DWP is going to be collecting more from you, but why?

Here is more from a Tuesday entry on Ron Kaye's blog http://www.ronkayela.com/ that you can examine to see that the DWP collects and has been collecting for years, loads of money. "DWP Calling: Your Money or Your Life (Or Why We Need to Know Where Our Money Goes)," By Ron Kaye on October 27, 2009. http://ronkayela.com/2009/10/dwp-calling-your-money-or-your.html


You might have sensed that part about collecting loads of money from you, but did you ever wonder WHERE it went? All that money was collected as a public utility only have it passed along to the "General Fund" of the city to use as it pleases. Instead, they could have been using it to improve service and maintain facilities and infrastructure.

The DWP collected so much money that the City Council had simply used it as a regular supplier of cash, not really doing much for the utility's customers of water and electricity. Remember, too, that this is a monopoly, the only game in town, and you really have no choice when it comes to sellers of water and electricity. It's all DWP and only DWP when it comes to getting electricity or water.

Check the numbers and see the added note at the beginnig of the October 27 blog posting that reflects the City Council meeting's outcome. The DWP requested approval for bonds for applying to DWP improvement on Tuesday, October 28, 2009. Bonds are the way that money is obtained. Actually it is borrowed to pay for things such as government projects. They are very expensive and the amount used comes from selling them to investors who will get paid back, usually from more taxes imposed upon the publie. The High Speed Rail to San Francisco sounded cool and I
am sure many voted to approve the project because of that, but it won't be ready for many years, while the costs to cover the bond repayment begins to mount fairly promptly.

That approval by the City Council, often colorfully referred to by many critics as the "City Clowncil," is mentioned in the linked posting and repeated below:

Editor's Note: The City Council, after a lengthy debate about Google
vs. Microsoft email products, unanimously approved both the water and power bond plans of DWP without debate, setting the stage for further rate increases. Google email won unanimous approval to be City Hall's email.

The DWP has a history of actions that cause most reasonable people from wondering, "Who's in charge here, anyway?" This ranges from the breast feeding classes for employees paid for at the work site by the DWP when the health insurance already provides this benefit, to the payments for an outside Public Relations company when an in-house ability already exists and when there is no other competing utility because DWP is a monopoly. All these came at hefty prices and the PR problem was corrected finally but it shows that they need serious watching.

By the way, David Nahai, ex-GM, resigned earlier this month and is getting paid as a "consultant" to answer emails and phone calls "during business hours" at just under $150,000 for the time left this year. Nahai was solidly behind the breast feeding expenditure. That was back when Nahai and the IBEW (union) were more in agreement than when Nahai left. Ron Kaye's blog gives a lot more of the details for dozens of the city politicians' activities that are not what they should be doing for the public and the voters.

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?

City Council meeting comments on Green movements

Among the comments on Agenda Item 10 (shown below) that passed unanimously:

By Jose Huizar, CD-14:

"We are preparing the workforce for the jobs of the future"

"We want to show the rest of the county that we are on the cutting edge."


By Ed Reyes, CD-1:

"We are creating industrial zones right next to residential zones"

and that we want " …. to find way to create these jobs so they are near to our homes….. " will alleviate some traffic.
==========================================

The comments like those above that come up before the votes on matters of course are mostly rhetorical and not subject to any questioning, but I just get tired of all the gratuitous comments that ignore things that were done before by the same persons or groups, or that are illogical considering what's been going on.

For Huizar, the workforce preparation was interesting since you usually consider the local schools to be doing some of that. In our case in L.A., LAUSD is doing an unsuccessful job in addressing that, hitting near 50% dropout rates in some schools.

What jobs are they being prepared for with that level of education?

There was a report a few years back that reported that a good many of LAUSD grads would not be suited for hiring for jobs available locally. I don't think that was given too much notice since we are years past that and it looks like the same condition may exist.

(Also relating it all for Huizar's case: CM Huizar was formerly the LAUSD Board President for years immediately prior to election in CD-14- he should know best what is happening and what has happened in the LAUSD area, and it's not been good.

For Ed Reyes' comment,
I just want to remind him of the continued changes that ELIMINATED industrial and manufacturing areas and there is still a little left on the eastside of downtown where there once were huge areas. Times change but there was widespread elimination for what I think could be called "redevelopment" and converting to residential areas.

Many residential developers did not see nearby manufacturing/industrial areas as "selling points" for their projects. Thus, eliminating those and converting the areas to compatible or enhancing uses to the projects would serve to BOOST the value of the properties of the developers. I see that's what's happened.

There's not a lot of the same type of manufacturing and industry in the future as was the case for the original site occupants practiced. Yet the area's zoning should have been preserved for ideas of return to be able to fit in with a new era of industrial use. Things like that don't get reversed, so losing that industrial zoning means loses that area forever. All residential and no "industry" to be the employer? But the change also is in the PRICING OF THE NEW HOUSING- that's UPSCALE, and geared mostly for financially well-off when a redevelopment occurs. Different populations now are there as residents.

The idea that Reyes speak about in making jobs for people living locally with a side benefit of limited need to travel. Nice concept but it assumes too much that is hard to imagine. What would the jobs be? Service industry? Professions such as law, medicine and other areas where graduate school is usually required? Would the people want to live IN the city as it is now?

=======================
Just another comment on the proposal today on RAISING RATES as part of DWP Water Conservation -

WHY does Council speak of the need to conserve and then they continue to DEVELOP areas for the "DENSIFICATION" or packing more people in to the smaller areas that were LESS populated before?

It is only logical to see that more people will NEED more water, even with conservation. Is the conservatioin REALLY to ENABLE more "Densification" and to make the NEED to conserve a man-made (council-made) matter of urgency?

THIS GOES FOR POLICE SERVICE, TOO- "We need more police" is what most agree would help living conditiions. Then why does the Mayor and Council continue to PUSH to add more people to come to the city? It puts more pressure on all resources. Is that a hard concept to get a hold of? Really, it's money that they are trying to pull in and meanwhile the living conditions continue to slide downhill in the city.

Until the infrastructure is under control or even closer to control, WHY work in the opposite direction? There is just so much contrary action all through what is done in city government. The right hand does not know what the left hand is doing just is not the right description- it doesn't go far enough. And that's assuming that the flaws in operation are accidental or unintended, but the real picture cannot be that hidden from the lawmakers, so "intentional" acts are what we see.

It's like trying to set up campfires in the middle of a high-risk fire season- You are ASKING for trouble. Council should stop "lighting the fires" until the risks have been handled. The continued practices just show the Council deceit in its motives and goals.

=========

"ITEM NO. (10) -Motion Required

06-1963
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY and ORDINANCE FIRST CONSIDERATION relative to establishing the Green Retrofit and Workforce Program, including creation of a Green Retrofit Development Interdepartmental Task Force and a Green Retrofit Development Advisory Council.

(Housing, Community and Economic Development Committee report to be submitted in Council. If public hearing is not held in Committee, an opportunity for public comments will be provided.)

(For background reports and materials related to this matter, contact the Legislative Assistant for the Housing, Community, and Economic Development Committee at 213-978-1080.)

(Information Technology and General Services Committee waived consideration of the above matter.)"

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.