Los Angeles Times - 29.08.2019

A12 THURSDAY, AUGUST 29, 2019 LATIMES.COM/OPINION

OPINION

EDITORIALS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LETTERS

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOW TO WRITE TO US

Please send letters to

[email protected]. For

submission guidelines, see

latimes.com/letters or call

1-800-LA TIMES, ext. 74511.

T

he proposed Elandsolar proj-
ect in the Mojave Desert has the
potential to play an important
role in Los Angeles’ clean-energy
future, offering the city roughly
the same amount of power as a modest-
sized fossil-fuel-powered plant. And it would
be more affordable power too: The deal
struck by the Los Angeles Department of
Water and Power and Eland developer
8minute Solar Energy would deliver power
at less than 2 cents per kilowatt hour, the
cheapest rate of any solar farm in the U.S.
and less than the cost of power from natu-
ral-gas-fueled plants. It would include stor-
age for an extra fee, helping the city take ad-
vantage of the sun’s rays hours after sunset.
It’s a big deal for Angelenos, cutting cost
and carbon emissions simultaneously. It
would help the state with its ambitious
greenhouse gas reduction goals too. And
who would get the credit for all this environ-
mental wonderfulness? Mayor Eric Garcetti
and his Green New Deal initiative, which
calls for the city to obtain 55% of its power
from renewable sources by 2025.
The Garcetti connection could have
something to do with the last-minute
wrench tossed into the works by Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Local 18, which represents the city’s electri-
cal workers. The DWP’s board of commis-
sioners was set to approve the contract with
8minute on Tuesday, sending it to the City
Council, but two of the four commissioners
present didn’t vote for it. One of them cited
potential “problems with labor.” But the
deal includes labor protections, so what’s
the problem?
For its part, the IBEW emailed the Los
Angeles Times a statement asserting that
the DWP “has not complied with its con-
tractual obligations for this deal.” But the
city is under no obligations to get the union’s
approval for projects like these, and the
union has no role in approving the contract.
What it does have is animus for the mayor
and an open disdain for his sustainability
plan for Los Angeles.

Under Bryan D’Arcy’s leadership, the

DWP workers’ union has never been a fan of

Garcetti, supporting his opponent when he

first ran for the mayor’s office. But after

Garcetti led the move earlier this year to

phase out three DWP-operated natural-gas-

fired plants over the next 10 years (a good

move, by the way), things got nasty. The

union went ballistic, launching a public rela-

tions attack on the mayor’s green initiative

across a variety of media and online outlets,

saying it was just a sop to environmentalists

and would eliminate jobs, increase gas

prices and raise electricity rates.

It’s too bad that the city’s electrical work-

ers have taken such a short-sighted ap-

proach to the city’s switch to renewable en-

ergy. Reducing reliance on fossil fuel isn’t a

ideological position, it’s an existential chal-

lenge; after all, climate change endangers

the future of DWP employees and ratepay-

ers alike.

The IBEW’s opposition to Eland might

be nothing more than political payback, but

the union isn’t confining its fight against

Garcetti’s initiative to DWP contracts. It

also played a role in the recent special elec-

tion for the City Council seat in the north-

west San Fernando Valley.

The IBEW’s political action committee

backed the Republican candidate, John

Lee, dropping $290,000 into the effort. The

campaign included dishonest mailers that

portrayed his opponent, scientist and envi-

ronmental activist Loraine Lundquist, as a

socialist with an “extremist agenda.” The

fact that Lee ultimately won with the help of

the IBEW was surely not lost on any of the

city’s elected officials.

Garcetti has taken the high road so far,

and his office insists that a compromise can

be worked out. But this is getting ridiculous.

He appears to be allowing this political bully

to push him and his appointed commission-

ers around. This project needs to start con-

struction by December to qualify for the

30% federal tax credits that are helping keep

costs down; otherwise, the credits will drop

to 26% next year.

The union might have tremendous politi-

cal influence but has no actual power to stop

the city’s transition to renewable energy.

And if it continues to block the project with

baseless complaints, then Garcetti must

stand up for the interests of the entire city —

in fact, the entire state.

The IBEW vs. green power

The L.A. electrical workers’ union

opposes a vital solar plant. Mayor

Garcetti needs to rescue the deal.

U

nder even the bestof circum-
stances, the departure of the
United Kingdom from the Eu-
ropean Union will make life
harder for the people of Britain
and both parts of Ireland. But it seems in-
creasingly likely that Brexit will occur under
the worst of circumstances — with no agree-
ment between the U.K. and the EU to cush-
ion the economic and political damage.
On Wednesday, Prime Minister Boris
Johnson asked Queen Elizabeth to suspend
or “prorogue” Parliament from the second
week in September to Oct. 14, when she will
deliver a speech outlining the government’s
priorities. Johnson’s critics noted that the
suspension will give members of Parliament
even less time to debate and rally support
for measures to prevent the U.K. from leav-
ing the EU on Oct. 31 without an agreement
with Brussels. Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of
the opposition Labor Party, complained
that Johnson’s move was “an outrage and a
threat to our democracy.”
Johnson insisted that his motive in seek-
ing the suspension was to end a session that
had gone on too long and to focus Parlia-
ment’s attention on his government’s “bold
and ambitious domestic legislative
agenda.” Besides, he suggested, there would
still be time for Parliament to act if he were
to conclude a withdrawal agreement with
Brussels to replace the one negotiated by
his predecessor, Theresa May, which Parlia-
ment repeatedly refused to approve.
But Johnson’s past statements suggest
that he isn’t overly concerned about the
consequences of a “no-deal” Brexit despite
ample evidence that an abrupt rupture
would be disastrous for the British econo-
my.
In campaigning for the Conservative
Party leadership, Johnson promised to take
the U.K. out of the EU on Oct. 31 “do or die,
come what may.” He has blithely suggested
that any problems associated with Brexit —
such as the possible reimposition of a “hard
border” between Northern Ireland and the

Republic of Ireland — can be solved by tech-

nology and a ”can-do spirit.”

Such insouciance delights Brexit sup-

porters, who have been frustrated by the de-

lay in implementing a 2016 referendum in

which 52% of voters favored abandoning the

EU. It also has won Johnson the admiration

of President Trump, who tweeted Wednes-

day that “Boris is exactly what the U.K. has

been looking for.” (Trump also predicted —

perhaps correctly — that Corbyn would be

unsuccessful in seeking a parliamentary

vote of “no confidence” in Johnson.)

But there is a reason why implementing

the referendum has been arduous. Extricat-

ing the U.K. from the intricate commercial,

legal and political relationship it has devel-

oped with the rest of Europe is a devilishly

complex proposition — a reality about

which many “Leave” voters were blissfully

ignorant. It’s no accident that the withdraw-

al agreement May negotiated with Brussels

was 585 pages long — and still didn’t perma-

nently define trade relations between the

EU and the U.K.

Furthermore, despite Johnson’s gospel

of “can do,” many who have labored to bring

peace to Northern Ireland fear that Brexit

will undermine the peace process by erect-

ing barriers between the North, which is

part of the U.K., and the Republic of Ireland,

an independent nation that will remain in

the EU. That’s why the agreement May ne-

gotiated with the EU was accompanied by a

“backstop” provision that would have align-

ed the U.K. with the European customs

union (and preserved a close relationship

between Northern Ireland and the EU) until

final arrangements were agreed to.

Johnson has declared the backstop

dead. But if he intends to move forward with

Brexit, he needs to take seriously the impor-

tance of negotiating some alternative ar-

rangement with the EU that will inspire con-

fidence in those who have worked to bring

peace to Northern Ireland.

Ideally, voters in the U.K. would be given

an opportunity to reconsider their decision

to withdraw from the EU in light of the enor-

mous difficulties that have emerged since

2016. Unfortunately, a second referendum re-
      mains a distant hope. But if Brexit is inevi-
      table, “no deal” is not an option. Johnson
      should apply his “can do” philosophy to
      avoiding that outcome.

The crisis of a no-deal Brexit

U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson

seems determined to make this

process as difficult as possible.

The teen reading

crisis that isn’t

Re “The death of serious

reading among teens,”

Opinion, Aug. 23

As a high school stu-

dent used to older relatives

complaining about the

decay of my generation, I

found that Jeremey Ad-

ams’ op-ed article lament-

ing the decline among

teens of “serious reading”

struck a familiar note.

I love reading, but the

glorification of it over other

forms of entertainment

(embodied in Adams’ brag

that there are treasures

only readers understand)

needs to stop.

It often seems as if a

hierarchy of the arts is

enforced, with books at the

top, and everything else far

below. But books don’t

have more intrinsic value

than anything else. It’s the

thought and work put into

art that makes it valuable,

not the medium that con-

veys it.

Reading “The Picture of

Dorian Gray” changed my

outlook on life, but so did

the fantasy podcast “Rab-

bits.” The “Harry Potter”

books gave me endless

hours of entertainment

with their beautiful world-

building, but Minecraft

allowed me literally to

build my own. Does Adams

really believe that by hav-

ing this access to un-

bounded creativity — as

opposed to reading, say,

“Fifty Shades of Grey” —

teens’ “imaginations will be

stunted”?

Lee Gutman

New York

::

Around 20 years ago,

before the advent of social

networks, I attended a

dinner. Present was a

professor of English from

one of Los Angeles’ major

universities.

Hearing he taught

freshman English classes, I

asked what the students

were doing, and he replied

that he had assigned them

“Ordinary People” by

Judith Guest. I asked if his

students enjoyed the book.

“Oh, they didn’t read it,”

he replied. “I ran the movie

for them.”

John H. Mayer

Camarillo

::

Adams notes the stat-

istical drop in teen reading

between the 1970s and

today. My first thought is,

teens are busier now than

their counterparts from 50

years ago, with jobs and

extracurricular activities

crowding their non-school

hours.

My second thought is

that in the public library

system where I work, the

teen book collection boasts

healthy circulation stat-

istics. Publishers know

profit potential when they

see it: I happened to be a

teenager in the 1970s, and

young people today enjoy a

much broader selection of

reading material than I

ever did.

We all need to curb our

screen time. There are far

too many loud cellphone

conversations going on

around us. Mothers and

fathers stare at their

palmed phones while their

children attempt to engage

them.

Maybe this is not so

much a reading problem as

it is a screen addiction

problem.

Bethia

Sheean-Wallace

Fullerton

::

Adams has identified

the reason the world is

going to hell. No one reads

and no one thinks critically.

I take that back. We love

to read Facebook and

enjoy the selfies people

post, like the one of the guy

on the glacier in Greenland

or the one of the guy zip-

lining in the Amazon rain-

forest.

Yeah, those are classics.

Tony Wood

Claremont

If only he didn’t

have a gun

Re “Parents say they

begged officer not to shoot

them, son at Costco,” Aug.

27

The tragic shooting at

the Costco in Corona last

June shows why we need

more gun control.

The National Rifle

Assn. would have you

believe that only “bad” or

mentally unstable individ-

uals misuse guns. In fact,

all humans have moments

of anger, jealousy, drunk-

eness, depression or just

bad judgment that access

to a firearm can turn lethal.

I have a personal connec-

tion to the son of a police

officer who killed himself

while showing his friends

his father’s weapon.

What would have hap-

pened if the off-duty police

officer at Costco who killed

a man with schizophrenia

and seriously wounded his

parents had been un-

armed? Perhaps he would

have hit the young man

with his fists and that

would have ended it? And

why on Earth were the

aged mother and father

also shot?

Recently, when I went

to visit my husband at his

care facility, the employees

were being given instruc-

tions on what to do if there

was an active shooter. Is

this the type of country we

want to live in now?

Rita Skinner

Riverside

::

Los Angeles Police

Department Officer Sal-

vador Sanchez’s lawyer

said, “It’s just a terrible

tragedy that we have two

sets of well-meaning, good

parents who were trying to

help their children.”

He neglects to mention

that one parent had a gun

and shot the other “well-

meaning, good parents”

and their adult son.

There’s a good reason

California isn’t a “stand

your ground” state: Being

scared is a normal human

reaction and shouldn’t be

the excuse for shooting

unarmed people.

Barry Davis

Agoura Hills

Trump, money

and the G-

Re “A new ethical low for

Trump at G-7,” column,

Aug. 27

David Lazarus’ piece

about President Trump

offering his resort in South

Florida to host next year’s

G-7 summit appeared in

the Business section of the

Los Angeles Times, but it

should have been on the

Opinion page.

Lazarus called it an

infomercial and a blatant

commercial exploitation of

the presidency. Even

though the president

stated that he does not

intend to make money

hosting the event, Lazarus

called that assurance a

silly sentiment. Brian

Murphy, the expert in

colonial-era economics

(really?) quoted by Laza-

rus, stated that the Foun-

ding Fathers never directly

profited from their public

service.

I repeat: Trump stated

that he does not intend to

make money hosting the

event.

Connie Veldkamp

Laguna Niguel

::

Lazarus does an excel-

lent job explaining the

obvious conflict of interest

were the next G-7 summit

to be held at Trump Na-

tional Doral Miami.

There’s actually a fairly

simple solution available to

the president if he seriously

wants to move forward

with the idea. He insists he

doesn’t care about making

money, so he could simply

donate the entire resort to

the U.S. government.

Lazarus points out that

George Washington, who

heavily invested in real

estate, founded the Po-

tomac Co., which was

designed to increase the

value of his holdings. He

eventually willed his shares

in the company to an en-

dowment to create a uni-

versity in Washington.

So, there is a historical

precedent for Trump to

donate his company’s

property, an action from

which he would come out a

hero. Besides, if he’s truly a

multi-billionaire as he

insists, it’s no big deal,

right?

Peter Marquard

Northridge

::

Lazarus correctly

points out that Trump’s

plug for having next year’s

G-7 summit at his South

Florida resort is an egre-

gious conflict of interest.

Here’s another problem

with the suggestion: The

United States is a big coun-

try, and of all the beautiful

places where the G-7 could

meet next August, who

would choose Miami dur-

ing hurricane season?

Richard Merel

Hermosa Beach

Not his DMV

Re “DMV defense,” letter,

Aug. 27

One letter writer said

his appointment at the

DMV took less than an

hour.

When I recently re-

newed at the Costa Mesa

DMV with an appoint-

ment, it took just over four

hours. I had ample time to

observe the dysfunction

and thought of numerous

ways the DMV experience

could be vastly improved.

Michael Somogyi

Balboa Island

A rich man’s ‘service’

Re “Developer accused of skirting punishment,” Aug. 25

Since the time of Aristotle, political philosophers have

discussed the principle of governance with the consent of

the governed. This involves acceptance of the rule of law

and the perception of fairness in application of the law.

Since the public must see that the law is applied

equally to rich and poor alike, why would the Los Angeles

County Development Authority not release a report

showing that Mohamed Hadid, the developer who

pleaded no contest to criminal charges over construction

of a massive Bel-Air mansion, did in fact complete his

“community service”?

Moreover, what constitutes community service? Can

the Cochran Avenue Baptist Church be held accountable

for making sure Hadid did his work, or can it be bought

off with a new refrigerator and vacuum? If so, is that

considered fraud?

Hadid was sentenced to 200 hours of service, the

equivalent of five weeks of full-time work. It would not be

difficult to find out if he actually showed up.

Joel Jaffe

Beverly Hills

Francine OrrLos Angeles Times

MOHAMEDHadid pleaded no contest to charges

tied to the construction of this Bel-Air mansion.

EXECUTIVECHAIRMANDr. Patrick Soon-Shiong

EXECUTIVEEDITORNorman Pearlstine

MANAGINGEDITOR

Scott Kraft

SENIORDEPUTYMANAGINGEDITOR

Kimi Yoshino

DEPUTYMANAGINGEDITORS

Sewell Chan, Shelby Grad, Shani O. Hilton,

Julia Turner

ASSISTANTMANAGINGEDITORS

Len De Groot, Stuart Emmrich,

Loree Matsui, Angel Rodriguez

Opinion

Nicholas Goldberg EDITOR OF THEEDITORIALPAGES

FOUNDED DECEMBER 4, 1881 Sue Horton OP-ED ANDSUNDAYOPINIONEDITOR