![]() |
| Damage to the downtown Long Beach was also extensive. |
Notice: This is not a City of Long Beach site.
Dear Readers: Please note that this is not a City of Long Beach website and is not paid for nor maintained by taxpayer funds.
If you contact Gerrie Schipske through this site on any matter pertaining to the City of Long Beach, a copy of your contact will be forwarded to her official city email as an official public record.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Long Beach Was Devastated in 1933
Building codes have certainly been improved since the 1933 earthquake hit Long Beach. But what is happening in Japan is showing us once again that we cannot be totally earthquake proof. Get yourself and family ready in case we get hit.
Are you ready for the big earthquake here in Long Beach?
It happened in Japan and it is going to happen here in Long Beach. It is just a matter of time.
So please check out these links on information you need to get ready. Click here.
Also, please read the message from the Long Beach Fire Department on earthquake preparedness that I have posted to the left on this blog.
So please check out these links on information you need to get ready. Click here.
Also, please read the message from the Long Beach Fire Department on earthquake preparedness that I have posted to the left on this blog.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Pushing for Feds to Remove Cap on Local Hires
Last night , the Council supported an agenda item which I sponsored and which was co-sponsored by Councilman Patrick O'Donnell that will ask the federal government to waive a cap on how many local hires we can require on the construction of the Gerald Desmond bridge. Because federal funds are being used from the federal highway administration, the project is capped to requiring only 30% of the jobs go to local hires.
Long Beach has 14% unemployment -- one of the highest rates in the state. So it makes no sense that any projects that will hire workers would be capped at on 30% of those jobs going to Long Beach residents.
So Long Beach needs to asks the federal government to waive the cap and allow more than 30% of the jobs to go to Long Beach residents!
The agenda item now goes to the City Attorney who will work with the City Manager to craft language making this request of the federal government.
Long Beach has 14% unemployment -- one of the highest rates in the state. So it makes no sense that any projects that will hire workers would be capped at on 30% of those jobs going to Long Beach residents.
So Long Beach needs to asks the federal government to waive the cap and allow more than 30% of the jobs to go to Long Beach residents!
The agenda item now goes to the City Attorney who will work with the City Manager to craft language making this request of the federal government.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Councilman DeLong Needs to Get His Facts Straight -- and Truthful
So Councilman DeLong thinks that my objections to selling city assets and services to private entities is because I received so much money from the unions.
Don't know if he or his handlers wrote the response to my blog but whomever writes his responses needs to be truthful first. I have not received one penny from the unions that provide the services he is trying to sell -- street sweeping, towing, etc. Both Mr. DeLong and I received $350 from the LB Police Officers Association. I received an in kind contribution of printing of campaign signs from the LB Firefighters Association. That's the sum of what the city unions contributed.
But I did not receive one penny from the unions whose services I believe should not be contracted out.
Now in comparison, I took no money from Tom Dean either. Mr. DeLong did. So are we to infer that is why he pushed the Dean land swap so vigorously? Since councilpersons are limited to receiving $350 from one source (union or non-union) it would seem silly to infer that any council person could be bought for $350. Don't you think so?
I also sent back a check a towing company sent me during the campaign because I had heard that after the election Mr. DeLong would be trying to get the city to contract out towing services and I felt the money was a conflict of interest.
So back to the facts about contracting out city services. Towing and street sweeping provide an incredible amount of revenue for the city. Revenue that pays for the salaries and benefits of the people who provide the services and then some. The "then some" provides for funding for other things in the city.
So why would we want to share revenue with an outside business? Does that make sense for the taxpayers? No.
So let's have a discussion on the merits and shortfalls of contracting out and what is best for the taxpayers and not the politicians.
Don't know if he or his handlers wrote the response to my blog but whomever writes his responses needs to be truthful first. I have not received one penny from the unions that provide the services he is trying to sell -- street sweeping, towing, etc. Both Mr. DeLong and I received $350 from the LB Police Officers Association. I received an in kind contribution of printing of campaign signs from the LB Firefighters Association. That's the sum of what the city unions contributed.
But I did not receive one penny from the unions whose services I believe should not be contracted out.
Now in comparison, I took no money from Tom Dean either. Mr. DeLong did. So are we to infer that is why he pushed the Dean land swap so vigorously? Since councilpersons are limited to receiving $350 from one source (union or non-union) it would seem silly to infer that any council person could be bought for $350. Don't you think so?
I also sent back a check a towing company sent me during the campaign because I had heard that after the election Mr. DeLong would be trying to get the city to contract out towing services and I felt the money was a conflict of interest.
So back to the facts about contracting out city services. Towing and street sweeping provide an incredible amount of revenue for the city. Revenue that pays for the salaries and benefits of the people who provide the services and then some. The "then some" provides for funding for other things in the city.
So why would we want to share revenue with an outside business? Does that make sense for the taxpayers? No.
So let's have a discussion on the merits and shortfalls of contracting out and what is best for the taxpayers and not the politicians.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Save Station 18
Popular Posts
-
At my invitation, the developer of 2nd and PCH came and gave a presentation to the Lakes, Ponds and Wetlands Taskforce last night. I have se...
-
Prior to the construction of a 150-acre airport in 1923, pilots could be seen taking off and landing on the long strand of beach or on a san...
-
English: The Port of Los Angeles, 1913. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) There is no doubt that the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles need...
-
Just finished a conference call earlier with Secretary of Defense Panetta and Valerie Jarrett along with other LGBT national leaders rega...
-
As you recall, I have opposed the City becoming the successor agency for the closed Redevelopment Agency because of the liability incurred b...
-
Thought I would post a partial list of the "most common life-safety and quality of life Long Beach Municipal Code Violations" othe...
-
It's that time of the year when I ask residents to nominate organizations, youths or adults who have earned the title "Good Neighbo...
-
I has been a while since I blogged. That's because I have been down with bronchitis for more than 4 weeks. Yikes. It has taken its toll....
-
State Senator Alan Lowenthal released a report from the State concerning the planned realignment of adult offenders back into local commu...
-
I met with the city Traffic Engineer and a representative from OCTA yesterday to discuss what I observed as impact of the closure of the 7th...


