In a classic game of political chicken this morning, Governor Schwarzenegger repeated his intention to veto most of the 700+ bills sent to him in the final days of the 2009-2010 legislative session unless the legislative leaders address California’s water crisis. The Governor has until 11:59 PM on Sunday, October 11, 2009 to sign or veto bills on his desk.
This isn't a surprise move by the the Governor. He issued his first threat in August to veto bills sent to him if there was no agreement on legislation addressing the water crisis. As usual, the Democratic leaders, including our own Senator Oropeza, chose to ignore the Governor's plea on behalf of the citizens of California, especially our Central Coast friends struggling to grow crops.
The issue, as most of you know, deals with the Delta Smelt fish that enviro-activists have decided are more worthy of survival than 24 million Californians and the state economy that depend on the waters of the San Joaquin Valley. Our pandering legislators are visited daily by lobbyists of these groups, including the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Friends of the River, California Trout, the Bay Institute and Baykeeper that have all decided that the California economy is an acceptable price to pay for the survival of a fish. And because our legislators are always in Sacramento and rarely down here in their districts, the lobbyists always seem to win the upper hand.
It appears that Governor Schwarzenegger is not ready to accept this scenario, and -is not including the fate of the Democratic-run Legislature Agenda in that price to pay. Of course, the whining by Democratic State leaders, including Assembly Speaker and State Senate President Darryl Steinberg, has begun, claiming that the Governor has a "moral obligation" to address each of the 700+ bills on his desk "on their merits".
I agree with this statement, with one caveat - the merits of each bill needs to be weighed against the priority to have it signed over dealing with the Central Valley Water Crisis. If the bill does not deal with an issue more important than the 24 million Californians affected by the water crisis, it should be vetoed.
The Governor did not say that he would veto all of the 700 plus bills sent to him, saying this morning in San Francisco that “I made it very clear to the legislators and to the leaders that if this does not get done then I will veto a lot of their legislation, a lot of their bills, so that should inspire them to go and get the job done.”
Democratic legislative leaders delayed until late in September to actually send most of the bills to the Governor that the Legislature passed earlier in the month in the final days of session, worried that he would veto many or all of them. With the October 11th deadline approaching, legislative leaders late in September finally had to send all the bills they held to the Governor, expressing optimism that the Governor would not veto those bills because of the lack of a water deal.
Last Year, the Governor threatened not to sign any bills until a budget was passed. The Governor didn’t take action on bills until the final week in September after the budget was signed. He came through on that threat, which makes it even more insane to think why the Democrats did not take him seriously this year.
But what do you think? Is the use of the veto power to get an urgent priority addressed an abuse of power, as many Democratic leaders claim?
Or is this a good example of a Governor asserting the power of the office to get a crisis addressed despite the lack of caring and attention given to it by an enviro-activist friendly legislature?
You can't please all the lobbyists all the time, I guess!
Friday, October 9, 2009
Friday, October 2, 2009
San Pedro Waterfront finally moving forward
When I attended an earlier meeting regarding the San Pedro Waterfront about 2 years ago, the attendees were a near-even mixture of supporters and opposers to the Port of LA's proposed project. Leading the charge to move the project forward, as he has been for over 10 years, was John Papadakis, co-owner of the nearby Greek restaurant Papadakis Taverna with his brother Tom that has been one of the few draws for non-locals to come to San Pedro since its opening in 1973. (Note: Papadakis Taverna & Ports o'Call were the only reasons for a former Redondo Beach kid like me to come to San Pedro. Because of these, I later learned what a fantastic place to live San Pedro truly is.)
The opposition groups were fully engaged back then, and had already convinced the meeting's panel that the speaker cards should alternate between those-for & those-against the Waterfront project. This allowed more of the opposition coalition, many who had come in late due to arriving from out-of-town, to get their comments in before locals like me and others who had made it on time.
I remember John speaking passionately & enthusiastically about the vision of the Waterfront Promenade, and as a neighborhood council member at the time, I vowed to do what I could to assist in that vision. What I soon discovered after the meeting, after both a glass of Greek beer with John and through many generational Pedrans who have welcomed my family and shared their families' legacies, was that the Waterfront Project has the support of the "true" locals, and that the moment would soon come when this project would be released from its enviro-activist chains.
That moment came on Tuesday, when over 500 local supporters filled the large gymnasium at the Boys & Girls Club to show the Harbor Board of Commissioners that San Pedro was not going to wait any longer. No more delays while another study was conducted; no more dead-end negotiations with enviro-activists who only had their alternative as acceptable; and no more fence-sitting for local politicians.
Prior to the public comment portion of the commission's consideration of the project, the Port staff presented a list of nearby every state and local politician, including Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, State Senator Lowenthal, State Senator Wright, and even State Senator Oropeza, to her credit. Councilmember Janice hahn opened the comment portion of this meeting with her support, with a caveat that Downtown San pedro be addressed first in the list of sub-projects within the overall project. Staffers from some of the supporting politicians gave representative remarks, and then former (and potentially future) City Councilmember Rudy Svorinich gave his comments about how long San Pedro has been waiting for this project. Then he asked the supporters in the room to stand....
Over 90% of the crowded audience rose to their feets and applauded each other for attending this momentious event to get this project started. John Papadakis soon followed, and I could tell he was finally starting to feel the tide shifting. He was right back then, and he was right on Tuesday. San pedro deserves this waterfront, and the community was going to accept nothing less.
Dr. Geraldine Knatz, Executive Director of the Port of Los Angeles, and her tireless staff deserve huge appreciation for their repeated late nights to address issues by local activists on all sides of proposed improvements, and for vetting every possible concern in their Proposed Project Summary that every attendee and local redicent received. Dr. Knatz and her team researched hard, objectively and passionately to help create the vision presented on Tuesday night. I can honestly say that the Port staff understand what the overwhelming majority of the San Pedro community wants to see on its waterfront.
I wish them godspeed and success in making the vision a reality, and renew my commitment to helping in any small or large way I can to keeping this project moving forward.
But what do you think? Despite the nearly 10 years it's taken to get this project past the initial EIR stage, do you think move time should have been taken? Any sound offs about how long it takes to get projects like these moving, especially in more left-leaning regions of the district?
Thoughts?
Examiner Article
The opposition groups were fully engaged back then, and had already convinced the meeting's panel that the speaker cards should alternate between those-for & those-against the Waterfront project. This allowed more of the opposition coalition, many who had come in late due to arriving from out-of-town, to get their comments in before locals like me and others who had made it on time.
I remember John speaking passionately & enthusiastically about the vision of the Waterfront Promenade, and as a neighborhood council member at the time, I vowed to do what I could to assist in that vision. What I soon discovered after the meeting, after both a glass of Greek beer with John and through many generational Pedrans who have welcomed my family and shared their families' legacies, was that the Waterfront Project has the support of the "true" locals, and that the moment would soon come when this project would be released from its enviro-activist chains.
That moment came on Tuesday, when over 500 local supporters filled the large gymnasium at the Boys & Girls Club to show the Harbor Board of Commissioners that San Pedro was not going to wait any longer. No more delays while another study was conducted; no more dead-end negotiations with enviro-activists who only had their alternative as acceptable; and no more fence-sitting for local politicians.
Prior to the public comment portion of the commission's consideration of the project, the Port staff presented a list of nearby every state and local politician, including Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, State Senator Lowenthal, State Senator Wright, and even State Senator Oropeza, to her credit. Councilmember Janice hahn opened the comment portion of this meeting with her support, with a caveat that Downtown San pedro be addressed first in the list of sub-projects within the overall project. Staffers from some of the supporting politicians gave representative remarks, and then former (and potentially future) City Councilmember Rudy Svorinich gave his comments about how long San Pedro has been waiting for this project. Then he asked the supporters in the room to stand....
Over 90% of the crowded audience rose to their feets and applauded each other for attending this momentious event to get this project started. John Papadakis soon followed, and I could tell he was finally starting to feel the tide shifting. He was right back then, and he was right on Tuesday. San pedro deserves this waterfront, and the community was going to accept nothing less.
Dr. Geraldine Knatz, Executive Director of the Port of Los Angeles, and her tireless staff deserve huge appreciation for their repeated late nights to address issues by local activists on all sides of proposed improvements, and for vetting every possible concern in their Proposed Project Summary that every attendee and local redicent received. Dr. Knatz and her team researched hard, objectively and passionately to help create the vision presented on Tuesday night. I can honestly say that the Port staff understand what the overwhelming majority of the San Pedro community wants to see on its waterfront.
I wish them godspeed and success in making the vision a reality, and renew my commitment to helping in any small or large way I can to keeping this project moving forward.
But what do you think? Despite the nearly 10 years it's taken to get this project past the initial EIR stage, do you think move time should have been taken? Any sound offs about how long it takes to get projects like these moving, especially in more left-leaning regions of the district?
Thoughts?
Examiner Article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
