LBReport.com

Perspective / Opinion

Significant Differences Emerge Between 8th Dist. Council Candidates On Airport


LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. Support independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.
(Mar. 14, 2016) -- 8th Council district neighborhoods gave birth to LBHUSH and LBHUSH2, propelled its neighborhood-protective co-founder, Rae Gabelich, onto the City Council over an incumbent, re-elected her and elected the candidate she endorsed in 2012: Al Austin.

But in the upcoming election, Ms. Gabelich hasn't endorsed Mr. Austin or anyone at this point. Councilman Austin -- now an incumbent backed by LB's political establishment and public employee unions -- is seeking a second term against two challengers: Laurie Angel (a business manager by profession and long-time community advocate and volunteer) and Wesley Turnbow (owns a Compton-based metal plating firm whose clients include aviation entities.)

At a March 9 candidate forum organized by the Los Cerritos Neighborhood Association, incumbent Austin and his two challengers all opposed allowing a federal inspection (customs) facility at the Airport that would enable international flights...but major differences on the issue surfaced. These differences are significant and we highlight them below, along with documenting on-demand audio.


[Scroll down for further below.]

Councilman Austin noted that he'd voted against conducting a feasibility study (which a Council majority voted in July 2015 to conduct and in Jan. 2016 to fund, both times 6-3 with Austin, Uranga, Supernaw dissenting.) "I think as a City we should be driving the future of our airport, not the tenants at the airport. I think the risks [of having an international terminal] far outweigh the rewards...The only party that really benefits from that is the airline, JetBlue, and there are unintended consequences [including] private jets," Councilman Austin told the candidate forum.

Ms. Angel replied that simply casting a vote against the feasibility study on the customs facility wasn't sufficient to meet the task and cited Austin's failure to persuade two additional Councilmembers on an issue central to his district. "You have to get the rest of the City Council on board...You can't just passively sit back, say you're against [international flights]...[W]e have to do something about it, and I believe that I can bring the leadership that will do that."

And Ms. Angel went further: she said Austin knew about Airport management's actions regarding the customs facility in 2013 but failed to disclose them to the community and failed to take actions to stop them,

"Our incumbent [Austin] had knowledge of the international facility way back in 2013 but failed to inform the community, to engage you and let you know that this occurred," Ms. Angel told the audience. "If he had been more proactive, then we might have been able to put the stops to such an action...[but now] there is all kinds of momentum built up for the international facility and now we're going to have to figure out how to put the brakes on..."

Councilman Austin glared but said nothing in response. Internal Airport memos obtained under the CA Public Records Act and published nearly two years ago by LBREPORT.com, showed LB's then-Airport Director sent the Mayor and Council -- which included Councilman Austin -- ) memos dated August 1, 2013 and on November 14, 2013 that described Airport management's actions regarding the customs facility.

The August 1, 2013 Airport management memo, sent to the City Manager for the Mayor and Council, informed them of JetBlue's request that the Airport examine the feasibility of international flights.

The November 14, 2013 memo informed the City Manager, Mayor and City Council that Airport management was prepared to bring the Council a recommendation for voted action that could approve starting the lengthy federal approval process by seeking to have U.S. Customs/Border Protection declare LB Airport a "port of entry" if a user airline were to request it. It attached a copy of financial feasibility study along with the Airport Director's recommendation that any such federal inspection facility "will need to be sustainable by generating additional revenues within the bounds of the Noise Ordinance. Any and all deficits should be mitigated by the user airline(s), regardless of the airline's actual yield in the market." His memo continued:

[Airport Director Rodriguez memo text]...Benefits from an FIS include enhancements to our route structure, allowing Long Beach passengers to access more non-stop destinations such as Cabo San Lucas, Mexico, a potential increase in economic impact from international travel/tourism accessing southern California through Long Beach, and this amenity can be used by our Fixed Base Operators (FBOs) not only to clear their existing international customers but to increase their market share. Disincentives include not only increasing the Airport's financial exposure but also increasing the exposure to international threats.

Director Rodiguez's memo concluded: "...[T]he process of developing a FIS is arduous, ordinarily taking more than three years to complete and usually beginning with a request to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to establish the Airport as a 'port of entry.' Should a user airline submit a proposal to the City, staff will evaluate and return to the City Council with a recommendation."

Councilman Austin didn't disclose these developments entering the 2014 election cycle. Neither did any other then-incumbent Councilmember (including now Mayor Garcia.) That silence effectively let five new Councilmembers get through the 2014 election cycle without being forced to take a position on the issue. Four of those Councilmembers -- Gonzalez, Price, Mungo and Richardson -- have since voted in favor of the customs feasibility study...and those four (with now-Mayor Garcia) have since endorsed Austin for re-election.

Meanwhile, candidate Wesley Turnbow argued at the March 9 candidate forum that the City ought to meet the interests of Airport tenants, saying that to him, the "key" was "managing" the Airport noise ordinance. He told the March 9 candidate forum audience: "JetBlue has been a great citizen; you have to work with them...[Cited Aeroplex, general aviation facility] we've got to work with these people...you don't just say 'against, against' and then wonder why the FAA comes knocking on your door one day...I've spent my life on boards and working these kind of deals."

"Manage" the City's ordinance? The ordinance is this City's law; why should anyone to whom the law applies expect the City to "manage" the law to suit them? What other neighborhood and public protections might Mr. Turnbow be willing to "manage" to suit private business interests?

"Deals?" What kind of "deals" would be acceptable if they put the City's protections at additional risks?

In the coming months, Long Beach Councilmembers will decide whether to vote "yes" or "no" on what we believe is a discretionary action. As LBREPORT.com has reported (when others haven't), LB's City Prosecutor, Doug Haubert -- an attorney who served as a member of LB's Airport Advisory Commission -- has publicly testified that in his view, allowing a federal customs facility and international operations could invite a scenario leading to the permanent loss of the Airport ordinance.

The Airport ordinance is what protects this City from unlimited flights at all hours on all runways.

The City Attorney's office hasn't opined publicly on the matter, but the potential downside outcome could be devastating. Inviting new public risk exposure to appease private interests isn't prudent or businesslike. Mr. Turnbow didn't cite any legal basis his belief that the FAA could come "knocking on our door" and force the City to take a discretionary action to change our municipal domestic Airport into an international facility. The City Attorney hasn't said anything like this.

Candidate Angel held incumbent Austin accountable for the circumstances now when he didn't act after being informed in the second half of 2013 of advancing plans that he now votes to oppose without success.

To hear incumbent Councilman Austin and candidates Laurie Angel and Wesley Turnbow in full on this issue at the Mar. 9 candidate forum, click here.


Opinions expressed by LBREPORT.com, our contributors and/or our readers are not necessary those of our advertisers. We welcome our readers' comments/opinions 24/7 via Disqus, Facebook and moderate length letters and longer-form op-ed pieces submitted to us at mail@LBReport.com.


Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement



blog comments powered by Disqus

Recommend LBREPORT.com to your Facebook friends:


Follow LBReport.com with:

Twitter

Facebook

RSS

Return To Front Page

Contact us: mail@LBReport.com







Adoptable pet of the week:





Carter Wood Floors
Hardwood Floor Specialists
Call (562) 422-2800 or (714) 836-7050


Copyright © 2016 LBReport.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Terms of Use/Legal policy, click here. Privacy Policy, click here