After the Los Angeles City Council voted to reject a proposed “carbon surcharge” that would have increased the average DWP electrical bill for most Los Angelinos, Mayor Villaraigosa’s statement perfectly sums up his disappointment: “Today the majority of the City Council, led by the council president and president pro tempore, took a major step backwards in our efforts to move away from the City’s over-dependence on dirty fossil fuels. Instead of taking an historic opportunity to put the city on a permanent path to a sustainable, cleaner, greener future, the Council voted to perpetuate the status quo at the Department of Water and Power.” And so the Mayor’s commitment to generating 20% of L.A.’s electricity from renewable power sources may be dead, and so may cordial working relations between the Mayor and the City Council after a nasty debate over the surcharge. What’s the future of green energy; what’s the future of L.A.’s seriously compromised budget; and can L.A.’s politicians get along to solve these colossal problems?
The conventional wisdom for years on red light cameras was that they were revenue-generating machines, capturing an endless volume of careless drivers either blowing through red lights or slowly rolling through right turns on red lights. Additionally, the thought was that the cameras were responsible for increasing the number of collisions as drivers slammed on the breaks to avoid going into intersections on yellow or red lights. In the case of L.A. it might turn out that all of the conventional wisdom is hot air: The photo enforcement program, which catches tens of thousands of violators annually, appears to be barely breaking even, just covering the expense of installing and operating the cameras. Meanwhile the LAPD has concluded that red light cameras help reduce accidents at the intersections in which they’re used. If the cameras are increasing safety and not raking in the ticket revenue that everyone feared, would you still hate them?
New battles are erupting over the healthcare reform bill passed last week, this time within the states, where leaders from both parties are clashing on whether to sue the federal government. Only hours after President Barack Obama signed the healthcare plan into law week, more than a dozen Republican state attorneys general - and one Democrat -- filed lawsuits saying it violates state and individual rights. And one’s being threatened with recall because he won’t take the feds to court. Many experts say this is just a political ploy and it will do nothing but wrack up litigation fees. Others say the states have a credible case, but even if they lose, the controversy signals a larger schism over core political values. We’re sizing up the suits, and their effects, as the lawyers start filing their briefs.
A recently introduced state bill, if passed, would establish a medical parole category for inmates who are comatose or severely incapacitated. J. Clark Kelso, the federal receiver to oversee medical care for the California prison system, estimates that releasing only 32 current inmates who would qualify for this category would save the state of California and its tax payers up to $213 million over a five-year period. Is it a potentially real budgetary fix or just a sensationalized illusion?
Lab rats were fed some especially delicious food so Scripps Research Institute scientists could find out what caused them to overeat and become obese. It turns out the same biochemical mechanism that controls the compulsion to overeat also controls the compulsion that drives people into drug addiction. This means that junk food binging is very difficult to stop, but the finding may shed light on treating obesity. In the meantime, just say “NO” to that Twinkie!
Patt Morrison is known for its innovative discussions of local politics and culture, as well as its presentation of the effects of national and world news on Southern California.
