It’s not been unusual for articles in the Advocate and the Advertiser on the fiber issue to read as if they were reporting on different events. Usually that impression is more a matter of differing tone and the abscence of full reporting than substantial differences as to the facts of the matter. But this morning we have an outright contradiction.
Was an ordinance regarding Lafayette’s fiber optic bonds introduced or not? If it was we can look forward to the final ordinance passing in two week. If it wasn’t…
From the Advocate:
Also Tuesday, the council unanimously approved the introduction of a bond ordinance that would fund Lafayette Utilities System’s telecommunications plan with up to $125 million. The council is scheduled to give its final approval to the bond issue on March 20.
LUS plans to use that money to build a fiber-optic network to each home and business in the city to provide low-cost phone, cable and high-speed Internet services.
From the Advertiser:
In other council matters, an amended bond ordinance regarding the fiber-to-the-home project was not introduced after a quorum failed to show at a Lafayette Parish Utilities Authority meeting prior to the council meeting. Officials had said they believed the amended ordinance would correct two problems in its original ordinance as identified by the Third Circuit Court of Appeal.
My money is on the Advocate’s version being correct but it’ll be interesting to see how the contradiction is explained. According to the city-parish council’s meeting schedule there won’t be a meeting on the 20th — the next meeting is the 21st– so that reference is mysterious as well.
I guess I shoulda have at least watched AOC. Mea Culpa. Explanations anyone?
Update 12:30–I’ve gotten emails and a call confirming that the ordinance was introduced as planned. The 20th date was apparently a garden-variety confusion about which date of the month last nights meeting was held on…. We’ll see the next step on the evening on the evening of the 21st. (Just keep repeating to yourself that patience is a virtue.)
3 thoughts on “Whazzup? Ordinance Introduced or Not?”
can you explain the difference in the new ordance and the last one?
The last ordinance paid the debt of the communications division off each month with the revenues of the electric utility before it went into legal default.
This new ordinance sets up something called a “credit event” and the debt that the communications division can’t pay off with the revenues from that division is paid to the bond holders by the Electric Utility causing your electric rates to increase to make up the Reserve Revenues of the Utility Division.
Anonymous person, as has become traditional, shows how convienent it is to be protected by anonymity. It is possible to spew self-serving ignorance without ever having to bear any consequence for being wrong.
The “credit event” cited is a new game forced on Lafayette by which “default” is an explicit consequence under explicit circumstances as that is something the 3rd circuit thought there ought to be a possibility of happening. The previous law made it clear that default was wildly unlikely.
The current law merely writes up credit events as having that as a possibility while making more explicit language about market rate loans part of the ordinance.
There is no practial difference in this dimension from the previous law and anonymous is playing more of his games. My general recommendation stands: If a man doesn’t have the courage to stand by his word then his words are worth nothing.