"Mayor Announces Carbon Reduction Surcharge to Promote Alternative Energy." Written by Press Office - Mayor of Los Angeles, Monday, 15 March 2010
http://ourla.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1706&Itemid=3233
Don't worry, the average bill will rise only about $2.50 per month- he says. "The average bill" and "about $2.50" gives them too much wiggle room for my tastes. Unless there is a guarantee that this is what MY bill will be, I don't fall for this one bit. The Mayor is a man who has left a trail of broken promises in his quest for higher office, still will an itching to move on, I suspect, if the opportunity arises. That opportunity seems highly unlikely given the serious mess he's got us into. But he's still lining up things at our expense to make himself look good, even if it's only in relation to the rest of the circus performers at city hall. If the mayor would step in and cover the bill if it were to rise above the stated amount here, then maybe I'd be a little more receptive to his story. For now, it's just a story- the benefit, that is. I do believe there will be another charge coming and that it will exceed the numbers claimed now by many times and continue to increase over a short span of time.
I believe that we stil have a lot of DWP and IBEW influence here with a lot of unstated agendas persisting after the Solar Energy Measure B was defeated last year at the polls. You might recall that the proponents of Measure B vowed to continue with the plan anyway, as they would be able to do so without any need for voter approval as the Measure would have allowed.
No matter what they say here, it's seems that the cause is the shortsightedness of the "leaders" of the city. They allowed the budget conditions to fester until finally reaching these huge proportions. Now they must deal with it by continuing to saddle the public, the "rate payer" with any and all expenses that are called for. The DWP is just to slimy in it's operations along with the City Council.
How can you shift over almost $150 million from DWP (which is from the equivalent of "profit") last week, giving it to the City general fund AND THEN say to the "rate payers" "We need more money to pay for all these things"? Maybe keeping the money IN the DWP might cut the need for sucking more dollars out of the public- do you think? Or does that make too much sense? Stand by on that since the Mayor has said paying MORE will SAVE you money. That will need a separate examination.
And again consider that the DWP pays it's IBEW union workers 20 to 40 percent higher salaries than comparable jobs within the city workforce paid by the "general fund." Consider further that the DWP tends to be overly generous with money to its employees. One example, spending a reported $50,000.00 for "lactation classes" for its employees. Is this even needed when they also have a first-class health plan that already provides for that benefit anyway? The "Because they can" may just be the answer. You can add in the rest, "and the public be damned."
And this is the same DWP that several years hired an outside public relations firm for a tidy sum to do work when it had it's own in-house function. AND, add to that the simple fact that you also have the DWP operating this public utility that is a MONOPOLY, so no one is going anywhere else for electricity or water in the city. So advertising due to competition does not appear reasonably necessary- as is the case with lots of DWP spending.
There is a lot to cause some healthy skepticism here and the more you look, the more reasons you find that were not disclosed before by DWP. What else are you not being told?
More to come.
Posts
