Thursday, February 19, 2009

Pondering the Candidates Forum For The March 3 City of L.A. races

On March 3, I hope every eligible voter goes to the polls and uses as much information as they can when considering whom to vote for, in the contested races and on propositions and measures that appear on their ballots.

I will be heading for my polling place on March 3 even though my ballot contains candidates of three seats on the Los Angeles Community College District.

Since I don't live in San Pedro/Los Angeles, I don't get to vote in some real juicy races being considered on ballots of folks living in L.A.

At the end of this post are the Internet addresses of the candidates who showed up at the forum and for Ms. Hahn and Mr. David Saltzburg, aka Zuma Dogg. You will also find the yes and NO on Measure B sites, too.

But I have pondered further on who I would like to see win in certain races in Los Angeles and I attended the forum held where candidates for three offices in L.A. appeared and also a supporter and opponent for Measure B had a chance to be heard by the crowd.

John Stinson were almost asked to leave the room when we both could not stop laughing as some of the things said by folks came out.

The festivities began with two candidates for the office of Los Angeles City Attorney made comments and answered questions using a typical format for those such things.

Later on in the evening the two other candidates for City Attorney made appearances, but they came after the Q and A session.

The two candidates for City Attorney who were there at the beginning of the evening were Mr. David Berger, Esq and Mr. Noel Weiss, Esq.

Both of the gentlemen were interesting to listen to and learn about and both of them spoke very ill of Jack Weiss who may be the front runner in the race.

The well informed crowd of folks attending the forum seemed to all agree with the two candidates about Jack Weiss and I doubt Jack will receive a vote from anyone in the room.

Mr. Berger is an award-winning Deputy District Attorney for the County of Los Angeles and Mr. Noel Weiss is a lawyer in private practice who specializes in the rights of citizens against developers and he has worked with groups against over development in the greater Los Angeles Area.

The third candidate for the office of City Attorney to come in was Mr. Michael Amerian, Esq. Mr. Amerian is currently a Deputy City Attorney for the city of Los Angeles and he is the only one of the four candidates who has worked in the L.A. City Attorney's office.

The forth candidate who came from one forum and had to leave to attend another forum after being able to stay at our forum for too short of a period of time was Mr. Carmen Trutanich, Esq. Mr. Trutanich is also a Deputy District Attorney for the County of Los Angeles.

It appears that "Nuch" being a true "Pedro Boy" will garner the majority of votes from San Pedrans.

Mr. Trutanich also can claim endorsements from a wide variety of government types as well as the I.L.W.U. and the Los Angeles Times.

I have a very good idea that any one of the four candidates who appeared at the forum would do a much better job as City Attorney than the current City Attorney, Rock Delgadillo has done.

All four of the candidates were very animated about their dislike of Jack Weiss, the fifth candidate running for City Attorney.

I believe all four are very correct in their dislike and great distrust of Jack Weiss.

I think it is very understandable that Carmen Trutanich will garner the majority of votes from voters in San Pedro and I think that town should be very proud of the work their native son has done over many years.

Noel Weiss is the only candidate who is not currently employed in any government agency.

It may be time for a true outsider to take the helm of the City Attorney's office. Noel Weiss has spent many years advocating and serving regular citizens against developers and even government entities who attempt to over-govern the people.

Noel Weiss has provided guidance, information, assistance, and resources when many of us are dealing with the Ponte Vista at San Pedro project and Noel Weiss is very leery of developers who attempt to change the nature of communities and Noel Weiss has demonstrated that he serves all of us even without being employed by a government agency.

If I could vote for a candidate for the office of Los Angeles City Attorney, I would consider Carmen Trutanich but I would mark by ballot by the name of Noel Weiss.

The second set of candidates to provide their accomplishments and views at the forum were two candidates for the office of Los Angeles Controller.

Ms. Susy Evans and Mr. Nick Patsaouras were the only two candidates for that office to appear.

I am not that interested in the office of City Controller, but both of the candidates spoke well, answered questions with intelligence and both could do a good job in the office they are seeking, I feel.

However, Mr. Nick Patsaouras has served OUR community and the greater Los Angeles area for many years and he also firmly demonstrated the correct position concerning Measure B on the March 3 ballots.

I think both candidates could do the job they are seeking in a very professional manner and would be an asset to the population of Los Angeles.

For this office I lean slightly towards Nick Patsaouras, but only slightly.

The next issue that came up at the forum was the debate/debacle/hilarity concerning Measure B.

Measure B would provide solar panels on about 25% of Los Angeles' public buildings and is the most debated and contested measure that has come up in years, in the city of Los Angeles.

It also brought out the most laughter and almost got John Stinson and I kicked out of the room.

Mr. James Unger, a paid spokesperson for the support of Measure B debated Mr. John Stammreich in what turned out to be quite the fun time where James was basically reduced to the ignorant fellow he, unfortunately is.

John Stammreich and I are on the opposite ends of the political spectrum. John actually agrees with The Random Lengths News' publisher Mr. James Preston Allen and that happens almost never, but they both do on this subject. John has been quoted in print that it is extremely odd that he and Mr. Allen have basically the same views on Measure B.

During the debate and the Q and A session between James and John, there were many issues in dispute.

Even poor James disputed himself from time to time and many of us could not help laughing at the fellow.

You should probably know that there was probably only James Unger in the room that will vote for Measure B, but the trooper he is, he still came out for the oddity.

When the costs were debated James contended that the average residential user's monthly increase would be only about $1.00 to pay for the placement and maintenance of solar panels.

James stated he thought just a $1.00 increase per month was reasonable.

John however pointed out that the D.W.P. is already going to raise the average monthly bill about $13.00 per month without the added costs if Measure B passes.

John was not disputed by James, the supporter when John mentioned that the suspected costs would create the need to raise monthly rates about $1.00 per month for 52 years to pay off the Measure.

James, even though he stated that he thought $1.00 per month may be reasonable then stated he thought the monthly charges would probably be much higher because he considered it taking 52 years to pay of the debt would not happen and the added costs would have to be repaid long before the 52 years had elapsed.

Well this got John Stinson and I going and we simply could not stop because of what was contended with next.

Poor, poor James Unger happened to comment that the D.W.P. knows something about electrical generation because they built Hoover Dam.

John was quite quick to respond that he didn't thing the Hoover Dam was a solar project.

Okay so with that, we were in tears. James was trying to find support for solar generation in the city of Los Angeles and John Stammreich had to remind James that the Hoover Dam has nothing to do with solar panels.

John Stammreich also pointed out something that has never been refuted by James or other supporters of Measure B.

It seems that less than 10% of the I.B.E.W. members who would install and maintain the solar panels actually live within the limits of the city of Los Angeles.

James claimed that companies would be moving into Los Angeles to attempt to get more business dealing with electrical generation by means of solar panels.

John Stammreich then pointed out that if the Measure passes, those very companies would be charged higher rates for their electricity.

Measure B would have solar panels built in China brought to Los Angeles and installed by I.B.E.W. workers who would earn far much more than other unionized workers who could do the jobs for less costs.

The measure was basically run through City Council approval without any of the Council members, other than Jack Weiss knowing the true facts of the measure.

The proposed costs for the measure are not factually known because the first audit of the measure was so bad, a second set of comments had to be issued and they showed a dramatic increase in costs for the project.

Unfortunately for many of us, probably far too many L.A. voters will see any measure suggesting solar panels as a good thing and vote the very lousy measure in.

All the candidates that appeared at the forum are either very opposed or dramatically opposed to Measure B and L.A. voters should vote NO on Measure B.

The last issue to be debated was who will win the March 3 election for the 15th Council District for the city of Los Angeles.

Ms. Janice Hahn, the current holder of the seat was not present at the forum due to a commitment she made last year.

In her place was Ms. Canizales, Ms. Hahn's senior assistant in the San Pedro office.
Also seated next to Ms. Canizales was Mr. Gordon Teuber, another senior aide to Ms. Hahn.

The only candidate to actually show up for the office was Mr. Christopher Salabaj.

The back and forth between the representative for Ms. Hahn and Mr. Salabaj was polite and folks learned more than expected about some of the positions Ms. Hahn has taken and what Mr. Salabaj would do if he were elected.

Mr. Salabaj pointed out that Ms. Hahn used "Quimby funds" to build the San Pedro Welcome Park which many in our community feel is a real boondoggle.

Mr. Salabaj also pointed out that Ms. Hahn dramatic yet unsuccessful attempt to get the anti-gang Measure A passed would have required an increase in property taxes while it would have allowed funds for a very small area of Watts and no place else in Ms. Hahn's District.

The most troubling thing we learned at the forum is that Ms. Hahn either tacidly supports or is neutral on Measure B and that is a real problem.

Ms. Canizales did a pretty good dodging dance around the issue when asked about whether Ms. Hahn supports or opposes Measure B and she never stated that Ms. Hahn opposes Measure B.

Over the years there has been many comments written about how Ms. Hahn is not willing to take firm stands on a number of issues her constituents feel she should. Ms. Hahn also provided frustration by a number of her constituents over her activities and measures to deal with gangs.

Perhaps it may be time to either put the scare into Ms. Hahn by having voters vote for Mr. Salabaj or simply elect Christopher Salabaj as the new 15th District Councilman for the city of Los Angeles.

Ms. Hahn has publicly called for the baseball diamonds remaining on Knoll Hill and that Eastview Little League be allowed to hold games there even after the current contract expires.

Many individuals, including Ms. Hahn have been informed repeatedly that is really doesn't matter what anyone in and around the area truly want, it is the State of California that is quite willing to sue agencies over the legal uses of Knoll Hill and Ms. Hahn knows that.

It really doesn't matter whether the Harbor Department, the Port of Los Angeles, the L.A. Department of Parks and Recreation and the City Council agrees to or provides contracts for. The State has repeatedly informed everyone that they are perfectly willing to sue and I do not believe any city or county agency wishes to spend dollars they do not have against lawsuits brought about by the State of California.

I am also concerned that Ms. Hahn has not been pushing hard enough to help redevelop downtown San Pedro and also working harder on the Waterfront Redevelopment project.

Maybe it is time to get a fresh face into the job of representing the 15th District and the people who live and work within the District.

As much as I appreciate the work Ms. Hahn and her staff have done in dealings with Ponte Vista and the redevelopment of the former McCowan's Market site, if I got to vote, I would mark my ballot by the name of Christopher Salabaj.

Many folks know that Ms Hahn has demonstrated an interest in becoming an L.A. County Supervisor, just like her father was.

The current L.A. County Supervisor for the District ends his current term in 2012 and is termed out in 2016.

Ms. Hahn is running for her last term as a member of the City Council and it may make folks wonder if Ms. Hahn would be willing to serve a full term as a City Council Member or try for Mr. Don Knabe's job before another City Council term ends.

If Ms. Hahn is reelected, might her current constituents have only a part-time Council member in 2012?
At the forum, there were plenty of handouts including two magazines.

The San Pedro 2008/2009 Community Guide and Business Directory has a map of most of the peninsula, including all of San Pedro.

One residential project was singled out on the map in the middle of the Directory. I bet you can guess what property was named and outlined on the map.

The San Pedro Business Journal has an article beginning on Page 1 about the upcoming Honorary Mayor campaign. In the article are photos and comments about past Honorary Mayors.

Can you guess who is missing from the article? The only hint I am willing to provide is: "current".

I guess you all realize by now that I have a very odd sense of humor that doesn't necessarily translate into humor many can understand. I like subtle humor and things like seeing Ponte Vista outlined and named on the map and the omission of Mr. Joe Donato from the article on Honorary Mayor seems a bit funny to me.

The forum proved to be much funnier than I thought it would be and I had planned for a few laughs even before the event began.

I am sorry that my candidate for Mayor of Los Angeles did not show up, but I guess Mr. David Saltsburg, aka Zuma Dogg had other events and forums to go to.

In these tough economic times we all need humor and a big shakeup in the way the current systems operate.

The folks I hope you vote for would do all that and more, I feel.

Just think of all the tourists that would benefit the L.A. economy coming to town to be part of what could happen if Zuma Dogg is elected Mayor.

The City Attorney, City Controller, and 15th District picks I'd like to see elected would help keep L.A. trimmed and the L.A. City Council might actually do something for the folks who provide their pay.


Zuma Dogg said...

Sorry I missed the forum in San Pedro. Not that I was too busy, but I wasn't invited so I didn't know about it.

I answered some questions for L.A. Daily News on the environment, and I mentioned San Pedro and the L.A. Port pollution problem and how the district bears the burned for the rest of the nation, since 40% of all U.S. goods roll down the 710, taxing you with the pollution.
So I said I would call Barack Obama and tell him we need Federal money to help mitigate the problem.

Anonymous said...

On October 15, 2008 the Measure B Motion was introduced by Councilmembers Garcettii, Greuel, and Perry. This motion was seconded by Councilmembers Rosendahl, Parks and Hahn.

On November 4, 2009 City Council voted to place Measure B on ballot.

ITEM NO. (26) - Motion Required

COMMUNICATION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY, RESOLUTIONS and ORDINANCE TO BE PRESENTED relative to placing before the voters at the March 3, 2009 Primary Nominating Election a Charter amendment that would authorize the Mayor and the City Council to offer incentives to businesses to retain and attract businesses.

10 Votes Required
Richard Alarcon - Yes
Tony Cardenas - Yes
Eric Garcetti - Yes
Wendy Greuel - Yes
Janice Hahn - Yes
Jose Huizar - Yes
Tom LaBonnge - Yes
Bernard Parks – Absent
Jan Perry – Absent
Ed Reyes – Yes
Bill Rosendahl – Absent
Greig Smith – Absent
Jack Weiss – Yes
Herb Wesson – Absent
Dennis Zine – Yes

Vote NO on Measure B.

M Richards said...

Thanks anonymous 11:02

Here is another example why voters in the 15Th District might just want a change.

We have witnessed many changes in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government and even though some changes have occurred in the Legislative Branch, much of that 'change' has been a change in which Party stalls more that before.

We certainly have seen some very awful changes in the economy and with the financial institutions that want our trust while trying to get our eyes averted to their greed.

So just maybe we need some real change in the government of the city of Los Angeles.

I still haven't seen much in the last four years from Antonio that makes me feel he has any idea of how to protect the citizens of Los Angeles by helping to keep the Depression/Recession from hitting Angelenos harder.

Both Antonio and Janice have never attempted to avoid any photo op, anytime and anywhere.

I still haven't found enough reasons to consider David Zuma Dogg wouldn't at least help L.A. more than Antonio has.

That Walter Moore fellow should probably move to Idaho or Eastern Washington as he doesn't seem to like, respect, or appreciate folks who came from south of the U.S.A.'s southern border.

San Pedro residents are going to vote en masse for OUR community's great candidate for City Attorney, even though I would prefer NOEL Weiss to win.

There is no way any L.A. voter should vote for Jack Weiss.

Carmen 'Nuch' Trutanich is a true San Pedran and an older "San Pedro Boy" and that means he would probably be as good of a City Attorney as NOEL Weiss would be.

Noel Weiss knows that San Pedro has a favorite son and thank goodness that favorite son is NOT jack weiss.

These are very hard days in San Pedro and it's not going to get easier, especially if L.A. continues to have photo op politicians.

15Th District voters might want to give Chris Sabajal their vote and let Ms. Hahn have plenty of time to prepare for her inevitable run for L.A. County Supervisor.

As for the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, our City Council election is coming up later this year and there are a number of candidates running.

Anonymous said...

Correct CF No. 08-2795

On November 4, 2009 City Council voted to place Measure B on ballot.

ITEM NO. (25) - Motion Required

CF NO. 08-2795
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY, RESOLUTIONS and ORDINANCE TO BE PRESENTED relative to placing before the voters at the March 3, 2009 Primary Nominating Election, the Los Angeles basin solar power, green energy and jobs development program.

Anonymous said...

as far as i know, random lengths has not taken a formal position on measure B. generally speaking, the publisher is not opposed to projects that are considered environmentally friendly and supported by local environmental groups.

James Unger said...

I am so glad that I was entertaining and I do not dispute your sense of pity for me (sniffle), it was a tough crowd, but factually a number of things you wrote are simply inaccurate.

I don't know where Mr. Stammerich gets his figures but future DWP rates aside, I stand by all of the serious analysis which states that the maximum increased cost to ratepayers of Measure B would be a dollar a month. LA's grid needs upgrading and we need more power, the question is do we invest in a billion dollar coal or natural gas plant- with ongoing and uncertain fuel costs - or in an equal capacity of solar generation costing 1-1.6 billion dollars, which requires no future fuel and limited maintenance (leaving aside the tremendous environmental and public health benefits).

I did dispute John's bizarre back-of-his-cocktail-napkin math that Measure B would take 52 years to pay for. The DWP's annual budget is over 4 billion dollars, by John's calculations it would take us over 2 centuries to pay one year of the DWP's budget...hmmmm. He clearly doesn't understand the financing of public agencies...

My Hoover dam comment, which I admit may have seemed like a non sequitur, was obviously not intended to imply the Hoover dam is a solar facility...ummmmm...

I was pointing out the long and successful history of the DWP and IBEW, who have been delivering reliable low-cost power to the city of Los Angeles for well over a hundred years. Right now they have a 13-megawatt solar program (far too small in my opinion) and many successful renewable projects of different types. I admit, these things can be confusing- but the Hoover dam is of course...a hydropower...dam.

I have met hundreds of IBEW workers and all of them lived in LA. John has probably met none, and quoted no source for his strange conclusion that only 10% live in the city, so I didn't bother disputing it...I do so now, it has no basis.

It was an amusing night for me, as well. What made me laugh was Mr. Stammerich's conclusion that solar manufacturers would forgo a %30 bid local bid preference and participation in a billion dollar program, because of a potential 1% electrical rate increase. Tell that to Solar Integrated who are poised to hire 750 new workers just to fill a tiny portion of the demand created by Measure B for LA manufactured panels.

We've had a long public debate, I've been to groups of every kind, regardless of how this got on the ballot its had received more sunshine then any DWP project ever has, ending with a vote of the people.

I think that on March 3rd they will speak for solar power better than I ever could.

James Unger
Deputy Campaign Manager - Yes on B

(ps thanks again for inviting me, it was my pleasure)

M Richards said...

Thanks Mr. Unger, for your comments.

If you wish to provide me with city names of I.B.E.W. workers who would work on installing the debated solar panels, I would be very happy to provide evidence that would dispute Mr. Stammreich's claim that hasn't been provided any facts to refute, so far. is my Email address and I keep secrets extremely well.

I happen to regard the opinions of unpaid, involved, interested, educated, and reasonable folks over the opinions of paid spokespersons for a particular campaign.

While I belonged to CWA for almost 28 years, I certainly respect union workers, all union workers.

I cannot believe there are other union workers who could not install American made solar panels for less of a unit or hourly cost of I.B.E.W. members.

I think union workers must install and maintain all solar panels on government and public buildings, but it does not have to be I.B.E.W. members.

I feel other union workers know a considerable amount of information compared to I.B.E.W. members.

When I have read numerous reports that state that the contracts to supply the solar panels will be given to businesses in China, I can't help wondering where the proof is that states that all of the solar panels used under Measure B guidelines would be purchased from companies manufacturing them in the United States of America.

I also don't know which report of the measure's actual costs I should believe.

The measure does stink of being created in the back rooms of City Hall by folks lobbying for more money and influence within Los Angeles.

How come there were no other unions represented in the negotiations related to the measure, other than I.B.E.W.?

If Progressives like Ron Kaye, James Preston Allen and many other including Ms. Soledad Garcia join with conservatives like Mr. Stammreich and quite a few others who are farther right along the political spectrum, all to dissaprove of the measure, what might that truly suggest about the measure.

Its creation was based on non-transparent, backroom dealing that was pushed through the City Council with far too little discussion.

The fact that it was created during the very last of eligability suggests that it was placed on the ballot far too soon.

Fortunately for supporters of Measure B and unfortunately for folks like me who strongly object to the manner the measure was created, pushed through and lobbied hard by paid individuals, the measure will probably pass.

It need only a simple majority.

Too many voters will see "Solar" on the measure and vote for it without reading either side of the arguements regarding the measure.

Far too many Angelenos have their personal economy on their minds and they will vote for "free" power generation over coal, gas, nuclear, and even hydrodynamic.

The majority of voters won't care about whatever the costs add up on their DWP bills, no matter how much more the measure will cost.

You have a hot-button measure that suggests something for 'free' to folks who aren't really interested in reading the facts.

As much as I hate to write what I am about to right, you and other supporters of Measure are banking on the following......

The measure is actually and factually based on the lack of intelligence of far too many voters who will vote "Yes" on Measure B, and I truly believe you know that all the way to the bottom of your soul.

I hate to believe what you know to be true.

If I were to write a measure that stated that all persons owning a foreign vehicle could trade their old vehicle in for an American-made vehicle and only have to give the dealer $1.00, I doubt that the measure would not pass by a wide majority.

I would also have to write into the measure that vehicle registration costs would have to go up by $2.50 for every registrant for the next several hundred years, but I don't think most folks would care.

Measure B is similar to my whim.

It may cost an added $1.00 per month onto the average residential electrical bill, untill the cost raises about $2.00 per month, until it is raised $3.00 per month, so forth and so long.

You even admitted that the monthly cost would probably be raised quite a bit over what the measure now proposes because of the thinking that 52-years is a long time to pay off a bond measure, or any other measure.

Supporters of Measure B took a very good idea and used that idea to their own advantage knowing how gullible too many voters in Los Angeles are.

Electricity generation by the use of solar panels was going to come up sooner or later. You guys took the sooner approach to get the most profit at the lowest costs for supporters.

If I told voters who will vote for Measure B that they could have lifetime free admission to Disneyland, they would scoop that up in a N.Y. Minute.

They would not care that everyone's trash fees would have to be raised about $5.00 per billing cycle because folks are happy to receive goodies at the expense of the entire population.

I feel the bubbly will be flowing by about 11:00 PM on the evening of March 3, 2009, at the places where supporters of Measure B will have gathered.

Gosh, oh gosh, I truly and desperately wish that I am very wrong and that I will need to serve myself a de-feathered and fully cooked crow.

But you Mr. Unger and I know that it probably won't happen.

After March 3 it looks like the measure will be court-bound.

I hope the Federal Government, the State Attorney General, the District Attorney and the L.A. City Attorney explore the RICO act and every document that placed the measure on the ballot.

If some supporters, union leaders, and politicians land in jail over the matter, I shall not shed a tear, except unless they are tears of joy or laughter.

James Unger said...

Ms. Richards,
Since Mr. Stammerich made the 10% claim without any source (which I have never heard anywhere else and I've heard some wild claims) it is up to him to provide some support for that. Much of the manufacturing will be done at Solar Integrated in South Central LA, and the rooftops and public land is all within the city...why would the majority of the workers live elsewhere? Do DWP workers commute long distances just to make themselves to non-Angelinos, and thus harder to identify with?

Rather then get into a back and forth on the entire program I will say only this...

The RICO statute is used to prosecute felony racketeering cases and not to "send people" to jail for putting clean renewable energy projects on the ballot that a few folks dont understand and thus dont like.

Once again I was happy to attend the council and have enjoyed this spirited debate. I am pleased that the voters of LA will have the final word and I continue to trust in them.


M Richards said...

Mr. Unger, now you are beginning to sound insulting.

To try and contend that the RICO Act was established to prosecute individuals over solar energy production demonstrates you lack of faith with many of the voters.

The investigations should begin with how, why, and who were involved in placing the measure on the ballot and what payments, consents, claims, and obligations were offered to individuals and groups seeking to have the measure places on the ballot in the first place.

It is can be proven that I.B.E.W. conspired with City Government officials to provide for them regulations specifically designed for their benefit alone, at the cost of taxpayers and all competition, then that is something that must be investigated.

If installation and maintenance of any solar panels placed on public buildings is only allowed for one union or one company without competitive bidding for all goods and services, you will have problems, and you know that.

If the measure indicated, in any way, that non-competitive bidding is authorized for the purchase of solar panels by companies in China, that may price the panels higher than U.S. Companies, some folks will need to be investigated as to whether their actions, and proclaimations to companies was not beyond the law.

If solar panels can be manufactured and delivered by companies in the United States at a cost comparable companies in China, and they are not offered bids, then something is truly amiss.

It would be nice if solar energy companies move to the Los Angeles area and do all of the work using unionized workers.

But if it comes to pass that only a company from China is slated to produce the panels for installation and maintenance by only I.B.E.W. members, then there needs to be investigations begun to find out why that might occur, no matter what the costs, prices, and hours have been considered.

Full disclosure is also necessary to insure that each and every regulation, guideline, law, and proposals were provided to the widest number of people possible and in the public domain.

To suggest with your writing that the RICO Act has anything to do with actual solar panels is disrespectful to me and others in the community.

I rarely agree with John Stammreich, as we are on completely opposite sides of many manners and issues.

When John and I agree on something, and are joined by Ron Kaye, Soledad Garcia, most candidates for offices on March 3, and a wide range of folks on all sides of the political spectrum, in should and must be concluded that Measure B is bad for DWP ratepayers in the city of Los Angeles.

When one also considers the facts of how the measure was created and the timeframe which was used, that also suggests that there are many things that must be investigated.

Solar energy generation is important, necessary, wanted, and supported by a majority of folks in OUR community.

However, you and I both know that solar energy generation using Measure B is not in the best interest of the voters when simply taking a little longer to learn more, discuss more, and not slam through such a flawed measure, would be better for everyone. You even talked about the speed in which the measure was placed on the ballot.

Might you be a used-car salesperson when not being a paid spokesperson and/or lobbyist?

Anonymous said...

Top 10 Reasons to vote NO on Measure B

10) The success of Measure B depends on tax credits and depreciation schemes that were "listed" by the IRS on October of '08. In other words, the plan's success depends on "tax shelters" that are hardly attractive to billion dollar investors.

9) The number of DWP customers having their utilities disconnected for failure to pay is at an all-time high. These are tough times economically for everybody. Can we afford rate increases?

8) The DWP commissioned the Huron report, (favorable to Measure B) while dismissing the PA Consulting report (unfavorable to Measure B) all the while ignoring their own DWP report that supports the unfavorable findings of the PA Consulting report.

7) Suggestions that a multi-billion dollar program can be implemented with only a $1 a month impact on the average customer requires us to accept that the $20 million a year would somehow service the debt. This is simply bad math.

6) The DWP's most recent hiring authorization resulted in 1000 jobs of which 76% remain unfilled. If the DWP has so many open spots, why the suggestion that Measure B is necessary for the creation of good jobs? It appears they have difficulty filling the current openings.

5) With 5 other solar-certified unions standing by and ready to work, the exclusive relationship with one union hardly seems like the most cost effective approach to maintaining a competitive labor expense for the proposed plan.

4) Suggestions by DWP management that Measure B is necessary in order to lock in the plan through transitions in City leadership are contradicted by reality. Measure B actually allows the City Council to make revisions to the plan without coming back to the people of Los Angeles. City Charter be damned!

3) Measure B does absolutely nothing to replace any of the fossil fuel power generation plants now operating and any claims that Measure B will reduce the air pollution in Los Angeles are simply false.

2) 33 Neighborhood Councils stand in opposition to Measure B and are joined by the LA County Republicans, the Progressive Democrats, Chambers of Commerce, Unions, City Leadership and Political Candidates and our City's Watchdog, Controller Laura Chick who says "I will be voting NO on Measure B, because I think the entire process of how it ended up on the ballot stinks. I don't think it's been done in an open and understandable, much less thoughtful, way."

1) Measure B is a 3 Billion Dollar Boondoggle!

Vote NO on B.

James Unger said...

Ms. Richards
I did not intend to be personal and I wish you wouldn't be as well. I was just confused as to why you think people should be indicted for putting something on the ballot you disagree with.

I am not a used car salesman and I am not a lobbyist. I am a kid working full time on a campaign I believe in. I often go to places where people have strong disagreements with the Measure I represent to engage in a civil dialogue about issues. If I hadnt been lucky enough to be hired to do this full time, I'd be volunteering to help as I've done on other campaigns in the past while working food service/retail.
I was trying to be humorous and I apoligize if you found it insulting. I hope that we can engage in respectful dialogue without name calling in the future.

James Unger
Deputy Campaign Manager
Yes on B

M Richards said...

Thank you again, Mr. Unger

You and John were very entertaining and quite funny during the forum.

If you read my blogs and especially the one I don't give out the URL for, you will see what kinds of comments I get based on my opinions concerning difficult and anxiety-filled issues.

I am quite sure you have a hard time dealing with opponents of Measure B who actually have read the materials on the issue.

But I still feel that you are also somewhat pleased that the great minority of the number of folks voting on the measure on Tuesday, haven't read the material on the issue.

I respect folks who feel their issue will be passed because they also feel that ignorance is bliss.

All supporters of the measure need to really state is that there will be more electrical generation, using solar power in the largest city of the Great Basin of the Mojave Desert.

Placing solar panels anywhere on a desert may be a good idea, even though the way it is done is questionable.

It's really a no-brainer for far too many voters.

Solar panels in the desert. Who could possibly object to that particular sentence?

If you add to your arguments that energy produced by solar panels can be used to power pumps of water wells, again here in the desert, you might just happen to find a line of folks waiting at the polls before they open, just to vote YES to a measure that has absolutley nothing to do with solar panels specifically powering water wells.

Heck, with those two issues joined together, you can use both sides of the DWP as a marketing tool.

Facts don't seem important enough for too many voters and I hope the folks who are paying you are already chilling the champaign for Tuesday night.

Some of them may, however, need to retain some really good lawyers because of the manner in which the measure was created and how it was placed on the ballot.

I also hope that the DWP and the I.B.E.W. have good lawyers, too.

I can see some lawsuits already under consideration because of a lack of competitiveness the measure spells out in the wording of the measure.