www.savestation18.com

Take a look at www.savestation18.com to see the latest on why closure of our Station 18 is a bad idea of Mayor Foster. His proposals to cut fire and police services in the upcoming budget are wrong...dead wrong.

I am having a community budget meeting next week on Wed. August 19th at 6pm at the El Dorado Senior Center, 2800 N. Studebaker. Come out and give the City Manager an ear-full about what you think about cutting police and fire services.

Parks Are Being Spruced Up

The group of young people I had assigned to the 5th Council District are making a lot of progress in sprucing up our parks at Heartwell, Wardlow and Pan Am. Painting, cleaning, and landscaping is happening every day this summer.

My staff aide, Matthew McHale is supervising their work.

Things are looking good.

If It's Good Enough for Portland, Maine...

Portland, Maine faces cuts to their city budget and decided that it would reach out to the residents to ask for donations to fund those items that are not core services.

I think it is a great idea. Not only does it involve residents in deciding if non-core services are going to be provided in our city, but it also gives people information on what these "little extras" actually cost.

You can go online http://www.portlandmaine.gov/donations/giftcatalog.asp and take a look at their "gift catalog.

Rude treatment of elected officials is wrong...

It was embarrassing last Tuesday to watch the City Auditor Laura Doud struggle to get acknowledged by the Mayor so she could address the City Council about her concerns regarding the proposed land swap we were getting ready to vote on.

Both Councilwoman Gabelich and I pointed out that Auditor Doud wanted to speak. She was finally acknowledged even though other council members kept talking.

Instead of being given professional courtesy as an elected official, she was brushed off and told to make it quick because "everything had already been said."

Well, folks, everything hadn't been said. She hadn't weighed in on her concerns.

Later, she was criticized for not haven spoken earlier. Really? Many people spoke out against the transaction and asked for a 30 day delay to get more information. Did any of that matter on the outcome of the vote? Nope.

I encourage the Auditor to review the real estate sales transaction agreement and the accompanying disclosures and valuations of the properties and publicly report her findings. I am sure the taxpayers will want to hear what she has to say.

My vote on the wetlands: the facts.

I voted against the proposed swap of land that is not fully documented wetlands for prime industrial property owned by the City of Long Beach for a number of reasons based upon my research and the in put of many residents who were concerned that the taxpayers of this City were not being protected in this real estate deal.

Here's why:

• It may have been a good idea, but it went terribly bad.
• The entire deal was cloaked in a false alarm of urgency. City Council was told by city staff that negotiated the deal that if it was not done in December, it would be "fatal." Of course, it wasn't.
• The truth is that this deal didn't hatch out of thin air. The developer specifically established a Limited Liability Corporation to purchase the property which he then immediately began offering to some of the City electeds and staff about two years ago.
• Although usually wetlands are purchased and restored by environmental and the state conservancy, E-mails between the developer and City staff indicate that the developer doesn't particularly like or trust the state conservancy or the State Coastal Commission so instead it was decided to have the City of Long Beach obtain his property which would then require the City to clean it up and restore it in order to sell it to another party.
• The developer refused to allow the City to complete a delineation of the property to determine what really is there.
• An independent appraisal was never obtained on the value of either the wetlands area or the City's Public Service Yard for which it was swapped. These were done in-house or old ones were used. (A deal this significant and we couldn't even hire an independent appraiser?)
  
• The value of the LLC's property holdings near Second and PCH really amount to little on the surface. The real value is in the oil and minerals beneath the land which the developer refused to sell to the City and is now marketing them to another company.
• Wetlands may be "priceless" but the costs of cleaning them up is not; it is very costly. Where will the City get the money to clean it up?
• The Public Service Yard which is being given to the developer for his wetlands, is contaminated and will require $2.8 million to clean up. Where will the City get the money to clean it up?
  
• The City will be required to vacate the Public Service Yard and to relocate to the Oil and Gas Property on Spring at a cost estimated by the City Manager at $5 million.
• Until the relocation, the City will pay the developer rent to stay on the property. With what money?
  
• The apparent proposed use of the Public Service Yard is for a trucking yard which currently is not allowed under the City's moratorium. But that can be lifted at any time and polluting trucks can be brought into the neighborhood.
  

Other disturbing facts surround this land deal:

• The voters were asked to give over their hard earned money with a parcel tax last year. (Which I opposed.) They were told that it would be used to fix their streets, sidewalks and other things (that the City should have been fixing). But Measure I also included a small reference to the fact that the funds could be used to restore the wetlands? Hardly infrastructure repair?? Voters saw through the proposal which is why City property had to be found to swap for the wetlands property because the City did not have that source of cash.
• The City received a valid offer to purchase the Public Service Yard at a price higher than the value of the current swap agreement. Magically, that developer withdrew his offer on the PSY and was offered City Hall East (at a price much lower than its value) and an agreement that the City would close its Main Library and relocate it there and pay rent. That freed the PSY to be swapped, instead of being purchased. Also magically, escrow has never closed on City Hall East and it has been recently discovered that the Main Library doesn't have to be closed after all and could be repaired at a fraction of the cost that was being used to force its closure.
• E-mails exchanged between the owner of the wetlands property and the City negotiator indicate that the owner was told by City staff that he had " 5 or 6 in pocket" concerning the deal even before the vote was taken publicly. Other e-mails referred to those not in pocket as "loud talkers."
• The economy worsened from December 2008 until this month and the value of both the wetlands land and the oil underneath have plummeted while prime industrial land has not.
• The City Council declared a fiscal emergency a few weeks ago because it does not have one spare dollar to spend on anything not related to the core services of public safety.
• Despite City Auditor Laura Doud telling the Council that the deal was flawed and that there are too many unknown risks, it ignored her. (I will blog more on the rude treatment Auditor Doud received at the Council meeting.)
  

Also consider this:

• The City Attorney confirmed before the vote on the deal that language requested by a councilman expressing the "intent" of the City Council that the land be open and preserved, had absolutely no binding effect. And why would it? The City has refused to place a restrictive covenant on the land before its purchase because the developer doesn't want the value diminished (wetlands is worth much less than land that can be commercially developed). So the language is meaningless and does nothing to assure that the land won't be developed by some future city council that is cash strapped because it has sold off its assets or made other unwise real estate transactions when it could not afford to do so.
• Why the urgency on the transaction? The owner said the deal would be off if the City didn't approve. And there is this little matter of another development at 2nd and PCH that needs PCH to be widened by acquiring land, part of the same land in question. Without the street widening traffic cannot be mitigated. So many people had an interest in getting this done now.
• Well, then, the deal should have been called off, especially until the City hired its own real estate broker and retained an independent appraiser and environmental specialist who would have made damn sure that we didn't buy anything without complete and full disclosure of just what we were getting ourselves into.
  

Budget Questions

I have read the entire city budget -- all 600 pages -- and I have a number of questions:

• Why are some department heads still slated for salary increases?
• Why is any management position slated for a salary increase?
  
• What are the exact positions (with salary and benefits) that are being cut?
  
• How many of those are currently not filled positions?
  
• Are any of the lay-offs resulting in people being moved from General Fund departments to Special Enterprise departments?
• How many people in management are being laid off?
• How many people making over $100,000 annually are being cut?
• What is the exact amount fore casted for revenue from the businesses listed in the budget as "revenue?" (i.e. TESLA, LB Studios, Vespa Motors, etc.)
  
• How much sales tax did the City give away to Best Buy?
• Why would the Mayor and City Manager propose cutting positions from parking ticket collections when it is a revenue producing department?

These are just for a start...there will be many more and I hope you will send me your questions as well.

I'm mad as hell...and so should you be

We just had a press conference called by Mayor Foster to showcase the budget he was presenting to the City Council.

First of all, councilmembers could not get a copy of the budget until 1/2 hour before the conference which is unreal.

Secondly, during the presentation is was announced that two fire stations would be on "light force company" -- which means a station would be closed part of the day. When the press asked which fire station the acting chief responded that Station 18 would be one of them. I gasped and said out loud: "Over my dead body."

Following the meeting I sent the email below to the Mayor, City Manager and my colleagues on the Council:

I thought it disrespectful for the budget not to be given to Councilmembers prior
to the press conference. Giving it 1/2 hour before doesn't count and I did not
appreciate to hear from budget staff they were ordered by the Mayor not to give
Council the documents until 1/2 hour before.

Additionally, it is unacceptable that a proposed cut in service at one of the fire stations in my district would be presented at the press conference WITHOUT having the courtesty to tell me prior to the conference. I specifically asked the City Manager in advance if my station was being targeted, and Pat, you told me and my Chief of Staff "no" -- which I transmitted to my residents.

Residents express concern about 2nd and PCH development

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 seen the presentation before and because it is located in SEADIP I though it would be helpful if the group most concerned about the future of SEADIP also had an opportunity to view the presentation and ask questions.

It is a dramatic presentation and no doubt everyone agrees that the corner at 2nd and PCH need to be fixed. But it doesn't conform with the vision nor the requirements of SEADIP. The buildings are over 35 feet and the density is more than allowed.

When asked if the developer knew about SEADIP and the recent community engagement by the City about what to do in that area of Long Beach, the developer said "yes" but that he disagreed with that vision and that he had another vision "as do others in that area."

He has every right to his own vision but until this city grapples with the fact that it has a zoning and use plan for that area that conflicts with his vision we are headed for a bumpy road -- which by the way is also not allowed in SEADIP.

Stay Tuned for Budget

Today readers, you and I will learn at the same time what the FY 2010 budget looks like and what the Mayor is proposing in terms of cuts or additions.

That's because instead of giving the Council the budget directly, it is being released during a press conference.

This game playing has to stop. We either are working together as Council and Mayor or we're not. Protocol calls for the budget to be given to the City Council by the Mayor not also copied during a press conference. I was in city hall yesterday and I asked for a copy but couldn't get one.

So let's see what surprises are in store today.

We need to look at redevelopment

The Orange County Register has an interesting editorial (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/redevelopment-agencies-tax-2506919-state-cities) that bears reading by everyone in Long Beach.

The state is about to take more redevelopment money from Long Beach to make up a short-fall.

Ok. Most people don't know what redevelopment money is -- it is a portion of your property taxes that instead of going to the city or the school district is siphoned off into a redevelopment agency that is not elected and can run up a great deal of debt which in turn means that portion of your property taxes will continue to go to the redevelopment agency as long as it has debt.

In some instances, redevelopment has done good things. But essentially has been a piggy bank for developers and in areas where no redevelopment area exists -- such as the 5th Council District -- well no redevelopment money goes there at all. So we must rely upon general fund money to pay for our streets, sidewalks and improvements, while other areas get redevelopment money plus general fund money.

It is past time to look at the impact of Long Beach having 18,000 acres in redevelopment -- around 40% of the city. That tax increment -- that portion that is siphoned off -- needs to get back into the general fund -- if we don't do that the state will continue to use it as their slush fund account.

Just asking...is the port blocking tidal flow?

Thought it needed to be asked yesterday in the presentation on the breakwater study: we had a breakwater in the 1950, 1960, and 1970's and waves. What we didn't have were two ports (Los Angeles and Long Beach) sticking out in the ocean (because they had to be built on landfill).

So the obvious question is -- are the ports the cause of lack of tidal flow? And if they are, shouldn't they help pay for the impact on making our beaches so miserable because of the trash that won't flow away and the stagnation caused because water is trapped inside the breakwater?

The consultant did admit that could be a possibility but it wasn't part of the study.

Well, it needs to be! We are concerned about the impact upon air quality caused by the ports and we should be concerned about the impact upon water quality as well.

P.S. I also pointed out that it was Councilman Dan Baker who first tried to get a study of what to do about the breakwater but it was shot down 8-1 after Mayor O'Neil said that due to national security concerns the breakwater cannot be taken down. I asked in yesterday's meeting if national security was still an issue and no one answered.

The key to all of this is getting our Congressional electeds on board to help find a way to clean up the water and restore our beaches.

Ok. I won't quit.

When the news came out this week that the City of Long Beach is about to release a $100,000 study done on the breakwater and the water quality off the shore of downtown Long Beach, I became discouraged because quite honestly the City does not have the money to do what is necessary to change the breakwater.

I expressed this discouragement in my blog and then was contacted by a constituent who said: "Please don't quit on us!"

Well. He's right.

If the breakwater needs to be removed to improve wave action and water quality in order to bring an economic stimulus back to Long Beach which is supposed to be a beach front community, then we need to fight for it!

The findings indicate that something could be done to improve both the wave action and the water quality. But the reality is that unless the U.S. Congress directs the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (who oversee all breakwaters) to get involved and unless the Congress funds further study and the work that needs to be done, the breakwater and the miserable water quality will remain.

So, let's get going and bombard our Congressional representatives to do the right thing for Long Beach.

See the contact information by emailing them (click on their names) and join me in sending Congresswoman Laura Richardson, Congresswoman Linda Sanchez, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, Senator Barbara Boxer and Senator Dianne Feinstein e-mails with the following message:

Dear Long Beach Area Congressional Representative:

No doubt you have heard that Long Beach has a problem with the quality of the ocean water that comes to our beaches. A recent study indicates that the breakwater off-shore could be reconfigured to allow greater tidal action and disbursement of pollution.

This would clean up the water and increase use of the beaches which would bring an economic stimulus to Long Beach.

We urge you to direct the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to complete a full study on the feasibility of reconfiguring the Long Beach breakwater and to appropriate such funds as necessary to complete the study.

Cleaning up the ocean water and beachfront in Long Beach would provide an important boost to our local economy. We ask that you help Long Beach.

Breakwater study is a heartbreaker

Breakwater study done. (http://www.longbeach.gov/citymanager/ga/breakwater/default.asp) Do you want the good news or the bad news first?

Good news. Well the study shows that removing a portion of the breakwater could help clean up the water and improve waves slightly.

Bad news. To do anything beyond the study will cost the City of Long Beach millions and millions of dollars. Oh, then there is the issue of whether or not the Army Corps of Engineers even approves doing anything -- and since they control the breakwater they call the shots.

So let's say they say "yes" -- well, the City of Long Beach has to commit to paying 1/2 the costs of the further study which amounts to @ $3.8 million. Then there's the cost of the actual work which could hit tens of millions.

What is missing in the entire study is the fact that people have seen photographs of the shoreline in the late 1940's and 1950's and we had waves. Oh and we also had the breakwater. What we didn't have was the Port of Long Beach sticking way out in the ocean blocking tidal flow.

Nope. We're not taking the Port down. But seriously folks we don't have the money to do further studies or to pay to take a portion of the breakwater down and it isn't likely the feds are interested in taking the breakwater down (things everyone knew when this initial study was ordered) -- so do we all feel better now?

Wetlands Swap Should End

Dave Wielenga of The District Weekly called me earlier this week to ask if I knew that the owners of the "wetlands" being considered for swapping for valuable city property -- the public service yard in the First Council District -- were selling the oil and mineral rights underneath the property?

(see article: http://thedistrictweekly.com/2009/daily/writing-shotgun/exclusive-tom-dean-sellling-mineral-rights-to-los-cerritos-wetlands/?dsq=13113743#comment-13113743)

No.

Unreal. I originally brought this issue up earlier in the process of why the oil and mineral rights were not being included in any deal, especially since we know that the property will have to be cleaned up because of oil contamination. Was told the owner didn't want to sell them.

I guess that was before the Wall Street Journal just ran a story that crude oil will drop to $20 a barrel by the fall because of a glut and it must seem like the right time to bail out of the oil business.

Ok. Then that should put the city in a great position to get these rights. Afterall, we can use the monthly income which is at @$400,000 both for increased revenue and for paying to clean up the site.

Better yet. Stop this madness. We don't have any money. We just declared a fiscal crisis. The State doesn't have any money to buy the land from us.

The "wetlands" aren't going anywhere. The only value of the property is what is underneath and that's about to be sold to someone else.

Air Toxic Hot Spots

Don't know about you. But I am running into more and more people lately with seriously allergies and coughs. People are complaining about the air and with good reason.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District has released its 2008 Annual Report on the AB 2588 Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program. The Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act of 1987 requires local air pollution districts to prepare an annual report and to provide it to local health officiers.

You can view the report which provides a summary of major program activities during the calendar year 2008 and activities planned during 2009.:

http:www.aqmd.gov/prdas/AB2588/AB2588.html

Welcome Home 1498th Transportation Company

It was my distinct honor to welcome home the men and women from the 1498th Transportation Company as they came off the airplane at Long Beach Airport. Mayor Bob Foster and Vice Mayor Val Lerch were also there. We shook the hands of each and every man and woman who came off the plane in uniform and with backpacks -- some of which had stuffed animals peeking out which provided an interesting contrast of warriors returning with soft personal items that probably brought a touch of home while they were in Iraq for a year.

The 1498th Transportation Company was activated on November 2002 at Riverside as part of the Army National Guard Division Redesign Study strategy.

They were sent to Iraq in 2008 and then sent again last year.

The unit is commanded by Major Caroline Morales (who holds a juris doctorate) and looked incredibly young for such a serious position.

The greeting and ceremony brought tears to my eyes. Thank god not one person in the company was injured or killed. The look on the faces of their families was priceless to be able to witness.

We owe them our gratitude for a job well done.

Youth Start Sprucing Up 5th District Parks

Cleaning and repairing the restrooms, benches and tables and improving the landscaping around community buildings in the 5th Council District parks are at the top of my “to do list” this summer and in order to help me get the work done, I has requested that a half dozen youth be assigned to my “sprucing up our parks” project.

Long Beach has received funding through the federal Recovery Act 2009 to employ young adults, ages 14 - 24, 20 - 25 hours a week beginning July 13 through August 31 for up to 200 hours explains Schipske. I have coordinated a work plan with the City’s Parks, Recreation and Marine Department that will allow 5 to 8 youth to work with me to fix up Pan Am, Wardlow and Heartwell parks this summer.

We started on Monday and the young workers made a lot of progress in one day on the first building we're working on in Pan Am Park.

Working on improving the parks will give these young people not only a summer job but a way to make a real difference in the community in which they live.

The Pacific Gateway Workforce Investment Network will provide wages, worker’s compensation insurance, a job coach and all required administrative procedures. The Summer Youth Employment Training Program is administered by the Pacific Gateway Workforce Investment Network’s Youth Opportunity Center.

Bright Spots This Week

The financial news on the city's budget was devastating.

But I did have several bright spots this week:

• Worked with an Eagle Scout on his project to prepare his neighborhood to get ready for an earthquake
• Joined my council colleagues in approving a permanent prohibition on second stories and demolition of homes in the Ranchos PD-11. The residents worked very hard on this proposal and are to be commended.
• Met the 8 young people who are working with my staff on sprucing up our 5th District parks -- painting, cleaning, landscaping. They started today painting in Pan Am park. It's going to be a great experience for them improving parks; they can come back and show their friends how they made things better in their community.
• Getting some great e-mails from constituents who are very pleased with the level of service my office is providing.
• Walking door to door on several streets and learning how many people actually get updates from me and know what is going on in the city.
  

We all need to start reading up on government finances

I recommend to readers that you go on line to the following link: http://www.californiacityfinance.com/ if you want to know about government finances.

This is no easy topic, especially right now. And lest anyone not believe we are in deep financial trouble, just read the following email I received from the City Manager today:

Potential State Impact to Long Beach of $44 million from State Budget Raids

Long Beach has learned that proposals being discussed at the State Level could impact the City of Long Beach up to $44 million in Fiscal Year 2010. While no State budget has been approved and the negotiations are ongoing early Wednesday evening, raids on local government funds continued to be discussed at the State Level. These potential raids include:

$8 million in Gas Tax

• An illegal raid of up to $8 million in Gas Tax funds, which are used for local street projects and to fund critical transportation operations such as Street Light Power, Engineering/Project Development, Street Tree Maintenance, Street Markings/Signs, Potholes crews, and Traffic Signals Operations and Maintenance.

$10 million in Prop 1A Borrowing of Local Government Property Tax

• The State would borrow eight percent of the property tax revenues received by cities, counties and special districts.

$6 million in RDA Funds

• An illegal raid of $6 million or potentially more from the Redevelopment Agency, which would not have to be paid back.

$20 million in Low-Moderate Income Housing Set-aside dollars

• One proposal is to raid the entire amount of housing set-aside next year. These funds are used to increase, improve, and preserve the supply of housing for low- and moderate-income households and provide loans to those in danger of foreclosure. These dollars also leverage significant other investment in workforce housing – a recent project funded with housing set-aside dollars leveraged other funds by a factor of 10.

The League of California Cities and the Community Redevelopment Association have threatened immediate lawsuits to strike down the Gas Tax raid and Redevelopment raids, should the State Legislature enact these proposals.

We will be dealing with how to respond to these cuts, if implemented, during budget deliberations. We will keep you apprised of further developments.


PATRICK H. WEST
City Manager

Issue of Equal Benefits Goes to Committee and Citizen Human Relations Commission

Glad that my colleague Robert Garcia agreed to my suggestion that the proposal to require benefits for the domestic partners of employees employed by companies doing business with the City of Long Beach needs to be studied and vetted before we take any action and that the proper places to do so are the Council Committee on Economic Development and the citizen Human Relations Commission.

There are a number of issues that need to be reviewed before the Council instructs the City Attorney to draft an ordinance: who has to comply; can religious organizations be exempted; what is the dollar amount that triggers compliance; does this include the workers at the hotels and other businesses which lease city owned land; what is the appeal process if a company is rejected on the basis they don't provide benefits; what types of benefits will be mandated -- in most ordinances on this topic it isn't just health benefits that need to be provided -- it's sick leave, family medical leave, etc.

I look forward to the study and the discussion. It will make much better law in the long-run.