Talk to Us

Share Your Ideas for L.A.

We're looking to identify new ideas to help create jobs and deliver better city services to all Angelenos. If you have an idea about how we can better serve you, please submit it here and our office will review it closely. We appreciate your comments.

Community Rules:

This space is for suggestions for improving city services. Comments not relevant to this discussion or derogatory/profane statements will be removed. If you'd like to register a complaint you can do so here.

Repair sidewalks before property can be sold

Pass an ordinance requiring sidewalks to be repaired at the time of sale of the property adjoining the sidewalk. The expense should be allocated to the seller just like updating to low-flow toilets.

1 reaction Share

LAX Airport Rail

The city's decision to scrap a direct transit connection to LAX in favor of a people mover will not solve the problem of providing convenient access to LAX. With a projected transit mode share for the proposed people mover of less than 1% of all airport trips, the line compares very unfavorably with San Francisco's BART at SFO, where 10% of trips are made on rail. This is penny wise and pound foolish. Spending a little more money to build a direct rail connection would achieve higher ridership and more revenue over the long term. Once again in this country, short-term political goals have outweighed long-term interests! It is laughable that right now the city is building a new light rail line that will stop just a mile and a half away from the airport. What is it about transit that we don't get? Hong Kong can do it, Beijing can do it, San Francisco can do it, Singapore, Tokyo, London, even Denver! Los Angeles will not be a world city with policies like this that lack vision.

1 reaction Share

LA Raiders

  Dear, City of Los Angeles!
Los Angeles is a great contender to land an NFL team. The Rams organization already bought the land to build a stadium in Inglewood to bring the team back to LA but the true LA team is the Raiders. It would be better a business deal to bring the Raiders to LA. They are the true LA team if you look back when the Raiders and the Rams were in Los Angeles the Raiders had more success, they have a bigger fan base than the Rams it would  add more revenue and improve the economy.  it’s a better deal  to land the Raiders.  we have the rams in the bank we got them already it is time to land the Raiders. the NFL already said it wants LA to have two teams. The Raiders organization wants their own stadium a stadium of their own where they don't have to share the stadium with another team  the Raiders are willing to give a city 500 Million dollars for a new stadium we need to give  Farmers Field to the raiders it will bring jobs grow our economy it will be a great deal for our city and our city should bring our beloved raiders back.
2 reactions Share

Making Police Less Judgemental

Many of us are concerned about the killings of black youth by police.  I think it would help if police officers were trained in and practiced mindfulness meditation.  Mindfulness has been shown in a limited study to reduce racism as measured by the IAT test.  Mindfulness is also used by the Marines to improve their combat readiness and ability to think clearly on the battlefield.  P. O.'s could use mindfulness to improve their ability to interact with the city's varied population of whites, blacks, chicanos, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, the immigrants from throughout the world and their descendants, gays, lesbians, and transsexuals, all of whom are not the enemy but citizens to be protected and served.  Mindfulness gives one the space to respond rather than react to stressful situations.  I also think P. O.'s should take the IAT test on a regular basis.  Peace.

3 reactions Share

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/26/local/la-me-bike-share-delay-20130627

Can you make this happen?..we are so behind as a major city, Tokyo, Barcelona, they seem to have no problem with this concept.  To monopolize OUTDOOR advertising by allowing only a few companies access should NOT be allowed...please respond.

Rachel Taylor

1 reaction Share

Homelessness

What are you going to do with homeless people living for extended periods of time ? I've seen a lot of tents spring up in the last year in alleys and under bridges, freeways, etc. 

1 reaction Share

Means for greatly improving city communication and generating large revenue for the city

Honorable Mayor Garcetti:
Our company would like to present a proposal to the Los Angeles City Council that we believe could garner for the city anywhere from $500 million to $2 billion per year . We are seeking the support of your office as well as information on the protocol for addressing the city council.
Rather than roadside advertising revenue going to private property owners through the rental of billboards, a relatively large amount of advertising revenue could come to the city simply by allowing the use of traffic polls for mounting advertising video displays.
Adverteering, Inc. is patenting and pioneering a new venue of advertising medium, the Traffic Light Mounted Video Advertising Display (TLMVAD).
A TLMVAD is intended to prompt consumers to the offerings of uproad retailers while consumers are stuck at a red light, have a free moment to consider the offering, and are already in their cars immediately uproad of a retailer.
For numerous arguments not delineated here, there is strong reason to think that businesses dependent on impulse buying, such as fast food chains, would be highly motivated to invest in this advertising medium.
Los Angeles has approximately 4500 traffic light intersections or 18,000 stopped lines of traffic for each red light. Assuming an average light cycle of 2 minutes means that every light has 720 cycles a day, of which more than half are useful for advertising purposes. If one estimates that a nearby business would pay $1 to have their ad displayed through an entire light cycle for oncoming traffic, these 18,000 stopped lines of traffic might generate ($400x18,000) or ~$7 million/day in advertising revenue. If the city of Los Angeles license fee was say 20%, it could ultimately collect ~$500 million/year in licensing alone. If the city itself were to administer the entire technology, they might collect gross revenues in excess of $2 billion/yr.

In addition, such a video display technology could be used to transmit information to motorists in a timely manner in the event of local or community emergencies. It could also be very effective at prompting people to vote because of a proximity to a voting precinct. Arguably, the city could pursue the technology on the benefit to the community alone with advertising revenue being a simple means of paying for it.
Again, we seek your support and an opportunity to present this proposal to the city council. If could be so kind as to direct us to the proper method to approach the city council, we would greatly appreciate it.

We look forward to your reply.
Thank you,
Joe Archer
adverteering@gmail.com
1 reaction Share

ideas for Los Angeles ,questions

Hi, I have an  idea that would improve Los Angeles Major Transportation systems, I would love to mention it, is there a way I could mention this without a patent for the idea. Any suggestions are welcomed.

 

Thanks

1 reaction Share

Let's build the LAX/Lincoln Line!

An open letter to LAX travelers and Light Rail proponents

Our family has lived in Del Aire for many years. In that time, we have seen the 105 freeway construction up-end, and in time heal, our neighborhood. With the mandated arrival of the Green Line, we now rely on it instead of our cars to travel to Long Beach, the Staples Center, Disney Hall and other downtown LA attractions, Hollywood, and even Pasadena.

We also have watched the discussion on how to extend mass transit to LAX, and we feel compelled to offer what we consider a very logical, affordable, and agreeable approach to this issue. It solves two vocal criticisms of LAX – that our airport should improve its image as a world-class airport, and that auto traffic congestion must decrease in the surrounding neighborhoods.

The dangling stub of the Green Line at Aviation and Imperial offers solid evidence that it was at one time conceived, designed and expected to continue. We should build on that in-place planning and investment to continue it down the middle of the 105 freeway for one more mile west, where it logically would turn North and tunnel (or trench & bury) under the LAX South runways near Sepulveda.

Once north of the runways, it could go one of two ways: with LAX cooperation, tunnel under the sand to an LAX station under the Theme Restaurant or the Tower. If LAX will not or can not cooperate, run it below grade in a simple trench (to keep the FAA happy) just West of Sepulveda, with an LAX station at Century Blvd. Either of these stations would better serve the eight concourses, the future West concourse, and the proposed Century Blvd “people mover.”

Once this part is built to LAX, actually reducing LAX traffic (especially through Westchester), requires this line to continue North to feed in the chronically congested west side. Although MTA’s Master Plan agrees with this assessment by outlining a Lincoln line, it does not currently have any funding, route, or start date!

We advocate a Phase 1 to include upgrading the Aviation station and building three more: the LAX station, a Manchester/Lincoln station serving Loyola and that community, and a Jefferson/Lincoln station to serve the large blocks of Playa Vista residences and businesses such as Google & Yahoo. This phase would also be easy to implement quickly, as the right-of-way is not built-out and is also mostly owned by LAX and the county.

Phase 2 would have to be elevated in order to travel North down the center of Lincoln, but a set of single-central pillars for the pair of rails (the Green line uses this system today on Douglas) would fit in the median. Five stations are imagined for this phase: Maxella, Venice, Rose, Pico, and finally at Santa Monica Blvd, where it would connect with the new Metro Line. This will offer West side access to the East and South far better than today’s cars and buses.

We would advocate moving forward today with the Green line extension/Lincoln line even if LAX didn’t exist! The Lincoln Blvd route is a logical, high-traffic route mow congested with tens of thousands of daily commuters in both directions.

Through our Federal government we invest $40B every year for transit; in California alone we are taxing ourselves and investing another $600M annually via Measure R to build public transit infrastructure; we urge that this Lincoln line be transformed from concept to reality and built within the decade to add a vital and highly visible link to our most efficient form of urban transit.

Sincerely,

Peter J. Carian and family, Del Aire, CA January 16, 2015 

2 reactions Share

Where does your tips go to?

As a cook at a restaurant, I believe that cooks should be compensated in a fair manner on receiving tips. Ever since the lawsuit of Woody Woo and Oregon Rest. and Lodging Assn., people that usually haven't been able to receive tips (prep cooks, line cooks, dishwashers, and other employees that aren't employers) are now entitled to get that compensation (http://www.calrest.org/employer-mandated-tip-pooling-guidelines.html). The problem is that the employer can only regulate the tip pooling, which to my eyes will not change unless the city of Los Angeles can enforce cooks to receiving tips in a fair manner. Cooks should not starve to make a living while waitress are benefiting from the majority of our hard work. If the city of Los Angeles is a city know for artists, why not help more artists to make great food in this wonderful city?

If you look at the Bureau of Labor Statitsics, Chefs and Head Cooks job outllook from now to 2022 is estimated at a 5% growth rate. Cooks need to be compensated in a fair manner, then this small percentage will increase to the average of 11%. Which could create more great restaurants in the city of Los Angeles. http://www.bls.gov/ooh/food-preparation-and-serving/chefs-and-head-cooks.htm

 

1 reaction Share

Smoking In Los Angeles

Smoking of cigarettes is disgusting and we all know it's bad for us - like asbestos and lead paint.  Why not ban it where people are subjected to it's oppressive and deadly effects.  I would like to propose that all Los Angeles (and surrounding area) airports ban smoking on airport property.  There is nothing worse than getting my bags and walking to the street only to suffocate by the cigarette smoke - what are smokers going to do if you ban it there, not fly?  This would be so great.

 

Also, please consider banning smoking in and around all restaurants (public and private) as the impact of the smoke is still just as deadly. 

 

Thanks for your consideration.

1 reaction Share

PICO BLVD NEEDS A BIKE LANE NOW

Everyday I see more cyclists on Pico Boulevard, but they are reduced to either riding in the streets dodging buses, or on the sidewalks dodging pedestrians. This is extremely dangerous! There needs to be a protected bike lane on Pico Blvd.

But how can we fit a bike lane in a street where there is no more space? Ideally we would eliminate street parking to make space, but many businesses still use street parking to serve their customers, so instead here is my recommendation:

Make Pico and Olympic Boulevards ONE-WAY streets in opposite directions. This would eliminate the need for a center left turn lane, and open up space for a bike lane. This would increase the carrying capacity, and reduce traffic congestion on both of these boulevards. 

One way streets can effectively carry much more traffic. This is why Manhattan converted their avenues into one-ways starting back in the 40s. It's time LA get on this trend. We should be doing this with ALL MAJOR PARALLEL BOULEVARDS. Like Sawtelle and Sepulveda for example.

1 reaction Share

High Speed Internet Utility.

We need to create a fiber optic network for all of Los Angeles like Cedar Falls IA and Kansas City. Good for business and all of L.A. Treat like a utility and do it through DWP.

2 reactions Share

METRO Trash Receptacles

Good afternoon:

Would it be more effective to replace the METRO trash cans with something like these:  http://www.wm.com/enterprise/municipalities/community-solutions/solar-powered-trash-compactor.jsp ?  They have them at the Grand Canyon.  

From a PR standpoint, they do provide the public with evidence that the City's sustainability agenda is in effect.  Moreover, having a recycling receptacle alongside the normal trash can would help teach people to sort their plastics and paper effectively and help encourage the culture of "Green."  The solar panel is a bonus.  

There are other designs for recycling receptacles, like those used in Portland, Oregon.

I would be interested to learn more about the process of implementing a change of this sort.  Since I'm involved with an environmental education nonprofit that uses art and media to educate the public, I would be able to pass that on to the public and help us LA citizens understand what transpires and how it impacts our community.  Moreover, our organization is here to give the public a voice.

Thank you,

 

1 reaction Share

Commercials that teach pedestrians/bike riders how to cross our streets, SAFELY.

I've noticed that now pedestrians no longer STOP at the corner, LOOK both ways and then cross, when it is a street corner without a light or cross walk.  

Sidewalk bike riders, skateboarders and groups of people of like teenagers and even families no longer stop at the corner. They seem to be too busy to pay attention to what is basic common sense. The kinds of thing we learned in kindergarten and elementary school. Crossing a street takes paying attention and leaving nothing for chance.  Is it possible that the basics that I was taught are no longer being taught?  

I feel we the city could make an impact with a few good commercials. Reiterating safety first. Maybe with some catchy jingle or rhyme. I think it's something to look into especially considering the increasing number of news reports wherein pedestrians are in accidents with vehicles. It's just good timing and shows that we care and believe the the Angelinos to do what is best for us as a whole. Any creative people out there?

3 reactions Share

MAKE COMPOSTING POSSIBLE FOR EVERY HOME

Dumping food scraps into landfills is one of the largest contributors to global warming. To turn old food scraps into beautiful, fertile earth, is to generate a most valuable resource, and there is no reason that we should not provide urban resources for this as a way to further reintroduce humans to the generative natural cycles which urban living removes us from, and to become a greener city. Other cities have made it obligatory to compost food scraps. In turn, the earth can be used in urban gardens, both public and private. A publicity and education campaign for wise use of resources such as composting can also include encouragement for lawn gardens and urban gardening. Lawn gardens use less water than grass lawns, provide highest quality organic, free nutrition for people, are not that difficult to maintain, and encourage community (people outside) and sharing.

1 reaction Share

Waste-treatment ideas for a cleaner LA

Mayor Garcetti, I am a mom of a small young family. I had the chance to briefly meet you in Sherman Oaks at a Neighborhood Night Out last summer - I thanked you for the LA 311 iphone app that is so useful to our city. 

I'm writing to share the inspiration of what's happening in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada with their waste treatment/recycling. I just visited there in person, and Edmonton is at the forefront of recycling and waste treatment. I know Los Angeles can get there, also. Read more here: http://globalnews.ca/news/1374751/edmonton-first-in-world-to-turn-trash-into-biofuel/

1 reaction Share

First you don't want to come so negative on the first step.

1st be gone with useless baggage. If jails and institutions are overloaded theres your answer. Either that or put those people at the front of the line for war.

4 reactions Share

Overpopulation...The Real Problem!

World’s top problem is overpopulation, not climate

Published: Oct 14, 2013 7:27 a.m. ET

 
 271
 

Commentary: 2,000 scientists focus on the wrong problem, not world’s biggest

By

PAULB. FARRELL

COLUMNIST

SAN LUIS OBISPO, Calif. (MarketWatch) — Warning: Mother “Earth didn’t replace the dinosaurs after they died” in the last great species extinction, reports Nobel physicist Robert Laughlin. She “just moved on and became something different.” But so what, you say, that was 65 million years ago. Right? 

Wrong. Today humans are the new dinosaurs, the next species slated for extinction, warn 2,000 United Nations scientists. Soon. We’re also causing the extinction, even accelerating a new timetable. Signing our own death warrant. Not millions of years in the future, but this century. Thanks to our secret love of climate change. Yes, we’re all closet science deniers.

INVESTING COMMENTARY IN TRADING DECK
Back to 1987 
for stocks? 
Our Trading Deck has been home to a spirited debate over whether we're in for a crash.
• L.A. Little: Don't worry | Michael Gayed: Worry 
• The warning signs of a 1987-style crash 
• Hulbert: Stocks as overvalued as at 2007 high 

Here’s how Laughlin put it: “Humans have already triggered the sixth great period of species extinction in Earth’s history.” Get it? We’re to blame. We are the engine driving a new species extermination. The human race is in a suicidal run to self-destruction. We can’t blame it on the great American conspiracy of climate-science deniers, Big Oil, the Koch Bros, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Congress. It’s us.

We just keep buying gas guzzlers, keep investing retirement money in Exxon Mobil, keep making more and more babies, forever in denial of the widening gap between perpetual economic growth and more babies living on a planet of rapidly diminishing resources. 

Humans are the new dinosaurs ... even scheduled our own extinction 

Yes, humans have already triggered the sixth great species extinction. And yes, it’s already in progress for this century. Why? We’re solving the wrong problems. Even the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change with its 2,000 elite scientists. They update us with 2,000 page technical reports, every five or six years since 1988. 

But they’re solving the wrong problems. As problem solvers, the U.N.’s army of 2,000 climate scientists aren’t much different than ExxonMobil’s CEO Rex Tillerson. He admits climate change is real. But he believes it’s just an “engineering problem and there will be an engineering solution.” Same at the U.N. Tillerson also doesn’t trust those “climate models to predict the magnitude of the impact.” Like the U.N. scientific models. Instead, Tillerson has faith that humans will “adapt to a sea-level rise.” After all, humans “have spent our entire existence adapting. We’ll adapt.” 

So even if the U.N. has 20,000 scientists who are 100% certain that climate change will wipe human civilization off the planet like dinosaurs, never to return ... still you can bet your Big Oil retirement stock that Tillerson and every other science denier will keep fighting for free-market capitalism, subsidies and deregulation, keep investing $37 billion annually in exploration. And with their war chest of $150 billion annual profits, they can still pay off all the politicians and investors they need to make sure Big Oil keeps beating all the U.N.’s climate scientists. 

Earth’s real problem, too many babies ... but we can’t admit the truth

What’s wrong? Everybody on Earth is in denial about our biggest problem ... population growth. Too many new babies, a net of 75 million a year. And we’re all closet deniers — leaders, investors, billionaires, the 99%, everybody. Yes, even Bill McKibben’s 350.org global team. The U.N.’s 2,000 scientists know overpopulation is Earth’s only real problem.

Get it? Earth has only one real problem, there’s the one main dependent variable in the scientific equation. But we refuse to focus on it. So, yes, even scientists are science deniers too. They know population growth is the killer issue, but are avoiding it too. Thousands of scientists have brilliant technical solutions to reducing the impact of global warming. But avoid the root cause. They keep solving the dependent variables in their climate-change science equation. But population growth is the cause of the Earth’s problem, not the result.

Stop, shift, focus on the real problem. Stop focusing on the dependent variables. Your scientific method makes this clear ... we are making too many babies. Population’s out of control. And that’s the world’s No. 1 problem. But we’re all in denial. So nobody’s dealing with the world’s biggest problem. Listen:

  • Scientific American says global population growth is “the most overlooked and essential strategy for achieving long-term balance with the environment.” By 2050 world population will explode from today’s 7 billion to 10 billion, with 1.4 billion each in India and China, and China’s economy nearly three times America’s.
  • In “The Last Taboo,” Mother Jones columnist Julia Whitty hit the nail on the head: “What unites the Vatican, lefties, conservatives and scientists in a conspiracy of silence? Population.” But this hot-button issue ignites powerful reactions. So politicians won’t touch it. Nor will U.N.’s world leaders. Even if it’s killing us.”
  • Five years ago billionaire philanthropists meet secretly in Manhattan: Gates, Buffett, Rockefeller, Soros, Bloomberg, Turner, Oprah and others. Each took 15 minutes to present their favorite cause. Asked what was the “umbrella cause?” Answer: Overpopulation, said the billionaires. 
  • Jeremy Grantham’s investment firm GMO manages about $110 billion in assets. He also backs the Grantham Institute of Climate Change at London’s Imperial College. He says population growth is a huge “threat to the long-term viability of our species when we reach a population level of 10 billion” because it is “impossible to feed the 10 billion people.” We don’t need more Big Ag, we need fewer small mouths to feed.

But how? Bill Gates says let’s cap global population at 8.3 billion, even as his vaccine and contraceptive plans extend life expectancy. Columbia University’s Earth Institute Director Jeff Sachs says even 5 billion is unsustainable. To stop adding more is tough enough. But how do eliminate two billion from today’s seven billion total? Voluntary? Remember China’s one-child plan didn’t work. 

Everybody knows, but we fear world’s biggest problem has no solution!

Worst-case scenario: There is no solution. Overpopulation is going to drive us off a cliff. Even worse, seems nobody really cares. Nobody’s working on a real solution. No one has the courage. Not U.N. leaders, scientists or billionaires. No one. It’s taboo. All part of a conspiracy of silence. But denial is killing us.

Any real solutions? Or do we all just wait for wars, pandemics, starvation to erase billions? Wait in denial? Is that the sound of the sixth great species extinction dead ahead? Will killing, disease, poverty solve Earth’s biggest problem, the problem no one talks about?

Meanwhile, Big Oil’s marketing studies keep telling CEOs like Tillerson the truth about the inconsistent behavior of irrational humans living in denial. How we just keep telling ourselves we’re recyclers, green, love hybrids, eat organic. 

Why? Because we just keep buying Chevys, Jeeps and Teslas, keep buying Big Oil stocks for retirement, keep stocking up on carbon polluting products, because our subconscious secretly endorses Big Oil’s strategy. As Tillerson told Charlie Rose: “My philosophy is to make money. If I can drill and make money, then that’s what I want to do,” making “quality investments for our shareholders.” 

Is it already too late? Can we stop our own extinction cycle?

“One of the disturbing facts of history is that so many civilizations collapse,” warns Jared Diamond, environmental anthropologist and author of the classic “Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.” Many “civilizations share a sharp curve of decline. Indeed, a society’s demise may begin only a decade or two after it reaches its peak population, wealth and power.” 

Can it be stopped? Before it’s too late? Don’t bet on it. Watching how Washington solves real problems lately is not encouraging. Diamond detailed the scenario that keeps repeating in history: We need leaders with “the courage to practice long-term thinking, make bold, courageous, anticipatory decisions at a time when problems have become perceptible but before they reach crisis proportions.” 

But unfortunately, leaders become rigid and myopic, driven more by personal interests than courage, long-term thinking and the public interest. They move from crisis to crisis, often too little, too late. And at some point they pass the point of no return, are caught off-guard, make errors of judgment and their worlds collapse, rapidly.

The dinosaurs didn’t even know what hit them in the last great species extinction. We know what’s ahead. We can make the big, tough decisions ... if only we wake up in time.

1 reaction Share

Separation of "Church and State" Clause applies to No Sanctuary for Illegal Aliens!

"Separation of church and state" (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state") is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" in this context is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper.

Echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams—who had written in 1644 of "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world"—Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."[1]

Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."[2]

However, the Court has not always interpreted the constitutional principle as absolute, and the proper extent of separation between government and religion in the U.S. remains an ongoing subject of impassioned debate.[3][4][5][6]

1 reaction Share

1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9    62  63  Next →

Building the city of our dreams starts with you, sign up!