Crybaby Loser Propaganda Spin Response To "Special Event Fee Waiver" (Daily News Commentary)

I don't begrudge the Daily News for printing this weak-ass, crybaby-loser, fake-Jaycee operating, propaganda spin in their opinion section today since it is a response to the Daily News' front page story from yesterday. So I am only making fun of the inferior spin doctor who posted it:

CRYBABY LOSER SAID...[The realest (ZD) comments in brackets.]

What council members have found is that though on the surface it makes sense to recoup the cost of providing police, traffic and other city services to special events, it doesn't actually make sense in many instances.

For example, if the city charged every event for all the fees it now waives, how many neighborhoods could afford the regular block parties, farmers markets, fairs, parades, rallies and other events that help build community in this sprawling city?

[Who said the city should start charging for all of these events. These sound like the ones that should still be picked up if they are free and open to the public. So you are starting off your argument by throwing the whole enchilada under the bus. A sure sign of propaganda, agendized spin. And since I see right through it, not very effective.]

Very few, if any, would be able to pay the mysteriously calculated costs, printed in each City Council agenda, that are "waived" each meeting by council decree.

[ZD SAID: Very few, if any...any you already know this, HOW? Again, you are arguing under the premise that all S.E.F Waivers are to be cut and the city is gonna shut down. I know it is a simple issue. But all your pomposity and grandeur seems to be confusing you. (Like a choreographer with two left feet.)]

Yet time and again, the call for fee-waiver reform arises, often when the city falls upon tough financial times. [And maybe if they would do it, it would improve the situation...DOH!]

The call has come up again this month (when Zuma Dogg returned to town and started blasting the concept before City Council and the entire City on TV 35), as city officials try to figure out how to fill a $406 million gap between expected revenue and what they'd like to spend in the next fiscal year. After raising all the taxes and fees they could think of, they had a brainstorm: Stop waiving all these fees for events, and suddenly the money will start rolling in, right?

Well, maybe.

For one thing, it doesn't calculate how many groups would simply close up shop or move their fair, parade or show somewhere else if forced to pay the fees.

[No...the small community groups this is intended for WILL NOT close up and move elsewhere. It's their community. They are going to hold the event in their community...DOH! And let the Academy Awards leave L.A. Let them hold it at the Orange County Fairgrounds instead of the Kodak Theater.]

And, by extension, that figure doesn't account for the incidental benefits of such events to city coffers. Money spent in L.A. means tax revenue for the city. [IT SHOULDN'T FIGURE THAT IN...S.E.F Waivers are not an economic stimulus package to benefit city coffers...it's to benefit the community Mr. No Comprende'.]

Some have suggested that while community groups couldn't afford the cost of the city fees, commercial ventures can. Therefore, they argue, the city should charge fees for money-making events. [YES...EXACTLY! Again, the fee waiver is for community groups who could not afford the cost of the city fees. YOU ARE CORRECT! And yes, that DOES NOT MEAN that this is to be applied to Disney, Dodgers, ABC, Dick Clark, Vanity Fair and all the likes. The more I read your opinion, the more I think your opinion is DUMB AND WEAK. Are you Dumb and Weak?]

That way, the argument goes, the sponsors of for-profit ventures like the Oscars or Dodgers games would pay whatever L.A. bureaucrats deem is their fair share for the cost of city services. But, then, so would less-deep-pocketed ventures such as farmers markets and neighborhood fairs. [NO! First of all, I hope the City doesn't charge "whatever elected officials deem fair." It should be based on the actual cost of services rendered. AND AGAIN, sorry you based your whole argument that the fact that ALL money is to be pulled. For the types of events this is to be used for, it doesn't run up into huge money. ($500-$1000...maybe $5000 for something HUGE.)]

See the problem? [Yeah, you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about and I am ZD, Miriam, Sharon, Matt and Donna are smarter than you.]

Why, for example, should traffic control for USC's graduation be waived, but not for UCLA's? That kind of arbitrary application could set the city up for lawsuits claiming favoritism and bias.

[NO DUMMY...YOU SET THE POLICY AND IT EITHER MEETS THE CRITERION, OR NOT. And the city should not be paying for institutions like USC or UCLA student graduation. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? NOW I HAVE A NEW STARTING POINT AS TO WHERE TO START THE CUTS!]

L.A. officials must also carefully consider the value of some money-making events to the city in terms of indirect economic benefits or direct social and cultural ones. That value, though difficult to quantify, must be balanced against the true costs.

To be sure, the Academy Awards' annual event in Hollywood uses a tremendous amount of taxpayer resources in the form of traffic control and police, and the academy could afford to fork over some money. But if it won't, does Los Angeles really want to drive away a quintessential Hollywood event, or alienate the industry that's the backbone of the local economy?

The public and the council ought not cast aside these events so brusquely just for the sake of a few more dollars.

Ending special-event fee waivers is not the magic solution to the city's budget ills. But having a policy in place will help the city do a better job of capturing fees without driving away the events that make Los Angeles Los Angeles.

"Ending special-event fee waivers is not the magic solution to the city's budget ills."

[Nothing is the magic solution. But that does not mean do nothing.]

SPECIAL EVENT FEE WAIVER is for the small, non-profit organizations and little community events that would not be able to take place without the city fee waiver. Zuma Dogg never said eliminate ALL Special Event Fee Waivers. BUT REMEMBER...the Special Event Fee Waiver was created for events that are free and open to the public for the benefit of the community. For example a church that wants to have an annual carnival, or a youth group that wants to have a bake sale. NOT VANITY FAIR POST-ACADEMY AWARD PARTIES! AND NOTHING THAT CHARGES ADMISSION OR REQUIRES YOU TO HAVE A WILLY WONKA GOLDEN TICKET FOR ENTRANCE.

So using the S.E.F. Waiver to address/compensate in the way you mention, " For one thing, it doesn't calculate how many groups would simply close up shop or move their fair, parade or show somewhere else if forced to pay the fees.

THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THIS CITY...The politicians get "one hook in" (a wedge) on something, then extend it, mutate it and turn it into something it was never intended to be.

Even if the Academy Award stuff is shady -- and the City SHOULD NOT be picking up the tab in the end...I would still be happy if the City cut back on all the other shady Special Event Fee Waivers.

(You can never expect 100% total victories when dealing with City issues like this.)

BEST ARGUMENT FOR ACADEMY AWARDS/GRAMMIES/ETC:
The City is in a business deal with these private corporations toward the goal of economic stimulus.

With that argument, you may as well say the City can start giving Federal transportation dollars to Amtrack, because Amtrack helps generate revenue for the City.

Maybe we should give LAUSD money for the marching band to Aerosmith because I hear their concert generates revenue for the City.

Hey Richard AlarCON...How about taking all the food stamp money in the State of California and give it to McDonald's because the restaurant chain provides a lot of tax and property revenue for the City.

How about taking the money for all the social services in this city and give it to the rich and powerful people who are responsible for creating all the wealth in this city? Oh yeah...we already are.