Read on Twitter
Yesterday I read @nithyavraman's thread on her controversial yes vote on Times Mirror Square, a luxury housing project connected to the notoriously corrupt former CM Huizar. The towers will have more than 1,100 units. 24 will be moderate-income units and 10 low-income units.
I've only now watched the video of the meeting. If I'd watched just the video, I probably would have thought maybe this was a mistake (given the question asked). But then they dropped the thread justifying the vote which plants this pretty firmly as a choice in my eyes.
Both a mistake and a choice can be apologized for. But after making a bad choice and catching flack for said choice, what do politicians usually do? Double down. And that's exactly what happened with someone we hoped this wouldn't be the case with.
To put it mildly, the tone of the thread was... weird. I mean, it suggests that developers offer bribes because they simply must and council members take bribes because how could you not!
Nithya's threads are usually great! But this one seemed aimed at people that took issue with the vote and justified it by saying the system is corrupt as if the people mad about the vote don't know that lol.
Another justification was the developers followed the rules so they shouldn't be punished. But then it says the rules are bad. So why does it matter if someone follows the rules if they're bad rules? And if Huizar was involved it seems quite likely they didn't follow the rules!!!
Were I running against her, this is the exact kind of vote I would point at to exemplify things not adding up. So while it would be easy to write her off, I would rather look at where we also dropped the ball because we aren't yet clear exactly how things look when we win.
There are times when CMs are the offense we've lacked to make big change. I know people might disagree on this point but in the current system (which I think shouldn't exist at all FTR), my assessment is we have to fight for electoral power when strategically, it makes sense.
This is all to say that at other times, the CMs are the last line of defense and that's often the case with development. And these motherfuckers have not been D'ing up at all.
One of the things I said to folks was Nithya would give Angelenos aligned with her stated values room to breathe. We wouldn't have to exert quite as much energy on as many people for as many things if we could trust that good votes would come out of the office without pressure.
Obviously, that hasn't exactly been the case. These growing pains will lead to moments of learning for all parties. And though some people did speak up about this project, I know I did not because I didn't think I had to. I have learned my lesson. The office, it seems, has not.
There was even cover in this vote. O'Farrell, knowing he's gonna be facing multiple progressive and/or leftist challengers, felt like this was safe enough for some faux progressiveness. The newly invigorated Bonin voted against. Wild one MRT voted no. And KREKORIAN voted no.
Sidenote: I'd like to make sure we're giving flack to others that pretend to be with the shits who also voted yes. MHD suggested this go back to committee (it couldn't) and then voted yes anyway and KDL said this was fine cuz usually there are ZERO affordable units. A visionary.
I have faith Nithya will fight to change the system. This is a different scenario than outright voting against something we were forcefully fighting for. Bafflingly, her win probably has something to do with why this didn't yield a 15-0 vote.
But still, the reaction to our disappointment in this vote sucked and I don't think there's any way around that.
Here's @chrisroth's of @KNOCKdotLA off the cuff explainer of TFAR and how it works in these downtown developments.
Here's @chrisroth's of @KNOCKdotLA off the cuff explainer of TFAR and how it works in these downtown developments.
