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!

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!

2007-2008 Accomplishments & Objectives

In an earlier posting, I introduced the general purpose of the Republican Central Committee. But I'd like to do a quick run-down of the accomplishments of the current committee and the remaining objectives for this term. The current membership of this committee has done more to get involved in local elections than in recent history, and has built opportunities for the next committees to build upon.

Shortly after being sworn in at the December 2006 RPLAC meeting, we quickly got involved in the Signal Hill city council elections, particularly the campaign to elect Nancy Long, a Signal Hill activist working to get more transparancy from the current council. Thanks to efforts by this committee in both phone banking & walking precincts, we helped Nancy quickly become more competitive; Nancy was actually leading by 23 votes for the final seat prior to provisional ballot counts. Of course, this margin never holds for a Republican candidate like it does for a Democratic one. By the time the provisionals were done, Nancy had fallen short of election. After consulting with my San-Pedran raised friend Steve Baric, president of the CA Republican Lawyers Association, Nancy decided not to pursue a lengthy recount or lawsuit, and will instead hopefully run for one of the three open seats in 2009. I've saved my yard sign from her campaign, and look forward to working as soon as she files to add a Republican to the Signal Hill City Council.

In February, I had to make a decision to work with a local friend & conservative Democrat Richard (Dick) Vladovic in his election bid for the local LAUSD seat. No Republican filed for this seat, but two far-left Democrats, UTLA activist Jesus Escandon & Progressive (aka Cindy Sheehan) Neal Kleiner, had filed to challenge Vladovic. I made the decision that it was more important for Republicans to step up and have an effect on every local election, rather than have Republicans stay home & hope that local Democrats will choose the most conservative candidate. Dick Vladovic won election in May, and has been a great leader for the community. Because I worked closely to help him win election, we now have a connection that will help us in future elections. This is the "big picture" in furthering our principles and values.

In August 2007, this committee stepped up its commitment to the state party's mission of getting more involved in local races by supporting four Palos Verdes Republicans in the November elections for Rancho Palos Verdes City Council & the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District, my former hometown & high school district, respectively. A critical mistake we made was underestimating the influence of the local teacher's union (PVFA) & the Democrat incumbents. While Republican RPV City Councilmember Steve Wolowicz received the most votes of any candidate, our Republican challenger for the 2nd seat, RPV Traffic Commissioner Paul Wright came 80 votes short of the third and final seat. Paul ran a great campaign, and has already been encouraged by many, including myself, to run in 2009. In the PVPUSD race, we were unsuccessful in defending incumbent Dave Tomblin's seat and electing challenger Paul Neights. Both candidates were ironically painted as "union candidates" by the local union activists themselves, and unlike the City of Los Angeles, Palos Verdes residents do not exactly endorse the "union label". I learned a lot by participating in these races, and am still proud to have supported all four. I am already looking forward to the opportunities for both RPV City Council and the PVPUSD board for 2009.

For Tuesday's election, I have personally been working with San Pedro activists to fight Propositions S & 93, including ironically the local Democratic club. Most of their members also see the problems with these measures and worked with my local neighborhood council to hold a local information forum on Proposition S, the communications tax "preservation" measure. The forum was great for our side, and we recruited about 40 volunteers who walked their neighborhhods this past weekend to encourage voters to vote "NO". San Pedro is a great town, and has a lot of conservative Democrats that know "when to say when" to higher taxes.

We are currently engaged in the Long Beach Unified School District elections by encouraging Republicans to get involved in the campaigns for both incumbents Jon Meyer & Felton Williams. We'll continue to do so through their April re-election. We also support the recall effort of LBUSD Board member and TALB loyalist Michael Ellis, and will continue gathering signatures.

For the remainder of this year, once the Long Beach local elections are completed, our primary focus will be on winning the Assembly seat currently held by termed-out Assemblywoman Betty Karnette. We need to ensure our strongest candidate emerges to take on the strong Democratic candidate, likely LB City Councilwoman Bonnie Lowenthal. Bonnie is going to have a "machine" similar in structure to the Clinton one, and our nominee will need to be ready to spend and do what it takes to win. Bonnie will be a full-time candidate, so our nominee must be as well. This is primarily why I am asking ALL Republicans to get behind two-term PVPUSD Board Member Gabriella Holt, who has dedicated herself full-time to building the strongest campaign now to take on the Democrat nominee.

I'll go into a more detailed analysis of Gabriella Holt in a future posting.

For now, I encourage everyone to learn more about this committee and how to get involved in local elections, including Gabriella Holt's. 2008 offers numeroud opportunities for Republicans to make a difference; I hope we all find at least one and get involved.