Will Calorie Counts Work?

(Flickr pic by Weighty Matters.)

Back in May, I wrote about the calorie counts on New York fast food (and coffee shop) menus, and wondered whether the idea would make it out West.

Turns out it did. As the L.A. Times reported last week, Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky has adopting a similar plan in unincorporated portions of L.A. County.

The paper writes:

“Most people do not have a clue how many calories they are taking in when they have a milkshake or a double hamburger with cheese and fries,” Yaroslavsky said. “This is an incentive for people to make the right dietary choices.”

The proposal would require chain restaurants in unincorporated parts of the county to include a caloric breakdown for all their offerings. The issue is expected to come before the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday; the supervisors will be asked to call for the drafting of an ordinance. If all goes smoothly, the measure could be in place by the end of the year, Yaroslavsky said.

The California Restaurant Assn. does not oppose the measure, although it has concerns about how it would be carried out.

“We understand that consumers want it,” said Jot Condie, president and chief executive of the organization, which represents 22,000 chain outlets in the state.

But he said it should be up to restaurants to decide how best to make this information readily available to consumers. He said he also wants to see a uniform policy applied throughout the state to cut down on retailer and consumer confusion.

First taco trucks, now this! Fine, Zev, we get the hint. Hello, Jenny Craig?

Taco’ The Town

I’ve seen some confusion on the whole taco truck issue, so a reminder via Blogging.la: The new L.A. County law only regulates taco trucks in unincorporated portions of the county. That means your favorite truck in Highland Park, Eagle Rock or downtown is OK… but if you live in the unincorporated East Los Angeles (or in those unincorporated portions of south L.A. County), then your fave truck indeed has a problem on its hands.

Prior to the proposal becoming law, a Blogging.la reader received this response from County Supervisor Gloria Molina, who drafted the law:

“Thank you for contacting my office to express your views regarding the proposed changes to the Los Angeles County peddling ordinance. Please be aware that this ordinance is effective only in the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County.

The proposed changes to the ordinance allow peddlers to remain in one location in a commercial zone for one hour. The current ordinance permits 30 minutes in one location. For your information, vending from a sidewalk has never been permitted in Los Angeles County. Our ordinance will protect the health and welfare of our residents and respect the needs of our business community.

Nonetheless, the folks at Save Our Taco Trucks are concerned that L.A.’s unique taco truck culture may start to disappear under Molina’s law, which was passed last week. They’ve put together a petition:

Let’s send Gloria Molina and the L.A. Board of Supervisors a message that we cherish our local vendors and don’t want to see them move away. This new law needs to be repealed!

According to the L.A. Times, ground zero for the taco truck debate is East L.A., where brick and mortar restaurants brand the trucks a “nuisance.” The paper writes:

Some taco trucks park in the same place all day, despite an existing law that requires they move every 30 minutes. But because the fine is only $60, many truck owners view it as a cost of doing business.

The new restrictions, proposed by Supervisor Gloria Molina, increase the penalty for violating the law to a misdemeanor punishable by a $1,000 fine and/or a six-month jail sentence. To soften the blow, however, she would extend the time a catering truck can be parked in one place from 30 minutes to an hour.

Restaurant owners have long complained to county officials that taco trucks have an unfair advantage: If customers don’t come to them, they can drive to the customers. And because they are small and mobile, their overhead costs are comparatively low.

But taco vendors see it differently: They say they provide good and affordable food to communities that sometimes lack places to eat.

After the law passed last week, taco truck owners told the L.A. Times that they won’t budge:

“They can try to move us, but we’re not going to go,” said Aleida De La Cruz, whose taco truck has been a family business for 20 years. “What are they going to do, take us all to jail?”

Is carne asada a crime?

Taxing Times

It’s that time of year… a friendly letter from Los Angeles County Treasurer and Tax Collector Mark Saladino that it’s time for the first installment of your property tax bill.

For those of us who bought our house in the past few years, that’s a pretty hefty bill. It doesn’t help things that thanks to the infamous Prop. 13, I pay more tax on my tiny house than I know plenty of people pay on beautiful, large homes three times the size of mine in more ritzy neighborhoods. Bastards.

That’s why I’m starting to wonder whether it’s time yet to evoke the “decline in value” statute in the assessment process:

“If you have evidence that the market value of your property on January 1, 2007 is less than the assessed value shown on this tax bill, you may request a review for the 2007-2008 fiscal year. The filing period is January 1 through December 31, 2007.”

Well, because it falls on Jan. 1, probably not. The housing market didn’t really collapse until this summer. And besides, with so few homes selling right now, I’m not even sure how an appraiser would go about determining house value.

Now, next year, the county should probably brace for a whole lotta “decline in value” submissions. Because if the market continues to decline, I’m sure as hell not going to continue to reward the county just because I had the unfortunate luck of finally having enough money to buy a house in 2004.

Angeleno of the Week: King-Harbor Hospital

In the end, King-Harbor Hospital just couldn’t get its act together. The Willowbrook medical center known by the not-so-flattering nickname “Killer King” learned Friday that it had failed a review by review by the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and would lose the annual $200 million it receives from federal funding.

With that, King-Harbor — known until recently as King/Drew — shut down its emergency room on Friday afternoon, and will close down completely (at least for the time being) in two weeks. The L.A Times reports:

Community leaders say their biggest worry is the closure of the emergency room, which saw about 47,000 patients last year.

But, in a community that has long battled for its fair share of basic services, King-Harbor stands for more than just healthcare.

“It’s a very personal relationship this hospital and the community have,” Lark Galloway-Gilliam, executive director of Community Health Councils, said between sobs.

“People fought to have this place built, and it’s been employment for some people. It’s been a symbol that our community is somewhat whole, that the resources are there that you need when you want them,” she said.

“So much has been taken away, so much has been taken away, it just breaks my heart,” she said.

For the families who lost loved ones after medical lapses at the hospital, however, King-Harbor had come to symbolize betrayal, and Friday’s news brought bitter satisfaction. Several had shared their stories with The Times in 2003 and 2004. Since then, each new tragedy at the hospital had rekindled the hurt and anger.

King/Drew failed its last inspection in 2006; rather than shut down, it dropped its association with Drew University and decreased its bedcount.

It didn’t help. Making matters worse, the account of a woman who died after being ignored in the emergency room lobby for 45 minutes gained national attention.

The final straw, though, was this final inspection. According to the Times, inspectors cited the hospital for things such as a “failure to properly clean bronchoscopes — devices used to look into the lungs — which put patients at serious risk of exposure to contagious diseases. In addition, the hospital staff also could not demonstrate its ability to respond to a pediatric emergency, failing to locate critical equipment or even properly calculate how much medication to give a critically ill child.”

The County will now look for a private operator or will try to reopen the hospital itself within the next 12 to 18 months, the paper said. Cheers to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors for really messing this up and still not taking real responsibility here… and, by the way, for wasting all of property tax dollars on some real useless “solutions.”

Angelenos of the Week: Yvonne Burke and Victor Taracena

Burke (left) and Taracena. (Pics by the L.A. Times.)

The summer of scandal continues in Los Angeles, where we’re giving other municipalities a run for their money. While the Rocky and Mayor Tony V broohahas continue to percolate, two more surfaced this week.

Let’s start with Los Angeles County Supervisor Yvonne Burke. Burke represents a huge, huge swath of L.A. county, including some upscale neighborhoods. Yet she just couldn’t bring herself to live within her district. That’s an obvious no-no.

As the L.A. Times reported this week (doing a good-ol’ fashioned stake out), Burke keeps a condo in Mar Vista — where she spends about five minutes a day. Instead, she lives and sleeps in a gated Brentwood house with her husband:

In an interview with The Times two weeks ago, Burke said it was only on weekends and special occasions that she used her Brentwood home — a 4,000-square-foot residence with a swimming pool and tennis court that she and her husband have long owned. She said she lived at a 1,200-square-foot townhouse in Mar Vista, on a busy street just inside the border of her district.

But over a three-week period in which she was observed by Times reporters, Burke spent every weekday evening at her Brentwood house, in the district of Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky. When confronted by reporters Wednesday, Burke changed her story and acknowledged that she has rarely slept in the Mar Vista townhouse, which she has declared as her primary residence since she purchased it more than a year ago.

Asked whether voters would consider her primary residence as the place where she sleeps, Burke replied: “So I’ll start sleeping here if that’ll make you happy.”

Snippy, snippy! Burke then contradicted herself again, sending out a press release claiming that she did indeed live within the district.

If it’s proven that Burke doesn’t live in her district, she’ll lose her chair (which she’s retiring from next year anyway.)

Meanwhile, Victor Taracena was recently fired from his high-level managaer job at the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles after he sent nearly $800,000 in contracts to his brothers and three politically connected firms.

The L.A. Times writes that Taracena sent over 150 contracts to companies run by his brothers, which more going to pals of his:

These firms — all with ties to current or former Los Angeles City Council members from the Eastside — won their contracts in bidding processes fraught with irregularities. In one case, a losing bid was submitted by a nonexistent company. Other such bids came from actual companies which, when contacted by The Times, said they were surprised to learn that bids had been submitted in their names.

How sloppy was this? According to the paper, some of the fake bidders didn’t correctly spell their own names.

And the Summer of Scandal rolls on…

Angelenos of the Week: Yvonne Burke and Victor Taracena

Burke (left) and Taracena. (Pics by the L.A. Times.)

The summer of scandal continues in Los Angeles, where we’re giving other municipalities a run for their money. While the Rocky and Mayor Tony V broohahas continue to percolate, two more surfaced this week.

Let’s start with Los Angeles County Supervisor Yvonne Burke. Burke represents a huge, huge swath of L.A. county, including some upscale neighborhoods. Yet she just couldn’t bring herself to live within her district. That’s an obvious no-no.

As the L.A. Times reported this week (doing a good-ol’ fashioned stake out), Burke keeps a condo in Mar Vista — where she spends about five minutes a day. Instead, she lives and sleeps in a gated Brentwood house with her husband:

In an interview with The Times two weeks ago, Burke said it was only on weekends and special occasions that she used her Brentwood home — a 4,000-square-foot residence with a swimming pool and tennis court that she and her husband have long owned. She said she lived at a 1,200-square-foot townhouse in Mar Vista, on a busy street just inside the border of her district.

But over a three-week period in which she was observed by Times reporters, Burke spent every weekday evening at her Brentwood house, in the district of Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky. When confronted by reporters Wednesday, Burke changed her story and acknowledged that she has rarely slept in the Mar Vista townhouse, which she has declared as her primary residence since she purchased it more than a year ago.

Asked whether voters would consider her primary residence as the place where she sleeps, Burke replied: “So I’ll start sleeping here if that’ll make you happy.”

Snippy, snippy! Burke then contradicted herself again, sending out a press release claiming that she did indeed live within the district.

If it’s proven that Burke doesn’t live in her district, she’ll lose her chair (which she’s retiring from next year anyway.)

Meanwhile, Victor Taracena was recently fired from his high-level managaer job at the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles after he sent nearly $800,000 in contracts to his brothers and three politically connected firms.

The L.A. Times writes that Taracena sent over 150 contracts to companies run by his brothers, which more going to pals of his:

These firms — all with ties to current or former Los Angeles City Council members from the Eastside — won their contracts in bidding processes fraught with irregularities. In one case, a losing bid was submitted by a nonexistent company. Other such bids came from actual companies which, when contacted by The Times, said they were surprised to learn that bids had been submitted in their names.

How sloppy was this? According to the paper, some of the fake bidders didn’t correctly spell their own names.

And the Summer of Scandal rolls on…