Villaraigosa Sucks Up to Bill Clinton

Did you see the Democrat convention tonight?

If you didn't, guess who sat directly behind Bill Clinton?

Yes, Tony Villaraigosa.

Did you see Clinton turn around and talk to Tony several times?

Maybe Tony can get a job in Washington and leave us alone. But then, who should we back for Mayor?


Anonymous said...

You mean at the gathering of Communists?

Anonymous said...

I really hope members of the humane/rescue community will start to pay attention to Walter Moore for Mayor. Yes, he is a Republican. But he is also a real animal lover who was dedicated last time to making sweeping changes within the dep't.

Ed Muzika said...

The problems with Moore are many.

1. He wants to get rid of rent control, meaning lots of lower and middle income tenants will be priced out and forced to move out, causing them to dump their pets.

2. Walter is unrealistic. He just says it is an easy problem to solve but fails to give specific answers or proposed ways to increase LAAS budget or make other chnages that require cooperation by Council or the unions.

3. When he gave speeches last time when running for mayor against AV, Herzberg and others, helping animals in the shelters was always the last item he mentioned, almost as an after thought.

If he had more concrete ideas and well as a plan to implement those ideas, that are backed by more than, "It is easy to do when you have the resources LA has," I'd ne more enthsiastic. But even after 2 years he has not developed anything specific that he would commit to.

He is a Republican and will tend to shoot down anything that increasaes taxes or takes money from police or fire. So, where will the money come to save animals?

Ed Muzika said...

This is another example.

Moore complains about spedning $14,000,000 for the new West Valley shelter saying the mayor should have spent that on increasing adoptions through reatil outlets off campus.

Ho doesn't even realize that the money came from a bond issue for capital expenditures and has nothing to do with the annual operating budget where you could use the $14,000,000 for rentals.

In other words, he is uninformed and unrealistic. I pointed out his mistake to him almsot 2 years ago and he failed to go any deeper and look at the bond issue or the operating budget.

From his website:

Today’s Daily News has a glowing report on the recent expansion of the City’s animal shelter in Chatsworth.

The article says the expansion: cost “nearly $14 million;” added 50,000 square feet; and will let the shelter “house 152 dogs, up from 56,” plus 167 cats, up from 68.

Let me translate that into meaningful numbers: the expansion cost $280 per square foot, and $71,795 per additional animal.

How much money is that? Well, for less money, you could have bought a three-bedroom, two-bath home in Oklahoma City for each animal. That’s right: you could buy each dog and each cat its own house, with its own yard for just $69,900.

Do I think we actually ought to spend $14 million to buy 200 houses in Oklahoma for our dogs and cats? No. Rather, the point is that our tax dollars are being squandered when the City pays as much for an animal pen as people in the private sector pay for a house.

I’d rather see our animal shelter dollars spent more on finding homes for these pets than building lavish facilities where they’re warehoused for a week before being put to death.

For $14 million, we could rent an awful lot of retail space for animal shelter pet stores, and use standard marketing techniques to encourage people to adopt. We could also build facilities to keep more pets alive for longer periods by paying less than $280 per square foot.


About the house in Oklahoma City, this is not Oklahoa City, it is LA, and these are new facilities, not 40 year old ramshackle residences.