Tuesday, June 16, 2009

REU, Redding Electric Utility Totally Out Of Control, Public Owned But No Public Review...Purchases $360 million bond for gas line, makes $45 million dollar backroom Deal With Transmission Line Peddlers..Our Money...They're Power_Green Earl

Read about a totally Out Of Control Public Utility
Thumbing It's Noses At The Renewable, Green Policies
Of A Nation, Backroom Deals, Lies and Illegal Evictions,
Pollution Policies, GM Mentalities. Please post to all
Obama Environmental and Green Sites, Action, Group
Adminstrator sites, all City, State And Fed C.A.N Sites.
Please join us contacting the city of Redding, The Mayors
Office, The City Council and Paul Hauser at REU...This
is not IRAN People.

(Do not miss the comment section of this article, at
the bottom of this site and at the link to the actual
article and Newspaper it ran in)..The Famous, Northern
California...Redding Record Searchlight

Citizens of the North State Call Out For Help From The
CA Justice Department., The Governors office, Department
of Energy, President Obama Administration, Army Corp Of
Engineers

Someone Please step in and aid our city with a class-action
suit, or you tell us what can be done, when a public
elected city council and the management of a public owned
utility continues to make hundreds of millions of choices
without any public review or oversight? you suggest. Where
are all those tea baggers when you need their help?

If there is not a law against what is being done here...then
their sure in hell should be one_Green Earl

ARTICLE

##################################################################################
Redding Record Searchlight.



Energy REU (StandS for Redding Electric Utilities) to adopt, relax policies

Council reviews recommendations, approves lower late fees

By Scott Mobley (Contact)

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Pamela Minor, of Redding, right, listens as city council members discuss lowering REU late fees. " It's not the job of a municipal utility agency to teach financial responsibilities to its customers, nor to generate money for the general fund," Minor said.

Photo by Greg Barnette / Record Searchlight

Pamela Minor, of Redding, right, listens as city council members discuss lowering REU late fees. " It's not the job of a municipal utility agency to teach financial responsibilities to its customers, nor to generate money for the general fund," Minor said.

The Redding City Council voted Monday evening to lower electric utility late fees from $36 to $25, as recommended by a committee appointed to review utility billing policies.

Paul Hauser, electric utility director, had urged the council to keep late fees where they are, noting the fees encourage customers to pay their bills on time and lower fees would cost the general fund $619,000 a year. More late payments could lead to higher bad debt loads for the utility and raise rates for everyone down the road, Hauser said.

But a majority of council members sided with Redding resident Pamela Minor, who had attended every utility billing review committee meeting and did extensive research revealing Redding Electric Utility was nearly alone among California public utilities charging late fees.

"REU loses no significant amount of money if fees are not paid on time," Minor told the council. "Is the reason to teach financial responsibility to ratepayers? The real reason is to squeeze money from ratepayers to pad the general fund."

The council also narrowly sided with staffers over the committee, which had recommended the city cease red tagging homes for the sole reason electric power had been shut off for nonpayment.

Development Services Director Jim Hamilton had instead urged the council to allow the city to continue to ask residents living in a home where utilities have been disconnected to leave until power has been restored.

Under the revised policy, the city would eliminate the threat of fines and red tag homes only where inspections reveal "immediately dangerous" conditions, such as exposed wires, the use of gas generators or the use of jumper cables to bootleg power from a neighbor.

A council-appointed committee has been meeting and taking public testimony since early February on REU billing policies and city red tagging of homes where utilities have been disconnected for nonpayment.

The changes were suggested by a five-member committee appointed by the council amid controversy over Record Searchlight reports of a spike in the number of customers disconnected for nonpayment since the recession began in mid-2007.

The committee made 15 recommendations and urged change on more than a dozen policies. The council discussed each recommendation separately with ample and sometimes prickly comment from the public.

About 60 people attended the meeting, which went on for about four hours.

Here are the other items the council voted on:

1. Adopted a one-day grace period so utility bills landing in the City Hall drop boxes on the due date won't be recorded as late the next day.

2. Adopted a recommendation adding more information about assistance programs to late-payment notices. Create a Web site explaining assistance programs.

3. Approved giving customer service representatives more flexibility to work out payment arrangements with struggling customers.

4. Voted to keep policy of imposing fees for late payments.

5. Over staff recommendation, the council approved lowering late fees from $16 to $10 for the first, or pink, notice. Lower late fees from $20 to $15 for the second, or red, notice.

6. Adopted a proposal to grant to any customer who asks a one-time waiver of all fees for one late payment each year.

7A. Rejected a proposal to return late fees to REU for use in assistance programs. Late fees returned would be proportionate to share of electric payment out of customer's total utility bill.

7B. Council also rejected a proposal to earmark 10 percent of late fees going to the general fund for an emergency fund for expanding assistance programs. This program would end when economy improves.

8. Voted to relax criteria for defining customers in good standing to allow up to two late payment notices and/or returned checks in one year. Under current policy, customers in good standing can have no late payments for a year.

9. Voted to keep policy of imposing reconnection fees on customers disconnected for nonpayment.

10. Voted to keep policy of requiring full payment of outstanding balance at reconnection.

11. Agreed to relax criteria for triggering a deposit to allow up to two late payments and/or returned checks each year. Extend amortization of deposits from three to four months.

12A. Rejected a proposal to establish an "Economic Recovery Ratepayer Relief Program" to add $500,000 to assistance programs for lower-income customers. Instead the council voted to direct 10 percent to 15 percent of rebate revenues ($165,000) to low-income weatherization program.

12B. Adopted increased subsidized electricity usage under Lifeline program from 700 to 800 kilowatts and advertise assistance programs.

13. Rejected a proposal to rein in abatement policy so residents are never ordered from their homes for the sole reason that utilities have been disconnected for nonpayment.

14. Voted to reject proposal to forbid REU from sharing a list of disconnected customers with code enforcement.

15. Adopted proposal to record REU customer service phone transactions and videotape the customer service lobby to encourage representatives and customers to be on their best behavior.
Comments

Posted by pv96087 on June 16, 2009 at 12:01 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

As usual Jones votes were for people he represents and UBRC recommendations, Dickerson voted staff’s recommendations and so did Stegall with the exception of lowering late fees.

I believe there were only two real surprises and that was in regards to the hot topic of Abatement. McArthur and Bosetti surprised us all. Thanks Missy, nice try and a pleasant surprise and one term Bosetti many were quite shocked... Did not see that coming...

Posted by Patrecia_Barrett on June 16, 2009 at 3:02 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

A more accurate title for this article would have been:

"COUNCIL MEMBERS MARY STEGALL, DICK DICKERSON, AND RICK BOSETTI VOTE TO KEEP THE POLICY THAT ALLOWS THE CITY TO FORCE PEOPLE FROM THEIR HOMES FOR THE SOLE REASON THAT THEIR UTILITIES HAVE BEEN DISCONNECTED DUE TO NON-PAYMENT".

Thanks to the self-serving actions of Stegall, Dickerson, and Bosetti, REU can continue to refer all households where shutoffs have occured to the City's Code Enforcement Department, and apparentely may also continue to use threats of $2,500.00-a-day fines to effect an immediate (and illegal) eviction.

These three sell-outs should never again be allowed to occupy public office. They have violated the public trust by voting for the continuation of inhumane policies that no other utility company employs.

Patrick Jones has again come through 100 percent for the people he truly serves. He was (I believe) also the only Council member who voted to return a portion of late fees to the utility, which would have provided a desperately needed boost to Redding's totally inadequate assistance programs.

Shame on you, Mary Stegall, Dick Dickerson, and Rick Bosetti. None of you deserve the title of "public servant" since you obviously view the outrage of the community as nothing more than a minor inconvenience to be summarily dismissed. The public will remember this come election time.

Posted by hcw on June 16, 2009 at 4:24 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

I congratulate the council for maintaining late fees and keeping them in the general fund rather than into some kind of "assistance fund". I admit that some people (elderly and handicapped) may need help from time to time, but there are way too many people just looking for a handout. It is not REU's responsibility to give away electricity. That would only drive up the cost to those of us who pay their bills.

Posted by PeeBee on June 16, 2009 at 5:17 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

I think the RS did an incredible job on report this. There was almost up to the minute updates on how the Council was voting, who supported what sections of the recommendations, etc.

Great job!

Posted by Patrecia_Barrett on June 16, 2009 at 5:42 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to hcw

It is highly debatable as to whether utility late fees legitimately belong in the general fund to begin with.

Since this is basically uncharted territory given that other utility companies (including municipal-owned utilities) haven't had the audacity to try it, I assume it will take a lawsuit to establish its legality (or lack thereof).

May I also remind you that REU ratepayers are looking at rate hikes of at least 60 percent regardless.

And of course no one has ever suggested giving away "free" electricity. What REU's late fees amount to (which are still far in excess of those charged by other utility companies) is the act of robbing people who are already struggling financially in order to pad the general fund.

If these late fees were retained within the utility where they belong, they could at least be returned to the people they were stolen from in the first place to aid them in paying their bill.

Posted by PeeBee on June 16, 2009 at 5:45 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

A more accurate title for this article would have been:

"REDDING'S PROGRESSIVE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SHOW THAT WIN-WIN COMPROMISES ARE ALIVE AND WELL IN 2009, AND THAT WITH COOPERATION, HARD WORK AND THOUGHTFULLNESS EVERYONE GETS SOMETHING!"

Everyone gets something out of this. Rate payers who choose to be late get lower fines that are next to nothing. A generous grace period has been incorporated now, and will help reduce the number of people tardy. Customer Service Representatives will have incredible flexibility in how they handle payments. Once per year, late fees can be waved. You can still be late and be in good standing. Deposits can be amortized.

As far as abatement goes, Missy noted it best that new policies and guidelines won't necessarily mean you will be evicted simply because you can't pay.

EXCELLENT job Mary Stegall, Dick Dickerson, Rick Bosetti, Missy McArthur and even Mr. Jones. You've all come through for the good of the people!

Redding is a progressive, forward thinking community that encompasses the concerns and well being of all its citizens. It shows in the great community we have, made great by its top leadership! The rest of California should be so lucky.

What a great article to wake up to!

Posted by citizenactivist on June 16, 2009 at 6:12 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to pv96087

Now I wish I had purchased a couple balls at that DUNK TANK this past weekend ...Dickerson was in it.

Read President Obama's message to Redding City council and REU regarding TANC

http://yeswecansolveit.blogspot.com

Posted by citizenactivist on June 16, 2009 at 6:17 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to Patrecia_Barrett

Pat: I agree...time for these sell-out to the citizens of Redding...to pack their bags...Recall em.

Posted by citizenactivist on June 15, 2009 at 9:45 p.m.

Mayor, City Council and Paul Hauser...Please take the time to read this article in Huffington Post

"Those who follow the GM model -- short-term profits at the expense of long-term damage to the environment, public welfare and national security -- are likely to end up as financially bankrupt tomorrow as they are morally bankrupt today."

PLEASE READ IT ONE MORE TIME.................

For a direct link to the entire story please click on title above.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-s-becker/why-cities-and-ceos-cant_b_210262.html

Posted by PeeBee on June 16, 2009 at 6:21 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to Patrecia_Barrett

Oh Patrecia! Today is a day for celebration for all citizens and ratepayers of REU. Such wonderful compromises were made and everyone gets something. It's indeed a day of thankfulness and gratitude.

Now, your only embarrassing yourself by being mad, bitter and a sore looser. No one wants that. It's time to get go of all of that!

Today is a day for sweet grapes! It is not a day for bitter and sour ones!

Go out and celebrate life today!

Posted by Patrecia_Barrett on June 16, 2009 at 6:31 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to PeeBee

Actually, it is the citizens of Redding who "lost". What a terrible shame.

Posted by RussellHUNT4thepeople on June 16, 2009 at 6:38 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

As predicted. The staff gave in on a few softball issues to show they "care". Coumcil still chose to keep late fees in the general fund. Staff can at will kick you out of your home. HOW DARE YOU CITIZENS REVOLT AGAINST YOUR MASTERS !!!!! "Beamer" Bosetti officially joins the good ole boys network advocating for sticking it to the people. Now you folks have learned a very valuable lesson. When a hot issue arises, set up a committee. Avoid making a decision until things cool down. Give in a little bit but ultimately return business to usual. Most of the council simply represnts their campaign contributors which are largely receivers of city contracts or are city employees. Proof again the staff dictates the show. And you are irrelevant.

Posted by harley on June 16, 2009 at 6:39 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

Is it just me or is everyone else ready to ban PeeBee from these boards? I don't comment very often but he/she what ever it is, is really starting to make me nauseated. I know you don't have to be and adult to be on here but you should at least have the menatlity of a five year old...

Posted by planstation on June 16, 2009 at 6:43 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to hcw

"It is not REU's responsibility to give away electricity"
-------------------
'Give away' - No
Assistance for low income - Yes

clarkwarren, perhaps you should review Public Utility Code, sect. 385 and 386 which requires such assistance. It is REU's responsibility by law.

Posted by Patrecia_Barrett on June 16, 2009 at 6:44 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to citizenactivist

Yes, this is a very sad day - the outcome of this literally brought me to tears.

Before circumstances recently made it necessary for me to leave Shasta County, I spent several years doing everything in my power to bring these horrendous policies into the open, and was greatly enoucouraged by the course of events earlier in the year. I didn't hold out much hope that Mary Stegall or Dick Dickerson would do the right thing, but I thought Rick Bosetti just might. Obviously, my trust (and the trust of everyone who voted for this man) was misplaced.

Posted by carl on June 16, 2009 at 6:57 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

Paul Hauser will be our guest today on KQMS 1400 AM from 8-9 am. Our call in number is 221-1402.

Carl Bott

Posted by Patrecia_Barrett on June 16, 2009 at 6:58 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to RussellHUNT4thepeople

Absolutely. I've had it on the best possible authority that the City staff and certain members of the City Council planned to drag this committee process out for as long as possible (which the City certainly did) hoping public outrage would wane, people would lose interest, and they could just go on with business as usual.

What is desperately needed is for the people of Redding to carefully research candidates for the City Council and vote in proven public watchdogs who are not afraid to take on City Hall.

In my opinion, one of the first things a new (and better) City Council majority should do is to exercise their ability to replace the current City Manager and City Attorney.

Posted by checke_you_out on June 16, 2009 at 7:01 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

Thank you Mr. Mayor and our Council members!
Thank you to the committee members and their hard work.
I am so proud of this community.
Redding is a great example of our Democracy in action.
“In a free and republican government, you cannot restrain the voice of the multitude.”

Posted by planstation on June 16, 2009 at 7:02 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to RussellHUNT4thepeople

Hey Russell,
Would you consider running again for a seat on the council? We need some more new blood up there. I, for one, was quite impressed with your insight and comments last night. If we could get true representatives in those seats (such as Gary Cadd and yourself), I don't think staff would be so haughty.

Posted by pbminor on June 16, 2009 at 7:07 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

City of Redding, thanks for the little tokens you threw us. Maybe we will forget about the main issues, which were abatement and late fees.
The City Council needs to take a good look at Duvernay, Hamilton and Hauser. These men are masters with smoke and mirrors.
City Council should also take a look at other municipalities. Why does REU conduct it's self so differently. These abatement laws are laws that all cities must follow, why are we the only ones?
There are only two explainations for this. Either all other cities are misusing these laws by not applying them, or we are misusing these laws in the way we apply them.

Posted by steveoutwest on June 16, 2009 at 7:08 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to pv96087

Yes, thanks to Jones and McArthur for their show of support and trying to end the abatement policy set up by the City croanies. It's funny how you can always predict which way Stegall and Dickerson are going to flop. Now Bosetti has shown where he stands. The people of Redding should remember this in the future. I know I will.

Thanks to Mr. Cadd, Mr. Slaughter, Mr. Meredeth, Mr. Poole for their work on the UBRC. Thanks to all those citizens who gave hundreds of hours of their personal time to try and make a change for the better. All of you are to be commended.

Posted by Another_Acronym on June 16, 2009 at 7:13 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to citizenactivist

<<*This paragraph was added by Green Earl..sorry, that's the commentarypart. Smile >>

Did you happen to read this part from that wack job of a website you posted...pure garbage.

Posted by PeeBee on June 16, 2009 at 7:20 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to harley

I am entitled to have my opinions. I play by the rules, mind my manners, and have a constitutional right to free speech just like everyone else does.

You are welcome to make your own post, and have them commented on, as well as comment on mine.

Posted by RussellHUNT4thepeople on June 16, 2009 at 7:22 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

The City has a "a felony attitude" i.e. we do what we want until we get caught. Under Propostion 218, the city was required to get a vote of either property owners or voters at large in order to raise garbage, water and sewer rates. The council broke the law 12 years in a row, until Walter Mc Neil called them on the carpet. So violating people's privacy, such as sharing REU records with code enforcement, is standard behavior. So is keeping late fees in order to strave off bankruptcy. A complete breakdown in ethics has occurred at City Hall. The rats are running the ship.

Posted by Tapatio on June 16, 2009 at 7:26 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to Patrecia_Barrett

"COUNCIL MEMBERS MARY STEGALL, DICK DICKERSON, AND RICK BOSETTI VOTE TO KEEP THE POLICY THAT ALLOWS THE CITY TO FORCE PEOPLE FROM THEIR HOMES FOR THE SOLE REASON THAT THEIR UTILITIES HAVE BEEN DISCONNECTED DUE TO NON-PAYMENT".

PB, you are so wrong!

You are missing the point here.

"Jim Hamilton had instead urged the council to allow the city to continue to "ask" residents living in a home where utilities have been disconnected to leave until power has been restored."

There is a big difference between the word "force" and "ask". Shame on you for putting words in people's mouths and twisting the truth. This whole thing is about liability. If the City goes on record about "asking" someone to leave their house because the have no utilities, then they have just lowered their liability. For example, when the candles get knocked over, and God forbid little suzy gets burned, the City can lower their chances of getting sued by proving they warned the residents about the dangers of "camping" in their homes.

Do you get it now? The only people who get "forced" out of their homes are people who are violating numerous building codes.

Yes PB, some of us choose to live in a civilized community with laws and codes to keep us safe and healthy...if you don't like it...head to the boonies!

God bless you Rick, Dick and Mary!

Posted by Tapatio on June 16, 2009 at 7:32 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

...they

Posted by old_lizard on June 16, 2009 at 7:41 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to planstation

Yes, Russell run again! You are losing you school board bid, and you totally embarassed yourself during your council run.

I love sending your little pearls of wisdom out to people to show what a true egomaniac you are - you are right up there with Patrick Henry when it comes to having a fixation on yourselves.
(But what can you wear? He has that "man in black" deal all covered. Maybe something in puce?)

Anyway - run for everything you can Russell - makes for great slapstick entertainment.

Posted by planstation on June 16, 2009 at 7:43 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

To anyone interested,
You can find staff's resolution re: recommendations 13 and 14 here -

http://weblink.ci.redding.ca.us/weblink7/docview2.aspx?id=64207

Read Hamilton's letter (pg. 1) and then appendix C (pgs. 10-13). There is some encouraging language and reference to threats of fines are eliminated. There also seems to be a softening of procedure, initially deeming homes w/no power 'substandard' only. Unfortunately, I believe this resolution is still far to open to abuse by the city and doesn't go nearly far enough to stop evictions for lack of electric service only.

Thank you Missy and Patrick for sticking to your guns for the struggling poor and unemployed in Redding - a segment of the population that is growing larger every day.

Posted by Patrecia_Barrett on June 16, 2009 at 7:44 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to Tapatio

As far as I'm concerned, telling people they will be responsible for paying the City $2,500.00 A DAY for every single day they remain in their homes following a shutoff before they are allowed to regain possession of their homes is "force" enough. Few people chose to remain for the couple of weeks it will take the City to physically remove them under those circumstances (and the inevitable eviction WILL come).

Posted by old_lizard on June 16, 2009 at 7:47 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to Tapatio

Great post!

As usual, Patricia's hyperbole far exceeds the facts, making her look like the bitter person she is. (Glad you moved away PB, one less person having a negative impact on real issues...)

Anyway, a great example of her and her few (but loudly imcompetent pals) friends is this; Lets all count the number of people "forced" from thier homes due to electrical service disconnection in 2008.

(Sound of crickets.)

Oh, thats right - ZERO.
2007? - ZERO.

Poor people with grand delusions.

Posted by NoCalNative on June 16, 2009 at 7:57 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to harley

If you ban PeeBee, you must ban others at the same time. Her opinion is no different from anybody else's. Why ban her for that? If you don't like what she has to say, provide your own argument.

Posted by pbminor on June 16, 2009 at 7:58 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

ATTENTION LANDLORDS
According to landlord/tenant laws, a landlord cannot rent a unit that is uninhabitable.
According to Uniform Housing Code 701.2, If your building is within 300' of an electrical source then your building must be connected to such source. If not, your building is uninhabitable.
According to the City of Redding, the word "connected" means your electric utilities must be turned on in the unit.
What this means is that before you rent a unit, you must first turn the electricity on. Otherwise, you are renting a unit that is uninhabitable, which is against the law.

This is my opinion based on the facts that I have been given.

Posted by NoCalNative on June 16, 2009 at 8:02 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to Patrecia_Barrett

How did the citizens lose? I thought the City Council acted appropriately last night. They were very cordial and understanding.

The one thing I wish they could take action on is the transfer of late fees to the General Fund. But, they did explain their position and do plan on working with that in the future.

Good Job to the Committee and the Council. This venture really was a success.

Posted by PeeBee on June 16, 2009 at 8:09 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to old_lizard

Oh Old. Today is a day of celebration and shows that if people all work together, compromises can be made.

I agree with you 100%. No one has ever been forced out of their home here in our hamlet of Redding. They were given the choice of either complying or leaving, and they made the choice to leave.

It's time for the other utilities in the nation to follow our progressive lead of looking out for safety and harm prevention.

As for Patrecia, she can cry all she wants to - which is sad and unfortunate. We need to take pity on her that she can't be gracious and accept that the outcome didn't come her way.

Sometimes she gets her little wings clipped every now and then. Notice she used to harp on and on that REU should give low income and senior discounts. That is until it was pointed out that public owned utilities must charge everyone the same rate by law. Likewise, we don't hear about Turtle Bay being a subsidiary of the McConnell foundation since no one can own a non-profit.

So today, we rise up and celebrate this wonderful day where everyone gets something!

Posted by Patrecia_Barrett on June 16, 2009 at 8:09 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to old_lizard

The difference between you and I is that I had the opportunity to hear from hundreds of people (and I do mean hundreds) when this effort was first getting underway who experienced the ACTUAL effects of City/REU policies, which are naturally quite different than what the City says it does through its self-serving propaganda.

City officials have certainly proven themselves to be liars on more than one occassion in relation to this issue. In fact, they have very publicly discredited themselves completely.

Posted by pbminor on June 16, 2009 at 8:12 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to old_lizard

<<<< Lets all count the number of people "forced" from thier homes due to electrical service disconnection in 2008.(Sound of crickets.)Oh, thats right - ZERO.2007? - ZERO. >>>>

The problem with your statement is that you're not considering reality.
When a family is in such a financial crisis that their utilities are shut off, then they get a big red tag posted on their door with the threat of fines if they do not vacate, what options do they have? Sure, they were not physically forced out, but what choice would most make?
You know, it's kind of like extortion, you pay up or get out, otherwise all these horrible things will happen to you and your family.
It's a scary thing and people will react to protect themselves. If they don't have the money to pay up, then they get out.

Posted by aregisteredvoter on June 16, 2009 at 8:26 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to Tapatio

PB is not wrong, you are! All they did was try and pacify enough people so they can get re-elected. It sounds like they may have done so.

I do agree with the liability issue you bring up. We are a sue happy people. Somehow that needs to stop.

Posted by jeanne on June 16, 2009 at 8:33 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

REU says that the city will lose out on about $600,000.00 due to the lowering of the late fees. Glad to see REU is trying to get the city to keep things as they are and not change anything. Who does the accounting for REU? some other city entity? why are they trying so hard to keep things as they are??? makes you wonder!!! hmmmm....????

Posted by Tapatio on June 16, 2009 at 8:37 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to aregisteredvoter

Sorry...you are wrong. The stats speak the truth. Nobody is being forced. Fact is, if you choose to live in a City then you choose to obey its rules. Pay your bill or move to the sticks and build your solar log cabin...its real simple.

The majority have spoken...Long live Democracy!

Sorry PB…I’m thinking Whitmore might be a better place for you to hang your hat.

Posted by whatthehe11 on June 16, 2009 at 8:41 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

Patrecia, was that you on free fire radio?
Damn girl you sure sound SEXY !!!
Wanna go out sometime?

Posted by Patrecia_Barrett on June 16, 2009 at 8:49 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to Tapatio

No, actually it was only a bare majority of the City Council who "have spoken", and I seriously doubt those people will be re-elected because they are obviously not acting in the best interests of the public or according to the wishes of the community.

Posted by silvaron4 on June 16, 2009 at 8:52 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

I agree with the actions taken by the City of Redding. I do not agree the money collected through the imposition of late fees should go to the general fund. The late fees and penalty money should go to the utility, and be recognized as revenue or a reduction to costs upon which rates charged customers are based.

Posted by Patrecia_Barrett on June 16, 2009 at 8:55 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to whatthehe11

Oh no! I didn't mean to sound "sexy". I think I just sounded more tired than anything else (and unless you're over 70 I'm too old for you, but thanks anyway!)

Posted by BkPkers2 on June 16, 2009 at 9:08 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

For so many of you in these conversations, I truly hope you NEVER lose your job or forced to live on Social Security - lots of people have to make the decision every day about whether to buy food, pay rent or pay a utility bill - REU rates have skyrocketed since I paid my first bill here in 1976, but salaries in this town have remained low for many and there have been few, if any, increases for those folks on fixed incomes. Yes, there are programs out there to help people, but please don't automatically judge someone and assume they "CHOOSE" not to pay a bill on time. Thankfully, I have never been in that position, but I know a lot of people in this area who have lost great paying jobs in industries that will never return, and retail or hospitality jobs just won't cut it. So lighten up some of you elitists - it could be YOU in this position too.

Posted by pv96087 on June 16, 2009 at 9:14 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

Pbminor, planstatioin, steveoutwest and everybody that researched and worked to help inform the UBRC and city council, thanks. Nobody can say we did not try. I agree that possibly a recall is in order.

As far as the legalities go, it is time for the legal community to step up and take the city to task. Where is Walt McNeil now? I believe in this case Russell Hunt is correct, the city continues to be in violation of several State laws.

The majority of the council refuses to listen not only to the people they represent, but to the Grand Jury as well. In 2004 REU lent 1.5 million to the city to purchase land, a practice the GJ recommended against. The GJ also recommended City Council must ensure full and timely payment to REU and City Council concurred. The city was to start repayment by 2008, to date the city has defaulted on that loan, to date I do not believe a penny has been repaid to the owners of REU. I wonder what kind of late fees could be imposed here? Maybe it is time for GJ to revisit this issue. Hmm, maybe we should abate city hall…

Thanks to the majority of city council, they will continue to use REU as their cash cow, get ready ratepayers for huge rate hikes in the future and it will be under the pretense of providing you electricity.

Bosetti, you have proven to be a huge disappointment… McArthur you have proven to be a pleasant surprise… As usual, thanks vice-mayor Jones…

Posted by wickedvamp on June 16, 2009 at 9:16 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to Patrecia_Barrett

I was just wondering if you ever just close your mouth once in a while and let things be?

The whole thing was a good compromise. It may not necessarily have been the best outcome (or the outcome that YOU wanted), but... the outcome was far better than what was. And sometimes in life, we don't always get what we want.

It sounds like REU rate payers got a little relief, and that's wonderful.

Is it possible for you to see the positive in this and not harp so much on the negative?????

Posted by BkPkers2 on June 16, 2009 at 9:24 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

Personally, I commend Patricia for her opinions and extensive research of many subjects -"harping on the negative" you better hope someone is willing to do so, otherwise we may end up calling each other "comrade". Socialism, communism all start with the lack of VOICE among the people! Kudos to you Patricia and to everyone else willing to speak their minds - the First Amendment is alive and well!

Posted by PeeBee on June 16, 2009 at 9:26 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

I wonder. Has anyone thought about starting an anti-abatement fund? Setting up and administrating a trust account at a local bank. People who were concerned about people being asked to leave their homes could contribute to this fund to be used at the discretion of a well respected, neutral charity. Not sure who would be the right authority.

A few dollars here and there would add up to a lot!

Posted by Patrecia_Barrett on June 16, 2009 at 9:39 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to BkPkers2

Thank you.

Posted by PeeBee on June 16, 2009 at 9:45 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to BkPkers2

"Kudos to you...and to everyone else willing to speak their minds - the First Amendment is alive and well!"

Thank you! I accept your compliment!

Posted by Patrecia_Barrett on June 16, 2009 at 9:51 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to PeeBee

That's basically what Councilwoman Mary Stegall wanted when she suggested that people in the community should be encouraged to pay their neighbor's REU bills through the SHARES program rather than making the needed changes to REU and City policies to bring REU practices more in line with other utility companies.

Posted by RussellHUNT4thepeople on June 16, 2009 at 9:54 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

The problem is a year and half from now, the public will forget. Loads of cash will be spent on campaigns. Bosetti's campaign "I 've proven I have big baseballs." Stegall's campaign,"Trust me I am only a socialist not a commie." Plus there will be numerous state offices and propositions on the ballot. The media won't really cover the election because they prefer to sell advertisements.

Posted by JusticeforEveryone on June 16, 2009 at 9:55 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to PeeBee

Pee Bee,

As usual you are a heartless creature. Many, many people do not "choose" to forego paying their utility bill late. I know many people who struggle to pay for the staples in life and who would love to pay for the utility services they received, but when the bill comes they are forced to make a Hobson's choice between feeding their children or paying the bills late, hoping and praying they get some more money before REU comes knocking on their door ready to evict.

Neither REU nor this Council is progressive. AT&T and PG&E charge no more than 1.5% of the amount owed, which amounts to pennies on the dollar. REU charges (as of today) $10.00 regardless of the aggregate bill. If your bill is $50.00 the late charge is a heartless and immoral 20%! That's highway robbery.

Even worse, your progressive little Council combines ALL utility services in a single bill. So, where one could forego other utilities in favor of just paying the electrical usage, they are DENIED. That's not progressive -- that's immoral.

Your insistence on continuing with your inane diatribe only focuses the attention on your immoral and heartless soul. I've said this before, and I'll say it again -- you're a sad person.

Posted by PeeBee on June 16, 2009 at 9:56 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to Patrecia_Barrett

Maybe other utilities need to bring their policies in line with the progressive practices at REU? Time will tell.

The Council did a great job! Everyone gets something!

My fruit bowl today is full of grapes. They are wonderful and sweet. Bought them at Safeway this morning. There are white grapes, dark grapes, etc. None of them are sour or bitter.

I wish you were in my kitchen with me this morning. I would be delighted to share this wonderful fruit!

Posted by JusticeforEveryone on June 16, 2009 at 10:07 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to Tapatio

Tapatio,

You have no idea of what you talk. There is no liability on the City whatsoever for someone living in a home without electricity -- no matter what happens. I challenge you to find a case where a government agency has been liable under such circumstances. Do you even understand the concept of sovereign immunity? Do some research (e.g. Government Code Sections 900, et. al.) before you start justifying the immoral acts of this Council and the REU.

Posted by JusticeforEveryone on June 16, 2009 at 10:11 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to old_lizard

So, Old_Lizard, do you and Pee Bee massage each other before you being your acts of angst against the less fortunate? It must be so comfortable, warm and tender to live with each other in such a high, lofty place to watch over the rest of the less fortunate.

Posted by wildwoman7 on June 16, 2009 at 10:16 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to JusticeforEveryone

Yeah,PeeBee to be that way,just as you think she could suck anything else out of her shallow pool, she manages to be able to take another gulp.Pretty soon she will just be wallowing in the mud,exposing her swine self.

Another little project that REU is involved in,is that powerline crap.If that project goes thru they will be displacing 6000 families from their homes.I personally have worked really hard at building my little farm up here and it will be destroyed if this project comes thru our community. Mr Hauser only can see one shade of green in my eyes and it doesn't grow on trees.

Posted by wildwoman7 on June 16, 2009 at 10:19 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to wildwoman7

Whoops...meant to say, just as you think she COULDN'T

Posted by JusticeforEveryone on June 16, 2009 at 10:26 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to pbminor

Your facts are WRONG. The term used is "untenantable," and it can be found in Civil Code Section 1941.1 (which refers you back to CC Section 1941).

Even more important, the law prohibits a landlord from using "force" to remove a tenant (see CC Section 1940.2), and using force under color of law by a public official is a crime (see Penal Code Section 518). It is highly questionable whether a city official can "deem" a residential unit untenantable simply because electricity is not "actively" engaged in the unit. But, that's exactly what Redding has been doing. Redding city workers may be committing a felony when they "force" residents from their homes without proof (i.e. something more than no electricity) that the home is actually untenantable.

Finally, CC Section 1940.2 does NOT require that electricity be "active" when actually renting a residential unit. The law only requires that the unit have electrical "wiring" so that when electricity becomes "active" the tenant has a working unit. Unless the parties contractually change their respective duties, engaging the actual electrical connection is NOT the responsibility of the landlord, nor has it ever been -- that responsibility rests solely with the tenant.

Posted by planstation on June 16, 2009 at 10:47 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

What the City Council did last night was treat the citizens of Redding as if they were dogs hanging around the table at a feast. They'd toss down a tasty little scrap once in awhile, but refused to give them the meat.

One or two of the council members commented last night, in regards to recommendation #7, that to use a portion of late fees to help fund low income assistance is a good idea, but the city just can't afford to lose any revenue out of the general fund right now (which is where utility late fees go). Only Jones voted against leaving the policy at the status quo. Once again - Thank you, Patrick. Now, I understand the city has revenue problems, but the sentiment expressed in the above council comments and their votes is just another way of saying that the city hopes to balance the budget on the backs of the poor and struggling - at least, to a great degree. This is immoral and an outrage.

Posted by Patrecia_Barrett on June 16, 2009 at 10:55 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to JusticeforEveryone

I'm very interested in your term "using force under color or law".

I wonder if that could be applied to the City's threats of $2,500.00 a day fines, which are very effective in forcing people out of their homes ahead of a physical eviction.

On KQMS this morning, REU director Paul Hauser claimed not to know whether these fines are still in force (and I frankly find it very hard to believe that the director of the City-owned utility doesn't know what the City is doing in relation to the utility he heads).

If these fines will still be in use as a "legal" threat, the City doesn't need to worry about dragging people out by the scruff of their necks - the threat of these fines will accomplish that for them.

Posted by pbminor on June 16, 2009 at 11:05 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to JusticeforEveryone

<<< Your facts are WRONG. The term used is "untenantable," and it can be found in Civil Code Section 1941.1 (which refers you back to CC Section 1941 >>>

I was referring to the California Tenants handbook, page 35, under the section "Repairs and Habitability." It states, "Before renting a rental unit to a tenant, a landlord must make the unit fit to live in, or habitable."
I totally agree with the definition given by CC 1941. My confusion is with the definition of the word "connected" from UHC 701.2. If not connected then your unit is not habitable. The city says "connected" means your electricity needs to be turned on. Well that definition would make all units w/o elec. service, not habitable. A landlord cannot rent a place that is not habitable.
So my question is, how does that work?

Posted by planstation on June 16, 2009 at 11:18 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to pbminor

So... what's really confusing you is the city's definition of 'connected' relative to UHC 701.2. Well, I wouldn't feel to bad. A lot of us don't understand many of their definitions or legal interpretations. More than a few times I've found myself scratching my head and wondering just what in the hell are they talking about!

Posted by pv96087 on June 16, 2009 at 11:27 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

Pbminor and planstation,
I think we need a judge to make an accurate ruling on these interpretations of the law. Come on Mr. McNeil, please help that to happen…

Posted by whatthehe11 on June 16, 2009 at 11:38 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

untenantable
Maybe we could buldoze all the places that the city finds untenantable.
BHO plans on leveling the wastelands of lost housing and bringing them back to nature.

Dozens of US cities may have entire neighborhoods bulldozed as part of drastic "shrink to survive" proposals being considered by the Obama administration to tackle economic decline.

Of course I would start with Stillwater.

Posted by Tapatio on June 16, 2009 at 11:52 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to JusticeforEveryone

Here you go. Want some more? You are a terrible lawyer! You must feel pretty silly.

"Indiana Michigan Power last March paid $127,250 to two social agencies as part of a settlement with the Michigan Public Service Commission, which investigated the incident. The company had acknowledged it failed to properly contact Willett before shutting off her power on Dec. 13, 2007."

Indiana-Michigan Power moves shut-off lawsuit to federal court
by Lynn Turner | Kalamazoo Gazette
Friday March 06, 2009, 10:34 AM
GRAND RAPIDS -- The power company being sued by the brother of a 90-year-old Vicksburg woman who died in 2007 after electrical service to her house was shut off has moved the lawsuit to federal court and is alleging that relatives and social services share fault for her death.

Dr. Edward R. Weddon, the brother of Phyllis Willett, filed suit in December in Kalamazoo County Circuit Court seeking unspecified damages from Indiana-Michigan Power Co.

The company had the lawsuit moved to U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan at the end of January. It neither "admits nor denies the allegations" in court filings that it disconnected electrical service to Willett's home -- a denial Weddon's attorney called "ridiculous."

"We all know who turned the power off," Bill Murphy said. "If they don't want to admit it, we'll prove it."

Indiana Michigan Power last March paid $127,250 to two social agencies as part of a settlement with the Michigan Public Service Commission, which investigated the incident. The company had acknowledged it failed to properly contact Willett before shutting off her power on Dec. 13, 2007.

Willett and her daughter, who has a mental disability, were found by a social worker four days later. Willett died of hypothermia on Dec. 21, 2007. Her daughter survived.

The power company in a motion filed in February said it planned to show that the Michigan Department of Human Services and Kalamazoo County's Area Agency on Aging, along with "unknown" social workers and relatives, should have known Willett and her daughter "were unable to reasonably take care of each other or themselves" and share the blame for the condition in which the two women were found.

"If we would have thought any of them had any responsibility, we would have included them in the original filing," Murphy said of Weddon's lawsuit. "We don't feel that way. None of them turned the power off."

The Kalamazoo Gazette was unable to reach attorneys for Indiana-Michigan Power Co. for comment.

Contact Lynn Turner at lturner@kalamazoogazette.com or 388-8564.

See more in Business, Court news, Environment, Top Stories

Posted by Tapatio on June 16, 2009 at 11:55 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to JusticeforEveryone

Well...anymore brilliant comments?

Posted by planstation on June 16, 2009 at 11:56 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

We need to start, right now, talking to those unemployed, marginally employed, those struggling in this town, the underprivileged, the poor, those people that think they have no voice, to gain a voice - a loud voice - by registering and voting in the next city council election. We need to offer them assistance if necessary to get them registered and to get them to the polling places. We can have change in Redding if we stay focused. We only need to stand firm - resolute - and make it.

Posted by 1942 on June 16, 2009 at 11:56 a.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

The vote by Mary Stegall, Dick Dickerson, and Rick Bosetti shows us all who is the real problem for us and the City of Redding.

They are part of the problem not the solution!
Time to do some house cleaning next election.

Posted by PeeBee on June 16, 2009 at 12:22 p.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

Depending upon how you look at it, the glass was half empty, or half full.

What the City Council did last night was absolutely brilliant! In order to please everyone, they went out and bought two smaller glasses so EVERYONE could have a full glass!

Time now for the bickering and hatefulness to go away, and for EVERYONE to fill their glass with wonderful, sweet wine as we toast everyone for a job well done.

Thank you City Council for your leadership, ethics and all-American values. Thank you Committee for your many, many hours of hard work. Thank you less fortunate for letting the City of Redding and it's people help you with your struggles.

As Reverend Robert Schuller said "Tough times never last, TOUGH PEOPLE DO!"

Posted by pbminor on June 16, 2009 at 12:22 p.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to planstation

Here's something else that confuses me.
REU turns all late fees collected over to the general fund. This must mean that late paying customers cause no significant losses to REU.
So how is it that Mr. Houser figures more late payments could lead to higher bad debt loads for the utility and raise rates for everyone down the road? (from paragraph 2 of the RS article)
If the amount of late payers is related to the amount of bad debt loans, and bad debt loans cause our rates to go up, then REU needs to keep the late fees and quit raising our rates!
I fell like I just returned from a four month long magic show.
I've been trying to figure a chain of command, so I know where to go.
The city controls REU, city council has a say with both, city council.......is the city(?), and apparently none of them listen to the Grand Jury unless they want to.
A while back I called, I believe it was the Attorney General's office. I was told to contact the DA's office. I was assured the DA was not "the city."
I contacted the DA's office and was told to take it to the Grand Jury. lol Yea, alot of good that will do.
So, I guess maybe we should all get together, as suggested, and find out how to pursue this legally.

Posted by RLF777 on June 16, 2009 at 12:40 p.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

"Shasta County Homeless Working On Lawsuit Against Redding Police"

Criminalize homelessness in this economy ? - This is unfair and unjust! - PROTEST !

Families, Children, Everyone should have a safe place where they can go at night and sleep without fear. That’s why we need a "safe ground". Redding California needs a safe “legalized” campground where homeless folks can have clean water, bathrooms, and trash services until our City, County and State are willing and able to provide adequate shelters and affordable housing for the growing numbers of homeless folks.

VIDEO/READ MORE:

http://www.knvn.com/content/topstories/story/Shasta-County-Homeless-Working-On-Lawsuit-Against/8GQSFpyDsECja4egBvh8Xg.cspx

Posted by pk5000 on June 16, 2009 at 12:57 p.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

Paticia Barrett does not even live in Redding. She lives in Anderson. Why does she put her nose into our business anyway. For crying out loud, get a life! It seems like you have to comment on EVERY story in the paper.

Posted by Patrecia_Barrett on June 16, 2009 at 1:08 p.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to planstation

A person no longer has to be housebound or disabled to vote by absentee ballot - now ANYONE can do so who may have trouble getting to the polls on election day for any reason. People can easily arrange to have the ballot mailed to them, which will arrive several weeks before the election. All they need to do is mail it back at their convenience.

They can also register to vote by mail if they are not already registered.

Posted by Patrecia_Barrett on June 16, 2009 at 1:18 p.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to pk5000

Actually, I now stay with family in the Sacramento area due to failing health.

REU was a major issue for me for several years before leaving the Redding area, so I am naturally interested. One does not have to be personally affected by an injustice to want to see it righted.

And I comment under very few articles, although I may comment a lot under some of them. Two things I absolutely can't tolerate are the abuse and exploitation of the poor and racism (which you recently discovered).

Posted by PeeBee on June 16, 2009 at 2:48 p.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to Patrecia_Barrett

"I absolutely can't tolerate are the abuse and exploitation of the poor"

No one could agree with you more. Giving preferential treatment to the poor and low income is indeed exploitation. To give constant assistance in the form of welfare, handouts and discounts is exploitation.

When people are treated as special, it forces them to continue on a path that is not healthy. They become exploited and dependent upon these services, and ultimately give up any effort of trying to become independent. It's very sad. Tough love is the way to go.

"racism"

Racism is a horrible thing, and thank goodness it doesn't exist here in Redding. People try to play the race card, and those of us who know better simply don't buy it. We know, for example, that the MLK program was closed due to low enrollment. We don't tolerate people claiming things are/were racial when it was not.

Most people in Redding are on the same page, thank goodness!

Posted by citizenactivist on June 16, 2009 at 2:59 p.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to Another_Acronym

Sorry....my website...I can do whatever I want...You don't like it..get your own.

Anyway..it's what I believe President Obama would say, if he knew the B-S that is going on in this town._Green Earl

Posted by citizenactivist on June 16, 2009 at 3:05 p.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to PeeBee

PeeWee..I don't agree with everything you say either, just figure your smoking a lot better stuff than I've ever seen around these parts.

But, I have defended, risked my life and would do it again defending your right to say it. Your entitled as far as I'm concerned.

As to the comments I put into a letter from the Whitehouse...on my blog...

In fun, was that really worse that the city and REU making a $45 million dollar deal without speaking to the citizens, and rate payers of Redding? I think not._Green Earl

Posted by PeeBee on June 16, 2009 at 3:12 p.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to citizenactivist

"As to the comments I put into a letter from the Whitehouse...on my blog..."

Perhaps someone else used my screen name? I have not been to your website. Generally, I don't go to a lot of these links. I am fearful that I pick up some kind of virus or something. It happens.

I do like your comment here - it's your site, you can do what you want with it.

So true.

Posted by citizenactivist on June 16, 2009 at 3:12 p.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to old_lizard

(Sounds of Crickets) Very nice touch..I liked it.

So REU was able to make a large enough threat, apply the entire power of the City and pressure every poor, single mom, sick person and senior to leave before the swat team and crowd control vehicle, featured at the solar energy fair, arrived.

Got ah.

Posted by johnharris on June 16, 2009 at 3:16 p.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

The city used the committee ruse to delay, blunt, and frustrate public opinion. Its anonymous minions then did their best to shift the debate in this forum from the monstrous eviction policy to whether people should pay their bills on time.

Appeals to government officials perpetrating evil policies rarely work. They have to be circumvented.

Do as Russell Hunt suggests and form a utilities district. Or do as I suggest and spin REU off to the public. Or contact PG&E and negotiate its takeover of the system.

Posted by citizenactivist on June 16, 2009 at 3:30 p.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to Tapatio

Actually on the question of the $45 million on the TANC power lines, The majority never knew about the deal, therefore, since their was no, as in none, nada, public hearings in this regard, before the deal was made...this deal needs to be canceled and revisited, perhaps, with all the facts on the PUBLIC as in (Public Utility) on the table..

I believe it to be a Gross Violation of the public trust, as it reinforces a REU policy, long held, about how we are going to generate power in the future and who will get the benefit, our citizens, or REU and PG&E and a few other BSU's._Green Earl

Posted by pv96087 on June 16, 2009 at 3:56 p.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

Pbminor and planstation,
The problem in Shasta County is our DA does not generally prosecute officials for violations of the law; Benito will almost always refer you to the Grand Jury. BTW Benito is up for re-election next year, the problem is someone needs to run against him for him to lose.

The GJ has a lot of bark and no bite; most local government agencies do not fear them. However, I can tell you how the GJ can be useful. When the GJ investigates and a negative report is delivered right before an election it can be beneficial in helping to defeat incumbents. This can be a double-edged sword though. Next year we have Rick Bosetti, Mary Stegell and Patrick Jones up for re-election. After last night’s decisions, I believe we agree that at this point we would like to see Bosetti and Stegall defeated, but not Patrick Jones. If the GJ were to investigate the City of Redding and deliver a negative report, it would be very important to campaign Jones record of voting for the people he represents and I would highly recommend Jones run on his own and not be associated with Bosetti and Stegall or provide either one of them with his endorsement.

The only way to get the GJ’s attention is for a half a dozen or so complaints to be lodged against the city. You can find a complaint form and instructions at the Shasta County Grand Jury’s web site:
http://www.co.shasta.ca.us/html/Grand_Jury/gj_index.htm

Also, Russell Hunt may very well be right about a recall of Bosetti, Stegall and Dickerson having a negative affect for them come re-election time. So might a lawsuit by local attorneys for the people of Redding against the city…
Just a few suggestions…

Posted by citizenactivist on June 16, 2009 at 3:58 p.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to johnharris

PG&E will have to be a whole lot more fuzzy and warm before I'd recommend getting in bed with them, unless they've stolen so much during the last deregulation scam, they are now a up and up concern..Russell is right, I'm thinking a utility district with a public board with the power to fire REU do nothings, like...just fill in a name here_______________Green Earl

Posted by johnharris on June 16, 2009 at 4:07 p.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to citizenactivist

I hear you, but at minimum, why not give REU a bit of competition? Invite PG&E and other operators to bid on taking over the franchise. What would they charge, for how many years would they honor the rate, etc.

REU is stolen goods in the first place. PG&E was a victim of eminent domain.

Posted by whatthehe11 on June 16, 2009 at 4:38 p.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

Consider reading up on municipally-owned electric utilities

here is a link:

http://www.newrules.org/energy/rules/communitybased-energy-development-cbed/encouraging-community-owned-energy-systems

Posted by RussellHUNT4thepeople on June 16, 2009 at 5:07 p.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

The choice now becomes recall or an intitative. Recall gets personal and nasty. I was one of the leaders in the effort to recall John Reit,county supervisor .It didn't go far and it didn't have to because he and Pete Peters gave up and didn't run for re-election. So the method works. However, than the social elites just pick another of their own. Remember, it is money that makes the diference. Creating a public utility district, a compromise between the existing mess and a private company is the best solution. However, educating the public becomes the big hurdle there.And an inititative to create such a district takes 4,400 valid signature to get it on the ballot. And you can bet there will be plenty of money against such an effort.

Posted by RussellHUNT4thepeople on June 16, 2009 at 5:36 p.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

NEWSFLASH:Starman has asked the council to not change the late fees until Arnie's budget cuts are final. So the only major victory just got erased.

Posted by Patrecia_Barrett on June 16, 2009 at 5:50 p.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to RussellHUNT4thepeople

Can you give us more detail?

Posted by elvirabarker on June 16, 2009 at 5:52 p.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to RussellHUNT4thepeople

Are you kidding?

Posted by RussellHUNT4thepeople on June 16, 2009 at 6:43 p.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to elvirabarker

Starman announced it on Channel 7 tonight. And REU now plans on issuing bonds for $360 million for rights to a natural gas line i.e. yet another rate increase to pay for it. These guys are amazing.

Posted by JamesCGarland on June 16, 2009 at 6:59 p.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to harley

Harley,

PeeBee has just as much a right as anyone else does to make comments. If you feel you are going to get nauseated may I suggest a barf bag they can be purchased at any local pharmacy cheaply.

If you disagree with her opinion you have the same right as everyone else does and that is to disagree respectfully.

None of us are perfect, but we all have the same right to our opinions to agree to disagree with one another.

The same way I have a right to my opinion(s) here as well.

I know how she feels, except in my case it is not everyone it is only a few particular posters that try and defame me every time I post my opinion(s) or comments. And everyone knows who he or she is without mentioning his or her user names.

I am sure they will be along shortly to post their usual non-since. Then you will know who they are for those that do not already.

Posted by citizenactivist on June 16, 2009 at 6:59 p.m.

* Reply to this post
* (Suggest removal)

in response to RussellHUNT4thepeople

There you have it...REU with only $43 on hand is able to issue a $360 million dollar bond, is it for solar rebates to add renewable energy to every city, building and home.
Is it conservation money to retro fit with windows, and insulate all substandard buildings in the city limits..
Nope for gas line to feed it's Gas fired electric turbines, and maybe another couple on these little polluting bast-ards on the way. Who knows. These son of a _________are totally out of control. I guess they figure go for it, hard and fast, now that some of us are finally getting their number.

Instead of a Green Non polluting, positive economy we, because of the REU, no oversight, management will get more of the bankrupt policies of the past.

Good job guys..._Green Earl

Post your comment

We're happy to offer a home for your discussions, but please be respectful and follow the house rules:

Stay on topic - Life's too short to waste.

Be nice - If you want your comment gems to survive, you won't defame, threaten or be abusive to other readers or the subjects of our stories. Victims have feelings too. Out of concern for them, we may not allow comments on certain stories.

Keep it clean - This is a public forum, open to civil adults and children who do not appreciate your vulgarities or obscenities.

You are deputized - Police these comment threads. If you see a comment that violates the rules, click "Suggest removal" to flag that comment for review by our staff.

There are consequences - Rule violators may be banned from commenting.

Click here for our full user agreement.

If you wish to participate in off topic discussions, please go to the Redding.com Forums.

Username: citizenactivist (Log out)

Your Turn:

1 comment:

Blogger said...

You might qualify for a new solar energy program.
Determine if you qualify now!

Like it? Why Not Share It?

Share/Bookmark