What do you think of Walter Moore and his platform? Would you vote for him in the 2009 mayoral election?

HjmB1y3ZPqg

I don't agree...

vgfpqEOUKqU

i don't agree with the transit "solution" as well.
don't forget that rapid busses and bus lanes have been put into place as well as two stretches or rail since antonio took office. the bus lanes are an okay thing to put into place, but we need a rail foundation. i could wait on the other problems compared to this priority

On the other hand, I don't think I could take another 4 years of Villaraigosa's empty promises and inarticulate speeches.

Walter Moore represents NIMBYism. Although his credentials are impressive, he's anti-growth and anti-densification. We can't have that.

The man does have pretty good credentials.

However, this man will send us back to the stone age. I can't agree with him campaigning for low density and BRT. Hell no. We can't do that, we have to move forward.

The only thing I CAN agree with is him lowering taxes to allow business to come back into the city. But any mayor who can get their head out of their ass and realize that we need business to come back to the city can lower business taxes, so... :dunno:

^ Villaraigosa lowered business income taxes, though only for small businesses.

^^I have a feeling that no Democrat would lower business taxes in the city, at least for large businesses. Since the party portrays them as evil, it doesn't exactly work. It would be nice to cut down on the office vacancy rate downtown though.

Actually, it's not the worst plan I've ever heard. He really wants to crack down on crime and bus-only lanes would be great for the city. I just hope that he wouldn't try to divert money away from existing rail projects and I have to see more specifics on how he's going to lure people closer to the city.

Two problems so far: where is he going to get the money for tax credits to get people to live closer to their jobs and for bus only lanes, and how will he confront NIMBYism that is sure to come with taking away on-street parking for bus lanes. Maybe it will be answered in video 2.

Sorry for the triple post, but I just have to respond to his platform.

1. Your Mayor Should Work Full-Time
I have no qualms with this. I most definitely agree.

2. Your Mayor Should Be Qualified To Protect Your Rights And Interests
Okay, I should have a mayor with a good education and a history that qualifies him for the job. I agree with this too.

3.Your Mayor Should Make Every Neighborhood A Safe Neighborhood
I really like this part of his plan. Get tough on crime. Allow our police to arrest people for breaking laws (yes, immigration laws).

4.Your Mayor Should Raise Your Standard Of Living, Not Lower It To Accommodate People Who Want To Move Here
Okay, now this one just contradicts itself. This is basically his anti-density argument. Well guess who this is hurting. The poor in this city! We don't have an ample supply of housing in this city and demand is ever increasing. By refusing to allow more density, you only push the poor out of the city so that only the rich can live here. Yes, rich people who want to move here will actually push out the poor. I don't want Los Angeles to turn into San Francisco. Moore is dead-wrong on this point.

5. Your Mayor Should Never Spend Your Money On “Welfare For The Rich”
I can't say that I really like tax breaks for developers either. If there's really a demand, then they'll get past those taxes.

6. Your Mayor Should Never Squander Your Money
Lower spending on worthless projects. Can't disagree on that.

7. Your Mayor Should Strive To Lower, Not Raise, Your Tax Burden
Also very easy to agree with.

8.Your Mayor Should Treat People Fairly And Equally, Not “Rob Peter To Pay Paul”
He doesn't like welfare. Of course, I don't know how much of a say mayors have in that decision, but I agree.

9.Your Mayor Should Have Practical, Specific Proposals To Deal With Traffic
I like that he's for BRT, but I don't like that he's so against the Wilshire Subway. This goes along with his anti-density argument. Bus lanes would be great for this city, and we couldn't get more of them soon enough. I just wonder how he would react to the knowledge that even BRT would spur higher density. Well, that's the price you have to pay for living in a city - it wants to grow.

I disagree with almost all of his points:
Crime: LA is the 3rd safest big city in America.
Industry: the middle class manufacturing jobs left LA because they left America. LA is the largest industrial city in the US.
Immigration: You know why we're the largest industrial city in the US? Who do you think's working in those factories.
Big Business: If CA repealed prop. 13, we could tax homeowners like everywhere else instead of taxing business so much.

The only thing I kinda agree with him on is BRT. I don't think it's "the solution," but I do think it's where we will end up. I'm pretty sure Measure R won't pass. There are too many ignorant people in this city who believe that they just need a nicer car and the traffic will go away. What we will end up with is completely crippled road infrastructure in the next 5-15 years that resembles Bangkok. Congestion will have so hurt our city's economy that a subway network will be completely out of the question. If we're still dumb, we'll do nothing and actually become a third-world city. Or, we will implement bus-only lanes like they have all over London. I see a vast network of bus lanes as inevitable, so we might as well start planning for them now.

Just because it is the third safest city in America, it doesn't mean that it's not a problem. We have areas that really need police attention.

So we should just let immigrants come in illegally? We really need immigration reform. Sure they're a benefit to the economy, but we can't let people just enter the country illegally. Who knows what could get in.

As for taxes, we could just cut spending. We really need to lower that business tax.

Yeah but this guy's using fear-mongering.
I'm not saying crime and immigration aren't problems, but he's taking a very reactionary attitude treating them as the main problems crippling our city, as if all these illegals rushed across the border for fun just so they could commit crimes and "sift through our trash cans for recyclables."

The solution is not to build a "single stretch of subway" under Wilshire Blvd., but to build a countywide SYSTEM composed of HRT, LRT, BRT, and Metro Rapid lines.

Moore is CLEARLY not an urban planner, nor does he know what's the best transit solution for LA. He's only concerned about getting BRT to serve only the 469 square miles of the city of LA, but not separate jurisdictions. Sylmar versus Santa Monica -- whose transit needs are greater?

I hope Rick Caruso decides to run for mayor. He seems like a visionary and someone who would get the job done.

He has my vote. I went to one of his rallies in Woodland Hills. I saw McCain, Obama, and Ron Paul supporters there. He has great ideas. However his base is largely White Middle Class people who listen to talk radio. His campaign needs to reach out to Moore people.

With the passage of Measure R, I'm now thinking about supporting Villaraigosa because he holds a key position on the MTA board.

This guy is an idiot! He has no vision! Villar talks about densification, urbanization and he ran on a Subway to the Sea platform that he has worked hard to bring to reality. He pushed for Measure R and got it! What else do you people want? Villar is doing as good as it will probably get. After Villar my vote goes to Garcetti!!!!

^ That's his saving grace. Other than that, he's all show and no go. What ever happened to his "Million Trees LA" program? Where are the rows of trees lining the sidewalks of Wilshire, Sunset, Santa Monica, La Brea, Fairfax, and La Cienega? He's promised far more than he's delivered.

^ Villaraigosa lowered business income taxes, though only for small businesses.
Actually Jim Hahn, the previous Mayor did that back in 2001-2002.

the "million trees la" program is supposed to last the course of a decade or so, not 2 years