LA MESA -- The La Mesa City Council doesn't often take votes on issues that are not directly within the city's control, but it made an exception Tuesday.
Mayor Art Madrid asked the council to voice its opposition to Proposition 23, a proposal on November's ballot that would roll back previous state legislation aimed at addressing environmental energy issues. The proposition, which has the support of some large energy interests, would suspend the state environmental efforts until unemployment fell decisively in this recession.
About a dozen opponents to the proposition attended Tuesday's council meeting and asked the council to join a variety of other municipalities and environmental groups in opposing the proposal.
After hearing from a long line of opponents to the ballot initiative, the council voted 3-0 with two abstensions to oppose the measure.
Vice Mayor Ruth Sterling read statements of support for the initiative from others, but said her own holdings in green companies and energy stocks required that she abstain. Council Member Ernest Ewin, while pointing out that he himself drives a hybrid Ford, also abstained, questioning whether the city council should be entering into this sort of symbolic voting.

Views: 88

Tags: Government

Comment

You need to be a member of La Mesa Today - Community Website & Online Newspaper to add comments!

Join La Mesa Today - Community Website & Online Newspaper

Comment by Squadron on September 19, 2010 at 4:06pm
Madrid self-promotes -- we need leadership to promote La Mesa. Madrid is a politician not a public servant -- we need public servants working for the City of La Mesa not someone trying desperately to win a losing battle. He should have graciously resigned on numerous occassions -- now he will go down in flames.
Comment by Craig S. Maxwell on September 19, 2010 at 8:06am
Amen, Russell & Kevin!
So, given their utter lack of authority or competence in this matter, what are we to make of their pronouncement? I would (safely) hazard that it's nothing but PC grandstanding; a cheesy attempt to curry favor with certain like-minded constituents, and yet another hollow "accomplishment" they can add to their long lists of similarly insubstantial pseudo-achievements.
Comment by Russell Buckley on September 18, 2010 at 9:02pm
I am appalled at the unmitigated gall displayed by our city council by speaking for us on an issue about which they have no jurisdiction and about which they don't know the opinions of most of its citizens. They are certainly well within their rights to express their opinions personal opinions, just as I am. But where in the world do they get the idea that it is their right to speak for me about either proposition 32 or proposition 23. I am firmly against prop 32 and in favor of prop 23 - for reasons that I would be happy to debate with anyone, anytime. But that is not the point of this comment. It would be nice if the Council would do its job and manage our City's finances responsibly and let each of us speak for ourselves about Proposition 32 at the ballot box.
Comment by Kevin G George on September 16, 2010 at 12:53pm
I agree with Ewins stance .
What does La Mesa have to do with this ?
The voters should decide for themselves , without a judgement by local politicians trying to make a statement . Not unlike the Berkley City Council condemning the War in Iraq .

A couple of years ago there was a huge flap similar to this , I belive it may have been about Prop 8 .
The Council was asked to endorse the the proposition and a huge controversy erupted at a Council meeting with both backers and detractors arguing their points for hours .

The Mayor at that time said he would make a proposal that would require the Council to deal ONLY with things germain to the operation of La Mesa .

What happened to that ?
Comment by Craig S. Maxwell on September 16, 2010 at 10:05am
Thank you, Hugh. I have. Far more important, however, are the second looks it's getting from many specialists.

Here the response to Miriam I posted on ECM.

Thank you, Miriam. By way of clarification: 1) I don't listen to right-wing talk radio (so why would you suggest otherwise?) 2) Walter Russell Mead is not a right-wing talk radio host. Nor are the estimated 700 skeptical scientists who now disagree with the U.N.'s climate conclusions (13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary) Included among these are Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology. She now expresses relief (upon her retirement last year) at being finally able to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, has called man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." And Norwegian Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, unabashedly calls is a "new religion." Also included are a group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer. They are demanding that the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. And these are only a few. BTW, both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter. So much for open minds, eh? 3) Nor is The London Times, which has covered this story extensively, a part of right-wing punditry. 4) I do not deny global warming. Nor do many other "skeptics." What we are questioning is, A) the degree to which humans are responsible for this phenomena; and, B) the cost and efficacy of the radically remedial measures proposed by men like Al Gore. 5)I am not a scientist and can therefore claim no expertise in this field. I am, however, aware of the degree to which all of us-scientists included, and politicians especially!--are vulnerable to personal and/or irrational biases.
Comment by Hugh Moore on September 16, 2010 at 6:54am
Copied from a post on East County Magazine in response to Craig Maxwell's same comment on that page. Mr. Maxwell, please look at the evidence.

The "scientists" who claim global warming is a fraud
On September 15th, 2010 miriamg says:
were bought and paid for by the oil companies. True, there was one scientist out of hundreds who was partially discredited in Europe. You can find someone like that in every field. But when 99% of the world's respected climate scientists all agree that global warming is a dire crisis that imperils our planet, and the only naysayers are researchers on the payroll of big oil companies, it's pretty obvious what the truth really is.

To believe global warming is a fraud, you would also have to believe that all the top scientists right here at UCSD are liars. Check out the computer modeling they've done showing how much of San Diego would be underwater if ocean levels rise not the astronomical two feet that some experts have predicted, but even a few inches.

Look at the videos of rapid ice melting at the poles and with glaciers worldwide at unprecedented levels. Let your own eyes be the judge. Climate change is real, Craig.

My degree is in environmental studies some years ago. This is an area where I have done considerable research in years past and attended various events with top experts speaking.

Instead of listening to right-wing talk radio shows that ignore facts, try reading some scientific reports and going to symposiums where scientists who have not been paid to come up with a specific outcome have to say. It would be an eye opener.

All of that said, even one is still unsure about global warming, there are plenty of other reasons to oppose Prop 23. It will kill green jobs, and it will result in increased air pollution which causes asthma, cancer, and lung diseases. As mother of a son who suffered with asthma, i can't understand why people would want to harm children's health by making our air worse!
Comment by MDSD on September 16, 2010 at 6:37am
Prop 23 is a proposition funded almost entirely by Texas Oil companies who want to get out of cleaning up their dirty operations and limit competition from clean, renewable energy sources. It is opposed by SDG&E, EBay, the American Lung Association, BlueShield, Google, and hundreds of solar, wind and other clean energy businesses, including many here in San Diego County. I applaud the La Mesa City Council for standing up for clean air and clean energy jobs for La Mesans and other Californians.
Comment by Craig S. Maxwell on September 15, 2010 at 10:15am
Quite right, Scott.
This is big (though hardly surprising) disappointment. With both fraudulent claims having been unmasked at the highest levels in the "global warming community," and much legitimate scientific evidence now weighing against Herr Gore's draconian proposals, one can only conclude that this is about little more than political posturing. Shame of La Mesa's politicos for their spineless, mindless conformism.
Comment by Scott H. Kidwell on September 15, 2010 at 5:42am
Sadly, the politics of fear-mongering, demons and faith based science won the day. Maybe the city could request a grant from Al Gore given the hundreds of millions of obscene profit he has made off taxpayer subsidized green industry investments and since he doesn't have to pay any money out to stockholders as dividends?
Comment by Patrick Dean on September 14, 2010 at 10:55pm
Good on ya' to the members of the council who voted to oppose the rollback of an important step forward towards renewable energy for California. I agree with the city manager's assessment that it is within the city's area of concern. It has been assumed we need to conform with the new requirements AB32. Having a few large interests come in and repeal that for their own selfish purposes is disruptive of planning that needs to go on.

La Mesa Weather

HousingWire

La Mesa Photos

  • Add La Mesa Photos
  • View All

La Mesa Member Videos

  • Add La Mesa Videos
  • View All

La Mesa TODAY is news intended to promote the betterment of La Mesa and its nearby neighborhoods. We want members who share this goal.

© 2019   Created by La Mesa Today.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service