and state does, Walter. Which means this measure will cause no incentive for middle-class Angelenos to flee L.A., as taxpayers outside the city will pay just as much as taxpayers within the city. Get it? People in the state of Vermont will pay just as much for this as people on Vermont Ave. Your fears of white flight from L.A. can rest for a day.

"Also, do you have any cite you can provide us to show the City Council is not going to give these hotels a tax break? I would love to see that."

Sure. Read the descriptions of State Enterprise Zones and Federal Empowerment Zones here: http://www.lacity.org/cdd/bus_state.html

Notice the enumerated descriptions of federal tax breaks. Notice the enumerated descriptions of state tax breaks. Notice the utter absence of any mention of local tax breaks or county tax breaks within such zones.

Unless there are any other myths I can dispel, lemme sign off with the reminder that while the feds and/or the state may (*may*) end up kicking in a share via the enterprise or empowerment zones, the beneficiaries of this deal will not only be these poverty-wage workers, but all of Los Angeles, as lowered poverty brings lowered crime, safer communities, stronger families, less drug use, fewer public health expenditures and more effective schools. Angelenos know this, which is why the vast majority of Angelenos believe that hard working people should earn a wage that enables them to survive and feed their families. Maybe you don't believe in that ideal, Walter, and maybe Mayor Sam doesn't either, but the vast majority of Angelenos do, and I'm proud of them for that.

Patrick Meighan
Los Angeles Greens

January 31, 2007 7:37 PM  

Anonymous barney aldridge said:

I thought Gil Cedillo would pay. WTF?

February 01, 2007 12:42 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Amen Patrick.

I'm so proud to share my city with progressive minds like you.

So Walter, when are you heading for the hills?

February 02, 2007 12:35 AM  

Blogger Walter Moore said:

Patrick, nice try, but not quite.

You did not prove that a state or federal enterprise zone is what will be used at the LAX hotels.

Try again. I, for one, read nothing saying it would be limited to such a zone. On the contrary, everything I read indicated it would be along the lines of the welfare for the rich downtown.

The idea that L.A.'s taxpayers should embrace the squandering of federal tax money is also terribly persuasive. Hey, throw billions at Iraq because, well, its FEDERAL money, so it doesn't cost anything, right?

Wrong. Tax dollars are tax dollars. And you, as someone who complains that he can't "afford" a house due in part to federal taxes should start connecting the dots. Wasteful programs cost ALL of us.

February 03, 2007 9:09 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

Advertisement

Advertisement