Tuesday, December 23, 2008

L.A.U.S.D., Will They Waste Your Money Going to Oceanside?

A group from L.A.U.S.D. will indubitably be traveling down to Oceanside on January 7, 2009 to witness the California Coastal Commission deal with the approval of South Region High School No. 15 (SRHS 15), during the Commission's first meeting of the year.

Now if I were to inform you that the second meeting by the California Coastal Commission of 2009 will be held in Los Angeles, just one month later, do you think that L.A.U.S.D. would try to get the SRHS 15 issue on the February agenda?

If your answer is no, then I guess you understand how wasteful L.A.U.S.D. can be because it wants to move its project forward, no matter what.

Here are some particulars:

January 2009
MEETING NOTICE
City of Oceanside
City Council Chambers
300 North Coast Hwy.
Oceanside, CA 92054
(760) 801-0366 Phone number on meeting day only!

The California Coastal Commission January meeting agenda, staff reports (PDF links) and other information are available at http://www.coastal.ca.gov/mtgcurr.html in real-time. You may also view and listen to the Coastal Commission meeting live on the web.

For more information on the California Coastal Commission, please visit our Web site at http://www.coastal.ca.gov/.

SOUTH COAST DISTRICT (Los Angeles County)

19. DEPUTY DIRECTOR'S REPORT. Report by Deputy Director on permit waivers, emergency permits, immaterial amendments & extensions, LCP matters not requiring public hearings, and on comments from the public. For specific information contact the Commission's Long Beach office at (562) 590-5071.

20. CONSENT CALENDAR (removed from Regular Calendar). See AGENDA CATEGORIES.
21. NEW APPEALS. See AGENDA CATEGORIES.

a. Appeal No. A-5-MNB-08-306 (City of Manhattan Beach, Manhattan Beach)Appeal by William Victor of City of Manhattan Beach decision granting permit for citywide modifications to the public parking meter rates, including raising fee for public parking meters by $0.25 cents per hour resulting in $1.25 per hour for streets, and by $0.50 cents per hour resulting in $1.50 per hour for pier and beach parking lots within the appeal able area of the coastal zone, Manhattan Beach, Los Angeles County. (CP-LB)

22. COASTAL PERMIT APPLICATIONS. See AGENDA CATEGORIES. Attention: Items appearing in this section of the agenda may be moved to the Consent Calendar for this area by the Executive Director when, prior to taking up the Consent Calendar, staff and the applicant are in agreement on the staff recommendation. If an item is moved to the Consent Calendar it will be processed in the same manner as other Consent Calendar items (See AGENDA CATEGORIES) except that if that item is subsequently removed from the Consent Calendar by a vote of three or more commissioners, the item will be acted upon at the meeting in the order in which it originally appears on this Meeting Notice and in the manner Coastal Permit Applications are processed. The purpose of this procedural change is to expedite the Commission's coastal development permit process.

a. Application No. 5-07-375 (T-Mobile, USA, Venice, Los Angeles) Application of T-Mobile, USA to install 47.5-ft. tall wood utility pole to support cell phone equipment and antennas, at Eastern edge of Pacific Avenue right-of-way (4100 block - at Jib Avenue), Venice, Los Angeles, Los Angeles County. (CP-LB)

b. Application No. 5-08-187 (City of Long Beach Maintenance and Development Bureau, Long Beach) Application of City of Long Beach to establish a city tree trimming and tree removal policy, at Downtown Shoreline, Alamitos Bay Marina, and other state tidelands and beaches within City of Long Beach, Long Beach, Los Angeles County. (CP-LB)

c. Application No. 5-08-251 (Los Angeles Unified School District, Los Angeles) Application of Los Angeles Unified School District to construct 810 seat high school with 30 classrooms, administrative offices, gymnasium, amphitheater, sports fields, wind turbines, and 193 on-site parking spaces, at 3210 South Alma, San Pedro, Los
Angeles County. (AP-LB)
-------------------------------------------------------------

It seems taxpayers will probably foot the bill for transportation costs to and from Oceanside for representatives of L.A.U.S.D. to attend the meeting.

I would imagine that those representatives may get hungry. Looks like we will foot their meals, too.

Do you feel the reps might wish to get a fresh start in the morning of January 7 and decide to spend the night of January 6 down closer to Oceanside, even at our expense?

If anyone from L.A.U.S.D. states that the District is in dire financial straights, I think if they pull of the Oceanside adventure that should pretty much offer to all of us that the 'suits' don't really care about the District's financial status.

Wouldn't it be a nice thing for L.A.U.S.D. to try and get agenda item 22 c. moved from the Commission's January meeting to the February meeting so money could be saved?

Let's just wait and see whether they really find that saving money by moving just one month out on the approval is worth it to the 'suits'.

Now there may be things that warrant having the issue brought up at the January meeting, but I don't think the giant organization, make that bureaucracy that is L.A.U.S.D. can't ask the good folks at the California Coastal Commission to push the item out by just one more month. After all, L.A.U.S.D. requested an earlier postponement of dealing with the issue.

I think that if the SRHS 15 issue remains on the agenda for the January meeting, the Freedom of Information Act would probably be brought into motion by N.O.I.S.E. to find out how much money was spent by L.A.U.S.D. officials and representatives during their trek down to Oceanside and back.

Let's watch the money flow and the oversight committee completely ignore just about everything.

Whether you support SRHS 15 or not, I think we could all agree that delaying the item by just one month will not hurt anything and will allow L.A.U.S.D. to demonstrate how they really are willing and able to economize for the benefit of the students and the taxpayers who pay their bills in the first place.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

LAUSD is a corrupt organization who answers to no one... they like to build schools, but don't have "funds" for the teachers and supplies to back them... they do this all the time - business as usual for LAUSD!

Bob
San Pedro resident

km said...

This also seems to be calculated to reduce attendance by those who oppose the project.