Q: How do you feel about the [proposed] LNG [facility] in our harbor?

Monica Blumenfield: I'm opposed to the LNG...[It] could wipe out parts of the downtown area...

Dave Radford: All the information on LNG is not in yet...I'm still lookin' and readin' and thinkin' about it...

Vice Mayor/Councilwoman Jackie Kell: I do think the LNG plant will be built but offshore. We're going to have 5,000 new residents downtown [new condos, residential units] and we have the new Pike @ Rainbow Harbor and so I don't think we should have the LNG plant in the middle of two harbors which make up the third largest port complex in the world, but I do think we could have it built offshore and there are companies that specialize in doing that.

Dennis Porter: I would have to agree that it's not in yet as to how safe LNG is...I would say that offshore would be better...

Ed Barwick: Having lived adjacent to a nuclear power plant for a long time when I was in the Navy in the north Atlantic, I look at more of the probabilities of an incident and I look at what's there. And there's almost no incident that's been dictated for that facility [in the Port of LB] that would go beyond the perimeter of the facility, so I think it's a reasonable thing to do. We still have additional information to look at, but I'm leaning toward the fact that it would be probably be safe enough to put in the harbor and it would bring clean burning natural gas that everybody is clamoring for in the city and the environment and I think it's important we look at alternatives to clean the environment.

Gerrie Schipske: I think we need to combine a couple of things. One, our own police and fire department went to the city of Boston [which has an LNG facility in a suburb adjoining their harbor]...and they came back and they were very, very disturbed and very concerned about the safety, the unsafe aspects of locating an LNG facility in the Port of Long Beach. And consider this: in 1992, the coastal zone commission took a look at a proposal to put an LNG plant in the port of Los Angeles and said no, it would be unsafe because of the earthquake fault that runs through the ports. This is just a hundred yards away. Long Beach does not need to be a target. I think we need though to ask how we got ourselves into this situation that we're backing into an LNG plant...We need to talk about how decisions are made in Long Beach and how the citizens get into the fact after the decision was made behind the rail.

Patrick Steinhauser: ...We're put in office to carry out and vote for what you want, not what we want...I would have to have meetings with individual groups...with residents, with everyone that I could find to gather enough resources and information so I can be able to make an informed decision...

...

Q:...[paraphrase] Position on a parcel tax for libraries.

Mr. Radford: Taxes should not be our first answer to solve the problem. Libraries are absolutely crucial to the community...and that's a priority for the city. I believe in priority spending, you spend for the first things first, second things second, third things third, of which the library would certainly be there...

Ms. Blumenfield: ...I am absolutely for libraries. I do feel though that there could be effective cuts done in the budget to find more money for more library time [hours] but I do know that libraries are number one in many childrens' lives...and I would approve the parcel tax for the libraries.

Mr. Barwick: I opposed the parcel tax, and actually I am the only candidate sitting here, on either side of the rail, that spoke about this at the City Council meeting opposing the parcel tax. I fully support the library hours. I believe the money could have been funded by taking [it] from less critical areas and found money within the budget to support the operating that they needed. I understand the need to keep the library hours open. I understand the emotionalism of reducing library hours and using that to convince you that we need a tax increase and I don't believe we needed a tax increase [for libraries], so I strongly opposed it. And I have spoken to the City Council on it, the only person that did, and I also engineered an anti-tax walk in the 5th district where we distributed fliers to that effect.

Ms. Schipske: ...About eight months ago, I put on my website...a nine point plan that spells out...a very solid plan about how we can re-fund the libraries and how we can get police. We need to get back to the basics about what local government is about and that is for police, fire, infrastructure and libraries. Libraries are not luxuries. They're essential services. I do not however support a parcel tax. I think the people in the fifth district pay enough taxes already and what we need to make certain is that by going through my plan, where we do consolidation of some city departments, where we get more transparency in the budget, and where we stop letting the City Council spend $4.7 million on its own salaries, staff, travel and other assorted things, then we can start talking about why it is we always blackmail the citizens of this city and say we're going to close the libraries. They should not be the first thing that's cut; cut inside first.

Mr. Porter: ...The money is there [to keep our libraries open]...The money is there...We don't need the parcel tax to keep the libraries open...

Mr. Steinhauser: I don't support it [parcel tax]. I would support it if the majority of the people wanted it as was the case in the polls. I don't believe in a tax increase of any kind. I think that's just a cop-out for you to pay for our incompetence...

Incumbent Kell: [W]e will no longer have a deficit in 2007...[Cites Prop 1-A now preventing Sacramento from continuing to take monies from cities without paying it back.] That first [Sacramento payment to LB] will be made in the fall of this year and Governor Schwarzenegger [has said it] would be $2.2 million...so the money should be there to restore library hours.

...

Q: ..There is a proposal perhaps coming up to the Council for a half-cent sales tax increase for the police. I've also heard it could be a three way thing for libraries, police and [tape drop out, Ms. Antenore referenced a third item]...

Mr. Barwick: I hate to always be in the negative, but once again I'm in the negative on a tax increase. As the Vice Mayor mentioned...they've had the shortfall in the budget that developed over the last years that this Council has been in business, about a $102 million budget deficit, they're very proud to have reduced it down to $10 million, but they started off in a surplus. We can do the same thing with providing public service by fiscal management within the budget. The Vice Mayor pointed out that we have a budget surplus designated in 2007. We also have a $2.2 million funding increase from Sacramento [Prop 1-A]. We also have increases coming up in higher property taxes that are coming from high property values as houses turn over. So if we do diligence...set priorities -- public safety, police and fire, libraries, infrastructure -- if we do due diligence in the budget, we can do it there.

Mr. Steinhauser: The tax for police I will support, but there's a caveat with it. We've been duped in the past...If this tax goes specifically the police department for equipment, resources, intelligence, fire department for their resources, then I'm in favor of it...

Mr. Porter: Folks, I'm real passionate about this. I would support the half-cent sales tax...This city is now at 500,000 people and the public safety infrastructure has not kept up with the population. The 5th district does not have a fire truck [a hook and ladder truck]...A city our size should have 7; we have 4. When they fought the Legends fire down there in Belmont Shore, the fire captain needed all four and could only get two...We need to take our police, provide them equipment...these are things that we need and by golly it's got to go to the police for change, it's not going to be siphoned off anywhere else...

Ms. Schipske:...[Although property values keep going up], we are losing the difference in those property values because that tax increment is going into Redevelopment. That tax increment is what we need for police and fire services. We need a re-look in Long Beach about why so much of the city is in Redevelopment and why that money is going to developers and not for the infrastructure and the public service we need. I'm opposed to increasing taxes. I'm telling you, as I walk out there, I don't find much support for increasing taxes. They say 'I already pay my taxes. The city needs to tighten its belt. We need to get back to basics and fund those basics first, get rid of the fluff that's in that city budget and make sure that we're as lean and mean as possible, then come and tell us where the shortfalls are, because people don't believe there's really a shortage of funds available to the city...

[Incumbent Kell didn't offer a response on this question.]

...

Q: [paraphrase] Airport [facilities] expansion. How much and what kind?

Mr. Barwick: I really like to refer to it as "airport improvement." There was a citizens committee [Mayor nominated, Council approved, non-binding "Airport Advisory Commission"] that spent 18 months studying this issue. They made a recommendation [6-3 vote] to total improvement of that facility of 133,000 roughly sq. ft. The City Council chose to limit the EIR, Environmental Impact Report, to 102,000 sq. ft. I again spoke at the City Council...in favor of including the 133,000 in the EIR study, not that you have to go to 133 but you need to study that so you don't have to spend more money and more time to do a revised EIR if you find out you need. Having been involved in airport expansions and improvements in about 15 airports in this country, and about 3 of them internationally, I understand what it takes to work on an airport improvement and this one definitely needs to be improved. The facilities need to be improved and we have to do that to maintain our noise ordinance.

Ms. Blumenfield: It's noted as airport expansion and I'm opposed to expansion. The environmental issues are going to be greatly impacted with the amount of traffic going up and down Wardlow and all of our neighborhoods going into the Airport...

Incumbent Kell: As you know, we have five options that we have put in the EIR, and we did lop off the two largest possible sizes because we have to consider the 8th district, the 7th district and the 4th district that these areas, these residents, are impacted by the airlines operations. Now, if we had chosen a larger options, we would have been hit with a lawsuit. HUSH has 1,500 residents. They would have had a class-action suit against this city. They would have taken us to federal court...We could be in court for four to six years if we didn't make the original size that we studied smaller. We will be coming back with the EIR and making a decision probably by summer on the size of the terminal.

Mr. Porter: ...I'm not for expanding the amount of flights coming in...but it does need to be modernized...

Mr. Radford: ...Our Airport as it stands right now is an embarrassment...Long Beach is better than that. We need to remodel that airport...We don't need to expand flights, we just need to get an Airport that this city can be proud of...

Ms. Schipske: ...I am very concerned about language that was kind of stuck in that report [EIR] that talks about the optimization of that Airport going from 41 to 52 flights a day, plus 25 additional commuter flights...They're talking about under the noise ordinance that if you get quiet planes, you can increase it [number of flights]. When they build it, they will come, and so it's going to impact the community tremendously...

Mr. Slavin: [Paraphrase: Said arguments over Airport have dragged on for years without getting things resolved...and strongly supported building an airfield offshore on land fill in the harbor. Candidate Slavin emphasized this point in his official Sample Ballot candidate statement and reiterated it during the forum.]

...

LBReport.com [after the forum concluded]: Can a use worsen impacts on a neighborhood and still be good for the city citywide, and how would you vote on it?

Vice Mayor/Councilwoman Kell: There has to be a balance. We lopped off...two larger footage [proposed permanent expanded Airport terminal area facilities from EIR consideration] because we were concerned about the neighborhoods...

LBReport.com: You said "balance," but when you ran for office [in the past] your [campaign] signs said, "Our neighborhoods always come first." [We stressed "always" in citing the slogan] And my question was, 'Can a use worsen impacts on a neighborhood and still be good citywide and how would you vote?' So how is that consistent [with your previous campaign slogans]?

Incumbent Kell: The City Attorney told every sitting Councilmember that until we see the whole EIR coming back, we cannot say anything about what we would do...

LBReport.com: That's why I didn't ask about the Airport...[My question] asked generally.

Incumbent Kell: I think we have to have balance, I mean you can't close down the Port because it's got pollutants all over the place, but we have to mitigate it.

Mr. Barwick: [jumps in] Her concept on the port is just exactly what I was thinking. Unfortunately, there are some issues, and the port is one of those, that do cause negative impacts on the particular neighborhood close to them, pollution, that sort of thing. And if you're out here in the 5th district, it doesn't really have much of a negative impact, there are of course some residual effects but not [as much], there can be some issues but it's beneficial to the entire city. And when you're on the City Council, you're responsible for your district, because that's where you're elected from, but you're also responsible for the entire city, you are representing the entire city of Long Beach, so you cannot totally derive your positions strictly on what's good or bad for your district. You have to consider the entire city.

LBReport.com: In other words, if you were on the Council, based on what you just said, you would vote something if it were bad for the district if you thought it would be good for the city?...

Mr. Barwick: It's very possible, it depends on the issue.

LBReport.com: But it is possible?...

Mr. Barwick: It's very possible. Absolutely.

Ms. Schipske [jumps in]: Absolutely not. Otherwise, we need to have "at large" elections. The reason we have district elections is that we have the responsibility to represent the interests of that particular district. I think we have to work on the Council to get consensus with the other members to try to get a broad perspective, but if you're not responsive to the people who elected you to the specific district, then you're not doing your job.

Ms. Blumenfield: I agree with Gerrie...Although we work together, and I am a team player working with the School District, and I do understand, my students live throughout the entire city. I drive around and the port traffic, the 710 freeway impacts, the lives, the health of the people on the westside. So I would vote according to my district...

LBReport.com: ...The question was, can the use worsen impacts on a neighborhood but still be good for the city citywide and how would you vote?...

Ms. Blumenfield: ...I guess it would be a balance as well..

LBReport.com: So in other words,...its conceivable that you would vote even if it would worsen impacts on a neighborhood?

Ms. Blumenfield: I would have to wait to see what the issue is, what the question is.

Mr. Radford: Jumping in real late, there are many times you have to think of the greatest good for the greatest number, and that's a pretty good place to be. You want to protect the 5th [district] and defend the city, all simultaneously.

LBReport.com: But suppose it hurts a neighborhood but it supposedly benefits the city citywide?

Mr. Radford: It would depend on the amount of the hurt.