[Ed. note: The emailer below responds to a challenge that he cite facts on which his opinion is based.]
[July 4th response to emailer Lisa Hoglan, some extended textual portions shortened by LBReport.com]
Yes Virginia --------- there is a "problem" !
Since I can quickly hit the web and retrieve info I have chosen to do a little of that for you. I don't have the time to do literature searches for you. Even though I have read a variety of tech articles on the subject, my real life is devoted to many other lines of inquiry and doesn't include keeping bibliographic materials on subjects such as cat/environment.
Regarding wolves, it is currently thought that the eradication of the gray wolf is responsible for the substantial increase in territory now occupied by coyotes.
Since the note in LBReport was expressing my opinion it really doesn't come under scientific literature documentation guidelines relating to references ---- as anyone should know. It is up to you to seek out sources.
Regarding spelling I type very quickly and seldom proof read. As such I admit the mistake and I accept the penality of defenestration, at least to my opinion, that you seem interested in delivering dispite your expressed opinion "I always prefer to know both sides of any story". Hopefully others can see and understand the truth clearly!
Neil Marshall
Encinitas, CA
REFERENCES FOR YOU
The great outdoor cat debate
Because the indoor-outdoor cat debate is such a vast and contentious issue, it definitely deserves its own column. I promise it's coming in the future, but for now, let's just say that whichever side in this unending battle is right, there's no argument that free-roaming pet cats urinate and defecate in other people's backyards, vegetable gardens, and planter boxes, and cats can have at least strong localized impacts on wildlife. Cats who are kept indoors have a much smaller carbon paw print than cats who are free to roam, but, depending on location and who you ask, half or fewer of all cats live indoors all the time.
The impact of roaming and feral cats on the environment, both directly and indirectly has been studied with varying conclusions. The argument has been made that cats have the beneficial effect of assisting the wild bird population by controlling other natural predators (rabbits) or by killing only the weak and sick birds. The fact remains however that feral cats are an introduced species into any environment and therefore not a natural part of the ecological equation.
The three "R"s of going green--Reduce, Reuse, Recycle--apply to pets as much as humans. Naturally, the reduce principle is the most critical when it comes to enabling your cat to live sustainably: it is absolutely essential that you, as a pet owner, do what you can do reduce the population of cats throughout the world.
Feral and stray cats wreak havoc on natural ecosystems. The effect is the greatest in island communities (including Australia, as large of an island as it may be), and these cats have, according to the Audubon Society of Portland, been responsible for the extinction of hundreds---if not thousands--of bird species. A wildlife rehabilitation group in Washington State reported in 2005 that 17% of birds in their care were being treated for cat-related injuries, compared to only 2% who were being treated by injuries caused by automobiles. Feral cats also displace native predators, including bobcats and foxes, and contribute to epidemics involving fleas, FIV, feline leukemia, roundworm, and the human-transmissible virus toxoplasmosis. To avoid contributing to this problem, always spay and neuter your cats. Consider adopting a rehabilitated stray or feral cat, and do not support people who breed cats recklessly.
In addition, because of the damage caused by free-roaming cats, it is a good idea to keep your cat indoors, especially during the summer, when ground-nesting birds are likely to be nesting. If you do allow your cat outdoors year-round, be sure that he wears a bell on his collar; this will alert native birds of his presence and prevent him from harming breeding birds.
Direct Predation: Strong evidence suggests that feral cats have played a significant role in the demise and extinction of native fauna, particularly in central Australia. To date, 63 species of native vertebrate have been identified in the stomach contents of feral cats from throughout the Northern Territory including mammals, reptiles, birds and amphibians.
www.nt.gov.au.
MoCat predation is an added stress to wildlife populations already struggling to survive habitat loss, pollution, pesticides and other human impacts," says the American Bird Conservancy (ABC), which in 1997 launched its controversial Cats Indoors! campaign to educate animal lovers about the benefits of keeping Tabby inside. ABC also points out that free-roaming cats are exposed to injury, disease, parasites and collisions with cars, and can get lost, stolen or poisoned. Cats can also transmit diseases and parasites such as rabies, cat-scratch fever and toxoplasmosis to other cats, wildlife or people. To help drive its point home, ABC produces a wide range of educational materials (including a brochure, "Keeping Cats Indoors Isn’t Just For The Birds") and public service announcements in the service of their ongoing campaign.
I included this so you could imagine what's coming.
Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery 14(1):1-1. 2000
doi: 10.1647/1082-6742(2000)014[0001:CAB]2.0.CO;2
Cats and Birds JAMES M. HARRIS, DVM, Oakland, Calif, USA
A technical resource book
What cat owners don’t know, don’t dare know, is how many birds are killed, and that some species are threatened with extinction. The simple fact is that aside from the loss of habitat, cats are the worst thing that has ever happened to the native bird population. Cats have a much greater, negative impact on the environment than coyotes [2]. Consider this sobering fact from the Ohio Wildlife Rehabilitators Association “The Effects of Cats on Wildlife.” (Emphasis is mine.)
Richard Stallcup of the Point Reyes Bird Observatory estimated that of the 55 million domestic cats in the US, excluding Hawaii and Alaska, some 10% never go outside, and another 10% are too old or slow to catch anything. Of the remaining 44 million, a conservative estimate is that 1 in 10 cats kills a bird a day – this would yield a daily toll of 4.4 million birds – or 1.6 billion cat-killed birds in the US each year. ["Cats take a heavy toll on songbirds / A reversible catastrophe," Observer, Spring/Summer 1991, 18-29, Point Reyes Bird Observatory; Native Species Network, Vol 1 Issue 1, Fall 1995.] Research has shown that rural cats, with more wildlife contact, kill many more, with the result that the feral cat population, most of which is rural, has an even more significant impact on the bird population. Alley Cat Allies estimates that there are 60 million feral cats in the United States. Combining feral and domestic cat predation, it is estimated that more than 3 billion birds are killed annually.
twocatsandcounting.wordpress.com
Also do a search as below. There are numerous articles!
cats +killing birds and rodents
Be sure you click on "similar" in the first return.
End of response by Neil Marshall
Encinitas, CA
******************************
In LBReport.com's letters column, Mr. Neil Marshall stated, "Numerous scientific studies have documented the damage they do to the environment but, of course, few people have the intellectual capacity or interest to read these materials."
Dear Mr. Marshall,
Could you please cite some of these numerous studies? I happen to be among the few cat people of intellectual capacity with interest to read them AND the ability to spell "silliness" correctly.
Anyone with education knows that to have one's opinion respected, it must be backed with researchable facts. I remember in my youth, reading about how wolves were a danger to cattle and needed to be exterminated. I noticed that in more recent years, scientific opinion has changed and they have been reintroduced into the wild again.
Although I am a devout "cat person," I always prefer to know both sides of any story.
Sincerely,
Lisa Hoglan
Long Beach, CA
********************
I have a contrarian attitude, as do many others, about coyotes feeding on domesticated cats.
Cats are predators and kill numerous other animals among which are lizards, butterflies and other insects, birds in immense numbers, rodents of all kinds including those WE consider some form of nuisance, and anything else not too big for their interest. The damage they do to the environment should have them at the top of the animal abatement list.
Owners who allow their domesticated, darling little pet cats, to prowl loose must understand that their little killers are out there playing the game and are subject to what they give. Numerous scientific studies have documented the damage they do to the environment but, of course, few people have the intellectual capacity or interest to read these materials.
It seems that this type of article, filled with pathos, is popular with news media but never does the media take interest in the reality of the situation or demonstrate the pathos needed for all other creatures impacted by the enormously damaging sillyness/idiocy of people and their pet cats.
Saying that the city is in bed with yet another entity in regard to the operation and development of the Queen Mary is apt.
Ultimately it does not matter who or what the developer is because the Mayor and City Council have abdicated their responsibility over the ship. They don't care what happens there as long as they don't have to worry about it.
The result is that for some 20 years the Queen Mary has been the playground of developers, promoters, and assorted others...who see it as their potential golden goose.
The City has failed utterly in its responsibility as trustee of the ship and from the current mayor through the city staff, past and present, there should be a sense of shame about this whole (continuing) fiasco.
The Queen Mary deserves so much better. More importantly, the citizens of Long Beach and the State of California deserve much better. Unfortunately, we're not likely to get it.
This is not useful data as it is a well known fact that most people who respond to a voluntary survey are those against something. As well if the survey was not designed by a professional it probably has built in bias. It probably only went to BSRA members which further restricts its usefulness as a "representative" polling of community feeling. The number of responses is also quite low considering the population of the area. All in all nothing useful and should probably be ignored.
I could just weep! The money spent on that thing could bring so much badly needed to support to our city's libraries, which are facing a tragic budget shortfall and remain embarrassingly near the bottom of the nation in books and materials purchased!
Just exactly HOW is all that blah-blah-blah in the press release about the TV exposure going to keep our libraries open, buy books, fix potholes, strengthen our youth programs, pad our police and fire departments, keep our arts programs running, rebuild crumbling infrastructure and pay the exorbitant retirements of city employees?
We are a city where close to one-third of our children live in poverty, and we are spending large dollars on a parade float?!!
WHERE is our city's leadership and wisdom in this expenditure? WHY can't LB design and build its own floats? We have world-class artists living here, a university and community college with outstanding arts and engineering departments, and a citizenry, young and old, that turns out to volunteer at the merest whisper of a need.
I am just stunned that mere months after we were told that budgetary shortfalls were going to close our library's doors, this is thrown in our faces. Let 'em eat cake and smell the roses!
Did anyone at this book signing event ask Mr. Kennedy to explain why he jetted out here to California to encourage us to spend whatever it takes of our tax money to save the earth, while he uses his influence to oppose the Cape Cod Windfarm project in his own backyard?
Perhaps the term "NIMBY" applies here. Mr. Kennedy seems to support any and all projects to protect the environment unless there is the possibility that such a project might spoil his pristine view from the family compound.
My goodness, even Greenpeace supported that project!
Listen here to Mr. Kennedy explaining his position in opposition to the windfarm: click here
[Reply to our question asking whether the arrests/demonstrators' actions changed your opinion of what took place:]
Yes, as a matter of fact, it does.
It makes me more proud that I marched that 3 miles. It makes me wildly in love with those people who took it to the next step. It makes me happy to know that our community will not sit still for this debacle of our inalienable rights!
The women's movement, the African-American movement and the Vietnam era movements were much more violent and radical than this stand-off.
There is no reason to think less of this demonstration because a few people took it all the way. If I wasn't a single-mom, I probably would've joined them!
Honestly, how can you even call it a "protest" when we all walked peacefully down ONE side of the street for 3 miles? The majority of us performed like good little boys and girls, within the guidelines that the police would "agree" to....
Thank goodness there were those who knew a bigger noise had to be made.
Caitlin
*******************
Once again Long Beach proved its hypocrisy with an overwhelming show of police force at last night's [Nov. 7] march to protest the passage of Proposition 8.
Although the City Council and its public officials claim to be civil minded, it obviously proved otherwise last night, when police showed up in force with full riot gear to stop peaceful marchers from exercising their right to be heard and turning them back at Long Beach Boulevard.
The council claims they support our rights, but heaven help them if precious tourists see us at Pine and Ocean. With the city already in financial peril, I would like to know what this over-the-top show of force cost taxpayers.
A police helicopter overhead for hours, with hundreds of officers on duty to stop families of grandparents, sons, daughters and their children from peacefully getting to Pine Avenue and Ocean; the prescheduled end to the march.
SHAME ON YOU Chief Bates and every member of the City Council. You welcome us with open arms when Pride brings millions into the city but send out the police when we ask to be treated equally.
What a sad commentary on our City's continued failure to recognize its real resources and to continue with really shabby, uninteresting redevelopment...a disappointed Long Beach native and daughter of Long Beach folks.
P.S. I went to the closing sale at Acres of Books and shed a tear or two.
I own a home in Naples and am 35 years old so I would have to pay the parcel tax. I read your site every single day and think you do a wonderful service for the community. To that end you have certainly affected the parcel tax measure in a positive way.
The original proposal by Mayor Foster was not good. It allowed the Council to spend money on whatever they wanted in the general fund. Because of you and others the community now has a better proposal to consider.
Respectfully, I think you are now doing a dis-service to Long Beach regarding this measure. The parcel tax is not perfect but I believe the following to be true:
The money must be spent on infrastructure projects. A backfill scenario is possible but highly unlikely as it would result in significant backlash against the Mayor and council. Further the amount that could be backfilled is minimal.
The Council (particularly DeLong) has worked to streamline gov't spending this year and eliminate waste and return to core services. Is there still room for improvement? Absolutely. Stopping the investment in subsidized low income housing is a particular pet peeve of mine, but they are moving in the right direction.
Both the Mayor and DeLong have said they will work to renegotiate pensions for city employees. This seems to be a significant sticking point for Measure I opponents.
The $10 / month amount will escalate but when inflation is accounted for it is not material. $35 or whatever it will be in 30 years is still not much considering the potential return.
There is no guarantee that all the projects will be completed but even if half of them were completed we would be a much better city, quality of life would drasticlly improve, and property values would rise.
I understand your position. But given the need is so great, and this measure would solve many of the problems now, not in 10 years when detractors are satisfied with pension reform, etc., can't you take pride that you have improved this proposal and accept while no proposal will be perfect, this one warrants passing?
s/ 3rd district resident
Mr. Jensen responds:
Dear Anonymous 3rd District Resident:
While I am pleased that you are involved and care about our great city, I am troubled both by your reluctance to identify yourself and the faith you place on promises rather than guarantees. My comments follow yours.
To begin with you are correct that the parcel tax funds must be spent on infrastructure but I urge you to read section 3.85040 and you will learn that there is no "list," only broad general categories of what may be funded. It is entirely possible that the city could strip up to $33.6 million in current funding for items that easily fall within the guidelines of this section and spend the money on anything and yes, even low income housing. Not $2.1 million as the Mayor suggests.
And do you really believe they fear a backlash? They approve one broken budget after another for years and continue to get reelected. They only fear the unions, not the voters.
It is true that Council member DeLong is working hard to streamline government spending. But core service budgets have been gutted over the years and remain under funded. I have great respect for Gary but the fact remains we still have a broken budget and face a $50.3 Million deficit in the next budget cycles. In light of the fact that sales tax is declining, property tax is declining and oil revenue is declining where do you think they will get the funds to cover that deficit?
Don't tie opposition to Measure I with dissatisfaction with the city's pension problem. The lack of prudent and fiscally responsible management of our resources is not caused by one issue but many issues.
It is not the amount but the method. If we are certain of receiving good value most will gladly contribute but the City is proposing to borrow $637 Million that will cost us over $1.5 Billion when there are viable options that will provided over $650 Million to fix our problem without incurring debt.
Your last point is quite disturbing. If only half the projects are completed, well...what half, what projects? Are you sure of what you will get? Have you seen the detailed list that they won't share with anyone? Five Council members on any Tuesday can change the "list" and do what they please. Are you aware there are no reserves set aside to fix and replace what is on the "list" when they wear out?
Given the opportunity we can fix the plan and get it on the ballot next year so we can permanently fix our infrastructure and ensure our children and grandchildren are not faced with the same problem in future years.
Before debating or engaging services of consulting firms regarding the feasibility of relocating the Queen Mary temporarily or permanently for any reason whatsoever, I have a few words of experience to share with Jeff Klein and the administrative staff of Long Beach.
In 1996 and 1997, the Long Beach City Council addressed The Grand Tour, a plan to send the Queen Mary to Tokyo. Councilman Jerry Shultz presented research provided by the independent Queen Mary Foundation to the council in session. This report detailed the fates of the Caronia and SS America, two vessels lost under tow and in better structural condition than the Queen Mary.
In March 1997, the Society of Port Engineers of Los Angeles and Long beach signed a petition opposing the Queen Mary's relocation. Hundreds of others in Long Beach and around the world, including the Queen Mary's own architect Sir John Brown, former officers, crew and builders also signed the petition.
It's important to note that the Queen Mary is on the books as a "class A" floating building and probably can't be insured. On December 11, 1967, Long Beach City Manager, John Mansell declared the Queen Mary to be a building when she was taken off the shipping registers. The final authority on the subject was the Coast Guard. Rear Admiral Thomas Sargeant (Commandant of the 11th Coast Guard District) said, "Since there is no intent to navigate the Queen Mary, she really can't be classified as seagoing, and henceforth not a vessel".
The Queen Mary was known as a "tender" ship, that is, a vessel subject to roll. The 20,000 tons of propulsion machinery removed during conversion disabled power and steering capacities and significantly raised the center of gravity, contributing to the ship's instability.
15 of the 17 original watertight bulkheads (below the waterline) were removed or breached during conversion. Flooding would be impossible to control if the hull sustained significant damage under tow.
As the Queen Mary exists currently, the funnel hatches have all been decked over down to "R Deck". Structures added during the conversion in the late ‘60s are not designed to stand the torsion required of marine architecture. Under tow, the Queen Mary's original decks and bulkheads would tend to separate from structures added later.
An independent study, conducted by a naval and maritime systems engineer, substantiated findings detailed in the Rados Marine Survey. Evidence of overstress in the form of deck buckling caused from structural fatigue and deterioration continue to be ignored. This greatly increases the risk of major structural failure.
In 1997, Joe Prevratil declared that Long Beach would have a totally refurbished icon in return for sending the Queen Mary across the Pacific.. All it would take was $35- to $40-million and a year in the former Naval Shipyard. You don't need a consulting firm to tell you it's gone, along with the Morrell dry dock, probably the only one large enough to accommodate a vessel the size of the Queen Mary north of San Diego or south of Bremerton.
PVC, remaining asbestos and residual bunker C fuel throughout the vessel would create an eco-hazard if the ship foundered, not to mention blocking commerce in shipping lanes if she capsized in the harbor.
In terms of locating maritime consultants, it's going to take much more than "Googling"!
Contact the Merchant Marine Veterans of WWII in neighboring San Pedro. They completely restored the Lane Victory (mostly with volunteer labor and expertise). Maritime centers in San Diego and San Francisco have contacts as do engineering firms throughout the British Isles that contributed to the Queen Mary's construction in some capacity.
Rados Marine Survey reports, omissions from feasibility studies, miscommunications between the operator, Long Beach administrators and foreign interests were so critical and frequent, you'd think this recollection, a mere decade later, would disqualify such a project from consideration.
Diane Rush
Former chair Queen Mary Foundation
Rossmoor Preservation Committee
Ms Yarden's lengthy article did not address the central issue. Coyotes are in our neighborhoods. Coyotes are habituated to humans. Coyotes kill our pets and are a threat to our children.
The politically correct answer, "We are living in their territory" is not an answer at all. Coyotes are dangerous, wild animals who have lost their fear of humans.
They have stalked my wife and me as we walk our dog in our neighborhood. They travel in packs of two and three. They are in El Dorado Park where children camp every weekend.
We call "Animal Control" and they tell us not to go outdoors. I told them, "I am not the animal you are supposed to control."
Let's put the strategy on the ballot. Let our candidates declare if they are pro-human or pro-coyote. Let us vote! Los Alamitos has an interesting solution, control the animals. Interesting, what if our "Animal Control" did the same thing.
When a child gets attacked, I hope this city gets dealt a severe lesson in Civil Court. I would love to be on the jury.
JoeS
ELB
********************
I have never read such a complete and informative article as Miriam Yarden's. She covers the right of the coyotes to be here and makes a good point how the problems have been created by no one other then ourselves!
Shirley Vaughan
Long Beach
Responding to: "Without dissent, the LB School voted on July 21, 2008 (Ellis absent) to put a $1.2 billion debt bond on the November 2008 ballot. If 55% of District voters approve the measure, the additional property tax levy will be $60 per year per $100,000 of assessed valuation. The measure would fund new facilities and improvements and repairs to existing schools."
Thank goodness Karen Hilburn [letter below] received a mere 27% of the vote for the 4th District of the LBUSD board. She misunderstands the $1.2 billion school bond measure that the school board placed on this November's ballot.
First, the bond's main purpose is not to build additional schools. In the
past five years school enrollment is declining. Much of the bond is being
used to modernize the district's schools with new technology and other
maintenance required of aging schools -- the vast majority over 40 years old.
The new schools that will be built will be vocational schools or "entry
schools" -- an issue Ms. Hilburn articulated clearly during her failed
campaign last April. Additional schools will also be used for
overcrowding -- a chronic issue that still exists in LBUSD even with declining
enrollment.
The additional taxes LBUSD residents will be nominal to ensure modern and
upgraded schools. That additional property tax can always be used on a
taxpayer's deductions, along with mortgage interest.
Better to spend one's
taxes on the LBUSD than on the federal treasury with its Gargantuan debt and
misguided war in Iraq. And improved public schools always prove to increase
real property values.
The construction of new and upgraded schools will provide a $1.2 billion
stimulus in construction jobs and materials--right here in the LBUSD. This
amount excludes additional millions of dollars the district should receive
in matching state school bond money.
I wish Ms. Hilburn would have directed her comments to opposing the city's
misdirected and misleading $571 million infrastructure bond [property parcel tax]. That money for
streets, sidewalks, rain grates, updated libraries and fire stations should
be paid with pay-as-you-go financing like returning the 10% utility tax or
returning the state vehicle license fee -- which provided millions to repaving
LB city streets -- to its pre-1999 levels.
But I will leave that argument for another day.
I urge Long Beach residents to vote yes for the school bond and no against
the city bond [parcel tax]. Do not backlash on the misleading city bond by voting also
against the school bond.
The school bond needs a mere 55% to be approved; the city's threshold is 67% for passing but it would be an irreversible mistake for the school bond to receive less than 55%.
Douglas Frankenfeld
Los Cerritos neighborhood
[Mr. Frankenfeld, a former staff assistant to Assemblymembers Betty Karnette (D., LB) and Sally Havice (D., Artesia), is a former VP in the LB Democratic Club and in 2006 ran for a seat on the Water Replenishment District governing board. He teaches math in the Bellflower school district.]
Re the killing of cats, see LBReport.com's previously published data for owner redemption of cats in 2007:
As you can see, the vast majority of cats that are impounded either do not have owners or are never claimed by the owners.
This is a terribly sad state of affairs and cements the argument for mandatory licensing/microchipping of all pets.
Further, the public must be educated and take responsibility for their part in the vast numbers of animals that end up being euthanized.
Diana Lejins
Long Beach
I live in a very high-density area and many people just leave their cats behind when they move. Because no one wants them, they become feral.
TNR (Trap-neuter-release) is fine so long as residents in the area of release embrace the idea. However, because of the many problems that feral cats bring with them, they are often considered a nuisance and spread diseases. Who will be there to pick up their unsanitary poop?
Their presence is a danger to the environment. In nature, coyotes and other predators would keep a cat population at a reasonable level and the situation would be more balanced.
But, the well-meaning feral cat rescuers do the environment a terrible disservice by creating a grossly imbalanced state of affairs. These cats are placed in an unfriendly environment to fend for themselves against automobiles, starvation, diseases and people who consider them pests. This is cruelty and irresponsibility unto itself.
And, what about the many birds and other wildlife that feral cats and outdoor pets kill. Who is there to defend them?
Having a pet and being responsible for them can be a blessing. But, imposing them on neighbors is something else. Why should someone who chooses not to have a pet have to clean up after other peoples' animals? That includes the defecation, dug up flower beds/gardens, urine spray (marking), etc. that these animals leave behind.
The many diseases that they carry are a detriment to public health. Additionally, the caterwauling and noisy fighting in the middle of the night seriously spoils the public's peace and quiet.
If they are so concerned about these feral cats, then why don't they create a sanctuary away from residential neighborhoods and care for them there? Or, keep them in their own homes.
These cat fanatics may think they have a right to TNR, but their rights end where mine begin -- at my property line!
Mayor Bob Foster's bond measure should be a non-starter and rejected outright by voters. I have read he included everything in this bond even the kitchen sink.
What the city needs to do is take the tax revenue it receives now and go back to basics, infrastructure and not all this non essential BS they fund. The city needs to fund infrastructure, public safety like fire and police and leave all other programs to charities, church and families.
The city needs to get out of the housing business, day care business, art business and focus on the basics and once the basics are taken care of and money is left over then fund day care, the arts etc...
The Mayor needs to put forth a bond measure that addresses one item at a time like repair sidewalks then once he demonstrate to the voters they can fix the side walks then come back to the hog trough (the property owners) and put forth another bond issue for the streets or alleys but prove to us we can trust them, the city politicians.
Tom Martin
Community activist 1st district
Long Beach
Bells should go off every time a politician uses the term "Investment". It is usually nothing more than a verbal ploy to hide the ball. That certainly seems true in the Mayor's recent comments regarding what he feels is the need for "Investment" in infrastructure.
While I doubt there can be anyone who would disagree that we need to find money to put into long term infrastructure maintenance, this is not what the Mayor is actually hinting at. If you simply read his statements it's clear that his comments regarding a ballot measure to raise taxes will do nothing to improve the crumbling third world infrastructure of our city.
In August 2007, the Mayor said the city was living "paycheck to paycheck" and argued that some type of taxpayer "investment" in infrastructure was necessary. Then in January 2008, he said the budget was not structurally balanced and that he planned to ask taxpayers to approve some type of ballot measure in November 2008 to deal with infrastructure.
Read the preceding paragraph carefully and you will see that this ballot measure seems more about correcting the structural deficit than dealing with infrastructure. How can a tax increase specifically targeted to repair infrastructure possibly fix a structural deficit?
Only one way seems possible to me. You take the new tax money and spend it just as you promised you would - every single dollar raised is spent on various targeted projects of infrastructure maintenance. What you don't notice unless you really keep your eye on the ball is that a big pot of unrestricted General Fund money that would normally go to many, if not all, of these infrastructure projects in the budget is now freed up to pay for all those new pay raises for City employees. Voila! Structural deficit disappears!
Do we make any progress on moving towards at least a second world level of infrastructure? Only if the Mayor's plan does not include the raiding of infrastructure dollars to other General Fund uses. But it looks to me as if the City Manager is already laying the groundwork for the Mayor's bait and switch.
By floating proposals for cuts in sidewalk repair and the closing of the Main Library due to lack of money for needed roof repairs, City Manager Pat West has laid out the strategy to anyone paying attention. He names two project areas with very vocal constituencies that may be hit with major cuts unless we vote to raise our taxes, thereby increasing the odds the tax increase will pass.
Remember, we just committed to long term pay increases for City employees with no visible means of paying for them. If the plan works, the City will simply fill the void left in the infrastructure budget with the new tax money and use the money that created the void in the first place to further line the pockets of what our City's leaders see as their true constituency - City employees.
Unless the Mayor's planned ballot measure to raise our taxes includes iron clad guarantees that not one cent of General Fund money that would normally go to infrastructure is diverted to other uses, this idea should be declared dead on arrival. But then if he included such wording in the tax increase plan we would still have our structural deficit, wouldn't we?
The Board says they didn't fully understand the [LB Museum of Art's] financial problems. The [Museum] Foundation staff says they didn't know. City management says they didn't know. Nonsense, this was no surprise.
The Foundation surely knew or should have known, the foundation director and staff surely knew, the City Council surely knew and the city managers since 2000 surly knew the bond was due in 2009. They also knew the Foundation was as broke as the City.
Council, City staff, Foundation Board and staff abdicated their fiduciary responsibilities and hoped beyond hope that someone else would solve their sticky problem. It seems no one wanted to ask the tough questions or make the politically uncomfortable but necessary decisions that might has led to fiscally responsible management of the Foundation budget. It was denial at its finest.
Their last scheme was to get the Redevelopment Agency to approve garish blight inducing freeway signs so the promised revenue could retire the $3 Million debt. When that hare brained scheme failed it appears they punted and have decided to leave their fate in the hands of our brilliant council its broke general fund and taxpayers.
Unfortunately this is just another example of bad fiscal management of our cities resources. Most recently we learned the Housing fund was shorted, the Queen Mary was badly managed for years and the Aquarium needed the City to provide over $4 Million annually to service its debt. Business as usual.
What a truly sad state of affairs for such a remarkably beautiful facility. And it was absolutely avoidable.
Terry Jensen Long Beach, CA
Mr. Jensen is a former member of LB's Redevelopment Agency governing board.
The LBReport headline is yet another example where City Hall flim-flam and some Council self-deception get a free ride from well-meaning media.
Worthington's upgraded sign is a red herring, an irrelevant distraction.
The story text makes clear that Worthington already has acquired and is using the new sign, loan or no loan. So the new sign is an already done deal; its cost, already committed, is what economists
call a sunk cost.
City Hall and Worthington and some on the Council may all are make noises to the effect that the upgraded sign is a necessary and sufficient excuse for a loan. But it is neither a necessary excuse nor a sufficient one.
If the Worthington operation merits a loan, it's because they have and are executing an overall sound business plan, with or without one or another specific change or cost - let alone a sunk cost, be it for an upgraded sign or anything else.
I am writing in response to your report about the recent animal group meeting resulting in a bevy of recommendations.
The group consists of good-hearted animal lovers. They have many good ideas, most of which are already being seriously considered by John Keisler and LBAC.
Regarding the group's involvement in the search for a new head of Animal Control, it is FOLBA's opinion that the City is amply qualified to conduct this nationwide search.
Margo Carter, Treasurer
Friends of Long Beach Animals
Friends of LB Animals is a long-time LBReport.com advertiser
There are just too many facets to this story to address in a single letter. I will focus simply on how Congresswoman Richardson reacted to the news of her mortgage difficulties.
Rather than face the unpleasant music, she holes up somewhere, refuses to speak to reporters, and has her office issue a "clarification." When that doesn't work, she has the nerve to issue a clarification of the clarification.
In the latter she plays the victim card by saying that no one told her of what she describes as a "pre-emptive sale" of the property and repeats the statement concerning her father's untimely death.
Poor little Laura! Innocent unknowing victim and another example in the long line of predatory lenders taking advantage of fine upstanding folks.
How was she to know? After all, that vast business experience and high level of education she touts in her campaign mailers couldn't be expected to be a match for those scheming rascals at Washington Mutual. She was working with that mean ole bank and thought all was right in the world. Poor little Laura!
I think the truth is that Cong. Richardson has risen well above the level of her own incompetence and arrogance and now her true character is revealed. When confronted with a difficult problem she doesn't do the honorable thing and simply come clean. She panics and pulls a Richard Nixon on us.
Maybe it's time for her to further emulate Mr. Nixon and resign.
Of course, knowing how the current leadership in the House acts it's more likely that House Speaker Pelosi will see this as simply a teaching moment and place Cong. Richardson on the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity.
God Help Us!
Dick Ray
4th District
Parks & Rec Comm'n, City Mgm't Flout El Dorado Park Plan
On May 15, 2008, the Long Beach Parks and Recreation Commission voted unanimously to allow a cricket field to be built in Area II of El Dorado Park, just north of the archery range.
Although I, and some of the commissioners, had questions about the parking, spectator seating, gopher poisoning, loss of public use, permitting, and this being a violation of the park master plan, the commission overlooked all objections in order to receive $150 a game. (They were duly rewarded with their own cricket shirts after the vote.)
Just like the Sports Complex, the police station in Scherer Park, the Queensway Bay and SEADIP, the city is disregarding its own planning law by proceeding with this project. When I pointed out that the master plan for El Dorado Park East calls for passive sports with no active sports fields, Director Phil Hester's reply was that the Master Plan is over 25 years old and had other projects, such as an amphitheater, which have never been built.
I repeat my comment to the Commission: If the Master Plan needs updating, do so, but please quit ignoring the law.
I want to let the "Wrigley's Going Green" Volunteers Lisa Wibroe, Mauna Eichner and Lee Fukui know how much I appreciated their help. Talk is cheap, action is priceless!
We need to see more Wrigley residents at this event. Several WANA members have been site captains at other locations for many, many years -- Ken Gore, Edie Pearl, Timothy Risch. WANA Treasurer Nancy Risch is a Regional Coordinator responsible for four sites. Also helping out, were new Wrigley resident Victoria Reynafarje and former Wrigley resident Dan Flynn, my able co-captain at Willow Street.
In addition, to Mayor Foster, we had two other distinguished participants - a pair of California Sea Lions, who apparently have made the Willow Street Estuary their new home. Guess they were too shy for an interview...Does this make Wrigley Tidelands?
Thanks for putting into words the anger most citizens feel about the actions of the City Council in passing the two city employee contracts without any consideration on how to pay for them.
Our city government has gone way too far this time; their arrogance by snubbing their noses at those who pay the bills, and imply that we should just deal with it.
What I find disturbing about Mayor Foster's comments is that he apparently believes a five-year window gives City Hall enough leverage to see where financial obligations can be met. Well, what happens, if after those five years, revenues have continued to decline?
It is a realistic possibility. As noted on the press conference videotape, the Mayor has not been able to identify efficiencies, that will provide the needed revenue levels to balance the proposed salary increases of the new employee contracts. This being the case, where will the money come from?
There are three options: 1) Raise taxes & fees 2) Cut services 3) Layoff employees
Given that neither Mayor Foster, nor the City Council, have readily addressed these issues, it would be grossly irresponsible for them to support an employee salary increase, unless there is quantifiable data which supports the ability to make these payments without negatively impacting taxpayers and the services they should receive.
Great Job. Instead of tea we should be throwing the Council and City Employees Union into the Bay.
[name not provided]
An excellent piece of journalism on the disgraceful behavior by our City Council members and former Mayor O'Neill.
So, what kind of leadership has Mayor Foster provided on this matter? None, apparently. The results of Tuesday vote by my own Council member will tell me how to vote when re-election time rolls around.
The IPT [ed note: obviously a long-timer; the PT was once called the "Independent Press Telegram"] has descended to the level of a throw-away. If it weren't for the LBReport, we wouldn't know what was going on in Long Beach.
Larry Balint
Long Beach
235 years after the Boston Tea Party and they are still trying to get tax on tea and the citizens to foot the bill.
I'm surprised they'll continue to drink the tea even though it will be salty and poor tasting even for Councilmembers.
Once again it is time to ask where the money is coming from. I know they believe it grows on trees but some of us would like a refreshing break from this glass of Lipton.
Dan Pressburg
NLB
It's difficult to find words that express how incredibly irresponsible voting for city employee salary increases is at a time when tax revenues have rapidly declined.
Has Long Beach not paid attention to what is occurring in the city of Vallejo? Because of overinflated public employee salaries, the city will soon vote on whether to file for bankruptcy.
Does anyone know what that really means? INSOLVENCY! Your city is broke!
I have challenged Long Beach city officials, on numerous occassions, to reveal the current state of Long Beach's municipal finances. I've been met with a zero response.
Many cities in California have revealed they're in dire financial straits. However, other than Mayor Foster's revelation that Long Beach was "living paycheck to paycheck", there has been no information as to the condition of the city's finances.
Is there a point to all the secrecy? Why not be honest with the residents and taxpayers of Long Beach? If there are severe revenue/expense issues, now is not the time for salary increases.
I'm so tired of reading letters from people complaining about City of Long
Beach employees. I am not only a City employee (8 years); I'm also a Long
Beach taxpayer.
Yes, our pension plan is very good (employee pays 2%, City pays 6%). Our
medical benefits are great too, (employees pay about 20%).
What most
citizens don't know is that we pay for things that private industry
employees don't. If we want coffee, we get together, pool our money and buy
a coffee pot and supplies. This goes for refrigerators, microwaves,
toasters, etc.
We don't get free turkeys at Thanksgiving. There are no
holiday lunches or cash bonuses. Many citizens bring us gifts. We cannot
accept them.
Without a college degree there is not much chance for advancement. Private
industry takes into account your years of experience. The City does not.
After a few years, most employees have gotten to the top of their pay scale
and without a Union negotiated raise, stay there. There are no cost of
living raises.
If a City employee becomes ill and must be off work for an extended amount
of time, there is no State Disability. If an employee has paid for
disability insurance through the Union or long term care through the City,
they will be covered. If not, they depend solely upon the generosity of
other employees through the Catastrophic Leave program, in which employees
donate some of their vacation time.
Yes, we can retire at 55, but very few employees do. They can't afford to
unless they have worked for the City for 25 years or more. When an employee
does retire, they lose their health insurance. They can use any sick time
accrued to pay the premium, which covers it for a year or two (this is great
if you've been lucky enough not to get sick for several years). Once they
have run out of accrued sick leave they pay somewhere around $900 a month
for coverage or purchase insurance through a private insurer.
Most departments are short-staffed due to budget cuts. Where at one time
there may have been three people doing three separate jobs, there is now one
doing all three. That's OK. Most of us are ready, willing and able!
I work for the City because I enjoy working with the public and find it
extremely gratifying when someone thanks me for a job well done. To all of
the citizens of Long Beach, thank you for allowing me to serve you!
Kathy Olszewski Marino
Long Beach
******************
Great guest opinion. I totally agree with everything said by Kathy Ryan.
Margo Carter
Long Beach, CA
******************
Although I seem to be a minority on this issue, I am
definitely in favor of the "pension spike" for
employees who are not sworn police officers and
firefighters.
The civilian employees represent a huge
portion of the City's workforce and for many years
have labored for the citizens while receiving a salary
that is 28% below comparable jobs in neighboring
cities. They continue to work for Long Beach because
they are dedicated to this City and its residents.
I certainly do believe that the elected officials have a
history of making very bad decisions, but this is not
one of them.
How much money has been paid out this year alone as a result of poor fiscal management?
Have you forgotten the popular "Snow Day" at the park?
That wasn't free. Or perhaps the "Lobstergate"
scandal which cost the City over 4 million dollars.
How about a fleet of helicopters that the Police
Department doesn't fly anymore?
I wonder how much money the City pays to remove trash from the beaches
that originates in other cities along the LA River?
Why doesn't the Port of Long Beach contribute more to
the general fund?
I am positive that if someone were
to take a closer look at the City's management of its
funds, they would discover a troubling pattern with
its expenditures, but paying its employees what they
rightfully deserve is not one of them.
I've spoken previously about the expansion of Lazaro Cardenas, the Mexican Port expected to grow to 2.3 million TEUs with rail lines providing easy access into mid-America including Houston, Kansas City & Chicago. I've said that it's becoming a significant west coast entry point.
However, I honestly didn't expect a one day walk out May 1 by the ILWU. No wonder big shippers are seeking a direct link through a Mexican port that doesn't have work stoppages!
Lazaro Cardenas is growing to where it could take in approximately 20% of what enters the LB/L.A. port complex.
Imagine what this could do to the region...and yes, you heard this from me first last month.
Dan Pressburg
North Long Beach
Responding to: LB city management memo reported by Press-Telegram comparing City of LB sums paid to area publications
The published numbers of actual dollars spent on legal notices and city events are very telling. I have my theories - but I'll leave some of that speculation for my own weekly column.
The city shouldn't be looking to take away legals and event notices in order to punish or try to change the happenings of the city's daily paper - instead it should look at being fair to the readers and to use other publications and webnews to reach the local masses.
Most less than daily pubs and webnews pricing is a bargain - our publications are free and give a more level playing and viewing field for those who can't afford to purchase their news. And our rates are ridiculously low.
I find it appalling that we are all good enough to receive press-releases to print - but there's no budget to place paid advertising.
The free ride may soon be over - I think the city powers are getting the message - thanks to Tonia [Councilwoman Reyes Uranga].
Neena Strichart, publisher
Signal Tribune
[LBReport.com and the Signal Tribune, separately published, have cooperated on news stories, photos and in some cases ads.]
Closely examined, your striking presumably recent photos of LB beach debris suggest that at times the bulk of debris can owe to a single source - poles of the bamboo-like species Arundo Donax. Arundo and some other invasive non-native plant species have been allowed to multiply along the river banks, despite long-standing plans to eradicate non-native plants and concrete as part of restoration of the LA River habitat.
As FoLAR (Friends of the Los Angeles River) has long noted, the real stakes go far beyond just removing the negatives of beach debris. They encompass enormous positive benefits to all of a restored natural habitat along the LA River.
You have covered in depth the controversial Pike Development. Mr. Don May, who is the lone runner for the California Earth Corp, cited that it is the wishes of the residents of Long Beach to remove Borders, Gameworks and the Theatre. I think he might be mistaken.
I am the resident of downtown Long Beach and I am all for keeping the Pike Development, the Borders and the Theatre. In forum.skyscraper.com on Long Beach construction, many of us have expressed dismay and disbelief that these establishments will be torn down. Everyone that I had spoke in Long Beach have expressed outrage that some one is trying to take away our neighborhood facilities.
For fair reporting, instead of just talking to the famous activists/environmentalists, it does not hurt to do some grass root survey among the real residents of Downtown Long Beach. Unlike Mr. May who has moved from Long Beach to Hawaii, there are many of us that are still here and we like keeping the Borders and the Theatre.
Like Mr. May, we will demonstrate our desire by starting a petition as well as filing compliants against any removal of existing establishment from the Pike.
I would like to clarify the record regarding the development, design and construction of Cesar E. Chavez Park.
Many community meetings and charrettes were held. As a result of the community's requests and input, the park includes a craftsman-style community center with a large community room, a playground, a picnic area, an exercise and weight room, California native plants, pathways with art, a maze, a fountain and artwork by local artists in and surrounding the park.
I am hopeful there will continue to be extensive engagement of the community in the expansion of the park.
State Senator Jenny Oropeza
Sacramento, CA
Senator Oropeza was LB's 1st district Councilmember from 1994 until her election to the State Assembly in 2000.
The Homeless Healthcare Center proposed brings into sharp focus how and why we as a city need to pay close attention to how our elected officials act.
In order to understand these issues with clarity, one only needs to log on to the city web site and review two public meetings: last year's budget meeting and the Dec 18, 2007 meeting where the current Police Station/Mental Health Center plan was adopted.
At the budget meeting, in the final hours council members were hashing out finding funds for lamp lights and arguing over snow days at the park vs after school care. With great restraint and desire to see the beast put to bed, the Mayor carefully prompted members to conclude the session.
In the end the BUDGET was exhausted and as it has been for the last few years upside down, prompting him to state that the city is living "paycheck to paycheck"...yet we have managed to find funds to hand out healthy raises to city staff.
With the Dec 18, 07 Council meeting, during the open public three minute comment time, only a few were aware of the potential impact of the proposed homeless center. As often espoused by the Mayor, he doesn't want a line of twenty people saying the same thing, so he frequently admonishes speakers to limit there comments. In effect at that point, the city council did not want to hear from the impacted neighborhood; they felt the public sessions and the hand picked citizen review panel was enough to garner public input.
One thing that is abundantly clear at this point: we simply have a budget that is only sufficient to provide for the most basic of services in Long Beach.
This brings us ask a serious question: in the best case outcome, the city can gain use of the land at the Army Reserve site, BUT were will it find the roughly $20 million dollars to build a copy of the North Long Beach Police Station?
Councilwoman Gerri Schipske's response to this simple question has been that this is a "sideshow argument" as noted on her blog.
Now many of us do not live in the proposed impacted area, but it is from our collective wallets that the city will possibly try and extract funds for this station...and due to this all the people of Long Beach should be involved, as a $20 million project should never be considered a "sideshow."
Considering that the 5th district in Long Beach has the lowest crime rate in the city, many will find in these tough economic times building such a station is beyond reasonable or prudent.
So how is it that Gerrie and the other seven council members who voted in support of this plan fail to grasp the financial impact on citizens of Long Beach? Well, we have been letting them act this way for some time and our current budget is what we have to show for it. It is simply time to get the cart behind the horse and get this mindset out of the council.
THIS CITY IS ON A BEANS AND WEENIE DIET, BUT THE COUNCIL ORDERS PRIME RIB!
Each and every one of the seven council members who voted for this plan to move forward without first identifying a source of funds for the project is responsible for the mess we are now in with regards to a budget for the city.
It is in effect the way we do business as a city and why we have an out of control budget.
Prudence and sound government requires that you have your budget in some sense of order before committing to projects that you fund with future money that you may or may not have. This is a recipe for tax increases, or placing future generations in debt.
Before we reach that point, it will be interesting to see how the council expects to find funds to expand the airport. This pattern has been often repeated in this city, resorting to the old cup and ball carnival game with redevelopment funds, as was done with the north police station.
With regards to the Homeless Healthcare Center proposed by the city. It was put together to not specifically address a balance of the needs of the homeless vs the community it would potentially serve. Its function was to simply first to QUALIFY and JUSTIFY the acquisition of no cost land to the city for building a police station on.
No one disputes the need to address the complex problem of the homeless and mentally ill. But doing so in a way that addresses with care, respect and understanding of the community is all that the impacted people ever wanted.
The simple fact that Councilperson Schipske and the crew seek to now push this project forward has simply left a sense of distrust in the minds of the many. The fact that City Hall's lack of ability to address the homeless / mentally ill on own doorstep downtown brings fear to many who have worked hard to build a quality life for their family in the proposed impacted area.
Given the potential consequence on the community of a homeless healthcare center and the overall effect of building a police station that stands to have a direct cost concern to all the people of this city, it is time to reexamine this complete project, time for the Council to exhibit filial duty, time to talk realistically with regards to the budget and needs of the police department. Time to do it right from the start.
How sad that injustice and environmental damage always seem to have to be settled in a court of law.
A number of years ago, environmental activist, Diana Mann, led the fight against the Diesel Death Zone caused by the Port. A number of us dressed in black and held a memorial for all of the people who have died because of port caused pollution. We were joined by concerned citizens from San Pedro in our caravan across the Vincent Thomas Bridge to the Port of L.A. This group is still advocating for clean air, water and soil in the ports.
Just a couple of weeks ago, Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske attempted to open dialogue at the Council on this issue. I still do not understand why the majority of you refused to even discuss this item or to send it to committee.
I hope the NRDC will wake up the decision makers at the Port and in our city to finally take action on this treat to everyone's health.
Remember, each of you breathes this pollution every time you are in City Hall. And if your patio furniture is covered with black guck, think of what your and your childrens' lungs look like.
Please do not waste taxpayers money fighting a lawsuit; clean up the Port now!
If Long Beach is seeking a Dangerous Dogs ordinance then they should be even handed about it.
Yes, I can see the list already, arbitrarily designed to include any current big dog.
Every age has had its aggressive dogs. German Shepherds and Dobermans were routinely used by the Nazis and the stigma held on for decades despite Rin Tin Tin. Rottweilers and Pit Bulls are now the prime targets. Of course, people do not realize it is not the dog, it is the owner who trains the dog that makes an animal vicious.
If Long Beach creates an ordinance, I would propose dropping provision 3
(3) No injury to people or animals required for action. Inclusion of a classification for dogs that have not yet attacked or killed people or animals, but have shown a propensity towards aggressive/vicious behavior. (e.g., a "potentially dangerous" or "aggressive" classification.
Who creates that arbitrary list? And it is arbitrary. I would insist that they must check with hospitals, the postal service, and LA Animal Services to determine truly which dogs are the most prone to biting and attacks, and which dogs are most found running loose.
Yes, as a person who works with rescue organizations and shelters, I can tell you that the Long Beach list of Dangerous Dogs would be prioritized by Chihuahuas, small terriers and a variety of little dogs that attack much more and are found stray much more than the occasional big dog that gets in the news.
Even empirical evidence would show that in my neighborhood, the vast majority of stray dogs running loose are Chihuahuas or very small dogs. This is because the problem is not the dogs, but people who assume on the behavior of their dogs.
The provisions in the proposed bill are good in terms of how they address miscreant owners. However, branding a breed of dog as vicious will lead to no one being able to own a dog or cat in the city as additional breeds are demanded to be added to the roles.
Take out provision 3 and make the bill safer for the pets in this city.
Thank you for your tribute to this wonderful person. Fred was a beautiful part of the solution, as he in many cases eliminated the need for a final one.
I join hundreds of people who imagine him at the Rainbow Bridge, being welcomed with yapping, purring, and licking.
As much as I respect the views and historical perspective of Mr. Morris and Mr. Larkey, they simply fail to understand that it has been some 67+ years from the start of WW2 that marked the end of Long Beach waterfront being viewed as a " recreation spot."
From this point on city councils, the state and federal government have sought to develop the Long Beach side of the bay first explored by Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo on Oct 6 1542 , as a money making venture, as is the port of Wilmington (LA).
Last week's showdown in the Council chambers was simply intended to make it real clear to the current Council, who brings funds into the city and who is in charge - Big Business !
Anyone who has attended the " Lets Talk Port " series and listened with care can see that this effort serves one single task: To paint a happy image of what the "Port does for the City ".
The business concerns that extract billions from the port are fearful if one can link a clean up of the LA River / beaches / bay in general to the use of this area, the public will be just a few steps away from linking the pollution to a "direct container count" coming into the port with a pollution index.
This would logically result in a NO MORE GROWTH without AN EQUAL and DIRECT DECREASE IN ACTUAL POLLUTION. And like the AQMD whose goal is to return the L.A. basin to its pre-1840 air quality - Where will it end?
Simply put it would take ALL the profit for a few generations to clean up the port, and big business is simply not going to allow such a movement / concept to move forward.
So as much as it is nice to hear the passion and historical references made to turning back the clock and returning Long Beach back to what is was, so long ago... It is not the reality of these matters today. The real kick in the face to all of this is: Who " feeds " the ports?
THE PUBLIC . When it walks into Target / Wall-Mart and scoops up this week's latest plastic throw away gizmo!
Frank Acevedo
Long Beach
**********************
Diverting the effluence of the L.A. River away from our coastline and beaches (as both Mr. Morris and Mayor Foster seem to be advocating) would certainly help deflect all of the solid waste that flows at us from other cities north of us along the river. This idea is a very bold and ambitious one. But that's ok, as Gracian once opined: "He who finds Fortune on his side should go briskly ahead, for she is wont to favor the bold". It will also be costly and since the Port of Long Beach is both the reason for the current location of the river's mouth and would also have a huge stake in the success of such a project, the Port should likewise shoulder a considerable portion of the cost.
But this idea, while commendable, will only divert the river-born trash a little to the west. It will not eliminate or even reduce it, merely displace it temporarily. Unless this trash is collected in an effective manner, post-diversion, it will still find it's way to our marinas and beaches, it'll just take a little longer to get there. Also, while it's making it's way through and around the port, some of the larger debris could, and almost certainly would, represent serious navigation hazards to shipping.
I have been toying with an idea for some years now that I think would complement Mr. Morris' idea very well. It happens in 2 phases:
Phase 1: Let's make it physically impossible for solid waste to enter the river from street-level storm drains in the first place. Let's install 1" steel grating over every street-level storm drain in the city. Weekly mechanized street sweeping already in existence could keep these grates clear. Just like that nothing larger than 1 sq. inch gets into the river from those sources. If these grates could be installed we would see an *immediate* reduction in the amount of solid waste in the river, in our marinas, along our beaches and in our ocean that is contributed from these sources within Long Beach.
Long Beach should demonstrate the environmental leadership it has become known for and install these grates voluntarily, as a pilot program. Federal and State Environmental Protection Grants and Port funds could help to defer the cost. With Long Beach's demonstrated success, most of the other river cities would most likely voluntarily follow suit. The county could be asked to require the installations of any cities that refused. Imagine how much cleaner our river, our marinas, our beaches and our ocean could become if *nothing* larger than 1 sq. inch could enter the river from street-level storm drains! That's Phase 1.
Phase 2 involves installing removable "bins" constructed of heavy-gauge metal mesh screen material inside the storm drain catch basins to filter out the solid matter smaller than 1 sq. inch. Anyone who has spent any time helping to clean up our beaches, as my family routinely does, can attest to how common cigarette butts, plastic drinking straws and small bits of styrofoam are. These removable bins would serve to filter out these smaller items. These bins would require more time and effort to empty, say once per month or so, but the labor would be of the unskilled and manual sort. This work could be the stuff of summer jobs for high school kids, or public assistance work for the able-bodied unemployed or, perhaps as a last resort, supervised labor for minor offenders sentenced by the Courts to perform community service (picture the inmate work crews currently picking up trash along our freeways). That's Phase 2.
Combine these two phases together and the end result is *virtually zero* solid waste entering the river from street-level storm drains. Combine this initiative with increased environmental education and increased enforcement and fines for polluters, then apply the whole initiative to every city along the river, then partner that with the river diversion project that Mr. Morris advocates and I believe we could arrive at a comprehensive solution that would not only prevent the entry of solid waste into street-level storm drains and, thus, the river but divert whatever did find it's way into the river from other sources away from our marinas and beaches.
No single approach will solve this huge environmental challenge. But a combined approach of: Physical prevention, River diversion, Increased education and Increased enforcement and fines could very well do the trick.
Bold? Yes. Doable? Certainly! Simple? Definitely!
And if it works along the L.A. River, why not along the San Gabriel as well?
So how about it Long Beach? How about we stop the talking and start the doing? How about we stop asking "why?" and start asking "why not?".
How about demonstrating some of that leadership we have become known for throughout the world? Who knows, the "Long Beach Model" for mitigating solid waste river-borne pollution could eventually become the standard for the state, the nation and the world.
The sister died with (and indirectly from) chronic lung disease. Mr Andrews asks us to join in offering post-mortem aid.
On Tues night [Jan. 22] he had the opportunity to vote to discuss how to improve the short- and long-range physical and fiscal health of all of us who are still alive in this city. He voted nay.
[The above article quoted a neighborhood resident as saying:] "The Residents of Park Avenue have been diligently lobbying the City of Long Beach to "calm" traffic on our street since July of 2004 and we have made progress but when you witness this type of horrendous accident in very close proximity to your home, it raises serious concerns about the transportation element of the City..."
Putting this matter into its historical context, it was many of these same residents whose political pressure stopped the "Crosstown freeway," a project whose purpose was to connect the 22 freeway with the Los Angeles Harbor freeway. Failing to develop the Crosstown Freeway resulted in 7th Street being turned into the congested and dangerous street it is today.
Ronald [last name withheld at his request]
Long Beach
Mayor Bob Foster needs to hear that he will not get any support for his proposed debt to finance infrastructure until he can convince people like me that the money the City has is being well spent.
Example:
Why does a simple project like the rebuilding of Lakewood Blvd. from Willow to the Traffic Circle sit on the drawing boards for 5 full budget years while all the time being fully funded. (See Adopted CIP for years 2004-2008)
Our Public Works folks can't spend the money they have now. To expect that they will suddenly be able to ramp up their operations if we give them additional 10's of millions of dollars each year in debt financed money is the very definition of insanity - repeating the same actions over and over with the expectation of a different outcome.
Infrastructure is second only to public safety on most people's list of municipal government priorities. It seems that our current as well as past Councils have put it well down the list. Somewhere between HIV awareness and low income housing - and please don't argue that these are examples of public safety and infrastructure. They are examples of a few people with power pushing their personal beliefs of the role of municipal government on the citizens of Long Beach.
I doubt that the Mayor can ever convince me that going into debt to pay for something that the taxpayers have already paid for but had the funds diverted to finance such things as snow days, that bottomless pit of a fish tank [the Aquarium], the Convention Center, the Queen Mary, indecent benefits to city employees and the unfunded obligation to pay for them that amounts to millions more, and so many more feel-good follies.
One other thing to beware of in such a bond measure is the inevitable temptation of elected officials to believe that with bond money being used to fund infrastructure they are free to use the money they would have grudgingly spent on it to fund other priorities they have.
It's likely we would end up with no net improvement in the state of our infrastructure but we would all get a few more snow days and schools of guppies in the fish tank - along with increased taxes for the next 30 years.
Dick Ray
4th District
Responding to: LBReport.com adds new feature -- neighborhood crime blotter -- on our front page (www.lbreport.com).
The people of Long Beach appreciate your putting in place a "Neighborhood crime blotter."
Perhaps because of political correctness, perhaps because reporting about the weather is cheaper than reporting news, the other southern California "news" sources provide skimpy, distorted, or no news at all about crime. (after all, as they claim, crime is always "down" no matter how absurd such claims are, unless the politicians want to increase taxes, then, crime is "out of control")
The result is that the people of Long Beach must rely on word of mouth, rumor, or, unfortunately, their own sad experience of crime. Thank you for reporting about criminal activity in Long Beach so that we who live here can be aware of the danger, and to enable us to take measures to minimize our chances of being its victims.
Ronald [no last name given]
Long Beach
Responding to: LBReport.com front page dispatch: "LBReport.com has learned that at its Thursday night meeting, the governing board of Downtown LB Associates approved a motion (by John Morris) that [paraphrase] seeks the assistance of
Vice Mayor/MTA Boardmember Bonnie Lowenthal in having LBPD officers replace L.A. Sheriffs for security/policing aboard MTA Blue Line trains within LB's city limits (from LB's northern boundary into downtown LB). Developing."
# 1 (No disrespect intended) At what point do restauranteurs and
business people direct making police "policy"? Because you can turn .95 cents worth of rice, crab and vegetables into sushi with minimum wage helpers & charge $8 - $15 serving it on a fancy plate, giveth you not the wisdom to suggest police policy.
#2 When did Bonnie Slip n' Fall become police chief?
# 3 Given the out of money, no more police officers status of the
department any help it can get by using the county sheriff means that
several extra police (LBPD) are available for foot duty around the
stations.
# 4 Go 4 blocks up on Pine and its restaurant row, lights, people,
music and cheer ! Go another 5 - 8 blocks and its low income,
rentals, dark, apartments ... some of the most crime infested parts
of Long Beach. To shift policing policy inferring that crime comes to
LB via the blue line, is to not understand the totality of the
situation.
# 5 The promises made 30 + years ago for a vibrant downtown district
will NEVER be fulfilled, as long as one must cross a zone of
apartments, condos, and run down low income housing to get to it.
The only way to change this is by allowing a LNG plant to blow up
taking out 200+ city blocks, then asking the federal goverment to
assist in rebuilding it.
It is a Christmas Tree, you can say other wise, analyze it for a 1000 years, test it's DNA, RNA whatever, it is a Christmas Tree.
Phil Dostalek
Long Beach
***************
My vote is for the tree to be called a Christmas Tree.
Luther W. Williams
Long Beach
[Mr. Williams, conveying his personal opinion, is President of the Los Angeles Inter-Alumni Council
***************
It's a Christmas Tree. Holidays are July 4th, Memorial Day, Labor Day etc. We do not have tree's for these days. If by chance anyone is offended by a Christmas tree, to bad. There is no right to "Not be offended"
G.C.
Long Beach
***************
The Christmas tree represents a specific holiday, Christmas! It's a beautiful tradition that everyone should respect.
Judy
Long Beach
***************
We live in an environment that caters to the politically correct "PC"
crowd that is afraid to offend anyone. The PC will go out of their way
to make sure that no one is offended rather than speak out and admit that
certain events, meetings, holidays, etc...are intended for a particular
group of people.
Calling it a Christmas tree is not offensive to those
who celebrate the true meaning of the holiday, just like Hanukkah and
Kwanzaa don't offend those who celebrate Christmas.
Are people so repressed by this holiday that they suffer from agoraphobia and cringe
with the mention of Christmas? What about Hanukkah or Kwanzaa? What is
next, the Salvation Army is no longer allowed to ring their bells and
collect money at Christmas because the word "salvation" is in the title?
If the PC truly wants acceptance by all, then allow this generation to
experience Christmas by keeping the word Christmas in it and stop calling
it just "Holiday". Otherwise, give the white out (or is it now
"correction fluid" as to not offend the Caucasian) to those who disagree
with anything politically incorrect and they can get to work on rewriting
history.
While they're at it, maybe a little shock therapy could remove
such horrible memories of "Christmas" from their minds. Relax!!!
P.S. I just remembered, I need to send a strongly worded letter to the
radio station that keeps playing Christmas music to edit out the mention
of Christmas in any songs they play during this "Holiday" season...
(I hope you understand that I am being sarcastic.)
Arden Ensminger
***************
If we are to recognize the Menorah and the Kwanzaa displays, then why would we not recognize the Christmas Tree? Perhaps we should call the Menorah a "holiday candle holder" and Kwanzaa, merely a "celebration".
Helga Gergens
Long Beach
***************
"Christmas Tree" - definitely
[name not provided]
***************
I think the "Holiday Tree" designation by Long Beach is a huge step forward in acknowledging that many people, other than Christians, find spiritual benefit from this December season. I say December, because the capitalist-Christmas Holiday has now been extended to include all of November, and some of late October!
We must remember that the evergreens of modern Christmas actually date back to the Roman Holiday of Saturnalia, when Romans ate and drank merrily, partied, lit lamps everywhere, and placed evergreen boughs in homes and in the streets to honor the period of time in which the sun began its return to earth. And the Christian seized upon this immensely popular holiday as their own, moving the birth of Jesus many say occurred in summer, up to December.
Actually, this particular "Christmas" season has nothing to do with the Menorah, although in some years it is overlapped by the Jewish "Hannukah." And "Kwanzaa," while a new holiday invented recently by a professor at CSULB, was designed to take off the end of "Christmas," through the start of the new year, combining Christian and Jewish elements in its rituals.
People need spiritual breaks from the "practicality" of civilization, and holidays, especially the more traditional ones, are excellent examples of those periods. Whether you use a capital H or small h to begin the term "holiday," the former term is the more traditional one. But not one which should rule out the beliefs of other people during a particular season.
The problem revolves around the evolution of religion in America, and the fact that most of our traditional Holidays are Christian Holidays; periods of time during which a specific religion is fostered. As we become a more culturally diverse nation, we will have to rethink, as many are already, why and when we hold our "holidays," and how civil government can honor or promote them equitably with other "holidays."
Long Beach has obviously made a good start. Let's enjoy all of it.
Darwin Thorpe
Long Beach
[Mr. Thorpe is a former elected member of LB's Community College Board of Trustees]
***************
The only reason we have trees is because of the Christmas tradition. The holiday is called Christmas and the tree is a Christmas tree.
This is very important to Christians. Political correctness is nothing more than an attempt at thought control by the nanny state...
[name withheld]
***************
The arguments for referring to the annually decorated evergreen tree currently on display at Shoreline and Pine as a "Holiday" tree and numerous and diverse. I'll list each that I'm aware of, refute them and then offer an overall solution.
Argument #1: "Employing the term "Christmas" in an official speech during an official public event or using that term to refer to a holiday display on public lands would be a violation of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution".
Rebuttal: The exclusionary clause of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”) rightly limits Congress as specified and not State or local governments. That said, even the 1st Amendment does not seem to prevent Congress itself from referring to its own annually decorated evergreen tree as “The Capitol Christmas Tree” (http://www.capitolchristmastree2007.org/). The U.S. Congress, unlike some of our local officials, seems to understand that referring to an annually decorated evergreen tree by its proper name is not a violation of the 1st Amendment.
Argument #2: “Referring to this tree as a “Christmas tree” would serve to alienate non-Christians in our community”.
Rebuttal: Calling a Christmas tree a Christmas tree will no more alienate non-Christians than will referring to the Menorah by its proper name alienate non-Jews or referring to the Kwanzaa display as such alienate non-African Americans. To refer to a Christmas tree by any other, supposedly more politically correct, name does, however, tend to alienate Christians. One wonders why some of our local officials are trying so hard to avoid alienating every other faith except that of Christianity.
Argument #3: “Case law prohibits religious displays on public property”.
Rebuttal: Case law throughout the country has found both for and against religious displays on public property in many such cases and based upon the specific circumstances of each case. For every such case instructing against doing so, another case can be found instructing in support of doing so.
In our case, of course, this argument is erroneous because other, equally religious, symbols are also present as a part of this same display. Thus the entire display is clearly a religious one. If the intent is truly to avoid religious displays on the public property at Pine and Shoreline, then none of the items currently present should be there.
Recommended Solution: Refer to the annually decorated evergreen tree at Shoreline and Pine as a Christmas tree. If it's acceptable for Congress (to which the 1st Amendment does apply) to do so then it should certainly be acceptable for officials at the local level as well.
Otherwise, should this reference not be changed by our local officials in their various speeches and the tree in question remains referred to as a “Holiday tree”, then those of us who are alienated by this reference should take comfort in the fact that the term “holiday” has its origins in the old English phrase “Holy Day” and that this phrase, in turn, was, indeed, a reference to Christmas.
Whatever we call the symbol of the annually decorated evergreen tree during this time of year, the true meaning of the season and of the day remains the same: that day when people all over the world commemorate the birth of Christ. That truth can never be changed, all of the well-intended local officials notwithstanding.
John B. Greet
Long Beach
***************
I can't wait to see what happens to all these so called Holiday fans! Bah hum bug fans….IT'S CHRISTMAS…get over it!
I believe in everyone's rights to believe in what you like, but don't take away my beliefs in what we have all called a Christmas Tree. What is politically correct? Please, what are we celebrating? Yes we are celebrating the birth of Christ Is that so bad??? Yes most people know the Christmas tree had nothing to do with what we call Christmas….but it's been around for a few generations, so deal with it! Yes I have Christmas lights up at my house and yes we send out Christmas cards and take CHRISTMAS day off from work. Come on, is it so bad to call this a Christmas Tree???
I respect everyone's beliefs and honor their right to do what so many have died to protect. So, for my brothers and sister who are Jewish, Muslim, Hindi, and all the Faiths of this world, our Black, White, Brown, Yellow, Red and all the other colors of our brothers and sisters in this great diverse City we call Long Beach….give us back the dignity of calling it what it is, A Christmas Tree.
Yes I do believe in the Spirit of Christmas and look inside yourself, it's there…ya just have to look.
Merry Christmas everyone!
Bruce DD Mac Rae
Long Beach native son!
***************
The Long Beach Grinch Wants Another Season To Steal and Re-Name
Many people wonder just what a Holiday Tree is? Is it a vegetable? Is it a fruit? It is like so many other items of political correctness that starts in reality but loses its savor and its name when the definition changes. If this were to happen in any other season except the "Christmas" season and we all know the reason for the season, however Long Beach is not one to be left in the dark when addressing we we are supposed to know.
The population one could guess would be saying it was some such other nonsense that the American people forced upon the indigionous people of the land.
Whether you like it or not the season brings forth Peace of Earth and Good Will towards Men. It is Biblical and based on the birth of a child in a manger.
Please however, remove the name and label it anything but Christmas. When a Menorah is lit we do not call it a "Holiday Candlestick". When Islam prays during Rhamadon we do not call it the "Holiday Prayer"? Nor do we give any other such politically correct label to any other religious holiday.
The city of Long Beach is like the Grinch stealing what little humanity is left in the Christmas Season. They like Lowes, Target and many other get the picture that if we remove the name of Christmas from the holiday they may not affend anyone except the large majority of poplation that celebrates the Christmas Season with the word Christmas Tree.
The shame is there is not enough of us left to say that Christmas should be represented with its title as with the story of Martin Luther or any other representation rather than having it stolen by that nasty Grinch, Long Beach. Where are the ethics and honesty in that?
Ibencruzin
Long Beach
***************
I am very proud to live in a Jewish household. The downtown politicians really need to get a grip and stop pandering to the December holiday political correctness crowd.
What are they going to do next? Will they order WANA to rename “Christmas Tree Lane” to “Holiday Tree Lane?”
All this PC crap is really making me look forward to Purim, if you know what I mean.
Merry Christmas and Happy Chanukah to all!
[Name not provided]
Long Beach
***************
It's a Christmas tree.
Joan Allen Walsh [no city listed]
***************
I believe the "Holiday Tree" should be called a "Christmas Tree," as that's what it really is. We shouldn't break the wonderful tradition.
Kirt Ramirez
Long Beach
***************
I think it ought to be called the "It doesn't matter what we call it because the Pagans used a tree as a holiday symbol long before Christians and there are more important matters, such as hungry children, unemployment, desolation, hopelessness, crime, housing, homelessness, violence, social justice, equity, ethics, morality, and much, much more that ought to attract our attention rather than the canard as to what we call a symbol of the holidays."
Scott Gray
[no city listed]
***************
OK. I never could make it as a pagan; I'm too touchy feely. But as Wikipedia tells us, trees have been sacred symbols since pre-Christian days.
Our Celtic religious ancestors decorated them with evergreens as a symbol of eternal life. Our American Puritan ancestors, who were about as Christian as one can get, thought clebrating Christmas too pagan for their tastes; it should be just another day like all the rest.
So you may want to insist on the Christian appropriation of the ancient holiday; possessiveness comes with our breed.
But I prefer the old poem: "He drew a circle to keep us out/Heretic, rebel, thing to flout./But love and I had the wit to win./We drew a circle that took him in."
Rev. Rex Styzens
Long Beach
***************
Once upon a time there were some well-meaning and hard working politicians........then something changed. They caved-in to the fear they were offending a group of people that didn't believe in God. The politicians became Grinches.
They are stealing Christmas. Why are they more concerned about offending those that don't believe in God or Christmas? What they don't realize is, they are offending all of the rest of us.
We have supported and embraced everyone else's "HOLIDAYS" WHY CAN'T THEY EMBRACE OUR HOLIDAY?...... CHRISTMAS!!!!
Isn't Lincoln's birthday still referred to as Lincoln's birthday? Isn't Washington's birthday still his birthday? [Editor's note: Actually, they're now collectively referred to as "Presidents' Day"]
CHRISTMAS IS JESUS' BIRTHDAY. Stop stealing our special day, to appear "sensitive."(it is almost nauseating)
Politicians are being insensitive by omitting the name to many of OUR traditions......... Christmas tree, Christmas cookies, Christmas music, Christmas vacation, Christmas cheer, Merry Christmas and yes...Christmas shopping,
These are all things that have come to be, because of our right to celebrate Christmas. DECEMBER 25th.
If our politicians feel the need to have a "Holiday Tree" or wish everyone a "Happy Holiday", set aside a different day to celebrate the MYTHICAL AND COMMERCIALLY CREATED "HOLIDAY!!"
Happy holidays to those of you I might offend.
MERRY CHRISTMAS to the rest of you who ACCEPT, RESPECT OR CELEBRATE Christmas for what it is.....Jesus' Birthday.
STOP STEALING CHRISTMAS!
[unsigned]
***************
The tree lighting at Pine Ave & Shoreline Drive should be called Christmas Tree, if a Menorah and Kwanzaa are also named. It should be called a Christmas tree anyway because that is the reason for the season.
Don Darnauer
Long Beach
***************
It is a Christmas tree, not a holiday tree. Why do people who observe Christmas have to sacrifice our holiday while others are open to observe theirs? The tree is a commonly acknowledged symbol of Christmas.
("O Tannenbaum"...should we now sing, "Oh, holiday tree"?)
Is there a generic term for the Menorah that we should use, say holiday candelabra? Hanukkah / Chanukah is the Jewish THE FESTIVAL OF LIGHTS or the Feast of Lights, which begins on the eve of the 25th day of the Hebrew month of Kislev. It not the most holy Jewish religious days, as Christmas and Easter are the most holy of the Christian faith. The Jewish High Holy Days are observed during the 10-day period between the first day (Rosh Hashanah) and the 10th day (Yom Kippur). Should we say happy holidays to the Jews then? I think that would be an insult.
And, Kwanzaa isn't even a religious holiday. It was [created] by a Cal State Univ. Long Beach professor at the end of the 1960s...
GIVE ME A BREAK!!! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
I don't mind if people want to "hitch a ride" on the Christmas holiday, but we should not have to "RE-NAME" it for those people. If I say Merry Christmas to someone, it is a nice greeting said from the heart even if that person doesn't celebrate the day/event in a religious way. Would I be offended it someone says Shalom to me? Not at all.
In closing, Merry Christmas to all--- take it or leave it, but don't change it.
Colby Haines
Lakewood, CA
***************
This City Council has apparently wrapped itself in the mantle of the left-coast, liberal, thought-police, Orwellian psychobabble emanating from our Socialist neighbors in San Francisco.
It is not a Holiday Tree and never will be. To promote the symbols of two other religions and ignore that of Christmas is the height of political nuttiness.
Jerry L. Shultz
Long Beach
Mr. Shultz is a retired two-term LB Councilmember from the 9th [NLB] Council district.
***************
As everyone wrings their hands over the dilution of Christmas symbols to "holiday" symbols in an effort to be sensitive to other religions (although in this case the Menrorah and Kwanza are not referred to as "holiday" candles) it might be fair to remember that most of the symbols we take for granted as being related to Christmas were, in fact, usurped from another religion.
The tree, holly, the yule log mistletoe, etc all predate Christianity by eons and were "borrowed" - along with the festival dates themselves, to make the emerging Christian religion more acceptable to the local pagan populations.
The Winter Solstice became Christmas, the Yule tree became the Christmas tree etc.
My wish for this season is that we can all acknowledge and rejoice in the celebrations of our neighbors be they Christian, Wiccan, Muslim, Jewish agnostic or other. If my Yule tree is referred to as a Christmas tree it won't diminish my pleasure in it.
With warmest holiday wishes to all
Barbara
[No location given]
***************
Dear Mayor Foster and Councilwoman Lowenthal,
I guess I will not be attending lighting of the CHRISTMAS tree this evening, since CHRISTMAS is not being celebrated. Too bad I am not Jewish or Black since then I would be welcome.
Why is "OK" to mention the Menorah and Kwanzaa display.. But NOT OK to mention "CHRISTMAS TREE" and instead call it "Holiday Tree". THIS IS AN OUTRAGE and I am just appalled. How sad it is that something so magical as Christmas has become POLITICAL. I'm so outraged that I am in tears over this.
Where is the logic in this? WHY is it OK to mention these two words MENORAH and KWANZAA but NOT the word "CHRISTMAS"? So what you are saying is that because I am someone who celebrates Christmas I am being penalized because I am not Black or Jewish.
If I was Jewish or Black, then it's OK, and I would be welcome to be included in this event tonight, but because I celebrate CHRISTMAS I am being left out.
This is UNFAIR, BIASED ALMOST RACIST. WHAT A SLAP IN THE FACE to us who celebrate Christmas, and I am ashamed. I will stay at home and decorate my CHRISTMAS tree.
I wonder if I am alone here. This is a sad commentary on life. Truly is.
Shelley B.
Los Altos area
***************
I just read the blurb about Mayor Foster and the crappy holiday tree vs. a Christmas Tree. Gotta love how they'll recognize the Menorah and Kwanzaa displays, but not a freaking CHRISTMAS display.
Anyway, thank you for your dislike of the holiday tree. At least someone can admit it.
A fellow disgusted resident
"Amy in the LBC"
***************
As someone who was raised in a Jewish household, I am offended by the city's callousness. If Long Beach is giving Christians a Holiday Tree, I demand my rights to a Holiday Candelabra.
Monetary items cannot be "hidden" by the adoption of this policy nor do I believe this was a (let alone "the") motivation for its passage as was alleged by both Jensen and [below] Pressburg.
All City contracts and expenditures are subject to public review as a matter of law. Regardless of how powerful and omnipotent some may feel our local elected officials to be, those officials can neither ignore, circumnavigate nor repeal the California Public Records Act.
City residents have many opportunities to review such public records and to have input concerning them. Nothing has changed in this area. All that the adoption of this policy has done is to encourage the public to be more concise and focused in its comments when addressing the Council.
Based upon my various experiences attending Council, this, to me, seems not only a reasonable but a most necessary encouragement indeed!
Within their articles, both Jensen and Pressburg also (mis)characterize Council-members as "unreachable" and "not readily available for most of the public". I have never found this to be the case.
In the course of my adult life in Long Beach I've lived in six (6) of our Council Districts at one time or another. I have never once had difficulty reaching my elected City Council representative, personally, by one means or another. I've particularly found Members Val Lerch, Pat O'Donnell and Gary DeLong and former Member Robb Webb to each welcome and to encourage direct contact from their constituents, no matter the issue or concern and regardless of whether my opinion on a matter aligned with their own.
I am no one of particular note. I'm not on any VIP or "A" lists. I'm just another constituent in a Council District and I have always felt that I had sufficient access to my Council-member of the moment. Even Member Gerrie Schipske, in whose District I do not reside, proved willing, recently, to read my emailed concerns on a topic and to respond to them personally.
It seems to me, however, that those most annoyed with this new policy are those who feel that standing at the podium during Council is their only effective means of communicating with their elected City representatives. This is clearly not the case. There are many means of being heard by the Council that are just as effective (and judging by how poorly some people speak, considerably more so) as standing before them and addressing them verbally.
Lastly, Mr. Pressburg intimates that the passage of this policy has somehow "silenced Democracy". This assertion is at once the height of hyperbole and the depth of utter nonsense. The best definition on point comes, not surprisingly, from Merriam-Webster, which explains that Democracy is "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections".
Our Mayor and each of our Council-members won their offices through popularly and publicly held free elections. Their mandate is to represent all of the people and interests in Long Beach, not solely those who voted for them or who agree with them. If they fail sufficiently in that mandate they risk being removed from their good offices by virtue of the next popularly and publicly held free election. To assert that "Democracy" is somehow "silenced" because a new policy is adopted at Council that encourages both brevity and efficiency and is then applied equally to all members of the public who would speak is both foolish and naive.
Our Democracy (or more accurately, our Representative Republic) has, thankfully, withstood far greater challenges than this in its relatively brief life-span. Neither is this evidence of an incremental encroachment upon our system of government.
All this policy is, is an attempt by most of our duly elected Council-members and Mayor to apply just a little more order, stability and efficiency to meetings that often run far too long for various reasons.
One of the main reasons for these hyper-extended meetings, the late Mr. Murphy's routine eloquence notwithstanding, is that so many members of the public who would speak before Council cannot seem to either stay on topic or avoid unnecessary duplication in their comments. Many seem to to need to speak simply to hear themselves talk.
But their speech, as the immortal Bard himself would likely have said, is all too often "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".
John B. Greet
Constituent, 3rd District
***********************
In response to Terry Jensen's op-ed piece one must agree that monetary items -- no matter how ill-conceived or necessary -- may now be hidden under the guise of the consent calender.
Allowing one person to speak just three minutes [to consent calendar items] is just another way to conceal some of the items that I have so often requested, including reduction of the city manager's ability to sign for up to $99,999 without Council review.
No wonder LB residents voted against weakening term limits (that would have let termed out incumbents have their name printed on the ballot).
If we give the Mayor the benefit of the doubt, we shouldn't increase his powers because he already controls the agendas. Mayor Foster's predecessor refused to allow public access to audio visual equipment to present a balanced and representative point of view when they opposed an item [outside of hearings]. Now through excutive order and Council ratification, we're facing a more subtle form of censorship.
Democracy when silenced tends to lead down the path of Dictatoral rule. This type of rule corrupts absolutely. No matter how reasonable it may sound, silencing the public leads toward darkness and uncertainty.
Mr. Jensen noted that recently roughly $1.7 million in spending went without Council comment. This comes at a time when building public trust is needed in seeking more police and funding for public safety equipment.
There ought to be consistency here. If actions speak louder than words, then when Councilmembers make inane comments on an issue, they too should be cut off for the public's benefit.
A citizen who wants to speak to a consent calendar item shouldn't have to search out a willing Councilmember. Some Councilmembers are unreachable (working in the private sector)...and a staffer is no substitute (leaving the taxpayer to be answered by proxy at a Council meeting when trying to express an opinion).
Like Mr. Jensen, I too have been unable to ascertain any solid reason for the Council's recent voted action (5-3).
I do know however, that I would be the first person to reintroduce this item so the public could express their views.
Just imagine if the expansion of the Airport took place as a consent item or the building of a new library was passed off on the consent calendar...
The idea of streamlining the meeting means one thing, period: if it's expedient to a majority of the current Council, then they will make the public swallow it. This type of conduct only segregates the electeds from the taxpayers.
Mr. Jensen was right in pointing out this action as being something that does not improve the Council image...If we are truly living from pay check to pay check [as Mayor Foster has said] why hasn't the Council moved to implement zero based budgeting so $1.7 million in spending wouldn't be on a consent calendar without comment from the public...or from Councilmembers?
"I expect this new policy to be in place by the end of this academic year in time for implementation next year.".. said [LBCC Superintendent/President] Oakley.
Let's hope that this does not include the Chamber, since it has chosen to take stands that are partisan politics, and documented to be against the wishes of our elected officials.
If the Chamber wants the presence of the College people at their events, they can give them a guest status. Not a dime of public money should go to the Chamber.
Thomas Jefferson observed that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. This assessment of the value added by engaged citizenry reflects the great gift Thomas Murphy's life was to residents of Long Beach.
It is as predictable as it is disrespectful to Mr. Murphy that "representatives" of the city he loved so deeply are "honoring" his many years of vigilance at City Council meetings by attempting to curtail public comment.
Mr. Murphy freely dedicated his wisdom and time to question City Hall's tendency to hide costly and inappropriate uses of public funds within its ever growing consent calendar.
Hopefully someone will step up to fill Mr. Murphy's enormous shoes and help explain to City Hall why it is necessary to reject an outrageous proposal to constrain public comment on multiple consent items within a three minute time limit. Mr. Murphy's memory deserves better and freedom is far too precious.
Colette Marie McLaughlin
Boulder Creek, CA
Dr. McLaughlin, Ph.D is a former LB homeowner and activist. After then-Mayor Beverly O'Neill addressed the CA delegation at the 1996 Democrats Nat'l Convention in Chicago and disparaged "C.A.V.E. people, Citizens Against Virtually Everything," Ms. McLaughlin created a grassroots group she proudly dubbed "C.A.V.E. People of Long Beach."
****************************
Thomas was a man who stood his ground for what he believed in, that should be responsive to its citizens.
He was a critic who was not shy. He believed in community action, and I hope we all can learn how important he was to all advocates in Long Beach and beyond.
We will miss the old man and I am sorry we never honored him while he was alive.
Thomas Gonzales
League of Latin American Citizens
Long Beach
We're glad to let you know that LBReport.com's report on Mr. Murphy's passing includes an extended transcript of the eloquent tribute given him by Councilwoman Rae Gabelich at the opening of the July 17, 2007 Council meeting. Mr. Murphy was present with his son and daughter...and received a standing ovation..
****************************
Everybody in Long Beach, or almost everybody, knows Thomas Murphy, especially if they attend or watch our city council meetings on TV.
He talked so much at these meetings, on every agenda item for a 3-minute limit, but with possibly 20 agenda items, it really ate into time. But he didn't care. It was his right to do so.
One afternoon I arrived early for a Council meeting, wanting to get on the speakers list first, but Thomas Murphy was ahead of me and so were a few others. I asked Thomas if he would switch places with me so I could be first and he could be 5th or 7th or some other number. I explained that I had to get to another meeting quickly after my 3-minute message.
First he chewed me out.....the nerve etc etc.....that I should have arrived earlier. And then he kindly switched places with me.
Now that I have read what LBReport.com wrote about him, I had no idea Thomas had done so much in his lifetime. I only knew the guy at the council meetings who often talked about the days of the huge earthquake in Long Beach in 1930-something and of course on every issue and every expense, especially those workers comp settlements and the endless contracts.
I was at the NLB Vet's day parade. We were sitting on Atlantic just south of Harding.
Right after the start of the parade we were joined by the Iraq Veterans that were not allowed to march. They were very upbeat and saying thanks to everyone that was in the parade. They applauded every group!!
I feel that they should have been allowed to march and got their rights taken away for free speech. They were very friendly and supporting the Vets but since they are vs the war. They were not allowed to March. That is wrong!!!
Thank you Martha Thuente. Let us patriots emjoy our day.
J.O. & S.O.
I think what Ruben Sanchez-Teran [below] fails to understand is that the Long Beach Veteran's Day Parade Committee has rules that must be followed. The deadline to apply to participate in the 2007 Parade has long passed. Waiting for the 5th of November to announce a desire to march in the Parade without consideration of the Parade rules is just plain inconsiderate and irresponsible.
To blame the City Council and elected officials, plus the Parade Committee itself for a group's failure to meet the deadline is outrageous at best. But the "positive" that will come out of this, is the group will have new knowledge that they can apply for consideration to participate in 2008.
Hopefully, by that time there won't be a need for "Iraqi Veteran's Against the War" to participate in parades, and our brave troops will no longer be in harm's way.
Wayne Nicholls, Vietnam Combat Veteran
Resident & Native of Long Beach
Appreciative of the LBVDP
I am wondering why the Long Beach City Council will not allow Veterans to march in the Veteran Days Parade? What !?! Yes, veterans that oppose the Iraq war, IVAW (Iraq Veterans Against the War), have been denied to march in the Veteran's Day parade.
The council states it would be against the 'spirit of the parade'; what exactly is the that? Are they running a circus, would it go against the commercial value of the parade, what values do they have? Are their any patriotic values that are included in the 'spirit of the parade'? Most importantly are their any constitutional values that the Long Beach Council respects in regard to those that protect and protected the constitution--the Veterans?
Talk about complacent, desensitized, bureaucratic oafs!
Yes, I am an Iraq war veteran. I served 15 months in Baghdad and I oppose the war. I was there, it makes no sense now, and it made no sense then. There is nothing more that can 'piss-off' a veteran like denying him/her the rights they served for, fought for, were maimed for, or ultimately died for in combat. What kind of jaded society do we live in today?
Ruben Sanchez-Teran
Seattle, Washington
U.S. Army Veteran
I would like to show my support for the re-opening of the Jergins
Pedestrian Subway for public use in Long Beach.
A friend of mine shared with me her tour of the walkway during last weekends University by the
Sea. I think it would add not only a user friendly walkway and
encourage walking around our great city but also add as a historic gem
to our growing community.
Monica Creason
Long Beach
Public interest in the Jergins Subway Tunnel couldn't have been stronger
as expressed in the number of people who showed up to see it last
Sunday, October 28th. Long Beach officials and CSULB are to be
commended for their vision in opening the tunnel for public viewing.
What we all discovered is that the City of Long Beach has an historic
commodity on its hands that could be preserved and marketed to great
benefit.
Along with Shoreline Village, the Aquarium, Pine Avenue, and
the Queen Mary, the historic Jergins Tunnel is another compelling reason
for people to visit Long Beach. I support Councilmember Lowenthal's
suggestion that the Jergins Tunnel be reopened.
Michael S. Simpson
San Pedro
I had the opportunity to visit the Jergins Tunnel this weekend at University by the Sea.
As a resident of Long Beach, I think it is our duty to preserve this urban treasure. In addition, I'd like to see it back in public use in some form or another.
I consider myself lucky to live in such a diverse and authentic downtown. Part of why Long Beach is so amazing is because of the rich architectural and historical gems peppered throughout the city. The Jergins Subway is one of these gems. I think the revitalized Subway could be used to unite upper and lower Pine as well as connect Long Beach from past to present.
If done well, the reopening of Jergins Tunnel could be another reason Long Beach has earned recognition as one of the top 10 turn-around downtowns. Our city and downtown is an amazing place.a real treat on the southern California coast.
Let's revitalize the Subway and add another amazing facet to our urban oasis.
Whether you like or dislike John Morris, you must applaud his tenacity while giving a little over a half hour speech regarding what's needed in "The Downtown" Long Beach, Pine Avenue, Shoreline and The Queen Mary...
John was a pioneer on Pine Avenue who when he started in the 1980's had a wonderful business called egends and a dream of what Pine Avenue could be. At the time his neighbors were massage and tatoo parlors...
In his Rotary speech, he spelled out a pointed yet positive vision for the downtown that included density and lots of it. That density included alot of homeownership to stimulate activity on the street of the downtown. He also explained that Long Beach is still business unfriendly and sometimes the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.
He also showed ways of connecting the downtown and making it more pedestrian friendly which included a gondola over the water to the Queen Mary.
The highlight in my estimation was the perceived creation of a high-end Bellagio-style Casino which would also be a draw on its own...I was surprised that neither the Long Beach Business Journal nor Press Telegram appeared to be attendance to hear a business pioneer's view of Pine Avenue and Long Beach.
Dan Pressburg
North Long Beach
Again John Morris shows why he is the best ambassador Long Beach can have! His talk should be a call to action, but will city leaders have the humility and wisdom to understand his message?
Helen Najar
Long Beach
******************
Thank you for transcribing John's address. He has done more for LB than anyone else in town, ever. His philanthropy raises more $$ for every good cause in town than anyone else, and not just for kids and sports (but I am personally especially grateful for his major support for the Boys & Girls Club).
Aloha nui, John Morris
A hui hou
Don May
Somewhere in Hawaii
*******************
As a recent resident to LB (after 21 yrs in San Diego) I am amazed at how screwed up this city is.
SD like LB has miles of oceanfront, as well as a downtown shoreline. Like SD, LB was a Navy town. Like SD, LB has had a defense industry that is all but gone.
However, take a look at the tremendous assets that SD has never had: Oil at $90bbl, a major shipping port, close proximity to all of LA and OC and their several million consumers. 5 airports within 30-45 minutes of each other, 100's of major corporate office headquarters within 30 minutes drive, numerous architecturally and historically significant neighborhoods...
I could go on and on. No I'm not trying to state how great of a job SD has done moving their city along. No I'm not saying I regret moving here. I could go back to SD tomorrow. For some CRAZY reason I love LB.
I just am amazed at how much potential LB has and just hasn't been able to get it right. But it goes without saying, if you cater to the poor, you will have all the poor you want. LB has 26% of it's citizens living below the poverty level.
Well, we can brag on our success at that I guess. STOP managing the city to the lowest denominator. Shame, shame, shame on LB's former caretakers for letting all of our greatest assets become our greatest liabilities.
R.K. Jacobs
Long Beach
*******************
Great Speech.............we need more like it. He is right when he said that the Council "does not want anyone to meddle in their districts. Forget what is best for the city, as it is more important to protect their territory.
Any chance the Press Telegram with run his speech?
Suzanne [first name only]
Long Beach
LBReport.com replies to your question: The Press Telegram chose not to cover the speech as news. Instead, after LBReport.com announced on our front page that we had news coverage coming, the PT ran an editorial. LBReport.com responded with an editorial of our own.
*******************
Wow! What a presentation! I wish I could have seen his movie. I used to teach swimming at the only PIKE there will ever be in my mind, at the Plunge. There was nothing like the old Pike. And, it was a sad day for those of us who used to frequent it when it closed, and all those buildings were bulldozed...So many of the changes mentioned have been made for the advancement of the political careers of those involved, not for the betterment of the tax-paying people of Long Beach...
Thanks for printing what you did. Wish I could have been there.
