|
The union assault — covert and overt — on direct democracy
Nov. 30, 2012 By Chris Reed For decades, signature-gathering to win placement of measures on the local or state ballot in California has followed a basic script. Once proponents gathered some 30 percent more signatures than the minimum threshold necessary, they shut down operations, confident that their measure would easily make the ballot. But in the past three years, this script has been rewritten, at least when it comes to measures that threaten the interests of public employee unions or that target their supporters. This new norm amounts to a brazen and illegal union assault on direct democracy, which in California is the most significant check on their hegemony. In November 2009, an attempt to recall Assemblyman Anthony Adams, R-Claremont, never made the ballot even though proponents turned in 58,384 signatures –- 63 percent more than the 35,825 necessary to force a vote on whether Adams should be ousted. A random sample of 1,839 ballots had shown only 42 percent were valid. Adams was a darling of unions for providing a decisive vote in the Legislature in February 2009 for $12.8 billion in higher income, sales and vehicle taxes, breaking past promises to his constituents. This led KFI 640 AM’s powerful radio hosts, John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou, to push for a recall. In July 2010, a proposed initiative to force the outsourcing of more government services by the San Diego city government faced a similarly mysterious demise. Proponents, led by San Diego Councilman Carl DeMaio, turned in 134,441 signatures -– 39 percent more than the 96,834 needed. But a random sample of 3 percent of signatures showed so many duplicate signatures and ineligible signers that officials estimated only 74,732 were valid. In July 2011, a proposed initiative that would have changed the makeup of the San Diego Unified school board and likely weakened the local teachers union’s control of the board also failed. San Diegans 4 Great Schools turned in 129,283 signatures –- 39 percent more than the 93,085 needed. But a full hand count found that just 90,027 were valid –- with a stunning 11.4 percent of the signatures being duplicates. A leader of San Diegans 4 Great Schools expressed bafflement at this “aberration.” But in San Diego political circles, it was accepted as a given that local union members had monkey-wrenched both the 2010 and 2011 initiatives. Now, thanks to the just-aborted attempt by former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan to bring sweeping pension reform to the city of Los Angeles, unions have lost any plausible deniability. Two weeks ago, Paul Kim, a work-site organizer for Service Employees International Union Local 721 in Los Angeles, sent out an email to SEIU members with this admonition: “We need Union members hitting the streets signing Riordan’s petition with fake names/addresses and gathering retraction signatures from LA residents on our own petition. We need people power starting this Saturday.” On Nov. 20, after reports on the attempt to illegally manipulate the signature-gathering process, SEIU leaders quickly disavowed Kim’s email and declared it a “non-issue.” But given that Kim was rebuked by the SEIU only after his email became known to the media, it was hardly a persuasive disavowal. And to proponents of the measure, it was hardly a “non-issue.” On Monday, Riordan dropped his push for pension change, saying he no longer believed he could meet the Dec. 28 deadline he had set to gather 265,000 valid signatures –- even though public sentiment in favor of pension reductions is strong. Yet the Los Angeles Times’ article announcing Riordan’s decision didn’t even mention the SEIU email. And since then, there’s been scant follow-up on the Kim email or any effort by the mainstream media to connect the dots between what happened with the Adams recall, the San Diego outsourcing and school board petition drives, and the SEIU plot in Los Angeles. Meanwhile, in Sacramento, Senate President Darrell Steinberg is proposing to use Democrats’ new “supermajority” status to pursue initiative “reforms” that would potentially let the Legislature tinker with the wording and intent of ballot measures and have some sunset after 10 or so years. This has won praise from the usual suspects, starting with the Times’ George Skelton. Public employee unions have used their power to shape life in California for so long that students of the Golden State have grown to accept it as a given. But union critics at least have had the solace of knowing that direct democracy would always provide an avenue for the public to have its wishes honored. Now, however, direct democracy itself is in the union cross hairs, both openly and covertly, and one key tactic involves flagrantly illegal behavior. Nothing could make it more obvious that in California, union power has metastasized into something more akin to organized crime than organized labor –- or at least our old conception of organized labor. It is still possible for direct democracy to succeed, as it did in San Diego in June with the passage of a massive pension overhaul. But that was only because those guiding the well-financed push for signatures for the measure committed early on to verify every signature before turning in ballot petitions — a vastly more costly and time-consuming process than the old practice of just turning in 30 percent more signatures than necessary. Yet even the San Diego measure is imperiled because of an extraordinary effort by the state Public Employment Relations Board to have it thrown out in court for purportedly violating collective bargaining rights of public employees. It’s plain that unions and their allies will do literally anything to maintain their chokehold on California’s local and state governments.
Tags: corruption, direct democracy, George Skelton, Pension Reform, union power Comments(87) |
May 20, 2013
Jake, you are predicting anarchy, which is akin to sedition with me. You have mil understanding about how government works and nil understanding about public employees and pensions. Take your hate rhetoric somewhere else.
Well said SeeSaw—- these guys need a civics 101 lesson.
Quoting Jake …”As for people leaving the state, most middle class people that work or have business in the state can’t, and you can rest assured that the public employees with their oversized pensions will be gone way before sh*t hits the fan.”
While the first part of that sentence is true (only so many can leave), with respect to the “public employees with their oversized pensions” escaping, while the can escape the State’s taxation by moving, when CalPERS fails, their pensions won’t be following them.
CalPERS is not going to fail TL. It is 80 years old, and the actuaries have the ability to determine what has to be done so that it will not fail. No one vested with CalPERS right now is ever going to lose their pension, because of CalPERS failing. Sorry, but if you want to wait and see who is right and who is wrong, you will have to raise from the dead to find out.
SeeSaw, The initial “failures” will likely come in the form of reduced pensions for CalPERS participant city retirees when their city stiffs Calpers (because when there is insufficient money beyond that necessary for truly “essential” services, that’s what will happen).
If San Bernadino or some other City stiffs CalPERS, and after the inevitable Court fights (and perhaps even a judgement favorable to CalPERS) CalPERS still can’t collect (because there is not now and will never be sufficient funds to fully pay for these excessive pensions) CalPERS will have no option except to reduce that city’s pension payouts to the level supportable by remaining Plan assets from that city.
I suspect that the first such failure will closely be followed by others. The dominoes are now lining up.
Just so you’re clear on the outcome of your suggestion, TL, CalPERS has the statutory authority to place liens on every account and piece of property owned by one of the contracting agencies if it fails to make its legally required payments to the retirement system.
Take a look at the California Public Employees Retirement Law in our Government Code if you’d like more details. It’s the same state law that prohibits the discharge of pension obligations in a Chapter 9 bankruptcy action, and Chapter 9 prohibits the court from imposing any workout plan that violates any state law or regulation.
Chapter 9 supersedes any and all state laws. Look up the Supremacy Clause Perry Mason Jr.
Just look at the language of the Bankruptcy Code, F. Lee Wonder Dog. Since you claim to have legal training, you might also do a little review of the Chapter 9 legislative history.
From the U.S. Bankruptcy Court itself:
“Sections 903 and 904 of the Bankruptcy Code are designed to recognize the court’s limited power over operations of the debtor.
Section 904 limits the power of the bankruptcy court to “interfere with – (1) any of the political or governmental powers of the debtor; (2) any of the property or revenues of the debtor; or (3) the debtor’s use or enjoyment of any income-producing property” unless the debtor consents or the plan so provides. The provision makes it clear that the debtor’s day-to-day activities are not subject to court approval and that the debtor may borrow money without court authority. In addition, the court cannot appoint a trustee (except for limited purposes specified in 11 U.S.C. § 926(a)) and cannot convert the case to a liquidation proceeding.
The court also cannot interfere with the operations of the debtor or with the debtor’s use of its property and revenues. This is due, at least in part, to the fact that in a chapter 9 case, there is no property of the estate and thus no estate to administer. 11 U.S.C. § 902(1). Moreover, a chapter 9 debtor may employ professionals without court approval, and the only court review of fees is in the context of plan confirmation, when the court determines the reasonableness of the fees.
The restrictions imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 904 are necessary to ensure the constitutionality of chapter 9 and to avoid the possibility that the court might substitute its control over the political or governmental affairs or property of the debtor for that of the state and the elected officials of the municipality.
Similarly, 11 U.S.C. § 903 states that “chapter [9] does not limit or impair the power of a State to control, by legislation or otherwise, a municipality of or in such State in the exercise of the political or governmental powers of the municipality, including expenditures for such exercise,” with two exceptions – a state law prescribing a method of composition of municipal debt does not bind any non-consenting creditor, nor does any judgment entered under such state law bind a nonconsenting creditor.”
Here you go Perry Mason Junior, try to learn a little before posting your usual “copy and paste” as you have no legal training, just “copy and paste” skills that have no application to any of the BS claims you make;
” The federal government cannot involuntarily be subjected to the laws of any state.”
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Supremacy+Clause
So much for your nonsense “copy and paste” baloney.
Note Standard number 4:
“The standards for plan confirmation in chapter 9 cases are a combination of the statutory requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 943(b) and those portions of 11 U.S.C. § 1129 (the chapter 11 confirmation standards) made applicable by 11 U.S.C. § 901(a). Section 943(b) lists seven general conditions required for confirmation of a plan. The court must confirm a plan if the following conditions are met:
the plan complies with the provisions of title 11 made applicable by sections 103(e) and 901;
the plan complies with the provisions of chapter 9;
all amounts to be paid by the debtor or by any person for services or expenses in the case or incident to the plan have been fully disclosed and are reasonable;
the debtor is not prohibited by law from taking any action necessary to carry out the plan;
except to the extent that the holder of a particular claim has agreed to a different treatment of such claim, the plan provides that on the effective date of the plan, each holder of a claim of a kind specified in section 507(a)(1) will receive on account of such claim cash equal to the allowed amount of such claim;
any regulatory or electoral approval necessary under applicable nonbankruptcy law in order to carry out any provision of the plan has been obtained, or such provision is expressly conditioned on such approval; and
the plan is in the best interests of creditors and is feasible.”
I’m never surprised by you, Rex. Read Chapter 9 and even you will quickly find that it is the federal bankruptcy code itself that is making itself subject to the laws of the state in which it is applicable. That’s also why there have been a series of 10th Amendment cases that reinforce the limited power of federal courts in a Chapter 9 action.
As your experience undoubtedly shows, the law is not necessarily what you think it should be.
Quoting Skippy …”Just so you’re clear on the outcome of your suggestion, TL, CalPERS has the statutory authority to place liens on every account and piece of property owned by one of the contracting agencies if it fails to make its legally required payments to the retirement system. ”
Skippy, a town stiffing CalPERS would likely already be in bankruptcy (or in the process of entering bankruptcy, and likely with a court injunction halting any CalPERS actions while in such state … just as is the situation for San Bernadino today).
Either way CalPERS can’t do squat …. we both know that. No Bankruptcy Court can or would allow seizure of City assets.
Here’s more for you to consider:
“Bankruptcy law is federal statutory law contained in Title 11 of the United States Code. Congress passed the Bankruptcy Code under its Constitutional grant of authority to “establish… uniform laws on the subject of Bankruptcy throughout the United States.” See U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 8. States may not regulate bankruptcy though they may pass laws that govern other aspects of the debtor-creditor relationship. See Debtor-Creditor. A number of sections of Title 11 incorporate the debtor-creditor law of the individual states.”
TL – You’re making a circular argument. A town couldn’t “stiff CalPERS” if it were operating under an approved Chapter 9 workout plan overseen by the court. Your scenario would only be possible without court supervision, in which case the statutory lien provisions would be readily available.
Skippy, You and I could debate this stuff endlessly … meaning little.
While there will likely be judgements (one way or the other in the Courts), the ultimate settlement of these issues will be in the Courts of “reality” and the “math”. In neither such Court, do CA’s Plans participants get their full pensions.
It’s more a question of how many cities and how fast they will begin to fall.
Greed HAS consequences.
TL – The only thing missing from your ominous claim is a tag with a link to buy gold.
Skippy, The protections you suggest would likely apply nationwide. If they were indeed so strong, why do we already has examples of Public Sector pensioners getting hair-cutted ?
Perhaps it really boils down to what I have been saying ….. when there is not now (and never will be) sufficient funds to pay all “promised” pensions, they simply don’t get paid.
Every state has a different set of laws that apply to its pension programs. That’s why you’ll see different outcomes across the country – just as you do with insurance litigation in your own industry.
Skippy, Financial services (not insurance).
Skipping Dog says:
Take a look at the California Public Employees Retirement Law in our Government Code if you’d like more details.
Once again, do not listen to the HS educated troughers and their spin. The “Gov code” is all state law, it does not apply in ANY federal case if it is in conflict with federal law. In an Article I federal case the federal law will trump and supercede ALL STATE law, including the old gov code.
If CalTURDS had the legal authority to put a lien (oh brother, is that hilarious!!!) on any of San Bernardino’s (or any other participant) real or personal property they would, they would not even have to file papers or object to the SB BK case (which they are doing, right now, in court) they would simply start filing liens on everything they could.
Hmmm…I wonder why they have not done that?? I wonder why they are in federal court arguing for preferred status??? Hmmm…OH, I know, because they don’t have the legal authority to put a lien on anything.
Love spanking the ignorant “copy and paste” folks
The absolute power these unions have over all of us is frightening…for me, its simply stunning that these pirates have gamed this system so well, that even with bright flashlights of truth and excesses, they don’t blink, let alone run. They believe this is their right…they are worth it…and with a straight face tell taxpayers “good luck trying to change the rules…we made em.” This County, this State and perhaps our Country, has been hijacked by these government employees who, sadly, supposedly work(ed) for us. They don’t…our Legislators, City Councils and Governor (and President), work for them…..and the credit card bills they have racked up…is undeniable evidence that. They don’t care about democracy..they look to undermine it daily…and the politicians, judges and voters that allow this bankrupting behavior for the benefit of only 4 – 6% of overpaid public employee union members at the expense of the next generation and today’s needy (who will be deprived of government services as more and more monies get hijacked to pay these thugs) need to sound the alarm…or we will be Russia or Greece (if we aren’t already). Today, tragically, by enabling them to continue to gain the system…we work for them. God help us.
A little something for you to review from the California Public Employee Retirement Law:
§ 20487. Bankruptcy
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no contracting agency or public agency that becomes the subject of a case under the bankruptcy provisions of Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 901) of Title 11 of the United States Code shall reject any contract or agreement between that agency and the board pursuant to Section 365 of Title 11 of the United States Code or any similar provision of law; nor shall the agency, without the prior written consent of the board, assume or assign any contract or agreement between that agency and the board pursuant to Section 365 of Title 11 of the United States Code or any similar provision of law.
(Added by Stats. 1996, Ch. 502; amended and renumbered by Stats. 2000, Ch. 1002.)
§ 20574. Lien on Assets of Terminating Agency
A terminated agency shall be liable to the system for any deficit in funding for earned benefits, as determined pursuant to Section 20577, interest at the actuarial rate from the date of termination to the date the agency pays the system, and for reasonable and necessary costs of collection, including attorney’s fees. The board shall have a lien on the assets of a terminated contracting agency, subject only to a prior lien for wages, in an amount equal to the actuarially determined deficit in funding for earned benefits of the employee members of the agency, interest, and collection costs. The assets shall also be available to pay actual costs, including attorneys’ fees, necessarily expended for collection of the lien.
(Added by Stats. 1982, Ch. 77, effective 3/1/82; renumbered by Stats. 1995, Ch. 379; amended by Stats. 2003, Ch. 462.)
And a little something by Orrick, the law firm handling a number of Chapter 9 bankruptcy petitions:
“chapter five
The Tenth Amendment and Limitations on the Role of the Court
Tenth Amendment Limitations
The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reserves certain powers
to the states regarding the management of their internal affairs. In chapter 11 cases (which municipalities are ineligible to file), the bankruptcy judge wields significant power to control what the debtor may and may not do during the course of the case. For example, without court approval, any proposed action by the debtor outside the ordinary course of business must be approved by the court after creditors and other parties in interest have been provided with the time and the opportunity to object. Nor may the debtor borrow funds outside of the ordinary course of business, grant collateral for a new loan or settle a significant claim against it absent court approval. However, in light of the Tenth Amendment and provisions of the Bankruptcy Code that implement it, the court plays a significantly more limited role in a chapter 9 case, and state law restrictions on the activities of municipalities and their uses of funds must continue to be observed.
Thus, for example, the court cannot take over the operation of the municipality, remove governing board members, direct the actions of the governing board or appoint a receiver or trustee to run the affairs of the municipality. Similarly, the court cannot permit the municipality to override state laws such as those requiring voter approval for new taxes, or limiting the use of restricted funds for particular purposes. Obviously, the court lacks the power to require the sale or lease of a park or a sewage facility in order to satisfy the municipality’s obligations to creditors.
One important effect of the Tenth Amendment on municipal bankruptcies, distinguishing them from nongovernmental entity bankruptcies, is that there can be no forced liquidation of a municipality under the Bankruptcy Code. If a private firm files for bankruptcy under chapter 11 seeking to reorganize and thus continue “… the court cannot ‘take over’ the operation of the municipality …”to operate, but it fails to achieve that objective, the case likely will be converted to a liquidation case under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. In chapter 7, a trustee is appointed, and is charged with liquidating all assets for the benefit of creditors, who go away with whatever share they can receive. Assets are sold or foreclosed upon, the
entity no longer operates, and it ceases to conduct business.
For obvious practical reasons, and due to the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on the powers of the federal courts, there is no chapter 7 analogue for municipalities other than those that may be provided by applicable state law outside of the bankruptcy court system. Thus, if the chapter 9 case fails to produce a plan of adjustment allowing the municipality to exit bankruptcy, the case is dismissed and the municipality continues to exist with all of its problems and claims as it did before bankruptcy, with whatever remedies are available to the municipality and its creditors under state law.
Role of the Bankruptcy Judge
The primary responsibilities of the bankruptcy judge are to approve or disapprove the bankruptcy petition by determining eligibility, to oversee the assumption or rejection of executory contracts and unexpired leases, to decide avoidable transfer actions (i.e., preferences and fraudulent transfers) and to confirm or decline to confirm a plan of adjustment. The municipality may consent to the judge’s exercise of jurisdiction in many of the more traditional areas of bankruptcy court oversight in bankruptcy in order to obtain the protection of court orders and eliminate the need for multiple fora to decide issues. Indeed, these latter features reflect some of the benefits of filing for bankruptcy in the first place.
Despite this limited role, the judge in a chapter 9 case does exert considerable influence over the parties and can be a very helpful neutral arbiter of difficult disputes. While, as described below, the only real “hammer” the judge ultimately has is to dismiss the case and throw the municipality out of court, the judge nevertheless is likely to be very helpful in bringing the parties to the point where a plan can be approved.”
Skippy, For a Public Sector retiree who professes to have absolutely no concern that his pension might be cut, you certainly are spending lots of time trying to convince those who will have no impact on that actual decision that you are right.
I suspect that you are indeed concerned, but I think your concern, being focused the legal issues, is misplaced. The eventual lack of funds to pay these excessive promises will trump that (and any Court decisions) by a mile.
No, TL. I just consider it my civic duty to correct the misinformation spread by sites like CWD and posters like Rex and yourself. My concern is certainly with the spirit of the law but, as I’ve posted previously, my own pension is not through CalPERS and is funded at somewhere around 94% right now. I’m not at all concerned with its viability.
I’m also fortunate to have a good job with a well respected and well funded private organization, so the upheaval you predict would impact me even less than most.
I am and will remain an unashamed liberal Democrat who strongly believes in the labor movement as well as the binding and protective nature of our laws. There are a lot of us out here still, which is one of the reasons Romney isn’t preparing to take office and the Tea Party tide is being rolled back.
Skippy, What “misinformation do I spread ? Could be be that:
(1) When compared to their Private Sector counterparts, Public Sector pensions are excessive
(2) When combined with cash pay and benefits, that they are overcompensated, again, when compared to their Private Sector counterparts
(3) Their Unions bribe elected officials with campaign contributions and election support, and threaten those who do not support their agenda
(4) That ALL of their own pension contributions (INCLUDING all of the investment income on those contributions) RARELY accumulates to a sum sufficient at retirement to buy more than 10%-20% of their very rich and costly promised pensions … with Taxpayers responsible for the balance.
(5) That they provided exactly ZERO service or consideration for the significant RETROACTIVE pension boost via SB400
(6) That they use every morally repugnant trick conceivable to spike their pensions
(7) That given the very rich formulas, the inclusion of COLA provisions, the very young full retirement ages, the very heavily subsidized early retirement provisions, the liberal definition of “pensionable compensation”, etc., that the taxpayer paid for share of Public Sector pensions are ROUTINELY 2-4 times (5-6 times for safety workers) greater in value at retirement than those of their Private Sector counterparts
I could go on and on, but starting with these, please tell me how any of this is “misinformation”.
No, those are the same tired claims made here on CWD and on every other public pension blog. No matter how many times you post them, or how fervently you believe them, they are either blatantly false or materially misrepresent the facts.
You’re smart enough to know that, so your interest must be in either generating clicks or shilling for the “financial services” industry in which you claim to work. I suspect the real truth is that you’re nothing more than a paid blogger for some group like Reason, Cato, or one of the Right-Wing funded anti-union and anti-public employee groups out there like the groups that created and support these “Watchdog” sites.
Skippy, Not one of the 7 items I listed is inaccurate, and I believe YOU know that.
No person or group (or anyone else) pays me to do so. I comment solely because (by experience and training) I understand pension design and funding way better than most, and hence I know the true cost of the absurd pension promises that you, your ilk, and your Union have connived and bribed your way into getting …. and that it’s WAY past time to both STOP and REVERSE it.
TL is right SKdog, the math will solve the greed of the RAGWUS feeders!!
TL: Nos. 1 and 2: There is no rule of thumb or law in existence that states public employee pay and private counterpart pay should be the same. Those of you who advocate such, are the first ones to decry any policy shifts by the government that you would consider Socialism.
No. 3: Lie;
No. 4: The payments made by the employer and employee to their respective pension plans are set by the Plan actuaries and the payers just do what they are told–The investment earnings take over from there.
No. 5: I don’t think you can be everywhere TL, and you don’t know any more than I do about specific servies provided by any public sector worder.
No. 6: Lie;
No. 7: Lie!
Stop it Donkey! Are you going to copywrite that acronymn or what! If not, throw it away! Nobody knows what the heck you are talking about–it is just hate rhetoric anyway.
The endless ying and yang arguments regarding pensions …but the original topic was on direct democracy and versus the so called power of unions. The author’s bias is well known in San Diego, so his writings/opinions are, or should be, viewed in the color of that light, not taken as gospel.
IMO the exercise of any group, organized or not, to oppose, or support a citizen’s initiative is just another example of democracy in action and should be celebrated. Power should NOT rest with any ONE group. Two recent example of this were cited, albeit unequally (what a surprise) by the author in San Diego. The commonality between both were: one, the author, a multi-millionaire city councilman with a history of, we’ll let’s spinning facts to me his personal and political ambitions. And two, labor groups whose mission is to fight for their members.
What the author leaves out, and most don’t understand, is LBFO. Last Best Final Offer combined with law which explicitly prohibit strikes by public employees. While public employees have collective bargaining rights in California, the cannot legally strike without risk of being fired. Government employers can and DO IMPOSE LBFOs. So unless negotiators are negotiating in bad faith and it can be proved so in a court of law, power swings like a pendulum from one side of the equation to the other.
Good post, Justin.
Good article Chris, your numbers tell the truth on how corrupt these unions are. These unions have tons of money to promote their agenda and spin. But in the long run economics and the numbers always prevail. Unfortunately we will have to the learn the hard way that we are being screwed by the unions, but that is just the way it is (Hello Greece). And all you new union members you will be the first to get the shaft because of your lack of numbers in your unions, your members with seniority will suck up easily their own and your pension contributions, but fill comfortable knowing you are way ahead of the private sector and most of all the youth of this (kick the can down the road) state.
The first paragraph has an incorrect use of “then.” It should be “than” instead in the following sentence part: “30 percent more signatures then the minimum.”
Editor’s note: Thank you. We fixed it in the text.
Who can save the City of Los Angeles from bankruptcy?
I am a firm believer that you can accomplish more with honey than with vinegar.
The City of Los Angeles is on the brink of Municipal Bankruptcy. If that happens all of LA City employees will sustain a severe economic and financial blow, which cannot be rectified. The people who reside in the City of Los Angeles will sustain much hardship if this financial situation is not resolved amicably.
I propose that all parties handling the city finances and all Union organizations and other organizations that service the city should put all the cards on the table. Show all expenses and liabilities, a conservative approach to projected revenues, no fudging of expenses or revenues.
It is in the best interests of all parties to come to a compromise. Remember a piece of cake is better than no cake at all. Eventually the cow runs out of milk.
Today’s economic and financial situation throughout Los Angeles and the rest of the country as a whole is the worst since the depression.
The City of Los Angeles must aggressively help businesses in trouble survive and court other businesses to locate in the City of Los Angeles. Businesses create jobs and revenues. We must look at the “multiplier affect of thriving businesses”, which creates economic prosperity.
YJ Draiman