This page will grow with publishable new emails as received; revisit this page periodically to see your LB neighbors' latest responses. (Click reload or refresh on your browser to ensure viewing most recent text.)
No, No, No, No, No, No, No and No
With all due respect to LBReport's thoughtful approaches on the charter-change proposals Props. A-G, the real issue for voters is far bigger than the detailed individual pros and cons.
The measures are anyhow quite trivial (except for Prop. B's out-of-control salary commission). Some are mainly cosmetic deceits: such as Prop. E’s pretense of saving parks from sale, when all it requires for a sale is that the City Council make promises - with no deadlines for keeping them.
The real issue is the disastrous pooh-bah pattern of governance exemplified by Council and Mayor ordaining this million-dollar-extra special election (which the public never asked for) and its particular propositions (and not others) - and in the bargain disdaining even to give rationales (credible or otherwise) on the record for either the election or its urgency or its cost or its propositions.
This issue and its ramifications are a compelling reason to Vote NO on ALL of Props A-G.
RATHER THAN WASTE VOTES to RUBBER-STAMP Prop A-G's pipsqueak or pseudo-changes - and rather than abstain just to second-guess on them - we the citizens should simply VOTE NO on ALL - AND THEREBY SEND MUCH-NEEDED CORRECTIVE MESSAGES to Council and Mayor:
That we are not their pawns or rubber-stamps. That their decisions must be based on public rationales, not unexplained private whims. That we demand candor, not deceit. That we demand fiscal responsibility and proper priorities, not million-dollar boondoggles. That it’s time to face up to the city’s real problems. That it’s time to make not trivial charter changes but big ones, to introduce the local democracy that we need to properly address the city’s problems.
[For more details, see: Weinstein "Vote No on All". And for separate reasons to vote NO on Prop. H, see: Vote No on H.]
By the way, by featuring picayune (or devious) measures like Props A-G, this election does serve Mayor and Council as pretext and smokescreen:
As pretext: Despite the failure to state (at no cost) prior rationales for Props A-G, over $200,000 of out-of-town money is now coming in to sell us on them. Apparently some politicians welcome and require but the flimsiest pretext to raise lots of election-campaign bucks.
As smokescreen: These props mask (and distract from) this city’s big REAL problems, and from unfulfilled promises to address them. Such as police ALREADY promised for year after year and STILL NOT here. Such as the ALREADY long-since-approved - but STILL NOT here - Sustainability commission to track and help pro-act to enviro challenges (like the city's dangerous special vulnerability to global warming impacts).
Joe Weinstein
Bixby Knolls
Save LB Parks; No on E
(April 15, 2:00 p.m.) I agree with your recommendations on all except Prop. E--the park measure.
After making all the right arguments for voting NO, you wimped out with a "withhold your vote to show you like parks".
In my opinion, this will allow a flawed measure to pass because many people will believe this actually protects parks in perpetuity.
You also failed to mention that this allows the Parks and Recreation Commission, a non-elected body, powers to sell or lease current parkland with only the majority vote of the City Council, not the voters. There is good reason why this commission does not presently have this ability.
The public must be given the say over their parks and beaches or we will slowly lose them to developers and non-recreational uses.
As one of the founders of Save the Park, I urge a loud NO vote on Proposition E.
Ann Cantrell
East Long Beach
