I know some of you will think this is a bit of a spin job, but the results of Tuesday's election for Los Angeles County, and specifically the City of Los Angeles, should give those of us loyal to conservative principles and values much hope. From the defense of EVERY Republican local seat to the voting trend symbolized by the results of key measures, the liberals are starting to lose their grip on this county, slowly but surely.
The 54th AD had two Republican candidates in Palos Verdes Estates up for election Tuesday against a Democrat who ran on the "why can't I break the law and disturb my neighbors" campaign. Incumbent James Goodhart and PVE Planning Commissioner George Bird ran great campaigns that represented what most of the voters in PVE were looking for. Their sole opponent was Democrat Sheryll Iannitti, who would not likely have received our endorsement has she been a Republican anyway due to her reason for running. This was the woman who ran for office because she was upset that the city asked her to remove her Halloween decorations from city property. She was basically running on an assumption that residents of Palos Verdes Estates wanted "change"; anyone familiar with PVE like I am can tell you that's not the best campaign slogan on "the Hill".
Congratulations to our two endorsed elected candidates!
For San Pedro Republicans, Tuesday night seemed somewhat bleak and uneventful to start. Mayor Villaraigosa was leading by a comfortable margin, Janice Hahn had pretty much locked up her third term, and Measure B was still in a slight lead despite every neighborhood council from the Northern San Fernando Valley to Coastal San Pedro opposing it. When most of the voters went to bed, even the IBEW has issued their announcement talking about how great their Measure B victory was.
But something funny happened around 1:00am...the majority vote turned to NO!
The final bulletin issued at 1:45am Wednesday morning shows only 49.7% of voters supporting Measure B, signifying a trend that resulted from the voting public learning more about the issues of the measure. I have been pretty detailed in my earlier posts about Measure B, so I won't repeat them. The trend of voting was a result of the absentee voters and districts closer to downtown L.A. being the first counted. As the precincts from the San Fernando Valley, Westside, and Harbor area came in, the gap narrowed until it flipped right before the end of counting the nearly 250,000 votes.
But the battle to defeat Measure B is not yet complete. Another 46,000 ballots remain from late absentees turned in at polling places, provisional ballots, and ballots with issues and discrepancies. The No on Measure B team has committed members observing the counting daily, and it looks like the trend downward for Measure B should continue. I look forward to announcing the official defeat of this measure.
There was much to be proud of Tuesday for those who believe in the Republican principles and values of limited government and better business practices. Now we hope to begin the resurgence of the Party through taking local seats from Democrats, and it starts in Long Beach in just 4 1/2 weeks...
Showing posts with label Janice Hahn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Janice Hahn. Show all posts
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Friday, February 6, 2009
Laura Chick: Will Vote "NO" on Measure B
I've written before about both the intelligence and the principled nature of the Honorable Laura Chick, the Los Angeles City Controller. If there is one elected official that can claim the title "honorable", it's Laura. Time and time again, our city controller has stood up for fiscal accountability from all of our city agencies and departments, even when it may not have always been politically popular to do so. I'm sure there are issues that I disagree with Laura on, given her choice to register with the left party over the right. However, I have always preached the political philosophy of knowing your values, including at which elected level each value should have heavier weights, and for city government, the values of fiscal accountability and protecting citizens come before positions on the War on Terrorism and Abortion. On the city government level, I wholeheartedly support City Controller Laura Chick and other Democrats like her who "get it".
During a press briefing yesterday on the status of the Department of Water and Power yesterday, Laura Chick announced that she would oppose Measure B, the sole-source solar energy project on the March ballot.
The consultant group that completed the city charter-required 5-year analysis, PA Consulting, was also the group that completed the initial objective analysis on Measure B, and they defended their projections that the measure would cost two to three times the current estimates being reported by the replacement consultant group, Huron Consulting. The report from Andrew Rea of PA Consulting Group estimated that Measure B would cost up to $3.6 billion, far more than the $1 billion estimate by Huron Consulting, hired by the Department of Water and Power after rejecting the PA Consulting analysis.
As reported by Rick Orlov of the L.A. Daily News:
"Rea said he made more conservative assumptions in his study, while the DWP's own report by Huron Consulting made more optimistic assumptions about the future of technology and the economy.
"We modeled the world using prices today, projects today and the technology we thought was deployable," Rea said.
"The Huron Report assumed a much more favorable economic climate and much more favorable technology. I think Huron did a report based on what the future might be and developed its figures based on that."
Measure B would require the installation of solar panels around the city with a goal of generating 400 megawatts of rooftop solar power by 2014. The Huron report estimated its cost at $1 billion, which would be about $1 a month for the average residential DWP bill. Michael Trujillo, manager of the campaign to support Measure B, stood by the accuracy of the Huron report and its assumptions. "All the recent figures show that the cost of solar is declining as the technology improves," said Trujillo.
As the PA Consulting report was officially released, Chick announced she would oppose Measure B. "I support renewable energy. I have been supporting it since I was elected controller in 2002," Chick said. "We know this will cost something, but the costs are unknown. I will be voting no on this because I think the entire process of how it ended up on the ballot stinks. I think it was not done in an open, understandable or thoughtful way."
Measure B was developed by a group known as Working Californians, which included leaders of local IBEW unions. One provision of the measure would require all the installation work to be done only by those unions.
The PA Consulting survey, conducted over six months at a cost of $800,000, made a series of broad recommendations - many similar to a survey conducted in 2002 - calling for the DWP to do better in long-term planning and upgrading its information technology systems.
One of those I talk to frequently about Measure B made this interesting observation: If the Huron Consulting report was indeed true that the average increase per electric bill was only 1%/month, the DWP would fall way too short in raising the necessary funds even for their $1B project estimate. Here's how the math works:
12 months X 1.6 million DWP ratepayers = 19.2 million rate-months
At 19.2 million rate-months per year, it would take the DWP over $52/ratepayer per month to raise the funds in one year. This assumes that every ratepayer is paying for full service and that no one is on discounted programs. The average monthly household electricity bill was $52.79 in fall 2006, according to DWP spokesman Joe Ramallo last April. By summer 2010, the various rate hikes and surcharges will bring the bill to $65.04, he said. So even with the low-ball estimates by the DWP, the mathematical analysis shows that the average energy bill for every rate-payer has to be doubled in order to fund this measure.
Factor in the more objective analysis of the PA Consulting group, and we're talking about tripling, or even quadrupling, of energy rates to pay for this boondoggle project.
This is what I believe Laura Chick gets that other Democrats do not. This is the analysis I wish my friend LAUSD Board member Richard Vladovic would have done, or asked those he knows and trusts, including Dr. Soledad Garcia, who has been very open and public about both opposing Measure B and in requesting our local elected officials to contact her regarding this measure. With Laura Chick's announced opposition to this measure, I hope both Richard Vladovic & Councilmember Janice Hahn do the right thing and request a meeting with Soledad Garcia. They know how to reach her, or they can contact me.
So the bottom line on Measure B is this - Despite the initial report by PA Consulting months prior to the submission of this ballot measure to the city council that the estimated cost would be between $2.8 and $3.6 billion, the DWP and the IBEW rammed this boondoggle project measure through the city council, and our city council did the typical pandering thing and voted to put it on the ballot. Now, many of them are saying that they did not vote to support it, just to put it on the ballot. I look at it like parents serving their children dinner.
It is my job and my wife's to ensure our children eat healthy. If we feel something will be unhealthy, or worse - will make our kids sick, we don't put it on their plate and then absolve ourselves of the responsibility by saying "they don't have to eat it". Our kids trust us, and will eat the unhealthy foods, especially given how these foods are marketed to our kids. Measure B is extremely unhealthy, and our city council members need to be protecting us from ever having to digest it. They need to protect their constituents from the marketing of this unhealthy measure, and should be held accountable for their lack of action or their endorsement of it.
Measure B is about as healthy as a deep-fried Twinkie to someone with high cholesterol!
During a press briefing yesterday on the status of the Department of Water and Power yesterday, Laura Chick announced that she would oppose Measure B, the sole-source solar energy project on the March ballot.
The consultant group that completed the city charter-required 5-year analysis, PA Consulting, was also the group that completed the initial objective analysis on Measure B, and they defended their projections that the measure would cost two to three times the current estimates being reported by the replacement consultant group, Huron Consulting. The report from Andrew Rea of PA Consulting Group estimated that Measure B would cost up to $3.6 billion, far more than the $1 billion estimate by Huron Consulting, hired by the Department of Water and Power after rejecting the PA Consulting analysis.
As reported by Rick Orlov of the L.A. Daily News:
"Rea said he made more conservative assumptions in his study, while the DWP's own report by Huron Consulting made more optimistic assumptions about the future of technology and the economy.
"We modeled the world using prices today, projects today and the technology we thought was deployable," Rea said.
"The Huron Report assumed a much more favorable economic climate and much more favorable technology. I think Huron did a report based on what the future might be and developed its figures based on that."
Measure B would require the installation of solar panels around the city with a goal of generating 400 megawatts of rooftop solar power by 2014. The Huron report estimated its cost at $1 billion, which would be about $1 a month for the average residential DWP bill. Michael Trujillo, manager of the campaign to support Measure B, stood by the accuracy of the Huron report and its assumptions. "All the recent figures show that the cost of solar is declining as the technology improves," said Trujillo.
As the PA Consulting report was officially released, Chick announced she would oppose Measure B. "I support renewable energy. I have been supporting it since I was elected controller in 2002," Chick said. "We know this will cost something, but the costs are unknown. I will be voting no on this because I think the entire process of how it ended up on the ballot stinks. I think it was not done in an open, understandable or thoughtful way."
Measure B was developed by a group known as Working Californians, which included leaders of local IBEW unions. One provision of the measure would require all the installation work to be done only by those unions.
The PA Consulting survey, conducted over six months at a cost of $800,000, made a series of broad recommendations - many similar to a survey conducted in 2002 - calling for the DWP to do better in long-term planning and upgrading its information technology systems.
One of those I talk to frequently about Measure B made this interesting observation: If the Huron Consulting report was indeed true that the average increase per electric bill was only 1%/month, the DWP would fall way too short in raising the necessary funds even for their $1B project estimate. Here's how the math works:
12 months X 1.6 million DWP ratepayers = 19.2 million rate-months
At 19.2 million rate-months per year, it would take the DWP over $52/ratepayer per month to raise the funds in one year. This assumes that every ratepayer is paying for full service and that no one is on discounted programs. The average monthly household electricity bill was $52.79 in fall 2006, according to DWP spokesman Joe Ramallo last April. By summer 2010, the various rate hikes and surcharges will bring the bill to $65.04, he said. So even with the low-ball estimates by the DWP, the mathematical analysis shows that the average energy bill for every rate-payer has to be doubled in order to fund this measure.
Factor in the more objective analysis of the PA Consulting group, and we're talking about tripling, or even quadrupling, of energy rates to pay for this boondoggle project.
This is what I believe Laura Chick gets that other Democrats do not. This is the analysis I wish my friend LAUSD Board member Richard Vladovic would have done, or asked those he knows and trusts, including Dr. Soledad Garcia, who has been very open and public about both opposing Measure B and in requesting our local elected officials to contact her regarding this measure. With Laura Chick's announced opposition to this measure, I hope both Richard Vladovic & Councilmember Janice Hahn do the right thing and request a meeting with Soledad Garcia. They know how to reach her, or they can contact me.
So the bottom line on Measure B is this - Despite the initial report by PA Consulting months prior to the submission of this ballot measure to the city council that the estimated cost would be between $2.8 and $3.6 billion, the DWP and the IBEW rammed this boondoggle project measure through the city council, and our city council did the typical pandering thing and voted to put it on the ballot. Now, many of them are saying that they did not vote to support it, just to put it on the ballot. I look at it like parents serving their children dinner.
It is my job and my wife's to ensure our children eat healthy. If we feel something will be unhealthy, or worse - will make our kids sick, we don't put it on their plate and then absolve ourselves of the responsibility by saying "they don't have to eat it". Our kids trust us, and will eat the unhealthy foods, especially given how these foods are marketed to our kids. Measure B is extremely unhealthy, and our city council members need to be protecting us from ever having to digest it. They need to protect their constituents from the marketing of this unhealthy measure, and should be held accountable for their lack of action or their endorsement of it.
Measure B is about as healthy as a deep-fried Twinkie to someone with high cholesterol!
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Lowenthal, Oropeza & Hahn, obviously...but VLADOVIC?!
Among the liberal, anti-business politicians that are listed as supporters of the unpredictable Department of Water and Power energy rate hike on residents and businesses in the City of Los Angeles, the website lists the usual suspects who care more about their union pandering than their constituents' wallets, including Assemblymember Bonnie Lowenthal, State Senator Jenny Oropeza, and "San Pedro" / L.A. City Council member Janice Hahn. All three of these ladies have a past performance of making such horrible endorsements, and all have received my support during the few times that they display a glimmer of understanding how the economic engine truly works. In this situation, it does not take a CPA to understand that increasing the energy rates for residents and small businesses throughout the city will reduce spending power and the ability of businesses to employ as many residents. But as far as our Democratic leaders are concerned, so long as it helps satisfy one of the largest contributors to local elected campaigns, they can check the box.
What surprised me was scrolling down the list of supporters on the IBEW propaganda website and noticing someone who I assumed would be a little more knowledgeable about how the rate hike will affect the families of his students, LAUSD Board Member Richard Vladovic, whom many of us conservatives worked hard to get elected over the two liberal, union-friendly alternatives in 2007. I consider Dick a personal friend, and his endorsement for this measure surprised me. Even though he has his own union ties, I would have assumed that his long-time association with conservative principles, including his registration as a Republican until December 2006, would have steered him toward the decision in the best interests of the voters and not the special interests.
If you want to know what the informed residents and small businesses truly think, all one has to do in Los Angeles is look at which way the 90+ neighborhood councils are leaning. So far, every neighborhood council that has taken up a motion to consider this measure has voted to oppose it! EVERY ONE! A complete list will soon be available on www.VoteNoMeasureB,com, but just take my word for it.
The only people endorsing this measure are either working for the IBEW (and willing to steal money out of the pockets of residents to give to themselves in undeserving jobs) or looking for some sort of recognition or acknowledgement from the IBEW for a future political campaign. Like I said, the usual liberal, business-hating politicos are front and center on the supporter list.
It's just a shame that someone I thought was above it has decided that the slop in the trough tastes just fine!
What surprised me was scrolling down the list of supporters on the IBEW propaganda website and noticing someone who I assumed would be a little more knowledgeable about how the rate hike will affect the families of his students, LAUSD Board Member Richard Vladovic, whom many of us conservatives worked hard to get elected over the two liberal, union-friendly alternatives in 2007. I consider Dick a personal friend, and his endorsement for this measure surprised me. Even though he has his own union ties, I would have assumed that his long-time association with conservative principles, including his registration as a Republican until December 2006, would have steered him toward the decision in the best interests of the voters and not the special interests.
If you want to know what the informed residents and small businesses truly think, all one has to do in Los Angeles is look at which way the 90+ neighborhood councils are leaning. So far, every neighborhood council that has taken up a motion to consider this measure has voted to oppose it! EVERY ONE! A complete list will soon be available on www.VoteNoMeasureB,com, but just take my word for it.
The only people endorsing this measure are either working for the IBEW (and willing to steal money out of the pockets of residents to give to themselves in undeserving jobs) or looking for some sort of recognition or acknowledgement from the IBEW for a future political campaign. Like I said, the usual liberal, business-hating politicos are front and center on the supporter list.
It's just a shame that someone I thought was above it has decided that the slop in the trough tastes just fine!
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Will the L.A. City Council get stung by Proposition B?
To give you an idea of just how much of a "third rail" the ballot measure known as Proposition B is here in Los Angeles, I've copied in the latest article from CityWatch, the publication that I trust to keep the best watchful eye on what the L.A. City Council is up to. I have some good friends writing for CityWatch, including Stephen Box (one of the writers below).
In addition to the article below about L.A. Councilmember Bill Rosendahl's lukewarm position, I was a personal witness to our own councilmember, Janice Hahn, giving a neutral response to her position on Proposition B when asked by DWP Committee chair, Dr. Soledad Garcia, at last night's Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council meeting. I think Hahn gave a good, politically safe answer, given the growing unpopularity of this measure, as well as the process of how the L.A. City Council placed it on the March ballot. As the newest appointee to the DWP Committee as the lead liaison for Hahn's district, I am committed to representing both the low to middle-income residents, as well as the numerous small businesses, who will be hard hit by the passage of this rate hike measure.
Here is the latest article from CityWatch (http://www.citywatchla.com):
DWP Workshop Notebook
By David Lowell and Stephen Box
DWP General Manager, H. David Nahai, spent Saturday morning giving a three-hour "Renewable Energy" presentation to a crowd of approximately 70 community leaders representing Neighborhood Councils from throughout the city, most of whom were sitting on the edge of their seats waiting for the discussion of Measure B to come up.
Measure B is the City's proposed "Green Energy and Good Jobs for Los Angeles Act," which has been called "risky" by the City's own analyst and will appear on the March 3rd ballot. Nahai and Assistant GM Aram Benyamin went to great lengths to steer clear of the topic, instead demonstrating incredible message control and sticking to the polished PowerPoint presentation that was well received.
Their efforts to bypass B went askew, however, when Councilman Bill Rosendahl dropped by and jumped into the mix, announcing "I have not made up my mind. I voted to put it on the ballot but I haven't voted to support it because, frankly, I want to understand the details that are to be presented to us as a Council. I might end up supporting it, I might not." (Click here for Rosendahl video)
Rosendahl echoed the sentiment of literally everybody by stating "I believe whole-heartedly in Solar. We're in California. It's Sunny. My roof is flat." He continued by endorsing the DWP's union and the opportunity to bring more people into the DWP workforce while at the same time developing the private sector partnerships and supporting solar housing collectives such as proposed in Mar Vista.
Rosendahl polled the room and found that many were opposed to measure B, that many were undecided, that everybody reckoned that they had an open mind and that there were two people in support of Measure B, one of whom was Gary Baratta who explained "Solar Power has to go forward. There is absolutely no reason not to go forward. The DWP is the only party in a position to develop the infrastructure necessary to deliver power." Gary went on to urge Nahai to ignore the City Charter and to stop contributing funds to the City's general funds.
This softball suggestion from Baratta allowed Nahai to respond vigorously that the DWP would by no means violate the City charter and that it was their desire to abide by the rules and obligations and processes.
Nahai called the meeting a success saying "I think it went well. There were many probing questions and the feedback from the audience was that the presentation was very comprehensive. It was a good meeting. As for Measure B, the DWP has no position on Measure B. We are waiting on financial reports from Huron and we will release them as part of our outreach."
Jack Humphreville “thought the presentation was great, very informative and very interesting. The thing is,” he said, “I came to hear about Measure B."
DWP Advocacy Committee Chair Soledad Garcia agreed, "Solar energy is not the issue, we're all for it. The DWP has much to answer for if we are to work together to develop a solar plan for Los Angeles.”
Rusty Millar, Co-Chair at the Silver Lake NC was unconvinced saying "The LADWP asks us to trust them but they never came to the Neighborhood Councils as required by the City charter and they never revealed any information on the cost of Measure B. I want to know how much, how it will be paid and what the fiscal impact on the city will be."
Barbara Moynihan Burke called the entire process "A travesty!. I was there in Van Nuys when they voted on Measure B. It was called as a "special" with 24 hour notice and then it was over. No financials, no information, no opportunity for feedback from the community. I protested to Council President Garcetti based on process and based on content and yet it's still underway."
Jeff Jacobberger and Tony Butka both referred to the meeting as an informative and comprehensive big-picture presentation of the future of LA's Renewable Energy program but both also left with their expectation of a discussion of Measure B unmet.
Observers Everett Littlefield and BONC Commissioner Al Abrams seemed destined for the Diplomatic Corps. They both argued for open minds. Littlefield said "I'm union and I believe in unions but not when we're getting less for more. I have an open mind and I think like an investor, I think like a rate payer, and I think like a homeowner who wants to install solar. I need to know that everything we do is financially sound." Abrams echoed and said "It's our DWP, we're the stakeholders. We owe it to the DWP to wait and see, to keep an open mind and to evaluate the Huron financial report."
In summary: the Department got good marks for their solar presentation but disappointed many when they avoided the hot-button Solar Energy Prop B issue. ◘
CityWatch
Vol 7 Issue 4
Pub: Jan 13, 2009
In addition to the article below about L.A. Councilmember Bill Rosendahl's lukewarm position, I was a personal witness to our own councilmember, Janice Hahn, giving a neutral response to her position on Proposition B when asked by DWP Committee chair, Dr. Soledad Garcia, at last night's Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council meeting. I think Hahn gave a good, politically safe answer, given the growing unpopularity of this measure, as well as the process of how the L.A. City Council placed it on the March ballot. As the newest appointee to the DWP Committee as the lead liaison for Hahn's district, I am committed to representing both the low to middle-income residents, as well as the numerous small businesses, who will be hard hit by the passage of this rate hike measure.
Here is the latest article from CityWatch (http://www.citywatchla.com):
DWP Workshop Notebook
By David Lowell and Stephen Box
DWP General Manager, H. David Nahai, spent Saturday morning giving a three-hour "Renewable Energy" presentation to a crowd of approximately 70 community leaders representing Neighborhood Councils from throughout the city, most of whom were sitting on the edge of their seats waiting for the discussion of Measure B to come up.Measure B is the City's proposed "Green Energy and Good Jobs for Los Angeles Act," which has been called "risky" by the City's own analyst and will appear on the March 3rd ballot. Nahai and Assistant GM Aram Benyamin went to great lengths to steer clear of the topic, instead demonstrating incredible message control and sticking to the polished PowerPoint presentation that was well received.
Their efforts to bypass B went askew, however, when Councilman Bill Rosendahl dropped by and jumped into the mix, announcing "I have not made up my mind. I voted to put it on the ballot but I haven't voted to support it because, frankly, I want to understand the details that are to be presented to us as a Council. I might end up supporting it, I might not." (Click here for Rosendahl video)
Rosendahl echoed the sentiment of literally everybody by stating "I believe whole-heartedly in Solar. We're in California. It's Sunny. My roof is flat." He continued by endorsing the DWP's union and the opportunity to bring more people into the DWP workforce while at the same time developing the private sector partnerships and supporting solar housing collectives such as proposed in Mar Vista.
Rosendahl polled the room and found that many were opposed to measure B, that many were undecided, that everybody reckoned that they had an open mind and that there were two people in support of Measure B, one of whom was Gary Baratta who explained "Solar Power has to go forward. There is absolutely no reason not to go forward. The DWP is the only party in a position to develop the infrastructure necessary to deliver power." Gary went on to urge Nahai to ignore the City Charter and to stop contributing funds to the City's general funds.
This softball suggestion from Baratta allowed Nahai to respond vigorously that the DWP would by no means violate the City charter and that it was their desire to abide by the rules and obligations and processes.
Nahai called the meeting a success saying "I think it went well. There were many probing questions and the feedback from the audience was that the presentation was very comprehensive. It was a good meeting. As for Measure B, the DWP has no position on Measure B. We are waiting on financial reports from Huron and we will release them as part of our outreach."
Jack Humphreville “thought the presentation was great, very informative and very interesting. The thing is,” he said, “I came to hear about Measure B."
DWP Advocacy Committee Chair Soledad Garcia agreed, "Solar energy is not the issue, we're all for it. The DWP has much to answer for if we are to work together to develop a solar plan for Los Angeles.”
Rusty Millar, Co-Chair at the Silver Lake NC was unconvinced saying "The LADWP asks us to trust them but they never came to the Neighborhood Councils as required by the City charter and they never revealed any information on the cost of Measure B. I want to know how much, how it will be paid and what the fiscal impact on the city will be."
Barbara Moynihan Burke called the entire process "A travesty!. I was there in Van Nuys when they voted on Measure B. It was called as a "special" with 24 hour notice and then it was over. No financials, no information, no opportunity for feedback from the community. I protested to Council President Garcetti based on process and based on content and yet it's still underway."
Jeff Jacobberger and Tony Butka both referred to the meeting as an informative and comprehensive big-picture presentation of the future of LA's Renewable Energy program but both also left with their expectation of a discussion of Measure B unmet.
Observers Everett Littlefield and BONC Commissioner Al Abrams seemed destined for the Diplomatic Corps. They both argued for open minds. Littlefield said "I'm union and I believe in unions but not when we're getting less for more. I have an open mind and I think like an investor, I think like a rate payer, and I think like a homeowner who wants to install solar. I need to know that everything we do is financially sound." Abrams echoed and said "It's our DWP, we're the stakeholders. We owe it to the DWP to wait and see, to keep an open mind and to evaluate the Huron financial report."
In summary: the Department got good marks for their solar presentation but disappointed many when they avoided the hot-button Solar Energy Prop B issue. ◘
CityWatch
Vol 7 Issue 4
Pub: Jan 13, 2009
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Called your councilmember "fat" today?
For those of us not blessed with an aggressive metabolism (which is probably 95% of us), we have to have some discipline in maintaining an active lifestyle & healthy habits, including our nutritional intake. This means making the proper choices and reaching personal decisions about one's physical appearance. While we all can't "decide" to be as physically fit as Governor Schwarzenegger, we must have some personal accountability about where we choose to eat. More importantly, we must preserve the right of all to choose when to eat well, and when to indulge. As Republicans, we believe in personal responsibility and the natural drive of people to want to be better.
The Democrats in the Los Angeles City Council have shown once again that they do not trust their citizens to do the right thing, and feel that it is their job to "guide" their residents to the right decision as they interpret it to be. The latest example of this elitist mentality is their decision on Tuesday to approve a measure banning new, stand-alone fast-food restaurants in South Los Angeles, including Council District 15 in the 54th Assembly District. Ironically, our own councilmember Janice Hahn was not among the 12 councilmembers unanimously voting for this insane measure. The roll call was both a surprise and a disappointment, because among the YEA votes were both Republican councilmembers Dennis Zine & Greig Smith, as well as City Attorney candidate Jack Weiss. I can understand Jack Weiss' lack of faith in trusting the citizens of Los Angeles to do the right thing, but our two Republican councilmembers will have some explaining to do to their party supporters.
The measure was led by Councilmember Jan Perry, whose comments lead us to the true motivation behind this personal vendetta of hers against the evil fast-food chains that force citizens to eat at their establishments. Perry commented about her district, "This is an area with a high level of childhood obesity and diabetes", and went on to state "This is NOT just about banning fast food; it is about offering choices to people - choices of healthy food from restaurants & markets". Once again, a Democratic elected official shows just how little they understand simple economics. Assuming that most of her constituents have some mode of transportation, does Perry believe they are going to stay within her district and wait for a Soup Plantation to open in their neighborhood? Or are they going to make a short trip over to neighboring Compton, Lynwood, Inglewood and other cities that will see an increase in sales tax revenue collected from their fast food franchises?
Republicans know the answer because we continue to see that situation manifest itself.
But Councilmember Perry made another comment that may have revealed her true motivation. The Daily Breeze article quoted her as saying "It's across the country where I have heard the most negative comments...I've been called a Nazi, a fascist, a Stalinist, and fat. The only one that hurt was the fat one." So because Councilmember Perry allowed a few hecklers find the soft portion of her think political skin, the southern districts of Los Angeles have to all go on a "forced diet".
(What "hurts" for most of us is that Perry was not bothered by the other three comments. One would think that negative socialist labels like the three she cites would be far more hurtful. I suspect the difference in the four comments is that most of our socialist city councilmembers cannot quickly determine whether the first three comments are complements until they figure out the source.)
As someone who is currently struggling with his weight as well, the last thing I plan to do is blame the restaurants that I CHOOSE to eat at for my former weight gains. When I made the personal decision about 4 weeks ago to start eating better, lowering my carbs and to increase my physical activity, I have dropped over 10 pounds and continue to get into better shape. I was recently able to "shop in my closet" and start wearing clothes I had earlier outgrown. As Republicans, we understand the power of positive motivation and encouragements through incentives. If Councilmember Perry has acted like a Republican, how would she have reacted?
First, she would have shown more positive self-esteem and not let political hecklers get to her. Next, she would have made her own personal changes to improve where she could, and accepted whatever improvements came. Finally, if she truly felt that it was her constituents (and not herself) that needed the "rescuing" from the evil fast-food chains, she would have proposed incentives for restaurants (including fast-food chains) that offer enough smart meal choices in their menu for constituents to choose from.
Of course, that would go against the Victo-Crat mentality of blaming everyone else for their own personal problems. Businesses should have to pay for making people fat, just like property owners should have to pay more in parcel taxes because the city-funded gang programs haven't been effective enough. But that's for another posting soon...
The Democrats in the Los Angeles City Council have shown once again that they do not trust their citizens to do the right thing, and feel that it is their job to "guide" their residents to the right decision as they interpret it to be. The latest example of this elitist mentality is their decision on Tuesday to approve a measure banning new, stand-alone fast-food restaurants in South Los Angeles, including Council District 15 in the 54th Assembly District. Ironically, our own councilmember Janice Hahn was not among the 12 councilmembers unanimously voting for this insane measure. The roll call was both a surprise and a disappointment, because among the YEA votes were both Republican councilmembers Dennis Zine & Greig Smith, as well as City Attorney candidate Jack Weiss. I can understand Jack Weiss' lack of faith in trusting the citizens of Los Angeles to do the right thing, but our two Republican councilmembers will have some explaining to do to their party supporters.
The measure was led by Councilmember Jan Perry, whose comments lead us to the true motivation behind this personal vendetta of hers against the evil fast-food chains that force citizens to eat at their establishments. Perry commented about her district, "This is an area with a high level of childhood obesity and diabetes", and went on to state "This is NOT just about banning fast food; it is about offering choices to people - choices of healthy food from restaurants & markets". Once again, a Democratic elected official shows just how little they understand simple economics. Assuming that most of her constituents have some mode of transportation, does Perry believe they are going to stay within her district and wait for a Soup Plantation to open in their neighborhood? Or are they going to make a short trip over to neighboring Compton, Lynwood, Inglewood and other cities that will see an increase in sales tax revenue collected from their fast food franchises?
Republicans know the answer because we continue to see that situation manifest itself.
But Councilmember Perry made another comment that may have revealed her true motivation. The Daily Breeze article quoted her as saying "It's across the country where I have heard the most negative comments...I've been called a Nazi, a fascist, a Stalinist, and fat. The only one that hurt was the fat one." So because Councilmember Perry allowed a few hecklers find the soft portion of her think political skin, the southern districts of Los Angeles have to all go on a "forced diet".
(What "hurts" for most of us is that Perry was not bothered by the other three comments. One would think that negative socialist labels like the three she cites would be far more hurtful. I suspect the difference in the four comments is that most of our socialist city councilmembers cannot quickly determine whether the first three comments are complements until they figure out the source.)
As someone who is currently struggling with his weight as well, the last thing I plan to do is blame the restaurants that I CHOOSE to eat at for my former weight gains. When I made the personal decision about 4 weeks ago to start eating better, lowering my carbs and to increase my physical activity, I have dropped over 10 pounds and continue to get into better shape. I was recently able to "shop in my closet" and start wearing clothes I had earlier outgrown. As Republicans, we understand the power of positive motivation and encouragements through incentives. If Councilmember Perry has acted like a Republican, how would she have reacted?
First, she would have shown more positive self-esteem and not let political hecklers get to her. Next, she would have made her own personal changes to improve where she could, and accepted whatever improvements came. Finally, if she truly felt that it was her constituents (and not herself) that needed the "rescuing" from the evil fast-food chains, she would have proposed incentives for restaurants (including fast-food chains) that offer enough smart meal choices in their menu for constituents to choose from.
Of course, that would go against the Victo-Crat mentality of blaming everyone else for their own personal problems. Businesses should have to pay for making people fat, just like property owners should have to pay more in parcel taxes because the city-funded gang programs haven't been effective enough. But that's for another posting soon...
Monday, April 14, 2008
Another young, promising life gunned down by gangs,...another podium speech!
Last week, I was moved significantly by the story of Jamiel Shaw, Jr. and angered at the lack of caring and support from the Los Angeles City Council to address illegal alien gang members preying on our inner-city youth. One of the initial supporters actually had to request ALL of the council members to quit their side-bar discussions to pay attention. Residents throughout Los Angeles are connecting through the Shaw family, including myself, to say enough is enough. When Cheryl Green was killed by gang members, out came the podium with all of our elected leaders, including the Mayor and our councilmember, stating that something must be done. When Christopher Ash was targeted and killed by the same gang members last December, out came the podium again. Something must be done! Less than a month later, Demetrius Perry, a 23-yr-old black man working with middle school youth, was gunned down by three Latino gang members identified later as Mexican Mafia in the school gymnasium. Out came the podium!
Now we have Jamiel Shaw, Jr.: a role-model student who stayed away from gangs, worked hard in school, two-time high-school football MVP, and being recruited by Stanford & Rutgers. His parents are also role-model citizens; his mother serving our country overseas as an Army soldier in Iraq. Imagine being in the middle of Baghdad, where you’d expect the risk of danger to be very high, and getting the call. “Your son was shot and killed three doors down home, by a gang member that authorities had released less than 24 hours prior.”
Special Order 40 prevents the LAPD from stopping or detaining a person solely based on their legal status. This order had the intention of relieving the issue of an illegal resident coming forward to report a crime by protecting them from being asked their legal status and possibly being deported. But the practice of this order has been to prohibit law enforcement from EVER inquiring about the legal status of a detainee, and gangs throughout Los Angeles have been allowed to thrive and grow. Many of our surrounding jurisdictions, including the L.A. County Sheriffs, have informally adopted Special Order 40 due to the pressure to align with the LAPD as the largest police department in the county. This is not solely helping Latino gangs, but Asian gangs and Black gangs have also been able to use this interpretation to not only prey upon our inner city youth like Cheryl Green and Jamiel Shaw, Jr., but it also gave them access to Pedro Espinoza, the 19-yr-old gang member who killed Jamiel Shaw, Jr.
Mayor Villariagosa said "He was gunned down by someone who was close in age but who took a different path," In my opinion, the reason that “different path” exists is due to how our previous police chiefs, Mayors and City Council members have required Special Order 40 be applied. Because we have not given our law enforcement both the support and the incentive to go after gang members here illegally, they were able to recruit Pedro Espinoza.
Pedro Espinoza was brought to this country illegally at the age of 4. His parents came seeking a better life, and worked very hard like most parents do. Because these gangs rely upon illegal immigrants and recruit them regularly, our immigrant youth population see these illegal alien gang members coming back and forth across a porous border, and they see the police “walking on eggshells” when questioning these thugs because of political correctness. They see the gangs as strong and the police as weak!
Special Order 40 creates that environment because of how it is applied; this approach has been supported by both Chief Bratton and Mayor Villariagosa. Jamiel's Law will modify Special Order 40 to direct the LAPD to use the gang intervention database already available to the LAPD to look up gang members and determine their legal status, and turn over any that are either in this country illegally or cannot confirm their citizenship to Immigration & Customs Enforcement for further disposition, including possible deportation.
Councilmember Hahn wants us to consider a $30M anti-gang initiative measure this November - if she does not support this immediate NO-COST action to get rid of illegal alien gang members coming to our city to prey on our children by recruiting them or killing them, how can she ask us to be taxed on "anti-gang" programs that do much less? It's not our responsibility to give these gang members a place to play basketball or congregate so they can plan their next crime! It's our job to weaken these gangs as much as possible by deporting as many of those that want to harm our families and our children as we can! Regardless of how you feel about immigration in general, I hope we can ALL agree that gang members who come to this country are not doing so to become law-abiding citizens! Please keep the Shaw family in your thoughts and prayers, especially Jamiel Jr's mother, Anita, who returned to Iraq last week to complete her Army tour of duty. Despite this heavy burden that she now has to bear. Anita Shaw values her service to our country so high that she believes that Jamiel Jr. wanted her to return. I sincerely hope she does not give up hope in the good people of this city, this state and this country who benefit every day because she puts her life on the line. But...Anita is RIGHT when she said last Tuesday to our City Council “This does not make sense!” Jamiel Jr. should have been safe, and we failed in our duty to protect and to serve. There is no excuse, and we must now do everything we can to make sure his tragic sacrifice is not fruitless. We must take our L.A. communities back from these illegal gang members and give them back to the good residents & neighbors like the Shaws who so courageously stood up to the semi-attentive and later politically-correct city council last Tuesday!I cannot think of a more deserving young man, God-loving family, and especially one that has already given so much to this country and to their community. It is our job, now, to give them the support they deserve. It’s time to put away the podiums and start taking action!
Now we have Jamiel Shaw, Jr.: a role-model student who stayed away from gangs, worked hard in school, two-time high-school football MVP, and being recruited by Stanford & Rutgers. His parents are also role-model citizens; his mother serving our country overseas as an Army soldier in Iraq. Imagine being in the middle of Baghdad, where you’d expect the risk of danger to be very high, and getting the call. “Your son was shot and killed three doors down home, by a gang member that authorities had released less than 24 hours prior.”
Special Order 40 prevents the LAPD from stopping or detaining a person solely based on their legal status. This order had the intention of relieving the issue of an illegal resident coming forward to report a crime by protecting them from being asked their legal status and possibly being deported. But the practice of this order has been to prohibit law enforcement from EVER inquiring about the legal status of a detainee, and gangs throughout Los Angeles have been allowed to thrive and grow. Many of our surrounding jurisdictions, including the L.A. County Sheriffs, have informally adopted Special Order 40 due to the pressure to align with the LAPD as the largest police department in the county. This is not solely helping Latino gangs, but Asian gangs and Black gangs have also been able to use this interpretation to not only prey upon our inner city youth like Cheryl Green and Jamiel Shaw, Jr., but it also gave them access to Pedro Espinoza, the 19-yr-old gang member who killed Jamiel Shaw, Jr.
Mayor Villariagosa said "He was gunned down by someone who was close in age but who took a different path," In my opinion, the reason that “different path” exists is due to how our previous police chiefs, Mayors and City Council members have required Special Order 40 be applied. Because we have not given our law enforcement both the support and the incentive to go after gang members here illegally, they were able to recruit Pedro Espinoza.
Pedro Espinoza was brought to this country illegally at the age of 4. His parents came seeking a better life, and worked very hard like most parents do. Because these gangs rely upon illegal immigrants and recruit them regularly, our immigrant youth population see these illegal alien gang members coming back and forth across a porous border, and they see the police “walking on eggshells” when questioning these thugs because of political correctness. They see the gangs as strong and the police as weak!
Special Order 40 creates that environment because of how it is applied; this approach has been supported by both Chief Bratton and Mayor Villariagosa. Jamiel's Law will modify Special Order 40 to direct the LAPD to use the gang intervention database already available to the LAPD to look up gang members and determine their legal status, and turn over any that are either in this country illegally or cannot confirm their citizenship to Immigration & Customs Enforcement for further disposition, including possible deportation.
Councilmember Hahn wants us to consider a $30M anti-gang initiative measure this November - if she does not support this immediate NO-COST action to get rid of illegal alien gang members coming to our city to prey on our children by recruiting them or killing them, how can she ask us to be taxed on "anti-gang" programs that do much less? It's not our responsibility to give these gang members a place to play basketball or congregate so they can plan their next crime! It's our job to weaken these gangs as much as possible by deporting as many of those that want to harm our families and our children as we can! Regardless of how you feel about immigration in general, I hope we can ALL agree that gang members who come to this country are not doing so to become law-abiding citizens! Please keep the Shaw family in your thoughts and prayers, especially Jamiel Jr's mother, Anita, who returned to Iraq last week to complete her Army tour of duty. Despite this heavy burden that she now has to bear. Anita Shaw values her service to our country so high that she believes that Jamiel Jr. wanted her to return. I sincerely hope she does not give up hope in the good people of this city, this state and this country who benefit every day because she puts her life on the line. But...Anita is RIGHT when she said last Tuesday to our City Council “This does not make sense!” Jamiel Jr. should have been safe, and we failed in our duty to protect and to serve. There is no excuse, and we must now do everything we can to make sure his tragic sacrifice is not fruitless. We must take our L.A. communities back from these illegal gang members and give them back to the good residents & neighbors like the Shaws who so courageously stood up to the semi-attentive and later politically-correct city council last Tuesday!I cannot think of a more deserving young man, God-loving family, and especially one that has already given so much to this country and to their community. It is our job, now, to give them the support they deserve. It’s time to put away the podiums and start taking action!
Friday, February 8, 2008
California Voters choose wisely...Los Angeles Voters fall for "Phony Phone Tax"
This week's Super Tuesday showed us that a majority of statewide voters saw behind the deceptive wording of Proposition 93. Unfortunately, two-thirds of voters in the City of Los Angeles showed all of us that they could be convinced that a tax preservation was actually a tax reduction simply because they can be told that police & fire departments would be affected. It is a shame that Police Chief Bratton & Fire Chief Barry, both dedicated to serving their departments, could be politically naive in serving the interests of the tax-and-spend liberals of the Los Angeles City Council.
Did they honestly feel that the Mayor & members of the city council would actually make budget cuts to the police force & the fire department before looking at their boon-doggling programs and lavish travel expenses? Because of the deceptive measure of 2007, Measure R, most of the city council members are going to run for re-election in 2009; how many of them would have been so bold as to tell voters that because Measure S failed, they had to cut police and fire departments?
Neighborhood councils throughout the City of Los Angeles tried to get the word out to voters about this deceptive measure. I found myself working side-by-side with San Pedro Democrats who understood it wasn't that we were being asked to preserve (or rescue) a tax that had been ruled unconstitutional by the courts; it was how the City Council and the Mayor wrote the measure to be something that it wasn't. We were all burned by how deceptively Measure R was written as "Lobbying Activity Resitrictions", and, oh by the way, an extension of term limits from two terms to three. (shhhh!)
So I assume that Councilwoman Janice Hahn's $30 million anti-gang tax measure will be on the November 2008 ballot for voters in Los Angeles to consider, probaly as "Measure T". I'm curious to see how it is written to ensure it plays on our heart strings and shared conservative principles to vote for it. Don't be surprised to see a "Support the Troops" clause added to it or, even more appealing to the Randon Lengths crows in San Pedro, a "Get us out of Iraq now" clause. (Should we start a pool now?)
I am extremely thankful, though, for the voters throughout the state who saw through the similar deception going on with Proposition 93, the "Nunez/Perata Preservation Proposition" (oh, I mean "term limit reduction"), and voted to end the terms of these two horrible politicians. Thanks to the leadership of these two, our state budget is far worse than it was when they were elected, nanny legislation has run rampant & our Legislature has become the laughing stock of the country. Voters in both parties saw the opportunity to get rid of them and 42 other ineffective politicians, including our own assemblymember Betty Karnette, and replace them with some fresh members who will hopefully bring fresh ideas and energy to solving problems that have lingered on as unimportant to either Nunez or Perata.
A special thank you must go out to our Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, who saw the need to step in and provide both organizational and financial leadership in defeating Proposition 93. Steve Poizner brought the same drive and vigor that he has shown in going after individuals & companies submitting fraudulent claims since being elected, and we are very blessed to have him in Sacramento.
So congratulations to the great state of California, who will have new members in both the State Senate and the Assembly in 2009! Our objective now is to ensure we work hard to get new leadership in these houses, including Gabriella Holt in our own 54th AD & Thomas Vidal in the 53rd AD. Let's take advantage of our progress to ensure we send members who will truly work for a balanced budget and a successful California.
Did they honestly feel that the Mayor & members of the city council would actually make budget cuts to the police force & the fire department before looking at their boon-doggling programs and lavish travel expenses? Because of the deceptive measure of 2007, Measure R, most of the city council members are going to run for re-election in 2009; how many of them would have been so bold as to tell voters that because Measure S failed, they had to cut police and fire departments?
Neighborhood councils throughout the City of Los Angeles tried to get the word out to voters about this deceptive measure. I found myself working side-by-side with San Pedro Democrats who understood it wasn't that we were being asked to preserve (or rescue) a tax that had been ruled unconstitutional by the courts; it was how the City Council and the Mayor wrote the measure to be something that it wasn't. We were all burned by how deceptively Measure R was written as "Lobbying Activity Resitrictions", and, oh by the way, an extension of term limits from two terms to three. (shhhh!)
So I assume that Councilwoman Janice Hahn's $30 million anti-gang tax measure will be on the November 2008 ballot for voters in Los Angeles to consider, probaly as "Measure T". I'm curious to see how it is written to ensure it plays on our heart strings and shared conservative principles to vote for it. Don't be surprised to see a "Support the Troops" clause added to it or, even more appealing to the Randon Lengths crows in San Pedro, a "Get us out of Iraq now" clause. (Should we start a pool now?)
I am extremely thankful, though, for the voters throughout the state who saw through the similar deception going on with Proposition 93, the "Nunez/Perata Preservation Proposition" (oh, I mean "term limit reduction"), and voted to end the terms of these two horrible politicians. Thanks to the leadership of these two, our state budget is far worse than it was when they were elected, nanny legislation has run rampant & our Legislature has become the laughing stock of the country. Voters in both parties saw the opportunity to get rid of them and 42 other ineffective politicians, including our own assemblymember Betty Karnette, and replace them with some fresh members who will hopefully bring fresh ideas and energy to solving problems that have lingered on as unimportant to either Nunez or Perata.
A special thank you must go out to our Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, who saw the need to step in and provide both organizational and financial leadership in defeating Proposition 93. Steve Poizner brought the same drive and vigor that he has shown in going after individuals & companies submitting fraudulent claims since being elected, and we are very blessed to have him in Sacramento.
So congratulations to the great state of California, who will have new members in both the State Senate and the Assembly in 2009! Our objective now is to ensure we work hard to get new leadership in these houses, including Gabriella Holt in our own 54th AD & Thomas Vidal in the 53rd AD. Let's take advantage of our progress to ensure we send members who will truly work for a balanced budget and a successful California.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
