DWP rate hike delayed- Janice Hahn speaks her mind

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 Project

Wouldn’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-S1
COMMUNICATION 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?

Water Conservation, Water Rationing, Water Waste and the DWP

The Mayor of L.A.- Tony Villaraigosa- announced during the week of heavy rain, that we still did not have enough water and would have to conserve by way of a water ration plan.

Water Ration Plan
MSNBC carried the news item on February 9, 2009, showing that there is a first time for L.A. water rationing plan that he has submitted for approval by the Board of Water and Power and the L.A. City Council. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29106741/ The plan has some drastic controls on usages that are described in the story.

The Real Cause of Infrastructure Strain
The Mayor, of course, does not mention that the high-density construction that his administration has supported might be contributing to the problem in the least. Meanwhile some aggravation of the problem continues, all being a part of the actions of the Mayor and the City Council to create more stress on a system that ALREADY is on the verge of failing. The death from an explosion in an electrical vault last year of a city firefighter Brent Lovrein was blamed on the old infrastructure, "Remembering L.A. Firefighter Brent Lovrien," http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/spot-news/remembering-la-firefighter-bre/

Politicians shamelessly put this tragic death in the spotlight to gain the voter approval for more money that was supposedly to fix things in the infrastructure that need attention urgently. See LAist Blog brief item of April 2, 2008: "Will the Death of a Firefighter Be the Tipping Point of DWP Rate Hikes?" http://laist.com/2008/04/02/will_the_death.php That article also states that the money sought will only partially go to infrastructure improvement - about a third of it, with the rest to other things including DWP higher wages.

But these politicians continue the increasing development projects, just as fast as they can, knowing our stressed conditions are already underequipped to handle PRESENT conditions. In a way, this is their strategy. Create the BIGGER NEED and they can have a BETTER reason for INCREASED FEES and CHARGES as being URGENT. They do this with a lot of things- intensify the problem to a crucial level that needs MORE ATTENTION, and then manipulate things to get money, approval or whatever the highlighted crisis demands to be done, pushed to that condition intentionally or as a result of stupid policies followed intentionally.

When you continue to build, and build with his problem-creating "densification" along "transit routes" (which justifies elimination of normally required parking spaces to be included) you have to expect a strain on EVERYTHING in the city. It is not a hugely challenging concept for you to see but that politicians CONTINUE TO IGNORE- When you jam more housing and businesses in existing space, you strain ALL parts of the infrastructure, especially utilities, police and fire protection, trash collection and disposal- and the most visible problem, the vehicle traffic and parking problems.

There is no rationing of building projects here in L.A. included in Mayor Tony's plans. The only thing that is slowing all this building is the down real estate market that makes even the "Grand Avenue Project" downtown, continue to miss more construction deadlines, and cost more public money for this already-risky venture.

[THAT downturn is shown in another story to check as an example of how local politicians foul up things for residents in costly ways, L.A. Times, 2-10-09, Cara Mia DiMassa, reporting: "Grand Avenue developer seeks revisions to project's schedule; With a Feb. 15 deadline to break ground on the downtown L.A. development, Related Cos. petitions the city and county for changes, which have not been made public." http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-grand11-2009feb11,0,832272.story ]

Maybe some attention to staying safely within present capacities for a while might be a reasonable thought to put in to action instead of creating more strain on an already ill system. If you had tires on your car that showed bald spots, how wise would it be to go on long trips at high speeds?- and I say "long" trips since local traffic is usually jammed at any given time, making "high speeds" only a theoretical possibility. This Council and Mayor are not able to look at things that way; they have been too busy spending your money and doing giveaways for the Grammys (over $100,000.00 in special event waivers- "their expense, we pay the bill", and the Academy Awards that will receive over $400,000.00 as a waivers.

Water Waste?
There's a small problem that has come up this month with a huge waste that DWP has been unable to stop- a broken hydrant, wasting enormous amounts of water for days. The Daily News story, updated 2-11-09, provides details in "DWP hydrant spews water for 10 days,"
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_11684536 You might expect this to be repaired quickly, but DWP says it can't do more than it is doing. But you still wonder how the city can create more burdens on purpose.

So rationing is the answer? When it comes to getting yourself on the news, the Mayor is very effective, the messages are often inappropriate, but he gets his face on T.V. and in the news. But for being economical, handling city money with some eye to frugality and working for the PEOPLE first, not for HIMSELF, he's still only able to talk it up, but not come through with anything good.

Politics the problem?
I can tell you again, as I have seen from DWP's history, when you don't conserve, they have penalties ready to lay on you for being a high user, and they blame you, the consumer for using too much water, as shown now. Before that, it was a problem of using too much electricity. So charges are made up to punish you for more use.

So then people try to conserve and cut back in responding to that condition with less consumption of electricity or water the result. Very good? Maybe not so much, as the DWP sees it, because then the message becomes urgent. The new word is that the DWP is losing money because the people don't use enough of the utility's service, and the bills are coming out too LOW, which means adding in a "surcharge" or "rate increase" for DWP to manage to bring in more money.

In all these conditions, the DWP is not going to be the loser. They say, "It" ("It" is anything they do or plan that might be costing money to do) is not going to cost taxpayers anything since the rate payers will get those charges. Honest, I heard that verbalization of the shell game from them in a past trickster move. There might be some very tiny difference you could come up with but the same people get the bills any way you see it.

You really have to watch these characters constantly due to the skilled way that manipulate proposals and results. And by that criticism, I don't mean to say it's the regular workers- no, they don't set policy and the direction DWP heads to. The regular employees do have benefits from such deals, but the shiftyness is done by management operations.

Again, it's the Mayor's crew and they work for him and his career, and they don't work for you and trying to keep your bills low. How great that would be. And that's the way is SHOULD be.