UPDATE: Chief Legislative Analyst Gerry Miller shot down the mayor’s plan to close most city government agencies two days a week starting Monday, saying he does not have the “unilateral” authority to carry out his threat. Council members said they would “never” approve such a plan.
.
There are enough laughs and tears, pathos and bathos, fear and loathing for every taste — Channel 35′s hot new soap opera, City Hall.
Tuesday’s episode was one of the best with the apostle of clean energy left muttering in his cowboy hat he must have “misspoke” after being exposed as a liar with even the see-no-evil Janice Hahn calling out, “I think we need some honest answers here.”
The mayor, with the mysterious Austin Beutner as his side, perhaps pulling his strings, declared the government would shut down completely for two days except for the cops and others but it was unclear whether that was to protect him or the public from growing unrest and lawlessness in the streets.
The obedient DWP Board then provided a ray of hope in the gloom by pulling back millions of dollars in new spending that could keep LA from going broke until late May.
But the unions put a damper on that slim hope by saying the mayor was playing games with fire and was going to get burned.
By day’s end, they all looked like kids playing in a lockbox filled with dynamite.. The mayor accused the Council of using “the politics of ‘no’…the kind of demagoguery you see in the Congress…the kind of scare tactics you saw around the healthcare
debate.”
Paul Koretz responded that the mayor’s behavior was “bizarre” and worried that “a crazier and crazier game of chicken” would lead to somebody actually getting hurt, maybe everybody.
The overnight reviews were devastating — for the mayor.
LA Times Editorial: L.A.’s financial quagmire: The city is in deep trouble, and the mayor and the Department of Water and Power are to blame
What heartache and heartbreak will unfold today as the Council goes back to its snail-like efforts to micro-manage the budget crisis.
Will they finally make some decisions? Will they denounce the mayor or cuddle up to him? Will the unions make love or war? Tune in at 10 a.m. for today’s episode of City Hall, the LA soap opera.
I luv it!!! The news of the circus going on in Los Angeles is all over the internet. The entire Nation is laughing at our politicans. They are showing the entire world their lack of leadership, immaturity, egos, arrogance and uneducated crap. THe best quote I read was from Paul Koretz who I think has it right,
“It’s absolutely a manhood contest. That’s what it’s been from the very beginning,” said Koretz, who represents much of the Westside.
The Mexican Mafia gang banger Mayor is at the bottom of the totem pole in the city now. He’s a worst embarrassement then any other politican we’ve had. He will jump on the bandwagon with the new Latino Bishop on Saturday to try and regain some attention. When the media who were bias on his side starts to slam him this city is in real trouble.
By the time it’s over, Tony V. will be nothing but “the guy with the smallest penis in town.”
He’s pretty much there now. LOL.
Sir: You are kind enough to provide this forum and if I may, allow me to castigate the LA Times for enabling this mess.
The City’s bloated payroll, gluttonous benefits, and absentee Mayor have been criticized by insightful people for years.
Our Mayor will now be remembered not just as a “Failure,” but as the “Mayor Who Ruined Los Angeles.”
Our city Council, except perhaps for the upright and honest Parks and Zine, look like fools in a banana republic as they try to maintain the private club for union members at the expense of everyone else. “Let’s borrow more money” one of the most foolish urged.
The LAT, supposedly a guardian of honest government, turned a blind eye to it all. Even yesterday, with the City facing debt default, the financial crisis competed for front page space with an indiotic, unimportant, front page article on some distant kingdom (run by a woman so of course, its front page news).
Less than 50 days ago Timothy Rutten, a presumbaly intelligent man, fecklessly wrote for the Times that the City ought to keep its bloated payroll since “in the long run we’re all dead.”
But dying broke is no fun at all for taxpayers needing doctors, police, roads and schools between now and death, not to mention the kids born in the meantime. But such is what passes for intellect at the parochial LAT, that fancies its editorial list to be composed of smart people.
Less than 10 years ago, the LAT opposed the Governor’s Propositions that would have curbed the state’s appetite for waste and cut back the Unions a bit. But the LAT “knew” better.
Now the Times, like the dimwitted man at a party who fancies himself the most intelligent, says that the City is “suddenly” in deep trouble.
But there is nothing “sudden” about it, except to those at the LAT too stupid, too wishfully blind to have missed what was happening.
Unfortunately for us all, the people too blind to see are those many trusted as watchmen.
Nice job LA Times. You are as responsible for this disaster as anyone on the City Council and our photo-op mayor. When the schools cut back, medical services go, when libraries aren’t open, bookmobiles don’t come to neighborhoods anymore, parks are run down, and the city deteriorates, just remember how smart you all were.
I’d liek to say its not too late to wake up, but why bother: I’m sure there a story on another distant country is more important than the City of Los Angeles and all the kids that will grow up here.
I appreciate the information this blog provides, but it’s a shame when the comments lead off with racist insults (Anonymous at 9:33) and dick jokes (Anonymous at 9:33)…
I appreciate the information this blog provides, but it’s a shame when the comments lead off with racist insults (Anon at 9:31) and dick jokes (Anon at 9:33).
Armagedon under Antonio`s watch. I wonder whether he realizes what`s going on. Sad. Very sad.
Does it make sense to privatize the DWP or is it still worth keeping it, because of the money it transfers to the City.
I recall Mr Humphreyville being against privatization. Perhaps he can explain why.
Thank You.
“”"except perhaps for the upright and honest Parks and Zine”"
R you kidding??? THese two refuse to take a paycut and both are not only getting the $178,000 highest pay politicans in the nation but both are collecting Pensions. Aren’t they both on the Budget&Finance Committee that approved a lot of motions for money knowing this financial crisis was coming to a head. There wasn’t one city council member who had the guts to try and get public support to start layoffs last year. They protected themselves in chambers and have been in denial ever since. Greuel is the most shameful coming out all of a sudden after the fact. Aren’t the DWP commissioner volunteers? If so can’t anyone FIRE them off that board besides the Mayor??? Why hasn’t the LA Times mentioned or done a story on these fools? Mabe if the Times or Daily News did on story on the Commissioners people would revolt against these morons
Anon at 9:51 am and to the early posters: I agree with Anon@9:51 that race/ethnic etc. remarks are not only uncalled for but hurtful.
Posts like that let people like Tim Rutten, Rainey, etc. denigrate everyone concerned (make that scared) of the deficits and union pension time bomb as pork-rind gulping, “you’re in a heap of trouble boy” racists.
True, Mr. Rutten ought to be more insightful. But he’s not. And your remarks are not on point. So I can only ask with the utmost respect that you PLEASE avoid such comments and focus on the People of LA, and the incompetence of the officials, and not anyone’s race/sex/ethnicity etc. Thanks.
9:33 here. I wasn’t making a dick joke, and I certainly didn’t say anything racist.
It was a comment euphemistically realized regarding the power of the Mayor in Los Angeles. He has none, and I find it funny that he stamps his feet and insists that he does.
Thank you.
I trust that Mayor Tony’s list of departments who are candidates for his two-day furlough program (those that are neither safety, nor trash collection, nor revenue-generating, etc.) certainly includes the 90+ members of the Mayor’s and the Council’s office – they certainly are not revenue-generating – maybe they could be transferred to trash collection?
One the commenters above brings up an interesting point – with Tony’s political career at an end, who will he petition for a political appointment? After all he has a wardrobe to maintain, and, in a couple of years, he’ll have to pay rent somewhere instead of getting free accomodations from us taxpayers.
A recent LA Weekly notes that the City’s Channel 35 has laid off several employees:
http://www.laweekly.com/2010-03-25/news/bleak-house-at-l-a-cityview-35/
These layoffs negatively affect the useful information Channel 35 is able to provide to City residents.
The Information Technology Agency (ITA) is responsible for operating Channel 35.
However, while capable employees at Channel 35 are laid off, ITA still sees fit to pay Willliam Imperial over $100,000 annually.
During 2002 03, the City=s Information Technology Agency (ITA) argued to the City Council that ITA needed an additional Temporary Telecommunications Regulatory Officer (TRO) position to help ITA complete cable television franchise renewal negotiations.
ITA then proceeded to hire two TROs who had no cable television regulatory work experience. The Temporary TRO hire, William Imperial, was noteworthy for having resigned from the California Bar after having been repeatedly disciplined by the California Bar. See:
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=98400
Not surprisingly, ITA failed to complete cable television franchise renewal negotiations, thus wasting thousands of hours of City employee time and hundreds of thousands of City dollars, if not more.
One of the above two TRO hires (Richard Benbow) resigned from City employment and now works for Time Warner Cable.
Mr. Imperial, the “temporary” hire is still at the City, collecting over $100,000 a year in salary plus City benefits.
Does ITA have a justifiable reason for continuing to employ Mr. Imperial?
Not once, during his tenure at the City, has the City ever imposed monetary penalties against a cable television company for a violation of the City’s video/cable customer service standards.
Cable television franchise fee reviews are farmed out to private CPAs. The City doesn’t need to pay someone $100,000 to renew these contracts with outside CPAs.
Mr. Imperial has done virtually nothing to put meaningful Public, Education, and Governmental Access programming on Time Warner’s Cable System. There is a bulletin board on one channel in the 90s and another potential channel lies fallow. Imperial is not significantly responsible for the programming on Channels 35 and 36.
Why does the City continue wasting money on William Imperial?
9:33: “By the time it’s over, Tony V. will be nothing but the guy with the smallest penis in town.”
10:40: “9:33 here. I wasn’t making a dick joke…”
Wow! I didn’t know that John McCain was a commenter on this board!
As for the racist comment, you’re right: That came in the comment before yours, at 9:31….
Not surprizing, nobody is talking about taking back some of the 30% pay increase package that was awarded to DWP employees. That would save some money and help their bond rating. But, we all know that IBEW is in all the Council members’ pockets. The rest of the City workforce has already given up their promised pay raises through indefinite deferral or furloughs.
Not surprizing, nobody is talking about taking back some of the 30% pay increase package that was awarded to DWP employees. That would save some money and help their bond rating. But, we all know that IBEW is in all the Council members’ pockets. The rest of the City workforce has already given up their promised pay raises through indefinite deferral or furloughs.
LA has turned into Detroit! Good times!
The Mayor continues to make a fool of himself by assuming authority he does not have. Does he have noone on his 200+ staff that knows the basics of LA city government.
Even the Village Idiot knows you don’t go to a pissing contest with an empty bladder.
“Appalled.” Your focused attention on an obvious waste and your proposed solution (“fire him”) instead of “paid administrative leave,” or a massive severance payment shows you are not qulaified to hold office in LA. Next you’ll be asking what the mayor does.
Not surprizing, nobody is talking about taking back some of the 30% pay increase package that was awarded to DWP employees.
30% pay increase? When was this?
Does it make sense to privatize the DWP or is it still worth keeping it, because of the money it transfers to the City.
Other than the profit from the initial sale, there’s no real benefit. Rates will go up. System reliability will go down. The General Fund will be short the utility tax year after year.
12:46: Several points…
1) There is no evidence to support the assertion that in a privatized DWP the rates would go up and system reliability will go down. The utility generates a massive profit today that is transfered to the city general fund. Keeping that profit at the utility would abrogate the need for any rate increases at least in the near term.
2) Under the current structure the rates ARE going up — not to support the utility’s operations, or its transition to renewables, but to fund the transfer to the general fund.
3) You are correct that in a privatization scenario the general fund will be shorted by the transfered amount. I view that as a good thing. It’s time to pay the piper, balance the city’s structural deficit and stop raiding it for special benefits to city contractors, vendors, employees and pensioners.
Its too bad we have such weak, lazy reporters in LA (not you Ron). When the media report the story i.e. Phil Willon on the dire budget crisis and how the Mayor has hired 850 employees since 2005 why doesn’t he name the Deputy Mayors and others the Mayor has hired in HIS office this year alone. Why was Jay Carson and others hired if the city is in such dire straights? This is why the newspapers are losing people. We get more info from blogs like this one and the internet compared to the local media. I read this story on a national web site and its hilarious how they have in big red print ‘MELTDOWN with Antonio’s face.
OMG!!!!!! This is what is being reported after today’s city council that has me in shock.
“”"City Council has moved to take control of a municipal utility that has refused to hand over $73 million to ease the city’s financial tailspin. Wednesday approved motions that would wrest control of the Department of Water and Power from the mayor. The council wants a ballot measure giving it power to remove the DWP general manager and commissioners, who are appointed by the mayor. The council also wants voters to decide if it can control rate increases and the DWP budget”"
I THINK THE VOTERS ARE SO PISSED OFF THEY MAY JUST VOTE FOR THIS AND TAKE AWAY THE POWER FROM DWP. ONLY PROBLEM IS CITY COUNCIL WILL SCREW THAT BUDGET UP AS WELL.
Former DWP Board Member Patsaouras Files Suit Against Utility Over Budget Mess. laweekly.com
YEAH!!!!!! GOOD JOB NICK….THE PEOPLE ARE RISING AND TAKING REVOLT AGAINST DWP. THANK YOU NICK PATSAOURAS AND NOEL WEISS WHO HANDLED THE LAWSUIT FOR FIGHTING FOR THE PEOPLE. WE LUV YA
1:00, I’m basing my rates and reliabilty arguments on the assumption that if DWP gets privatized the power side would most likely be bought out by Southern California Edison. Logistically they’re the only ones close enough and experienced enough to run the system. Rates would then be standardized to their rate system and would go up. Reliability-wise, DWP has some of the best electrical reliability ratings in the area because they own their own transmission and run a unique ungrounded delta distribution system. If Edison bought out DWP, Cal-ISO would assume ownership of transmission and Edison would have to maintain a subsystem design it is unfamiliar with. They’d also have to learn to respond more quickly than they currently do during a fault event or risk having equipment blow up.
2) Under the current structure the rates ARE going up — not to support the utility’s operations, or its transition to renewables, but to fund the transfer to the general fund.
If that was correct 100% of the 2.7 cent rate increase would go to the General Fund. That’s illegal. Currently 10% goes to the General Fund as a standard utility tax. Another 8% (the 73 million being fought over) goes to the General Fund as a Power revenue transfer. That means for the additional 2.7 cent increase, 18% of the 2.7 cent/KWH would go to the General Fund. The remaining 82% would go to DWP for green energy,etc.
The utility generates a massive profit today that is transfered to the city general fund. Keeping that profit at the utility would abrogate the need for any rate increases at least in the near term.
To know that for sure, you’d first need to determine the true cost of going green over the next 10 years. PA Consulting tried and found that a rate increase in fact would be needed. But say you were right and we could assume DWP had enough profitability to cover meeting the State RPS. What’s to stop the profit from going to shareholders? And would privatization be the only way to keep profit at the utility (as opposed to the city government becoming more fiscally responsible so they wouldn’t have to demand what is basically a double tax)?
You are correct that in a privatization scenario the general fund will be shorted by the transfered amount. I view that as a good thing.
I think the city is entitled to the utility tax. Besides the lower rates and better reliability, it’s why they made an initial investment in running a public business to begin with. The power revenue transfer is questionable though and should not be relied on to keep the city solvent (which is what is currently happening).
Rather than sell DWP to Edison or some other investor-owned utility, why not set it up as an free-standing entity governed by its own ELECTED board of directors (rather than the current Mayor-Appointee-Council structure.
Sacramento Municipal Utility District would be an example to emulate. SMUD is owned and run by its customers like a giant co-op, and holds district elections to choose its Board of Directors. SMUD’s board meetings are open to the public — like City Council meetings — and its meeting agendas are posted in advance.
But it has only one agenda — providing electricity to customers as efficiently and cheaply as possible.
LADWP should be set up the same way, with an elected baord that is accountable to voters, and with only one mission — providing electricity and water to customers as efficiently and cheaply as possible.
Under such a structure, DWP would NOT be a piggy bank the city could raid to paper over its structural deficit. The city would have to come to grips with that deficit and solve it the right way, by either cutting costs or raising revenue through an honest tax proposal. Feckless politicians wouldn’t be able backdoor a rate hike in power rates dressed up to look like the first step in a transition toward renewables and an integrated resources plan (we all know there is no plan).
With its own ELECTED BOARD, the department would be insulated from the kind of political brinksmanship being waged by the mayor, his appointed commission, and the City Council.
Would there still be politics? Yes, you’re talking about a whole new elected board. But they would be answerable to the public solely on a singular mission: Delivering water and power services to customers as efficiently and cheaply as possible.
Would there still be an opportunity for graft, corruption and insider maneuvering? Sure. You’re always going to have to guard against folksy old farts in cowboy hats who talk about “greening” the utility but who really are blackhearted profiteers in league with the worst sort of greenwashers.
But setting it up as a free-standing agency under a duly elected authority would take this agency out from behind the shadows and give the public at least a fighting chance to expose and root out the blackguards and scoundrels who now seem to be running the place.
Whatever happened to those rebates a court ruled that we, the water rate payers, are suppose to receive?
How do politicians control their constituents?
They lie to their constituents.
appalled at 11:01 a.m. stated that Mr. Imperial has to go. The Mayor’s Office could also have each General Maanger remove all Assistant General Managers at this time. Most of them are already within the City (Civil Service status to revert back to their old position). Thus, each reduction would save approximately 1-2 thousand per month. Not a whole lot but a start.