Time for a Sanity check…

Going back to 1996 there have been 6 voter approved bond measures amounting to $16.6 BILLION that promised to resolve future water shortages. None of them followed through on the campaign promises they made to voters.

So today we find ourselves in one of the most serious shortages since 1987 and perhaps since William Mullolland when he opened the gates of the Los Angeles Aqueduct in 1913. 

The six water bonds to-date have not resulted in reliable supplies as promised but instead have contributed to the states fiscal crisis and overdrawn water so severely that courts had to intercede and impose restrictions to stop permanent environmental losses.

All of this suggests that the bonds don’t work and do nothing to address the root cause of the water shortage. 

Water bonds have instead become an endless cycle of appeals promising reliability to voters for decades to come that are followed by spending billions on projects to improve water conveyance and storage only to find later that we are further behind and again needing another bond for a new infusion cash.

Like the other bonds before it, Prop 18 to will have zero chance of resolving the state’s water reliability problems. The capital projects these bonds pay for such as new underground storage, surface storage, or improved conveyance and water conservation programs stand no chance of providing reliable water supplies to urban centers and farms as long as there are no mechanisms to throttle back on housing production when water supplies are chronically short.

Only changes in the states housing and water policies can live up to the promises we see carted out every election time. The answer is perhaps a new element to CEQA and changing state law so that Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP) cannot be cited by city planning agencies and developers as evidence of available water.

Here is a list of those state water measures that were approved and the recycled claims and promises they made to us to gain voter approval:

1996 – Voters approved Proposition 204, the “Safe Clean Reliable Water Supply Act,” a $995 million bond that promised to “increase water supplies.” “…drinking water is something most of us take for granted,” proponents wrote in the ballot pamphlet that year. “But the truth is, unless we act now, California’s residents, businesses and farms face a future of chronic water shortages and potentially unsafe supplies.”

2000 – Voters approved Proposition 12, the “Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000” borrowed $2.1 billion based on proponent’s assurances that “This measure is vital because it protects the lands that give us clean water.”

2000 – Voters passed Proposition 13, the “Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection and Flood Protection Bond Act,” for an additional $1.97 billion of bonds after proponents warned them (in language almost identical to the arguments for Prop. 204) that “We can’t take our drinking water for granted. Water officials predict major shortages and say existing programs won’t fix the problem.”

2002 – Voters approved Proposition 40, the “California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks and Coastal Protection Act of 2002” that borrowed $2.6 billion. Proponents promised (in words exactly the same as the empty promise they made in Proposition 12): “This measure is vital because it protects the lands that give us clean water.”

2003 – Voters authorized $3.44 billion of water bonds by passing Proposition 50, “The Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002.” Supporters promised: “California’s population is expected to nearly double in the next forty years. Proposition 50 funds state and local water system improvements needed to keep up with population growth by providing new water supplies and supporting water conservation programs.”

2006 – Voters approved Proposition 84 to authorize a $5.4 billion bond. The “Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act Of 2006. Supporters promised: “Prop. 84 will increase the reliability of California’s water supply.”

Proposition 18, the so-called “Safe, Clean and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010″ once again recycles old promises that previous water bonds failed to meet including “develop(ing) more reliable water supplies”, “Clean up drinking water sources”, “Protect & restore the environment”, “Increase local water supplies”, and “Enhance conservation“.

Prop 18 promises only two things… 1) It promises to more than double the past obligations that the previous 6 bonds saddled Californians with and 2) It promises that another bond will be on the ballot in two to four years after this one fails to meet it promises.

Along with my remarks were also remarks from Melinda Barrett, the water conservation manager for the Los Angeles County WaterWorks and Joseph Reichenberger, a director and professor of civil engineering at Loyola Marymount University. Both attempted to sooth our concerns about how water and development is impacting our quality of life.

Regarding Barrett’s comments:
Barrett is -not- correct when she said that “if the county goes to a higher level than the current Phase II of the county water conservation ordinance, the district would not be able to issue what are called “will serve” letters for new projects.”

Having reviewed the county’s Phased Water Conservation Plan myself, I found that there is no language in it at all that allows the county to deny “will serve” letters. In fact, every phase from Phase III to Phase IX of the county’s plan states that “Water service (“Will Serve”) letters will be issued.”

It does say that “that permanent metered service to any newly created lot will be prohibited”  though I am concerned with that language and whether it applies to “existing lots” that were newly re-zoned to allow tens, hundreds or even thousands of new multi-unit housing.

The county does offer some additional teeth in their rules as opposed to the City of L.A.’s Emergency Water Conservation ordinance because it does deny meters for construction water starting at Phase III. It also states that meters for construction water shall be removed at Phase VII. But again, does this apply to projects such as those going up in Marina del Rey?

Regarding Reichenberger’s comments:
Sheila Kuehl’s SB610 does require a water assessment but it has a HUGE LOOPHOLE in it by not insisting on a timely assessment that is focused on each projects as they come along.

SB610 is not an effective tool in L.A. because it allows developers to cite a water agency’s Urban Water Management Plan that is usually published once every five years.

I originally thought like Reichenberger did when I suggested to the council office that SB610 requires that the Hughes Center include water in its EIR. However when I asked the Hughes Center planners that they needed a water assessment as noted by SB610, they said that the LADWP 2005 UWMP was their assessment and that the UWMP stated that it has sufficient water supplies to meet growth through 2020!

After re-reading SB610 I had to conclude that they were right. SB610 calls for an ‘assessment’ and the UWMP is an assessment. It is essentially a blanket approval for all development in Los Angeles throughout the life of the document. This renders SB610 as toothless.

So here we are, four years later, in the middle of Phase III of Los Angeles’s Emergency Water Conservation Ordinance and anyone can come along and cite a four year old, fatally flawed UWMP that says we have sufficient water supplies through 2020!

Unfortunately.., water agencies will not objectively assess and report that they do not have the water resources necessary to meet population targets. They will not tell planners and local leaders that their plans are not sustainable. Water managers are “yes” men.

Water agencies are given a target in the form of a Regional Housing Need Assessment (RHNA) and are expected to make the report work by painting up some ridiculously rosy scenarios that they will be able to meet the demand for those population assessments. These scenarios include large increases in water deliveries by SWP, LA Aqueduct, ground water, conservation and water recycling. Outside of conservation, none of the others have come close to meeting those goals as we continue to build new housing (mostly vertical) which is why we are in trouble today.

Let’s take L.A.’s 2005 UWMP. It suggested that we would have enough water to meet RHNA’s housing targets through 2020 with these wildly outrageous projections:
 

(ref; 2005 LADWP UWMP)

The reality is we have only been able to supply a yearly average  of 658,184 AF since 2000.  Only once since 1970 have we been able to manage more than 700,000 AF and that was in 1987.  UWMP projections cannot be trusted because they are proven to be historically inaccurate.

So while we are routinely being conned by past and present urban water managment plans that there is enough water to meet RHNA goals, they clearly have been wrong!  There is not enough water to meet today’s urban needs. 

West Basin which supplies Marina del Rey had a similarly rosy UWMP. Relying on the MWD 2005 Regional UWMP which claimed that they have sufficient supplies through the 2030, West Basin projected in their own 2005 UWMP that they will have ‘surpluses’ through 2025!

Unfortunately for CD-11 (Councilmans Rosendahl’s) residents, not one resident in his district who lives on a 7500 sq ft lots (about 95% of its residents) or less really gets 28 HCF of water as advertised. With the new across the board restrictions, we’ll now have far less that most L.A. residents when the lowest Tier I is reduced to 22 HCF.

Rosendahl’s entire 11th council district happens to be in what is called a “low temp” region. Most single family households in our district have been getting far less than what LADWP advertises with only 24 HFC during winter months. With the new restrictions now in place,  our Tier I allocation is a 22% reduction over what the LADWP has been advertising.

City officials seem to be getting their way in casting blame on residents for using too much water.

Here is a recent dialog has been going on at in our local community listservers Wpdrncnews and Onalist where residents observed a librarian hosing down a sidewalk after our new water restrictions have taken place.

Just went by the Mar Vista Library and they were HOSING down their sidewalk – guess they didn’t get the memo about our drought,
restrictions etc.!

Shame on them!

and…

Did you stop to ask them? A lot of folks still don’t get the word, and the “public relations efforts” of plain folks like us who are a concerned part of the community can pay off, too. Often a polite (non-shaming) one-on-one conversation can change attitudes.

and…

Hello All,

I talked with the head librarian at the Mar Vista Library. She was washing sticky soda off the sidewalk because there were complaints about the mess being tracked inside the library. She jokingly said she knew no good deed would go unpunished. Everyone is still welcomed to come by anytime and check out a book.

She has made sure her staff knows about the water restriction. Please keep up the effort to help neighbors understand how to meet these new requirements. More information is available at http://www.ladwp.com

Best regards,
Jim (CD11 staff member)

I hope my neighbors don’t try to “shame” me into conserving water more than I already do.  They will get an informed earful on how misinformed they really are.

Here is the bottom line…

I have no problem with the librarians efforts to clean up a mess using a hose. It’s unfortunate that we are now at a point where our quality of life has been so compromised by city’s incessant drive to build, build, and build that we have to defend cleaning up a sidewalk or take a shower for more than the prescribed 5 minutes.

This has been all too predictable. How many more proposals will we continue to see where four residential parcels will be turned into forty housing units or half block of parcels are turned into a 2000 units before we realize that it is having a negative impact on our quality of life?

The Mayor and the entire city council are to blame for this unfortunate situation. I’m not going to blame mother nature or Federal judges on this. State and local politicians (and even our neighborhood council) have to be singled out for creating this water shortage because none of them are stepping forward to question the city’s planning policies. None of them are asking just how sustainable is the regions housing policy?

A few weeks ago I met with Rosendahl and told him that they (LADWP) would skip Phase II entirely and go on to Phase III or Phase IV.  This was something I predicted here last Fall though I didn’t think they would do it until June or July. The City Council approved of the stricter ordinance today.

In case people are wondering… here is how the various phases defined in Ordinance 180148 affect watering your landscape.

PHASE I
Limited hours for watering landscape.
No moratorium on new developments.

PHASE II
Watering landscape on Monday, Thursday and Saturday only.
Still no moratorium on new developments

PHASE III
Watering landscape on Monday and Thursday only.
STILL no moratorium on new developments

PHASE IV
Watering landscape on Monday only.
STILL NO moratorium on new developments

PHASE V
No watering landscape allowed
STILL NO MORATORIUM on new developments

PHASE VI
To be determined. (They’ll think of something else to make L.A.’s residents miserable. Perhaps shower free weekends.)
STILL NO MORATORIUM ON NEW DEVELOPMENTS

How out of skew can our housing policies be to the regions realities?!

Last week the City Council decided that residences with 4 or more household members that live on average size lots and fail to stay under the Tier 1 allocation are themselves ‘water hogs’ so they will punish them with nearly doubled water rates. However, if you live on a large and very large lot they will continue to grant you larger allocations of water.

These council people weren’t elected for their skills in details or mathematics or they would have realized that 5 people living under the Tier I cap are far more frugal water users than just two people in a similar sized residence.

So John Doe living on a 15,000 square ft lot gets his 48 HFC and only has to cut back on his marigolds while my family has to stop washing our clothes four nights a week and take 3 minute showers?  

They could have easily authorized the LADWP to reduce the water allocation to the four largest lot sizes where clearly the additional allocation has everything to do with water for landscaping. 

At L.A. City Hall, housing production trumps quality of life. At least the little guys quality of life.

Los Angeles has never been friendly to families given its dysfunctional schools, high taxes and fees, its scarcity of parks and an unfriendly business climate that been chasing retail and manufacturing businesses to other nearby cities.

Friday, April 17th added yet another burden to living in the city when the Los Angeles City Council approved lowering Tier 1 allocations by 15% and increasing the water rate on those who can’t stay under the allocation.

The new rate reduces the basic allocation from 28 to 24 HCF every two months which will squeeze the available water allocation in a 5 member family to about 60 gallons a day per person.

By definition, any family with three to six members who stays under the current 28 HCF is already conserving since they are using up to 70% less per person than another household with only two people.

While families with several children will likely have to forego a shower once every few days to stay under the Tier 1 allocation, the City Council did give one important group a break, they offered customers with horses an exemption to the new rate! Yep, Old Paint takes precedence over your spouse and kids.

It doesn’t stop there however. The extra burden on families is especially noticeable in how the Tier1 rates are calculated. Residents living on larger lots are given additional water allowances well above the 24 HCF. The new rates will have little personal effect on residents living on lot sizes greater than 7,500 square feet since all they have to do is cut back watering on the Agapanthus.

For instance, a resident living on an 11,000 sq. ft. lot has nearly two times as much water available to them at 40 HCF than a resident living on a lot smaller than 7500 square ft even though their family size is comparable.

If you have more dirt, you get more water. Residents living on lots as large as 43,560 sq. ft. and over will have up to 60 HCF before they have to pay Tier 2 rates.

LADWP General Manager David Nahai and his wife and two children who live on a 15,594 sq. ft lot will have 40 HCF available to them. That amounts to about 124 gallons per day for  each of his family members before they will be subject to Tier 2 rates. This is the very same person who was fingered as L.A.s most prolific water waster last year while averaging over 90 HCF.

What They Should Do…

Old Paint should get his exemption of course but the rest of the City’s new rate structure really targets the wrong customer.

A much fairer solution (and one that seems more in keeping with many city staffers and elected officials who believe that residents should give up their lawns) would be to leave the lowest lot size allocation alone at 28 HCF and significantly reduce the allocations for larger lots. Maybe as much as 25% to 30%. After all, the extra water allocated to larger lots is used almost solely for landscaping.

Most people think the Tier 1 allocations are just one number, 28 HCF (or roughly 21,000 gallons) that we get every two months. What isn’t ever quoted in news stories is that it are really 5 different allotments for each temperature zone and where your household fits in depends on the size of property you live on.

Westchester and Playa del Rey will actually get even less water because of the temperature zone we live in. W/PdR residents will have to cut back to 22 HFC per billing period. That amounts to 68 gallons per person each day in a 4 member household and 45 gallons per person in a 6 member household. Such small sums are quickly used up simply by doing what is necessary to stay clean and healthy.

In Westchester/Playa, we live in the low temperature zone and our current Tier 1 allocation is:

up to 7,499 sq ft. = 26 HCF
up to 10,999 sq ft. = 32 HCF
up to 17,499 sq ft. = 48 HCF
up to 43,559 sq ft. = 56 HCF
above 43,560 = 72 HCF

The first level is for the most part a lifeline allocation regardless of where you live. There was not a lot of margin in that first level between what a family of four or more needs in the normal course of daily chores, cooking, hygiene, laundry, etc. and what some folks in government think are excess.

The more members you have in a household, the less water that each person has available to them and given there are certain basic needs per person (showers, toilet flushes, glasses of water, etc) medium and large families will likely  exceed the maximum allocation to a residential lot.

Unfortunately our Council Members and their staff haven’t done their homework and instead accept as gospel whatever the LADWP and its Mayor appointed General Manager has to say -which is pretty typical- in LA City government.

Here is what we will have now:

up to 7,499 sq ft. = 22 HCF
up to 10,999 sq ft. = 27 HCF
up to 17,499 sq ft. = 40 HCF
up to 43,559 sq ft. = 47 HCF
above 43,560 = 61 HCF

What city officials should have done is acknowledge that additional water allocations for lot sizes above 7,499 sq ft are for primarily for landscaping and it is those lots that should be asked to conserve more. Not the lowest allocation where most homes of our community fall under.

This rate schedule would have had a far better conservation result without impacting the people who already conserve the most.

up to 7,499 sq ft. = 26 HCF ; 0 cut
up to 10,999 sq ft. = 26 HCF ; 20% cut
up to 17,499 sq ft. = 36 HCF ; 25% cut
up to 43,559 sq ft. = 42 HCF ; 25% cut
above 43,560 = 54 HCF ; 25% cut

Let’s thank our Councilman for this new burden imposed on us.

The unfortunate result of reducing the basic (Tier I) allotment is that it hurts the pocketbook of households with three or more members, particularly those with kids. Single member households and couples will easily stay under the 24 HFC tier level.

However, households with children will end up paying more since water rates are not based on the number of people living in the home. If you have three or four children, each taking daily baths, brushing teeth, doing laundry for them, etc. you will obviously use more water, but probably less per capita than a one or two person household.

I just checked my February bill and my family used 25 HFC so we are going to be over our allotment and will have to pay extra if the city council approves it. Last year we were at 31 HFC so we already have reduced our consumption by 20%.  

Take our current usage and divide it by four we only use 6.25 HFC per person or 3.12 HFC per person per month. That is roughly 2,330 gallons a month or 77 gallons a day per person. A family of 5? 59 gallons per day per person. Now we are getting into city enforced shower-free days.

A single person can use all 24 HFC (299 gals per day) and stay under the cap. A couple can use 12 HFC (150 gals per day) each and stay under the cap.

So who is getting penalized by the proposed water rate? Households with 3 or more members.

What they ought to do is go after the higher-consumption customers like those living in LADWP General Manager’s neighborhood.  

Yep… The General Manager of the LADWP last year was outed using over 100 HFC in numerous billing cycles. 4 times my homes usage. The audit also notes that his neighbors also use from 2 to 4 times what we use in a month. My guess is that they don’t give a twit how much they pay or what Tier level they are in.

While my vote was on this project, my -real- message was towards the community, our city council and the mayor on future and soon to be heard projects.

Here are my comments:

On November 4th, 2003 our neighborhood council voted to support Playa Vista Phase II 13 to 10. At the time Playa Vista had greatly down-sized their original plans in response to the community concerns and we commended them for that.

I was one of the members of the board at the time that supported the EIR. I liked the plan because of the mix of retail and lower residential density than the original proposal.

The retail component was important to me because it completed the package giving the Playa Vista community their own local place to shop without having to leave the community and create an additional traffic burden on Sepulveda or Lincoln.

With our neighborhood council’s support, former council member Cindy Miscikowski took that project downtown where the Los Angeles City Council deliberated and with the Mayor they approved the project and work began.

However.., a lot has transpired since 2003 that has -challenged the notion- that we can continue to grow and grow and provide housing to meet Sacramento’s growth projections for Southern California. It is these growth projections that drive development. These projections are not based on reality and they ignore very real constraints to our regions infrastructure. Likewise, L.A.’s planning policies ignore the same restraints.

Since the time that –our– neighborhood council first approved Playa Vista Phase II, we’ve seen the rolling power blackouts and brownouts of 2004. We’ve seen soaring levels of traffic gridlock and impractical solutions to solve it. We’ve seen our reservoirs, lakes and rivers slowly draw down and emergency water conservation ordinances imposed on us and on residents from other cities throughout Southern California. And this was –without- the construction of Phase II.

Between 1970 and 2008, the population of the City of Los Angeles has gone from 2.81 million people to just over 4 million and our water deliveries have remained essentially static at less than 700,000 acre feet. The water supply has not grown with population growth and it won’t. In fact, between equal parts of below average rainfall, court ordered reductions and excessive growth, the best we can hope for is making do with much, much less.

The most recent projections by the California State Department of Finance is that Southern California’s population will double by 2050. According to the DOF, we will need housing for another 15 million people. If we build it… they will come.

Since 1997, the City of Los Angeles has been bending over backwards to meet the States projected population growth and housing requirements by approving permits for 10’s of thousand of new housing units each year. Even during this period of emergency water conservation enforcement, the City of Los Angeles still has not imposed a moratorium on development.

We’ve seen that growth here in Playa del Rey, Westchester and in Playa Vista. We’ve seen the loss of Acapulco Restaurant at Pershing and Manchester to a 49 unit housing complex. We’ve seen the arrival of a 288 housing unit complex at Manchester and Tuscany. We’ve seen L.A.’s first so-called smart growth project – the 539 unit Playa del Oro, and high density projects near transit stops such as the 37 unit complex that replaced B’nai Tikvah and the 43 unit condo project on Arizona. It’s happening here and it’s happening all over the city.

Neighborhood councils were created to give regular people like us a voice in the direction of their community. We are not expected to be rubber stamps for our elected officials housing policies.

If we don’t speak up…, One parcel at a time, our neighborhoods will slowly grind down to a halt as people are squeezed into smaller confines, traffic gridlock will extend longer into the day and evening, and more severe water conservation efforts will imposed on us. I fully expect the City of L.A to raise the enforcement level to at least a Phase IV or higher this year.

Having said this, Under today’s conditions, I cannot support large housing projects, let alone a project that proposes 2,600 new housing units. If this was 2003 I might have a very different position. However, it’s 2009 and the region is overdeveloped and the city has overcommitted our resources including water, power and streets. Unless there is a way for the city to resolve these infrastructure issues without further eroding our quality of life, I cannot support new housing..

We may not be able to control rainfall,  we can control growth. If you have the tolerance for more traffic grid lock, tightening water supplies and penalties for not meeting water restrictions vote yes.

If you want to send the city a message that unsustainable growth is NOT acceptable, Vote No.

David Coffin
Neighborhood Council of Westchester/Playa
Board member of Residential Seat 10

Editors note: Posted originally on 2-09-2009

Mail-in ballots are arriving in homes right now. City elections are coming up in March. Here is why Mayor Villaraigosa should not be granted a second term as mayor. Imagine another four years?

The report card for Antonio Villaraigosa’s first term as mayor.

F-    The city’s fiscal condition crumbles under his administration. Not enough money to fix sidewalks, hire police, keep libraries open. Next year, we expect the city’s deficit to rise to $400 million.

D- Villaraigosa’s spends only about 11% of his time dealing with city business. Refer to  L.A.Weekly – The all-about-me mayor and LA Weekly Story – The still all-about-me mayor.

F Villaraigosa continues to promote L.A.’s massive housing growth, policies that are largely responsible for increased gridlock and drought.  The California Department of Finance projects 19 million new residents in Southern California and the mayor is bending over backwards to meet L.A.’s  share. Even if it lowers the quality of life for L.A.’s current residents.

F Villaraigosa declares the Crane as the official bird of Los Angeles. Not the feathered sort. He was referring to the construction cranes throughout downtown and West Los Angeles used to build those multi-story high density housing projects that bring with them more vehicles and less water availability to L.A. residents.

F  Villaraigosa lamely attempts to capture the energy of angry grid locked motorists and translate that into his high density solution. What he doesn’t get is that with high density, we get more people and more cars thus more grid lock. Sorry but there will never be enough bus routes or buses to serve a city of  500 square miles and 4 million people.

F    Villaraigosa continues to remain mum on LAWA’s march to expand the airport despite promises in two mayoral campaigns to not allow airport expansion. Villaraigosa SIGNED the ARSAC Promise not to expand the airport, yet he keeps the door open to moving the run way 340′ north and leveling yet more of the Westchester business district and more homes.

F-    Villaraigosa asks city residents to use less water despite his own super-sized requirements of 386,716 gallons per year (L.A. Times Story) while the average Angeleno uses only 55,576 gallons.

F-    Going further, Villaraigosa imposes an emergency water ordinance that fines residents for watering their lawns during the day. However, he doesn’t impose new restrictions on developers while they add roughly 16,000 new housing unit a year. Each new housing unit connected to the water supply adds 100,000 gallons of water to L.A.’s fixed water allocation.

F    Villaraigosa quietly negotiates a “settlement” on the evening of Yom Kippur leaving L.A. residents on the hook for $2.8 million in ‘Dog food’ Tennie Pierce suit. This was $100,000 more than the first settlement he vetoed months earlier. Patterico’s Pontifications

C-  Villaraigosa’s LAUSD takeover bill AB1381 was found to be unconstitutional in court.  Villaraigosa still manages to obtain control of a few schools under the iDivision partnership.

F   Trash pickup fees were hiked 330% to add 1000 LAPD officers but only 1/3 of the 137 million raised went to hiring new officers. The rest went to police vehicles, raises and perks to the police union. L.A. Slams Residents With Stiff Fees and Taxes

F  Villaraigosa replaces an illegal phone tax with a new tax measure to replace it. He sells the new tax to the voters as a 10% cut over the old illegal tax.

F   Continues to support Special Order 40 which prevents LAPD officers from obtaining immigration status of detained suspects.

F   Two years after he campaigned as a family man, Villaraigosa leaves his wife and kids to begin dating a Telemundo TV reporter. He previously fathered two children out of wedlock with two different mothers. 

F    Jon Coupal give Villaraigosa an F.  “I think it’s one of the most poorly managed cities in the country,” Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, said of Los Angeles.”

F   Villaraigosa, the “Green candidate” agrees to a settlement allowing billboard companies to “digitize” 877 billboards throughout the city in exchange for a list of billboard locations throughout the city, many that are illegal. Digital billboards threaten to alter the quality of life for all residents in the City of Los Angeles.

F  The digital billboard plan is clearly at odds to Villaraigosa’s ‘Green LA’ plan since each digital billboard, rated at 23,000 watts per hour uses enough power to supply 20 single family residents.

F   Villaraigosa agrees to more electricity rate hikes even though the city receives hundred of millions of dollars in power fund transfers from the DWP each year. Money deemed as ‘excess funds” by the DWP. So why is trash and electricity going up if there is too much money?

F   While promoting public transit and urging the council and other departments to cut usage of their take-home cars – the Mayor is driven around in a 2005 GMC Yukon at an average rate of 73 miles per day or that’s about $7,900 a year in gas ($4.19 using city government’s own fleet-fueling pumps).

F   Villaraigosa promised to help create an “emerald necklace” of parks throughout Los Angeles when he ran for mayor in 2005.  Los Angeles never got those parks.

F  The mayor doesn’t want to debate any of the candidates in this election. Shouldn’t L.A.’s residents have an opportunity to hear his policies debated side by side with the other candidates for mayor?

It’s time for CHANGE!

I’ve been writing, charting and trending about this going on two years now and frankly there have been a number of people that have dismissed me. Until now.

Now all that I have been writing about is coming to reality.

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – With a recent flurry of winter storms doing little to dampen California’s latest drought, the nation’s biggest public utility voted on Tuesday to impose water rationing in Los Angeles for the first time in nearly two decades.

Under the plan adopted in principle by the governing board of the L.A. Department of Water and Power, homes and businesses would pay a penalty rate — nearly double normal prices — for any water they use in excess of a reduced monthly allowance.

The five-member board plans to formally vote on details of the measure next month.

The rationing scheme is expected to take effect in May unless the City Council acts before then to reject it — a move seen as unlikely since Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa called for the measure under a water-shortage plan last week.

We are running out of water and it is because our elected officials have choosen to insert their heads-in-the-sand while believing in a few select city officials such as Villaraigosa, Garcetti, Reyes, Perry and Gruel that they can continue to build and build more housing without any consideration for infrastructure. With these penalties there is NO excuse for this anymore.

It’s bad enough that residents will see penalty rates that will nearly double their water bills when, not if, they exceed their reduced monthly “allowances”.

Imposing penalties on residents is bad policy given that the drought was created by ill-managed housing policies throughtout Southern California and not mother nature alone.

The problem is.. our elected officials “build at all opportunities” housing policy. As if there are no other Southern California regions participating in the larger equation. Participants such as the other five counties including Imperial, Orange, Riverside, Orange and San Bernadino counties who all have similar myopic goals to meet California’s populaton projections. This is classic “silo mentality” thinking at the county and city level.

Even worse are the city’s “reduced allowances” and penalties that are not based on household sizes but on comparable lot size and housing square footage of nearby residential properties. These penalties will wreck the middle class.

If you live in an area of neighborhoods like LADWP General Manager H. David Nahia you will be less affected by the drought than if you live in the middle of Mar Vista  or if you have a family larger than Nahai’s.

The real culprit is the failure of the L.A. City Water and Power Commission to advocate for today’s ratepayer (residents) and advise the city council and the Mayor to press for a moratorium on new housing projects.

Because the entire Water and Power Commission is appointed by the mayor, they are answerable -only- to the Mayor. Not the residents that pay for water, power and trash that amounts to hundreds of dollars a month.

While current economic conditions appear to be having an effect on depressing housing investment by developers, a moratorium is still necessary both on its real impact and on reducing additional burdens on a limited water supply. Just as important it sends a messege to Sacramento that there are real limits to growth in Southern California.

Mayor Villaraigosa and many of the city’s planning staffers believe that the city can -buy its way out- of a city budget crisis by allowing developers to build more and in turn the city can collect more property tax.  Property taxes however will not magically increase the amount of water that mother nature will provide.