Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Editorial From The Daily Breeze

San Pedro voters and the rest of the voters in the city of Los Angeles will have a chance to vote yes or no on Proposition B.

The measure calls for the purchase, installation, and use of solar panels on L.A. City buildings to be used to produce electricty for the city's grid.

The measure is hotly contested because of requirements written into the measure's language that would have the solar panels produced in China, over having U.S. made solar panels used.

It also calls for workers from IBEW locals to install and maintain the panels, even though there are other unionized workers who could do the job for less dollars per person-hour.

Solar panels on government buildings in not part of the debate, most know it is a good and long-needed method of greening the city.

The Daily Breeze in the Tuesday February 3 edition of the Op-Ed page offered the following editorial

Measure B burden falls on city of L.A.

No wonder Los Angeles city officials waited so long to release financial data about Measure B, the solar initiative on the March 3 city ballot. The first independent analyses were far from flattering.

Last week, our sister newspaper, the Los Angeles Daily News, got a copy of an independent assessment of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power that was not intended for public consumption. If this analysis is any guide, the "Green Energy and Good Jobs" program on the March 3 ballot will cost more than twice as much as city officials had been projecting.

But this week, DWP releases a report it commissioned that comes to a much sunnier conclusion about the cost of the measure.

This disparity between the two reports - one conducted as a requirement of the city charter, the other one commissioned by officials selling the solar initiative - only adds to the uncertainty of the measure.

Measure B asks the Los Angeles city voters to approve a rooftop solar panel program aimed at generating 400 megawatts of power by 2014. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who has endorsed the proposal, has set a goal of generating 1.3gigawatts of power by 2020.

The general intent is good - Los Angeles ought to harness one of its abundant natural sources of energy. But what has troubled many folks is how the measure was never vetted openly for the public. It was rushed onto the March 3 ballot by the City Council, which failed to require a cost-analysis by DWP officials before they endorsed it. It's nice to see council members putting their six-figure salaries as our representatives to such good use.

The DWP has said the project would cost an estimated $3billion, but solar tax credits would lower the cost to $1.5 billion. But auditors at PA Knowledge Limited figured the program would cost at least $2.8billion to $3.6 billion.

That's not an insubstantial discrepancy.

And we know from experience how DWP deals with cost overruns - it passes them right on over to ratepayers.

There are other concerns in this report. The authors state that only 20 percent of the capacity the DWP requires would come from rooftop panels, so much more energy would come from wind turbines.

In addition, the report questions whether the DWP has enough staffing to carry out the solar program.

Whose version are you going to believe? In the last month before the election, the burden will be on the city leaders to show voters why they should trust theirs.
One of the problems with this very bad measure is that too many folks will see the solar panel portion of the measure and just vote for it without reading the rest of the measure, the arguments for and against the measure, or learning for themselves, the truths of the measure.

The use of the Sun is a great way to produce more energy. Measure B is the wrong way to use the Sun's light to produce more electricity, I feel.


Anonymous said...

What's the problem? You are a Democrat right? This is how the party of socialists work. They package the deal like it will do such wonderful things for us and for the future generations and the rest of the dummys (majority of which are your fellow dems) will just buy into it. We all continue to pay out of our pocket while the Democrat leadership in LA line their own pockets and enjoy their job of public deceit (for the greater good of course!). Obama is "fixing" our nation in the same manner.

M Richards said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Yeah well I guess I'm a clueless Republican as I'm purplexed about this "demand-side economics" you are talking about. What the heck are you talking about exactly? Are you suggesting that demand is high right now? I'd say demand is quite low and as a result, jobs have been lost.
The Nancy Pelosi stimulous plan is a joke. Filled with funding of insanely stupid expenditures. Also, the idea of improving infrastructure is a joke as well, knowing that projects will not be funded and workers on the ground will not be working for years to come. The economy will rebound on it's own before that happens!! Tax cuts work! Let ME decide where my money will be spent! But ,no, the Democrats know what's good for me.
Also, the reason why I use the word Democrat is because that is what you are. Simple use of the English language would necessitate it. "Mark Wells is a Democrat" not "Mark Wells is a Democratic". The party is so delusional that they think because the name partially spells democratic, that they are! Far from it! They are for BIG Government and we all have known it for years. Unfortunately, as you should be able to clearly see, your party is moving beyond "Big Government" and into Socialism. Come on Mark, I think you are smarter than that. Who is behind Measure B? A Democratic? It's typical of the party you support.
Obama will do himself and this nation a favor if he "slides" to the middle. But don't worry, Nancy P and the Hollywood elite won't let that happen.

M Richards said...

Forgive me for my comment Anonymous and everyone.

It was pretty stupid to have written it when I was tired.

Currently Anonymous, I am a registered Democrat and a member of the Democratic Party.

I actually feel that party of today is leaning too far to the center and right, so I may go back to being registered as a member of the Green Party.

I do admire the minority party with their ability to stick together and have order better than the Democratics in both houses of Congress.

It is not the Democrat Party, it is the Democratic Party and the I thing the proper term is "Democratic leadership" and not "Democrat leadership" because there are more than one Democrat in leadership position.

I also consider socialism to be a type of economic structure, just like Capitalism is.

I do feel there are countries in parts of the world that work with a socialistic type of economy.

Capitalism as supported by Reaganomics, Arthur Laffer, and too many others seems to have his quite a snag on September 15, 2008.

What would the Capitalists have done if banks had been allowed to fail?

What seems to be happening right now is that Capitalism is needing some kind of bail out using funds from a Federal Government formerly headed by "W"?

I don't happen to like what the Democratic leadership and the Democrats are doing right now, because I do not believe they are being progressive enough in trying to end the hemoraging in the economy.

Neocons can claim with some degree of accuracy that since Janyary, 2007 when the Democrats took back control of both houses of Congress, that they have lacked abilities to get things done.

The fault is with their leadership not being able to organize as well as the minority party has done and the fact that the Democrats are willing to try and do things the Republicans did not do when they were in charge.

Between 1995 and 2007, the Republicans holding the leadership simply did not allow Democrats any reasonable ways to find compromise.

It was the Republican way only.

When Anonymous wrote about big government I have to take note that the Federal Government went from having a surplus when "W" was inaugurated, to the budget-busting deficits we have today.

Demand is high right now to have jobs that pay wages relative to what they were when "W" took office.

Demand is high for folks who want the spending power they had when "W" took office, but they lack today.

Demand is high for a rebirth in confidence that our government won't continue to consider its citizens as they have for the past eight years and longer.

There are a heck of a lot of conservative pundits that claim that the government works best for the people when it does nothing.

As the Democrats have been crucified for doing nothing since January,2007 I would have thought that the neocons would have been happy.

I guess they aren't.

There is absolutely no way "W" and Cheney will be able to rewrite history to rebuke the claim that "W" was the worst President in our nation's history and we have had some real stinkers in the past.

Do you remember a President who was widely quoted as saying, "Read my lips, no new taxes?"

In 2001, "W" promised all Americans and the rest of the world that we would get bin Laden.


With many Democrats continuing to complain and all the complaining coming from the party that lost many seats in the last General Election, maybe it is time for some type of peaceful revolution.

How long have representative democracies lasted in places where they were tried in the history of the world.

Socialism is an economic structure, just like Capitalism.

A country can have Democracy, Theocracy, Communism, Monarchy, Dictatorship, Representative Democracy, and several other types of rule of the people.

China seems to be trying some kind of Communistic Government using the economic structures of Capitalism. It ain't working to well for them right now and they do have quite a bit of Socialism remaining as their economic structure.

Russia is having a devil of a time with its attempts at Capitalism as their structure for their economy and basically a dictatorship as their form of rule.

Maybe it is time to rethink a Representative Democracy having a economic structure of Capitalism.

It doesn't seem to be working too well for us and when that happens, just look what it does for the rest of the world.

I'm willing to give President Obama a chance, even though he is moving closer to the center practically every day.

I am getting fed up with Pelosi and Harry Reed and the evidence that they are being bullied by the Republicans.

As for L.A. politics, I don't remember if any party affiliation is on ballots in elections for city of L.A. offices.

I know there are no party affiliations for elections to city offices in my city.

I don't like Antonio Villaraigosa, never have, never will.

I think L.A. voters can't do anything worse, and they may help out L.A. if they elect David Saltzburg, aka Zuma Dogg.

The folks who are behing Measure B are greedy and that doesn't have a party affiliation.

I would not be upset if the Dept. of Justice came in and took a look using the R.I.C.O. Act, at those who came up with the measure's language.

There are plenty of American companies that can produce solar panels and there are other unions that can install and maintain them other than the I.B.E.W.

Anonymous, if you ever worked for anybody else and you got a lunch break, vacation time off, health insurance, a reasonable number of hours of work during the day, overtime, and other benefits, then thank a union member, whether you like them or not.

If you inherited your wealth from your parents, won the lottery at a young age, never bought clothing made in America, or bought in a store in this country, perhaps you don't need to thank a union member.

If you feel the food you buy at the grocery store is fit to eat, if you appreciate the care provided by nurses and other healthcare professionals when you need it, thank a union member.

If you ever appreciated that you were able to fly someplace and not crash, all the while having professional service by folks in the airline industry, thank a union member.

Republicans and true neocons would not be in the position to complain, rant, and jaw at others if it had not been for unions because our nation would not have provided the growth we had for some many years, without unions.

Just look at our economy today and please reflect that union membership has slipped so much over the last too many years.

Our country grew and thrived when unions were strong.

Maybe it is time we get them stronger again.

M Richards said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

I guess you forget that the economy was trashed when your boy Clinton left office. President Bush revived the economy and it was strong for his entire presidency. Unemployment was never lower. Yes, we are in the crapper right now, but it was damn good for many years. That along with the FACT that we have not been attacked on our soil since 9/11 makes for a pretty good presidency all in all. My prediction is Obama and his policies will fail. The economy will rebound no matter what. Capitalists will eventually figure out what sells and then people will spend and then jobs will follow. The "stimulous" package will be proven to be a big mistake in the longrun and terrorism will be allowed to flourish under Obama. I just hope we don't get attacked again, but it will be highly likely.
As for your union rant. They were necessary in the old days of slave labor. It is not necessary now. Today unions just breed stupidity, greed, entitlements, and laziness. Kind of like the way the Democrat leadership wants the country to follow. I see why the two are such good bedfellows.

M Richards said...

Well actually, centerist Clinton left office with a surplus.

Reagan and both Bushes all left office after spending more than any other President before them and also gave us defecits that set records.

I guess you know believe bankers who are being bailed out are not Capitalists. It Capitalism and the greed that comes from folks who use other peoples's money to make them self rich, that has nothing to do with our current state of economic affairs.

I guess the lenders who offered sub-prime loans to reap the income they got from making those loans to foolish folks aren't Capitalists, either.

What about companies to get the Federal Government to provide them with no-bid contracts. It helps if the former Chairman of the board served for eight years as the V.P. doesn't it?

Capitialistic greed by just about everyone from the lenders to borrowers who saw stars in their eyes without reading the fine print of really understanding that their mortgages would have significant APR increases, are also part of the problem.

Stores that charge 24%++ interest on their credit cards, are they part of the Capitalistic system, too?

When our nation's productivity rates keep going up from their already high ranges without pay increases to match the work being done, isn't it the Capitalists that are to blame?

I thought there was a fellow who got upset with the money changers and money lenders a couple of thousand years ago. I guess he wasn't a very good Capitalist, was he?

When it comes back to the average that the owners of a company make about seven times the amount of their average workers, then perhaps there will be some real changes.

Don't tell me that it is only the owners who have the risk, because without the company, the workers won't have jobs.

So it is the workers who make the company successful in the long run and it is the management and Board who demand that the stockholders win out every time.

Something must change. It is the fiscal policies of the Reagan Revolution that brought about what we are facing today and even centerist Clinton and the Bushes did nothing to learn from the errors started with trickle down economics.

Greedy Capitalists made sure the money didn't trickle down to where it was needed most.

Now regular folks like me don't trust Capitalists, their companies, and why should we give our hard-earned money to folks who buy jets on our dime and have spent like there is no tomorrow?

If your plan is to decrease taxes and decrease spending, what happens when the State of California is already closed down almost 10% of the workdays of every month?

One way to cut spending is to get our troops out of Iraq pronto so we won't be spending so much over there.

Many social programs under "W" haven't kept up with growing costs, so their spending has already been cut or kept from growing.

The 1986 Reagan amnesty provided more illegal immigration, and neither Reagan or both Bushes did anything about that.

If all you can do is blame the Democrats, then you seem to be short-sighted to the fact that both major political parties have done us all wrong.

By the way, is Walter Moore going to show up at the Candidates Forum on Tuesday February 19, 2009?

It's going to be at Rolling Hills Prep, a pricey private school.

There will be some folks who live on the Palos Verdes peninsula who will probably attend.

I am going and I live in Dana R's Congressional District, and you know how Republican that is.