From Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s second inaugural speech, July 2, 2009:
“Moving forward we’re aiming to get 40% of our power from
renewable sources by 2020 and go 60% carbon-free by the end of the next
decade.
“Today, I am directing the CEO of the Department of Water
and Power to take every action necessary to reach these goals and
eliminate the use of coal by 2020. Meanwhile, we’re going to move
beyond the clean air action plan – the most aggressive effort to cut
emissions at any port worldwide. We are going to electrify goods
movement at our harbor.“
That’s the order the mayor gave DWP head David Nahai just six weeks ago and is the principal reason the DWP is in the process of getting approval for unlimited rate increases that will double or triple electricity bills in the next decade.
So why in the world is the DWP proposing to spend $2.4 million to hire lobbyists with the Conservation Strategy Group– including $120,000 a year for former Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez through his firm Mercury Public Affairs — to gut enforcement of Assembly Bill 32, the 2006 law that requires reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, the same year DWP will have eliminated its coal dependency?
The DWP already has its own team of expensive lobbyists on the payroll — including former Assemblywoman Cindy Montanez at $180,000 a year — even though it’s not subject to most state regulations like private utilities.
David Zahniser in the Times reports the DWP’s explanation is that they are worried AB
32 will result in a “cap and trade” program that requires utilities
that rely on coal power, to purchase expensive
pollution credits.
Nahai wouldn’t talk to Zahniser abou it but spokesman Joe Ramallo said “cap and trade” could result in a “massive transfer of
ratepayer money” away from the utility/
Nunez also was coy about talking but Glenn Gritzner, managing
director of Mercury’s L.A. office, declared: “It could be implemented in a way that costs the
ratepayers a heck of a lot of money.”
Who are us poor folks who pay the bills to believe?
The mayor says no coal by 2020. His team at the DWP says penalizing utilities that still rely on coal in 2020 will cost a fortune. Does that mean they aren’t really going to achieve his goal and already know it?
Maybe the mayor’s plan is phony and DWP officials are just throwing more ratepayer money at insiders like Nunez.
Whatever the truth is — and you never know either with the DWP or the mayor — the only certainty is rates will continue to soar and the DWP will remain a cash cow for City Hall.
When the MTA, the LAUSD and the LAPD all lost the confidence of the public because of scandals of one sort or another, the answer was to put in place an inspector general with independence to serve as the public’s watchdog.
Needless to say, our elected elected have done their best to water down the independence of these watchdogs over time but they still provide at least some protection for the public interest.
This DWP lobbying contract is just one of a hundred reasons why we need a Ratepayer Advocate — the organizational equivalent of an inspector general — to keep an independent and watchful eye on where the money goes and how our utility operates.
The commission that oversees the DWP has stalled this contract for the moment but it has neither the staff nor the independence to be a public watchdog.
That’s a lot of what’s wrong with City Hall. The commission system is a failure, corrupted by our elected officials to be little more than a rubber stamp system of approving whatever they want, for whatever reasons they want.
This has never been clearer than in the last year. Ever since Nick Patsaouras and Jane Usher resigned key commission positions last year in disgust with what was going on, the mayor with agreement of the City Council has stacked the “juice” commissions like DWP, harbor, airports, planning with people tied to the very special interests that benefit from city policies.
City Hall needs major reforms to bring the public in as a partner and to provide oversight and accountability. A DWP ratepayer advocate is one of those reforms and should be implemented quickly.
For $2.4 million the Conservation Strategy Group should be able to get the governor to drop by DWP headquarters and kiss Nahai’s rear end. Nunez’ and Montenez’ sweetheart deals aside, it is an absolutely obscene amount for the city to spend on outside lobbyists — for just one department! I hope Wendy scrutinizes its bills the same way Chick did with Fleishman Hillard.
Perhaps I was brainwashed when working in other industries, but I thought that a performance contract such as was mentioned here would include specifications as to what the individual was tasked to accomplish, and a date certain. Barring those criteria, the indivdual needs only to cash his/her pacycheck and be accountable to nobody?
Proposing such a “deal” ought to be grounds for starting an impeachment/recall of our Mayor, because it tends to commit fraud against us taxpayers.
Where are the reporters who used to ask straight questions of our politicians?
“the mayor with agreement of the City Council has stacked the “juice” commissions like DWP, harbor, airports, planning with people tied to the very special interests that benefit from city policies”.
Lets see. A City Planning Commissioner happens to be related to Henry Cisneros who held a fund raiser for the Mayor, whose fund received City Pension moneys for real estate development, and among the hires is the former Director of Planning, who is collecting $166,000 in pension for 12 years of work. Just a coincidence?
Ron,
Doancha know news when ya see it? This is big, big, big, and bad, bad, bad for the Trutanich-Haters.
blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/politics
LA Weekly
Trutanich’s Emergency Billboard Ban Approved by Los Angeles City Council
By Jill Stewart in Environment, politics
Friday, Aug. 7 2009 @ 12:38PM
In his first big move to address a campaign promise, City Attorney Carmen Trutanich today sent one of his top attorneys to persuade the Los Angeles City Council to enact a flat-out, no exceptions ban on new billboards in Los Angeles, the capital of the illegal billboard industry.
…
AND
blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/politics
LA Weekly
City Council Votes for Permanent Ban on Digital Billboards
By Christine Pelisek in politics
Friday, Aug. 7 2009 @ 3:42PM
The Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously today to ban all digital billboards in the city, an action brought before them by City Attorney Carmen Trutanich, who feared that an existing “Interim Control Ordinance” that temporarily bans digital billboards and super-graphics may soon be found invalid by a judge.
Once again, we all owe a debt of gratitude for LA Times reporter David Zahniser. He definitely deserves an award for Investigative Journalism. He exposed the backroom deals on Measure B and now the latest from the Mayor and DWP. We haven’t seen this type of reporting in the last 3 or 4 years. Before this, we would have to turn to the NY Times or SF Chronicle. Give that young man a Pulitzer.
Today, August 11, 2009, the Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury was at Los Angeles City Council chambers. Is this a historical day? Does anyone know why the Civil Grand Jury was there?
LA County Civil Grand Jury
http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/jury/grandjury.htm
Citizen Complaint Form
http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/jury/pdf/investigation.pdf
Regarding the “ban billboard ordinance”, I SMELL A RAT. DID WE GET CONNED BY TRUTANICH?
Does this ordinance STILL ALLOW digital and off site billboards when the SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATES IT TO BE ALLOWABLE? I think so. I believe that the LA Weekly got it wrong. There’s no real ban or moratorium on digital billboards or new offsite billboards.
Sec. 3. Subdivisions 9 and 11 of Subsection B of Section 14.4.4 of the Los
Angeles Municipal Code are amended to read:
9. Are supergraphic signs.
EXCEPTIONS: This prohibition shall not apply to supergraphic
signs that are specifically permitted pursuant to a legally adopted specific
plan, supplemental use district or an approved development agreement.
This exception shall become operative only to the extent that Subdivision
9 is deemed constitutional upon the reversal of the trial court decision in
the case of World Wide Rush, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, United States
District Court Case No. CV 07-238 ABC.
In addition, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 12.26 A 3 of
this Code, this prohibition shall not apply to any building permit issued
prior to the effective date of this ordinance if the Department of Building
and Safety determines that both substantial liabilities have been incurred,
and SUbstantial work has been performed on site, in accordance with the
terms of that permit pursuant to Section 91.106.4.3.1 of this Code.
…
11. Are off-site signs, including off-site digital displays, except when offsite
signs are specifically permitted pursuant to a relocation agreement entered
into pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 5412. This
prohibition shall also apply to alterations, enlargements or conversions to digital
displays of legally existing off-site signs, except for alterations that conform to the
provisions of Section 91.6216 and all other requirements of this Code.
EXCEPTIONS: This prohibition shall not apply to off-site signs,
including off-site digital displays, that are specifically permitted pursuant to
a legally adopted specific plan, supplemental use district or an approved
development agreement. This exception shall become operative only to
the extent that Subdivision 11 is deemed constitutional upon the reversal
of the trial court decision in the case of World Wide Rush, LLC v. City of
Los Angeles, United States District Court Case No. CV 07-238 ABC.
In addition, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 12.26 A 3 of
this Code, this prohibition shall not apply to any building permit issued .
prior to the effective date of this ordinance if the Department of Building
and Safety determines that both substantial liabilities have been incurred,
and substantial work has been performed on site, in accordance with the
terms of that permit pursuant to Section 91.106.4.3.1 of this Code.
Who’s Lying, DWP or the Mayor or TRUTANICH?
“Billboard Ban Won’t End Well,” WalterMooreSays.com, August 7, 2009.
Gist of his argument is that since the City settled a suit brought against it by billboard companies agreeing to let them put up 800 digital billboards (in exchange for removing other ones), to now pass a law preventing the installation of those very same billboards is an invitation to be sued as reneging on its agreement. Imposing the total ban now because the City Attorney anticipates losing the suit, instead of waiting to see what happens later this month first, is rash.
The ICO was a way to honor the agreement made by the then- City Attorney, but to limit it to specific sign districts. Moore says this total ban is a make-work project for billboard company attorneys. This is what Jane Usher has been pushing all along, so we’ll see how she and Trutanich handle the barrage of lawsuits Moore thinks are inevitable.
11:51 finds enough holes in this alleged “total ban” to make it Swiss cheese, seems it’s not a total ban at all, for all the trumpeting of horns by those who have been pushing that.
But Walter Moore, as cited in 12:07, says sensibly enough that if it IS a total ban, overturning the ICO, then it’s a law which directly reneges on the agreement the city made in 2006, on the advice of the City Attorney, and the lawyers will make a killing — while a total ban would not likely stand in the end anyway. In this case the ICO was the smart move, and the city should have just waited it out a couple more weeks. I don’t agree with Moore on much, but as an attorney who proudly includes billboard companies among his clients, he’s had experience in this area. I have a feeling he’s right and Usher and Trutanich have just cost us a whole ton more money.
The bad news is I just got my DWP bill.
The good news is that it wasn’t as high as I thought it was going to be…about $250 more than the last bill which was about $150 more than for the same billing period last year.
Any more increases by the DWP, and thinking about getting the hell out of Dodge will be more than idle day dreaming.
Has the LA WEEKLY become a propaganda, yellow journalism rag for Trutanich. How can Pelisek incorrectly understand the Aug 7 Sign Ordinance in such a blatant and biased manner? Were they paid off to mislead the public?
It is disgusting. Another L.A. rag turns to Lies.
Sandy,start packing!
Walter Moore is a putz, IMO, regarding billboards Those billboard companies are installing new billboards, even NOW, without permits. CHECK the municipal code regarding height, size, spacing requirements. MANY ARE IN VIOLATION. YET, WALTER MOORE AND HIS FRIENDS WANT THOSE BILLBOARDS TO BE PERMITTED.
ENFORCE THE LAW, YOU PUTZ TRUTANICH.
It’s called “ERRED AND ABUSED IT’S DISCRETION“. THAT’S THE DEPT. OF BUILDING AND SAFETY‘S MIDDLE NAME. IT HAS PERMITTED MANY BILLBOARD INSTALLATIONS IN VIOLATION OF LA CITY MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS. OTHER BILLBOARDS WERE ERECTED WITHOUT PERMIT AND ALSO IN VIOLATION OF L.A CITY BILLBOARD REQUIREMENTS.
WHERE IS AN ATTORNEY WHEN YOU NEED ONE. CERTAINLY, WE DON’T EXPECT OUR CITY ATTORNEY, TRUTANICH, TO STEP UP AND ENFORCE THE LAW!!!!!
LA NOW is just reporting that state, federal and local law enforcement agencies have raided two marijuana dispensaries in West L A and shot a dog.
Does this have any bearing on Jane Usher telling us at our Neighborhood Council alliance meeting (as reported in LA CityWatch last week) that in her/ Trutanich’s opinion, ALL marijuana dispensaries in L A are in fact illegal because their interpretation of state law is that it allows the personal growing and use of marijuana for medical reasons with a prescription, but NOT the sale in shops.
Therefore, Usher said, all existing pot shops are in fact illegal. Puzzling many people there, since he’d never said anything about this when he and Usher were running. So now they’re turning a blind eye and actively encouraging raids til they’re all shut all 600 down? Even as the City Council is banning new ones but has, in compliance with the last City Attorney and general understanding of state law, allowed dispensaries to operate and pay taxes?
Not keeping his promise that he wouldn’t allow a single new billboard to be erected, instead cutting quiet deals or creating much bigger legal headaches with violating the 2006 legally binding agreement – then declaring all the hitherto legal dispensaries to be illegal and raiding them with force, shooting dogs? So that people who thought they were taxpaying business owners are overnight criminals? This is the “change” Usher and Trutanich have ushered in, what we voted for?
Maybe Nuch and Jane ran for and were elected President and Vice President since they obviously control federal agencies….
From LA Now:
“Federal authorities and local police agencies today raided two Westside marijuana dispensaries as well as the residence of the owners.
The raids occurred at a facility on Washington Boulevard in Culver City and on Overland Avenue in Los Angeles. Authorities recovered undisclosed items and are continuing their investigation, according to a Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman. The names of the owners whose homes were searched were not immediately available.
During one of the raids, officers shot a dog believed to be a pit bull, but the circumstances of the shooting remain unclear, a law enforcement spokesman said.”
Gee KK, don’t forget to add City Attorney/Chief of Police for Culver City while we’re at it…
Hey Ron, can someone give Jack/Ace/Anonymous Tru basher du jour their own string please?
Thanks
DWP had a great deal to buy power from a coal fired plant in Utah. One of those “you’d never get this by the EPA in this day and age,” plants. DWP gratuitously gave it up to be fashionable and the power loss will have to be purchased or generated otherwise.
The recession has dropped electricity prices–for now–but as they rise again, that power replacement will come home to roost.
Wind? Solar? England has tried all that for over a decade and concluded it won’t replace traditional methods: they’ve concluded nuclear plants are the only way to avoid brownouts now.
Poor LA: a photo-op mayor; a spineless city council. Now a DWP bent on being fashionable, while protecting its unionized employees.
kk and whoever: Since you didn’t attend the NC Alliance meeting and don’t know what you’re talking about, why don’t you start by checking out LA CityWatch’s August 4th article by Ken Draper, “Jane Usher: All Medical Pot Shops Are Illegal.”
Learn a little something. Usher and Trutanich have totally reversed Rocky’s interpretation of the state law, making it totally moot which pot shops are eligible for hardship exemptions and which aren’t since under their new definition they all are. State law hasn’t changed but their interpretation is a total about-face. I’m sick of being accused of working for someone when I point out something obvious — is Moore working for Ace, too? — and didn’t write those other items except for 12:25.
You’ll keep turning a blind eye to the facts as their inexperience and arrogance rack up millions in inevitable lawsuits from billboard companies and dispensaries, but some of us won’t.
kk and whoever: Since you didn’t attend the NC Alliance meeting and don’t know what you’re talking about, why don’t you start by checking out LA CityWatch’s August 4th article by Ken Draper, “Jane Usher: All Medical Pot Shops Are Illegal.”
Learn a little something. Usher and Trutanich have totally reversed Rocky’s interpretation of the state law, making it totally moot which pot shops are eligible for hardship exemptions and which aren’t since under their new definition they all are. State law hasn’t changed but their interpretation is a total about-face. I’m sick of being accused of working for someone when I point out something obvious — is Moore working for Ace, too? — and didn’t write those other items except for 12:25.
You’ll keep turning a blind eye to the facts as their inexperience and arrogance rack up millions in inevitable lawsuits from billboard companies and dispensaries, but some of us won’t.
Dear 5:32 and 5:34…
Seeing as I DID attend LANCC and DO know that the City of Los Angeles does not include the City of Culver City, I’ll presume I’m not one of your “whoevers”.
I think that I was generous in allowing for Tru bashers that may not be Jack Weiss or Ace…I already understand that you’re an independent voice, though it’s a bit hard to tell one anonymous from another. My point was that you should be afforded a space to bring up your issues on a post string where it applies better…I take it you won’t be at Carmen’s coming out soiree tomorrow?
Whoever this Trutanich hater is, needs its own blog. So regardless of the news, it can set up its computer to respond to all stories in the universe to automatically blame Trutanich. “Typhoons in SE Asia devastate the coastal communities; Georgia man convicted of aiding terror groups;
Admitted affair sullies coach Pitino’s reputation;
Ex-Clinton aide named in prison smuggling case;
NY lawsuit v. Anna Nicole Smith book’s author OK’d; LA Department of Building & Safety Manager accused of rape: communities find out that the LA Mayor is a moron: LA’s deficit growing by the millions each day. It can blame it all on Trutanich. And we hopefully, can move on to more serious issues facing the city, rather than wasting time on this idiot.
By all means, let’s stick to endless variations of one topic: why we hate the mayor. And anyone he knows. (Nahai/ DWP, Freeman/ the Ports, the usual suspects.) Out come the darts and nails, yawn.
Fact is, that one has been done to death, hammered in a coffin, lifeless. Not that it stops you all from joining together on your one and only theme.
But the fact is, that when you have a topic like here of “Who’s the Liar?” and someone brings up the OBVIOUS answer (clue: the liar, demagogue and grandstanding incompetent and his rightwing, vulgar vigilante posse), you can’t stand the truth and attack the messenger.
“We want to stick to Antonio-bashing here!” Sorry, when you have a mascot who beats his chest as hard as yours does, who blustered his way into office with such grandiose promises in every direction, then abrogates civic duties in favor of vengeful, partisan witch-hunts and messes things up so badly and so expensively when we can least afford it, darned right he’ll get the attention he deserves. There are AT LEAST 3 people here sharing info on Trutanich, amidst some perfunctory and weary “how’d we elect that scoundrel Antonio’s and damn, this time I’m really packing my bags,” deal with it.
You know, 9:50, you would be much better going back to copywriting. At least the dollars you earn from selling your soul would allow you to be bitter in comfort.
Or they all pretend they want serious change and they’ve got their SLAP and SaveOurLA or whatever and yet, in CD 2, they’ll vote for a mayor-backed candidate rather than that one guy who stands up and challenges the status quo, Zuma. Why are they all talk and no action?
Through this clause, the Founders sought to guarantee that the ideals for which they fought would be faithfully preserved for future generations of Americans. ,
Through this clause, the Founders sought to guarantee that the ideals for which they fought would be faithfully preserved for future generations of Americans. ,