BS: Los Angeles voters smarter than Congress

Subject: BS: Los Angeles voters smarter than Congress
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 12:18 PM

I live in a city adjacent to Los Angeles (hence Sunset Coast). Yesterdays city election had on the ballot a proposition which would have given the power department millions of $$$$$ for solar projects.   This my or may not be a good thing, but the problem with the ballot measure was that there were no specifics. No planned projects enumerated, no costs, no timetables, no nothing. Result, no passage, albeit narrowly.

The people of Los Angeles refused to be be bamboozled into buying a pig in a poke, not knowing what they were getting and for their tax or bond money. It is too bad, at the national level, that Congress cannot act as responsibly.

Subject: RE: BS: Los Angeles voters smarter than Congress
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 12:22 PM

I hope they reserve that money for the same purpose better specified. It is wise not to buy a pig in a poke, but it would be foolish to spend your pig-budget on dandelions.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Los Angeles voters smarter than Congress
From: pdq
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 12:34 PM

Los Angeles Power & Light is a municipal utilitiy run on a "not-for-profit" basis by the City of Los Angeles.

After the famous California Energy Crisis of 2001, it was shown that LA Power & Light charged the highest price for a unit of electricity seen during the crisis.

Your government at work.

Subject: RE: BS: Los Angeles voters smarter than Congress
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 12:59 PM

Amos - There is no reserve for solar, unless LADWP, is secreting money for such projects. They want the rate payers to subsidize such a program. Whe they tell the taxpayers thet they want a project of X kw capacity for Y customers at a projected cost of $Z to do it, then it should be a ballot measure that can be intelligently (or even emotionally) voted on.

pdq - LADWP (the proper acronym) did charge amongst the highest rates for transferring power to the grid for users outside of Los Angeles, which could be considered good for their constituency, their normal customer base. It could also be considered to have been based on good supply/demand economics, or, as you seem to imply, pure greed.

Subject: RE: BS: Los Angeles voters smarter than Congress
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 01:16 PM

We surveyed the solar project scene lately, phoned half-a-dozen recent installations at homes where the homeowner shelled out from 30 to 60 grand.

Everyone was happy to see their meter running backwards and was pleased with the service and installation (which is about as complex as screwing some teatrays to a board and running some cable).

But none of them were getting the power they had been told they would get. So all their payback projections were going to take longer, although they would still get paid back in savings.

It's still a good idea to do it--it adds value and saleability to the home and the rebates from State and Federal are looking very attractive--but you need to do the math carefully, counting the actual watts ratings of the panels, converting into KWhours/month, comparing to you r actual usage, and adding in a fudge factor for random dings in the claimed efficiency.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Los Angeles voters smarter than Congress
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 01:39 PM

My real point in the original post, by analogy, is that Congress is spending way too much money for ill-thought out programs, without taking enough time to consider the consequences, long and short term.

Amos, I'm not saying solar is bad. I used to represent Sharp Appliances. Sharp had (still has?) a large solar panel manufacturing plant in Memphis (not the one in Egypt) which had been their TV assembly plant before TV moved south.

I am all for people using solar if it makes economic sense to them. I don't even mind that most installations are unaesthetic...although that's a big concern of the locals where I live. In good economic times I don't even begrudge local subsidies (albeit small ones) to folks who get bona fide installations which significantly reduce power consumption from the grid.

Subject: RE: BS: Los Angeles voters smarter than Congress
From: pdq
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 01:58 PM

The proper place for solar, as well as most "alternate energy sources" is "on site".

This includes "thermal transfer" systems for home-heating and water-heating chores.

There are new "solar roofing shingles" that look just like ordinary roofing and, from what I understand, automatically clip together to form an aesthetically-apealing installation that is relatively easy to do.

Not sure these shingles are being marketed yet, but all credit should go to the companies who did the research and paid big bucks in "R & D" money. Too bad some of the money our giovernment wastes can't be tapped to help these companies.

Subject: RE: BS: Los Angeles voters smarter than Congress
From: DougR
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 04:23 PM

John on the Sunset Coast: Are you sure Obama didn't write that bill? Sounds very much like his stimulus plan to me (which is very short on details but very heavy on pork).

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Los Angeles voters smarter than Congress
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 04:45 PM

The stimulus plan has zero pork. The bill with the pork in it is a different bill and is not a part of the stimulus bill. Obama did not write the bill with the pork in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Los Angeles voters smarter than Congress
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 04:48 PM

And by the way, about half of the pork in the spending bill that I mentioned above was put there by Republicans. (Even though Republicans constitute much fewer than half of the people involved.)

Subject: RE: BS: Los Angeles voters smarter than Congress
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 05:35 PM

And, despite your persiflage and inverted sense of actuality, Doug, the stimulus package is NOT laden with pork.

It may be insufferable to you to see a Democrat actually move things in the direction he promised to, but I suggest you screw your courage to the sticking point and confront the actualities instead of prevaricating.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Los Angeles voters smarter than Congress
From: DougR
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 12:16 AM

There you go exaggerating again, Carol C. The Republicans were only responsible for 40% of the pork in the bill. They, in my opinion, should be voted out of office the next go-around.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Los Angeles voters smarter than Congress
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 01:01 AM

I believe it was an Alaskan Republican who protested that all earmarks are not pork, and she may well be right. But there is too much pork to think straight about a national budget.

A keen eye for trimming waste is long overdue.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Los Angeles voters smarter than Congress
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 01:25 AM

I may have been about ten percent off in what I said, but the person accusing me of exaggerating was 100 percent off when that person said the pork was in the stimulus bill. So what should we call that? It's not exaggeration. More like outright fabrication.

Subject: RE: BS: Los Angeles voters smarter than Congress
From: bald headed step child
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 01:36 AM

In actuality, 40% of the items were Republicans, but that 40% adds up to very nearly 50% of the money.

And Obama didn't have anything to do with writing that bill, it was written in the last session and has just finally gotten thru all the commitees, etc.

BHSC

Subject: RE: BS: Los Angeles voters smarter than Congress
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 04:59 AM

Californians should be careful that the vote that the "narrowly rejected" wasn't something like one here not too long ago.

The County Commissioners decided they "needed" a new Arena downtown. (The old Arena was about 30 miles out and "too far for people to drive.")

They enlisted some cooperation from members of the City Council.

When it came time to put it to a vote, the County disavowed "any and all interest in the project." The mayor also said he had "no opinion."

The City put a half-baked plan forward, in which "the plan" was a euphemism for "we don't know nothin' about this." (Although they did blow about $80,000 on a "consultant" to tell them what they were supposed to do.)

The City voted and emphatically rejected the non-plan.

Exactly three days before the closure of posting of proposed ballot measures in the next election, the COUNTY demanded a new county-wide vote on building an Arena in downtown Wichita. (Note: first indication much too late for opposition to raise funds and even begin to spread their word, and about three weeks before the vote.)

The County had carefully analyzed where the votes in favor of an arena had been in the city vote, and then carefully recruited as many voters as possible in those areas (mostly at the Universities among students who "like to party" and pay virtually no local taxes). Although a few "meetings" were held in other areas, the local media cooperated by never reporting them in advance, just saying afterward that "nobody seemed interested enough to show up" for the meetings they never heard about.

The vote for this new arena passed (barely), including a 25% increase in sales tax in the County (including the City of course) for about two years.

.......

The California vote may have been just a survey, so that plans can be made to "get the right answer" the next time around.

.......

Meanwhile, all the contractors in my area are really happy. The new arena is reported as "70% done." It will seat about 18,000 people. There are about 11 parking places within three blocks, all reserved for "Limos."

Like the Seattle Kingdome, within 10 years "our" new Arena will be a large hole in the ground, and we'll get to vote (probably twice) on something new.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Los Angeles voters smarter than Congress
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 06:59 AM

And, of course, they reelected that buffoon, Antonio Villaraigosa, so what can you say?

Subject: RE: BS: Los Angeles voters smarter than Congress
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 10:33 AM

That buffoon may be the next governor of California, and the first Hispanic President of the USA. He shmoozes well, and that makes him formidable. Of course, he has to get by San Francisco mayor, Gavin Newsome. And they both have to get by Diane Feinstein, who purportedly is interested in ending her political career in the Governor's Mansion.

If I had my druthers, Tony V. (one talk show hosts' endearing term for him) would be banned from inflicting himself on any place but the City of Los Angeles.

Subject: RE: BS: Los Angeles voters smarter than Congress
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 08:46 AM

John - I suppose the city of LA deserves what they get, but I heard Jerry Brown was going to run for governor, can he do that?

Subject: RE: BS: Los Angeles voters smarter than Congress
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 07:54 PM

Rig--Brown purportedly is interested in being governor again. As you may know there is a two term limit for state office in this state. However, it was enacted long after he left the governorship--I believe that is the case. Since he has not been governor under those rules, perhaps he can run...retroactivity and all that; usually not allowed, except when it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Los Angeles voters smarter than Congress
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 07 Mar 09 - 05:53 AM

Some states have slightly ambiguous wording in their term limits law.

It has been argued in some places that an office holder must leave the office after the specified number of consecutive terms, but is free to run again after "waiting out" a term or two.

Even where this can be argued, not everyone will agree. (Especially the opposing candidates, usually.)

A look at exactly how the term-limits law is worded would be needed even to guess intelligently (or politically).

John