In 2003 a deal was cut between members of the Mayor Daley administration and Redflex Holdings to allow red light cameras in Chicago. Executives from Redflex Holdings have pled guilty and are awaiting sentencing while the insider from the Dept of Transportation was found guilty on all 20 counts. After seeing the tremendous amount of revenue generated from the red light cameras, the Emanuel administration added speed cameras to the program in October 2013. Several studies have been done by independent agencies that have proven that these cameras do not promote public safety and are primarily used as a revenue generator. This program amounts to nothing more than a tax imposed on the citizens of this state.

We recently witnessed the sale and leasing of several Housing Authority controlled properties in the Civic Center area, to a developer, with very little public input or consideration. In 2013 the Main Street Parking Commission was dissolved. The Housing Authority was granted control of the long standing west side parking lot for Main Street residents, shop owners, their employees and customers. The land had been previously controlled by a Parking Commission, that had maintained the lot before the city had incorporated. Our previous city leaders abolished the Parking Commission and handed the land over to the Housing Authority. The Garden Grove Housing Authority operates under federal grants received from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide rental subsidies to low-income families. There are no rental units in this parking lot, at least not yet. Not long ago, the city quietly offered the west side parking lot to developer Steve Sheldon, who wanted to create a condo complex on our last remaining parking lot for downtown. Luckily, concerned residents and merchants got together within the 72 hour notification and temporarily halted this conversion and sale. The Housing Authority is not intended to serve as a steward of land, as a real estate broker or as a holding area for properties until they decide to redevelop something. It is time for the city to either reinstate the Main Street Parking Commission or to give the parking lot to the Main Street Commission. If people have nowhere to park, they will not come to Main Street.

I am writing to express my deep concern about the Governor’s proposed budget May revise.

I'm trying to save my son's life....

This wall support would visually and physically divide our community in half - north and south. The previous design presented to the community included pylon supports providing visibility; opportunities for commerce (such as an open market); more and safer street crossings; and less opportunity for criminal activity. Has our government forgotten about the need for environmental justice when weighing brick and mortar solutions in challenged communities? Our community should not be sacrificed in the state's effort to save money. Adding a wall of this magnitude would stifle economic growth that could happen with a positive transit solution that is open, well-lighted, generates quality increased economic development, provides safe crossings, increases overhead weather coverage for its patrons, provides elevators and stairs with uninterrupted visibility from grade to discourage crime, and incorporates public art.

Currently the State of NC says it wants to do this, but it will be 20 years before it happens. It is needed now, particularly in the under-developed northeastern part of NC from Edenton, NC to Norfolk, VA (i.e., Highway 17). It's essential to make us competitive for new businesses who are re-locating, improve access to the port of Norfolk, VA, and expand awareness of our capable work force. We are proven workers. We have never recovered from the banking disaster of 2008 and do not need to wait 20 years for major improvement to key highway in our region.

I agree with the community coalition, which spent months of meetings discussing the 2000-2070 Bryant Project. This plan creates a "Beauty on Bryant" that includes: - 50% Land Dedication to the City to build affordable housing and community-serving spaces, with those affordable units designated for residents earning up to a maximum of 55% of the Average Median Income, with funding pre-dedicated by the CIty to build these affordable units, with shovels in the ground simultaneously to build the affordable units at the same time as the market rate units next door. - 100% Union Built, with maximized local hires and community apprenticeships - Both buildings would equally share the responsibility of accommodating a 1:1 replacement of 50,000 sq. ft. of affordable PDR space containing at least: · 15,000 sq. ft. nonprofit arts space · 15,000 sq. ft. maker and gathering space · 15,000 sq. ft. fabrication, manufacturing, repair The Beast on Bryant is opposed by the SF Building and Construction Trades Council, the SF Labor Council, the project’s direct neighbors and thousands of community members. The developer has fudged the numbers, providing only 18,000 sq. ft of develop-able affordable housing, although the minimum by law should be at least 22,750 sq. ft. He has replaced the 50,000 sq. ft. of PDR space with only 3,983 sq. ft. Should the project proceed, it will cause significant economic and social changes in the immediate area that will result in physical changes, including impacts on air quality, traffic and transportation, as well as negative impacts on the Calle 24 Latino Cultural District. (See CEQA guidelines, 15604 (e)). We ask that you postpone any decision on this project until our community concerns are addressed and studied with community input, and the project becomes a true Beauty on Bryant. For more information: http://www.beautyonbryant.org/calendar

There are already enough bullies in the lunchroom. Now some members of the U.S. House are effectively trying to take our kids’ lunch money -- by putting forward a bill that guts school lunch programs. An ill-advised update to the Child Nutrition Act came out late last month that jeopardizes free and reduced school lunch for millions of children. This legislation is moving quickly, and we need to stop the provisions that could lead to empty stomachs from coast to coast. Taking away kids’ school lunches is being hailed as the fiscally responsible thing to do, even when we know the opposite is true. When students are hungry they can’t learn. Providing lunch to children whose families are struggling with food insecurity is a simple investment to make sure that those children are learning. It’s just common sense. The House Child Nutrition Reauthorization Bill includes sneaky provisions that would gut the school lunch program -- and would roll back years of progress. [1] If passed, more than 7,000 schools would have their school lunch eligibility revoked. And those more than 7,000 schools? They serve more than 3 million kids [2] Rep. Luke Messer is a member of the critical House Education and Workforce Committee which will be taking a look at this language over the next week or so. It is critical that he hears that we must protect hungry kids, not take away their lunches. [1] http://goo.gl/I85mAI [2] http://goo.gl/YU5Z7I

There are already enough bullies in the lunchroom. Now some members of the U.S. House are effectively trying to take our kids' lunch money -- by putting forward a bill that guts school lunch programs. An ill-advised update to the Child Nutrition Act came out late last month that jeopardizes free and reduced school lunch for millions of children. This legislation is moving quickly, and we need to stop the provisions that could lead to empty stomachs from coast to coast. Taking away kids' school lunches is being hailed as the fiscally responsible thing to do, even when we know the opposite is true. When students are hungry they can’t learn. Providing lunch to children whose families are struggling with food insecurity is a simple investment to make sure that those children are learning. It's just common sense. The House Child Nutrition Reauthorization Bill includes sneaky provisions that would gut the school lunch program -- and would roll back years of progress. [1] If passed, more than 7,000 schools would have their school lunch eligibility revoked. And those more than 7,000 schools? They serve more than 3 million kids [2] Rep. Lou Barletta is a member of the critical House Education and Workforce Committee which will be taking a look at this language over the next week or so. It is critical that he hears that we must protect hungry kids, not take away their lunches. [1] http://goo.gl/I85mAI [2] http://goo.gl/YU5Z7I

There are already enough bullies in the lunchroom. Now some members of the U.S. House are effectively trying to take our kids' lunch money -- by putting forward a bill that guts school lunch programs. An ill-advised update to the Child Nutrition Act came out late last month that jeopardizes free and reduced school lunch for millions of children. This legislation is moving quickly, and we need to stop the provisions that could lead to empty stomachs from coast to coast. Taking away kids' school lunches is being hailed as the fiscally responsible thing to do, even when we know the opposite is true. When students are hungry they can’t learn. Providing lunch to children whose families are struggling with food insecurity is a simple investment to make sure that those children are learning. It's just common sense. The House Child Nutrition Reauthorization Bill includes sneaky provisions that would gut the school lunch program -- and would roll back years of progress. [1] If passed, more than 7,000 schools would have their school lunch eligibility revoked. And those more than 7,000 schools? They serve more than 3 million kids [2] Rep. Brett Guthrie is a member of the critical House Education and Workforce Committee which will be taking a look at this language over the next week or so. It is critical that he hears that we must protect hungry kids, not take away their lunches. [1] http://goo.gl/I85mAI [2] http://goo.gl/YU5Z7I

There are already enough bullies in the lunchroom. Now some members of the U.S. House are effectively trying to take our kids’ lunch money -- by putting forward a bill that guts school lunch programs. An ill-advised update to the Child Nutrition Act came out late last month that jeopardizes free and reduced school lunch for millions of children. This legislation is moving quickly, and we need to stop the provisions that could lead to empty stomachs from coast to coast. Taking away kids’ school lunches is being hailed as the fiscally responsible thing to do, even when we know the opposite is true. When students are hungry they can’t learn. Providing lunch to children whose families are struggling with food insecurity is a simple investment to make sure that those children are learning. It’s just common sense. The House Child Nutrition Reauthorization Bill includes sneaky provisions that would gut the school lunch program -- and would roll back years of progress. [1] If passed, more than 7,000 schools would have their school lunch eligibility revoked. And those more than 7,000 schools? They serve more than 3 million kids [2] Rep. David Roe is a member of the critical House Education and Workforce Committee which will be taking a look at this language over the next week or so. It is critical that he hears that we must protect hungry kids, not take away their lunches. [1] http://goo.gl/I85mAI [2] http://goo.gl/YU5Z7I

There are already enough bullies in the lunchroom. Now some members of the U.S. House are effectively trying to take our kids’ lunch money -- by putting forward a bill that guts school lunch programs. An ill-advised update to the Child Nutrition Act came out late last month that jeopardizes free and reduced school lunch for millions of children. This legislation is moving quickly, and we need to stop the provisions that could lead to empty stomachs from coast to coast. Taking away kids’ school lunches is being hailed as the fiscally responsible thing to do, even when we know the opposite is true. When students are hungry they can’t learn. Providing lunch to children whose families are struggling with food insecurity is a simple investment to make sure that those children are learning. It’s just common sense. The House Child Nutrition Reauthorization Bill includes sneaky provisions that would gut the school lunch program -- and would roll back years of progress. [1] If passed, more than 7,000 schools would have their school lunch eligibility revoked. And those more than 7,000 schools? They serve more than 3 million kids [2] Rep. Matt Salmon is a member of the critical House Education and Workforce Committee which will be taking a look at this language over the next week or so. It is critical that he hears that we must protect hungry kids, not take away their lunches. [1] http://goo.gl/I85mAI [2] http://goo.gl/YU5Z7I