I’m forwarding an Op-Ed that appeared in the Wall Street Journal last week because it highlights my primary issue with the anti-business mentality of our Democratic-elected officials (state and local), as well as showing how the entertainment industry, filled with its liberal crusaders, is going to feel the long-term effects of a non-friendly business environment.
While the Hollywood elite walk the red carpets and talk about how we just need to pay our fair shares, the agents, columnists & contractors who employ much of the entertainment industry, including the stage hands, film support, fashion consultants and numerous catering services for film productions are getting squeezed right out of the city of Los Angeles, and they’re not simply moving to another part of California.
Please read on as the President of Creators Syndicate, well-known to anyone with aspirations in the entertainment industry, warns us about a critical decision he may have to make. (His editorial was so sharp that he was booked on KFI’s John & Ken Show the same day it appeared!)
The business climate is worse than the air quality.
by RICK NEWCOMBE
Los Angeles
If New Yorkers fantasize that doing business here in Los Angeles would be less of a headache, forget about it. This city is fast becoming a job-killing machine. It's no accident the unemployment rate is a frightening 11.4% and climbing.
I never could have imagined that, after living here for more than three decades, I would be filing a lawsuit against my beloved Los Angeles and making plans for my company, Creators Syndicate, to move elsewhere.
But we have no choice. The city's bureaucrats rival Stalin's apparatchiks in issuing decrees, rescinding them, and then punishing citizens for having followed them in the first place.
I founded Creators Syndicate in 1987, and we have represented hundreds of important writers, syndicating their columns to newspapers and Web sites around the world. The most famous include Hillary Clinton, who, like Eleanor Roosevelt, wrote a syndicated column when she was first lady. Another star was the advice columnist Ann Landers, once described by "The World Almanac" as "the most influential woman in America." Other Creators columnists include Bill O'Reilly, Susan Estrich, Thomas Sowell, Roland Martin and Michelle Malkin -- plus Pulitzer Prize-winning political cartoonists and your favorite comic strips.
From the beginning, we've been headquartered in Los Angeles. But 15 years ago we had a dispute with the city over our business tax classification. The city argued that we should be in an "occupations and professions" classification that has an extremely high tax rate, while we fought for a "wholesale and retail" classification with a much lower rate. The city forced us to invest a small fortune in legal fees over two years, but we felt it was worth it in order to establish the correct classification once and for all.
After enduring a series of bureaucratic hearings, we anxiously awaited a ruling to find out what our tax rate would be. Everything was at stake. We had already decided that if we lost, we would move.
You can imagine how relieved we were on July 1, 1994, when the ruling was issued. We won, and firmly planted our roots in the City of Angels and proceeded to build our business.
Everything was fine until the city started running out of money in 2007. Suddenly, the city announced that it was going to ignore its own ruling and reclassify us in the higher tax category. Even more incredible is the fact that the new classification was to be imposed retroactively to 2004 with interest and penalties. No explanation was given for the new classification, or for the city's decision to ignore its 1994 ruling.
Their official position is that the city is not bound by past rulings -- only taxpayers are. This is why we have been forced to file a lawsuit. We will let the courts decide whether it is legal for adverse rulings to apply only to taxpayers and not to the city.
We work with hundreds of outside agents, consultants, independent contractors and support services -- many of whom pay taxes to the city of Los Angeles. This spurs a job-creating ripple effect on the city's economy. Yet I suspect many companies like ours already have quietly left town in the face of the city's taxes and regulations. This would help explain the erosion of jobs.
Regardless of the outcome of our case, the arbitrary and capricious behavior of some bureaucrats is creating a lose-lose situation for everyone involved. If we win in court, the taxpayers of Los Angeles will have lost because all those tax dollars will have been wasted on needless litigation.
If we lose in court, the remaining taxpayers in Los Angeles will have lost because their burden will continue to swell as yet another business moves its jobs -- and taxpayers -- to another city.
As long as City Hall operates like a banana republic, why is anyone surprised that jobs have left the city in droves and Los Angeles is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy?
Mr. Newcombe is president of Creators Syndicate.
Showing posts with label Los Angeles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Los Angeles. Show all posts
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Republicans OPPOSE Propositions 1A-1F; Democrats stay "Neutral"
Well, finally! I am happy to announce that the California Republican Party has officially taken a NO position on all six of the toxic state ballot measures known as Propositions 1A through 1F. There was some debate by a few "intellectuals" who wanted to peel off one or two of these for consideration, but an overwhelming majority of the California Republican Party Executive Committee was ready to support a NO vote for all six of these as a package.
Because let's face it - these are all part of a bag-room deal that needs to be rejected in its entirety. Supporting ANY of these propositions gives the voter the impression that the current level of state government spending is acceptable - and it's NOT! The Republican Party stands for the principle of limited government and reducing the tax burdens on working families and businesses, and that was re-affirmed today.
Two interesting points to note:
- There was actually more debate about these propositions at the County level, where the discussion focused on whether the transfer of funds through propositions 1D & 1E may actually be acceptable. This was based on the fact that neither of these propositions actually raises taxes. However, they do not reduce taxes either. Furthermore, the next action by the special interest groups that these funds come from will have a new ballot measure labeling Republicans as the "evil party that took away funds" by supporting these measures, and it's time for the Democrats to step up if these propositions are truly viable.
- Speaking of the Democratic Party, I recently found out that even the LA County Democratic Party is not endorsing these propositions! Their LA County Executive Committee voted to take "NO POSITION" on the six propositions. Turns out that a combination of fiscally responsible Democrats were joined by a few unions that were not getting a piece of the proposition "action" (and were hence only going to see the higher taxes for their membership) opposed the special interest groups that were lobbying the Democratic Party for support.
So basically - NEITHER party is supporting these propositions. We all know why the Republicans are opposing these. (What we've been beating our heads against the wall about is why it took to darn long!). But why won't the Democrats get behind these?
Maybe they ARE watching the Tea Party footage, and are just a little bit concerned that their candidates in 2010 are going to have to explain their support for the highest sales tax, highest vehicle license tax, and highest income tax in the nation?
Personally, I don't plan on just watching these in CNN with my nose in the air, like most of our Democratic friends are doing. I will BE there with my American Flag & California flag waving proudly! It's time to take back the state for the taxpayers!
Stand by for more on how we will do just that! Until then, save these dates for the next set of Tea Parties across Southern California: May 1st & May 16th. (Locations TBA)
Because let's face it - these are all part of a bag-room deal that needs to be rejected in its entirety. Supporting ANY of these propositions gives the voter the impression that the current level of state government spending is acceptable - and it's NOT! The Republican Party stands for the principle of limited government and reducing the tax burdens on working families and businesses, and that was re-affirmed today.
Two interesting points to note:
- There was actually more debate about these propositions at the County level, where the discussion focused on whether the transfer of funds through propositions 1D & 1E may actually be acceptable. This was based on the fact that neither of these propositions actually raises taxes. However, they do not reduce taxes either. Furthermore, the next action by the special interest groups that these funds come from will have a new ballot measure labeling Republicans as the "evil party that took away funds" by supporting these measures, and it's time for the Democrats to step up if these propositions are truly viable.
- Speaking of the Democratic Party, I recently found out that even the LA County Democratic Party is not endorsing these propositions! Their LA County Executive Committee voted to take "NO POSITION" on the six propositions. Turns out that a combination of fiscally responsible Democrats were joined by a few unions that were not getting a piece of the proposition "action" (and were hence only going to see the higher taxes for their membership) opposed the special interest groups that were lobbying the Democratic Party for support.
So basically - NEITHER party is supporting these propositions. We all know why the Republicans are opposing these. (What we've been beating our heads against the wall about is why it took to darn long!). But why won't the Democrats get behind these?
Maybe they ARE watching the Tea Party footage, and are just a little bit concerned that their candidates in 2010 are going to have to explain their support for the highest sales tax, highest vehicle license tax, and highest income tax in the nation?
Personally, I don't plan on just watching these in CNN with my nose in the air, like most of our Democratic friends are doing. I will BE there with my American Flag & California flag waving proudly! It's time to take back the state for the taxpayers!
Stand by for more on how we will do just that! Until then, save these dates for the next set of Tea Parties across Southern California: May 1st & May 16th. (Locations TBA)
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
From your local "Fringe Activist"...
This is a repost of an article appearing in the latest issue of CityWatch (www.citywatchla.com), the online source for Los Angeles politics, neighborhood councils & "fringe activism" like those of us from the "No on Measure B" committee. As a proud member of that group, I am pleased to forward you the article by one of the lead activists working to improve Los Angeles, Ron Kaye...
How the ‘Fringe Activists’ Stopped the Machine
Changing LA
By Ron Kaye
The extraordinary success of the No on Measure B -- from its origins among community activists to a coalition that included business, labor and political parties of every type -- has laid the groundwork for a mass movement that can take back LA from the special interests.
Contrary to what many expected, the total vote last Tuesday was nearly 18 percent of registered voters when as few as 10 percent was expected and the mayor's minions boasted they would win if the total reached 15 percent. The "No" side leads by 1,322 votes with the remaining 46,000 absentee, provisional and damaged votes to be tallied later this week. For the Saving LA Project, Neighborhood Cou ncils and homeowner/resident groups, fighting the City Hall political machine to a stalemate on an issue like solar energy was a tremendous victory.
Whatever the final tally, there is no mandate for a DWP/IBEW monopoly on solar energy or for the mayor and City Council's seizing direct control of the contracting process in order to shake down everyone who wants a piece of the billions of dollars involved in the massive program.
So how did community activists -- dismissed as "fringe activists" by the "Yes" campaign -- stop the machine?
It starts with a decade of failure of the DWP to deliver on its many promises to bring solar energy to the city and the IBEW's total resistance during that time to renewable energy because you don't need the state's (if not the nation's) highest paid utility workers to run windmills or rooftop solar installations.
Faced with the inevitable need for clean energy, the IBEW, in league with environmental political action committees willing to pay any price to move forward, came up with Measure B.
The mayor, who never has been able to say no to the IBEW or its generous campaign money, got aboard in hopes of enhancing his political ambitions.
Business, labor and the solar energy industry then were confronted with a campaign of intimidation that kept them quiet. Similar tactics brought the timid City Council into unanimous obedience without its members even having a clue about what they were voting on after a three-week legislative process that made a mockery of the democratic process and the notion that our Council members actually represent the citizens of Los Angeles.
Outcries from community activists almost certainly would have gone nowhere if the City Hall political machine weren't so arrogant and contemptuous of the public that it kept critical information secret and then went to court to crush all opposition.
Not satisfied with having all the advantages, the machine ordered top environment greenwasher Mitchell Schwartz, a lobbyist and head of a PAC that calls itself the LA League of Conservation Voters, to sue the authors of the ballot argument against Measure B, accusing them of false and misleading statements.
Judge David Yaffe took the side of the Solar 8 and laughed the real liars out of court, dismissing the arguments put forward by the machine's mouthpiece, attorney Stephen Kaufman.
From that moment on, the community was energized and came together as never before, came together in a way that someday will be seen as the historic turning point when the machine started to fall apart and the people started to take back City Hall.
Literally hundreds of people got involved, a word-of-mouth campaign began to form using the revolutionary tools of the Internet: Email, Facebook, Twitter.
After hearing arguments from both sides and DWP's thinly-veiled presentations of a massive solar energy program that was slapped together without any planning or analysis, dozens of Neighborhood Councils and homeowner/resident groups joined the campaign against Measure B.
Business groups like the apartment owners association, VICA, United Chambers followed suit. And with help from Paul Hefner of Polka Consulting in Sacramento, the campaign became more focused and effective until it became obvious that Measure B could be defeated.
The media pounded away at the flaws in Measure B, exposing one lie and deceit after another and questioning it in editorials. Three council members defected from the Yes campaign.
With the groundswell building, Bill Luddy brought the Carpenters Union into the battle with mass mailings and professional phone banks. Members of the Laborers Union got involved and the LA Chamber joined in. The Times and Daily News came out in full opposition.
In the end, the "Yes" campaign, with the full advantage of the political machine's power, outspent the "No" campaign 25 to 1. The mayor was damaged by managing to win re-election with only 55 percent of the vote. Jack Weiss was humiliated when 64 percent of the voters turned against him. A long-time Neighbhorhood Council and homeowner activist, David Vahedi, made the runoff to succeed Weiss in CD5.
The political dynamic of LA was changed by results of Tuesday's elections. The question now is what must be done to build on this success. (This column was posted first at www.ronkayla.com. Ron Kaye is the former editor of the Daily News turned blogger activist. You can reach him at ron@ronkayela.comThis email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it )
How the ‘Fringe Activists’ Stopped the Machine
Changing LA
By Ron Kaye
The extraordinary success of the No on Measure B -- from its origins among community activists to a coalition that included business, labor and political parties of every type -- has laid the groundwork for a mass movement that can take back LA from the special interests.
Contrary to what many expected, the total vote last Tuesday was nearly 18 percent of registered voters when as few as 10 percent was expected and the mayor's minions boasted they would win if the total reached 15 percent. The "No" side leads by 1,322 votes with the remaining 46,000 absentee, provisional and damaged votes to be tallied later this week. For the Saving LA Project, Neighborhood Cou ncils and homeowner/resident groups, fighting the City Hall political machine to a stalemate on an issue like solar energy was a tremendous victory.
Whatever the final tally, there is no mandate for a DWP/IBEW monopoly on solar energy or for the mayor and City Council's seizing direct control of the contracting process in order to shake down everyone who wants a piece of the billions of dollars involved in the massive program.
So how did community activists -- dismissed as "fringe activists" by the "Yes" campaign -- stop the machine?
It starts with a decade of failure of the DWP to deliver on its many promises to bring solar energy to the city and the IBEW's total resistance during that time to renewable energy because you don't need the state's (if not the nation's) highest paid utility workers to run windmills or rooftop solar installations.
Faced with the inevitable need for clean energy, the IBEW, in league with environmental political action committees willing to pay any price to move forward, came up with Measure B.
The mayor, who never has been able to say no to the IBEW or its generous campaign money, got aboard in hopes of enhancing his political ambitions.
Business, labor and the solar energy industry then were confronted with a campaign of intimidation that kept them quiet. Similar tactics brought the timid City Council into unanimous obedience without its members even having a clue about what they were voting on after a three-week legislative process that made a mockery of the democratic process and the notion that our Council members actually represent the citizens of Los Angeles.
Outcries from community activists almost certainly would have gone nowhere if the City Hall political machine weren't so arrogant and contemptuous of the public that it kept critical information secret and then went to court to crush all opposition.
Not satisfied with having all the advantages, the machine ordered top environment greenwasher Mitchell Schwartz, a lobbyist and head of a PAC that calls itself the LA League of Conservation Voters, to sue the authors of the ballot argument against Measure B, accusing them of false and misleading statements.
Judge David Yaffe took the side of the Solar 8 and laughed the real liars out of court, dismissing the arguments put forward by the machine's mouthpiece, attorney Stephen Kaufman.
From that moment on, the community was energized and came together as never before, came together in a way that someday will be seen as the historic turning point when the machine started to fall apart and the people started to take back City Hall.
Literally hundreds of people got involved, a word-of-mouth campaign began to form using the revolutionary tools of the Internet: Email, Facebook, Twitter.
After hearing arguments from both sides and DWP's thinly-veiled presentations of a massive solar energy program that was slapped together without any planning or analysis, dozens of Neighborhood Councils and homeowner/resident groups joined the campaign against Measure B.
Business groups like the apartment owners association, VICA, United Chambers followed suit. And with help from Paul Hefner of Polka Consulting in Sacramento, the campaign became more focused and effective until it became obvious that Measure B could be defeated.
The media pounded away at the flaws in Measure B, exposing one lie and deceit after another and questioning it in editorials. Three council members defected from the Yes campaign.
With the groundswell building, Bill Luddy brought the Carpenters Union into the battle with mass mailings and professional phone banks. Members of the Laborers Union got involved and the LA Chamber joined in. The Times and Daily News came out in full opposition.
In the end, the "Yes" campaign, with the full advantage of the political machine's power, outspent the "No" campaign 25 to 1. The mayor was damaged by managing to win re-election with only 55 percent of the vote. Jack Weiss was humiliated when 64 percent of the voters turned against him. A long-time Neighbhorhood Council and homeowner activist, David Vahedi, made the runoff to succeed Weiss in CD5.
The political dynamic of LA was changed by results of Tuesday's elections. The question now is what must be done to build on this success. (This column was posted first at www.ronkayla.com. Ron Kaye is the former editor of the Daily News turned blogger activist. You can reach him at ron@ronkayela.comThis email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it )
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Republican Values victorious on Tuesday
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...
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...
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Mayor Villaraigosa has to "pull a weekender" for Measure B
There have been many great accomplishments for the rag-tag, rebellious group I have been proud to work with in opposition to Measure B, the solar energy boondoggle that has unified not only city-wide Republicans and Democrats active in the neighborhood councils, but Laborer Union Locals throughout the city who are having city facility work normally set aside for them being transferred solely to the IBEW membership under Measure B. Our combined effort, combined with opposition endorsements from great civic leaders like Laura Chick and Dennis Zine, have resulted in recommendations to vote NO on Measure B from the Los Angeles Times, the L.A. Daily News and our local paper, the Daily Breeze.
To try and swing the tide from the city council members who are now embarrassed for "placing the measure on the ballot for voter to decide" to the DWP & IBEW's failure to address the calculated doubling of energy rates (according to their own endorsed Huron Report), the Mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa (who desperately needs this measure passed in order to beef up his political resume for his run for Governor next year) had to initiate a city-wide bus tour this weekend in order to promote Measure B. Fox 11 News covered it last night, and interviewed one of our speakers, Jack Humpreville, about why the measure is having such difficulty.
I want to personally thank all of you that forced our 11% mayor to forgo his regular weekend schedule of finding the closest "televised" public event, away from any of the other mayoral candidates, and forcing him to actually invest personal time in campaigning this weekend. Your phone calls to absentee voters the past four weeks, plus your renewed energy this weekend to call poll voters in key districts, has made a real difference!
This past week, I was very excited to see the energy and activism by two local unions, the Laborers Local 802 and Local 872, who really took the Huron consultant and DWP managers to task at the Wilmington DWP Townhall last Wednesday. You can only imagine how much fun I had speaking on behalf of labor unions being shut out from what is supposed to be their contracted work effort in the city. To their credit, the Laborers Union members are the ones working at our trade schools and junior colleges to train young men and women the trades associated with building and construction, and have a far better record of providing training in under-privileged communities and community colleges. The marketing rep from the Laborers Union specifically asked the DWP about the record of bringing in and training new IBEW members from under-privileged neighborhoods. When the DWP rep "could not recall" the numbers, the marketing rep informed her that the numbers were "practically non-existent".
Now these great union colleagues are taking every phone list I can create for them and calling residents to oppose this measure on behalf of the truly local union residents. Awesome!
So if you see our Mayor's bus driving through the neighborhood, wave "Hello"! And then contact me for a call list to do either Sunday or Monday. But don't worry about the Mayor's precinct...we've already called it and left a message for his household to vote NO on Measure B!
After all, he is a high-propensity voter...
To try and swing the tide from the city council members who are now embarrassed for "placing the measure on the ballot for voter to decide" to the DWP & IBEW's failure to address the calculated doubling of energy rates (according to their own endorsed Huron Report), the Mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa (who desperately needs this measure passed in order to beef up his political resume for his run for Governor next year) had to initiate a city-wide bus tour this weekend in order to promote Measure B. Fox 11 News covered it last night, and interviewed one of our speakers, Jack Humpreville, about why the measure is having such difficulty.
I want to personally thank all of you that forced our 11% mayor to forgo his regular weekend schedule of finding the closest "televised" public event, away from any of the other mayoral candidates, and forcing him to actually invest personal time in campaigning this weekend. Your phone calls to absentee voters the past four weeks, plus your renewed energy this weekend to call poll voters in key districts, has made a real difference!
This past week, I was very excited to see the energy and activism by two local unions, the Laborers Local 802 and Local 872, who really took the Huron consultant and DWP managers to task at the Wilmington DWP Townhall last Wednesday. You can only imagine how much fun I had speaking on behalf of labor unions being shut out from what is supposed to be their contracted work effort in the city. To their credit, the Laborers Union members are the ones working at our trade schools and junior colleges to train young men and women the trades associated with building and construction, and have a far better record of providing training in under-privileged communities and community colleges. The marketing rep from the Laborers Union specifically asked the DWP about the record of bringing in and training new IBEW members from under-privileged neighborhoods. When the DWP rep "could not recall" the numbers, the marketing rep informed her that the numbers were "practically non-existent".
Now these great union colleagues are taking every phone list I can create for them and calling residents to oppose this measure on behalf of the truly local union residents. Awesome!
So if you see our Mayor's bus driving through the neighborhood, wave "Hello"! And then contact me for a call list to do either Sunday or Monday. But don't worry about the Mayor's precinct...we've already called it and left a message for his household to vote NO on Measure B!
After all, he is a high-propensity voter...
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, February 5, 2009
How many bad nominees does it take to change an administration?
I'm forwarding an update from the Weekly Standard about yet ANOTHER cabinet nominee with issues to address. This one is relevant to us because it's our own Hilda Solis, union champion and Democratic Congressmember from East Los Angeles. Add Ms. Solis' name to that of the nominees that had to learn how to do their taxes, and we're starting to see what kind of "change" is truly coming to DC.
Thursday, February 05, 2009 By: Hans A. von Spakovsky
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A seemingly innocuous letter sent to the Clerk of the House of Representatives last Thursday by President Obama's Secretary of Labor nominee Hilda Solis raises serious and troubling legal questions about her nomination and apparent violation of House ethics rules. Not only was she involved with a private organization that was lobbying her fellow legislators on a bill that she has cosponsored, but she apparently kept her involvement secret and failed to reveal a clear conflict of interest.
Solis was a co-sponsor in 2007 of the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act," the card check legislation that would effectively eliminate the secret ballot and destroy the ability of employees to make an anonymous decision (without fear of retribution) on whether they want to join a union. She was also a co-sponsor of the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, legislation that would force states to allow public safety officers to form unions. At the same time, however, Solis was a board member of a pro-union organization, American Rights at Work, that has been lobbying Congress on both of these bills. According to a letter filed by Solis with the House Clerk on January 29, 2009, she was not just a director of the ARW, along with fellow travelers like David Bonior, Julian Bond, and John Sweeney, she was actually the treasurer. In other words, she is the official legally charged with the fiduciary duty of approving and signing off on all spending by the organization. And to make matters worse, she did not reveal to her colleagues in the House of Representatives that membership on her financial disclosure forms, which may constitute a separate ethical violation.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics and a review of the lobbying disclosure forms filed with Congress, ARW spent $110,000 in 2007 and $120,000 in 2008 on lobbying expenses. And what were the "[s]pecific lobbying issues" listed on the forms? They included the "Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800/S. 1041)" and the "Public Safety /Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007 (H.R. 980)." As treasurer of ARW, Solis would have approved the spending by ARW on lobbying other members of Congress on both of these bills she was sponsoring for passage.
The Ethics Manual of the House of Representatives quite properly restricts the lobbying of members, stating on page 352 that they should not "take an active role in lobbying Congress on behalf of a private organization since that would conflict with a Member's general obligation to the public." That rule may be murky in some instances, but the role Solis played in ARW's lobbying efforts was not passive. In answering written follow-up questions from the Senate about ARW, Solis tries to cloud the real issue by arguing that members of Congress are allowed to serve without compensation on the boards of nonprofit organizations and that the lobbying prohibition only applies if she was "personally" supervising the lobbying.
However, the House rule turns on whether Solis was an active participant in the lobbying effort. With regard to that question, Solis admitted that she is not merely a board member of ARW. Treasurers and general counsels have special fiduciary duties that differentiate them from mere directors. The treasurer of a nonprofit organization is responsible for actively supervising and approving the financial obligations and spending of the organization. In fact, the amended by-laws of ARW filed with its 2006 form 990 tax return specify that the treasurer must "ensure that there is [a] full and accurate account of the receipts and disbursements of the corporation" and must render to the President and the Board of Directors "an accounting of all transactions." This means that Solis was specifically charged with reporting all of the funds spent by ARW to lobby Congress. That is not the passive role of other Board members.
Solis apparently did not consult the House Ethics Committee about the propriety of serving as the treasurer of ARW. Worse, she didn't list ARW on her financial disclosure forms. She belatedly sent her letter of January 29 to the Clerk of the House attempting to amend her financial statements to add her membership in ARW. She claimed that she had "incorrectly answered" the question on membership in such outside organizations. Solis told the Clerk that she should have answered "yes" and that she was both a board member and the treasurer of ARW from 2004 -2007. She is still listed as a board member at the ARW website.
Barack Obama made a big show at the White House on his first day in office when he signed an executive order supposedly restricting the ability of former lobbyists hired by his administration from working on issues that they had previously lobbied on. Of course, he almost immediately ignored those principles when he nominated William Lynn, a Raytheon lobbyist, to be deputy secretary of the Department of Defense, named William Corr, an anti-tobacco lobbyist, to be deputy secretary at Health and Human Services, and allowed newly installed Treasury Secretary (and tax defaulter) Timothy Geitner to hire a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist to be his new chief of staff.
Now he has a nominee for Labor Secretary who apparently broke House ethics rules by lobbying for legislation that she sponsored, but who did not admit that she failed to reveal that fact on her financial disclosure forms until after her nomination became an issue. Even if the House tries to paper over this ethical lapse, the blatant conflict of interest will remain. Solis has been nominated to head a cabinet department that would directly oversee the very issues that the legislation that she sponsored would affect if it passes Congress -- and the card check legislation alone is considered the number one priority of American labor organizations.
Throughout his Presidential campaign, Barack Obama claimed the moral high ground on everything from campaign finances to lobbying, and he has continued to talk that way in the first month of his presidency. But actions speak louder than words, particularly when your actions are in direct conflict with the supposedly "high ethical standards" you keep claiming you are implementing. If President Obama does not recognize the serious ethical lapses committed by his nominee for the Labor Department, then it will be proof positive that for all of his talk of bringing change to Washington, the only change will have been in the wrong direction.
Hans A. von Spakovsky is a former Commissioner on the Federal Election Commission and a Justice Department official.
© The Weekly Standard
Thursday, February 05, 2009 By: Hans A. von Spakovsky
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A seemingly innocuous letter sent to the Clerk of the House of Representatives last Thursday by President Obama's Secretary of Labor nominee Hilda Solis raises serious and troubling legal questions about her nomination and apparent violation of House ethics rules. Not only was she involved with a private organization that was lobbying her fellow legislators on a bill that she has cosponsored, but she apparently kept her involvement secret and failed to reveal a clear conflict of interest.
Solis was a co-sponsor in 2007 of the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act," the card check legislation that would effectively eliminate the secret ballot and destroy the ability of employees to make an anonymous decision (without fear of retribution) on whether they want to join a union. She was also a co-sponsor of the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, legislation that would force states to allow public safety officers to form unions. At the same time, however, Solis was a board member of a pro-union organization, American Rights at Work, that has been lobbying Congress on both of these bills. According to a letter filed by Solis with the House Clerk on January 29, 2009, she was not just a director of the ARW, along with fellow travelers like David Bonior, Julian Bond, and John Sweeney, she was actually the treasurer. In other words, she is the official legally charged with the fiduciary duty of approving and signing off on all spending by the organization. And to make matters worse, she did not reveal to her colleagues in the House of Representatives that membership on her financial disclosure forms, which may constitute a separate ethical violation.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics and a review of the lobbying disclosure forms filed with Congress, ARW spent $110,000 in 2007 and $120,000 in 2008 on lobbying expenses. And what were the "[s]pecific lobbying issues" listed on the forms? They included the "Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800/S. 1041)" and the "Public Safety /Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007 (H.R. 980)." As treasurer of ARW, Solis would have approved the spending by ARW on lobbying other members of Congress on both of these bills she was sponsoring for passage.
The Ethics Manual of the House of Representatives quite properly restricts the lobbying of members, stating on page 352 that they should not "take an active role in lobbying Congress on behalf of a private organization since that would conflict with a Member's general obligation to the public." That rule may be murky in some instances, but the role Solis played in ARW's lobbying efforts was not passive. In answering written follow-up questions from the Senate about ARW, Solis tries to cloud the real issue by arguing that members of Congress are allowed to serve without compensation on the boards of nonprofit organizations and that the lobbying prohibition only applies if she was "personally" supervising the lobbying.
However, the House rule turns on whether Solis was an active participant in the lobbying effort. With regard to that question, Solis admitted that she is not merely a board member of ARW. Treasurers and general counsels have special fiduciary duties that differentiate them from mere directors. The treasurer of a nonprofit organization is responsible for actively supervising and approving the financial obligations and spending of the organization. In fact, the amended by-laws of ARW filed with its 2006 form 990 tax return specify that the treasurer must "ensure that there is [a] full and accurate account of the receipts and disbursements of the corporation" and must render to the President and the Board of Directors "an accounting of all transactions." This means that Solis was specifically charged with reporting all of the funds spent by ARW to lobby Congress. That is not the passive role of other Board members.
Solis apparently did not consult the House Ethics Committee about the propriety of serving as the treasurer of ARW. Worse, she didn't list ARW on her financial disclosure forms. She belatedly sent her letter of January 29 to the Clerk of the House attempting to amend her financial statements to add her membership in ARW. She claimed that she had "incorrectly answered" the question on membership in such outside organizations. Solis told the Clerk that she should have answered "yes" and that she was both a board member and the treasurer of ARW from 2004 -2007. She is still listed as a board member at the ARW website.
Barack Obama made a big show at the White House on his first day in office when he signed an executive order supposedly restricting the ability of former lobbyists hired by his administration from working on issues that they had previously lobbied on. Of course, he almost immediately ignored those principles when he nominated William Lynn, a Raytheon lobbyist, to be deputy secretary of the Department of Defense, named William Corr, an anti-tobacco lobbyist, to be deputy secretary at Health and Human Services, and allowed newly installed Treasury Secretary (and tax defaulter) Timothy Geitner to hire a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist to be his new chief of staff.
Now he has a nominee for Labor Secretary who apparently broke House ethics rules by lobbying for legislation that she sponsored, but who did not admit that she failed to reveal that fact on her financial disclosure forms until after her nomination became an issue. Even if the House tries to paper over this ethical lapse, the blatant conflict of interest will remain. Solis has been nominated to head a cabinet department that would directly oversee the very issues that the legislation that she sponsored would affect if it passes Congress -- and the card check legislation alone is considered the number one priority of American labor organizations.
Throughout his Presidential campaign, Barack Obama claimed the moral high ground on everything from campaign finances to lobbying, and he has continued to talk that way in the first month of his presidency. But actions speak louder than words, particularly when your actions are in direct conflict with the supposedly "high ethical standards" you keep claiming you are implementing. If President Obama does not recognize the serious ethical lapses committed by his nominee for the Labor Department, then it will be proof positive that for all of his talk of bringing change to Washington, the only change will have been in the wrong direction.
Hans A. von Spakovsky is a former Commissioner on the Federal Election Commission and a Justice Department official.
© The Weekly Standard
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!
Los Angeles Times Editorial - "Measure B: L.A.'s secret solar plan"
(from today's Los Angeles Times Editorial page - I've got more to write about, but this was very good, and from a source that usually gives the L.A. City Council a pass...)
Angelenos will be asked to weigh in on a solar power plan on the city's March 3 ballot, but officials haven't really told us what we're voting on.
January 29, 2009
The City Council was unfazed in November when no one from the Department of Water and Power or other City Hall offices could answer some of the most basic questions about a proposed solar power measure the council was about to put on the ballot. How much will it cost ratepayers? Is it financially feasible? How much money will it take to recruit and train new workers? DWP General Manager H. David Nahai said his agency would have the answers after Huron Consulting Group completed its independent analysis of the plan sometime in January, and council members promised one another that would leave plenty of time for open discussion about the "Green Energy and Good Jobs for Los Angeles" program that they seemed too rushed to deal with at the moment. They scheduled the measure for the March 3 election.
The Huron report is due next week, but don't expect that to spur a month of thoughtful City Council discourse based on the findings. The report is not about Measure B (or Charter Amendment B, take your pick); it's an analysis of the entire three-part Solar L.A. program, of which Measure B is one part. It won't tell ratepayers how much their rates will rise. It can't. There are too many variables -- just as there are too many variables to let voters know how much rates will rise without Measure B.Yet there was Nahai at last week's commission meeting urging everyone to hold their fire until the Huron report is out. "Until then, I feel that all of the conjecture really does a disservice to the debate," he said.The Yes-on-B campaign is in high gear, asking voters to adopt the measure. Voting begins Monday with mail balloting. Yet we're not supposed to ask questions until the Huron report is out? Meanwhile, where is the language of the measure we're voting on? Have voters seen it? Is it available? Is it on the city's website? No -- the city clerk's office is shooting for posting the language sometime toward the end of next week. (If you don't want to wait, you can find the ballot language on our website, at latimes.com/opinion.)
This page wants smart "in-basin" solar power as an integral part of the city's energy generation and distribution strategy, and we remain open to the idea that this ballot measure may be the best way to get it. But the process seems designed to get voters to sign off on a plan without sufficient knowledge of it, and it is undermining a broader discussion of solar power in Los Angeles. There is a point at which process gets so bad that it outweighs substance, no matter how good that substance may be. We're rapidly approaching that point.
Angelenos will be asked to weigh in on a solar power plan on the city's March 3 ballot, but officials haven't really told us what we're voting on.
January 29, 2009
The City Council was unfazed in November when no one from the Department of Water and Power or other City Hall offices could answer some of the most basic questions about a proposed solar power measure the council was about to put on the ballot. How much will it cost ratepayers? Is it financially feasible? How much money will it take to recruit and train new workers? DWP General Manager H. David Nahai said his agency would have the answers after Huron Consulting Group completed its independent analysis of the plan sometime in January, and council members promised one another that would leave plenty of time for open discussion about the "Green Energy and Good Jobs for Los Angeles" program that they seemed too rushed to deal with at the moment. They scheduled the measure for the March 3 election.
The Huron report is due next week, but don't expect that to spur a month of thoughtful City Council discourse based on the findings. The report is not about Measure B (or Charter Amendment B, take your pick); it's an analysis of the entire three-part Solar L.A. program, of which Measure B is one part. It won't tell ratepayers how much their rates will rise. It can't. There are too many variables -- just as there are too many variables to let voters know how much rates will rise without Measure B.Yet there was Nahai at last week's commission meeting urging everyone to hold their fire until the Huron report is out. "Until then, I feel that all of the conjecture really does a disservice to the debate," he said.The Yes-on-B campaign is in high gear, asking voters to adopt the measure. Voting begins Monday with mail balloting. Yet we're not supposed to ask questions until the Huron report is out? Meanwhile, where is the language of the measure we're voting on? Have voters seen it? Is it available? Is it on the city's website? No -- the city clerk's office is shooting for posting the language sometime toward the end of next week. (If you don't want to wait, you can find the ballot language on our website, at latimes.com/opinion.)
This page wants smart "in-basin" solar power as an integral part of the city's energy generation and distribution strategy, and we remain open to the idea that this ballot measure may be the best way to get it. But the process seems designed to get voters to sign off on a plan without sufficient knowledge of it, and it is undermining a broader discussion of solar power in Los Angeles. There is a point at which process gets so bad that it outweighs substance, no matter how good that substance may be. We're rapidly approaching that point.
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
Friday, January 9, 2009
Los Angeles Update: Proposition B ballot argument to keep its "teeth"
As many of you have learned over the past month, I have volunteered my services to fight a power grab by the IBEW union to pay for a sole-source boondoggle solar project for themselves on the backs of Los Angeles City residents & businesses. This measure threatens to double or even triple the electrical rates of all residents & businesses in the City of Angels; not just those registered as Republicans! ;-)
The opposition leaders to this deceitful proposition submitted a proper ballot argument for the March 2009 election, but the IBEW hired a slick law firm to challenge much of the wording in order to remove most of the "bite" from the ballot argument. Candidate for Mayor David Hernandez stepped up with his own resources to lead the fight in court against this attack, and I was able to get the news personally from him last night that he and the opposition leaders had scored a great victory in court.
Below is the article from the L.A. Times from the same reporter that originally blew the whistle on this scheme by the IBEW, DWP and the L.A. City Council. He tells it best:
Judge upholds wording of Measure B's ballot argument
He refuses to remove key passages warning that Los Angeles' solar energy initiative in the March 3 election would create a monopoly.
By David Zahniser
5:02 PM PST, January 8, 2009
A judge on Thursday refused to remove key passages used by neighborhood activists in their ballot argument against Measure B, the solar energy proposal heading to Los Angeles voters in the March 3 election.
Mitchell Schwartz, a political strategist who staged Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's 2005 inaugural gala, had asked the judge to take out wording in the voter pamphlet warning that the solar plan would give a monopoly to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the union that represents employees at the city's Department of Water and Power.
But Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe said the measure -- which has been embraced by Villaraigosa and the City Council -- is open to a range of interpretations. "The proposition is so vague and so encompassing that speculation about just about anything is fair game," he said.
Yaffe issued a tentative ruling that is expected to become final today. But his statements did little to end a heated debate over the solar proposal, which seeks to add 400 megawatts of solar energy to rooftops and parking lots by 2014.
Those who signed the argument against Measure B accused allies of the mayor of using expensive lawyers to squelch the opposition's political views. After Schwartz went to court, signers of the ballot argument against Measure B hired a lawyer -- city attorney candidate Noel Weiss -- and dubbed themselves "the Solar 8."
The group's members includes former DWP president Nick Patsaouras, now a candidate for city controller, and former Los Angeles Daily News editor Ron Kaye.
In his tentative ruling, Yaffe also refused to remove language that warned that "no competitive bidding" would be used by the solar program. And he declined to take out wording that warned that the DWP would use "outdated technology" for the initiative. "The judge did the right thing," Weiss said.
Schwartz, who served last year as state campaign director for President-elect Barack Obama, did not attend the hearing. But attorney Stephen Kaufman, who represented Schwartz, said opponents of Measure B had made false or misleading statements that would be corrected during the campaign.
In the opponents' ballot argument, "the implication is that this is a self-serving deal being foisted on the voters here, and that is simply not the case," Kaufman told the judge.
He said his client scored one important victory, by forcing opponents of Measure B to remove a passage stating that no public hearings had been held on the solar proposal. Instead, the argument will say that the DWP did not provide "engineering or operational input" before Measure B went on the ballot.
The measure was proposed by Working Californians, an advocacy group headed by two high-level officials from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. The Measure B campaign paid for Schwartz's legal fees.
Schwartz, president of the Los Angeles League of Conservation Voters, was part of a select group that attended a Feb. 29, 2008, presentation on the solar plan by the union's Local 18 business manager Brian D'Arcy. His public relations firm, Bomaye Company, provided services to the DWP between 1999 and 2003. During that period, the firm helped promote the DWP's green initiatives, including one of its existing solar programs.
Schwartz's latest firm, skImpact, has a contract with CH2M Hill, a company that has been accused by the DWP of overbilling. But Schwartz said he is not doing any work related to the city or its electrical utility -- and only joined the lawsuit at Kaufman's request.
"I'm not part of the insider crew at all," he said. "I know them, but I'm not part of them. I just think the solar thing is really good."
david.zahniser@latimes.com
The opposition leaders to this deceitful proposition submitted a proper ballot argument for the March 2009 election, but the IBEW hired a slick law firm to challenge much of the wording in order to remove most of the "bite" from the ballot argument. Candidate for Mayor David Hernandez stepped up with his own resources to lead the fight in court against this attack, and I was able to get the news personally from him last night that he and the opposition leaders had scored a great victory in court.
Below is the article from the L.A. Times from the same reporter that originally blew the whistle on this scheme by the IBEW, DWP and the L.A. City Council. He tells it best:
Judge upholds wording of Measure B's ballot argument
He refuses to remove key passages warning that Los Angeles' solar energy initiative in the March 3 election would create a monopoly.
By David Zahniser
5:02 PM PST, January 8, 2009
A judge on Thursday refused to remove key passages used by neighborhood activists in their ballot argument against Measure B, the solar energy proposal heading to Los Angeles voters in the March 3 election.
Mitchell Schwartz, a political strategist who staged Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's 2005 inaugural gala, had asked the judge to take out wording in the voter pamphlet warning that the solar plan would give a monopoly to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the union that represents employees at the city's Department of Water and Power.
But Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe said the measure -- which has been embraced by Villaraigosa and the City Council -- is open to a range of interpretations. "The proposition is so vague and so encompassing that speculation about just about anything is fair game," he said.
Yaffe issued a tentative ruling that is expected to become final today. But his statements did little to end a heated debate over the solar proposal, which seeks to add 400 megawatts of solar energy to rooftops and parking lots by 2014.
Those who signed the argument against Measure B accused allies of the mayor of using expensive lawyers to squelch the opposition's political views. After Schwartz went to court, signers of the ballot argument against Measure B hired a lawyer -- city attorney candidate Noel Weiss -- and dubbed themselves "the Solar 8."
The group's members includes former DWP president Nick Patsaouras, now a candidate for city controller, and former Los Angeles Daily News editor Ron Kaye.
In his tentative ruling, Yaffe also refused to remove language that warned that "no competitive bidding" would be used by the solar program. And he declined to take out wording that warned that the DWP would use "outdated technology" for the initiative. "The judge did the right thing," Weiss said.
Schwartz, who served last year as state campaign director for President-elect Barack Obama, did not attend the hearing. But attorney Stephen Kaufman, who represented Schwartz, said opponents of Measure B had made false or misleading statements that would be corrected during the campaign.
In the opponents' ballot argument, "the implication is that this is a self-serving deal being foisted on the voters here, and that is simply not the case," Kaufman told the judge.
He said his client scored one important victory, by forcing opponents of Measure B to remove a passage stating that no public hearings had been held on the solar proposal. Instead, the argument will say that the DWP did not provide "engineering or operational input" before Measure B went on the ballot.
The measure was proposed by Working Californians, an advocacy group headed by two high-level officials from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. The Measure B campaign paid for Schwartz's legal fees.
Schwartz, president of the Los Angeles League of Conservation Voters, was part of a select group that attended a Feb. 29, 2008, presentation on the solar plan by the union's Local 18 business manager Brian D'Arcy. His public relations firm, Bomaye Company, provided services to the DWP between 1999 and 2003. During that period, the firm helped promote the DWP's green initiatives, including one of its existing solar programs.
Schwartz's latest firm, skImpact, has a contract with CH2M Hill, a company that has been accused by the DWP of overbilling. But Schwartz said he is not doing any work related to the city or its electrical utility -- and only joined the lawsuit at Kaufman's request.
"I'm not part of the insider crew at all," he said. "I know them, but I'm not part of them. I just think the solar thing is really good."
david.zahniser@latimes.com
Monday, December 29, 2008
Why L.A. Conservatives should LOVE Laura Chick...
[I've attached a column from Rick Orlov that should really open the eyes of L.A. City residents and show them that not all Democrats are fiscally irresponsible. L.A. Controller Laura Chick is an admirable defender of the citizens of Los Angeles, and the Democratic elitists know it!]
Open debate sought on privatization
By Rick Orlov, Columnist
Updated: 12/28/2008 09:40:47 PM PST
City Controller Laura Chick has six months left in office. And, as she
made clear this past week, she will not go quietly.
Chick remains uncertain whether she will try for a return to the City
Council, take a job at a university or go into private enterprise. One
thing you can probably bet on is that she won't become a lobbyist seeking
favors from city officials.
In the past few months, she has taken on, again, her main nemesis, City
Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, the City Council and most recently, Mayor Antonio
Villaraigosa. Her latest action is blowing the lid off what she said was a
confidential effort - Chick called it Chicago-style politics - to study privatizing
city services. "What is needed", Chick said, "is an open debate in which the public can hear all the arguments and decide how it wants the city to go."
Villaraigosa was quick to acknowledge the study being done by Mike Keeley,
one-time budget director to former Mayor Richard Riordan - who was the first
to propose privatizing city services, including the sale of Los Angeles
International Airport and naming rights to city buildings. The latter deal
fell apart when it was proposed to sell the name of the Central Library to
cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris. Ironically, the Central Library
building was named after Riordan when he left office.
Villaraigosa spokesman Matt Szabo said Keeley is providing "strategic
counsel on budget issues and to spearhead public-private partnership
efforts." City unions are prepared to fight off the latest proposal - much as they
did 15 years ago.
For the moment, Szabo said the mayor is looking at privatizing the
management of city parking lots and parking meters. A recommendation is
expected in January or February.
But it also has others on alert.
Golfers, in particular, are concerned about what will happen to the city
courses - where fees already have gone up dramatically for residents and
nonresidents, who are now on a two-tiered system of payments.
The desire for secrecy is also costing the mayor and City Council as they
prepare to ask voter support for Proposition B, the solar initiative on the
March 3 ballot. The City Council put the measure through on a fast track, without disclosing to the public and some council members a critical report on the measure
- which warns that the costly program, now estimated at $3 billion, might not
be practical given the limited number of solar panel manufacturers in the country.
City Council President Eric Garcetti downplayed the significance of the
report as he insisted he used its concerns to question officials on how it
could be improved and to address the concerns raised. And he was forced to later release the review to the public and his fellow council members.
Of course, it happened on a week when the City Council was in recess, with
many members out of town. So there was no major political penalty paid by
Villaraigosa or Garcetti. The biggest question that has been unanswered is why the measure is even on the ballot, since the basic job could be adopted by the DWP and its board.
Villaraigosa and Garcetti will be seeing a lot of each other over the next several weeks. The two, who served as California co-chairmen of the campaign of
President-elect Barack Obama, are both heading back to Washington, D.C., to
attend the inauguration. Garcetti supported Obama from the start, while
Villaraigosa came on after Sen. Hillary Clinton lost the nomination.
Other local officials who are planning to attend the event include new
county Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, California co-chairman for Obama;
Supervisors Zev Yaroslavsky and Gloria Molina, and Councilwoman Janice Hahn.
A number of state legislators also are said to want to go - but no one knows
if they will have a state budget fix adopted by then.
Rick Orlov's column appears Mondays. For a daily political fix, check
out the Daily News' Sausage Factory blog at insidesocal.com/politics.
rick.orlov@dailynews.com
213-978-0390
Open debate sought on privatization
By Rick Orlov, Columnist
Updated: 12/28/2008 09:40:47 PM PST
City Controller Laura Chick has six months left in office. And, as she
made clear this past week, she will not go quietly.
Chick remains uncertain whether she will try for a return to the City
Council, take a job at a university or go into private enterprise. One
thing you can probably bet on is that she won't become a lobbyist seeking
favors from city officials.
In the past few months, she has taken on, again, her main nemesis, City
Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, the City Council and most recently, Mayor Antonio
Villaraigosa. Her latest action is blowing the lid off what she said was a
confidential effort - Chick called it Chicago-style politics - to study privatizing
city services. "What is needed", Chick said, "is an open debate in which the public can hear all the arguments and decide how it wants the city to go."
Villaraigosa was quick to acknowledge the study being done by Mike Keeley,
one-time budget director to former Mayor Richard Riordan - who was the first
to propose privatizing city services, including the sale of Los Angeles
International Airport and naming rights to city buildings. The latter deal
fell apart when it was proposed to sell the name of the Central Library to
cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris. Ironically, the Central Library
building was named after Riordan when he left office.
Villaraigosa spokesman Matt Szabo said Keeley is providing "strategic
counsel on budget issues and to spearhead public-private partnership
efforts." City unions are prepared to fight off the latest proposal - much as they
did 15 years ago.
For the moment, Szabo said the mayor is looking at privatizing the
management of city parking lots and parking meters. A recommendation is
expected in January or February.
But it also has others on alert.
Golfers, in particular, are concerned about what will happen to the city
courses - where fees already have gone up dramatically for residents and
nonresidents, who are now on a two-tiered system of payments.
The desire for secrecy is also costing the mayor and City Council as they
prepare to ask voter support for Proposition B, the solar initiative on the
March 3 ballot. The City Council put the measure through on a fast track, without disclosing to the public and some council members a critical report on the measure
- which warns that the costly program, now estimated at $3 billion, might not
be practical given the limited number of solar panel manufacturers in the country.
City Council President Eric Garcetti downplayed the significance of the
report as he insisted he used its concerns to question officials on how it
could be improved and to address the concerns raised. And he was forced to later release the review to the public and his fellow council members.
Of course, it happened on a week when the City Council was in recess, with
many members out of town. So there was no major political penalty paid by
Villaraigosa or Garcetti. The biggest question that has been unanswered is why the measure is even on the ballot, since the basic job could be adopted by the DWP and its board.
Villaraigosa and Garcetti will be seeing a lot of each other over the next several weeks. The two, who served as California co-chairmen of the campaign of
President-elect Barack Obama, are both heading back to Washington, D.C., to
attend the inauguration. Garcetti supported Obama from the start, while
Villaraigosa came on after Sen. Hillary Clinton lost the nomination.
Other local officials who are planning to attend the event include new
county Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, California co-chairman for Obama;
Supervisors Zev Yaroslavsky and Gloria Molina, and Councilwoman Janice Hahn.
A number of state legislators also are said to want to go - but no one knows
if they will have a state budget fix adopted by then.
Rick Orlov's column appears Mondays. For a daily political fix, check
out the Daily News' Sausage Factory blog at insidesocal.com/politics.
rick.orlov@dailynews.com
213-978-0390
Sunday, December 28, 2008
City Hall Political Machine Tries to Intimidate Activist Community
[Ron Kaye is the former Editor of the Los Angeles Daily News, and one of those standing up to the latest ploy within the City of Los Angeles. Plan to hear A LOT more about Proposition B and my efforts to defeat it in March]
Lawsuit Seeks to Squelch Public Debate on Solar Energy Fraud
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and his team of lobbyists, strategists and pay-to-play cronies have sued the eight people who signed the No. on Prop. B ballot argument -- an attempt at intimidation under the guise of law.
This measure isn't about solar energy and has nothing to do with the largest solar energy initiative ever undertaken. The City Council and mayor could initiate that by their own actions. This is solely about paying blackmail to the DWP and its IBEW union which have blocked solar projects for a decade and would have exclusivity on large-scale projects under this measure.
The Solar Eight -- Jack Humphreville, Soledad Garcia, Humberto Camacho, Kristine Lee, Nick Patsaouras, Joe Pulido, James O'Sullivan and me -- will not be silenced by this tactic.
But our lives have made difficult as we need to respond in court on Tuesday to the allegations that are ballot argument is false and misleading. We were unable to find a lawyer knowledgeable in city election law because this was dropped on us during Christmas week but Noel Weiss, candidate for City Attorney, has now volunteered to provide us help in putting together our pleading. The next hearing in court is Jan. 8.
Stephen Kaufman's law firm, which represents the mayor, eight City Council members and a host of other political figures, is handling the case for the City Hall political machine for the named plaintiff, Mitchell Schwartz, a high-powered environmental lobbyist.
This isn't just an attempt to squelch the Solar Eight or the debate over this phony ballot measure but a direct assault on everyone's right to freedom of speech and to participate in the political and electoral process.
We need support from Neighborhood Councils, homeowner and resident groups, service clubs, churches and every individual who cares about L.A. This is a defining moment. We need to come together and stop the political machine that is destroying the city. If we won't fight as one against these tactics and this dirty deal, I don't know that we ever will.
The March 3 primary gives us the chance to change L.A., to elect candidates to the City Controller's and City Attorney's offices who can stand for the community. Villaraigosa, Wendy Greuel and Jack Weiss along with the 15 obedient council members will have nothing in their way if they prevail in this election.
I have written about it today and over several days recently. Here are the links to copy and paste:
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/prop-b-is-for-bribery-and-blac.html
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/sunshine-on-solar-fraud-the-ci.html
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/laura-chick-chicagostyle-polit.html
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/scenario-for-dictatorship-los.html
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/las-solar-energy-fraud-is-this.html
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/las-solar-energy-fraud-is-this.html
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/the-secret-solar-plan-document.html
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/the-city-hall-political-machin.html
Support the Solar Eight. Support the efforts to make this a great city and get rid of Chicago-style corruption.
ronkayela.com
cell 818-621-8349
office 818-704-8418
Lawsuit Seeks to Squelch Public Debate on Solar Energy Fraud
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and his team of lobbyists, strategists and pay-to-play cronies have sued the eight people who signed the No. on Prop. B ballot argument -- an attempt at intimidation under the guise of law.
This measure isn't about solar energy and has nothing to do with the largest solar energy initiative ever undertaken. The City Council and mayor could initiate that by their own actions. This is solely about paying blackmail to the DWP and its IBEW union which have blocked solar projects for a decade and would have exclusivity on large-scale projects under this measure.
The Solar Eight -- Jack Humphreville, Soledad Garcia, Humberto Camacho, Kristine Lee, Nick Patsaouras, Joe Pulido, James O'Sullivan and me -- will not be silenced by this tactic.
But our lives have made difficult as we need to respond in court on Tuesday to the allegations that are ballot argument is false and misleading. We were unable to find a lawyer knowledgeable in city election law because this was dropped on us during Christmas week but Noel Weiss, candidate for City Attorney, has now volunteered to provide us help in putting together our pleading. The next hearing in court is Jan. 8.
Stephen Kaufman's law firm, which represents the mayor, eight City Council members and a host of other political figures, is handling the case for the City Hall political machine for the named plaintiff, Mitchell Schwartz, a high-powered environmental lobbyist.
This isn't just an attempt to squelch the Solar Eight or the debate over this phony ballot measure but a direct assault on everyone's right to freedom of speech and to participate in the political and electoral process.
We need support from Neighborhood Councils, homeowner and resident groups, service clubs, churches and every individual who cares about L.A. This is a defining moment. We need to come together and stop the political machine that is destroying the city. If we won't fight as one against these tactics and this dirty deal, I don't know that we ever will.
The March 3 primary gives us the chance to change L.A., to elect candidates to the City Controller's and City Attorney's offices who can stand for the community. Villaraigosa, Wendy Greuel and Jack Weiss along with the 15 obedient council members will have nothing in their way if they prevail in this election.
I have written about it today and over several days recently. Here are the links to copy and paste:
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/prop-b-is-for-bribery-and-blac.html
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/sunshine-on-solar-fraud-the-ci.html
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/laura-chick-chicagostyle-polit.html
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/scenario-for-dictatorship-los.html
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/las-solar-energy-fraud-is-this.html
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/las-solar-energy-fraud-is-this.html
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/the-secret-solar-plan-document.html
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/the-city-hall-political-machin.html
Support the Solar Eight. Support the efforts to make this a great city and get rid of Chicago-style corruption.
ronkayela.com
cell 818-621-8349
office 818-704-8418
Saturday, December 20, 2008
RPLAC: "Change" for the sake of "change"
To begin, I want to be on record that I warned the former Executive Board that moving the Republican Party of Los Angeles County (RPLAC) Organizational Meeting to the same day as the USC-UCLA game, the SEC Championship game and, most importantly, the Army-Navy game would be bad luck! Up until the night before, I was still undecided on whether I was going to attend. I know for sure of at least three newly-elected members who chose the Rose Bowl over the Reagan Building, where the meeting was held. I personally took a lot of flack from fellow Navy alumni, even though we trounced Army 34-0, for choosing politics over tradition.
But what happened on December 6th at this normally routine meeting was anything but routine!
The purpose of the Organizational Meeting is to set up the county committees, the district-level officers, and the county executive board officers for the next term, 2008-2010. For the previous six years, Chairwoman Linda Boyd & her husband, California Republican Party Vice-Chair for L.A., Doug Boyd, had been well-prepared to get the full body of central committee members quickly through an agenda of setting up the necessary committees, running the members through each of three sets of district elections (assembly, state senate, and congressional district committees), and then introducing their slate of "endorsed" board officer candidates to be approved by the body. Each of the past three meetings, (2002, 2004 & 2006), there were a small group of disgruntled members, primarily unelected state office nominees, that tried to organize enough to challenge the Boyds for one or more of the board positions. Each time, the Boyds have been far more organized & ensured a strong majority of attendees to the meeting were supportive of their agenda. I have been very impressed with both Linda & Doug, and have been blessed to have learned much about both Republican politics & Los Angeles County from them. They are extremely smart and tuned in to some of the key political issues. Unfortunately, their intelligence was equally matched by their egos, and they far underestimated the amount of change and dissatisfaction those of us on the local levels were seeing within the Republican Party. By choosing to ignore the opportunities to bring in some of these new & younger faces to our team, the Boyds unwittingly gave that opportunity to one of their long-time rivals, Carl Davis, himself a former RPLAC chairmam. Carl Davis and I have talked about key issues, and I also consider him a smart & valuable resource. But his unilateral mission to get back at the Boyds for removing him from power has been a prime mover for him in all he does.
This year, Carl Davis organized some key groups under a common motive to remove Linda and her supporters.
To start, the alliance of opposers included not only more state-level nominees (who are often called "sacrificial lambs" in L.A. County for obvious reasons), but an increased number of new Republicans, including Log Cabin Republicans & supporters from the Ron Paul presidential campaign. Our own local committee has a few new members from this group, and I made it a point to both welcome these new, enthusiastic members and to try and mentor them in the basics of the party structure. All of these groups bring new perspectives, lessons learned from their struggles, as well as some concerns they want to see addressed. Only through open dialogue will we be able to find the common ground opportunities for all of us; the lack of this open dialogue between the June primary electing these new members & the December organizational meeting is what led to what I like to call the "restructuring".
The first thing this group did was ask for help from former RPLAC Second Vice-Chair Al Han to run for the temporary chairman role at the meeting. This is the person who basically runs the restructuring until a new county chairman is officially elected. I have often talked about the reputation of Al Han as being extremely supportive and fair of the democratic process, whatever those results yield. Al does not come to meetings with an agenda, so much as a desire to bring out topics of discussion and see what the democratic process yields. Because the Boyd loyalists had a predetermined agenda that had no room for variety, Al Han's election to the temporary chair role was a serious blow, as well as a warning for the rest of the meeting.
I won't go into every detail of the meeting, but the truly shocking moment came when the Boyd loyalists staged an attempt to have the meeting quorum removed, thereby making the meeting results null and void. Out of the established attendance of 119 members, the Boyds attempted to have 50 members walk out in order to get below the by-laws required quorum of 70 members. Unfortunately for them, only about 35 or so took the hint/bait when they first removed themselves from the board nominations and then walked out. So a new board, led by new chairman Glen Forsch, has taken over the county party and will soon release their agenda for the next term. One of our own members from the 54th AD, Lydia Gutierrez, was elected First Vice Chair. I will post an assessment in January of the new board, after a planned January meeting between them with all of us new AD chairs.
I will also post an update very soon of your new 54th Assembly District members, including your new executive board and some key areas we hope you'll be interested in getting involved in.
I want to finish this posting by stating that fellow committee member Al Han performed his role at the organizational meeting as the temporary chairman the way that most Republican voters would have wanted him to perform. Republicans in both Los Angeles and throughout California are tired of the same agendas and strategies that have made us a permanent minority party. We are not entirely impatient, but we need to see some progress and activism to show us that our elected leaders and representatives have not settled for the status quo. Whether this is what Linda and Doug actually did in Los Angeles County is not relevant; this was, and still is, the perception of the majority of Republicans in Los Angeles, and they need to see a renewed effort to challenge the liberal, union elitists who only represent their special interests while waging dishonest marketing campaigns to dumb down the voting population.
Al Han has been a fighter for re-educating these voters and ensuring they turn out for key elections. If the new county executive board takes on these noble objectives and creates a positive change in Los Angeles County, they can expect a long tenure of both respect and influence within the party. If any of the new board members instead tries to bring in their own personal agendas to "change" the platform of the party, provide support solely for their own chosen candidates, and otherwise engage in physical or verbal conduct that would bring disrepute to the Republican Party of Los Angeles County, they will very soon find themselves in the same or worse position than the Boyds were.
Republicans want positive change, but this time, we're not willing to wait six more years to see it.
But what happened on December 6th at this normally routine meeting was anything but routine!
The purpose of the Organizational Meeting is to set up the county committees, the district-level officers, and the county executive board officers for the next term, 2008-2010. For the previous six years, Chairwoman Linda Boyd & her husband, California Republican Party Vice-Chair for L.A., Doug Boyd, had been well-prepared to get the full body of central committee members quickly through an agenda of setting up the necessary committees, running the members through each of three sets of district elections (assembly, state senate, and congressional district committees), and then introducing their slate of "endorsed" board officer candidates to be approved by the body. Each of the past three meetings, (2002, 2004 & 2006), there were a small group of disgruntled members, primarily unelected state office nominees, that tried to organize enough to challenge the Boyds for one or more of the board positions. Each time, the Boyds have been far more organized & ensured a strong majority of attendees to the meeting were supportive of their agenda. I have been very impressed with both Linda & Doug, and have been blessed to have learned much about both Republican politics & Los Angeles County from them. They are extremely smart and tuned in to some of the key political issues. Unfortunately, their intelligence was equally matched by their egos, and they far underestimated the amount of change and dissatisfaction those of us on the local levels were seeing within the Republican Party. By choosing to ignore the opportunities to bring in some of these new & younger faces to our team, the Boyds unwittingly gave that opportunity to one of their long-time rivals, Carl Davis, himself a former RPLAC chairmam. Carl Davis and I have talked about key issues, and I also consider him a smart & valuable resource. But his unilateral mission to get back at the Boyds for removing him from power has been a prime mover for him in all he does.
This year, Carl Davis organized some key groups under a common motive to remove Linda and her supporters.
To start, the alliance of opposers included not only more state-level nominees (who are often called "sacrificial lambs" in L.A. County for obvious reasons), but an increased number of new Republicans, including Log Cabin Republicans & supporters from the Ron Paul presidential campaign. Our own local committee has a few new members from this group, and I made it a point to both welcome these new, enthusiastic members and to try and mentor them in the basics of the party structure. All of these groups bring new perspectives, lessons learned from their struggles, as well as some concerns they want to see addressed. Only through open dialogue will we be able to find the common ground opportunities for all of us; the lack of this open dialogue between the June primary electing these new members & the December organizational meeting is what led to what I like to call the "restructuring".
The first thing this group did was ask for help from former RPLAC Second Vice-Chair Al Han to run for the temporary chairman role at the meeting. This is the person who basically runs the restructuring until a new county chairman is officially elected. I have often talked about the reputation of Al Han as being extremely supportive and fair of the democratic process, whatever those results yield. Al does not come to meetings with an agenda, so much as a desire to bring out topics of discussion and see what the democratic process yields. Because the Boyd loyalists had a predetermined agenda that had no room for variety, Al Han's election to the temporary chair role was a serious blow, as well as a warning for the rest of the meeting.
I won't go into every detail of the meeting, but the truly shocking moment came when the Boyd loyalists staged an attempt to have the meeting quorum removed, thereby making the meeting results null and void. Out of the established attendance of 119 members, the Boyds attempted to have 50 members walk out in order to get below the by-laws required quorum of 70 members. Unfortunately for them, only about 35 or so took the hint/bait when they first removed themselves from the board nominations and then walked out. So a new board, led by new chairman Glen Forsch, has taken over the county party and will soon release their agenda for the next term. One of our own members from the 54th AD, Lydia Gutierrez, was elected First Vice Chair. I will post an assessment in January of the new board, after a planned January meeting between them with all of us new AD chairs.
I will also post an update very soon of your new 54th Assembly District members, including your new executive board and some key areas we hope you'll be interested in getting involved in.
I want to finish this posting by stating that fellow committee member Al Han performed his role at the organizational meeting as the temporary chairman the way that most Republican voters would have wanted him to perform. Republicans in both Los Angeles and throughout California are tired of the same agendas and strategies that have made us a permanent minority party. We are not entirely impatient, but we need to see some progress and activism to show us that our elected leaders and representatives have not settled for the status quo. Whether this is what Linda and Doug actually did in Los Angeles County is not relevant; this was, and still is, the perception of the majority of Republicans in Los Angeles, and they need to see a renewed effort to challenge the liberal, union elitists who only represent their special interests while waging dishonest marketing campaigns to dumb down the voting population.
Al Han has been a fighter for re-educating these voters and ensuring they turn out for key elections. If the new county executive board takes on these noble objectives and creates a positive change in Los Angeles County, they can expect a long tenure of both respect and influence within the party. If any of the new board members instead tries to bring in their own personal agendas to "change" the platform of the party, provide support solely for their own chosen candidates, and otherwise engage in physical or verbal conduct that would bring disrepute to the Republican Party of Los Angeles County, they will very soon find themselves in the same or worse position than the Boyds were.
Republicans want positive change, but this time, we're not willing to wait six more years to see it.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
South Bay / San Pedro Republican Get-Out-the-Vote 2008
Fellow 54th AD Republicans,
It's time to kick off the fall campaign season with a motivating rally for the Republican ticket! August 14th is McCain Nation Night, so let's get together for John McCain's first national event day and get organized for the election. All of our local GOP candidates need our support!
South Bay / San Pedro Republican Get-Out-the-Vote 2008
August 14th, 2008 7:00pm
1891 N. Gaffey St. San Pedro, CA
Please come to my event to talk about John McCain's agenda for America and to discuss what we can do to help him win. Then listen to other local candidates or their representatives to learn how you can help them get elected. As the election is only a few months away, this event will focus on making sure every supporter is empowered to get out the vote in their neighborhood.
John McCain consistently puts his country before his political interests and is committed to addressing the tough issues America cares about most. Our Republican candidates are also taking on the special insterests killing California, and they need our help! Please join us for this important and fun event!
Invited speakers include (partial list):
Lydia Gutierrez – Republican Nominee, 25th Senate District
Brian Gibson – Republican Nominee, 36th Congressional District
Gabriella Holt – Republican Nominee, 54th Assembly District
I hope you can join us for this important event!
Very Best Regards,
John S. Stammreich
Chairman - 54th AD Republican Central Committee
It's time to kick off the fall campaign season with a motivating rally for the Republican ticket! August 14th is McCain Nation Night, so let's get together for John McCain's first national event day and get organized for the election. All of our local GOP candidates need our support!
South Bay / San Pedro Republican Get-Out-the-Vote 2008
August 14th, 2008 7:00pm
1891 N. Gaffey St. San Pedro, CA
Please come to my event to talk about John McCain's agenda for America and to discuss what we can do to help him win. Then listen to other local candidates or their representatives to learn how you can help them get elected. As the election is only a few months away, this event will focus on making sure every supporter is empowered to get out the vote in their neighborhood.
John McCain consistently puts his country before his political interests and is committed to addressing the tough issues America cares about most. Our Republican candidates are also taking on the special insterests killing California, and they need our help! Please join us for this important and fun event!
Invited speakers include (partial list):
Lydia Gutierrez – Republican Nominee, 25th Senate District
Brian Gibson – Republican Nominee, 36th Congressional District
Gabriella Holt – Republican Nominee, 54th Assembly District
I hope you can join us for this important event!
Very Best Regards,
John S. Stammreich
Chairman - 54th AD Republican Central Committee
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...
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Interim Posting: Why I (now) support the Ponte Vista project
As many of you know, I have not been aligned with the supporters of the Ponte Vista development project nor the opposition group "R Neighborhoods Are 1" created specifically to thwart the project. I wanted to remain an open objectice critic of both sides, consistently holding both accountable for answering specific questions and concerns I had or were brought to my attention by stakeholders in San Pedro. I have met many intelligent people on both sides, as well as others who shared my skepticism of the selective information disseminated by both sides. When there have been forums, rather than pick a side and join the "rally", I have often spoke about my concerns with both sides, often meaning that neither side of supporters gave very much applause.
At the latest forum held last Thursday at the Cabrillo Marine Aquarium, I honestly believe I was the only objective speaker out of the hundreds that pulled a speaker card. I say so based on a simple observation: I was the only person I saw in the room with a "Neutral" speaker card, which was white. Those speaking For or Against were given Blue & Pink colored cards, respectively. When I spoke, I gave each side something to address that would show me that they were truly considering the interests of the community, and not their own self-serving ones.
For the Ponte Vista developers, I have been impressed with their willingness to redesign the complex to reduce the number of occupants and address the traffic issues. I have always been a proponent of public transit as the biggest opportunity to take cars off the road. My challenge for the development was to ensure the design of the complex allowed for the pick-up and unloading of passengers for the Dash system, as well as the Max Transit, the route that goes from Western Avenue up through Torrance to all of the major aerospace companies.
For the R-1 opposition group, I have two issues that have yet to be addressed: 1) The R-1 group has been unable to produce a counter-design for councilmembers and neighborhood council members to consider that meets the R-1 zoning and would still be a viable project. One-way studies have been paid for to basically support pre-answered hypotheses, but no one has shown that the R-1 zoning supports viable development of the site. Therefore, my conclusion is that no such design can be produced; and 2) With the current real estate market already being flooded with devalued homes, causing many of us to lose a significant amount of equity in the past year, why would it be economically feasible to support a development project that adds another 500+ single-family residences to the San Pedro / East RPV market? Many of the R-1 activists bought into their homes many years ago, or inherited their San Pedro homes from family. Equity drops are a small concern for them. For those of us who bought homes in the last 10 years, we stand to lose a significant amount of equity from an additional flood of homes on the market driving prices down further. Again, the R-1 group has no answers for this concern.
So after having my concerns addressed, if not resolved, by the Ponte Vista development staff and supporters, and having the R-1 activist group members basically downgrade my concerns about their position. I have decided to go on the record (via this blog post and future letters to come) and announce my support for the Ponte Vista project.
I have always been supportive of the project's primary benefits, including senior housing units & services, mid-range housing for working families, and the development of the property overall as an asthetic improvement to what is currently there. I am pleased that the developer renewed their previous commitment to the Eastview Little League to provide fields for use; I still believe that the original recision by the developer to produce the fields was the root cause for the whole fiasco last year that resulted in the dog park being taken away. I look forward to my friends of Eastview having a more permament location, and hopefully having time in the future to attend more than one game a year.
I still have concerns with traffic and environmental impact of a development on the property, but believe, based on my experience living in both condo complexes and SFR neighborhoods, that an R-1 development will also have the same impact issues. I suspect that the R-1 group does not want R-1 development on the site any more than the proposed project itself. My belief is that they are are hoping to stall development efforts indefinitely, and hope that the developer will eventually sell the property to the city for some community project, like a park or homeless facility. (In many parts of San Pedro and the City of Los Angeles, parks become homeless camps fairly quickly anyway.) I have always stated that the "no development" solution is the worst one; the property needs to be developed, and if the R-1 group is unable to generate a viable R-1 design for the site, then the City Council should realize that one does not exist.
So, in summary, I have spent over two years weighing the arguments of both sides, and have decided that the Ponte Vista project should go forward as it has now been designed. The project will generate jobs, mid-range housing for younger couples, and a senior living community that will make all of us want to become "55 and up" much faster. You are welcome to either post your public comments or e-mail me your private comments.
At the latest forum held last Thursday at the Cabrillo Marine Aquarium, I honestly believe I was the only objective speaker out of the hundreds that pulled a speaker card. I say so based on a simple observation: I was the only person I saw in the room with a "Neutral" speaker card, which was white. Those speaking For or Against were given Blue & Pink colored cards, respectively. When I spoke, I gave each side something to address that would show me that they were truly considering the interests of the community, and not their own self-serving ones.
For the Ponte Vista developers, I have been impressed with their willingness to redesign the complex to reduce the number of occupants and address the traffic issues. I have always been a proponent of public transit as the biggest opportunity to take cars off the road. My challenge for the development was to ensure the design of the complex allowed for the pick-up and unloading of passengers for the Dash system, as well as the Max Transit, the route that goes from Western Avenue up through Torrance to all of the major aerospace companies.
For the R-1 opposition group, I have two issues that have yet to be addressed: 1) The R-1 group has been unable to produce a counter-design for councilmembers and neighborhood council members to consider that meets the R-1 zoning and would still be a viable project. One-way studies have been paid for to basically support pre-answered hypotheses, but no one has shown that the R-1 zoning supports viable development of the site. Therefore, my conclusion is that no such design can be produced; and 2) With the current real estate market already being flooded with devalued homes, causing many of us to lose a significant amount of equity in the past year, why would it be economically feasible to support a development project that adds another 500+ single-family residences to the San Pedro / East RPV market? Many of the R-1 activists bought into their homes many years ago, or inherited their San Pedro homes from family. Equity drops are a small concern for them. For those of us who bought homes in the last 10 years, we stand to lose a significant amount of equity from an additional flood of homes on the market driving prices down further. Again, the R-1 group has no answers for this concern.
So after having my concerns addressed, if not resolved, by the Ponte Vista development staff and supporters, and having the R-1 activist group members basically downgrade my concerns about their position. I have decided to go on the record (via this blog post and future letters to come) and announce my support for the Ponte Vista project.
I have always been supportive of the project's primary benefits, including senior housing units & services, mid-range housing for working families, and the development of the property overall as an asthetic improvement to what is currently there. I am pleased that the developer renewed their previous commitment to the Eastview Little League to provide fields for use; I still believe that the original recision by the developer to produce the fields was the root cause for the whole fiasco last year that resulted in the dog park being taken away. I look forward to my friends of Eastview having a more permament location, and hopefully having time in the future to attend more than one game a year.
I still have concerns with traffic and environmental impact of a development on the property, but believe, based on my experience living in both condo complexes and SFR neighborhoods, that an R-1 development will also have the same impact issues. I suspect that the R-1 group does not want R-1 development on the site any more than the proposed project itself. My belief is that they are are hoping to stall development efforts indefinitely, and hope that the developer will eventually sell the property to the city for some community project, like a park or homeless facility. (In many parts of San Pedro and the City of Los Angeles, parks become homeless camps fairly quickly anyway.) I have always stated that the "no development" solution is the worst one; the property needs to be developed, and if the R-1 group is unable to generate a viable R-1 design for the site, then the City Council should realize that one does not exist.
So, in summary, I have spent over two years weighing the arguments of both sides, and have decided that the Ponte Vista project should go forward as it has now been designed. The project will generate jobs, mid-range housing for younger couples, and a senior living community that will make all of us want to become "55 and up" much faster. You are welcome to either post your public comments or e-mail me your private comments.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Judicial Endorsements for June Primary
Fellow conservatives,
In keeping with my commitment to getting out the word on all of the races for June 3rd, I wanted to talk a little about a friend of mine running for Superior Judge. Even better, I'll let her talk to you herself. She sent out a posting for me to use, and I've included most of it below.
Of note, Kathleen Blanchard has joined with superior judge candidates of multiple parties to create a true crime-fighting team of conservative judiciary candidates. Kathleen received the endorsement of the Lincoln Clubs of Los Angeles County, which is a true sign of a conservative candidate. Here is most of her message below, including the team of candidates I am endorsing for June 3rd. (The list includes both judiciary candidates endorsed by the Republican Party of Los Angeles County - Michael O'Gara & Michael Jesic.)
"Hi everyone! As you know, I am running for judge in the June 3rd election (seat 123). I am writing to solicit your help in getting the word out about the election. There are 11 superior court seats on the ballot, and not much else, so I fear that voter turn-out will be extremely low. What that means is that every vote counts A LOT.
I am asking that each of you send a mass e-mail to everyone you know in Los Angeles County, asking them to VOTE on June 3rd, and to vote for the best caandidate in each of the judicial races.
...(T)ell them about me (a career prosecutor, working in the Hardcore Gang Division, prosecuting gang-related homicides, endorsed by virtually every police officer organization in LA County, the LA Times, Antonovich, Knabe, Cooley, Baca, & more than 30 Superior Court Judges) and/or about my opponents (both of whom were rated "not qualified" by the Los Angeles County Bar Association), or you can simply refer them to my website at www.blanchard4judge.com where they can learn everything they need to know about my race.
In addition to my own race, I have some suggestions about whom to vote for in the other seats. These aren't just friends of mine; they are great prosecutors who have dedicated their careers to public service. Each of them would make an excellent judge. But, again, you don't have to believe me. Each has a campaign website where you can go to see their qualifications for yourself:
seat 69 Serena Murrillo www.murilloforjudge.com
seat 72 Hilleri Merritt www.merrittforjudge.com
seat 82 Thomas Rubinson www.tomrubinson4judge.com/
seat 94 Michael O'Gara ogara4judge.com
seat 95 Lance Winters www.wintersforjudge.com
seat 119 Jared Moses www.mosesforjudge.com
Seat 123 Kathleen Blanchard www.blanchard4judge.com
seat 154 Michael Jesic www.jesicforjudge.com
If you would please pass this information along to everyone you know, wherever they live in L.A. County, and ask them to do the same, I would really appreciate it. I'm trying to make it as easy as possible, so that people can just print out the list & take it with them to the polls. Thank you so much for all of your help! Please let me know if you have any questions."
I plan to compile all of my endorsements into one easy handout that I will send out, and will also try to set it up on this site to download it. This way, you'll have what you need for the polls.
In keeping with my commitment to getting out the word on all of the races for June 3rd, I wanted to talk a little about a friend of mine running for Superior Judge. Even better, I'll let her talk to you herself. She sent out a posting for me to use, and I've included most of it below.
Of note, Kathleen Blanchard has joined with superior judge candidates of multiple parties to create a true crime-fighting team of conservative judiciary candidates. Kathleen received the endorsement of the Lincoln Clubs of Los Angeles County, which is a true sign of a conservative candidate. Here is most of her message below, including the team of candidates I am endorsing for June 3rd. (The list includes both judiciary candidates endorsed by the Republican Party of Los Angeles County - Michael O'Gara & Michael Jesic.)
"Hi everyone! As you know, I am running for judge in the June 3rd election (seat 123). I am writing to solicit your help in getting the word out about the election. There are 11 superior court seats on the ballot, and not much else, so I fear that voter turn-out will be extremely low. What that means is that every vote counts A LOT.
I am asking that each of you send a mass e-mail to everyone you know in Los Angeles County, asking them to VOTE on June 3rd, and to vote for the best caandidate in each of the judicial races.
...(T)ell them about me (a career prosecutor, working in the Hardcore Gang Division, prosecuting gang-related homicides, endorsed by virtually every police officer organization in LA County, the LA Times, Antonovich, Knabe, Cooley, Baca, & more than 30 Superior Court Judges) and/or about my opponents (both of whom were rated "not qualified" by the Los Angeles County Bar Association), or you can simply refer them to my website at www.blanchard4judge.com where they can learn everything they need to know about my race.
In addition to my own race, I have some suggestions about whom to vote for in the other seats. These aren't just friends of mine; they are great prosecutors who have dedicated their careers to public service. Each of them would make an excellent judge. But, again, you don't have to believe me. Each has a campaign website where you can go to see their qualifications for yourself:
seat 69 Serena Murrillo www.murilloforjudge.com
seat 72 Hilleri Merritt www.merrittforjudge.com
seat 82 Thomas Rubinson www.tomrubinson4judge.com/
seat 94 Michael O'Gara ogara4judge.com
seat 95 Lance Winters www.wintersforjudge.com
seat 119 Jared Moses www.mosesforjudge.com
Seat 123 Kathleen Blanchard www.blanchard4judge.com
seat 154 Michael Jesic www.jesicforjudge.com
If you would please pass this information along to everyone you know, wherever they live in L.A. County, and ask them to do the same, I would really appreciate it. I'm trying to make it as easy as possible, so that people can just print out the list & take it with them to the polls. Thank you so much for all of your help! Please let me know if you have any questions."
I plan to compile all of my endorsements into one easy handout that I will send out, and will also try to set it up on this site to download it. This way, you'll have what you need for the polls.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Why the Central Committee elections matter...
Until I moved to San Pedro and got more involved with the County Party, I had never heard of County Central Committees. When I worked campaigns for gubernatorial candidate Dan Lungren, Bush 2000, and congressional candidate Tim Escobar in 2002 and 2004, I never once heard of the central committee structure or how they were "supposed" to be working to get out the Republican vote. I have some theories why, but I think more importantly than why past committees have been pretty much irrelevant in the campaigns I have worked over the past 10 years, I want to instill in everyone that reads this why we need stronger and more effective central committees.
I was introduced to the central committee organization in 2006 working for Michael A. Jackson's campaign. My first impression was that the central committee's purpose was to give seven people plus ex-officios a status as being the "Republican authority" of their respective district. They were supposed to meet once a month and discuss opportunities to recruit more Republicans for office. What I saw throughout Los Angeles County were a few members in each district trying to do just that; but I also noticed those that ran for central committee strictly for their own agendas. They assumed that a position on the committee meant coffers of money would open up, and that they were "entitled" to support from every Republican in their district, if not through donations at least every Republican vote in the district. What they failed to do was reach out and ask voters and locally-elected leaders HOW they could earn their support.
My biggest priority for my first term was to learn HOW to earn the support of the local leaders and learn from them how to win elections in their parts of the district. The biggest lesson I have learned is that voters do NOT want activists as legislators, so much as they want leaders that have shown action in their activism. They also want intelligent legislators who work their way up through their local councils, school boards and community organizations. If you look at the Democratic leaders who have been successful, they all came from local elections; so have most of the Republican elected legislators. So it makes sense that we need to get more active in electing more Republicans to our local offices in the district.
So long as we play the Democrats game of "non-partisan" elections, they will continue to win majorities on our city councils. No where is this more evident than in our three primary parts of the 54th Assembly District. In Long Beach, the Democratic Party has engaged in a 12-year effort to maintain an ultra-high majority. They have done this through the unions & special interest organizations, and I have to commend one of my counterparts, Sergio Carrillo, for keeping the "non-partisan" message resonating well. Not only have local Democratic candidates been able to hide behind this, they've even been able to convince Republican voters that local elections are somehow non-partisan. So let me ask a few questions about "local issues" to see if we could afford a little partisanship:
1) Do you like paying MORE property taxes or LESS property taxes?
2) Do you prefer MORE social welfare programs or LESS programs?
3) Do you prefer MORE local government regulations on small businesses, or LESS?
4) Do you prefer MORE crime (through ignoring increasing crime trends), or LESS crime by getting tougher on criminals and gangs (think City of Los Angeles vs. City of Torrance)
5) Do you prefer MORE local government spending or LESS government spending?
I hope now you can see why promoting Republican principles and values in local races is essential. But who should be taking on the responsibility to promote these by finding and supporting local Republicans throughout each district? THIS is the official mission of your local Republican Central Committee, and one that I take very seriously.
So long as I am chairman of the 54th AD Republican Central Committee, local Republicans who seek to make a difference in their city, be it Long Beach, Signal Hill, Avalon, Los Angeles, Rolling Hills Estates or Rancho Palos Verdes, will have a group of Republican leaders behind them. This is why I am running for another term on the committee; because we have work to do in 2009 & 2010.
To close, I have learned of an effort by a few candidates to divide Long Beach (& Avalon) Republicans from those in Palos Verdes & San Pedro by marginalizing the importance of a cross-district level of support. These "Greater Long Beach" candidates are missing a key component in their campaign: Support from ANY Long Beach elected Republican. Meanwhile, I am pleased to state that two of our best Long Beach Republican leaders, Long Beach Councilman Gary DeLong and LBUSD Board member Jon Meyer, have endorsed me, as well as my friend Davina Keiser, for election on June 3rd. I have received numerous other endorsements from across the district, and I have posted them at the top of the left column. Many of these leaders have expressed a desire for our central committee members to work together across the district and help each other when each local race comes up. Those I have endorsed understand this purpose, and voting for these seven will increase the strength of our committee to seek out good Republican candidates and give them the necessary volunteer and operational support to win local election.
I hope you will make sure to vote on June 3rd for myself and my six friends, and spread the word to all of your Republican friends in Long Beach, Avalon, Signal Hill, San Pedro and the Palos Verdes Peninsula. We have a lot of work to do, and a divided committee will have the same problems in 2 years that past committees did. A united committee will be able to effectively take on the unions and special interests battling to take over our local governments and our local schools.
Your vote matters on June 3rd!
I was introduced to the central committee organization in 2006 working for Michael A. Jackson's campaign. My first impression was that the central committee's purpose was to give seven people plus ex-officios a status as being the "Republican authority" of their respective district. They were supposed to meet once a month and discuss opportunities to recruit more Republicans for office. What I saw throughout Los Angeles County were a few members in each district trying to do just that; but I also noticed those that ran for central committee strictly for their own agendas. They assumed that a position on the committee meant coffers of money would open up, and that they were "entitled" to support from every Republican in their district, if not through donations at least every Republican vote in the district. What they failed to do was reach out and ask voters and locally-elected leaders HOW they could earn their support.
My biggest priority for my first term was to learn HOW to earn the support of the local leaders and learn from them how to win elections in their parts of the district. The biggest lesson I have learned is that voters do NOT want activists as legislators, so much as they want leaders that have shown action in their activism. They also want intelligent legislators who work their way up through their local councils, school boards and community organizations. If you look at the Democratic leaders who have been successful, they all came from local elections; so have most of the Republican elected legislators. So it makes sense that we need to get more active in electing more Republicans to our local offices in the district.
So long as we play the Democrats game of "non-partisan" elections, they will continue to win majorities on our city councils. No where is this more evident than in our three primary parts of the 54th Assembly District. In Long Beach, the Democratic Party has engaged in a 12-year effort to maintain an ultra-high majority. They have done this through the unions & special interest organizations, and I have to commend one of my counterparts, Sergio Carrillo, for keeping the "non-partisan" message resonating well. Not only have local Democratic candidates been able to hide behind this, they've even been able to convince Republican voters that local elections are somehow non-partisan. So let me ask a few questions about "local issues" to see if we could afford a little partisanship:
1) Do you like paying MORE property taxes or LESS property taxes?
2) Do you prefer MORE social welfare programs or LESS programs?
3) Do you prefer MORE local government regulations on small businesses, or LESS?
4) Do you prefer MORE crime (through ignoring increasing crime trends), or LESS crime by getting tougher on criminals and gangs (think City of Los Angeles vs. City of Torrance)
5) Do you prefer MORE local government spending or LESS government spending?
I hope now you can see why promoting Republican principles and values in local races is essential. But who should be taking on the responsibility to promote these by finding and supporting local Republicans throughout each district? THIS is the official mission of your local Republican Central Committee, and one that I take very seriously.
So long as I am chairman of the 54th AD Republican Central Committee, local Republicans who seek to make a difference in their city, be it Long Beach, Signal Hill, Avalon, Los Angeles, Rolling Hills Estates or Rancho Palos Verdes, will have a group of Republican leaders behind them. This is why I am running for another term on the committee; because we have work to do in 2009 & 2010.
To close, I have learned of an effort by a few candidates to divide Long Beach (& Avalon) Republicans from those in Palos Verdes & San Pedro by marginalizing the importance of a cross-district level of support. These "Greater Long Beach" candidates are missing a key component in their campaign: Support from ANY Long Beach elected Republican. Meanwhile, I am pleased to state that two of our best Long Beach Republican leaders, Long Beach Councilman Gary DeLong and LBUSD Board member Jon Meyer, have endorsed me, as well as my friend Davina Keiser, for election on June 3rd. I have received numerous other endorsements from across the district, and I have posted them at the top of the left column. Many of these leaders have expressed a desire for our central committee members to work together across the district and help each other when each local race comes up. Those I have endorsed understand this purpose, and voting for these seven will increase the strength of our committee to seek out good Republican candidates and give them the necessary volunteer and operational support to win local election.
I hope you will make sure to vote on June 3rd for myself and my six friends, and spread the word to all of your Republican friends in Long Beach, Avalon, Signal Hill, San Pedro and the Palos Verdes Peninsula. We have a lot of work to do, and a divided committee will have the same problems in 2 years that past committees did. A united committee will be able to effectively take on the unions and special interests battling to take over our local governments and our local schools.
Your vote matters on June 3rd!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
