Zuma Dogg's take on the Delgadillo situation is on target.

Just checking Zuma Dogg's "L.A. Daily Blog" and there's quite a bit, maybe more than the average L.A. resident would know about. I see that his assessment of the conditions being left by outgoing City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo as mentioned in my earlier post and L.A. Times story reference is a no-holds-barred summary that should enlighten you on the workings fo real life political manueverings that hurt the service to the public.
"Shame on Loser Like Nick-Velasquez and Ben-Austin Who Want a Free Ride on Your L.A. City Taxpayer Dollars (during this economic hardship) " http://ladailyblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/shame-on-loser-like-nick-velasquez-and.html

There is a lot of abuse of power that goes on behind the scenes and you can get peek by reading some of the posts on this L.A. Daily Blog, http://ladailyblog.blogspot.com/.
There's an assortment of posts that are pretty informative and what printed there is often ahead of the pack in breaking stories and filling in details. It's also presented in ZD's own style that puts off people, but it's the message not the messenger that you should keep in mind. I like Zuma Dogg's postings and I think most of the time that he's got some news to bring out. Some people simply despise him for what he reveals and you can figure out who those people may be.

Rocky Delgadillo did no favors with what he leaves L.A. city government. You should remember that the next time you ever see his name on any ballot and return the favor by voting against him- and keeping him out of office would be doing him a favor when you really consider the whole situation. The L.A. Daily Blog's post tells you who some of Rocky's friends are, too.

Part II- New High School ("H.S. #9") for Downtown Area

A little more from where I left off on the 3/7/09 posting ( http://lincolnquicknotes.blogspot.com/2009/03/lausd-back-to-future-high-school-hs-9.html ) about the construction of this high school on the site of the old LAUSD Headquarters at Grand Ave. and Cesar Chavez (formerly Sunset) Blvd. You can't miss it if you have driven by the Music Center just a few blocks away, since the design's tower focal point is something that catches the eye immediately.

If you haven’t seen it or you did see it but did not know what it was, check the photos and drawings referenced and linked all through the rest of this posting. And when you see those images, think of these things: “Nothing is free,” “Would a simpler project have educated our students as well and been ready significantly faster?” and “Who is in charge of making spending decisions of taxpayer dollars, and what happened here?”

HERE NOW ARE SOME MORE VIEWS OF THE PROJECT- and commentary, of course:
(A lot of photos of this project on a downtown blog: "Angelic Downtown Los Angeles," http://www.angelenic.com/79/central-la-high-school-9-shows-some-skin/ -they must have worked or lived nearby for all the views and time intervals)

-----------------------------------------------------

A FURTHER CRITIQUE of this project was in the L.A. TIMES, nearly a year old now, and it is an outstanding one in my view- This was another of those Steve Lopez' topics, this on covering the second most expensive school (behind only the Beaudry High School project) in the U.S., all projects from LAUSD. If you missed it or want to see the mild way he gives some harsh criticism, see:
”The design of L.A. Unified's new arts high school is convoluted and costly,” Steve Lopez, May 4, 2008 http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez4-2008may04,0,4743795.column This story led to an L.A. TIMES blog with some wacky comments by readers as justification for the expense. The billionaire, Eli Broad, happens to be the moving force for the design choice. He wanted it to fit in with the other downtown project, "The Grand Avenue Project," that also is currently sucking tax dollars and is way behind schedule construction.

It was the yielding to the political influence that put this school on the road to extravagance in construction costs and more delay- 2 more years- before any students could benefit from the new school. That is another cost that doesn’t get to be figured into projects, the cost of students who move on through high school while the project is plodding along in various stages of completion. Hope as they might, being able to spend a part of their high school years in a new facility is not in the cards for these students.

--------------------------------------------------

If you want photos- there are lots of very good ones at various stages of construction:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=529012
“Skyscraper City” blog thread on the LAUSD High School for the Visual & Performing Arts #9 U/C,
This site has some very good architect’s images of a completed project and the layout is diagrammed very well, maybe too well in this post-9-11 security age, but very impressive on a visual basis.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=30043180
Another thread of the same blog, with some beautiful interior photos from DEC. 2008.

The entry on that blog (#62), “L.A.'s new arts school an expensive social experiment,” repeats the text of the L.A. Times story of December 22, 2008.
Original story at;
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/22/local/me-arts22?s=o&n=o&rd=www.google.com&sessid=7c247f2068c353b12d60caaf8b218b5463185fbc&pg=2&pgtp=article&eagi=&page_type=article&exci=2008_12_22_local_me-arts22
Lots of criticism here on several levels, costs being the big one, but LAUSD’s operational style is again responsible for bringing us projects of astronomical expense of taxpayer dollars, and 2 years here of time that students were shortchanged for the sake of architecture and image priorities that themselves are of very questionable value and come from POLITICAL influence to serve other agendas.


Things for the district have changed and while more schools are built, student enrollment is dropping. The District is constantly lagging behind in addressing and responding to what the needs are simply because the District is so huge and has an overload of bureaucracy to wade through before anything actually happens. I don’t believe that smaller school districts have this situation and can therefore make more timely response, keeping their districts within some order that avoids a lot of collateral problems found in LAUSD, like waste, unaccountability, structure maintenance and overall periodic reviews of status for proper controls.

As for who will be attending this “High School #9,” It does look like the students will still be geographically selected for the majority of spaces in this school according to the story.

Former school board member David Tokofsky said he believed the overcrowding
problem had been solved, leaving no need for the school to focus on the
neighborhood. He said the school should reach out for "talent from Banning
[High], from Pacoima, from Huntington Park."

In contrast to this enlightened view to use of a specialized resource, Supt. Alonzo sounds as if local students should have preference as some form of alms for the District's misdeeds of the past, which I think is a typical style of decision-making that you see happen with the LAUSD.

But Alonzo and others insist that the district has, in effect, a social
obligation to make up for decades of neglect in the areas just west of
downtown.

====================

HERE IS A DIFFERENT LOOK AT THE SCHOOL, coming from an achitectural view.
If it’s a pro-design commentary, and one that grossly UNDERestimates the construction time (“The much anticipated October opening …has been delayed a year.” From the Nov. 2007 statement) AND COSTS (“The $171 Million project is expected to open in late 2008.”), both wrong, at least 1/3 more was added to costs, and an another full year delay beyond that until the first students can enter in September 2009.
“Coop Himmelb(l)au’s Los Angeles Flagship High School delayed one year,” http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=1607 Monday 19 Nov 2007.

District 3 of LAUSD Principals Meetings Too Cushy?

The blog, "LA Public Education Examiner," by Stuart Goldurs, an LAUSD teacher, reveals some waste in the form of principals and others in District 3 of the LAUSD holding monthly meetings at the Marina Mariott Hotel. http://www.examiner.com/x-3311-LA-Public-Education-Examiner~y2009m3d21-LAUSD-your-tax-dollars-at-waste-here-paying-for-meetings-The-AIG-of-LAUSD

He asks the pointed question, "For how many years has this been going on?" as well as the wider question on how many other outside meetings across the district are held at rented rooms, with paid meals, parking included? Its the things like this that leave the LAUSD ripe for criticism on waste, but there are so many diverse areas for challenge, that you often wonder, where do you start? Better accountability- make that just "accountability"- is needed. Like lots of governmental bureaucracies, there's no one around who really is in charge of that part and no one, of course, volunteers to take the rap.

The District is too big. Other districts like Burbank, Glendale and Alhambra might not be squeaky clean but they probably can find problems faster and be able to locate somebody responsible without too many layers of personnel to dig through.

How expensive can DWP do things to cost rate payers? Measure B? Doorstep delivery of CFLs?

The DWP is spending $3 million to purchase AND DELIVER CFLs (compact fluorescent lights) to customers in some sort of conservation drive. They are truly the contradictory bunch. Here's a news item from yesterday, http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_11689892

Yesterday, I got my DWP CFLs (2) delivered to my front door in a nicely-printed lunch-sized paper bag with the propaganda that people should already know. CFLs are those little fluorescent lights with a tube shaped like a corkscrew, about the size of a regular light bulb. I will give you my complaints about this move in a minute, but first- here’s my view of another slick move that DWP is trying to slide by the voters now.

DWP is involved in implementing a costly move for you who live or work in L.A. It is Solar Measure B that is appearing on the ballot. The L.A. City Council, led by Council President Eric Garcetti, rushed out a decision to make the ballot deadline so it’s there for you to vote for on the March 3rd election, with the other city offices. BUT, “DANGER, WILL ROBINSON,” you will be the loser here, money-wise if this Measure B goes through. A NO vote is needed.

Measure B was pushed through council a few months ago, with Eric Garcetti being the main cheerleader, telling fellow council members only “parts” of a report that the city’s financial officer Gerry Miller wrote up. There were lots of things on the downside of this Measure that Miller included BUT that Garcetti DID NOT tell other CMs before they voted for it. We call it STACKING THE DECK, or simply hiding relevant AVAILABLE facts or opinions. It’s dishonestly dealing in order to get approval.

Later, when this came out, lots of council members acted like they were taken, but still loyal to Garcetti enough to not make him look TOO bad. Even Gerry Miller tried to soften the words of his report later on, since you know that people in city hall have lost jobs or have seen things become uncomfortable for them because of making their contrary opinions known. A consultant that did not come up with a rosy picture on this was fired by DWP afterwards, according to news reports.

Would you sign a contract to buy a car if the final price was not shown to you? Would you write a check and sign it with the amount left BLANK and pass it over to anyone?

This is what MEASURE B does. One reason they say to approve it: because it “provides jobs” and that’s not really the truth. It will have to be using expensive panels that will be expected to be manufactured in CHINA, which has lots of Chinese citizens doing the work, that helps US not one bit as far as getting paychecks to local workers.

Next, the construction of the expensive items, BY THE TERMS OF MEASURE B, allow ONLY ONE UNION, the IBEW, (electricians) to be the ones doing the work locally. No bids here for such lucrative prospects, so don’t bother thinking about doing this work if you aren’t in that union.

You see, Measure B is a guaranteed way to see your DWP bills go higher- as if that isn’t already happening- and YOU pay for this nice deal for the big shots that say, “L.A. is going green” but meanwhile, everyone else is going broke. Well, not everyone, if you consider that there’s always SOMEBODY making money on what DWP and it’s supervising politicians decide for YOU.

Last week, Mayor Vilaraigosa was finally put on the spot on a telephone conference call "news" interview with a question "Whst is going to be the cost of Measure B?" The Mayor stalled around for that answer. After verbally tap dancing around the issue for about 2 minutes, during which somebody must have provided the information to him, as you could hear keyboard clacking away during the Mayor's delay. Villaraigosa finally said, "It would be in the neighborhood of $1 Billion." Right after that, the aide's voice came on to say, "There is no more time and this conference is over," leaving many more questions unanswered. So typical of Tony not to face the issues or questions a leader should respond to.

Many council members have back-pedaled on their approval, claiming they would NOT have approved it as a ballot measure HAD THEY KNOW ALL THE INFORMATION (that Garcetti did not share- He said, “I gave them the ‘bullet points’.” Still, that’s not sharing it all.) AND if you see Zuma Dogg’s “YouTube” interview with DENNIS ZINE that is linked here, even HE tries to be diplomatic so as not to burn Eric or DWP, but HE does NOT say to vote for it, (Dennis knows it’s BAD) and says more information needs to be considered. He’s TOO NICE to Eric and the DWP, but you see what he thinks about CM JACK WEISS (not nice).

As a last comment for now on that Measure, the MAYOR is given authority for more spending by his own decision, a big change in the City Charter so that spending approval, the CONTROLS normally in place for such projects and actions ARE REMOVED, and you can only rely on the Mayor’s decisions.

Judging on how free-wheeling this mayor has operated with his $5 Billion plan for housing coming just as the recession was announced to be a reality, the Mayor is not a prudent spender of tax dollars. Judging by how Mayor Villaraigosa HAD TO ASK -really "to direct"- COUNCIL TO APPROVE a TRASH “FEES’ INCREASE in one HUGE bump ($11 a month to $36 a month) effective last September, instead of gradually in steps over 3 years as earlier planned, in order to boost police employment for HIS own bragging rights and career advancement. (Watch for that in campaign literature of Mayor Tony).

Don’t vote all this power away. MAKE politicians SHOW DEFINITE PLANS AND NUMBERS before you give ANY APPROVAL. DWP in its increasingly arrogant fashion will try to go around the voters on this anyway if they lose. Nice attitude for a governmental agency that is supposed to “serve” the people.


DWP COST-INEFFICIENT PROJECT UNDERWAY.
BUT I DIGRESS, as usual, from the complaint on DWP’S latest move, home delivery of CFL’S. The idea behind this is to “conserve energy.”
As I mentioned to start here, I got mine yesterday and this whole project is said to take 3 more months.

This is not the way to do it. Instead of some well-thought out and thrifty method, DWP finds a way to maximize expense for the "rate payer" again. They are literally too stupid in what they do if CONSERVING ENERGY is the objective. Maybe they could consider CONSERVING EXPENSES and that will be less that WE have to pay for as it is always passed along in your bill sooner or later.

Let’s consider their Goal: "to save energy" ????

Yes, "to save energy.” I am for recycling and conservation, but not fanatically so, and even I see the concerns that DWP seems not to notice. There are too many questions on this project, but here's more:

What is the energy and resource expense count for making the little shopping bags (paper = trees?) for each PAIR of CFLs delivered?

Question: How much gas burned for transporting the CFLs to homes?

What about the cost of THAT?

How much did the TRAFFIC condition in L.A. need another bunch of vehicles in the mix?

And don’t forget that this was not delivered in the mail, as if postage were cheap, either. SOME PEOPLE are paid for doing this and at the salary rates that DWP contracts call for; you know it’s not cheap.

Here’s a URL from another utility, PG&E, with a flyer that would be another way to EDUCATE consumers- if they really are trying for that outcome. It's another example of a way to educate by using the internet, a PDF page, a flyer fact sheet on "Dimmable CFLs" from 2007, and it gives you a picture of what CFLs are about, including a real picture.http://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/shared/saveenergymoney/rebates/dimmercflflyer.pdf Some effort at this might be advisable.


AND HOW MUCH DID WE GET SOAKED FOR ON THIS BULB DEAL? Who MADE money? It's not the consumer, for sure. I don’t expect this information is readily or completely available, and if anyone has it, let me know. I think there’s money to be made for suppliers with friends in DWP and the City and they may be the stronger reason for this happening.

I don’t depend on the DWP here to find the best deal on CFLs. You can just go to COSTCO or anywhere nowadays and you can find these bulbs to be very inexpensive items. Some selling for a little over a dollar apiece- and some are priced higher but there is another instant rebate on that price, making them really cheap. This is NOT what DWP should be doing.

The DWP as an extension of government treats everyone as being too stupid to figure this out. If there are some who reject using the CFLs, this won’t convince them anyway, and you are wasting more money by going to each door to make personal delivery. The alternative would have been more economical, but that is not what DWP or the City is about. Use the bills that you guys at DWP send out our bills in and put in that information.

Could DWP, especially in times of TIGHT OR NO BUDGETS have tried to do this in a less expensive way? And did you know that the CFLs have been around for years. Even I have used them for over 6 years where I can. I got tired of replacing regular bulbs and these draw way less power. Technology has continued to improve since that time to make them dimmable, too. WHY NOW, with the very high expense in labor and resources DO THEY DO THIS?

Is this the only way? If you say, people can’t or won’t read the messages in a bill, then what would makes you think that the same information placed into a paper shopping bag is going to make it more readable? Many people will just get the CFLs and use them, while tossing the papers and included materials into the trash or street. Some may even snatch their neighbor’s bags. Not the best way to EDUCATE people. If furnishing the PRODUCT was the goal, a coupon MAILED in the bill COULD BE REDEEMED at an office or store and save all the fuss. It’s all tremendous and expensive effort to get a little return on the cost, and not justified at all.

Eric Garcetti would probably ask if they could do this AND INSTALL them for people- AND if he would be worth anything at all to the common people, GARCETTI should think about the COST to us overall.

NOW, THE BIG QUESTION:

Do you trust this batch of politicians to do right by you? With the past actions of these folks, I have to say they do nothing to deserve our trust and really NEED MUCH MORE WATCHING.