January 2009 Archives

A front page story in the Daily News  Saturday under the headline "Solar panel initiative getting costlier" reveals for the first time the contents of a definitive $1 million study (dwp-iea.pdf ) analyzing the Department of Water and Power's operations and performance over the last five years.

City Hall reporter Rick Orlov got his hands on the year-long study by PA Consulting (IEA-excerpts.doc) and reported that Measure B, the city initiative on the March 3 ballot that calls for the installation of rooftop panels to capture solar energy, "could cost more than double current estimates."

"Without significant technology advances and yet unseen economies of scale, it would be challenging at best for LADWP to be able to implement the plan for the current $1.5 billion low estimate LADWP has provided," the report (IEA-summary.doc) entitled "Industrial, Economic and Administrative Survey" said.

The study estimates the minimum costs at $2.8 billion to $3.6 billion and warns that rooftop panels on industrial, commercial and government buildings would generate only about 20 percent of the capacity the DWP needs, with much greater energy coming from wind turbines.

Per kilowatt-hour of energy produced, over its life, solar (photo voltaic) is expected to cost more than two times the cost of concentrated solar generation and six times the cost of typical wind generation," the report said, adding the cost of rooftop solar is $7,000 per kilowatt-hour, three times that of wind and 1.5 times that of concentrated solar.

The report said the utility has a continuing problem in how it is managed and does not have a comprehensive approach to strategic planning and long-term analysis.

"It is unclear that LADWP's current strategic planning process and financial analyses are sufficient to appropriately plan and manage such a complex portfolio of assets," the report said.

Editorials in the last week in January in the L.A. Times and Daily News carried these headlines: "L.A.'s Secret Solar Plan" and "In the dark over Measure B."

A month before the election on the largest solar energy initiative in U.S. history, we don't know what Measure B does other than mandate that DWP and its IBEW union own, install and maintain 400 megawatts of rooftop solar units on commercial, industrial and public buildings and that the mayor and City Council will be given the power to directly manage all aspects of the program.

 

THE FACTS:

* The Department of Water and Power initiated with much fanfare the nation's most aggressive solar energy program in the U.S. in 1999 under General Manager S. David Freeman. Millions of dollars were spent on public relations and community outreach, resulting in massive waste identified in City Controller audits and very little green energy.

* The DWP promised 100 MW of solar power in the city but has produced just 12 MW. DWP gave discounts to the largest users effectively prohibiting solar installations. DWP and IBEW blocked repeated efforts to plan and produce a rooftop solar program and even at times sharply cut funding for home units. Three solar manufacturers set up operations in L.A. but left because of DWP resistance to solar and its demands for a monopoly on all major solar installations.

.

* Three mayors and the City Council have proven themselves incapable of forcing DWP to move forward on solar energy. Measure B is a City Charter reform that removes the wall protecting DWP from being politicized by giving the mayor and City Council direct control over all aspects of this program, even contracting.

 

* No planning, no cost analysis, no technology study have gone into Measure B. It's simply a blank check to the DWP and city officials. Most of the money will go to China where the plates are made so DWP only promises a few hundred new jobs in L.A.

 

* City Hall revenue has soared by more than one third in three years yet overspending has created massive deficits of more than $400 million, 10 percent of the General Fund. It will get worse with the $43 billion state budget shortfall. Federal stimulus money will fund public works projects, not solve the city's General Fund problem. City officials have yet to seriously address the budget problem and now are asking for billions for solar without any safeguards.

 

* Electricity rates have risen sharply and are certain to go much higher even without this massive solar energy initiative. DWP has allowed its power grid to deteriorate from a lack of investment. It has the largest coal-burning power plant portfolio in the U.S., which has allowed rates to be kept low. Measure B will not close any of these plants. It will not even meet demand caused by over-development and the 900 digital billboards already approved. DWP must invest billions of dollars in its power infrastructure even without initiating this costly solar program.

 

* Solar energy has nearly 100 percent public support but Measure B is not the answer. There's a better way. Real planning, real analysis, real public debate - that's all opponents of Measure B are saying. We can't trust the people who have failed us with a blank check and no plan.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Despite an army of DWP and "Yes on B" operatives, millions of dollars in special interest money and overwhelming public support for solar energy, opposition is growing to Measure B. Bel Air Beverly Crest, Tarzana and Valley Village Neighborhood Councils have joined the groundswell of community groups that voted to oppose this ill-conceived, unplanned ballot proposition. Visit the nomeasureb.com website and read today's L.A. Times editorial. 

The Measure B Mess

Angelenos will be asked to weigh in on a solar power plan on the city's March 3 ballot, but officials haven't really told us what we're voting on.

January 29, 2009

The City Council was unfazed in November when no one from the Department of Water and Power or other City Hall offices could answer some of the most basic questions about a proposed solar power measure the council was about to put on the ballot. How much will it cost ratepayers? Is it financially feasible? How much money will it take to recruit and train new workers?

DWP General Manager H. David Nahai said his agency would have the answers after Huron Consulting Group completed its independent analysis of the plan sometime in January, and council members promised one another that would leave plenty of time for open discussion about the "Green Energy and Good Jobs for Los Angeles" program that they seemed too rushed to deal with at the moment. They scheduled the measure for the March 3 election.

The Huron report is due next week, but don't expect that to spur a month of thoughtful City Council discourse based on the findings. The report is not about Measure B (or Charter Amendment B, take your pick); it's an analysis of the entire three-part Solar L.A. program, of which Measure B is one part. It won't tell ratepayers how much their rates will rise. It can't. There are too many variables -- just as there are too many variables to let voters know how much rates will rise without Measure B.

Yet there was Nahai at last week's commission meeting urging everyone to hold their fire until the Huron report is out. "Until then, I feel that all of the conjecture really does a disservice to the debate," he said.

The Yes-on-B campaign is in high gear, asking voters to adopt the measure. Voting begins Monday with mail balloting. Yet we're not supposed to ask questions until the Huron report is out? Meanwhile, where is the language of the measure we're voting on? Have voters seen it? Is it available? Is it on the city's website? No -- the city clerk's office is shooting for posting the language sometime toward the end of next week. (If you don't want to wait, you can find the ballot language on our website, at latimes.com/opinion.)

This page wants smart "in-basin" solar power as an integral part of the city's energy generation and distribution strategy, and we remain open to the idea that this ballot measure may be the best way to get it. But the process seems designed to get voters to sign off on a plan without sufficient knowledge of it, and it is undermining a broader discussion of solar power in Los Angeles. There is a point at which process gets so bad that it outweighs substance, no matter how good that substance may be. We're rapidly approaching that point.

After spending months revisiting its 2006 decision to spend $42 million on a pachyderm elephant exhibit at the L.A. Zoo, the City Council voted 11-4 to keep Billy the Elephant caged in more comfortable quarters and bring him some playmates, male and female.

For all the endless hours of public comment and debate -- roughly 10 times as much as was spent in putting the largest solar power initiative on the ballot, of all places -- the council decided it had nothing to do with Billy's welfare.

All that mattered was that it was cheaper to keep him at the zoo than to let him roam free in the wilds of the Valley.

So take heart, Los Angeles, they don't treat elephants any better than they do people.

Columnist Kevin Modesti in the Daily News offers an amusing look today at the issue that has paralyzed the City Council for so long:

One recent afternoon at the Los Angeles Zoo's

elephant exhibit, a grayish creature with wrinkles around the eyes stared over the wood-and-rope fence. He was slow afoot, kind of lumbering. He seemed, in some ways, ill-suited to the modern world. He faced an uncertain future. And, my, what big ears he had.

But enough about me.

This is supposed to be about Billy the elephant...

People care about elephants such as Billy because we see a lot of ourselves in them, particularly at a time when both man and beast are struggling to keep up, humans in a rapidly evolving workplace and animals on a fast- changing globe"

Exactly. The way the City Council has given poor Billy the Elephant -- and the hundreds of people on both sides of the issue -- the runaround for months is typical of how the nation's highest paid city officials treat everybody.

A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer in your face. But who's laughing?

Tom LaBonge, fresh from his triumph over those who wanted to really protect Griffith Park from the ravages of development, now has moved a step closer to winning approval of finishing the elephant exhibit at the LA Zoo. The council is finally set to actually make a decision today.

His City Council's Arts and Parks Committee on Tuesday recommended completing the $42 million Pachyderm Forest -- now halted after a third of the money was spent.

And he's armed with a new report from the Chief Legislative Analyst to defeat Tony Cardenas' plan to create a sanctuary out in the wilds of the Valley while turning the elephant exhibit into a home for rhinoceroses and hippopotamuses who apparently don't need room to roam despite their mammoth size.

The CLA, sharing some of the responsibility for the city running up a $400 million deficit despite a 33 percent revenue increase, has become quite conscious of how the public's money is being spent.

Here's the findings on the financial impact of changing course (billy-cla.pdf):.

If the Pachyderm Forest Exhibit is completed and the GLAZA offer is accepted, the project's impact
to the General Fund of $24 million over 20 years would be completely mitigated.
If the Pachyderm Forest Exhibit is cancelled, the General Fund would need to repay $5 million in voter approved funding to the County of Los Angeles within 60 days.
If the Pachyderm Forest Exhibit is replaced with another project, the project's impact to the General
Fund would be about $26 million in debt service over 20 years.

So if time and money are important, the council will not foreclose on Billy's home.

It wouldn't be so bad if this was just an isolated example of City Hall's failings. But it isn't.  The council has a way of leaving just about everyone feeling frustrated and wondering why everything takes so long and gets so complicated -- everyone that is except those who throw  a lot of money at the animals in the City Hall zoo. 

By Bruno
L.A.'s Watchdog

Having consumed several bowls of water last night, I spent a long time on the old Dog Trainer this morning, every skimpy section, and was struck by one glaring fact: These guys we select to run the city don't know what they're talking about!

Consider these three headlines:

·    Commercial operations to close at Palmdale Regional Airport

·    L.A. port's clean-truck program running on empty

·    A mass transit dilemma: Ridership up, funds down

Even in dog years, I'm not that old, but it seems like only yesterday our public officials were touting all these programs. It almost makes you believe they're fallible.

Opening Palmdale Airport to commercial traffic was going to help fix crowding at LAX and United Airlines even set up a small operation, but it soon became apparent travelers weren't crazy about traveling all the way to Palmdale to travel to San Francisco. With security and everything, you could drive there faster.

And surprise! The money to fund the clean-truck program at the port isn't there and the businessmen who thought they would get it to buy the clean trucks are left holding the bag.

Then there's the infamous Subway to the Sea and other transit improvements our elected officials said were vital to keep us moving when they were campaigning for Measure R to raise our taxes yet again. Now the MTA is talking about cutting service and raising fares.

Grrrrrrrrr!

Keep all this in mind when many of these same officials tell you Measure B, their beloved Solar Initiative, will save the environment and cost you almost nothing.

Well, not all our officials.  Last week, at a public hearing, DWP GM David Nahai, actually said he was waiting for a new report (the last one, well, sucked) to get the facts on Measure B - and he runs the department!

I guess Nahai didn't read the oped piece in the Daily News by former DWP GM David Freeman, who, in addition to bragging about what a great job he did running the department before he was fired by Richard Riordan, claims that Measure B would damn near save the universe.

Confusing? Too confusing to vote for Measure B? You make up your mind.  I'm just a dog, but I'm wondering if I can believe anything any of them say anymore.

Woof!

More than 10 weeks ago, the City Council approved putting Measure B on the March 3 ballot just three weeks after it was introduced -- a process that even its most ardent supporters admit was seriously flawed.

Just how flawed becomes more obvious day by day as critics uncover a complex web of lies, subterfuges and obfuscations that make a farce of the whole idea of putting such an ill-defined and unstudied proposal before voters -- a measure that profoundly changes the City Charter and puts ratepayers on the hook for billions of dollars and potential liability for anything that goes wrong.

The City Hall political machine likes it just fine that way. They are tapping into millions of dollars in special interest money to sell this to the uninformed, orchestrating a campaign using the full power and staff of the DWP, intimidating opponents and squelching Neighborhood Councils from taking a position and framing the debate so that they can carry out the exact same scheme even if voters reject Measure B.

Politics doesn't get any dirtier than that -- unless the door they have opened to massive graft and corruption with this measure actually occurs.

Just last week after one Neighborhood Council after another came out against Measure B, City Hall issued an edict barring them from taking a position unless the DWP was notified at least 14 days in advance, which makes it almost impossible for them to act in a meaningful way with less than two weeks left before the absentee ballots start rolling in. (More than 60 percent of the votes in this election are expected to come from mail-in voting).

Meanwhile, the DWP is sending out staff to community groups all over the city in a coordinated effort to falsely frame the issue solely as this: Are you for or against solar energy?

And even if Measure B is defeated, DWP General Manager David Nahai made it clear last week that it's a win-win situation since it would be a repudiation of the back room dirty deals, secrecy and haste with which this was rushed to the ballot.

Just look at the long list of changes that City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo said on Nov. 4 -- just three days before it was unanimously passed by the council -- had to be made to this measuresolarmeasure.pdf

Does anybody in their right mind or with an ounce of integrity actually think that council members who claim they didn't understand what they were doing two years ago when they agreed to a deal for 900 digital billboards in the city or a $42 million cage for Billy the Elephant knew what they were doing when they voted for a measure this large and complex?

"Neighborhood Councils are all for solar, they're not against solar," Nahai said in respond to Dr. Dan Wiseman's question about what would happen if Measure B loses.

"Part of the concern that is expressed is with the process...if the electorate voices an objection to the process that has been undertaken to lead to the ballot box, I think that's one message and that would again be a vote not against solar but against the process that was involved."

It's noteworthy that Nahai wasn't even listening to the esteemed doctor who is secretary of the L.A. Neighborhood Council Coalition among many other roles he has taken on make this a better city.

Of course, the Yes on B campaign dismisses Dr Wiseman and all other opponents as "fringe activists" -- a McCarthyist tactic similar to the suggestion in the 1950s that anyone with a different point of view was a pinko commie. So much for the honest public discussion the council called for.

Voters lack crucial cost information on solar initiative

IT'S about time that Los Angeles get some sunshine.

Not necessarily on the streets (we need the rain). Voters need a strong light shone directly onto Measure B, the proposition that would require the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power to install enough solar panels throughout the city to generate 400 megawatts of power by 2014.

Sounds like a fine idea, right? Solar is clean, green energy and Los Angeles is the ideal place to generate electricity from the sun. And the investment in local solar could generate a wave of so-called green-collar jobs in photovoltaic panel manufacturing and installation.

Clearly the City Council and the mayor are betting that the warm, fuzzy feeling Angelenos have for alternative energy is incentive enough to vote yes on Measure B without having many details about it. Details such as, why put a policy decision before voters and how much might all of this cost ratepayers down the road?

Here we are at the end of January - three months after the initiative was proposed and five weeks from the election - and we still do not have answers to these crucial questions.

When the City Council rushed this initiative through to the ballot without a thorough vetting, DWP and other city officials dismissed concerns, saying they would produce a cost analysis long before voters had to go to the polls.

So far, that hasn't happened.

That's the problem with the so-called Green Energy and Good Jobs program on the March 3 city ballot. It's a good idea executed in such a rushed and hushed manner that it feels as if we're being scammed.

You got to hand it to City Hall -- it has reached a level of such total corruption that even the outcomes of elections make no difference.

There isn't a dictator or mob boss anywhere who can't admire the genius of a system that lets politicians and their very special friends live like royalty off the public treasury and still walk around as if they were humble servants of the people.

The case in point is the Measure B solar energy fraud.

It's taken two months of hard work by dozens of intelligent and experienced people -- "fringe activists" in the parlance of the "Yes on B" campaign -- to penetrate the lies and deceits to finally understand the truth.

We finally get solar power in the sun capital of the world after a decade of City Hall's refusal to take advantage of nature's abundant clean energy resource whether Measure B passes or fails.

The only question is how much they get to steal. And who gets to steal it.

Corruption doesn't get any more beautiful than that.

If Measure B is approved by voters on March 3 -- an outcome that is all but certain given the millions of dollars in special interest money behind it and City Hall's intimidation of unions, the solar energy industry, business organizations and community and environment groups -- we get the largest solar energy plan in U.S. history.

And, through the despicable City Charter amendment element of Measure B, we give the mayor and the City Council the absolute power to channel the billions of dollars in public money that's involved to anyone they want without even the slightest meaningful safeguard or oversight.

If by some miracle, we "fringe activists" are able to awaken the sleeping and distracted populace and muster some small change out of their pockets and defeat Measure B, we get the largest solar energy plan in U.S. history anyway.

That's because the DWP and the IBEW that runs it have committed themselves to this initiative as long as they hold a monopoly on ownership of the rooftop solar units and all the work of installing and maintaining them.

They can -- and will -- enact this exact same policy or a worse one immediately after the election if Measure B fails.

The only difference is that the mayor and council will have to do their dirty work behind the scenes and let the DWP Board of Commissioners -- which they have weakened to the point of irrelevance -- do the actual channeling all those billions into the pockets of the special interests who have helped turn what used to pass for a democratic government into a political machine.

So why do we fight if the outcome is already certain?

We fight because we must to keep hope alive that somehow, some way, some day, we can help bring a semblance of democracy in L.A., that people in every part of the city will be engaged and able to affect the public policy and to come together to create a civic culture that gives life to our shared belief in the dream of L.A. as a place of boundless possibilities for everyone, a city where people have come from all over the world to become all that they can be.

We fight on and hope and that we can end the corruption before it's too late, before the disparity between rich and poor becomes so great and those in the middle so few that L.A. is beyond saving. The question is how much time do we have left before that happens.

We fight because if we can defeat Measure B, we will have the chance to force them to bring the community into a process that can produce a real solar energy that gets most most electricity at the lowest cost in the fastest time.

We fight because if we win they will be put on notice that the people are waking up and getting organized and their days are numbered.

By Bruno
L.A.'s Watchdog

Judging from some the reaction I get from my fans, some of you think I'm one mean, sarcastic son of a bitch. You're partly right, that's for sure. And maybe they're all right sometimes. I do take canine liberties.

But this morning as I walked over to the Dog Trainer to, well, train, I read only two stories. Then I wandered to a quiet corner and wept -- for you humans and the city you try to make home.

Less than a mile from our house, at an old bowling alley on a busy corner,  James Shamp, the father of two who served four years in the US Army, was shot to death last month because he was black. He worked there and was taking out the garbage.

On another page, columnist Patt Morrison reminded me that Antonio has no intention of debating his opponents in his bid re-election.

Something's terribly wrong.

According to an unusually well-written story, the kind The Trainer does infrequently these dog days:

At the Canoga Park Bowl, everyone knew James Shamp.

His job was to clean, but he did so much more. Bowlers described him as a comedian and their loyal cheerleader. He greeted regulars with a big handshake followed by a succession of jokes that would continue through their games.

"He was the black Chevy Chase," said Robert Battle, a member of the Equally Offensive bowling team. .

Three days before Christmas, Shamp was taking out some trash to the dumpsters behind the bowling alley when a car pulled up. According to police, a group of Latino gang members approached and shot Shamp, 48, in the chest. Friends heard the shots and ran outside, where they found Shamp lying face down. He died at a hospital.

Los Angeles police detectives and prosecutors allege the gang members targeted Shamp because he was African American. The three suspects were each charged last week with one count of murder and conspiracy to commit a crime because of race.

The schools fail at educating your children and 10 bucks says the scumbags that killed James Shamp dropped out in 10th grade, if they went at all.

And the mayor won't debate.

Your streets are choked with traffic and taking your son to baseball practice or your daughter to dance class - or just getting to the bloody super market -- becomes an exercise in frustration.

 

And the mayor won't debate.

 

Simple billboards, which were always ugly, but at least common, have now become light shows that can probably be seen from outer space and keep you awake at night.

 

And the mayor won't debate.

 

In the name of the environment, the mayor conspires with a union to foist upon you a solar plan in a plot that puts the the Sopranos to shame.

 

And the mayor won't debate.

 

What's wrong with you people?  Have you become so lazy and stupid that you're going to let this happen?  I mean, he's going to win. Can't he at least try to explain why?

 

James Shamp used to help the bowling alley's comedian performer, Jay Cramer, who uses a wheelchair, set up a ramp each night before he performed. He doesn't anymore.

 

And the mayor won't debate.

 

Mary Mannon, who knew James Shamp, said he called the woman bowlers "Mamas," and would greet her with "Mary had a little lamb."

 

"I just want to hear him say 'mama' one last time," Mannon said. "I want to hear him say 'Mary had a little lamb.'

 

And the mayor won't debate.

 

With a tear for all of you,

 

Woof!

By Marcia Hanscom
Founder of (Ballona) Wetlands Action Network

Presdent Obama's memorandum on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) seems like it is far reaching beyond what any President has supported.

I still have tears in my eyes from reading it!

The public has been kept from secret meetings the Army Corps of Engineers and other federal agencies have participated in related to plans for the Ballona Wetlands due to some "speculative or abstract fears" that this order below zeroes in on as so pervasive in some government places these days.

Maybe now the public will be informed as to why huge bulldozing plans to "re-contour" the wetlands, erase the habitat that literally hundreds of species depend on and favor water quality/move the levee plans are being promoted over the habitat preservation that stakeholders all voted was to be the primary goal of any restoration on the site.

When was this decision made, and who made it?  Since we've attended every public meeting that has been called, we can only speculate that these decisions were made during the Managers Meetings or behind closed doors.  Now the doors are being opened by our new President.  

We have repeatedly asked to be allowed to attend the Managers Meetings, where government agencies have been making plans for the land we all love so mcuh.

Now we have the tools to attempt to force the issue.

Thank you, Barack Obama!

THE WHITE HOUSE 

Office of the Press Secretary

                                                              ­

For Immediate Release                       January 21, 2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This memorandum does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

 

                              BARACK OBAMA

Covering Obama: Challenges Facing a Battered Local Media

President-Elect Barack Obama has just been sworn in, even as local media in California continue to battered with cuts and layoffs. Can the surviving staffs meet the challenge of explaining who in Los Angeles and Southern California controls the vast sums of money flowing to local governments--and how or where they spend it? And how will the vastly reduced reporting and editing staffs keep up with the most dramatic political and economic story of our time?
     Moderated by the outspoken Ron Kaye, former editor of the Los Angeles Daily News now at www.RonKayeLA.com, the panel includes award-winning investigative reporter Beth Barrett, formerly with the Daily News; nationally respected public opinion expert Susan Pinkus, pollster and former director of Los Angeles Times Poll (we guarantee great insider anecdotes from the fabulous Ms. Pinkus); and veteran media critic Jonathan Wilcox, USC Communications professor and political consultant.

WHEN - Thurs., January 22, 7:30 p.m. Reception 6:30 p.m. Complimentary wine/appetizers.
WHERE - LA Press Club, 4773 Hollywood Blvd. (near Vermont). Free parking (enter off of Berendo Street).
Free to LAPC members, non-members $10 if prepaid, students $5. 

Griffith Park lover Kristin Sabo has the right to say, "I told you so."

Almost alone among the hundreds of people who have crusaded to save L.A.'s most precious natural resource from the greedy hands of developers and the greasy palms of the City Council, Sabo spoke out and condemned the lsst-minute exemptions to the cultural-historical protections that were brokered by Councilman Tom ("I Love L.A.") LaBonge.

Sabo reported that the back room games being played at last week's Planning and Land Use Management Committee meeting left weary activists so confused that most of them thought exemptions for Toyon Canyon Landfill, the L.A. Zoo and other areas well within the park's boundaries was OK.

Not Sabo. Whie others were lulled into submission, she saw how LaBonge had prevailed and left the park open to kind of developmental destruction he loves so much.

"Given that Jack Weiss didn't even bother to sit up from his perpetually-bored and uninterested chair slump the entire meeting, it's pretty clear this so-called last minute wrangling was pre-planned," according to a report on Mayor Sam's blog.

Now, the L.A. Weekly's David Farrell reports in an article headlined "Griffith Park Shenanigans: La Bonge's landmark designation leaves big loopholes for chains and hotels" that just about anything is possible if the full council goes along as usual.

According to Farrell:

The chafing question now, though, is whether the unwieldy preservation plan, jam-packed with City Hall-esque exclusions and qualifications that almost nobody can decipher, will accomplish what homeowners and activists have fought for - a Griffith Park protected forever from chains and large-scale development. Or is the door still open to traffic-generating restaurants, aerial tramways and theme hotels?

"I'm not sure myself," says Griffith "Van" Griffith, who has spearheaded the defense of the mountainous 4,218 acres, a crown jewel among the nation's urban parks. "It seems like a kind of gray area floating in limbo. If they wanted to put aerial trams in the zoo, I don't know what would happen."

The council could take up the issue as early as Tuesday so it's not too late to stop the sell out of Griffith Park if you create enough heat on your council member.

"And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government...

"To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."

Barack Obama, Inaugural Address as 44th President of the United States. Jan. 20, 2009

I was deeply moved by the inauguration of Barack Obama as President, his words resonated to the core of my beliefs as a teenager in the 1950s and my coming of age and ideals in the 1960s.

The symbolism of America embracing a black President in my lifetime and the olive branch he offered for national unity and global friendship reflected my own beliefs.

But what meant the most to me was Obama's call for "a new era of responsibility" -- a warning to elected officials everywhere to put a true sense of public service ahead of self service and to those "who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent."

In the context of that last phrase, he meant foreign dictators but to those of us in Los Angeles working for a more democratic city, an inclusive city, a great city, the words applied precisely to what we face.

City government has grown corrupt and serves special interests better than people, special interests that keep our officials in office with their money. And our city government engages constantly in deceit and the silences dissent.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the campaign for Measure B. Back room deals were cut with those who will directly profit from this plan; others were bullied into silence to the point that many are so intimidated they are afraid to stand up and speak freely about what is wrong with this plan; vital information was withheld from the public and even the City Council and no meaningful public debate was allowed.

And when some of us dissented and exercise our legal right to oppose Measure B, they sued and demanded heavy financial costs be imposed on us. They lost in court because Measure B does nothing except perpetuate the failing monopoly of the DWP -- the very agency that for a decade or long has vigorously resisted public demands for solar energy.

A government that disrespects the public so thoroughly is not the kind of government that President Obama speaks of. A government that squanders the public's money on sweetheart contracts and wasteful spending is not the kind of government that President Obama speaks of.

We the people of Los Angeles want the kind of government President Obama speaks of -- not a government that serves itself and excludes the public.

We appeal to Mayor Villaraigosa to suspend his campaign for Measure B and to open up a genuine and open dialogue with the people of the city on how we achieve clean energy and clean government.

Nothing good for the city can come from the dirty deals that went into Measure B. The conflict over this measure will not end even if his campaign's lies, false promises and millions of dollars in special interest money prevail over the people.

Everyone wants solar energy. Nobody but City Hall and the special interests it serves wants 1,000 giant digital billboards that create visual blight and a safety hazard.

Everyone wants affordable housing that preserves the working class and middle class. Nobody but City Hall is selling out to developers whose projects drain precious resources, overtaxes the infrastructure and causes worse traffic congestion.

Everyone wants kids to get good educations and for the people of the city to have the opportunity to get good jobs. Nobody but City Hall is responsible for the flight of good-paying jobs to the suburbs and the worsening poverty rate.

Let's start anew. Let's open a real public conversation on how we come together on a clean energy plan that creates good jobs here -- not in China. The issue isn't solar energy at any price. It's solar energy at the best price with the biggest impact on our economy and on our environment.

Let's build on that dialogue on how we turn L.A. around and start sharing in the greatness of a city we all believe in, a city that brings to life the ideals that President Obama speaks so eloquently to.

And let's reach for something greater than ourselves and build a city that fulfills its promise of freedom and inclusion of all. Let's come together and make L.A. the great city it could become.

That day has finally come -- the inauguration of Barack Obama as President of the United States and alll eyes are on the nation's capitol.

For those who lived throught the early days of the civil rights movement 50 years ago, it's hard to believe the nation would ever elect a black president.

Former Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg is in the massive crowd and messaging his experiences which I'll update during the day:

12:43 p.m. -- My toes are cold, but the sun is shining. We are all hopeful. Our new President's message feels good. (Text of Inaugural Addressobama-inaugural.rtf )

12:10 p.m. -- We have a new President. May God give him the strength.

11:55 a.m. -- Oh my god, a sea of goosebumps as far as the eye can see. The feeling among the crowd is overwhelming.

11:50 a.m. -- Here we go-- biden taking the oath.

11:42 a.m. --  I brought my 17-year-old son Daniel who was president of the Obama Club at Campbell Hall in Studio City. I have never seen him more excited!.

11:41 a.m. -- So far the biggest applause for the obama daughters.

11:18 a.m. -- Hard to type. Fingers are frozen. Now the color guard. And as the announcer says, please be seated, all the folks standing let out a loud roar as they have been frustrated because the folks in the seated sections were blocking their view

11:17 a.m. -- Calls or emails can get out. I am told that for security reasons, cell traffic has been limited.

9:59 a.m. -- Just arrived at my seat in front of the capitol. Lots of folks dancing to keep warm, but I also think they are just plain excited and are having difficulty containing their enthusiasm

7:41 a.m. -- Standing in the longest line of my life. Spirits of all are festive and optimistic. People as far as the eye can see. I wonder how many folks from the SFV here?

5:40 a.m. --  Just getting out the door to make the trek to the Capitol.  Preparing for the cold weather - an endeavor for a California Kid.  Two overcoats on top of all the usual stuff and pockets full of hand and feet warmers.  It has been hard to sleep - there is so much excitement in the air here.

There's a better way to achieve clean energy for L.A. than the dirty deal of Measure B and even those who voted to put it on the March 3 ballot are figuring that out..

Councilman Greig Smith who helped make the vote Nov. 7 unanimous to put this on the ballot has concluded Measure B is the wrong way to get clean energy -- just like growing numbers of Neighborhood Councils, community groups and business organizations.

"I do not support Prop. B," he told Valley Vote members at Monday night's meeting at the opening of his remarks about his trash recycling efforts.

At Sunday's Council District 5 forum put on by the Beverly WIlshire Homes Association, candidate David (Ty) Vahedi changed his mind and joined Adeena Bleech in opposing Measure B. The other four candidates maintained their support for the March 3 ballot measure but now acknowledge the process was seriously flawed and the measure far from perfect.

Last week, Councilman Bill Rosendahl announced he no longer is sure whether he supports the measure. During the council vote, Rosendahl unequivocally declared his intent to vote yes on "B" on March 3, now he's undecided.

The reasons people are turning against Measure B are simple:

• Measure B is a back room deal.  Downtown big money political operatives cooked it up for their clients like the two union bosses that rigged it so all jobs go through them and all other unions in the city are shut out.  
• It has no spending limits, and forces DWP to raise our rates to pay for it.  
• It sticks us with the bill, but we don't get any benefits: no rooftop solar on our homes, no jobs, no clean air.  
• Local small businessman installers and nearly all union workers get no jobs.  
• It's a greenwash:  LADWP is one of the biggest emitters in the City but Measure B does not require them to lower air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions by one milligram,
• We deserve clean energy, clean air and clean government. So lets come up with a real plan that will get all of L.A. aboard the movement to conserve resources and create a healthy environment.
  

Hundreds of the big shots, power brokers and elected officials from Los Angeles journeyed to the nation's capitol for the historic inauguration of Barack Obama as President of the United States -- one can only hope they were inspired by his message of true public service, respect for everyone and hope for a more democratic society.

I, for one, am not holding my breath.

For if there is anywhere in America that needs its leaders to embrace his dream for our country, it is Los Angeles.

Throughout our city's history, narrow elites have ruled and profited from their power and done their best to keep grass root organizations weak and fragmented.

This is truer today than ever before. We now have a mayor with nearly absolute power over City Hall and the school system and transportation authority, a mayor who spends 10 percent of his work governing and 90 percent in pubic relations activities while shadowy figures without any public accountability pull the strings behind the scenes.

The inner circle of powerful special interests derailed City Charter reform in the '90s, crushed the San Fernando Valley cityhood movement with its wealth and clout and today is doing its best to make a mockery of the legislative and electoral processes.

But the winds of change are blowing and for the first time in the city's history neighborhoods are organizing and fighting for their values and interests and winning as the Sunland-Tujunga community did in stopping the Home Depot invasion after years of struggle.

Lawsuits are being filed challenging city policies on over-development and its lack of investment in infrastructure, its lack of even studying what needs to be done to make this a livable city.

And most importantly, people from across the city are uniting in common cause for the common good and mobilizing to stop billboard blight, to save Griffith Park from being turned into Disneyland L.A., to save the quality of our lives from being destroyed.

With city elections coming March 3, there is next to no chance we will see a new mayor since he scared away all serious competitors with his access to millions of dollars in special interest money.

But we can elect a City Controller in Nick Patsaouras, the former President of the DWP Commission who fought for a Ratepayer's Advocate and has 30 years of volunteer experience as the watchdog on the public's money.

And we can stop listless Councilman Jack Weiss from becoming City Attorney where he would be nothing more than a tool for an arrogant political machine.

Most of all, we can defeat Measure B, the solar energy fraud that is nothing but a license to steal billions of dollars of the public's money under a power grab that lets the mayor and City Council control all the contracts as they have done so often to channel money to their friends and special interests.

Even the most passionate environmentalists who believe solar energy is worth it no matter how high the rates go admits the process of cutting back room deals, keeping reports secret and approving it just three weeks was seriously flawed.

Clean energy at any price is not the real question. The issue is we can have clean energy and clean government. We don't need dirty deals that freeze out non-government unions and businesses to have a clean environment. There's a better way, one that is honest, transparent and involves us all in the effort to conserve resources and create a greener world.

That's what the "No on Measure B" committee is fighting for. It's what the DWP Committee is fighting for. It's what the Saving L.A. Project is fighting for. It's what the Valley Industry & Commerce Association, the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles, the Valley Alliance of Neighborhood Councils and many others believe.

You can help to by getting involved in your local community groups, writing me at ron@ronkayela.com or sending a check to the "DWP Committee for Advocacy," c/o of Secretary/ Treasurer Heinrich Keifer, 5669 York Blvd., Los Angeles CA 90042

EDITOR'S NOTE: This article by a resident of Council District 5 expresses the frustration of so many who have given so much of themselves to make L.A. a great city

I am nervous about the upcoming election.  The City Attorney race is critical for the city.  The Council District 5 race is critical for my area.

In the meantime, the city is crumbling in on itself due to lack of funds and inefficiency.  The in-the-trenches workers are at their wit's end.  (Our community benefit fund just provided bridge funding for 15 positions at a park until March when program fees pick up).

The state is issuing IOUs and has a structural and insurmountable debt.  So does the city.

The county is going to follow soon as property tax revenue is going to decline along with sales tax revenues for all levels of government.

DWP General Manager David Nahai just came out and said there is a 50% chance that water rationing is coming AT THE SAME TIME as EIRs across the city are stating (and the city is accepting) that there is plenty of water for the mega-projects.  Of course, who would really know as the damn growth and infrastructure report hasn't been done since 1998.

The city keeps approving projects that cost the city money in both the short term because development is not revenue-neutral and long term because the pro-rata cost of infrastructure is not charged against developers and put away to maintain the infrastructure the development consumes.

And while all of this red-alert financial is happening, we have crap like Prop B pushed on us as progress, even though it will increase rates and be generally evil.  Wendy Greuel will likely win given Nick's fundraising shortfall.  I have deep concerns that she will really be the controller who cuts waste.

So, to summarize:  I see multiple trains coming down multiple tracks all toward the same point.  A major crash/crisis of some sort seems imminent and unavoidable unless we get some real leadership and fast.  This special interest pay-for-play crap is going to kill the city.

The most frustrating part is how nearly impossible it is to get people (large numbers of people) to pay attention and vote for the right people.

Aside from that, I'm fine.

Dogs across the nation are looking towards Washington today.

Here in LA, many are being dropped off at fancy kennels, where they'll lounge in luxury for a few days while their Democrat owners head east to celebrate the inauguration of Bark Obama. I heard from a Lab on the Westside that somebody dropped off Jack Weiss at something called a "cageless kennel," but I don't believe it. Nobody's seen Weiss in weeks.

I'm staying home. I'm not taken to kennels, fancy or not. Something about my appearance - and personality.The best I get is a walk around the block with a choke collar around my neck a tight leash. And if somebody drops by, I get chained to the living room wall like a prisoner in Abu Ghraib.

Luckily, I can still see the TV while I pull on my chain and snarl because this inauguration is a very big deal: The Obamas are getting a dog!

I know, being politically correct and all, our new President and First Lady will probably go for a rescue mutt, like me. Maybe if they look in the bushes around the White House they'll find a homeless bum like me and take him like Deborah did when she was afraid I'd eat the neighbor's kid. This is going to be one lucky Dog. Not only will he get to play with two adorable little girls in a big house, but grandma's moving in, too. Grandmothers often act tough, but when nobody's looking they'll slip you something under the table. I guess they're a lot like lobbyists that way

The pup pool shrank when the Obamas announced the dog had to be hypoallergenic because one their daughters has allergies. Poodles moved up in Vegas sports books but the odds are only even because many are known to be French.

I'm betting on a mixed breed, like me - and our new president. And before you leave a nasty comment, that's what Obama said about himself recently. The guy's not only a good dad, but he has a sense of humor.

So I'm going to sit back this weekend, try to forget Measure B for a few days - which is nearly impossible in this house - and watch the festivities in Washington. With all the crap we deal with every day, there isn't a dog in America, no matter his breed or political affiliation, who can't enjoy this. Not only are we going to see our first African- American president but two little girls are getting a dog. And it's about time for both.

Woof!

Make sure you get the facts straight before you leap to the conclusion that L.A. County Supervisors' aides improperly tried to influence planning staff on land use decisions.

Such actions, after all, could be easily construed as criminal and could lead to prosecution, especially if campaign contributions or other money was exchanged.

But thanks to the sparse reporting of the L.A. Times we don't have the facts to support accusing anyone of involvement in such a scandal.

Surely, the paper's sharp cuts account for why the dismissal Friday of Bruce W. McClendon, Los Angeles County's chief land use planner, merits only seven paragraphs.

McClendon, the Times reports, was called into the office of County Chief Executive Officer William T. Fujioka and told he was fired effective immediately and told he will get half his $191,028 yearly salary as severance after two years as head of the Department of Regional Planning.

McClendon said he believed the firing was likely in retaliation for becoming a whistle-blower against the Board of Supervisors.

He claimed he gave information to Fujioka that supervisors' aides routinely sought to improperly influence hearing officers' decisions on whether to permit development plans. "It was illegal, and they can go to jail for doing it," McClendon, 62, told the Times.

Fujioka denied that he received such information. Aides to Supervisors Michael Antonovich, Don Knabe, Gloria Molina and Zev Yaroslavsky declined to comment.

McClendon said that he also protected his staff from day-to-day interference from supervisors' aides, an occurrence that was supposed to be reduced by the implementation in 2007 of a new county structure.

But a citizens watchdog group last year said "the number of bosses intervening in department affairs had actually multiplied," the Times reported.

McClendon, author of five books and a past president of the American Planning Association, is credited with working to update the master planning document for the county, which had been largely unchanged for 35 years.

Now if McClendon is going to have any credibility, he's going to have to produce incriminating evidence -- emails, memos, recordings, witnesses -- to prove his accusation.

Of course, somebody would have to ask for his proof, or actually conduct a complete investigation but it's hard to see that happening.

Is District Attorney Steve Cooley going to bring down the power of the law on the people who control his budget and keep him comfortably in office without actually ever becoming visible?

Without hard evidence and a thorough investigation, nobody who has watched developers get away with just about anything in the county -- or the city for that matter -- is going to believe our politicians use their influence to affect planning decisions on behalf of the people who contribute to their campaigns and treat them like royalty.

So I urge you not to leap to any conclusions. Just because McClendon says it and just because there seems to be a clear connection between development decisions and campaign contributions, doesn't make it true.

No Sir, we need an investigation to clear the good names of our public servants.

Hats off to Zach Behrens at laist.com for terrific interviews with former DWP Commission President Nick Patsaouras and City Councilwoman Wendy Greuel about what they would do about the parking meter fiasco, traffic issues and the mess at the Department of Transportation if elected City Controller.

And the best part is you can read it and then vote is a straw poll on who you think would look after the public interest best. I'll give you a hint: Wendy has her operatives out to a fast start.

There's a big difference between their views on the responsibilities to the public and their commitments to being public servants and not just elected officials.

It seems like just a month ago that I wrote that the 5,500-home Las Lomas project in unincorporated Sylmar between Santa Clarita and Los Angeles died a quiet death.

Judge David Yaffe threw out Las Lomas' $100 million lawsuit against L.A. Dan Palmer, the driving force behind the project, resigned as president of company. Hillary Orozco Norton, the firm's lobbyist, had moved from living off of overdevelopment that creates traffic congestion to living off the Measure R sales tax that's supposed to relieve traffic congestion.

Well, it was only a month ago. But tme flies and Las Lomas has appealed Yaffe's decision, presumably hoping L.A.'s money will provide the funding for the project when nobody's lending and nobody's buying homes.

"We believe our claims are meritorious and are convinced that there are fundamental legal issues that must be resolved by the Court of Appeal," said Carlyle W. Hall, Jr., counsel for Las Lomas.

"We were disappointed in the court's decision for ourselves, for the residents of Southern California, and for all those who recognize that the City Council broke the law. We are confident that the Court of Appeal will recognize that the City must answer for its illegal
decision to halt its review of the Las Lomas Project."  Las Lomas Appeals Trial Court.doc

CORRECTION: I originally wrote Jan. 17. The meeting is on Jan. 24 right after the Alliance of Neighborhood Council event.

You're all encouraged to come to the DWP Committee meeting at noon Saturday Jan. 24 at the Faculty Lounge at L..A Community College on Vermont Avenue, parking at the Faculty Structure off Heliotrope.

This is an event of great importance for the Saving L.A. Project and activists from all across the city who want to make a difference in the March 3 election.

The DWP Committee led by Soledad Garcia has taken the lead in working defeat Measure B, the phony solar energy proposition that is nothing but a payoff to the DWP/IBEW which have resisted clean energy efforts for the last decade and now are demanding a monopoly that will send rates soaring send billions of dollars in the public's money to China where the solar panels are made. This measure creates at most 400 IBEW jobs in L.A. and thousands overseas.

Even worse, the City Council and mayor approved this measure, written by the IBEW, without having done any study on feasibility, engineering or costs. In fact, the only analysis was kept secret from the council and the public until seven weeks after Measure B was approved.

And if that isn't bad enough, the solar energy component is a smokescreen to cover up that what Measure B is really about is a radical change in the City Charter. For the first time in L.A. history, the charter reform would allow the council by a simple majority vote to overturn the will of the people and change this plan at any time, in any way, without another ballot measure.

That makes Measure B a blank check and a license to steal.

Working together, SLAP, the DWP Committee and many community activists have mounted a campaign that can and will defeat Measure B despite the millions of dollars in special interest money being poured into the "Yes" campaign.

We have the truth on our side and they, along with DWP officials, are telling nothing but lies. We even have a court ruling by Judge David Yaffe who, in rejecting the "Yes" campaign's lawsuit against our "No on B" ballot pamphlet argument, found that this measure is so vague as to be meaningless.

The board of the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles, the Valley Industry & Commerce Association, Valley Alliance of Neighborhood Councils, Greater Wilshire NC, Sherman Oaks NC and other groups have come out in opposition to Measure B.

The momentum of our campaign is building but we need all hands aboard to win.

At Saturday's meeting will break into area groups to work out details of a ground, phone and email campaign.

We also are reaching out to various organizations for the money we will need. You can contribute to by sending checks to the DWP Committee c/o of Secretary/ Treasurer Heinrich Keifer, 5669 York Blvd., Los Angeles CA 90042  Every dollar helps.

We are also coordinating with City Attorney candidates to stop Jack Weiss who would be a disaster as the People's Lawyer.

And working to help Nick Patsaouras, who proposed creating the Ratepayer Advocate position when he was president of the DWP Commission, win the race to succeed Laura Chick as City Controller. We need a tough watchdog like Nick, not a lapdog, in the Controller's office -- a post that is even more important under Measure B since annual audits by the Controller are the only meaningful safeguard against massive corruption of the billions involved in this solar energy plan.

Many people believe this is the tipping point for Los Angeles. If they get away with this Measure B fraud and have the mayor, Jack Weiss and Wendy Greuel in the citywide offices, nothing will stop them.

We can change L.A. We can win this election. It's now or never.

This article was sent out as an email to hundreds of Saving L.A. Project members. Please copy and send it to everyone who might be interested.

Once again the L.A. Weekly -- target of endless whining from journalistic and ideological hacks -- has penetrated the obfuscations and lip service of City Hall and shattered another myth.

This time it's the myth that city officials care so much about ordinary people that they are building affordable housing to preserve the working class and middle class.

In fact, most of the housing built in the city is for upper middle and above people with some pandering projects thrown in for the homeless and the very poor.

Affordable housing is routinely being replaced by projects that increase density and have tiny percentages of units that could be called affordable. Apartment building owners who have affordable units are being harassed. the Housing Department itself is inept and the Housing Authority (HACLA) is a scandal-plagued agency who's head is paid nearly $500,000 a year while the poor and elderly get screwed.

But that's just the anecdotal knowledge and insights I have. Joseph Mailander at his blog street hassle offers his own solid take on the subject. 

Max Taves in the Weekly does the hard work of researching the affordable housing claims of city officials and quotes City Controller Laura Chick, the only one with any independence of thought or action,  as saying "90 percent of the units built during the construction frenzy were for those earning at least $135,000."

"If the city's numbers are accurate, Los Angeles has been losing a massive supply of affordable housing, while city leaders repeatedly take credit for approving 10,000 to 14,000 new units during each boom year -- one of the busiest construction periods since the end of World War II, Taves reports.

"In the face of widespread neighborhood resistance to this most recent boom, city planners approved often-sprawling luxury complexes in Hollywood, along Wilshire, on the Westside, in the Valley and downtown -- while the city was hemorrhaging its existing cheap rental stock.

While the media are talking about the foreclosure crisis and sharply falling home prices, Taves digs into the city's own numbers and finds L.A. "is spawning its own, hidden housing crisis.

Here's his numbers:

Minus 78 percent (yes, -78%): That's the latest massive drop in the city's Affordable Housing Trust Fund, slashed from $45 million in last year's city budget to just $10 million this year.

49: That's L.A.'s bottom-of-the-barrel "housing affordability" rank out of 50 big American cities, with San Francisco ranked last, according to a 2008 survey by San Francisco nonprofit SustainLane.com.

$962: Last year's average cost of renting in Los Angeles, 43 percent higher than in 2000.

10,000 to 14,000: The dwellings built in each year of L.A.'s just-ended boom, mostly in dense, multistory, "luxury" complexes.

330: The number of "affordable units" constructed each year, on average, during the same period, from 2003 to 2006.

7,369: The number of affordable units lost during the same period, mostly through conversions to luxury units but also demolitions related to new housing.

13,713: The net number of rent-controlled apartments and houses lost between 2001 and 2007 to demolition sparked by new construction and, even more often, to condo conversions sparked by the housing bubble's rush to home ownership.

Momentum for opposition to Measure B -- the phony solar energy measure on the March 3 ballot -- keeps growing.

The Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles' board and several Neighborhood Councils including Sherman Oaks and Greater Wilshire came out in opposition to Measure B earlier in the week.

And on Thursday, the Valley Industry & Commerce Association's Government Affairs Committee voted unanimously with three abstentions to oppose Measure B after hearing from Joseph Avila, right-hand man to DWP General Manager David Nahai and a Yes on B team led by campaign manager Mike Trujillo. I spoke for the "No" side.

Members of VICA, a long-time leader of the San Fernando Valley business community, questioned repeatedly why a ballot measure was needed when DWP could study, plan and implement a solar energy initiative through the normal process of public hearings, approval of the Board of Commissioners and the City Council if necessary.

The "Yes" team offered their usual answer -- "the people own this public utility and we want them on board'' -- but that didn't seem to satisfy anyone on the committee so the question kept coming up in different forms.

The real reason wasn't explained at all, just as it wasn't even mentioned in the three-page handout the "Yes" team distributed.

For the initiated, the solar component of Measure B is meaningless, a smokescreen to the real reason which is that this proposition is a radical change in the city government, politicizing the utility and giving the City Council by a majority vote the power to totally change at any time every aspect of what's on the ballot.

I said the charter reform element is the real reason this is on the ballot since it gives City Hall a blank check and a license to steal and be able to claim that voters gave them the permission. It is well established that when the mayor and council get to control contracting we see nothing but sweetheart deals for contractors, consultants, unions and other special interests.

Jack Humphreville, Noel Weiss, me and others have talked to upwards of 1,000 people when  they hear the truth about "B," they all get it. This is not the way to initiate the nation's largest solar energy program without real study and planning, without an honest debate, without making sure what the costs are in soaring rates and what the benefits are in terms of jobs.

The "Yes" team sued to gut the "No on B" ballot pamphlet argument, claiming it contained numerous "false and misleading" statements. They lost last week when Judge David Yaffe ruled there is so little substance to the solar element of the proposal that anyone could say just about anything about it -- it's all just speculation, he said..

"Who knows" what this plan will do, he said over and over. In fact, it is the "Yes" team that is making false and misleading statements. The City Council never discussed the charter reform element and the "Yes" team doesn't either.

They claim it will create thousands of jobs and bring a solar industry to L.A. But when pressed, they have to admit no more than 400 DWP jobs at most would be created and the real job creation program is in China where the solar panels will be manufactured.

They even admitted Thursday that half a dozen solar manufacturing companies did set up operations in L..A. only to flee the city in the face of resistance to solar from the DWP and IBEW.

Once again, the truth is that DWP promised to have 100 megawatts of rooftop solar by next year but has achieved only 12 megawatts and most of that is on single family homes.

But why belabor the point.

In its first campaign finance report, the "Yes" team said it had raised $267,000 towards its multi-million campaign goal with $170,000 of that coming from the IBEW or its affiliated groups, according to the L.A. Times. That shouldn't surprise anyone since this plan rewards the IBEW with a monopoly on solar jobs to get them to let the public have what everyone wants: Clean energy.

Other donations include $10,000 from state Controller John Chiang, $15,000 from Assemblyman John Perez (D-Los Angeles) the cousin of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and  $20,000 from Assemblyman Felipe Fuentes, D-Sylmar.

Campaign consultants tell me that if the "No" side had $267,000 in total to fight this, we would win and force City Hall to come up with a real plan and an honest and open process on how we get clean energy at the lowest cost in the fastest time.

So join the campaign. Contribute to the cause of clean energy and clean government.      

If you've been paying attention, you know by now that Measure B on the March 3 city ballot has nothing to do with solar energy. It's a blank check for City Hall corruption that will send rates soaring, create more jobs in China than L.A. and lead to less solar energy than promised.

It's nothing but a back room deal, a smokescreen trick to use something everyone wants to cover up a power grab by the mayor and City Council.


They can change any element of the proposal at any time, channel billions of dollars to their friends and eliminate meaningful public oversight.

There is another way -- the path required by the City Charter, the path that creates civic engagement and public support, the path of democracy.

We need to go back to the drawing board and do legitimate feasibility studies, financial analysis and planning and come up with a proposal that actually creates the most solar energy possible at the lowest cost. That might take a few months but it would have some integrity in it unlike the plan DWP is pulling together with a consultant in 30 days for $150,000 to help sell this scheme to passive and gullible voters who don't have access to the truth.

Then we need to send the proposal out to the Neighborhood Councils -- as required by law and a memorandum of understanding -- and other community groups for input. Sixty days later, the DWP Board of Commissioners could hold hearings and provide funds for experts who can challenge the assumptions and claims.

Out of that process, we would get a refined and realistic proposal that the City Council could consider and further refine and adopt.

We wouldn't need a vote of the people. It's not legally necessary now. But we would have a plan that the public understood and supported. Rates would be under control and people would want to participate and the private sector would be in a position to take advantage and grow jobs by the thousands -- not a few hundred.

Instead what we have before is a plan concocted by the  DWP's all-powerful IBEW union boss Brian D'Arcy -- the man who single-handedly has thwarted solar energy developments in L.A. and now wants a total monopoly.

No surprise, the IBEW which stands to profit handsomely from the Measure B charter reform and DWP solar energy monopoly fraud and is its author and main financial backer gave the maximum to the campaigns of Jack Weiss and Wendy Greuel.

Nor is it a surprise that the remarkably ineffectual sleepwalker Weiss has raised $1 million almost entirely from lawyers who stand to reap millions from the City Attorney Office's dependence on outside attorneys and even more from settlements and lawsuits against the city.

The payback on $1,000 contributions would make even Bernie Madoff is his heyday drool.

In contrast to Weiss, his best-funded challenge for City Attorney, Carmen "Nuch" Trutanich has half as much money to run on but only gotten a smattering of money from lawyers. More money came from law enforcement interests and those who don't stand to cash in monetarily from having a friend in high places.

Greuel, too, counts a lot of lawyers among the contributors to her $700,000 war chest for her campaign to succeed City Controller Laura who earned a reputation as the people's watchdog, not the political machine's lapdog.

The special interests that count or have counted on Greuel to deliver the goods with a wink and a nod to their excesses include a lot of people and companies in property development. People like the Westfield shopping center interests and those involved in the NBC-Universal massive development project, even new City Planning Commission member Sean Burton and his wife among others that are part of the well-connect empire of Henry Cisneros.

Both Weiss and Greuel also collect healthy sums from the consultants, contractors and others who live off City Hall's sweetheart deals. Even lobbyists' spouses are helping them out since the lobbyists themselves are barred from contributing thanks to the Measure R fraud two years ago that wrapped giving council members a third term about phony ethics reforms.

You won't know any of this reading the four paragraphs on the campaign statements filed Monday reading the Daily News or the Times which had a somewhat longer story. In both cases, all that interested them was the horse race for how much money the campaigns have raised.

But the truth of what kind of government you'll get is in the details of who they solicited money from and owe favors to. That's where the devils are and I urge you to click on the links to Weiss and Greuel in the first paragraph and report back to me if you spot some devils I missed.

By Bruno, L.A.'s Watchdog

I'm all for my pals in the Animal Kingdom.

I also tend to like the animals in the media.

So I've stayed away from the Billy the Elephant  story.  I've had other things to howl about.

But this morning, as I wandered over to the Dog Trainer to, well, be trained, I looked down and there it was:

"Los Angeles Zoo keepers Sunday appealed to city officials to complete a $42-million elephant enclosure, saying it would be the best place for Billy, the zoo's lone remaining elephant, to breed and thrive."

I almost wet my pants, and I would have, if I were wearing pants.

Maybe it's because I gave up reading about this controversy when Tony Cardenas offered to turn the area known as the San Fernando Valley into some kind of goofy animal preserve.  I knew it wouldn't happen, although Dennis Zine makes a better game warden than councilman.  He could run safaris.

But there's something about spending $42 mil for one animal that seems ridiculous - even to another animal, albeit a bit smaller and a lot less adorable than Brother Billy.

Zookeeper Don Aguirre told The Trainer the new facility with its planned waterfalls, watering holes, mud wallows and logs would more closely replicate conditions in the wild and would allow for better public education about elephants.

The keepers released a letter to the City Council and public, detailing Billy's favorite activities: eating banana plants and oranges, splashing around in water and taking walks.

OK, Billy's cute, but come on, he's really boring.

No wonder he's had a lousy sex life.

"We know this animal and we love this animal," zookeeper Vicky Guarnett said in an interview after the morning news conference in front of the zoo's current elephant exhibit. "He has not fathered another elephant and to send him to a sanctuary where he would not breed would not be the best outcome."

I've had a lousy sex life too. But that's because Ron, hoping to save a few buck on my license, took me to some sadist who did his part for decreasing the dog population with a scalpel.

Here's the deal:  the city has already spent $12 million on this turkey, which, to me, is not technically an animal.  Some people think Billy would be better off doing the "Born Free" thing at some sanctuary. These zookeepers want to keep Boring Billy at the zoo.

Being just a dog, I don't know. But if they send Billy off somewhere, I'm all for moving the City Council to the yet-to-be completed exhibit. They could eat banana plants and oranges, splash around in water and take walks.

They'd be bored, of course, after six or seven months, but less dangerous than they are in City Hall making laws while nodding their heads in unison, just like Billy does..

Woof!

Solar Power is the Future...VOTE "NO" ON MEASURE B!

That's the motion the Valley Alliance of Neighborhood Councils unanimously adopted Thursday night after a lively two-hour discussion on the solar energy ballot measure.

City Controller candidate Nick Patsaouras (the former DWP Commission president) and City Attorney candidate Noel Weiss (who successfully defended the Solar 8 in court against City Hall's attempt at legal intimidation) provided their expertise to help the group wade through the lies the Yes on B forces are putting out.

VANC President Jill Barad and others among the 13 Neighborhood Councils represented at the meeting at Sherman Oaks Hospital committed to working on a grassroots campaign against Prop. B (formally it's called a "measure").

As the evening's main speaker, I discussed how the measure is really about paying blackmail to the DWP and its union, the IBEW, which originated the proposal, to drop their opposition to solar energy by giving them a monopoly on ownership, installation and maintenance on rooftop solar units on commercial, industrial and government buildings.

Even beyond what's wrong with the solar plan, I pointed out Prop. B is a charter reform measure that destroys all safeguards against corruption and public oversight by giving the mayor and City Council the ability to revise the plan at any time in any way and channel billions of dollars in public money to the special interests that fund their campaigns.

Don't let City Hall get away with this fraud. You can help by joining the No on B Campaign by emailing me. Many people have offered to help support the "Solar 8" and the campaign as volunteers and with donations. Mayoral candidate David Hernandez has pledged $1,000 and City Controller candidate Nick Patsaouras has pledged $500 and many others offered support. Here's how you can help: Send checks to "DWP Committee for advocacy," c/o of Secretary/Treasurer Heinrich Keifer, 5669 York Blvd., Los Angeles CA 90042  

Mitchell Schwartz, the man who sued the Solar 8 over ballot language opposing Proposition B on the March 3 ballot, says he has "a contract with CH2M Hill, a company that has been accused by the DWP of overbilling,'' according David Zahniser in the L.A. Times.

Schwartz, lost five of the six accusations he made against the Solar 8 in court Thursday (see next story),.told Zahniser that he agreed to bring the suit at request of attorney Stephen Kaufman, who is treasurer of the Yes on B campaign and is the long-time attorney and treasurer for Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa as well as representing a majority of the City Council.

"I'm not part of the insider crew at all," said Schwartz, who was President-elect Obama's California campaign director and heads the L.A. League of Conservation Voters. "I know them, but I'm not part of them. I just think the solar thing is really good."

The Times said Schwartz' previous firm Bomaye held DWP contracts from 1999-2003 for consulting on its green energy program.

His new firm, skimpact, has a contract with CH2M Hill but Schwartz said he is not doing any work related to the city or its electrical utility, according to the Times.

However, a City Hall source told me that Schwartz was calling around City Hall in recent weeks about taking CH2M Hill as a client and brought up the issue of a possible settlement of the city's lawsuit against the firm for a fraction of the millions of dollars it is accused of overbilling.

"Who knows...Who knows...Who knows?"

Three times Thursday morning Judge David Yaffe asked that rhetorical question about Prop. B in rejecting all but one of the six "false and misleading" statements that City Hall Political Machine attorney and treasurer Stephen Kaufman alleged were in the ballot argument against the measure.

"What all this is going to result in is anybody's guess," Yaffe said, referring to the solar energy component of Prop. B as devoid of any definition of what policy will eventurally be carried out. "All this speculation...is fair game."

The one point Kaufman scored in his attempt to intimidate the eight ordinary citizens who signed the "No on B" argument was the phrase: "no public hearings."

In fact, during the three weeks it took the City Council to ram through Prop. B there were a couple of public hearings that even Kaufman -- who represents the mayor, eight council members and a host of Democratic Party office holders and often doubles as their money man -- concedes were "meaningless."

Farcical might be more apt since critical information was kept secret from the council and the public and the measure kept changing in important ways right up to the council's unanimous vote on something they didn't understand.

The judge's mind was made up in advance of the hearing and City Attorney candidate Noel Weiss -- who came to the rescue of the Solar 8 when no other lawyer would -- barely got a word in edgewise.

He thanked the judge for his "sensitivity to political argument" and accepted the deletion of the three words from the ballot argument happily.

No court costs or legal fees were assessed as Kaufman had sought as part of his effort to squelch public debate on what may be the worst, the most outrageous, proposal to ever come out of City Hall.

Prop. B, as the judge noted, does absolutely nothing to create a solar energy program for Los Angeles. It is no more meaningful than a council resolution against apartheid in South Africa or a call for peace in the Middle East.

It is nothing but a feel-good resolution for solar energy that virtually everyone supports wrapped around the complete destruction of the City Charter's safeguards against politicizing the the Department of Water and Power and ultimately the harbor and airports where billions upon billions of dollars are spent on contractors, consultants, lobbyists, political operatives and sweetheart union contracts -- the special interests that own our elected officials.

In other words, it strips away even the pretense of civilian oversight and subjects the bureaucracy to the whims of the politicians without any protection.

Quite simply, Prop. B is a license to steal.

Kaufman tried futilely to wave lies and red herrings in front of the judge and protect the IBEW, the DWP union that is getting 6 percent raises on top of its inflated salaries and benefits, from the accusation, that it along with the DWP represent a monopoly. He felt no need to mention the whole scheme was initiated by the IBEW _ after 10 years of opposition to clean energy -- so the DWP would own all the solar installations and the union all the work, thus preserving the monopoly.

But Yaffe would have none of it, twice cutting Kaufman off:

"I was aware of everything you're telling me when I wrote the order.

"You're telling me stories that don't appear in Prop. B."

Talk about calculating things in "dog years."

Somehow our mayor - the president of the MTA Board! - just found out that if his beloved 'Subway to the Sea' is ever built, they'll be carrying him aboard for the first trip.

He'll be 78 years old!  Anybody want to bet if his teeth are still white and his hair without a hint of grey?

How do you feel about Measure R now, Westsiders?  And you thought you were going to sell the Prius. By the time this thing's done, cars might fly.

According to Steve Hymon of the ever-shrinking Dog Trainer, the proposed rail line doesn't figure to pass engineering and environmental muster until 2013, just in time to see its biggest booster, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, leave office if elected to a second term.

And it won't even reach Westwood until 2032.

So if your having puppies today, they'll be old enough to vote when the line opens.

If the timetable is unchanged, according to the Dog Trainer, the subway extension to the Westside would reach La Cienega Boulevard in 2019, Century City in 2026 and Westwood by 2032.

When and where the subway would reach the ocean in or near Santa Monica remains uncertain.

Meanwhile, the new Measure R timeline contains at least another new element.

The spending plan on the ballot told voters that a light-rail line or busway mostly along Crenshaw Boulevard and ending at Los Angeles International Airport would be ready by 2018. That plan has been pushed back a decade, with the MTA now calling the Green Line extension to LAX the first phase of the Crenshaw line.

Damien Goodmon, a transit activist in South Los Angeles, said the Crenshaw line delay was a betrayal of residents in the community who overwhelmingly voted for Measure R, thinking the tax hike would get the project built more quickly.

Come on, even Bruno never believed that crap.

And according to the mayor's top flack, he shouldn't have believed it either.

On Tuesday, a spokesman for the mayor said the timeline for the Subway to the Sea is unacceptable and noted that Measure R "allows us to seek federal support and advance the timeline."

"We have for the first time an administration in Washington that intends to invest in public transportation," said Villaraigosa press secretary Matt Szabo. "When the mayor was running for office, the Subway to the Sea was mocked as a pipe dream. Now the question is not if it's going to be built, but when it's completed."

Pardon me while I roll on my back and howl. Feel free to rub my belly.

Woof!

In its desperation to keep on living high in the Second Great Depression, L.A. City Council -- in its abominable ignorance -- doubled the charges on parking meters everywhere and expanded the hours you have to pump quarters into them or face much high fines.

And now people all over town are going around asking the same question: Can anybody spare a roll of quarters?

A policy enacted by the council as part of the budget for the sole purpose of covering up the fact they have bankrupted the city -- revenue is up a third under Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's tax-and-squander leadership -- is hurting businesses struggling to survive and made life almost impossible for the North Hollywood little theater community.

It's yet another example like the $42 million elephant exhibit and the nightmare of digital billboards where the council excuses its incompetence with the usual if-I-knew-then-what-I-know-now-I-wouldn't-have-done-anything-so-stupid.

Who they kidding?

They knew then that a lot of people hated keeping elephants in cages and they knew everybody but their benefactors in the billboard companies hated giant electronic screens flashing new messages for hyper-consumerism every few seconds, 24-7.

And they knew when they approved the budget exactly what the consequences were because the Department of Transportation told them so.

But they didn't care; they never care, until the public is in an uproar over the loss of business and the need to carry around a pocketful of quarters.

Ed Reyes does care. The councilman cares so much he actually had the audacity to criticize city budget and transportation officials and demand they go around and determine the impact of high parking charges on every business in the city -- a city that can't pay its bills so its slashing public services, a city that is overrun by gangs and doesn't have enough cops, a city turning "pay-to-play" political corruption into a way of life.

"I think we need to see if the increase in parking meters is having an impact on sales tax revenue," Reyes was quoted as saying in the Daily News. "Perhaps it is not the wisest move to raise rates in some parts of the city where we will be forcing people to go to other areas."

By "some parts of the city," class warrior Reyes means what he always means: The "rich" people who live in the other 14 council districts should subsidize every aspect of life in his neighborhoods.

Of course, nobody's rich right now except the truly rich and those on the city payroll (most of whom don't even live in L.A.) who are protected from the impact of the collapse in the economy because they keep people like Reyes in $180,000 a year jobs they could never otherwise get.

These are people who approved the nation's largest solar energy plan in just three weeks without even knowing the first thing about what they were doing, without considering the intended or unintended consequences.

They don't give a damn. All they know is that there will be billions and billions of dollars they can channel to their friends and contributors and when the electricity rates soar and too little solar power is generated, they will call the bureaucrats on the carpet and demand to know why they aren't doing their jobs

MIDNIGHT UPDATE: A Home Depot official confirmed late Tuesday that the property is up for sale.

Can it really be true?

Sunland-Tujunga activists after years of struggle that has made them one of the most effectively organized communities in Los Angeles appears to have won an outright victory against one of the largest and most successful corporations in America, its team of high-prices lobbyists and influence peddlers and city officials who wanted to sell them out.

Can It be true?

The evidence as strong, according to the No Home Depot website which provides the company's motion for dismissal and reports it canceled its webside promoting its cause in Sunland-Tujunga.

I'm just guessing but the economic recession has a lot to do with the company's surrender. It wouldn't make sense to keep on squandering money on lawyers, lobbyists and PR types in the face of organized resistance when consumers aren't spending.

What's amazing about this is that even the most ardent activists in this semi-rural corner of L.A. never thought they had a chance but they never gave up.

The lesson for all of us trying to make our neighborhoods healthier and our city greater are clear: You've got to organize, you've got to fight and you've got to never quit. You never know what's going to happen.

Hopefully, things are what the seem to be, in which case the people of Sunland-Tujunga deserve a hearty congratulations. I do have a question though: What do you want to do with that old K-Mart property that would enhance the quality of life in your community?

The heart of the Proposition B swindle is not in its solar energy proposal, which is nothing but a referendum on whether you want power from renewable and clean sources or continue to pollute the air and destroy the planet burning fossil fuels.

If City Hall had the common decency and respect for the spirit of the law as ordinary citizens do, the City Council would merely have ordered the Department of Water and Power and its union, IBEW Local 18, to stop resisting solar energy for Los Angeles.

Or they could have put the solar part of Prop. B on the ballot and asked voters what they think. The vote would be nearly as unanimous as the votes are in council on almost every issue.

The real problem with Prop. B isn't solar energy. It isn't even that it gives the DWP/IBEW a monopoly on the ownership, installation and maintenance of rooftop solar units on commercial, industrial and government buildings. That merely drives up electricity rates, slows solar development and sends most of the billions of dollars to be invested in this to China to buy the photo-voltaic cells.

No, the real problem is the City Charter Amendment that is part two of Prop. B. It is a radical change that destroys the pretense of civilian oversight by the DWP Commission and Neighborhood Councils and even allows -- for the first time in L.A history -- for the City Council to overturn a vote of the people.

Leonard Shaffer, president of the L.A. Neighborhood Council Coalition and a retired Deputy District Attorney, used his legal skills to decipher just how sinister this is despite the unintelligible language used in the council ordinance.

Yes on B campaign manager Mike Trujillo, under questioning from Shaffer, called the council's power to completely change Prop. B at any time "tweaking it." Talk about a "false and misleading" statement.

In truth, Prop. B is the complete corruption of the governmental process. It destroys the democratic process, even the fiction of democratic process we have in L.A.

A City Council that could enact this measure in just three weeks without any information, without any real debate, and do so unanimously is a city council that does not represent the people or the public interest.

It is owned by the special interests who keep them in the highest paid elected city jobs in America.

Passage of Prop. B -- which is being funded with millions of dollars in money from those same special interests -- will bring Chicago-style corruption to Los Angeles, if it isn't already here.

They have wrapped solar energy -- something we all want to see, something we would have except for the DWP/IBEW's long-standing opposition -- around a power grab that will lead inevitably to endless controversy and scandal.

This is about clean energy and clean government.

Don't take my word for it. Go back and listen to Len Shaffer question Mike Trujillo and make up your own mind.

Read the council file for yourself by clicking here solar-ord-11-18-08.pdf Here's the key paragraphs but it takes a lawyer to understand them:

(d) Notwithstanding any provision of the Charter to the contrary and as further provided by ordinance, the Program may provide for, but is not limited to, the following: the promulgation of regulations by the board to implement the Program; financing mechanisms including the issuance of revenue bonds; bid preferences pursuant to Charter Section 371; the department's ownership and operation of all department-installed solar power installations and related equipment and electrical power generated pursuant to the Program pursuant to Charter Section 672; eligibility requirements for Program participants; expansion, suspension, postponement, modification or termination of Program implementation based on specified criteria and approval by ordinance, including by supermajority vote of Council, of any such action; and Controller audits of the Program. (e) Notwithstanding Charter Section 464 or any other provision of the Charter to the contrary, the referendary ordinance establishing the Program may be amended and/or repealed only as provided in that ordinance.

Santa was good to Bruno this year.

I thought my early gift was erstwhile school board candidate Ben Austin.

But it turns out poor Ben was nothing more than a tree ornament.

Santa came down the doghouse chimney and left Michael Trujillo under my Christmas tree.

So shut your yap, Virginia, the Big Guy is real.

Trujillo, who is campaign manager for Prop B, the solar initiative, is truly the gift that will keep on giving, hopefully, all the way to Election Day, unless, of course, he keeps giving inane speeches like the one Ron posted on this site today.

Pardon the reference (I like being self-deprecating), but according to Trujillo, we won't get solar in Los Angeles unless we vote for this dog.

Somebody please scoop up that poop.

I'll let Ron explain the details, but I don't want some $80-an-hour union guy installing Chinese-made mirrors on my doghouse roof unless I know more about the plan. I may be a dog, but I'm not stupid.

For those of you who don't know Mike, he's been around LA politics, usually within 10 feet of our mayor's campaign manager, Ace Smith, for years, getting his start on one of Michael Higby's earlier web sites pretending to be somebody else.

So don't be bashful about making up a name and commenting.  Mike believes it's all in good fun.

Woof!

"Without the voters mandating that they do solar power, the DWP for the last 25 years is going to continue to nickel and dime and really talk about renewable energies and not do it...If the voters of L.A. stand up and say, 'We need solar power now,' then the DWP is never going to do it. That's my position. That's the Yes on B's position."

That's how Mike Trujillo, head of Yes on Prop. B campaign, defends why the March 3 ballot measure grants a monopoly on the ownership, installation and maintenance of rooftop solar in Los Angeles.

Don't take my word for it, listen to Trujillo yourself. He spoke Saturday to the L.A. Neighborhood Council Coalition along with the head of DWP's power operations, Aram Benyamin, and two No on B spokesmen, Jack Humphreville and me.



Afterwards, the Saving L.A. Project held a discussion on developing a strategy to fight the multi-million dollar campaign that special interests are financing to sell the public on approving this blank check for corruption.

Several talking points came out of the discussion, all revolving around the idea that voters need to cut through the lies and propaganda and understand that everyone wants clean energy but we won't get that without clean government.

Prop. B is not about solar energy.

It's a City Charter amendment that fundamentally changes how L.A. city government works and strips away even the pretense that the DWP Board of Commissioners and Neighborhood Councils are the safeguards against political corruption.

What could be an easier sell to the people than something everybody wants?

That's what makes the growing opposition the City Hall's solar energy fraud, Proposition B, so interesting. Who could be against getting clean energy from L.A. abundant sunshine instead of from coal-burning power plants belching noxious smoke?

No one, of course. So why is it that three Department of Water and Power officials and Prop. B campaign manager Mike Trujillo dissembled, deflected and deceived so much when faced with a barrage of hard questions Saturday at a meeting of the L.A. Neighborhood Council Coalition meeting?

Their problem -- the problem with Prop. B. -- is that it has got nothing to do with solar energy.

It's about the public writing a blank check for City Hall for billions of dollars. It's about paying off the DWP and its union, IBEW Local 18, for resisting the development of a solar energy industry and generation system in L.A. with all their political influence for the last quarter of a century.

They saw clean energy as a threat to their monopoly, their power, their jobs so all they allowed was one measly megawatt of solar energy in L.A. a year for the last 12 years. And now, with astonishing arrogance, they want to be bribed with what they claim is a $1.2 billion payoff -- but could turn out to be two, three or four times that amount -- to allow the city with the nation's most polluted air to finally embrace solar energy.

Prop. B promises 400 megawatts of solar energy within five years or 80 times as much annually as we've been getting and the mayor claims he can even triple that with a still unspecified plan that goes beyond Prop. B.

None of this has been studied, planned, engineered, examined, scrutinized, debated or analyzed. Yet, the City Council agreed unanimously to this measure without even understanding it, without even having access to a highly critical consultant's study that Council President Eric Garcetti kept secret until seven weeks after the measure was put on the ballot.

The DWP team was led by Aram Benyamin, the $233,000 a year head of power operations, who admitted the utility has failed to deliver on the public demand for solar energy, and by campaign manager Trujillo, a long-time political operative for the mayor, who did his best to frame the question as simply a referendum on whether the public supports or opposes solar energy.

That's the Big Lie of this campaign.

It's a new year, a time of renewal and hope, the chance to make a new beginning.

But most people I meet are scared to death. They are worried about their jobs, their retirement, their children, the future.

Somehow, most of us are hoping for some kind of miracle from Barack Obama. Somehow, we hope he's going to wave a magic wand and the economy will suddenly improve. Somehow, he's going to change the global dynamic and there will be peace on earth.

I don't think it's going to be that easy or simple. But I do believe in miracles. They happen all the time when darkness turns to light, when something good comes out of nowhere at just the right time, when minds change from fear to hope.

Personally, I spent a lot of my life wallowing in depression over a world that seemed to have gone mad and my inability to do anything about it. For better or worse, I learned to focus on the things I could do something about and to see seemingly hopeless challenges as creative opportunities for change.

Whether I've really had much of an effect on things or took advantage of those opportunities is debatable. But that kind of thinking has certainly improved my outlook on life.

The dark cloud of a global recession and the flames of war hang heavy on all of us. But they also create a climate for great changes, a chance to remake our society, to make our government and workplaces more democratic, to strengthen our communities, to discover there is more to life than hyper-consumerism and conforming to the latest cultural fads.

The only certainty always is change and there can't be any doubt that 2009 is going to be a year of enormous changes, and not just because it was the theme of the presidential campaign.

I don't think it's just me who sees the bankruptcy of our ruling elites. Wall Street, the banks and insurance companies, government at all levels have failed us. And truth be told, we the people have failed too. We have allowed ourselves to become consumer zombies, captives of advertising and marketing, addicted to the latest toys and fashions, measuring our own worth and that of others by wealth and position - not character and the loving kindness of our hearts.

We are swept away by a runaway culture, clinging for dear life to its empty cycles that lead us farther away from our own values, our own identities.

Hard times have a way of changing things, of waking us from our stupor and putting us in touch with what's permanent and precious and personal.