4/22/2020 City of Los Angeles Mail - Fwd: Oppose Items 37,38, 39 Connect A Create V Collaborate City Clerk Council and Public Services <[email protected]> Fwd: Oppose Items 37,38, 39 1 message Anna Martinez <[email protected]> To: City Clerk Council and Public Services <[email protected]> Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 8:03 AM ---------- Forwarded message---------- From: Willie Stevens <[email protected]> Date: Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 6:10 AM Subject: Oppose Items 37,38, 39 To: City Clerk Holly Wolcott <[email protected]> Dear City Clerk Wolcott, As a housing provider in L.A., I am strongly opposed to items 37, 38 & 39 on the upcoming council agenda. Aspects of these proposals are likely unlawful as they are governed by state and federal law, have had no discussion and are redundant of actions already taken. These proposals do not aim to alleviate issues related to COVID-19 but further amplify the economic damage and confusion unfolding. I urge you to focus on solutions such as supporting and expanding item 66 which aims to help struggling renters. I understand that the COVID-19 pandemic has created a great deal of uncertainty for Angelenos. That is why I support item 66, a renters relief program. I have been working with my residents that are struggling. I have instituted payment plans, deferred rent, highlighted resources and halted rent increases. I am doing everything I can to be part of the solution to this unprecedented crises. Many housing providers are not eligible for mortgage relief and are facing tenuous financial circumstances that will affect all contractors, suppliers and employees of these communities. Items 37, 38 and 39 before you are an overreach; not a solution to this economic and health emergency. Like the 12 month deferral period, this will create a great deal of financial uncertainty and distress for the entire rental housing industry and those whose jobs depend on it. These policies will make the problem worse. I recognize everyone is struggling but this goes too far. I respectfully ask the council to focus on solutions such as item 66, and reject 37, 38 & 39. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Willie Stevens 3902 San Lorenzo Ct Oceanside, CA 92057 [email protected]https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AL_L4G-ATdirDzjb9lWvF8L2_epdIsuodP6SWQ5ieAJFUBdSMHE/u/0?ik=5c67953004&view=pt&search=all&permthid=t ... 1/1
Transcript
4/22/2020 City of Los Angeles Mail - Fwd: Oppose Items 37,38, 39
ConnectA CreateV Collaborate City Clerk Council and Public Services <[email protected]>
As a housing provider in L.A., I am strongly opposed to items 37, 38 & 39 on the upcoming council agenda. Aspects of these proposals are likely unlawful as they are governed by state and federal law, have had no discussion and are redundant of actions already taken. These proposals do not aim to alleviate issues related to COVID-19 but further amplify the economic damage and confusion unfolding. I urge you to focus on solutions such as supporting and expanding item 66 which aims to help struggling renters.
I understand that the COVID-19 pandemic has created a great deal of uncertainty for Angelenos. That is why I support item 66, a renters relief program. I have been working with my residents that are struggling. I have instituted payment plans, deferred rent, highlighted resources and halted rent increases. I am doing everything I can to be part of the solution to this unprecedented crises. Many housing providers are not eligible for mortgage relief and are facing tenuous financial circumstances that will affect all contractors, suppliers and employees of these communities.
Items 37, 38 and 39 before you are an overreach; not a solution to this economic and health emergency. Like the 12 month deferral period, this will create a great deal of financial uncertainty and distress for the entire rental housing industry and those whose jobs depend on it. These policies will make the problem worse.
I recognize everyone is struggling but this goes too far. I respectfully ask the council to focus on solutions such as item 66, and reject 37, 38 & 39.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Willie Stevens 3902 San Lorenzo Ct Oceanside, CA 92057 [email protected]
As a housing provider in L.A., I am strongly opposed to items 37, 38 & 39 on the upcoming council agenda. Aspects of these proposals are likely unlawful as they are governed by state and federal law, have had no discussion and are redundant of actions already taken. These proposals do not aim to alleviate issues related to COVID-19 but further amplify the economic damage and confusion unfolding. I urge you to focus on solutions such as supporting and expanding item 66 which aims to help struggling renters.
I understand that the COVID-19 pandemic has created a great deal of uncertainty for Angelenos. That is why I support item 66, a renters relief program. I have been working with my residents that are struggling. I have instituted payment plans, deferred rent, highlighted resources and halted rent increases. I am doing everything I can to be part of the solution to this unprecedented crises. Many housing providers are not eligible for mortgage relief and are facing tenuous financial circumstances that will affect all contractors, suppliers and employees of these communities.
Items 37, 38 and 39 before you are an overreach; not a solution to this economic and health emergency. Like the 12 month deferral period, this will create a great deal of financial uncertainty and distress for the entire rental housing industry and those whose jobs depend on it. These policies will make the problem worse.
I recognize everyone is struggling but this goes too far. I respectfully ask the council to focus on solutions such as item 66, and reject 37, 38 & 39.
As a housing provider in L.A., I am strongly opposed to items 37, 38 & 39 on the upcoming council agenda. Aspects of these proposals are likely unlawful as they are governed by state and federal law, have had no discussion and are redundant of actions already taken. These proposals do not aim to alleviate issues related to COVID-19 but further amplify the economic damage and confusion unfolding. I urge you to focus on solutions such as supporting and expanding item 66 which aims to help struggling renters.
I understand that the COVID-19 pandemic has created a great deal of uncertainty for Angelenos. That is why I support item 66, a renters relief program. I have been working with my residents that are struggling. I have instituted payment plans, deferred rent, highlighted resources and halted rent increases. I am doing everything I can to be part of the solution to this unprecedented crises. Many housing providers are not eligible for mortgage relief and are facing tenuous financial circumstances that will affect all contractors, suppliers and employees of these communities.
Items 37, 38 and 39 before you are an overreach; not a solution to this economic and health emergency. Like the 12 month deferral period, this will create a great deal of financial uncertainty and distress for the entire rental housing industry and those whose jobs depend on it. These policies will make the problem worse.
I recognize everyone is struggling but this goes too far. I respectfully ask the council to focus on solutions such as item 66, and reject 37, 38 & 39.
----------Forwarded message----------From: Christopher Mulhern <[email protected]>Date: Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 8:40 AMSubject: Oppose Items 37,38, 39To: City Clerk Holly Wolcott <[email protected]>
Dear City Clerk Wolcott,
As a housing provider in L.A., I am strongly opposed to items 37, 38 & 39 on the upcoming council agenda. Aspects of these proposals are likely unlawful as they are governed by state and federal law, have had no discussion and are redundant of actions already taken. These proposals do not aim to alleviate issues related to COVID-19 but further amplify the economic damage and confusion unfolding. I urge you to focus on solutions such as supporting and expanding item 66 which aims to help struggling renters.
I understand that the COVID-19 pandemic has created a great deal of uncertainty for Angelenos. That is why I support item 66, a renters relief program. I have been working with my residents that are struggling. I have instituted payment plans, deferred rent, highlighted resources and halted rent increases. I am doing everything I can to be part of the solution to this unprecedented crises. Many housing providers are not eligible for mortgage relief and are facing tenuous financial circumstances that will affect all contractors, suppliers and employees of these communities.
Items 37, 38 and 39 before you are an overreach; not a solution to this economic and health emergency. Like the 12 month deferral period, this will create a great deal of financial uncertainty and distress for the entire rental housing industry and those whose jobs depend on it. These policies will make the problem worse.
I recognize everyone is struggling but this goes too far. I respectfully ask the council to focus on solutions such as item 66, and reject 37, 38 & 39.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Christopher Mulhern 811 Austin Ave Inglewood, CA 90302 [email protected]
----------Forwarded message----------From: John Townswick <[email protected]>Date: Tue, Apr 21,2020 at 7:50 PMSubject: Oppose Items 37,38, 39To: City Clerk Holly Wolcott <[email protected]>
Dear City Clerk Wolcott,
As a housing provider in L.A., I am strongly opposed to items 37, 38 & 39 on the upcoming council agenda. Aspects of these proposals are likely unlawful as they are governed by state and federal law, have had no discussion and are redundant of actions already taken. These proposals do not aim to alleviate issues related to COVID-19 but further amplify the economic damage and confusion unfolding. I urge you to focus on solutions such as supporting and expanding item 66 which aims to help struggling renters.
I understand that the COVID-19 pandemic has created a great deal of uncertainty for Angelenos. That is why I support item 66, a renters relief program. I have been working with my residents that are struggling. I have instituted payment plans, deferred rent, highlighted resources and halted rent increases. I am doing everything I can to be part of the solution to this unprecedented crises. Many housing providers are not eligible for mortgage relief and are facing tenuous financial circumstances that will affect all contractors, suppliers and employees of these communities.
Items 37, 38 and 39 before you are an overreach; not a solution to this economic and health emergency. Like the 12 month deferral period, this will create a great deal of financial uncertainty and distress for the entire rental housing industry and those whose jobs depend on it. These policies will make the problem worse.
I recognize everyone is struggling but this goes too far. I respectfully ask the council to focus on solutions such as item 66, and reject 37, 38 & 39.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
John Townswick 21102 Wardham Ave Lakewood, CA 90715 [email protected]
As a housing provider in L.A., I am strongly opposed to items 37, 38 & 39 on the upcoming council agenda. Aspects of these proposals are likely unlawful as they are governed by state and federal law, have had no discussion and are redundant of actions already taken. These proposals do not aim to alleviate issues related to COVID-19 but further amplify the economic damage and confusion unfolding. I urge you to focus on solutions such as supporting and expanding item 66 which aims to help struggling renters.
I understand that the COVID-19 pandemic has created a great deal of uncertainty for Angelenos. That is why I support item 66, a renters relief program. I have been working with my residents that are struggling. I have instituted payment plans, deferred rent, highlighted resources and halted rent increases. I am doing everything I can to be part of the solution to this unprecedented crises. Many housing providers are not eligible for mortgage relief and are facing tenuous financial circumstances that will affect all contractors, suppliers and employees of these communities.
Items 37, 38 and 39 before you are an overreach; not a solution to this economic and health emergency. Like the 12 month deferral period, this will create a great deal of financial uncertainty and distress for the entire rental housing industry and those whose jobs depend on it. These policies will make the problem worse.
I recognize everyone is struggling but this goes too far. I respectfully ask the council to focus on solutions such as item 66, and reject 37, 38 & 39.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Orly Vilnai11712 MOORPARK ST STUDIO CITY, CA 91604 [email protected]
----------Forwarded message----------From: Thomas Pushpathadam <[email protected]>Date: Tue, Apr 21,2020 at 11:40 PMSubject: Oppose Items 37,38, 39To: City Clerk Holly Wolcott <[email protected]>
Dear City Clerk Wolcott,
As a housing provider in L.A., I am strongly opposed to items 37, 38 & 39 on the upcoming council agenda. Aspects of these proposals are likely unlawful as they are governed by state and federal law, have had no discussion and are redundant of actions already taken. These proposals do not aim to alleviate issues related to COVID-19 but further amplify the economic damage and confusion unfolding. I urge you to focus on solutions such as supporting and expanding item 66 which aims to help struggling renters.
I understand that the COVID-19 pandemic has created a great deal of uncertainty for Angelenos. That is why I support item 66, a renters relief program. I have been working with my residents that are struggling. I have instituted payment plans, deferred rent, highlighted resources and halted rent increases. I am doing everything I can to be part of the solution to this unprecedented crises. Many housing providers are not eligible for mortgage relief and are facing tenuous financial circumstances that will affect all contractors, suppliers and employees of these communities.
Items 37, 38 and 39 before you are an overreach; not a solution to this economic and health emergency. Like the 12 month deferral period, this will create a great deal of financial uncertainty and distress for the entire rental housing industry and those whose jobs depend on it. These policies will make the problem worse.
I recognize everyone is struggling but this goes too far. I respectfully ask the council to focus on solutions such as item 66, and reject 37, 38 & 39.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Thomas Pushpathadam 16811 Escalon Dr Encino, CA 91436 [email protected]
As a housing provider in L.A., I am strongly opposed to items 37, 38 & 39 on the upcoming council agenda. Aspects of these proposals are likely unlawful as they are governed by state and federal law, have had no discussion and are redundant of actions already taken. These proposals do not aim to alleviate issues related to COVID-19 but further amplify the economic damage and confusion unfolding. I urge you to focus on solutions such as supporting and expanding item 66 which aims to help struggling renters.
I understand that the COVID-19 pandemic has created a great deal of uncertainty for Angelenos. That is why I support item 66, a renters relief program. I have been working with my residents that are struggling. I have instituted payment plans, deferred rent, highlighted resources and halted rent increases. I am doing everything I can to be part of the solution to this unprecedented crises. Many housing providers are not eligible for mortgage relief and are facing tenuous financial circumstances that will affect all contractors, suppliers and employees of these communities.
Items 37, 38 and 39 before you are an overreach; not a solution to this economic and health emergency. Like the 12 month deferral period, this will create a great deal of financial uncertainty and distress for the entire rental housing industry and those whose jobs depend on it. These policies will make the problem worse.
I recognize everyone is struggling but this goes too far. I respectfully ask the council to focus on solutions such as item 66, and reject 37, 38 & 39.
----------Forwarded message----------From: Lawrence Rubenstein <[email protected]>Date: Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 2:20 PMSubject: Oppose Items 37,38, 39To: City Clerk Holly Wolcott <[email protected]>
Dear City Clerk Wolcott,
As a housing provider in L.A., I am strongly opposed to items 37, 38 & 39 on the upcoming council agenda. Aspects of these proposals are likely unlawful as they are governed by state and federal law, have had no discussion and are redundant of actions already taken. These proposals do not aim to alleviate issues related to COVID-19 but further amplify the economic damage and confusion unfolding. I urge you to focus on solutions such as supporting and expanding item 66 which aims to help struggling renters.
I understand that the COVID-19 pandemic has created a great deal of uncertainty for Angelenos. That is why I support item 66, a renters relief program. I have been working with my residents that are struggling. I have instituted payment plans, deferred rent, highlighted resources and halted rent increases. I am doing everything I can to be part of the solution to this unprecedented crises. Many housing providers are not eligible for mortgage relief and are facing tenuous financial circumstances that will affect all contractors, suppliers and employees of these communities.
Items 37, 38 and 39 before you are an overreach; not a solution to this economic and health emergency. Like the 12 month deferral period, this will create a great deal of financial uncertainty and distress for the entire rental housing industry and those whose jobs depend on it. These policies will make the problem worse.
I recognize everyone is struggling but this goes too far. I respectfully ask the council to focus on solutions such as item 66, and reject 37, 38 & 39.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Lawrence Rubenstein 3465 Ocean View Blvd Glendale, CA 91208 [email protected]
As a housing provider in L.A., I am strongly opposed to items 37, 38 & 39 on the upcoming council agenda. Aspects of these proposals are likely unlawful as they are governed by state and federal law, have had no discussion and are redundant of actions already taken. These proposals do not aim to alleviate issues related to COVID-19 but further amplify the economic damage and confusion unfolding. I urge you to focus on solutions such as supporting and expanding item 66 which aims to help struggling renters.
I understand that the COVID-19 pandemic has created a great deal of uncertainty for Angelenos. That is why I support item 66, a renters relief program. I have been working with my residents that are struggling. I have instituted payment plans, deferred rent, highlighted resources and halted rent increases. I am doing everything I can to be part of the solution to this unprecedented crises. Many housing providers are not eligible for mortgage relief and are facing tenuous financial circumstances that will affect all contractors, suppliers and employees of these communities.
Items 37, 38 and 39 before you are an overreach; not a solution to this economic and health emergency. Like the 12 month deferral period, this will create a great deal of financial uncertainty and distress for the entire rental housing industry and those whose jobs depend on it. These policies will make the problem worse.
I recognize everyone is struggling but this goes too far. I respectfully ask the council to focus on solutions such as item 66, and reject 37, 38 & 39.
As a housing provider in L.A., I am strongly opposed to items 37, 38 & 39 on the upcoming council agenda. Aspects of these proposals are likely unlawful as they are governed by state and federal law, have had no discussion and are redundant of actions already taken. These proposals do not aim to alleviate issues related to COVID-19 but further amplify the economic damage and confusion unfolding. I urge you to focus on solutions such as supporting and expanding item 66 which aims to help struggling renters.
I understand that the COVID-19 pandemic has created a great deal of uncertainty for Angelenos. That is why I support item 66, a renters relief program. I have been working with my residents that are struggling. I have instituted payment plans, deferred rent, highlighted resources and halted rent increases. I am doing everything I can to be part of the solution to this unprecedented crises. Many housing providers are not eligible for mortgage relief and are facing tenuous financial circumstances that will affect all contractors, suppliers and employees of these communities.
Items 37, 38 and 39 before you are an overreach; not a solution to this economic and health emergency. Like the 12 month deferral period, this will create a great deal of financial uncertainty and distress for the entire rental housing industry and those whose jobs depend on it. These policies will make the problem worse.
I recognize everyone is struggling but this goes too far. I respectfully ask the council to focus on solutions such as item 66, and reject 37, 38 & 39.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Bryce Murray 11907 Ancona Way Porter Ranch, CA 91326 [email protected]
![Journal of Magnetic Resonance - Spin Dynamicsspindynamics.org/publications/026_kuprov_2011.pdf3D-conformation of molecules [30–36]. Next to liquid crystalline alignment media [37,38],](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5fcb01f482c42410f30eda29/journal-of-magnetic-resonance-spin-3d-conformation-of-molecules-30a36-next.jpg)
![Proper Orthogonal Decomposition Framework for the Explicit ... › ~anil-lab › others › lectures › CMCE › 49-POD-Ceccato.pdf(DMD) [37,38]. Let us consider the equations of](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/60d2fb8d998bab547864a5f1/proper-orthogonal-decomposition-framework-for-the-explicit-a-anil-lab-a.jpg)
![On the Definition of “Hidden” Momentumphysics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/hiddendef.pdf“hidden”momentumuntilrecently[36, 34,35, 37,38, 40, 41,47, 49, 53,55, 51, 72]considered](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/600986899b5cf358502abaac/on-the-deinition-of-aoehiddena-mcdonaldexampleshiddendefpdf-aoehiddenamomentumuntilrecently36.jpg)
