This is my comment on the item in the "RonKayeL.A." blog yesterday ,"Apathy, Defeatism and the Solar-At-Any-Price Argument for Appeasement," speaking of Measure B, the Solar Energy proposal on next Tuesday's ballot that is going to cost a pretty penny- well, more like billions of dollars, that to get that to that size, you have 1,000 x 1,000,000 (one thousand times one million = one billion). See blog article: http://ronkayela.com/2009/02/apathy-defeatism-and-the-solar.html#comments
Council Member Bill Rosendahl said that first he opposed it and now he supports it, and he will make sure that everything is run so that there's no abuse when it comes to money, so go ahead and vote for it.
Nice Idea. It's only an idea, and what's Bill using for making good on his guarantee for anything if something goes badly? Political talk.
----------------------------------------------
Now, the comment:
First, who said that this is the ONE AND ONLY opportunity for a Solar Energy Project to occur for Los Angeles? I don't hear anyone saying "It's now or our choice will be forever barred in the future." Then why act that way.
Informed decisions are the best ones and impulsive or uninformed types ("I heard that...," and, "From what I know ...") are missing any secure basis to make a call.
Measure B lacks as much information needed for a true informed decision as it has proponents with everything to gain. Too many "interested parties," to use the legal term, to trust their judgment, especially when big dollars AND power will go their way. They don't even have any risk attached- that's all going to the DWP consumers. How much sweeter can it be for them?
Yeah, some real fatalists out there and that's what the Measure B "interested parties" including the IBEW, and the Mayor with his City Council rely on to get over, WITHOUT a full airing out of the facts. "Just trust us," is not enough for me to buy into this rigged game.
Would people get on a plane for their vacation, board the plane, and then have the destination and costs decided IN FLIGHT? You just about have the same condition here, and it's not going to be over in a few weeks as would be the case with the situation offered for illustration.
The Idea Man, Bill Rosendahl is so much the wrong guy to handle any watchdog function. First, he's a council member and can be voted out or recalled and so is not always going to be there. Besides, to stay in office, he'd throw the watchdogger advocates overboard if it meant staying employed.
Next, his judgment rests on what foundation? The elephant exhibit fiasco showed his inconsistencies. The decision for Billy, the elephant, was to ship him out to a sancutuary to be with other elephants and we stop going forward on the $42 million (so far) project for his home here at the Zoo.
Well, Bill changed his vote from NO as to project continuation, and that would send Billy out, to a vote of "YES." It was all Bill's style. First, the idea of keeping Billy in the best situation for Billy's health seemed to rule, and the construction was still not complete anyway. But a finance person with the city went on to present a tale of obligated expenses from STARTING the project- it wouldn't be all the $42 million, but still a few more from what already was spent.
O.K., so all by itself, a significant matter. Then the impact on "JOBS" THAT WOULD BE LOST gets tossed up for the consequence of stopping the project.
Now Bill is swayed, "Well if it means we'll lose jobs then I'm changing my vote."
What happened to the "Billy's best interests for health" that was pivotal to many advocates on both sides of the argument? For BILL, eff that, its "jobs" and so what if MORE money is thrown down if the work stops because we will stop the project and still cut our losses.
Now with Bill (the council member, remember the elephant is "B-I-L-L-Y"), it's like he's now an dollars-and-cents man, and the magic word, "JOBS" was spoken. Billy's welfare is now being completely overriden by finance, and finance not to the city but finance benefits to those "jobs" and, of course, they probably are UNION jobs, meaning VOTES for Bill.
If Billy's case was so heavily based on a moral question as many or all sides viewed it, how did money usurp that value to change the decision? Because it's related to votes and special interests and you just can't rely on people whose own jobs are swayed by all that.
The jobs issue sounded good, and the entanglement's additional costs per contract commitments that would have continued for a time should not have been bought at face value.
The decsion should not have been made on that day with the fressh information tossed in that had not been shown before this meeting.
Bill Rosendahl is FOR Measure B and his judgment and rationale are among the most fallible on the City Council. The track record in the recent example is very revealing as to Bill's decision making process.
The opportunity for a solar energy plan is still open and this last minute attempt to slide it by voters and to "trust" anyone in government is another exercise in the city council's deceit. And THAT deceit is fact, not opinion, for anyone willing to think back to the past examples of city council sponsored ballot measures.
Vote No and ask for a COMPLETE PLAN next time- with $, Dates, Names, and all INFORMATION that THIS PLAN IS MISSING
Posts
