Waze, a traffic app for freeways and highways will be supplying user-generated traffic data to Caltrans. In exchange Caltrans will provide road closure and road conditions to Waze.
To demolish any of Thatcher Yard is a Really big waste of money……and will do nothing
to stop nuisances. The City will not give up this property and there is huge underground
improvements that cannot be seen. So much better and cheaper just to add security fencing
atop existing masonry yard walls masonry block buildings. And add some security cameras
for best coverage communication directly to authorities. This alternative would save 85%
and have plenty left over to repaint exterior and upgrade landscape at perimeter.
The all masonry wall + building perimeters already hides most of the yard interior.
OR== Maybe it fits the City plans to create low cost housing , like the Venice Bus Yard.
Barbara Broide, Westwood South-of-Santa-Monica-Blvd Homeowners Assn
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE make every effort to attend the PLUM hearing on the Sign Ordinance on Tuesday, submit written comments (see below/)and share this info.
Communities have invested a great deal over the years participating in the crafting of the Sign Ordinance and striving to halt the heretofore apparently unfettered influence of the billboard industry in City Hall. We cannot let down our guard now!
Action Alert: CITYWIDE SIGN ORDINANCE
Educate your stakeholders and take a position! Pass a motion and community impact statement supporting the City Planning Commission’s 10/22/15 Sign Ordinance recommendations. Speak out. Speak up!
1) Write to Council’s PLUM COMMITTEE (c/o Sharon.Dickinson@lacity.org), with copies to full Council (c/o Alan.email@example.com) and Mayor (Mayor.firstname.lastname@example.org) in support of City Planning Commission’s 10/22/15 actions on the Sign Ordinance.
2) Attend the Tuesday PLUM Committee Hearing at 2:30 pm (date to be determined – 4/12/16 date postponed) to testify at City Hall. Help to spread the word.
3) Plan to attend upcoming Council meeting(s) on the Sign Ordinance to follow PLUM action.
Refer to: Council File: 11-1705
I/We support the new Sign Ordinance as approved by the City Planning Commission on 10/22/2015 and urge the PLUM committee and City Council to adopt that version of the ordinance that:
a) Disapproves any AMNESTY for existing billboards that lack permits or have
been altered in violation of their permits.
b) Disapproves the “grandfathering” of any sign districts that weren’t approved or applied for in April, 2009, when the CPC approved the initial version of the new sign ordinance.
c) Restricts any new off-site signs, including digital billboards, to sign districts in 22 areas zoned for high-intensity commercial use.
d) Requires existing billboards to be taken down before any new off-site signs can go up in sign districts. The takedown ratio of existing signs to new signs would be 5 to 1 for conventional and 10 to 1 for digital.
e) Sets administrative civil penalties for sign violators that will act as a real deterrent to illegal billboards and other signage.
f) Prohibits off-site signage in city parks and recreation facilities.
It is critically important that communities speak out in favor of a strong sign ordinance to protect our visual landscape. Once billboards are erected, communities cannot stop or attempt to regulate offensive or unhealthful messages from being posted. Billboards are protected by First Amendment Free Speech rights. Messages for junk food, alcoholic beverages, violent images from films or television programs, etc. are all protected. Digital billboards are a huge driver distraction and endanger drivers, passengers, cyclists and pedestrians.
Bill Hooey, Fair Housing Coalition
In the state of Minnesota, landlords and tenants got together and sued their local city to stop SCEP inspections and they won.
Systematic Code Enforcement Program (SCEP) was declared illegal. It is now going before the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Both the United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution provide that persons shall be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and impose a warrant requirement supported by probable cause… The privacy interest in one’s home is well-recognized as of greatest constitutional significance.
The mere fact that someone rents a home, rather than owns it, should not give the government the right to disrupt their life, invade their privacy and search every nook and cranny of their home—all without providing a shred of evidence that anything is wrong.