Reschedule Coming Camouflaged Council Vote On Controversial Less-Than-Transparent "Road Diet" Proposed Along Nearly Two Miles of Ocean Blvd. (Livingston Dr. To End of Peninsula)

LBReport.com

Editorial

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.

(Sept. 19, 2016, 9:15 a.m.) -- LBREPORT.com publishes below the only publicly accessible information we can find on the City of Long Beach's webpages as of dawn today regarding a proposal by Councilwoman Suzie Price to impose a "road diet" that would erase traffic lanes and deliberately create traffic-slowing congestion and in some areas create diagonal parking along parts of nearly two miles of Ocean Blvd. (Livingston Dr. eastward to the end of the Peninsula.) It's also proposed to continue the current "road diet" along Broadway between Temple and Cherry Aves. (2nd district/Pearce.)

Regardless of whether one supports or opposes this -- and opinions appear to be split -- no one committed to transparency and public participation should approve of the way it's being pursued and imposed.

To our knowledge, there are currently no publicly accessible graphics or descriptive text on the City's website or on its social network pages, or on Councilwoman Price's website or on her social network pages on this. Simply put: zero online transparency...and instead, the reverse is occurring. The proposal is camouflaged within a "consent calendar" item (scheduled for no public discussion unless a taxpayer or Councilmember requests it), buried among a list of non-controversial items for so-called "Council district discretionary funds" (which are actually paid by taxpayers citywide.) Here it is (items in lower third of document).

Below is what a city staffer shared a few months ago with shoreline area resident Susan Miller. What do you think?

We think Council "divide by nine" discretionary funds should be spent for items for which there's some consensus (like other things listed in the Sept. 20 "consent calendar" action such as removing tree stumps and naming a bridge to honor a recently deceased admired resident.) They shouldn't be spent for controversial items on which legitimate questions remain to be answered.

What will happen when ambulance/paramedic, police/fire responses (or an urgent or emergency exit/entry by residents) are delayed in neighborhoods surrounding Ocean Blvd. because it's clogged by a deliberate action of the City Council? Is it smart to have parked cars backing up into adjacent bike riders as well as oncoming vehicles? Diagonal parking was tried on Atlantic Ave. in Bixby Knolls and removed. Yes, we acknowledge that residents and businesses in parking-starved areas might really welcome the diagonal parking as an improvement. Yes, it might make sense in some parts of town...but is it really wise along a lengthy stretch of Ocean Blvd. that's already congested by beach goers?

We are told that the proposal was discussed by city reps in neighborhood meetings in the area. That's fine, but to our knowledge there's nothing that we or the public can access now on the City's webpages on any of this. The most we can find online anywhere are views expressed several months ago by Councilwoman Price from a private social network to which access is restricted to certain neighborhoods; it may not reflect what's agendized now and we have no permission to republish it. Price also likes the way the Gazettes reported this story in July (which included a "done-deal" flavored headline: "Diagonal Parking Shape Of Future On Shore's Ocean Boulevard") and she cited to it at the time on her Facebook page, but it's copyrighted to the Gazettes and we don't regurgitate their stuff.

Our point is different: regardless of how one feels on the merits of this proposal, we say the way City Hall is currently going about it flies in the face of its professed support for transparency and desire for public participation.

We say: fix this. Simply remove the "road diet" items included in the Sept. 20 Council "consent calendar" action and put them over to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting on Oct. 4.

And release those public records to us that we requested over a month ago. We'd like to beat the Gazettes (and others) on that part of the story.

Opinions expressed by LBREPORT.com, our contributors and/or our readers are not necessary 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.