The Los Angeles City Council meeting yesterday- Wednesday, April 8th- brought out some lively debate on the DWP’s proposal for a rate hike in connection with a need for conservation measures to be mandated. The whole thing looked like another incident-more like a crime report- of the taxpayer getting hit on for more money, and without any say so. This time it was the
DWP asking for that. What else is new? But there was a little different situation unfolding on that agenda item.
The Wednesday agenda brought some lively commentary from Council Member Janice Hahn. Hahn usually makes comments like the rest of the council, the run-of-the-mill routine pitches that praise this person or that, or that just waste more time for telling us what we already should know- like most of them do, I repeat.
Yesterday she acted like a person concerned with the welfare of her constituents and the city at large. The
DWP tried to get approval from the
Council for
their proposal that relates to conservation. But the idea of conservation is not in the form of supplying a list of guidelines or tips- it’s about
MORE COSTS to charge consumers. If you violate the provisions that would take effect in July you can expect to see a jump in your water bill. There is some benefit that the
DWP says happens for those who reduce consumption but reality clashes with promises and I have yet to see honesty in their dealings with the public.
DWP commissioners approved the proposal after Mayor Tony announced the urgency of the condition due to a reduction of water supply . That was over a month ago when the
Mayor made his announcement.
Council Member Hahn said she “just got this like yesterday,” and needed time to examine the terms. The council voted to put if off for a couple of weeks to give them time to see what was going to be the real impact.
I see this dramatic change in Council behavior coming directly from that Garcetti-pushed approval of the plan to put “Solar Measure B” on the March ballot. Council members were put into a bad position by their common practice of rubber-stamping approval of anything that came to them that originated from the
mayor. The flaws and misrepresentation on
Measure B that came to light made the council members look bad. They don’t want to get into that
“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me” condition by approving the proposal that has serious impact on the residents.
You can see Ron Kaye’s item yesterday, WATER UPDATE: Council Rejects Rate Hike -- For Now, on his blog,
http://ronkayela.com/ for his description of what happened and the reader comments, too. You can see a
video clip from the council meeting there with
Janice Hahn very involved and very critical of the way things have gone, a plus for constituents that day.
The Council will end up coming back to this agenda item after doing a damage control check and then approve it. They might make a change or two for cosmetic reasons- that being for the reason there are cosmetics in the first place, to make them look better- but the substance is still going to be bad news for us.
WHY DO WE HAVE THE PROBLEM WITH WATER?
Aside from the supplier saying they will reduce the allotment to L.A., among others, you have opposing forces from the same place going on: Continued and
accelerated development, making developers see nice paydays as the
Mayor and
Council pave the way for them through code variances, tax breaks, outright money subsidies, paying for projects that should be done by the developers, and shifting money to what they call the “general fund” to cover those things at the expense of the funding losing those dollars. Big example of that:
The Grand Avenue ProjectWouldn’t you expect that putting more people into the city, especially packing them into tighter and tighter spaces might not be the best thing to do? The “DENSIFICATION” effect of the developments HAS to create MORE NEED FOR WATER, but we are told there is LESS WATER COMING TO L.A. How does what the Council and Mayor do with that subject have any good outcome for the city and the people who would like to see our worsening conditions STOP and see some ACCOUNTABILITY in government.
Now we have to conserve- but looking to Long Beach, as Council member Hahn mentioned yesterday- we see a city taking steps to anticipate the needs at an early stage so that they don’t have “urgency” or “crisis” attached to descriptions of what’s requested in
Los Angeles
It also might be another good opportunity for DWP to kick up rates at the same time, whether necessary or not. Summer Rates (increases) were coming into effect anyway, but they want to make that temporary period become
permanent AND add in PENALTIES, monetary and service-related ones if the rules are violated.
In the end, I don’t think Council will reject the plan. They just want to cover their ass this time around and not rush into this like they did with Solar Measure B. They were burned by
Council President Garcetti on that one, and now, they don't want to take the rap blindly. Early action by the
council to do ANYTHING on ANY ITEM THAT CALLED FOR THE NEED to act could have helped in so many areas BEFORE NOW.
But there are simply bad attitudes on the part of elected office holders AND their appointees. You have waste going on and some city workers, for example, using the city cars to substitute for their own cars, you have a mayor with a 93 person staff about 20 more than the outgoing mayor,
Jim Hahn. There was a recent claim that the Deputy Mayors had returned city cars, but that's not from an official statement.
The Mayor's own Deputy of Transportation chose a Hummer to drive when I thing the image should have been conservation and frugality.
Steve Lopez of the L.A. Times mentioned that in his columns, as well. When called on it, the
Mayor defended the choice, and the
Deputy said he was not going to change his choice. But, as I mentioned in earlier postings, it's like a kid in a candy store when these folks come to power. They simply cannot resist the "all you can eat" buffet dining mentality that I have seen especially prominent with persons climbing the political ladder from modest financial backgrounds. If that's anecdotal, it's a frequently recurring ancedotal example. Anyway, it's just my opinion, and you can decide for yourself.
You also have a mayor who spent “11 percent” (See L.A. Weekly item in sidebar) of time on the job, and the rest on his own choices, much of that campaigning around the country for
Clinton and then
Obama.
Los Angeles took up second-place; maybe lower if you consider Villaraigosa’s fundraising efforts throughout the term, netting almost Three Million dollars ($3,000,000.00).
Actions happen too late in L.A.to help situations when compared to what other cities have done. Then we have problems that have become worse, like now with what
DWP brings us.
AND IT’S SOMETHING "HIDDEN" FROM THE REGULAR GUY-
Agenda matters for City Council are pretty plain-Jane textual presentations. You check out the agenda and see not much that jumps out at you; a lot of "legalese," a lot of generalities and vagueness in language, and a few numbers for reference purposes. Links to the history show a lot- if you investigate and read- but most people don’t have the time to do any of that.
The agenda for the DWP matter is a good example of what seems to be nothing on it's face- see that one for yourself below (or see agenda’s available for the days past and coming up on the
city’s video page (links galore for these) http://lacity.org/cdvideo_wm.htm :
==================================================
The DWP rate hike proposal as it appeared on the Agenda:
“ITEM NO. (30) - Motion Required
07-3248-S1COMMUNICATION FROM CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE relative to authorization for the implementation of Shortage Year Water Rates.
SUBMITS WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION the following recommendation of the Board of Water and Power Commissioners (Board):
APPROVE Resolution No. 009-210, adopted by the Board on March 17, 2009 and approved as to form and legality by the City Attorney, which authorizes implementation of Shortage Year Water Rates designed to encourage water conservation through appropriate price signals to water consumers during current drought conditions affecting the City’s water resources.
Fiscal Impact Statement: The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) reports that as a result of the Water Shortage Rate implementation at 15 percent, the fiscal impact to the LADWP will remain relatively unchanged with net income and coverage ratios that are in-line with current financial targets.
Community Impact Statement: None submitted.”
===========================================
So in that agenda is much that means nothing that the ordinary person would find on a quick review. This agenda has the usual list of
SPECIAL EVENT WAIVERS that still bring up questions of "why" the city "has" to do things instead if biting the bullet and spreading around that pain to THOSE events.
You will see a more than a couple of reward motions this week. I don't find a clear policy on what has to be met in order for the
City Council to put up
$50,000.00 rewards. Tuesday's agenda had several
Reward motions of $50,000.00- I see
Huizar and Reyes involved in moving for several of those items. See the
Tuesday Agenda: http://clkrep.lacity.org/granicus/2009/04072009_cal.htm (use "find" and type in "reward" to see them in the long list)
I don't have any issue with the need to solve crimes and punish offenders, especially since the rewards relate to crimes that have facts showing deplorable details. The idea I am bringing out is first, don't we have a scarcity of dollars? aren't jobs of city employees in danger of being lost due to no money available?
Second, given that condition of no money, "what is the standard to be met" to enable rewards to issue, or is it individual discretion? Does one have to keep pressure on the council member to get the crime solved?
Posts
