(April 30, 2008) -- On April 22, I watched the interchange between City Council members on the issue of Check Cashing and Pay Day loan stores. A motion was on the table to ban approval of such stores from the PD-30 ("Planned Development" downtown area spanning the 1st and 2nd Districts.

The motion had merit if only because to my eye, many of these stores seem unsightly, poorly maintained and don't add to the aesthetics of any neighborhood. Others dislike the stores as they believe their high fees and interest rates take advantage of the poor and those that are not skilled in finance.

Good idea, I thought, this should be over quickly. The Council members that spoke were supportive of the original motion and all indications were that it would pass with little debate. I was encouraged that the Council was going to unanimously agree on a policy issue that might provide positive benefits to the city as a whole.

But it was not to be. The discussions and comments that followed eventually became testy and unpleasant and then any attempt to craft a compromise motion that all could support faded away.

Council members Gabelich and Uranga expressed support for the original motion but wanted to add more geography to the motion and protect more of the city from the bight inducing check cashing stores. But it was not to be as the atmosphere began to change when the Lowenthals and DeLong, with some supporting comments from O'Donnell, circled their wagons and rallied to protect their original motion.

O'Donnell questioned why Gabelich didn't watch the conditional use permit process more closely. DeLong said he wanted the motion approved as is. Suja Lowenthal, without much conviction, softly said she supported her collogues concerns but wanted the original motion approved as is.

And then came the piece de resistance. Bonnie Lowenthal gave Gabelich, Uranga, Lerch and the rest of the city a lecture. She declared that she brought the motion forward only after an evaluation in concert with her constituents and neighborhood associations. Then she suggested any modification of the exclusion area had not been evaluated and suggested that Gabelich and Uranga first discuss the issue with their constituents to determine if an expanded exclusion zone was in the best interest of their districts.

The Lowenthals made and seconded a motion to approve a one year ordinance prohibiting new check cashing/pay day loan businesses in downtown PD-30...but refused to include other LB neighborhoods...and the items had to be separated.

The Council voted 9-0 to approve the check cashing ban in the downtown PD-30 area...but had to go through a substitute motion (by Gabelich, seconded by Lerch) to include Redevelopment areas in the check cashing/pay day loan ban. Even then the Lowenthals resisted. Joined by DeLong, the vote to include Redevelopment areas in prohibiting approval of check cashing/pay day loan businesses was 6-3 (B. Lowenthal, S. Lowenthal, DeLong voting "no").

And it's not over yet. All of this will now all come back to the Council for a replay in the coming weeks when the actual ordinance returns.

Now I don't know what was behind the resistant comments above nor do I know why the trio voted against the expansion of the check cashing/payday loan store exclusion zone. I can only speculate as to why a seemingly positive policy change was opposed.

Was it because they wanted to allow the stores to relocate outside their districts? Or was it because Lowenthal didn't want to share the limelight with Uranga, her Assembly opponent? Or perhaps it was simply an opportunity for the trio to embarrass and put their northern brethren in their place.

It matters little to me why they acted so divisively and put their parochial interests ahead of what may have ultimately benefit the entire city. It was just wrong.

The Council's behavior on this issue was a shameful display of short sighted parochialism that was divisive and unnecessary. If our Council members have so little respect for their colleagues on the council how in the world are they going to work together to solve the big problems facing Long Beach.

Our city is broke and we watch as they squabble over minor issues and seemingly do little to resolve our budgetary crisis. When are they going to put aside their narrow-minded focus and work together to put forth substantive policy directives that will restore our cities fiscal health?

And if they don't, what are we to do?

I might suggest that if our Council members cannot show that the finances of the city and the quality of life in our neighborhoods have improved during their term in office, perhaps they don't deserve another term. Perhaps the voters in Long Beach should begin holding them accountable for their actions.

Prove to us that you fulfilled your campaign promises and we can then consider electing you to another term or elevating you to a higher office. If not, perhaps you should seek another line of work.

Mr. Jensen, a businessman and lifelong LB resident, was a member of LB's Redevelopment Agency Board where he frequently pressed management for answers and objected when he and the Board weren't given satisfying answers. Last year, after someone claimed he'd spoken publicly about a closed session item (an allegation subsequently determined to be without merit) Mr. Jensen resigned in disgust from the Board.