September 17, 2024 • 32 mins
ICYMI: Hour One of ‘Later, with Mo’Kelly’ Presents – Thoughts on the proposal to modernize and expand the Television City complex in the Fairfax District AND the $20 billion proposal to end homelessness in Los Angeles within a decade - on KFI AM 640…Live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
Six forty. It's later with Mo Keller. We're live everywhere
on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
And I actually broke out some not necessarily winter clothes,
but some fall clothes. Maybe I'm rushing it a bit,
but I was so glad to be done with the
extreme heat of last week. I said, let me just
see if I can just make the weather do what
I wanted to do. So I put on a long
sleeve shirt and everything, and I said, hey, it's only
(00:48):
like seventy two seventy three outside today, so it was
pretty mild weather. It put me in a pretty decent
mood to have to drive in today. I didn't feel
the need to flip anyone off, like Mark Ronner, Good evening,
Mark Ronner.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
I made it all the way to work without doing
that today.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
See, I'm quite sure that the weather had something to
do with it. I didn't feel the need to pop
my trunk like to Wallas Sharp. Might have good evening
to Wallas Sharp. Okay, okay, he didn't say I was
wrong though, off the trunk. So everyone made it to
work safely, except for Stephan. Numbers in for Stepan today
and tomorrow.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
Is that correct? Yes, sir? All right? Then we're gonna
have some fun.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
In fact, speaking of fun, remember I told you I
think it was about last week or so I said
you better block out October thirtieth on your calendar. Well,
I'm just reminding you. I can't give you all the
details yet, but just block out October thirtieth on your
calendar because by the end of this week, we will
(01:49):
be able to give you all the details and all
the information as to why.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
And let me just give you some hints. It's going
to be exclusive.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
You're gonna have to listen to this show, and it's
going to be worth your while. We got something very
special that we have planned that we're cooking up right
now that we've been working on for a couple of
weeks and we've almost got everything in place, and we'll
be able to share that with you. But you're going
to have to be a listener of later with mo Kelly.
(02:19):
That's how we do it, and we'll have all the
details before the end of the week. But you may
just want to make sure you don't schedule anything for
October thirtieth. Hint, hint, as if something might be going
on around the thirtieth.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
The end of October and we just have to trust you.
You don't have to because you already know. I don't
know everything. You know as much as I do. I do.
I told you well, I was was hitting the sauce
last week. What can I tell you? That's a you
problem now, has nothing to do with me. I honestly
barely remember our conversation about it.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
Okay, well, maybe I'll fill you in during the break maybe. Okay,
no guarantees, but there's a lot we have to talk about,
some of it news related, some of it entertainment related.
On I know that you're aware of what has been
going on with the FBI investigating the apparent Trump assassination attempt.
Speaker 1 (03:09):
We know that story is there.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
We're just waiting for more solid information before we go
off on some tangent and just start wondering and speculating
and wish casting. No, no, no, we don't do that here.
We're going to give you solid information when we have it.
There's obviously a suspect in custody. We don't know any
type of specific motivation, and when we know those things,
(03:32):
then we'll start weighing in on those things. We're not
brushing the story aside. It's a very very very dangerous
time in America right now, and I think it's a
sad time in America. But we're just letting you know
we are aware of that story as the rest of
the world is. We're going to tell you about Television City.
If you are a CBS television fan, you know everything
about Television City, or maybe you don't. But it's due
(03:52):
for an overhaul and it may cost I don't know,
billions of dollars, but what's money we're going to have.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
Just throw some money at it. We're going to make
it happen. We're going to tell you.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
Who might be against it, including a former mayoral candidate
wink Wink. And we're going to not only remodel Television City,
but we're going to remodel LA. And there is a
very specific proposal to end homelessness. I didn't say address it.
I didn't say fight it. I said end homelessness, like
(04:24):
you know how we've ended hunger, you know, like we've
never mind.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
Well, I want to tell you about the plan.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
I'm not still sure it's going to be successful, but
we're ready to throw all the money in the world
at homelessness and once and for all ended in a
decade or so.
Speaker 3 (04:41):
Does it involve David Copperfield, Well, you might need him.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
You might need doctor Strange, Gandolf and some other wizards
out there to help you. Because this plan, I'm not
so sure it's going to bring about the desired result.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
It's probably well intentioned.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
I'm quite sure it's very sincere, and I know they
spend a lot of time putting the numbers together. I
just don't think it's going to be successful. I don't
want to give it all away. But that's what's coming
up before the.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
Bottom of the hour and home Depot, Uh Mark Roner.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
You may appreciate knowing this home depot is going to
have to pay a two billion dollar fine for overcharging
customers who would have thunk.
Speaker 1 (05:20):
It because I'm against overcharging customers. Is that why you
singled me out there?
Speaker 2 (05:24):
No, No, no, Because it goes to that ongoing conversation.
There's inflation and then there is corporate greed, which is separate,
distinct from the inflation.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
Thing's been totally debunked.
Speaker 3 (05:34):
Look at all the companies, including Kroger, that have been
busted having to admit that they jacked up prices far
more than they had to meet inflation.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
Now you said it, and I'm going to reiterate.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
It's one thing to say that, hey, inflation is high,
it's another thing to say that inflation is high. And
there are record profits of these companies and corporations at
the same time. Profits We're not talking about revenue. We're
talking about profits after they've paid off their bills.
Speaker 3 (06:03):
Record profits, stock buybacks, and massive CEO packages. And the
list is really growing fast. We're finding new things out
at almost every day.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
Corporate America is having a wonderful time right now, a
wonderful time in this supposed down and economy. I'm just saying,
you know, not everyone is suffering out there, and there's
a theme to this. The people who have the record
profits are also the same people who are overcharging you
(06:33):
and just giving you the shaft.
Speaker 1 (06:34):
Can I say that, oh yeah, shaft is We're in
safe shaft hours, aren't we elmer? Okay?
Speaker 2 (06:41):
I think, okay, okay, Oh I can say giving them
I just can't never mind k if. I am six forty.
We're live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app. When we come back,
we're going to talk about Television City. It's history and
connection to Los Angeles and Hollywood and the plan to
overhaul that major complex and what it might mean for you.
Speaker 4 (07:01):
You're listening to Later with Moe Kelly on demand from
KFI AM six forty.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
If you're not of a certain age, you may not
know about the historical significance of Television City. For example,
I'm gonna throw Elmer under the bus here, Elmer, do
you have any personal history or knowledge of Television City?
Speaker 1 (07:23):
When I say that to you? Not at all.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
Television City was built in the La Fairfax area around
nineteen fifty two, and it was home to most of
the CBS TV shows in the fifties, sixties, and seventies
and game shows, sitcoms, all like that, and it was
a fixture like, for example, have you ever watched Good Times? No,
(07:50):
you've never seen the TV show good Times with Jimmy Walker,
est Roll, John Amos.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
I know of its existence, but like I've never seen it.
Oh my goodness.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
Okay, all right now, I feel like I'm one hundred
and forty five bringing on the media.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
Right, Okay. Well, good Times was a perfect example.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
It started each one of its shows saying that it
was coming to you live from Television City.
Speaker 5 (08:15):
From Television City in Hollywood.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
That's how the show started every single week. But Television
City was much bigger than that one show. It's iconic
and there is a fight afoot to modernize and expand
Television City. But they're saying that it would cost about
one point two billion dollars and this is not being
(08:40):
well received by everyone within the city. But just like you, Elmer,
you may not have known the importance and history of
Television City.
Speaker 1 (08:48):
So I pulled this just for folks like you.
Speaker 6 (08:51):
The CBS is about to celebrate its sixtieth anniversary.
Speaker 1 (08:56):
Oh and this was about forty years ago, so you know,
the math is a little bit off.
Speaker 6 (09:00):
CBS is about to celebrate its sixtieth anniversary. From nineteen
twenty seven to nineteen forty seven, you watched the radio,
then along came television.
Speaker 7 (09:11):
This week, we're going to take a look.
Speaker 6 (09:12):
At some of the great shows that you've watched on CBS.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
The past forty years.
Speaker 6 (09:16):
In the old days, most shows were shot and draft.
Speaker 7 (09:18):
The old stage theaters.
Speaker 6 (09:20):
Then William Paley, founder of CBS, decided he wanted something more,
not a single theater, but an entire television complex. So
in nineteen fifty began construction of television city here in Hollywood.
(09:42):
What of you, I've never been that closed to smog before.
I'm sure you'll all find it fascinating that enough concrete
was used in this building to form a highway eight
and a half miles long, twenty thousand cubic yards. More
than one hundred thousand square feet of linoleum was used.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
It was a special broadcast.
Speaker 7 (10:07):
For marrying the grand opening.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
We all know that thing right, price is right?
Speaker 6 (10:27):
Oh board, What I do for a living here? We
are in television cities.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
Legendary I gotta say for a studio producing a piece
about a studio, it's really drab and it's really low.
Speaker 1 (10:47):
Low I'll say tech.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
It was just not a lot was put into this,
but the information is more important.
Speaker 6 (10:54):
Legendary Studio thirty three. Many great shows have been shot here,
Jack Benny Show, Carol Burnett, Red Skelton. Currently, of course,
the price is right and I'm a loser. Legend is
that Jack Benny had this studio constructed to his own specifications,
with the seat sloping so that the cameras would have
(11:15):
an unobstructed view of the stage. We have a clip
now of Jack Benny appearing at the groundbreaking ceremonies for
Television City in nineteen fifty two, thirty five years ago.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
Actually it wasn't it were like fifty two. Who are
the seventy two? Yeah, seventy two years ago, So the
math is a little off.
Speaker 5 (11:40):
I hate to disagree with the Mayor of Los Angeles,
but there's no oil under this building. Our ladies and gentlemen.
For the benefit of our people at home watching the show,
(12:01):
I would like to explain the how big the CBS
Television City really is. Now, these buildings here, this magnitude.
In fact, we have this model made for that. You see. Now,
these buildings cover an area of approximately sixty three thousand
(12:21):
square feet, and the air cooling system alone could make
I would say, about well six hundred tons of ice
per day, or enough to keep Phil Harrison high balls
for one entire evening.
Speaker 2 (12:38):
To take away sixty three thousand square feet well, the
project plans include one point seven million square feet of
sound stage, production support, production offices, and the retension of
the original two hundred and sixty four thousand square feet.
About four hundred and eighty thousand square feet of space
(13:00):
would be demolished to make way for new buildings. And
this is according to the city planning documents. The number
of stages that Television City would increase from eight to fifteen.
Two stages built in the nineteen nineties and the east
side would be demolished, but for original stages as highlighted
in that audio piece built back in nineteen fifty two
(13:21):
would be preserved along with other historical design elements.
Speaker 1 (13:26):
Here's the thing.
Speaker 2 (13:26):
Remember, well you may not remember, we talked about Tyler Perry, billionaire.
He has his own studios down sound stage in Atlanta,
comparable in size, and he, because of AI watching where
that technological innovation might have taken the business, decided to
pull back in his own studio expansion because he felt
(13:49):
he may not need all that sound stage space, all
those workers and what have He recognizes this, this is
part of the pushback against this project. Your expanding the
physical aspect of Television City when there may not be
the need for as many jobs or as many sound stages.
A study conducted by the La County Economic Development Corporation
(14:12):
said the planned investment would result in two point one
billion in total economic output and sustain an estimated annual
average of forty two hundred direct and indirect jobs throughout construction.
Once completed, the study projects television studios will generate two
point four billion annually in new economic output and support
(14:33):
and estimated nineteen thousand direct and indirect jobs. But not
everyone is sold on this, including former mayoral candidate Rick Caruso,
wondering whether this is actually a good idea. As far
as spending money given the issues and ills of Los Angeles, well,
(14:53):
I can't necessarily disagree with that. We'll get into another
proposed study as far as ending a radic heating homelessness,
And if you're wondering where all this money is going
to come from, I have no idea. I'm just throwing
out the numbers. Maybe I don't know that. Maybe we can,
you know, have a television city and no homelessness at
(15:14):
the same time, and we can we can afford both,
maybe put them to work.
Speaker 1 (15:19):
It'll only be.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
Like, I don't know, six million or so, but we
can afford it, sure or not. It's Later with bo
Kelly ca if I AM six forty. We're live everywhere
on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 4 (15:32):
You're listening to Later with Moe Kelly on demand from
KFI AM six forty And if I.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
Told you, if I told you that there is a
plan which is floating around which alleges that it would
be able to end, slash eradicate homelessness in the city
of Los Angeles, would I have your attention?
Speaker 1 (15:56):
Okay, let's say I have your attention.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
What if I also tell you that this plan suppose plan,
it's an analysis, it says to end homelessness in Los Angeles.
It can be done for the mere cost of twenty
billion dollars.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
Would you still be interested? Yeah? I think we would
all be interested.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
It's just a matter of whether we think it could
be done, whether it's realistic.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
Here's my problem.
Speaker 2 (16:28):
Anytime you present a plan to me that says we
can end X problem in a certain amount of time
with a certain amount of money, I usually call bs
Why because the problem.
Speaker 1 (16:39):
Isn't static, it's not finite.
Speaker 2 (16:41):
I take out homelessness, and let's say I said crime,
or let's say I said hunger.
Speaker 1 (16:48):
You can't end hunger.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
You can decrease it, you can diminish it, but you
can't really end hunger. And I don't think you can
end crime. You can diminish it, you can decrease it. Greatly. Absolutely,
you can give people incentives not to participate in it,
but you really can't end it. Why because human nature
(17:10):
is human nature, and free will is free will. And
people are going to choose homelessness, people are going to
choose crime.
Speaker 1 (17:17):
People are going to make.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
Decisions in which they may end up homelessness, end up homeless,
or end up hungry or engaging in a life of crime.
That's when it comes down to people making decisions. But
let me get back to this proposal to end homelessness,
and this was in the La Times, and according to
this analysis, it would cost twenty point four billion dollars
to end homelessness in the city of Los Angeles. I say,
(17:41):
the City of Los Angeles, that is important, put a
pen in it. I will come back to it. This
twenty point four billion dollars which is being proposed, would
produce thirty six thousand permanent housing units for homeless residents
with chronic health needs and build or subsidize twenty five
(18:02):
thousand additional apartments for very low income residents. The proposal
assumes the city maintains nearly seventeen thousand beds in shelters
and other interim housing locations. Through twenty twenty nine before
ramping down this. If you do all this, the analysis
(18:23):
projects homelessness to decline annually before what is known as
functional zero by the end of twenty thirty two. So again,
this analysis is projecting that it could if implemented, it
could end homelessness in the city of Los Angeles in
under eight years and for the price of approximately twenty
(18:46):
point four billion dollars give or take a couple of billion.
My immediate read of why this is not possible. This
proposal completely misses the mark. And I don't want to
seem like I'm Debbie down that I'm always negative, but
there's some glaring holes in this. It assumes that the
(19:06):
problem is finite. The number of people that we have
on the streets right now is going to be consistent,
and we're not going to have another twenty thirty thousand
in the next year or two or three years. It
assumes that the problem can be solved or is solvable,
by only housing. The tent poles of this have to
(19:27):
do with housing thirty six thousand permanent housing units for
homeless residents, another twenty five thousand additional apartments for very
low income residents, maintaining seventeen thousand bids and shelters and
other interim housing locations through twenty twenty nine. And not
a word on the issues or reasons that people end
(19:48):
up homeless. Not a word on treating the emotional and
substance abuse issues illnesses which are frequently connected to homeless people.
And if you're only talking about beds, then you're not
really talking about indie homelessness.
Speaker 1 (20:07):
Give you some other information.
Speaker 2 (20:09):
There are about forty five thousand people who are homeless
in the city of Los Angeles. What's the problem with that, Well,
we don't live in a place which people are confined
to stay in a certain area. Remember we're talking about
this last week what they were trying to do in
Long Beach. There were clearing people out of Long Beach parks.
(20:29):
Where would they likely go? I don't know a neighboring
city like Signal Hill, although maybe they'll come to San
Pedro because they have freedom of movement. And if you
tell me that they're forty five thousand people who are
homeless in the City of Los Angeles, I would respond saying, well,
what about the people who are homeless in La County?
Are they saying that they can't end up in Los Angeles.
(20:50):
Are you saying that Ventura County cannot end up in
the city of Los Angeles. Are you saying that these
other counties and places which there are homeless people are
not going to come to LA City? Or are you
saying that if you do this in LA you can
control the boundaries of LA and make sure that there
is no homelessness within the city of LA. It doesn't
(21:11):
make sense to me, and I doubt it would make
sense to you, because I know you're rational.
Speaker 1 (21:19):
I know you're logical.
Speaker 2 (21:21):
I know you're frugal financially, and just when I say
twenty point four billion, you think like, well, how much
have we spent already and we can't even seemingly make
a dent. And this proposal, this analysis says, hey, we
need to do more of what we've been doing, which
by all eyeball tests, by most.
Speaker 1 (21:38):
Accounts, it's not making a difference.
Speaker 2 (21:43):
With all due respect to Mayor Bass, I'm quite sure
she would say how many thousands of people that her
programs and projects have gotten off the street, And I
would respond, very respectfully, Mayor Bass, Okay, but what about
the people who are now on the street since you've
come into office. How do we deal with that? Are
(22:04):
we talking about a net gain or a net loss?
So are we talking about there are fewer people beg
on the street today. Have we somehow addressed the reasons why.
Speaker 1 (22:13):
They're ending up homeless?
Speaker 2 (22:14):
Are we making sure that they're not going to be
homeless again in six months or a year?
Speaker 1 (22:18):
Or is that just impossible? Because if you say.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
That, if you give you X amount of dollars, that
you can functionally eradicate or end homelessness, I want to
say that's not possible, because we can't do it for
any other abstract idea. There is not something tangible that
we can point to which is going to determine whether
someone ends up homeless or not. Why, because there are
(22:42):
too many variables in life. I know someone who's listening
right now, and I don't mean this disrespectfully. I know
there is someone listening right now who, before the end
of this year, will have the unfortunate news of being
diagnosed with a serial illness. And that person is going
(23:02):
to go through financial hell. And if that person survives,
there is a distinct possibility that they may lose their house,
they may lose their place to live, and they may
end up homeless because they don't have friends to call,
they don't have relatives, they don't have savings of some
two or three hundred thousand dollars because they spend all
(23:23):
of that on just hospital costs. And if you're not
dealing with those realities, then this plan it doesn't mean anything.
It may be well intentioned, but we're not being honest
with each other.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
I know that all of us want to end homelessness.
Speaker 2 (23:44):
I know that now we may disagree on the methods,
but I think fundamentally we all would like to end homelessness.
And I know we've all either visited a place in
this country or a place around the world where homelessness
is not a thing, it's not an issue, or you
live long enough in southern California to remember when it
(24:06):
wasn't as much of a thing.
Speaker 1 (24:09):
It's not that it's impossible.
Speaker 2 (24:11):
It's just that the way that we've been going about
it has made it improbable. We've spent billions of dollars,
not only on a city level, but also a state level,
and it doesn't seem like we're getting anywhere. And if
the next proposal that we see is more of the
(24:33):
same of what we have been doing. Then I'm not
so sure anyone can confidently say that it's going to
make any difference at all. We have tried the housing
first approach, where if we have more units, more dwellings,
more beds, that will end or functionally in homelessness as
(24:55):
we know it, because it's a lack of housing.
Speaker 1 (24:59):
I I disagree with that.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
If it is much more complex than that, I think
the situation requires far more investment, not only financially but socially,
because we're talking about people, or at least we should
be talking about people and not just beds.
Speaker 1 (25:16):
If it could be solved by.
Speaker 2 (25:17):
Just money and beds, we would have been there, or
we would have been much closer given how much money
we've already spent at this point. If you need to
see the analysis, the La Times put it out today,
twenty point four billion dollars to end homelessness in Los
Angeles in eight years, eight years, even though for the
(25:39):
past eight years we haven't even made a dint. We've
probably even gotten further behind.
Speaker 4 (25:45):
You're listening to Later with Moe Kelly on Demand from
KFI AM six forty.
Speaker 2 (25:51):
Just want to let you know that We're aware of
the breaking news of Sean P. Ditty Combs, who seemingly
has been arrested at his residents in New York. There
has not been a lot of information as far as
what or what he may be booked on, but we
do know that it is federal in nature, as FBI
agents arrested him. When we know more, we'll be sure
(26:12):
to pass that along to you, or the KFI newsroom
will have that for you.
Speaker 1 (26:17):
But we're waiting for more information to give you the
specifics if you're just tuning in. Sean P.
Speaker 2 (26:22):
Diddy Combs has been arrested on federal charges which have
not been made public presently in New York City. And
this is an ongoing conversation that I've been having with
you about the economy and what is actually the economy
in what is more a function of greed and decisions
(26:45):
being made by corporate America which hurt you, hurt me.
And the latest is home Depot Depot is going to
have to pay a two million dollars settlement, which is
nothing in the grand scheme of things, but they're going
to have to pay for overcharging customers. Have you noticed
it never works out to your benefit as a customer.
Speaker 1 (27:09):
You never hear.
Speaker 2 (27:09):
About, Hey, you know so and so they were undercharging
customers and we just found out at the last minute.
It was really strange. Now it's always overcharging. It always
works in their direction. But home Depot will pay nearly
two million dollars to settle a civil enforcement claim from
California District attorneys that home Depot was engaging in false
(27:32):
advertising and unfair competition. Imagine that home Depot brought an
item to check out. They would be a person who
brought it to check it out. They would be charged
more money than what was written on the shelf tag
or on.
Speaker 1 (27:48):
The item itself.
Speaker 2 (27:49):
So when they were scanning a boop and if you
weren't paying attention, the price that would come up would
be more than what you thought you were going to
pay for or what it even said on the product
that you were supposed to pay for. And we all
know if let me put it this way, this is
like my roach theory. Okay, this is just the one
that you know about. They're probably a bunch of other corporations,
(28:13):
a bunch of other companies doing the same thing. Because
the assumption is yeah, yeah, yeah, if we get caught.
No big deal, We'll only have to pay a two
million dollar fine. But how much money did they actually
make in the process? How many millions of people did
they likely overcharge?
Speaker 1 (28:30):
How many? I don't know.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
You don't know, because we've all gone to home Depot
and you kind of pay the price, and if it's
in a general range of what you think is supposed
to pay, you go on about your business and you
may not realize that you've been overcharged by three four
dollars or something like that. What if that happened to
about ten million people, ten million customers across the country. Yeah,
talking us some real money for a corporation which is
(28:53):
getting off relatively easy. For two million dollars. The company
admitted no wrongdoing, of course it didn't. It must pay
one point seven million in civil penalties, as well as
two hundred and seventy seven grand to cover investigation costs,
as well as to support future enforcement of consumer protection laws.
Speaker 1 (29:15):
It's nothing.
Speaker 2 (29:16):
The judgment also ruled that home Depot must implement a
price ACCURATEY accuracy program.
Speaker 1 (29:22):
What is that? What does that mean? That your scanner
actually works accurate?
Speaker 2 (29:29):
You can go ahead and charge twala accurate Okay, Elmer,
you can pay the price. Mark Ronner, he was overcharged.
You got to understand that. That fine, that's just the
cost of doing business for a corporation that size.
Speaker 1 (29:47):
It's nothing.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
I don't think it is the cost of doing business.
I think it's less than nothing.
Speaker 1 (29:52):
Yeah. Sure, two million dollars to Home Depot. That's an
executive salary. That's one. Yeah, I said an executive. I'd
just say, like a high level executive, Okay, there's nothing.
Speaker 2 (30:07):
And also not that I'm an accountant, but I'm quite
sure they can write this off against some other tax
debt that they would have paid where they don't have
to actually shoulder the costs or feel it on any level.
Speaker 8 (30:20):
Or they can just easily funnel it back into raising
prices across the expanse of home depots and just bring
the prices up on stuff for a little bit.
Speaker 1 (30:32):
That's exactly right. It's a shell game. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (30:36):
Let me give you some idea of how big Home
Depot is and how little this means to them. Home
Depot is the nation's fifth largest retailer, number five in
the country. We're talking about two million dollars. They probably
made two million dollars since I started this segment in
(30:58):
just a few of.
Speaker 1 (30:59):
Its stores two billion dollars.
Speaker 2 (31:02):
In March, Home Depot announced it was buying SRS Distribution,
a huge building project supplier that counts professional roofers, landscapers
and pool contractors as its primary customers. Anybody want to
take a guess how much that costs? Anybody? Anybody?
Speaker 1 (31:19):
Three billion? Tallass? Three billion? Mark? Do you know have
an idea? Eight? Okay, elmore? You want to take eighteen
point three billion? Oh nice, crazy?
Speaker 2 (31:32):
Eighteen point three billion, and you know what the point
three is? That's three hundred million dollars point three, three
hundred million dollars. They were fine for overcharging people two million.
KFI AM six forty. We're live everywhere in the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 1 (31:50):
We're not just in smart speakers. We're in a couple
of smart ears as well.
Speaker 3 (31:55):
Five and KOSTHD two Los Angeles.
Speaker 1 (31:59):
Layne live everywhere on the Young Art Radio
Six forty. It's later with Mo Keller. We're live everywhere
on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
And I actually broke out some not necessarily winter clothes,
but some fall clothes. Maybe I'm rushing it a bit,
but I was so glad to be done with the
extreme heat of last week. I said, let me just
see if I can just make the weather do what
I wanted to do. So I put on a long
sleeve shirt and everything, and I said, hey, it's only
(00:48):
like seventy two seventy three outside today, so it was
pretty mild weather. It put me in a pretty decent
mood to have to drive in today. I didn't feel
the need to flip anyone off, like Mark Ronner, Good evening,
Mark Ronner.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
I made it all the way to work without doing
that today.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
See, I'm quite sure that the weather had something to
do with it. I didn't feel the need to pop
my trunk like to Wallas Sharp. Might have good evening
to Wallas Sharp. Okay, okay, he didn't say I was
wrong though, off the trunk. So everyone made it to
work safely, except for Stephan. Numbers in for Stepan today
and tomorrow.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
Is that correct? Yes, sir? All right? Then we're gonna
have some fun.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
In fact, speaking of fun, remember I told you I
think it was about last week or so I said
you better block out October thirtieth on your calendar. Well,
I'm just reminding you. I can't give you all the
details yet, but just block out October thirtieth on your
calendar because by the end of this week, we will
(01:49):
be able to give you all the details and all
the information as to why.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
And let me just give you some hints. It's going
to be exclusive.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
You're gonna have to listen to this show, and it's
going to be worth your while. We got something very
special that we have planned that we're cooking up right
now that we've been working on for a couple of
weeks and we've almost got everything in place, and we'll
be able to share that with you. But you're going
to have to be a listener of later with mo Kelly.
(02:19):
That's how we do it, and we'll have all the
details before the end of the week. But you may
just want to make sure you don't schedule anything for
October thirtieth. Hint, hint, as if something might be going
on around the thirtieth.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
The end of October and we just have to trust you.
You don't have to because you already know. I don't
know everything. You know as much as I do. I do.
I told you well, I was was hitting the sauce
last week. What can I tell you? That's a you
problem now, has nothing to do with me. I honestly
barely remember our conversation about it.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
Okay, well, maybe I'll fill you in during the break maybe. Okay,
no guarantees, but there's a lot we have to talk about,
some of it news related, some of it entertainment related.
On I know that you're aware of what has been
going on with the FBI investigating the apparent Trump assassination attempt.
Speaker 1 (03:09):
We know that story is there.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
We're just waiting for more solid information before we go
off on some tangent and just start wondering and speculating
and wish casting. No, no, no, we don't do that here.
We're going to give you solid information when we have it.
There's obviously a suspect in custody. We don't know any
type of specific motivation, and when we know those things,
(03:32):
then we'll start weighing in on those things. We're not
brushing the story aside. It's a very very very dangerous
time in America right now, and I think it's a
sad time in America. But we're just letting you know
we are aware of that story as the rest of
the world is. We're going to tell you about Television City.
If you are a CBS television fan, you know everything
about Television City, or maybe you don't. But it's due
(03:52):
for an overhaul and it may cost I don't know,
billions of dollars, but what's money we're going to have.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
Just throw some money at it. We're going to make
it happen. We're going to tell you.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
Who might be against it, including a former mayoral candidate
wink Wink. And we're going to not only remodel Television City,
but we're going to remodel LA. And there is a
very specific proposal to end homelessness. I didn't say address it.
I didn't say fight it. I said end homelessness, like
(04:24):
you know how we've ended hunger, you know, like we've
never mind.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
Well, I want to tell you about the plan.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
I'm not still sure it's going to be successful, but
we're ready to throw all the money in the world
at homelessness and once and for all ended in a
decade or so.
Speaker 3 (04:41):
Does it involve David Copperfield, Well, you might need him.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
You might need doctor Strange, Gandolf and some other wizards
out there to help you. Because this plan, I'm not
so sure it's going to bring about the desired result.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
It's probably well intentioned.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
I'm quite sure it's very sincere, and I know they
spend a lot of time putting the numbers together. I
just don't think it's going to be successful. I don't
want to give it all away. But that's what's coming
up before the.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
Bottom of the hour and home Depot, Uh Mark Roner.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
You may appreciate knowing this home depot is going to
have to pay a two billion dollar fine for overcharging
customers who would have thunk.
Speaker 1 (05:20):
It because I'm against overcharging customers. Is that why you
singled me out there?
Speaker 2 (05:24):
No, No, no, Because it goes to that ongoing conversation.
There's inflation and then there is corporate greed, which is separate,
distinct from the inflation.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
Thing's been totally debunked.
Speaker 3 (05:34):
Look at all the companies, including Kroger, that have been
busted having to admit that they jacked up prices far
more than they had to meet inflation.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
Now you said it, and I'm going to reiterate.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
It's one thing to say that, hey, inflation is high,
it's another thing to say that inflation is high. And
there are record profits of these companies and corporations at
the same time. Profits We're not talking about revenue. We're
talking about profits after they've paid off their bills.
Speaker 3 (06:03):
Record profits, stock buybacks, and massive CEO packages. And the
list is really growing fast. We're finding new things out
at almost every day.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
Corporate America is having a wonderful time right now, a
wonderful time in this supposed down and economy. I'm just saying,
you know, not everyone is suffering out there, and there's
a theme to this. The people who have the record
profits are also the same people who are overcharging you
(06:33):
and just giving you the shaft.
Speaker 1 (06:34):
Can I say that, oh yeah, shaft is We're in
safe shaft hours, aren't we elmer? Okay?
Speaker 2 (06:41):
I think, okay, okay, Oh I can say giving them
I just can't never mind k if. I am six forty.
We're live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app. When we come back,
we're going to talk about Television City. It's history and
connection to Los Angeles and Hollywood and the plan to
overhaul that major complex and what it might mean for you.
Speaker 4 (07:01):
You're listening to Later with Moe Kelly on demand from
KFI AM six forty.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
If you're not of a certain age, you may not
know about the historical significance of Television City. For example,
I'm gonna throw Elmer under the bus here, Elmer, do
you have any personal history or knowledge of Television City?
Speaker 1 (07:23):
When I say that to you? Not at all.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
Television City was built in the La Fairfax area around
nineteen fifty two, and it was home to most of
the CBS TV shows in the fifties, sixties, and seventies
and game shows, sitcoms, all like that, and it was
a fixture like, for example, have you ever watched Good Times? No,
(07:50):
you've never seen the TV show good Times with Jimmy Walker,
est Roll, John Amos.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
I know of its existence, but like I've never seen it.
Oh my goodness.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
Okay, all right now, I feel like I'm one hundred
and forty five bringing on the media.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
Right, Okay. Well, good Times was a perfect example.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
It started each one of its shows saying that it
was coming to you live from Television City.
Speaker 5 (08:15):
From Television City in Hollywood.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
That's how the show started every single week. But Television
City was much bigger than that one show. It's iconic
and there is a fight afoot to modernize and expand
Television City. But they're saying that it would cost about
one point two billion dollars and this is not being
(08:40):
well received by everyone within the city. But just like you, Elmer,
you may not have known the importance and history of
Television City.
Speaker 1 (08:48):
So I pulled this just for folks like you.
Speaker 6 (08:51):
The CBS is about to celebrate its sixtieth anniversary.
Speaker 1 (08:56):
Oh and this was about forty years ago, so you know,
the math is a little bit off.
Speaker 6 (09:00):
CBS is about to celebrate its sixtieth anniversary. From nineteen
twenty seven to nineteen forty seven, you watched the radio,
then along came television.
Speaker 7 (09:11):
This week, we're going to take a look.
Speaker 6 (09:12):
At some of the great shows that you've watched on CBS.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
The past forty years.
Speaker 6 (09:16):
In the old days, most shows were shot and draft.
Speaker 7 (09:18):
The old stage theaters.
Speaker 6 (09:20):
Then William Paley, founder of CBS, decided he wanted something more,
not a single theater, but an entire television complex. So
in nineteen fifty began construction of television city here in Hollywood.
(09:42):
What of you, I've never been that closed to smog before.
I'm sure you'll all find it fascinating that enough concrete
was used in this building to form a highway eight
and a half miles long, twenty thousand cubic yards. More
than one hundred thousand square feet of linoleum was used.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
It was a special broadcast.
Speaker 7 (10:07):
For marrying the grand opening.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
We all know that thing right, price is right?
Speaker 6 (10:27):
Oh board, What I do for a living here? We
are in television cities.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
Legendary I gotta say for a studio producing a piece
about a studio, it's really drab and it's really low.
Speaker 1 (10:47):
Low I'll say tech.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
It was just not a lot was put into this,
but the information is more important.
Speaker 6 (10:54):
Legendary Studio thirty three. Many great shows have been shot here,
Jack Benny Show, Carol Burnett, Red Skelton. Currently, of course,
the price is right and I'm a loser. Legend is
that Jack Benny had this studio constructed to his own specifications,
with the seat sloping so that the cameras would have
(11:15):
an unobstructed view of the stage. We have a clip
now of Jack Benny appearing at the groundbreaking ceremonies for
Television City in nineteen fifty two, thirty five years ago.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
Actually it wasn't it were like fifty two. Who are
the seventy two? Yeah, seventy two years ago, So the
math is a little off.
Speaker 5 (11:40):
I hate to disagree with the Mayor of Los Angeles,
but there's no oil under this building. Our ladies and gentlemen.
For the benefit of our people at home watching the show,
(12:01):
I would like to explain the how big the CBS
Television City really is. Now, these buildings here, this magnitude.
In fact, we have this model made for that. You see. Now,
these buildings cover an area of approximately sixty three thousand
(12:21):
square feet, and the air cooling system alone could make
I would say, about well six hundred tons of ice
per day, or enough to keep Phil Harrison high balls
for one entire evening.
Speaker 2 (12:38):
To take away sixty three thousand square feet well, the
project plans include one point seven million square feet of
sound stage, production support, production offices, and the retension of
the original two hundred and sixty four thousand square feet.
About four hundred and eighty thousand square feet of space
(13:00):
would be demolished to make way for new buildings. And
this is according to the city planning documents. The number
of stages that Television City would increase from eight to fifteen.
Two stages built in the nineteen nineties and the east
side would be demolished, but for original stages as highlighted
in that audio piece built back in nineteen fifty two
(13:21):
would be preserved along with other historical design elements.
Speaker 1 (13:26):
Here's the thing.
Speaker 2 (13:26):
Remember, well you may not remember, we talked about Tyler Perry, billionaire.
He has his own studios down sound stage in Atlanta,
comparable in size, and he, because of AI watching where
that technological innovation might have taken the business, decided to
pull back in his own studio expansion because he felt
(13:49):
he may not need all that sound stage space, all
those workers and what have He recognizes this, this is
part of the pushback against this project. Your expanding the
physical aspect of Television City when there may not be
the need for as many jobs or as many sound stages.
A study conducted by the La County Economic Development Corporation
(14:12):
said the planned investment would result in two point one
billion in total economic output and sustain an estimated annual
average of forty two hundred direct and indirect jobs throughout construction.
Once completed, the study projects television studios will generate two
point four billion annually in new economic output and support
(14:33):
and estimated nineteen thousand direct and indirect jobs. But not
everyone is sold on this, including former mayoral candidate Rick Caruso,
wondering whether this is actually a good idea. As far
as spending money given the issues and ills of Los Angeles, well,
(14:53):
I can't necessarily disagree with that. We'll get into another
proposed study as far as ending a radic heating homelessness,
And if you're wondering where all this money is going
to come from, I have no idea. I'm just throwing
out the numbers. Maybe I don't know that. Maybe we can,
you know, have a television city and no homelessness at
(15:14):
the same time, and we can we can afford both,
maybe put them to work.
Speaker 1 (15:19):
It'll only be.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
Like, I don't know, six million or so, but we
can afford it, sure or not. It's Later with bo
Kelly ca if I AM six forty. We're live everywhere
on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 4 (15:32):
You're listening to Later with Moe Kelly on demand from
KFI AM six forty And if I.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
Told you, if I told you that there is a
plan which is floating around which alleges that it would
be able to end, slash eradicate homelessness in the city
of Los Angeles, would I have your attention?
Speaker 1 (15:56):
Okay, let's say I have your attention.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
What if I also tell you that this plan suppose plan,
it's an analysis, it says to end homelessness in Los Angeles.
It can be done for the mere cost of twenty
billion dollars.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
Would you still be interested? Yeah? I think we would
all be interested.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
It's just a matter of whether we think it could
be done, whether it's realistic.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
Here's my problem.
Speaker 2 (16:28):
Anytime you present a plan to me that says we
can end X problem in a certain amount of time
with a certain amount of money, I usually call bs
Why because the problem.
Speaker 1 (16:39):
Isn't static, it's not finite.
Speaker 2 (16:41):
I take out homelessness, and let's say I said crime,
or let's say I said hunger.
Speaker 1 (16:48):
You can't end hunger.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
You can decrease it, you can diminish it, but you
can't really end hunger. And I don't think you can
end crime. You can diminish it, you can decrease it. Greatly. Absolutely,
you can give people incentives not to participate in it,
but you really can't end it. Why because human nature
(17:10):
is human nature, and free will is free will. And
people are going to choose homelessness, people are going to
choose crime.
Speaker 1 (17:17):
People are going to make.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
Decisions in which they may end up homelessness, end up homeless,
or end up hungry or engaging in a life of crime.
That's when it comes down to people making decisions. But
let me get back to this proposal to end homelessness,
and this was in the La Times, and according to
this analysis, it would cost twenty point four billion dollars
to end homelessness in the city of Los Angeles. I say,
(17:41):
the City of Los Angeles, that is important, put a
pen in it. I will come back to it. This
twenty point four billion dollars which is being proposed, would
produce thirty six thousand permanent housing units for homeless residents
with chronic health needs and build or subsidize twenty five
(18:02):
thousand additional apartments for very low income residents. The proposal
assumes the city maintains nearly seventeen thousand beds in shelters
and other interim housing locations. Through twenty twenty nine before
ramping down this. If you do all this, the analysis
(18:23):
projects homelessness to decline annually before what is known as
functional zero by the end of twenty thirty two. So again,
this analysis is projecting that it could if implemented, it
could end homelessness in the city of Los Angeles in
under eight years and for the price of approximately twenty
(18:46):
point four billion dollars give or take a couple of billion.
My immediate read of why this is not possible. This
proposal completely misses the mark. And I don't want to
seem like I'm Debbie down that I'm always negative, but
there's some glaring holes in this. It assumes that the
(19:06):
problem is finite. The number of people that we have
on the streets right now is going to be consistent,
and we're not going to have another twenty thirty thousand
in the next year or two or three years. It
assumes that the problem can be solved or is solvable,
by only housing. The tent poles of this have to
(19:27):
do with housing thirty six thousand permanent housing units for
homeless residents, another twenty five thousand additional apartments for very
low income residents, maintaining seventeen thousand bids and shelters and
other interim housing locations through twenty twenty nine. And not
a word on the issues or reasons that people end
(19:48):
up homeless. Not a word on treating the emotional and
substance abuse issues illnesses which are frequently connected to homeless people.
And if you're only talking about beds, then you're not
really talking about indie homelessness.
Speaker 1 (20:07):
Give you some other information.
Speaker 2 (20:09):
There are about forty five thousand people who are homeless
in the city of Los Angeles. What's the problem with that, Well,
we don't live in a place which people are confined
to stay in a certain area. Remember we're talking about
this last week what they were trying to do in
Long Beach. There were clearing people out of Long Beach parks.
(20:29):
Where would they likely go? I don't know a neighboring
city like Signal Hill, although maybe they'll come to San
Pedro because they have freedom of movement. And if you
tell me that they're forty five thousand people who are
homeless in the City of Los Angeles, I would respond saying, well,
what about the people who are homeless in La County?
Are they saying that they can't end up in Los Angeles.
(20:50):
Are you saying that Ventura County cannot end up in
the city of Los Angeles. Are you saying that these
other counties and places which there are homeless people are
not going to come to LA City? Or are you
saying that if you do this in LA you can
control the boundaries of LA and make sure that there
is no homelessness within the city of LA. It doesn't
(21:11):
make sense to me, and I doubt it would make
sense to you, because I know you're rational.
Speaker 1 (21:19):
I know you're logical.
Speaker 2 (21:21):
I know you're frugal financially, and just when I say
twenty point four billion, you think like, well, how much
have we spent already and we can't even seemingly make
a dent. And this proposal, this analysis says, hey, we
need to do more of what we've been doing, which
by all eyeball tests, by most.
Speaker 1 (21:38):
Accounts, it's not making a difference.
Speaker 2 (21:43):
With all due respect to Mayor Bass, I'm quite sure
she would say how many thousands of people that her
programs and projects have gotten off the street, And I
would respond, very respectfully, Mayor Bass, Okay, but what about
the people who are now on the street since you've
come into office. How do we deal with that? Are
(22:04):
we talking about a net gain or a net loss?
So are we talking about there are fewer people beg
on the street today. Have we somehow addressed the reasons why.
Speaker 1 (22:13):
They're ending up homeless?
Speaker 2 (22:14):
Are we making sure that they're not going to be
homeless again in six months or a year?
Speaker 1 (22:18):
Or is that just impossible? Because if you say.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
That, if you give you X amount of dollars, that
you can functionally eradicate or end homelessness, I want to
say that's not possible, because we can't do it for
any other abstract idea. There is not something tangible that
we can point to which is going to determine whether
someone ends up homeless or not. Why, because there are
(22:42):
too many variables in life. I know someone who's listening
right now, and I don't mean this disrespectfully. I know
there is someone listening right now who, before the end
of this year, will have the unfortunate news of being
diagnosed with a serial illness. And that person is going
(23:02):
to go through financial hell. And if that person survives,
there is a distinct possibility that they may lose their house,
they may lose their place to live, and they may
end up homeless because they don't have friends to call,
they don't have relatives, they don't have savings of some
two or three hundred thousand dollars because they spend all
(23:23):
of that on just hospital costs. And if you're not
dealing with those realities, then this plan it doesn't mean anything.
It may be well intentioned, but we're not being honest
with each other.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
I know that all of us want to end homelessness.
Speaker 2 (23:44):
I know that now we may disagree on the methods,
but I think fundamentally we all would like to end homelessness.
And I know we've all either visited a place in
this country or a place around the world where homelessness
is not a thing, it's not an issue, or you
live long enough in southern California to remember when it
(24:06):
wasn't as much of a thing.
Speaker 1 (24:09):
It's not that it's impossible.
Speaker 2 (24:11):
It's just that the way that we've been going about
it has made it improbable. We've spent billions of dollars,
not only on a city level, but also a state level,
and it doesn't seem like we're getting anywhere. And if
the next proposal that we see is more of the
(24:33):
same of what we have been doing. Then I'm not
so sure anyone can confidently say that it's going to
make any difference at all. We have tried the housing
first approach, where if we have more units, more dwellings,
more beds, that will end or functionally in homelessness as
(24:55):
we know it, because it's a lack of housing.
Speaker 1 (24:59):
I I disagree with that.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
If it is much more complex than that, I think
the situation requires far more investment, not only financially but socially,
because we're talking about people, or at least we should
be talking about people and not just beds.
Speaker 1 (25:16):
If it could be solved by.
Speaker 2 (25:17):
Just money and beds, we would have been there, or
we would have been much closer given how much money
we've already spent at this point. If you need to
see the analysis, the La Times put it out today,
twenty point four billion dollars to end homelessness in Los
Angeles in eight years, eight years, even though for the
(25:39):
past eight years we haven't even made a dint. We've
probably even gotten further behind.
Speaker 4 (25:45):
You're listening to Later with Moe Kelly on Demand from
KFI AM six forty.
Speaker 2 (25:51):
Just want to let you know that We're aware of
the breaking news of Sean P. Ditty Combs, who seemingly
has been arrested at his residents in New York. There
has not been a lot of information as far as
what or what he may be booked on, but we
do know that it is federal in nature, as FBI
agents arrested him. When we know more, we'll be sure
(26:12):
to pass that along to you, or the KFI newsroom
will have that for you.
Speaker 1 (26:17):
But we're waiting for more information to give you the
specifics if you're just tuning in. Sean P.
Speaker 2 (26:22):
Diddy Combs has been arrested on federal charges which have
not been made public presently in New York City. And
this is an ongoing conversation that I've been having with
you about the economy and what is actually the economy
in what is more a function of greed and decisions
(26:45):
being made by corporate America which hurt you, hurt me.
And the latest is home Depot Depot is going to
have to pay a two million dollars settlement, which is
nothing in the grand scheme of things, but they're going
to have to pay for overcharging customers. Have you noticed
it never works out to your benefit as a customer.
Speaker 1 (27:09):
You never hear.
Speaker 2 (27:09):
About, Hey, you know so and so they were undercharging
customers and we just found out at the last minute.
It was really strange. Now it's always overcharging. It always
works in their direction. But home Depot will pay nearly
two million dollars to settle a civil enforcement claim from
California District attorneys that home Depot was engaging in false
(27:32):
advertising and unfair competition. Imagine that home Depot brought an
item to check out. They would be a person who
brought it to check it out. They would be charged
more money than what was written on the shelf tag
or on.
Speaker 1 (27:48):
The item itself.
Speaker 2 (27:49):
So when they were scanning a boop and if you
weren't paying attention, the price that would come up would
be more than what you thought you were going to
pay for or what it even said on the product
that you were supposed to pay for. And we all
know if let me put it this way, this is
like my roach theory. Okay, this is just the one
that you know about. They're probably a bunch of other corporations,
(28:13):
a bunch of other companies doing the same thing. Because
the assumption is yeah, yeah, yeah, if we get caught.
No big deal, We'll only have to pay a two
million dollar fine. But how much money did they actually
make in the process? How many millions of people did
they likely overcharge?
Speaker 1 (28:30):
How many? I don't know.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
You don't know, because we've all gone to home Depot
and you kind of pay the price, and if it's
in a general range of what you think is supposed
to pay, you go on about your business and you
may not realize that you've been overcharged by three four
dollars or something like that. What if that happened to
about ten million people, ten million customers across the country. Yeah,
talking us some real money for a corporation which is
(28:53):
getting off relatively easy. For two million dollars. The company
admitted no wrongdoing, of course it didn't. It must pay
one point seven million in civil penalties, as well as
two hundred and seventy seven grand to cover investigation costs,
as well as to support future enforcement of consumer protection laws.
Speaker 1 (29:15):
It's nothing.
Speaker 2 (29:16):
The judgment also ruled that home Depot must implement a
price ACCURATEY accuracy program.
Speaker 1 (29:22):
What is that? What does that mean? That your scanner
actually works accurate?
Speaker 2 (29:29):
You can go ahead and charge twala accurate Okay, Elmer,
you can pay the price. Mark Ronner, he was overcharged.
You got to understand that. That fine, that's just the
cost of doing business for a corporation that size.
Speaker 1 (29:47):
It's nothing.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
I don't think it is the cost of doing business.
I think it's less than nothing.
Speaker 1 (29:52):
Yeah. Sure, two million dollars to Home Depot. That's an
executive salary. That's one. Yeah, I said an executive. I'd
just say, like a high level executive, Okay, there's nothing.
Speaker 2 (30:07):
And also not that I'm an accountant, but I'm quite
sure they can write this off against some other tax
debt that they would have paid where they don't have
to actually shoulder the costs or feel it on any level.
Speaker 8 (30:20):
Or they can just easily funnel it back into raising
prices across the expanse of home depots and just bring
the prices up on stuff for a little bit.
Speaker 1 (30:32):
That's exactly right. It's a shell game. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (30:36):
Let me give you some idea of how big Home
Depot is and how little this means to them. Home
Depot is the nation's fifth largest retailer, number five in
the country. We're talking about two million dollars. They probably
made two million dollars since I started this segment in
(30:58):
just a few of.
Speaker 1 (30:59):
Its stores two billion dollars.
Speaker 2 (31:02):
In March, Home Depot announced it was buying SRS Distribution,
a huge building project supplier that counts professional roofers, landscapers
and pool contractors as its primary customers. Anybody want to
take a guess how much that costs? Anybody? Anybody?
Speaker 1 (31:19):
Three billion? Tallass? Three billion? Mark? Do you know have
an idea? Eight? Okay, elmore? You want to take eighteen
point three billion? Oh nice, crazy?
Speaker 2 (31:32):
Eighteen point three billion, and you know what the point
three is? That's three hundred million dollars point three, three
hundred million dollars. They were fine for overcharging people two million.
KFI AM six forty. We're live everywhere in the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 1 (31:50):
We're not just in smart speakers. We're in a couple
of smart ears as well.
Speaker 3 (31:55):
Five and KOSTHD two Los Angeles.
Speaker 1 (31:59):
Layne live everywhere on the Young Art Radio
Later, with Mo'Kelly News
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.