LA CITY TO "LEND" $1.75 MILLION IN CHILDREN'S MUSEUM "EMERGENCY" CRISIS

CM ALRACON SUCKERS LA CITY COUNCIL (AND THE REST OF THE CITY) FOR $1.7 MILLION FOR "EMERGENCY" MUSUEM MOTION

Congratulations to newly returned Los Angeles City Councilmemeber Richard Alarcon (CD 7) for testing the waters with Council, and proving no one can stand up to you.

You just suckered the other CMs into $1.7 million for your district's Children's Museum, which looks to ZD like nothing more than a "gift of public".

First of all:

a) Does construction stopping on Monday of a museum constitue calling for "EMERGENCY RULE 23 (motion)? Well that's how Alarcon blows a curveball past the pueblos like Neighborhood Council, a public hearing with proper notification AND I THINK THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS GOING TO HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT THIS!!! Plus, the motion WAS NOT posted on the bulletin board on the side of Council Chambers after Garshady mentoined there MAY be a SPECIAL RULE 23. I FUCKING WENT TO LOOK FOR IT...THE BULLETIN BOARD WAS EM-F*CKIN-TY!

b) Here's the deal: The City is gonna "loan" $1.75 million to the Los Angeles Children's Museum near the Van Whatchamacallit dam (HANSEN Dam in Lake View Terrace), if they can get matching private donations (which OBVIOUSLY they haven't been able to do enough of). What's the big emergency? Construction workers may walk off the job money if they don't get the dinero. (I think we got way bigger emergencies, y'all...like smog, for one.)

c) This is being done without any knowledge of information as to cost over-runs. This isn't to FINISH the project; it's just to keep it going. Who's to say they won't come back and ask for more money later? What about cost over-runs? Does $1.75 million account for those? (Can I have that in writing please?)

d) It's an "un-secured, no-interest" loan. EXCUSE ME...THERE'S A REASON WHY CM HUIZAR STOOD UP TO WONDER WHY WE ARE DOING THIS, SINCE THIS HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE. (And for good reason.)

e) What if the loan isn't paid back? Then it becomes a "gift of public". Who says City Council has the right to essentially give away public money on a "non-secure, no interest" loan, with no guarantee they will get the job done and the California Supreme Court ruling against the "False Claims Act" means you will have no recourse over fraudluant cost over-runs.

f) Padilla is a big talker who didn't put any provisions in place to protect his plan from a diversion, as this. Padilla made promises to the district and the City, and he allowed AlarCON to go back on those promises. BECAUSE THERE IS NO LEADERSHIP OR BACKBONE IN THE HORSESHOE EXCEPT FOR ALARcon, I GUESS. So look at his motions, if you want to see which way the City is headed. [WAY TO STAND UP AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT ERIC GARSHADY! YOU BLEW THIS LIKE YOU BLEW LAX: TWO BIG PERFORMANCE FOR PROMISE INSTEAD OF PERFORMANCE FOR PERFOMANCE!]

g) LAURA CHICK ANNOUNCED AN AUDIT: THAT MEANS SHE SUSPECTS A LITTLE "FRAUD, WASTE AND ABUSE"...AND YOU'RE GONNA GIVE $1.75 MILLION TO THAT? SOUNDS LIKE A REAL SECURE INVESTMENT. (Oh yeah, it's "non-secure", I forgot.)

EXCUSE ME: WENDY GREUEL...YOU TELL THAT HILARIOUS JOKE ON A THURSDAY THAT YOU WANT TO BE CITY CONTROLLER, AND ON FRIDAY YOU VOTE "YES" ON THIS, WITHOUT CHALLENGING ALARCON ON THIS??? JACK WEISS, YOU WANT TO BE CITY ATTORNEY, BUT YOU VOTED "YES" FOR THIS???

HERE'S WHAT ZUMA DOGG WILL BE SAYING, NOW THAT HE MUST CHALLENGE WENDY GREUEL FOR CITY CONTROLLER, SINCE SHE CAN'T STAND UP TO ALARCON, AND CAN'T PROPERLY RUN THE PUBLIC COMMENT TIMER:

ZD SAYS...At a minimum, AlarCON should secure the loan with money from the museum property (collateral), all personal and real property). And I call on my colleague, Mr. City Attorney Rockard Delgadillo to recommend the property be secured with adequate means of repayment! And a ruling if Council has the right to give a "gift of public", like this.

I'M GLAD CM DENNIS ZINE WASN'T AROUND TO VOTE "YES" ON THIS!

contact: zumadogg@gmail.com