[Scroll down for further.]

At dawn today (April 5), candidate Dines issued a release stating that "a growing violent crime crisis in northeast Long Beach...is being largely ignored by current elected officials." Citing a recent Long Beach Business Journal article showing violent crime increases in Long Beach had extended into eastern Long Beach, Mr. Dines stated in his release:

"It has now been 4 days since the incident at Wardlow Park, where two men were stabbed in possible gang-related violence, and we have still heard nothing from city leaders...Unfortunately, northeast Long Beach residents no longer feel safe. Violent crime is skyrocketing in our community and our local elected officials are too busy using taxpayer money on Downtown's interests than to deal with what is happening in our community," said candidate Dines in his campaign release, adding "Elected officials have been misrepresenting crime numbers, claiming low crime numbers when, in fact, they have increased." Candidate Dines' release added that he has "a commitment to hire more police officers, restore funding for a field anti-gang unit, work on effective strategies with the police department, and establish community policing."

Sponsor

Sponsor

A few hours later, a mailer from candidate Corliss Lee began landing in 5th district mailboxes. It likewise cited the Long Beach Business Journal article but also included the endorsement of immediate past 5th district Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske, quoted as saying: "Corliss Lee has been asking the right questions, and she'll get them answered: For example, where has all the tax money in Long Beach gone?" Candidate Lee's mailer goes on to state: "Measure A, the new city sales tax (passed in 2016), was supposed to fix public safety by restoring 200 police lost during the recession. But our Measure A funds were only used to restore 17 police sworn officer positions [cites LBREPORT.com Dec. 17, 2017 publicly available article referencing FY 17 Council budget vote (Sept. 2016, restored 8 citywide deployable officers) plus Feb. 2017 budget amendment (9 additional officers.)] What did self-described "budget expert" & City Budget Oversight Committee Chair Mungo do with the rest of our tax dollars? [All caps in original] CRIME HAS ALREADY SHOT UP BY [red letter] OVER 15%!" Ms. Lee's mailer states.

Sponsor

Measure A, a General Fund ("blank check") sales tax increase put on the June 2016 ballot by Council voted action (that included Mungo) carried citywide but failed passage in nearly every 5th district precinct. The Council has since allocated the lion's share of Measure A's $40+ million in annual new revenue to infrastructure projects that have include repaving streets and sidewalks citywide (including a number of 5th district projects) as well as restoring Fire Engine 8 [Belmont Shore] and Paramedic Rescue 12 [NLB]. However to date, the Council to date has restored only 17 budgeted officers deployable citywide out of 208 erased since FY09. Neither Mayor Garcia nor any Council incumbents have made any public commitments to restore the remaining 191 citywide deployable officers (208 - 17 = 191) that LB taxpayers had and no longer have.

Measure A's $40+ million annual revenue infusion also effectively freed up other General Fund sums that the Council used for various items, including previously unbudgeted pay raises for a number of city employee unions, including the LB Police Officers Association whose PAC has now endorsed Council incumbent Mungo.

At a March 15, 2018 candidate forum presented by the Lakewood Village Neighborhood Association, Councilwoman Mungo responded as documented in the audio clip below when asked why Los Angeles provides its taxpayers with 2.5 officers per thousands residents while Long Beach provides 1.7 officers per thousand residents. [LBREPORT.com believes the LB figure for citywide deployable officers is closer to 1.6 per thousand] and asked what the candidates will do to address the disparity.

To launch audio of Councilwoman Mungo's response, click here.

[For extended audio coverage of the entire LVNA candidate forum, click here.]

Sponsor

Sponsor

[Perspective: LBREPORT.com speculates that the figure cited by Councilwoman Mungo (48 additional officers) includes 30 "full time equivalent" budgeted officers to satisfy LBPD's contract with Metro (effective mid-2017) that requires LBPD to provide Metro with policing along Metro's Blue Line in Long Beach. The 30 FTE's aren't available for citywide deployment. They're contracted to provide coverage along Metro's Blue Line (which is fine) and while doing so aren't routinely available for neighborhood calls for service citywide.

And to be clear on a very important point: the City Council doesn't allocate General Fund sums to pay for the 30 Metro FTEs. Metro pays the City to provide the officers. It doesn't show that the Council has used Measure A or prioritized its spending to restore 30 additional officers for taxpayers, an implication that is simply not true.

In addition, LBPD management has also repeatedly stated publicly (as LBREPORT.com has reported) that the 30 FTE's it provides to satisfy the Metro contract currently come from using overtime worked by other current LBPD officers.

The figure of 175 police academy graduated officers may be accurate [we haven't independently confirmed it] but requires context; officers graduated from the police academy currently mainly replenish officers who exit due to retirements or other attrition. The net number after retirements and attrition is what matters. LBREPORT.com believes the meaningful number for taxpayers is the net budgeted increase in citywide deployable officers...and to date the City Council has budgeted an increase of 17 citywide deployable officers (FY17) out of 208 erased since FY09.]

Vote by mail ballots are flying now. "Election day" is April 10. Any ballot candidate who receives 50%+1 is elected. If no candidate receives 50%+1, the top two finishers proceed to a June 2018 runoff.

As with all Council races, each Council member has co-equal voting power on spending practices and development decisions impacting LB residents citywide.

LBREPORT.com is interested in hearing from 3rd and 7th district voters on whether they're received any campaign mailers or other written materials raising the issues of crime, crime stats and police staffing for taxpayers in the current election cycle. Please let us know via email at: mail@LBReport.com and let us know how best to reach you.

(The 1st district race had no ballot challenger. The 9th district race has a single ballot challenger but he announced weeks ago that he'd ceased campaigning; it's unclear to us if he has or hasn't resurfaced.)