Greuel, Hahn Keep Hold of Idea Of Decentralizing Government
POLITICS
by Howard Fine
Their proposal for boroughs may have gone down to defeat, but L.A. city Councilmembers Wendy Greuel and Janice Hahn aren’t giving up on the idea of decentralizing city government. Greuel and Hahn, along with fellow councilmember Tom LaBonge, already have a new set of proposals.
One asks city departments to make recommendations on how to decentralize government services into seven regional districts; the other would set up six additional council committees to deal with localized issues.
Both proposals were heard in committee last week.
The decentralization idea was put on hold after it was announced that L.A. Mayor James Hahn was going to set up a working group to look at the issue. The idea to add six council committees passed out of committee last week; a fully detailed plan is expected to be presented to the full City Council in the next few weeks.
At recent public appearances, Greuel and LaBonge said that their proposals are designed to address the concerns from residents in the Valley, Hollywood and other parts of L.A. about the lack of local control over city services.
“The concern out there is real and must be dealt with,” Greuel said at a forum of downtown business and civic leaders.
Of course, these ideas would never have seen the light of day if it weren’t for secession, a fact that Greuel and LaBonge readily acknowledge.
However, the perception that the secession drive was losing steam was behind the defeat last month of the boroughs proposal. With the defeat of secession now considered likely, the prospect of the City Council voluntarily devolving power away from City Hall seems remote.
The decentralization proposal only orders city departments to come up with ways to move government services to seven regional districts in effect a study.
Wireless Showdown
A state regulator’s proposal for a “consumer’s bill of rights” for the telecom industry has the state’s business community up in arms.
Carl Wood, one of five commissioners on the state Public Utilities Commission, has put forward a seven-point set of “rights.” Among them: requiring telecom carriers to clearly disclose rates, terms and conditions for their products and services, banning the practice of “slamming,” in which customers are switched to different providers against their will, and requiring carriers to present their bills in “understandable” language.
“Consumers will be better protected from unfair business practices with an appropriate set of rights and responsibilities,” Wood said upon unveiling the bill of rights in June.
But the California Chamber of Commerce is leading a coalition of business groups against the measure, saying it would place undue burden on the wireless industry, which until now, has not been subject to stringent marketing regulation in the state.
Chamber president Alan Zaremberg last week said the bill of rights will “result in a host of unintended consequences that will harm consumers.” He referred to the anti-slamming and legal disclosure provisions. To combat slamming, the bill of rights requires a written and signed contract that cannot be obtained through one phone call. “Consumers will have to wait longer to activate their wireless service,” Zaremberg said.
The legal disclosure requirements, he said, would add “hundreds of millions of dollars” in clerical and administrative costs.
Wood last week called the Chamber’s statements “alarmist.”
Staff reporter Howard Fine can be reached by phone at (323) 549-5225, ext. 227, or by e-mail at
[email protected]
.
