Just received this note from Bobby Wightman-Cervantes in the comment section of my blog. Since the comment covers a wide range of issues pertinent to our city, we republish it here as a separate article:
.jpeg) |
| Bobby Wightman-Cervantes |
Jim,
Something to consider: For the record not a one of the commissioners on the ballot or the challengers are qualified. But John Cowen and his uncle Ralph take the cake. As a Port Commission Ralph Cowen known for a fact John Cowen is lying when he says he will lower utility rates. I will give you the link, but you should not need it.
There is a war in Ukraine. Europe is walking away from Russian Natural Gas. As each new LNG plant opens along the Gulf all that natural gas is now going to Europe the price is going to just keep on going up. The BPUB is more reliant on natural gas than coal and has zero policy considering tapping into wind energy which is cheaper.
Even with the second 11% price reduction in electric rates within the next year I see the price going up 30% as each new LNG plant comes on line and the natural gas goes to Europe. No one is talking about this reality which cannot be stopped. Europe needs natural gas. Bottom line. This will raise prices.
https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/energy-environment/2023/01/10/440912/consumers-in-houston-and-across-texas-may-experience-sticker-shock-after-opening-their-gas-bills-this-month/#:~:text=The%20cost%20in%20the%20wholesale,the%20Texas%2DLouisiana%20gulf%20coast.
Yes Tenaska was a mess but no one is telling the full story. Yes the audit told the truth, but everyone is leaving out a key factor. Had the BPUB not used the Tenaska money to keep the fuel surcharge lower it would have been on your bill. When they were forced to stop using the Tenaska money for the fuel surcharge, my surcharge doubled. It had to be paid. the price of natural gas was out of control.
If you go back 6 months to a year and check you bills - I know most of that time you were not here so maybe a friend can do it for you.
Your bill had separate billing for your basic electric and then for the fuel charge. After people went crazy over the doubling of the fuel surcharged they merged it into one number so you could not see how much was your regular bill and how much was surcharge. You have been back llng enough to look at a few bills and the coast of of electricity every month is like a roller coaster because the two are now merged. This was a big con job by the BPUB .
I met Tony Martinez in his office as he was running for his first time. My question was, what is going to be your water policy. 8 years of Martinez and 4 of Mendez and we have no water policy which is why they have raised our water and sewage rates big time.
Pat was wrong for pushing the wier dam to back up all the way to downtown. He knew Mexico did not have the money and they told him over and over again.
All the sewage lines along the river on the Mexican side and so much more infrastructure needs to get done first. pat refused to accept reality. he had a compromise and he said all or nothing. Well now we have very high water and sewage bills.
He could have used the federal money we had to build the dam and create a large reserve of water which did not back up as far as down town. In fact they could have raised the water down town a big without impacting Matamoros. But no.
yes Tenaska was a disaster, but had they not used the money to hold down the fuel surcharge paid by the people, It would have been on your bill and you would have paid it anyway.
But we love simplistic for good headlines. Yes once the deal fell apart they should have lowered the prices, but there is no getting around they would have just raised the surcharge. Natural gas is not free and with the European mess it is about to get a lot higher and their is nothing John Cowen can do about that and his uncle Ralph at the port is helping him with the big lie. John is single handily is going to destroy decades of Cowen good will.
Just something to consider.
bobbywc58@yahoo.com
thanks Jim, and sorry for all the typos, Major headache and just waking up.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the post. People have been emailing me and are mad to learn prices are going up because of the war and no one can stop it..
ReplyDeleteIf you do not mind, maybe once a week I can send you something to consider. Nothing personal if you have no interest in it.
BUT ALL BLOGGERS AND SOCIAL MEDIA SHOULD BE CONCERNED WITH THE ORAL ARGUMENT TODAY BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. IT IS BASICALY THE IMMUNITY CLAUSE TO PROTECT BLOGGERS AND SOCIAL MEDIA.
There are many professional articles which say the § 230 immunity was judge made law out of the 9th Cir which everyone just followed.
But others say § 230 clearly provides for immunity.
But here is the problem every Justice today raised the question about the consequences of the injured plaintiff being allowed to sue. This is classic judicial activism. As to the Supreme Court consequences is not something for consideration.
The first question is, does § 230 in fact provide immunity? If no then you send the case back to the trial court. If yes you look to the constitutionality of Congress providing immunity for this select group. I think until about the 1920's. the Liberty clause would have made it unconstitutional. But for reasons unknown the Supreme Court limited the liberty clause and right to redress.
But the question is real simple. If the Court determines § 230 provide for immunity and in constitutional the case is dismissed. But if they decide it is unconstitutional the case goes back to the trial court and the consequences are irrelevant. Consequences of the ruling has nothing to do with the plain language in § 230 and the impact a ruling against 230 has on the internet. The ruling should be guided by the plain language of the law and the constitution, and not the consequences on the industry,.
Bobby WC
From what I’ve read the SC were “confused” by the arguments to restrict the internet preferring congress to deal with it.
ReplyDeleteYes some to the cop out of kicking it back to congress. But that is not how it works. They are to follow the plain language of the law and not ask Congress to reconsider the law. If they law provides for immunity [experts differ on this] then they look to the constitution. But it is a cop out "let congress handle it" Even if the court were to find it is too vague to enforce, that is a constitutional issue. Congress on several times have amended laws held unconstitutional within weeks of the Supreme Court ruling. This is there right. But let Congress deal with it is a cop out.
DeleteFrom what I’ve read the SC were “confused” by the arguments to restrict the internet preferring congress to deal with it.
ReplyDeleteJim something to consider. If you do not want me to do this I will stop. I'm glad you and Ann are back. This new airline Avelo may be a bad deal. Now to date to be fair the city made out great with American and United. A full 737 is a lot of seats to fill. How much are we paying for the empty seats? I need to go to San Diego about the time they fly into Los Angeles. Bus service between the two airports is cheap. This new airline is like Frontier you pay for everything including a carry on. So I ran the flights for both AA and this new airline and AA is a mere $40.00 more because I do not pay for add ons, plus I get my points. I average 5-10,000 points a month because I shop with their online service which sometimes will give you 10 points for every dollar you spend. You then get an email from the store to go pick it up. The San Diego trip because of points will be my 3rd this year for $11.20. But even for $40.00 more I would still fly AA. I get one checked bag, I always pick an isle seat, and two carry one in super economy and it costs me not a penny more. So the question is, once the new Airline is up and running will AA and United compete. If they do, Avelo is going to have a hard time filling 737's, and if they do not how much will each empty seat cost the city of Brownsville? Oh, by the way Sanchez is reporting the Texas Supreme Court accepted Ahumada's Emergency Application for a Place on the Ballot. I have no idea if he will win. The Court will not formally post his filings until maybe Monday. The case law is everywhere. The Texas Supreme Court seems to change the definition of a retroactive law with each ruling. i would not wager a penny on the result.
ReplyDeleteBobby WC