Even though it does not sit in the 54th AD, I want to bring attention of my fellow Republicans within the district to yet another attempt by some tax-and-spend city council members to implement a tax increase without having to claim responsibility for it later. We saw this response by Los Angeles City Council members last December when most of them voted to put Measure B, the boondoggle solar panel measure that was placed on the March 2009 ballot by council members who stated that they were simply letting voters decide. With all of the misleading commercials by both the IBEW and Mayor Villaraigosa, it took a committed drive by the bi-partisan "No on Measure B" group to narrowly defeat it by a single percentage point!
Tomorrow night, the Hermosa Beach City Council will consider placing a tax measure on the November 2009 ballot that will raise the business license fees by as much as 800%! Their process is the same as Los Angeles, except they need 4 of 5 members to place it on the ballot. (Mayor Kit Bobko, a solid defender of his constituents' tax dollars, is already openly opposed to this measure.)
Putting ballot measures in front of voters & letting them decide is like putting food in front of a child & letting her decide whether to eat it. Who is responsible for ensuring the health of the food? Who's responsible for ensuring the food is not rancid, tainted or in another way hazardous to eat? Who would be prosecuted if the child were seriously harmed or died as a result of the food?
Democratic city council members understand the importance of appearing fiscally responsible to their constituents. While voters tend to allow their federal & state legislators be much more liberal on spending, city councils have often been targets for constituents who want their tax dollar spent right. So the latest tactic, as employed by many of the Democratic City Council members in Los Angeles, is to vote to place a measure on an upcoming ballot and claim to be "neutral" on the measure by stating that they simply want the voters to decide.
The proposed motion, forwarded by the city sub-committee specifically organized to explore the feasibility of increasing business license taxes (and "simplifying the tax structure" per the sub-committee's forwarded motion) will be discussed at the regular city council meeting tomorrow night at 7 p.m. at the Hermosa Beach City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach. Expected speakers from the South Bay Tea Party, the Beach Cities Republican Club and prospective candidates for state & federal offices plan to attend.
Hermosa Beach also has its local election this November. Any incumbent that supports putting this on the ballot can expect to face significant criticism throughout their campaign. Voting simply to put a measure on the ballot and later trying to claim an opposition to it is simply hypocrisy.
The Hermosa Beach City Council meeting scheduled for tomorrow promises to be an active one! City council members need to realize that voters are on to them! If you vote to place a measure on the ballot, you must support it!
I would never place food in front of my children that I would be unwilling to eat myself. Elected officials need to learn their roles as advocates for their constituents.
Showing posts with label Measure B. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Measure B. Show all posts
Monday, July 13, 2009
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, 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
