“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.”
solar-weiss.txt
solarjudgment.pdf
solar-patsaouras.pdf
solar-humphreville.pdf
So does this mean we won? That Prop B is not
to appear on the ballot? Great story, Ron, I felt I was there. It really sounds as tho’ the Council, DWP and Trujillo have nowhere to go. I
hope so, yes, I do.
This is a win for the argument against Measure B. The only change in the argument is dropping the wording “no public hearings”. Could this be the first sunray of hope?
Vote NO on Measure B March 3rd.
David: (Reporter for the Times on the article)
This is to inform you, as well as the activist community also, that, Home Depot and STNC have had other opinions coming to them from the community on usng their mutual resources, to the benefit of their corporate organization and the community.
And, ask you to point out to your editor, that, there is plenty of other ways, that, they ( the Times) can assist the community to coordinate activities to the benefit of the total community>Home Depot per your article paid for a team of expensive lobbyists ( ex disgraced drug addicts, or problemed, public officials, $2 million & $24,000 ) in some cases, attempting to push their will on the community – that to is news, especially when you point out, this is in accordance with Ethics Commission records.)
We are beginning to see, where all our hard earned money goes, besides banking; and wall street, and big three bailouts.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
————————————————————————–
Ron:
This is to inform or point out to you, that, we probably need more support from the LA Times, in there; reporting to meet the needs of the community, and slap.
Using “Sunland Tuhunga Store” by the Times,in the title of this LA times article is pretty protective of ‘not reporting’, while still, state-ing stakeholders, 5 years of efforts created results, and; the long term benefits are this is still uncertain.
maotl
————————————————————–(in my eytes same topic)
EFFECTIVENESS and ACTIVITIES of the LANCC
a. Does LANCC need a MORE COMMITTEES? MORE OUTREACH? An offer to create a Transportation (DOT) MOU came from Rita Robinson (GM/DOT) when she visited us. Maggi Fajnor has material which from the Plan Check Work Group which may help. The key is diligent people who will collect and distribute the information…more than the City Policies and Ordinances.
b. MORE MOUs? Adrienne O’Neill said that the Mayor has opposed formation of new MOU’s. The frustration of unanswered Public Records Requests is prevalent. Margo Harris said we need to be able to “market” our “vinegary” (adversarial) issues as “sugar.” (How well do NCs fulfill their “advisory” role?)
c. Should we (1)invite the Mayor to the February Meeting? (It is easier to get promises, before; than, after the election.) (2) Be more diligent in followup of issues? (3) Create better relationships? MOUs? (The NC-DWP MOU2 serves as a singular example. Soledad Garcia and the MOU members have made it effective.
MOUs are legally-enforceable documents.
=============================================
Ron: (Kaye)
Again, I have suggested to both the STNC & to Home
Depot & even to LOWES, that, the site could be used to create a vocational training facility, possibly with Home Depot launching a new division to create more vocationally trained apprentices, that will grow, and use the items, they sell. Maybe in partrnership with LAUSD OR LACCD or an independent like ITT tech.
Creating a new piece of (possibly) socially responsiblle business
This is needed, even, as Pres OBAMA creates 300,000,000? new jobs, to work on USA infrastructure; and, certainly would help to reduce the impact on the 50% of students, now being lost by LAUSD, and ignored, or at least not included by LACCD & LAUSD or CSU’s and UC’s, the other big drain on our dollars.
Guess they are all going to wait, to do it under a socialist regime?
maotl
PS I tried to post a message before going off for a national/international conference in/on Entrepreneurial ED / workforce Training & incubation in Anahiem. (http://www.nacce.com/).
“This is a win for the argument against Measure B. The only change in the argument is dropping the wording “no public hearings”. Could this be the first sunray of hope?
Vote NO on Measure B March 3rd. ”
Thank you. In other words eliminates the false premise which is lately used to confuse the voters. Yes, I will be voting and urging my family, friends and neighbors not to miss casting their votes this March 3rd.
FREE THE SOLAR 8!!!
WooWhoo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(More if I had more time…)
Congratulations all the way around. This bodes well for everybody! Hat’s off to the Solar 8 and to Noel Weiss for going to battle on behalf of the people of Los Angeles.
WooHoo!
Ron,
You might be interested in the misleading headline your old paper has placed on this story:
“Judge rules Measure B opponents must reword argument for ballot”
The story itself reads like a City Hall press release in that it focuses on dropping the words “no public hearings” and doesn’t mention other issues.
http://www.dailynews.com/ci_11409971?source=rss
THE 11 PERCENT MAYOR VILLARAIGOSA LASHES BACK
Blasting L.A. Weekly, he says we relied on bad facts. Aides say he misspoke
BY PATRICK RANGE MCDONALD
Published on January 07, 2009
OVER THE CHRISTMAS WEEKEND, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa came out against L.A. Weekly with guns blazing, claiming our September 11 feature story “wasn’t true.” It was the mayor’s first public repudiation of our investigation into his work schedule. Titled “The All About Me Mayor,” the article disclosed that Villaraigosa had only spent 11 percent of his time on nuts-and-bolts city business between May 21 and July 30. The mayor’s slam occurred during an interview with Rick Orlov, a veteran political reporter at the Los Angeles Daily News, who noted in his story that our piece “still rankles” the man who’s now up for re-election.
Conclusion:
The story is now a key part of a public record that shows Villaraigosa to be focused heavily on himself. On January 1, the Times editorial board published its 2009 wish list, in which it hoped “that Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa would say, ‘But enough about me. Let’s talk about Los Angeles.’” To date, in its news pages, the Times has not taken a serious look at Villaraigosa’s transformation of the Office of the Mayor into a promotional tool.
http://www.laweekly.com/2009-01-08/news/the-11-percent-mayor-villaraigosa-lashes-back/