Sponsor-Whale and Ale
|
|
| |
Search by Artist or Event Name |
|
Our Suggestions:
|
 |
Archive
-
November, 2011
-
October, 2011
-
September, 2011
-
August, 2011
-
July, 2011
-
June, 2011
-
May, 2011
-
April, 2011
-
March, 2011
-
February, 2011
-
January, 2011
-
December, 2010
-
November, 2010
-
October, 2010
-
September, 2010
-
August, 2010
-
July, 2010
-
June, 2010
-
May, 2010
-
April, 2010
-
March, 2010
-
February, 2010
-
January, 2010
-
December, 2009
-
November, 2009
-
October, 2009
-
September, 2009
-
August, 2009
-
July, 2009
-
June, 2009
-
May, 2009
-
April, 2009
-
March, 2009
-
February, 2009
-
January, 2009
-
December, 2008
-
November, 2008
-
October, 2008
-
September, 2008
-
August, 2008
-
July, 2008
-
June, 2008
-
May, 2008
-
April, 2008
-
March, 2008
-
February, 2008
-
January, 2008
-
December, 2007
-
November, 2007
-
October, 2007
Home  Community Voices To Have Or Not to Have an Independent Municipal DWP?
|
|
To Have Or Not to Have an Independent Municipal DWP? |
PDF
|
| Print |
|
E-mail
|
|
Written by Soledad Garcia
|
|
Friday, 20 February 2009 |
Measure B is asking the voters to approve changing the City Charter to allow City Hall, the Mayor and City Council to override the LADWP as the primary entity responsible for having solar on City owned buildings. The plans for having 400 megawatts are not well vetted. According to Superior Court Judge Yaffe, the plans are vague and general. The process for allowing this measure to be on the ballot “stinks” according to City Controller Chick. She wouldn’t vote for it. LA Times reporter Zahniser says the process smells of swindle.
According to the LA City Chief Analyst’s secret PA Consultants’
communication , President Garcetti confirmed that not having a well
vetted plan to handle the largest solar program in the United States
without disclosure of how many multi-billions of dollars it would cost
the ratepayers was “very risky.” In the PA Consultant’s 13-point
negative and confidential summary, it was concluded “LADWP appeared not
to have the capability to take on this ‘plan’ adequately within the
time-frame stated.”
The Los Angeles Times and Valley News have consistently championed
truth and transparency in the process of reporting Measure B. It was
David Zahniser, LA Times, who exposed the October 15, 2008 plot by City
Hall to move the “Green Power/Good Job” hurriedly through the Council
to include it on the March 3, 2009 election ballot. It is well known
that the number of voters would be about 10-15 percent of the General
Elections, therefore, the three week rush to place an ill-conceived
solar plan would pass by changing the Charter 2/3 majority vote to a
simple majority. The voters would not realize that they were approving
this amendment instead of solar. Further, those who favor clean air and
solar power would be hoodwinked into thinking that this is what the
Charter amendments and the Ordinance were all about.
The truth is that there was absolutely no need to have Measure B on the
ballot. LADWP has the authority to prepare and implement the plans by
their standard operating procedures. One of those procedures would have
included compliance of the Neighborhood Council/LADWP Memorandum of
Understanding, which requires notification and advisory participation
prior to decision-making by the Commission.
Another fact is that the control of the project would be through the
Board of Commissioners and DWP Administrative Staff instead of the
Mayor and City Council. Had proper procedures been followed, the plans
would have had been well vetted because the DWP staff is experienced
and professional. The workforce would have continued to be DWP’s
employees. The control would have been with DWP.
Solar is not the issue. Whether Measure B passes or not, solar is
already in place and growing. Desert land has been purchased and will
continue to expand for solar farms (and wind farms). The Comprehensive
Solar Plan has several prongs identified and is being presented to the
public. Solar is well and healthy.
Should Measure B fail, solar panels on rooftops will be resurrected
through DWP and solar projects working now will continue. The City is
already committed to green power.
The question is, do the voters want City Hall taking over DWP’s
decision-making responsibilities? Do the City Council and the Mayor
have the experience to understand the implications of changing plans?
Will City Hall determine the rate increases? Do the voters want to pay
double and triple power costs? Do the ratepayers want DWP money to be
transferred to the City’s General Fund? Should the voters vote yes, the
above would happen.
A “no” vote would keep the control with the ratepayers, not with City
Hall. The Charter would not be amended. The 2/3 majority vote would
stand.
|
|
|
Sponsor - Available Space
This space is available.
Box Size is 160x200.
Your ad could be here.
Call (310)519-1442
for more information.
|
Advertise with Us!
Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.
Our readers are influential opinion makers, community activists, local business owners, and politicians.
Learn more about ads with our 2012 Ad and Publication Schedule.
Call our office at (310)519-1016
or email us for more information.
|
|
