Saturday, April 6, 2013
Here's How the Voting for Best Elected Local Official Went...
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
The real reason Long Beach has a surplus
 |
| Do You Believe in Magic (album) (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Take a look at when Long Beach started to have economic problems and you will see they weren't caused by public employee pensions. Because if they were the cause, when the City Council negotiated pension reform, the City would have realized a surplus. Right? Wrong.
When the City put 42% of the entire city into redevelopment it swept that tax increment into what was largely a debt servicing agency. Don't believe it? Go on line as I have and read all the redevelopment reports that the City of Long Beach filed with the State Controller John Chiang. 98% of the funds/taxes collected by Long Beach redevelopment went into Administrative costs, salaries and debt services. By its own reporting, the City created few jobs because of redevelopment. Gradually as property appreciated more and more money went into redevelopment instead of the general fund. That meant all of those property taxes did not go into the general fund to be used across the entire city.
Some on the City council railed against the Governor and State Legislature for abolishing redevelopment and redirecting property taxes to government and not local development. Not I. As the representative of an area that has only a sliver of redevelopment area -- it surrounds Schroeder Army Hall -- the eastside had to rely upon general fund moneys only for city services and improvements. Redevelopment areas in the rest of the city received both redevelopment funds and general funds. Most significantly, tax increment was not available for the entire city.
There are spots of success in Long Beach directly linked to redevelopment. Come on. Let's be open and transparent. Before we all go slapping each other on the back and saying what a great job we did creating the surplus, we need to admit that had redevelopment not been abolished last year and property taxes not returned, we would be singing a different tune and there would be no surplus. Residents deserve our honesty so they can weigh in when we make decisions that impact them. They had no say when Long Beach diverted property taxes into redevelopment and it is time we told them what problems that created with our budget.
Knowing that, we should pause and say, never, never again should a council get involved in a scheme that takes away property taxes from the general fund.
Help Us Catch These Thieves
 |
| English: A car that has been burglarized. Bad for me, good for Wikipedia. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Take a look at the video and let the police know if you know them.
Here's the release and the video. By the way -- a good dog that barks would have scared these creeps away.
Press Release from the Long Beach Police Department - April 3, 2013
UNIDENTIFIABLE AUTO BURGLARY TECHNOLOGY EMERGES
The Long Beach Police Department is asking for the public's help in identifying three suspects wanted in connection with a series of auto burglaries, where unknown technology was used to gain keyless entry into several vehicles.
During the early morning hours of February 26, 2013, three suspects were caught on surveillance camera in an East Long Beach neighborhood utilizing small handheld devices to unlock vehicles before burglarizing them. In the video, two suspects are seen walking up to four different vehicles, two parked on the street, and two parked in the same driveway. Although they are not able to gain access to the vehicles in the street, they are able to access the two vehicles parked in the driveway after a handheld device is manipulated causing the vehicle's dome light to come on and doors to unlock. While this is taking place, a third suspect is seen walking on the opposite side of the street. On this particular night, seven vehicles in this neighborhood were accessed and burglarized.
Potentially, there could be numerous residents who were unknowingly victimized, or believed they may have left their vehicles unlocked and a suspect took advantage of the opportunity, but there is no way to know for sure. Investigators are uncertain whether any particular make or model of vehicle is more vulnerable than any another. The LBPD's Auto Theft Detail has been working with law enforcement agencies throughout the nation and internationally, as well as vehicle manufacturers, attempting to identify the type of technology that is being used.
The LBPD is strongly reminding residents to call 9-1-1 immediately if they see suspicious persons in their neighborhood at any time of the day or night, and to note a physical description of the suspect(s) and any vehicle, including make, model, color and license plate if possible.
"This is a situation where technology is working against us, making our job much more challenging at a time where resources are already strained. Just as law enforcement tactics evolve, so does the criminal element's and we need the community's involvement more so than ever," stated Long Beach Police Chief Jim McDonnell.
The LBPD is also encouraging the community to practice the following safety tips, which may prevent you from becoming a victim, or minimize the loss experienced in an auto burglary:
- install motion sensor lighting around your home
- remove all valuables from vehicles, including trunks
- if your vehicle was issued a valet key, locate that key and ensure it isn't left in your vehicle
- consider installing surveillance cameras around your home, which could lead to suspect identification
Anyone with information regarding the identity of the suspects depicted in the video or the burglaries is urged to contact LBPD Auto Theft Detective Joseph Starbird at (562) 570-7362. Anonymous tips may be submitted by calling 1-800-222-TIPS (8477), texting TIPLA plus your tip to CRIMES (274637), or visitingwww.lacrimestoppers.org.
Monday, April 1, 2013
Time to Ban Contributions from Contractors and Disclose Texts and Communications
 |
| California Watch (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Long Beach Needs to Ban Contributions From Lobbyists
and Contractors, Make Elected Officials Disclose Conversations Before Vote Including
Texts and Emails During Council and Disclose Private Text Messages or Other
Electronic Communications About City Business
by Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske
As part of “Open Up Long Beach” – a project to make the City of
Long Beach more open and transparent, I monitor the efforts of organizations
that are working on transparency in government, such as the Sunlight
Foundation. Recently, that organization announced that the District Court in
the District of Columbia upheld the long time ban on political contributions
from any person negotiating or performing a federal government contract
stating:
The ban on such contributions guards
against “pay-to-play” arrangements, in which people seeking federal contracts
provide financial support to political candidates in return for their help
securing government business. It also protects such contractors from pressure
to contribute or risk losing their work.
The Court further stated that it was
not the “courts’ practice to
“‘second-guess a … [legislative] determination as to the need for prophylactic
measures where corruption is the evil feared’.”
It seems then it might be time for the
City of Long Beach to enact a similar contribution ban. Conceivably, that ban
could be applied to those who seek approval for a development, an entertainment
permit or those who are lobbying for a specific ordinance. Some would argue
that it should extend to employee unions who are under contract with the City.
I was particularly taken back when year
ago on February 14, the City Council voted on whether or not to ban operation
of medical marijuana collectives.
Why? Because in excess of $8,000 had
poured into the campaign and officeholder accounts of several council members
from businesses and lobbyists representing the medical marijuana industry. Now
that may not sound like a lot of money. But considering that contributions are
limited to $350 for a campaign and $500 for an officeholder account, this is a
considerable sum.
City Attorney Robert Shannon told the
City Council over the past several months that we needed to ban the operation
of medical marijuana collectives because the court ruled on a case specifically
involving the City of Long Beach’s regulation of medical marijuana collectives.
The court held that the City cannot regulate that which is illegal. Marijuana
is still illegal under federal law. A ban not only impacts access to
medical marijuana by residents but stops an extremely lucrative revenue stream
for those who operate the collectives. Some of these lobbyists who gave
contributions also sent Council members language they wanted inserted into the
City’s ordinance – a fact never disclosed during the discussion or the vote.
Long Beach should handle this situation
in one of two ways: Either ban the contributions from anyone who is negotiating
with the City or doing work for the City and/or require the elected official to
disclose before voting at City Council if he or she has received a contribution
and a statement that he or she does not believe there is a conflict of
interest. Plain and simple.
Several cities have enacted laws which
disqualify a council member from participating in decisions affecting his or
her campaign contributors. These laws disqualify the council member from participating in certain
proceedings if the official has received campaign contributions from a party,
participant or their agents within the 12 months preceding the decision. They
also require disclosure
on the record of the proceeding of all campaign contributions received from
these persons during that period. In addition, these laws prohibit solicitation or receipt of campaign contributions during
such proceedings, and for three months after the decision, from parties,
participants or their agents.
The voters of the City of Los Angeles
enacted changes to their charter in 2011 that create new campaign contribution
restrictions on contractors bidding on contracts with the City. They have
prohibited making campaign contributions to any elected City office, candidate
for elected City office, or City committee controlled by an elected City
official or candidate if the contract requires approval of the Council and the
contract requires approval by the elected City office that is held or sought by
the person to whom the contribution would be given. (In LA, the ban starts with
contracts worth $100,000 or more.)
It is time that Long Beach strengthened
our campaign finance laws by either prohibiting campaign contributions from
those trying to do or actively doing business with the City and by requiring
elected officials to publicly disclose before they take a vote whether or not
they have received any contributions from anyone benefiting from a council
vote.
Additionally, just this week the City
Council of San Jose unanimously passed an ordinance requiring themselves to
disclose if a lobbyist contacts a councilmember by text, email or handwritten
note during a public meeting and to announce the identity of the lobbyist and
the subject of the communication before it comes to a vote.
Another major development regarding
texts and emails came last week with a court ruling that San Jose City Councilmembers’ private text messages, emails and other electronic communications about
city affairs must be made public.
The City Council can pass these
legislative items to increase openness and transparency or the voters can gather
signatures to place a package of reforms on the ballot in the next general
election. In either case, Long Beach needs to move forward on this issue.
