Respecting And Inviting, Not Discouraging And Demeaning, Residents Who Cite Pesky Facts And Pesky Laws In Public Matters

LBReport.com

Editorial

Inviting And Welcoming, Not Discouraging And Demeaning, Residents Who Cite Pesky Facts And Pesky Laws In Public Matters

LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. Support independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.

(June 4, 2015, 12:05 p.m.) -- An item on today's Planning Commission agenda isn't about whether it's a good idea to turn what used to be Yankee Doodles bar (4100 E. Ocean Blvd.) into a fitness center. It isn't about whether the property's owner ought to be allowed to do so.

It is about whether the City of Long Beach, through a city employee/zoning administrator and perhaps other city staffers, properly applied laws that apply to the facts of the owner's proposed use for the property.

Three Long Beach residents challenged the way in which City Hall applied those laws and rules in approving the proposed use. In our opinion, what happened to them for their public participation -- and in exercising their civil rights -- in the period leading up to today's Planning Commission hearing is independently newsworthy and comment-worthy beyond the proposed use of a building.

[Scroll down for further.]

Three appellants (who paid $50 each to be heard) were Ann Cantrell, Susan Miller and a representative of El Dorado Audubon.

In the 1990s, Ms. Cantrell saved a large portion of El Dorado Park open space by factually challenging a City Hall action that sought to consume the park area with a commercial sports complex. A Superior Court reviewed the record and determined that Ms. Cantrell was correct in contending that City Hall had failed to properly evaluate the project's impacts. Ms. Cantrell has since selflessly donated countless hours of her time to preserve and protect LB's open space and parks with no pecuniary or development benefits to herself.

Ms. Miller was recently commended in a gracious email from Councilwoman Suzie Price for alerting City Hall to the fact that a street paving project was treading on state laws and regulations that protect wildlife. Ms. Miller didn't stop a street paving project; City Hall did, when it realized (especially after hearing from State Fish & Game) that Ms. Miller was correct and City Hall shouldn't have scheduled the street paving project when it did; accordingly, the paving project was postponed to the more appropriate time when it should have scheduled all along.

El Dorado Audubon, a group that has won awards for its works, remains an appellant although its representative has removed her name personally, telling us she felt intimidation from what has taken place to date.

On April 23, in a piece updated May 5, the Gazettes published a story lauding the proposed use, reporting that it had passed "a final hurdle in city approvals." But that was only true if one assumed that the public has no role in the process. That amounted to a "Dewey Defeats Truman" assumption because the process wasn't completely over before the Gazettes reported the result.

At the legal deadline, three members of the public filed appeals, after which a video "Rant" (a regular feature of the Gazettes) appeared on or about May 11 by its Executive Editor, Harry Saltzgaver regarding the process of getting projects approved. Since we agree with former U.N. Ambassador/former US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan's principle that everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts, we apply that standard below to what Executive Editor Saltzgaver video-ranted to his readers/viewers...and we offer our viewpoints alongside.

Gazettes "Rant"	LBREPORT.com view
You know, there's a project going on right now that has been appealed by a couple of folks and it's stopping the construction of somethin' that a lot of people think is going to be good for Belmont Shore and the city as a whole. Well, you know, it's their right to appeal those things, just like it was peoples' rights to appeal the 2nd and PCH project, the Home Depot project, just how many projects can you think of that have been delayed, or killed, by two or three people arguing that that isn't the right thing to do.	The 2nd/PCH project's approval by the Planning Commission was appealed to the City Council by the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust and multiple area residents. After considering the issues raised by the appellants and hearing the public, the City Council killed the project on a 3-5 vote. The Home Depot project was abandoned by the property owner, a Tom Dean LLC, after a Superior Court ruled that a City Hall proffered Environmental Impact Report (certified 6-3 by the Council with Schipske, O'Donnell and Gabelich dissenting) failed to meet state legal standards. City Hall's action had been challenged by the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust and the University Park Estates Neighborhood Association. The City might have modified the EIR to try to address those issues but instead chose to fight...and lost.
That's called democracy, and listen I hate to say it, but we have to accept that if we're gonna keep things goin' in a fair way in this city, in this country. But, and here's the big but, I also think that it's not right that two or three people can stop things just because they want to stop things. I think there needs to be some consequences for these actions.	Residents who show that a proposed project fails to comply with state or local requirements (especially disclose its potential negative impacts) are doing the public a service. When City Hall fails to conduct proper review, it is City Hall's actions that disserved the applicant/developer, not the public for pointing it out.
You know, our courts have something called a "SLAPP" and what that means is that these are frivolous lawsuits that people bring in hopes that people are going to settle and give them some money.	A "SLAPP" suit is "strategic litigation against public participation." That's NOT what's taking place with the Yankee Doodles appeal. A SLAPP suit refers to lawsuits, usually brought by large firms, to try and deter the public participation. For the record, state lawmakers recognized the importance of public participation and have enacted an anti-SLAPP law making it easier for courts to toss out lawsuits aimed at deterring public participation.
Well they can throw those lawsuits out if a judge thinks this is silly and they can actually make people pay for the court fees. Now, right now it doesn't cost anything, it costs very little, to appeal a project in Long Beach, or any other city in California for that matter. What would happen if they -- being the appellants -- would have to actually pay for something if their appeal was denied or proven to be frivolous.	It has long been actionable, and a court can award civil damages, if someone files and pursues a civil action that is subsequently proven to have been clearly frivolous on the merits.
I don't understand or I don't have the great answer of how that would work but I do think it's somethin' we ought to think about. I do think there ought to be consequences for your actions. So let's think about that and see if there might be a way. I certainly don't want to have anybody not get their opinion out, and I certainly don't want to stop someone from appealing to a higher court. But I do think there needs to be some consequences for actions. Let's see if we can't figure that out. Let's make somethin' happen.	In our opinion, the public should be encouraged, not discouraged, from raising issues -- pro or con -- that affect their city, their property and their neighborhood's quality of life.

[Scroll down for further.]

Meanwhile, third-party comments surfaced (and as of the morning of June 4 remain visible) on the Facebook page of landowner/developer Kurt Schneiter in which others refer to the appellants as "Sea Hags" (May 8), and (under a Facebook post showing Ms. Miller's appeal) another states: "Maybe encourage her to leave the area? We used to go take off the front door when tenants wouldn't pay rent. Best to wait till she leaves for a city council meeting or to buy groceries. I could ask some of my sec 8 tenants from the LA hood to camp out in the alley behind her place?" (April 26).

This is not how a world class city should discuss matters. In other cities, when appeals are filed, city staff and applicants first try to find ways to resolve issues (if possible), seeking common ground if there is any or at least narrow areas of disagreements. To us, that is the opposite of what has taken place on this matter, in which some have inflamed, polarized and personalized the issues.

One appeal point made by appellant Cantrell -- alleging that the city misapplied a categorical exemption in sparing the project from any environmental review -- appears to have been squarely on point. In its agendizing memo for today's hearing, city staff has had to revise its paperwork, trying to apply other gymnastic grounds to try and avoid environmental review. But why? When you're in a hole, it makes more sense to stop digging. It could be simpler and faster simply to acknowledge that the project deserves some level of environmental review (which can sometimes produce common ground on mitigation measures, if there are any.)

Mr. Schneiter told us that he tried to [our paraphrase] discuss the issues and find common ground with two of the appellants but got nowhere, adding that he disagrees with the appeal on the merits. We don't know what happened or didn't happen between the parties...but we think the published vitriol has contributed to polarizing and personalizing issues instead of resolving them.

Tonight, whatever the appellants, city staff, and the public pro and con, say at the Planning Commission will be under oath. We urge Planning Commission members to make clear -- publicly -- that on this item (and all items) the LB Planning Commission will decide matters that come before it on the merits, not based on the personalities.

To view the Planning Commission agendized materials, see the following links:

A mature city debates and decides controversies ad factum (on the merits) and rejects ad hominem arguments (aimed at persons.)

It's time -- on this issue and others -- for Long Beach to grow up. To paraphrase Mr. Saltzgaver's words used in another context: let's get it done.

Opinions expressed by LBREPORT.com, our contributors and/or our readers are not necessarily those of our advertisers. We welcome our readers' comments/opinions 24/7 via Disqus, Facebook and moderate length letters and longer-form op-ed pieces submitted to us at mail@LBReport.com.