Yes, we think it's a big story. No, we haven't seen it reported elsewhere. We reported it in painful detail (including "Amnesia File" coverage with audio), at this link.

We address it editorially here because someone inside City Hall thought it was smart to schedule it for Council action on the first City Council meeting after citywide elections. As LBREPORT.com's story notes, the issue may have been discussed as long ago as a December 17, 2013 in a closed Council session from which the public and press were excluded.

The issue tonight (April 15) is whether the Council will punish long suffering Long Beach taxpayers by looting their infrastructure money...OR will direct city management to find alternative means to pay all or part of the $2.6 million begat by the action of a sharply split Council majority in 2009-10. That's when a Council majority handed a Tom Dean LLC valuable developable industrial property (the city's Public Service Yard) in exchange for surface rights (not oil/mineral rights) to likely undevelopable SE LB wetlands.

Council majorities did this despite warnings on various grounds from City Auditor Laura Doud, then-Councilwoman Rae Gabelich and independent taxpayer advocate Terry ("Common Sense") Jensen. In questioning by Councilwoman Gabelich, management acknowledged that under the deal it cut with the Dean LLC, taxpayers could be exposed to a $2+ million clean up cost to suit a subsequent owner/developer of the Public Service Yard land. Yep, that's basically what has happened.

City management's proposal now punishes residents and businesses citywide, looting infrastructure funds that deserve to be used to repair potholes, fix sidewalks and maintain deteriorating park and other city facilities.

LBREPORT.com believes the proper Council motion (or substitute motion) tonight is to direct city management to bring back to the Council a package of alternatives that includes (but isn't limited to):

• 1. Halting the profligate pursuit of a P3 Civic Center rebuild.

• 2. Halting unbudgeted raises improvidently granted to non-represented (non-unionized) city management.

• 3. Closing City Hall at least one day a week (other cities do this.)

We acknowledge the measures we propose above may not cover the full $2.6 million required, but they would cover part of it and reduce the drain on infrastructure funds needed for other purposes. We're open to other alternatives...but that requires Councilmembers willing to say "no" tonight instead of simply doing what they're told.

And no, nearly half a decade later City Hall still hasn't got a deal in place for Sacramento funding it wished/hoped/surmised/speculated would buy the wetlands from the city. In 2009, taxpayer advocate Jensen publicly said that he doubts Sac'to will pay anywhere near what City Hall thought the Dean-LLC wetlands would bring. If he's right (again) and City Hall is wrong (again), that could mean several million dollars more that taxpayers could have had now that we don't have.

All of this took place under a soon-to-be-former Mayor and Council majority who say they've been fiscally prudent. Just ask them; they'll tell you.

As always, LBREPORT.com will carry tonight's Council meeting live on our front page: www.LBREPORT.com.

Follow LBReport.com w/

Twitter

RSS

Facebook

---

---

---

blog comments powered by Disqus