Is there a conflict of interest on the Redondo Beach City Council regarding the AES repowering debate? A debate whose outcome—denial of a future operating license—seems so obvious to even the most casual observer.
Councilman Steven Diels was the only councilman to oppose directing staff to draft a resolution opposing AES repowering. He says the resolution will “complicate” things—huh? He also parrots the words of AES in saying it is too soon for the city to oppose AES repowering even though AES has filed plans with the state, has presented plans to the City Council and publicly stated their intent to apply for a new license in June. Could Councilman Diels' objectivity and impartiality, in a historically important decision for Redondo Beach, be clouded by the fact that he has received campaign contributions from AES, who also contributed $15,000 toward improving a park in his district?
We expect our elected representatives to act impartially and with integrity in public debates. His past and present actions cast doubt on his interest in achieving this. He should look in his mirror and decide whether now is the appropriate time to recuse himself from participation in future AES repowering debates, whose outcome is so critical to Redondo Beach’s future quality of life.
Bruce Feerer
Redondo Beach
Why was Steve Diels the only Redondo Beach Councilman to vote against the motion for the council to (consider) a resolution opposing a new power plant at the AES site? Does the public realize that Diels received $3,000 from AES for his councilman campaign? Does the public know that AES also contributed $15,000 to a park in Diels' district?
So, when Diels laments that a resolution to oppose a new power plant will "complicate things," just what is he referring to as being "complicated?" Almost in the same breath, Diels mimicked the words of AES Southland President Eric Pendergraft, stating that it's too soon for the city to oppose AES rebuilding. Too soon? Knowing that AES intends to formally file with the CEC this quarter and that time is of the essence? Too soon for what and who? Too soon for AES to get their ducks in a row and ensure that we, the citizens of Redondo have no voice?
Redondo residents are smarter than that. Smart enough to step higher over what Diels is apparently shoveling—shoveling he labels as "complexity" and "non-collaborative." Thanks, Councilman Diels, for having such an unbiased and non-personal agenda about the most significant issue affecting our city for future generations!
Redondo Beach
Letters to the editor do not necessarily reflect the views of Redondo Beach Patch. Letters must be less than 500 words and are subject to editing for space, spelling, punctuation and grammar. Also, anonymous letters will not be published, so remember to include your real name. You can email your letter to Redondo Beach Patch editor Nicole Mooradian at nicole.mooradian@patch.com.
Big difference. I presented my assessment of the facts, stated my opinion of the approach to rid ourselves of the blighting, polluting eyesore, and then asked for money from residents who agree with our approach. Bill openly ran on the platform to rid ourselves of the power plant, and he won his election without a run off. Bill and I are executing on what we told the people we would do. I applaud a politician who runs on a platform and then remains true to it after the election. You know where Bill stands and can count on him to stay true. The City Attorney has stated the City Councilman can take a position for or against the power plant. Why should Bill recuse himself? Councilman Diels denies that he supports a power plant, but all his actions say otherwise. You hear his comments like there are no harbor views worth protecting. You hear him try to twist the Measure G vote into an assessment that the voters support a new power plant. You see he is the lone dissenting vote on just asking staff to draft a resolution against the power plant. Then you see the relationship he has developed with AES and it brings to question whether he is really acting in the interest of the voters and residents of Redondo. A huge difference Mr. Woods.
Once again you have misstated the facts. We have never threatened a lawsuit against AES. Rather it is AES who keeps hinting at lawsuits. We have report after report that shows we do not need this power. We have reports that show Redondo is critically underserved for parkland and is park poor per state standards. We have reports of the negative fiscal, environmental and health impacts of the power plant. We have proposed zoning that increases parkland, jobs, and city revenues. I suggest that we have taken a very farsighted view in our recommendations, The shortsigted path of least resistance is to allow another unneeded, polluting blighting power plant to be built on our water front. The shortsighted path is to ignore the preponderance of evidence that this plant is not needed and sell out our city's future for AES's ever changing statements of how much plant there will be, how much pollution it will put out, and some vague references to potential other uses for the remaining property.
Lets not forget that AES Southland President Eric Pendergraft told the city council and a standing room only audience, twice, that AES would not build a new power plant if the citizens don't want it. He said it in November 2011, and again last week. Perhaps even HE knows that AES can absorb the 30 employees that a new power plant would need, at the other two, local and larger AES power plants (Los Alamitos and Huntington Beach). I don't know what the best usage mix is for that property, but no one is advocating 100% of it going to a park! To keep saying that is the case just shows that you're not paying attention to what's people want. I like what I heard from another resident over the weekend; this is not about NIMBY, it's about NOT IN MY LUNGS!
AES Redondo is not needed as stated at the 04-10-12 city council meeting, as far into the future as the California Independent System Operator will project. The mayor, city council, city attorney and every member of the public who spoke at the April 10, 2012, standing-room-only city council meeting, seemed to realize that AES doesn't need to be here, have all stated, individually, that they don't want a power plant here, and suggest working with AES to permanently retire from our waterfront! All except for councilmember Diels who has said he doesn't want a power plant but seems to have a relationship with AES keeping him from making his opinion "official." While the majority of our community is uniting to learn facts and oppose a new Redondo power plant, I'm sad about your lengthy rhetoric and attempt to dilute and divert from facts and the opportunity for our community to come together.
We have roughly 400,000 square feet (basically a mall) coming soon on our harbor/Pier. That goes beyond a 'beautification' project in my mind. We do NOT need more houses and more thousands of square feet of commercial on the AES site. We need vision and we need integrity and we should work with AES!! And in 2012, we know far too much today to allow an unneeded power plant to spew significantly more pollution into our neighborhoods. AES must really think Redondo residents are stupid. The thousands of voices now joining NoPowerPlant are an indication that we are smarter than they think. I encourage those who have not signed the SouthBay petition, to do so and make your voice count! We will absolutely hold our elected officials accountable and fight hard to better our community for generations to come.
It's a complex issue, but one that Redondo residents are grasping at a faster clip now. No Power Plant, Building a Better Redondo, SBPC, the councilmember from District 2 and many more have been educating the public, arming them with facts from the regulatory agencies, independently-commissioned reports, and AES themselves. The more people learn, the more they understand that a new power plant here isn't necessary. It should have been our city government providing the education on such a serious matter, with ample time to engage all parties to work toward a solution. If AES is granted a permit by the CEC, then it's too late. The education and work has to happen NOW for us to decide what we want. And that decision should be ours, not what AES wants. Time is of the essence - there needs to be a serious sense of urgency and call to action. With passion on all sides, I do believe that we can use our common ground of opposition to a new power plant and develop a viable solution.
- the option to reuse the whale wall or the gothic architecture of the northern part of the facility - the option to include sports fields and recreational facilities - the option for institutional uses - the option for boat storage and parking - the option to increase the developed areas under certain circumstances - the option to rezone at a later date without another initiative - preserving and enhancing view corridors - control on density and heights - elimination of industrial uses - inclusion of wetlands for specific funding sources With months posted on the open Internet to read and comment plus multiple public sessions, we have provided more opportunity to input than the city processes. We have specifically invited City and AES officials to meet on the zoning. But they have chosen not to participate. Actually, we incorporated some of Mayor Gin's public statements on future uses. This zoning is a good mix of uses that balances resident inputs and concerns, AES ROI, and City revenues.
We only resort to referendum, initiatives and lawsuits when the City Council fails their constituents. inf fact, if you research why initiative and referendum were implemented it was for times when elected officials fail to represent the voters adequately. "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.". Thomas Jefferson "I believe in the Initiative and Referendum, which should be used not to destroy representative government, but to correct it whenever it becomes misrepresentative." - Teddy Roosevelt
In addition to landscape pollution, noise pollution, and depressed property values, will you sentence us, that live close to the power plant, to the known diseases and poor health issues that occur when living next to a power plant? Knowing this, why would you support this power plant when it is not absolutely necessary?