Casting call

Actors needed for new local production...

The New Orleans City Council is convening for a special meeting on Wednesday to consider a resolution “related to” Entergy New Orleans’ proposed $211 million power plant in eastern New Orleans, Councilman Jason Williams told The Lens.

“As Council President, I have conferred with my colleagues and have decided to call a Special Meeting of the full City Council for the purpose of considering a resolution related to the New Orleans Power Station,” a statement from Williams’ office said.

Even the broadest details of the resolution aren’t being revealed yet, but according to attorney Monique Harden, the council could be reconsidering its March 2018 decision to approve the plant. On Wednesday, council members contacted by The Lens declined to comment on whether the resolution will address the fate of the plant.

Harden represents a coalition of environmental and consumer advocacy organizations that filed a lawsuit against the City Council last year, demanding the council vacate its 6-1 vote to approve Entergy’s application.

The suit was put on hold on Monday at the request of the council’s attorneys.

They aren't actually saying whether or not they are going to "re-vote" on the plant but that's what it looks like.  So reserve your seats now. It's not the NFC Championship or anything, but people have been known to pay fairly well for attendance at these things. 

According to Councilwoman Helena Moreno’s chief of staff, Andrew Tuozzolo, the full council will also use the special meeting to vote on a potential $5 million fine on Entergy for its role in a scheme to pay people to support the power plant at city council meetings.

Meanwhile, the whole "paid actors" episode continues to do damage to participatory democracy as councilmembers selectively interpret its implications.

For example, throughout last week's hearing on Kristin Palmer's short term rental motion, individual speakers and housing activists were continually asked to state whether or not they "had been paid to be here" in the room that day. As it turned out several of them had.  The reasons were legitimate, of course, as paid organizers for community groups and non-profits are often among the participants in public debates. But the repeated, "are you paid to be here" question vaguely accuses these individuals of some ill-defined corrupt practice.  The cumulative effect is to de-legitimize their presence altogether. 

That is especially problematic when there is no similar obligation for the landlords and managers of multiple short term rental properties present to state the number of houses they own. We are constantly suspicious of the motives for ordinary citizens who engage in civic action. But we never question the right of wealth to defend its privileges.