Auto Maker Launches Drive to Clear the Air, and Braude Buys It
It was a high-voltage moment at City Hall. Councilman Marvin Braude, a longtime advocate of zero-emission vehicles, announced Thursday that he plans to make a $1,000 deposit on one of General Motors’ new EV1, the first electric passenger car to be made and marketed by a major company.
But don’t expect to see him cruising Ventura Boulevard looking for a parking spot and an electrical outlet anytime soon. Braude, along with the rest of the public, must wait for GM to begin selling the car in the fall.
He will make the deposit in a ceremony outside City Hall today to encourage others to take the same step. A bright red EV1 prototype will be parked at the steps.
“He wants to make people understand that the product that General Motors is creating is a valuable product, and it will fill a niche and a need,” said Braude spokesman Glenn Barr.
The sleek roadster can reach highway speeds of up to 80 mph but runs out of juice after about 90 miles. Recharging takes up to three hours.
And at a cost of about $35,000 each, the EV1 won’t fit into most household budgets. Braude, who earns $95,000 a year, has a slight advantage on the average Los Angeles commuter.
Braude plans to use the EV1 as his personal car, said Barr. Although he is not giving up his city-owned 1995 Ford Taurus, he may on occasion use the electric car for his 36-mile round trip from his Brentwood home to City Hall.
Councilwoman Ruth Galanter, one of the council’s most devoted environmentalists, lauded Braude’s purchase and said she is considering getting an electric car herself.
“I think that having an elected official driving one will give it some exposure,” she said.
In fact, Galanter said she might introduce a proposal to have the city buy a fleet of electric cars. But she acknowledged that the hefty price may make the car a less-than-viable choice for many commuters.
“I hope that enough people get one so the price will come down so that regular people can afford it,” Galanter said.
Struck Moot
The debate was hot and heavy this week when the City Council discussed a proposal to allow police who respond to burglaries to secure commercial buildings by having a private firm board up broken windows or doors.
The measure, a brainchild of Councilwoman Laura Chick, is intended to give police more time to fight real crime.
Currently, cops who respond to the scene of a burglarized store must wait around, watching over the business until the owner shows up. Often it takes hours to reach an owner by phone.
Under Chick’s measure, police would call a private board-up firm if they are unsuccessful at reaching a representative of the business. The cost of the board-up plus an administrative fee of up to $200 would then be charged to the business owner.
“No way am I going to vote for this,” bellowed Councilman Hal Bernson, who believes it’s out of line for the city to charge a business a $200 administration fee. He suggested the city charge no administrative fee.
Councilman Rudy Svorinich Jr., who ran a paint store before being elected, said he likes the concept of the proposal but worries about the expense it would impose on victimized businesses.
Councilman Richard Alarcon asked the council to delay a decision on the proposal until the city attorney’s office could study whether the proposal makes the city liable for workers who are injured while boarding up a store.
Just as the debate reached fever pitch, Diane Titus, the clerk who keeps the minutes of council meetings, made a point that quickly quelled the discussion.
She noted that the council had unanimously adopted Chick’s motion in December.
The motion before the council, Titus said, was simply to request bids from firms interested in doing the board-up work.
Never mind.
Letter Bomb
When is a telegram not a telegram? Answer: When it’s a political flier posing as an urgent message from Western Union.
That bit of deception will probably cost state Sen. Herschel Rosenthal (D-Van Nuys) and his campaign consultants $4,000, after the Fair Political Practices Commission decides on a final penalty.
The violation of the state’s Political Reform Act occurred four years ago during Rosenthal’s hard-fought primary election against Tom Hayden, which Rosenthal lost by fewer than 600 votes.
Rosenthal’s consultants, Berman and D’Agostino (BAD) Campaigns, sent out a mass mailing in May 1992 consisting of about 148,000 pieces printed on Western Union stationery and envelopes the firm had bought. The stationery was perfectly legal to use, since BAD Campaigns paid Western Union royalties for its trademark, but the Rosenthal campaign broke election rules in just how it used the stationery.
In the see-through return-address window on the envelope, the campaign told printers to write: “Western Union. Urgent Transmittal! Open immediately.”
The intent was to simulate a telegram. But a candidate is bound by law to identify himself clearly on the envelope as the sender, which the Rosenthal campaign failed to do.
“To communicate to the recipient of the mailer that he or she had received an urgent Western Union transmittal was a misrepresentation that . . . was significant as to perception regarding the true character of the mailer,” FPPC officials wrote in a document agreed to by Rosenthal and BAD Campaigns.
The FPPC will meet in Sacramento on Feb. 1 and is expected to approve the $4,000 fine recommended by its investigators.
Getting the Gate
Ever since Watergate, every congressional inquiry seems to take on scandalous dimensions, even adopting the name of the infamous Washington hotel and office complex. The latest version is Travelgate, the House’s look at how the Clinton White House fired the travel office staff.
One of those on the key committee looking into the matter, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), considers the whole affair a waste of time.
“Forget Geraldo and Sally Jessy Raphael,” Waxman said during a recent hearing of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee. “We can eliminate the talk shows and let this committee have jurisdiction over salacious, intellectually empty issues that have nothing to do with real problems facing our nation.”
He accused the Republicans of looking for a scandal where there isn’t one.
“The entire hearing can be summarized in two words--so what?” he said. “If the worst that this committee charges were somehow true, so what? My view would be dramatically different if the committee could show any wrongdoing, but it can’t, just as the seven previous inquiries produced nothing because there was not illegal actions. It seems that this committee is lighting a match and lighting another match, hoping a fire will start. But there is no fire and there’s no issue of public importance here.”
While Waxman came to the aid of the first lady, Republican critics see significance in a White House aide’s testimony that he felt pressure from Hillary Rodham Clinton to fire the staff and replace them with associates of the Clintons.
Rep. William F. Clinger Jr. (R-Pa.), who is heading the inquiry, agreed with Waxman that no illegalities have been discovered. But he said the White House has been less than forthcoming in its response to the matter.
“You’re absolutely right, Mr. Waxman, this is not about an illegal act,” Clinger said. “It does, however, I think, rise to the level of credibility . . . that transcends legalities, that transcends those kinds of issues.”
Martin reported from Los Angeles, Chu from Sacramento and Lacey from Washington, D.C.
