-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- Dave: Keep thinking out of the box, brother! That's precisely the sort of Imagineering we need!
- LBdreamer: Thanks for the comments. Re: Wheel Spinning: I would encourage an official brainstorming session that includes but is by no means limited to: Concerned members of the *voting* public...
- Thank you, Ellen.
- Come on, Dave, ease up a tad. "Quiggydytes" is "name calling" but "puss" and "kook" aren't? This site allows commentors to remain anonymous if they so...
- The whole article has a subtext about what it takes to succeed in a My Fair Lady sort of way. It isn't enough to be bright and funny as a woman. I think that Maureen Dowd feels a <a...
The District Weekly
News, Arts, Entertainment & More for Long Beach, Huntington Beach, and Costa Mesa
COUNCIL APPROVES PUTTING PARCEL TAX ON NOVEMBER BALLOT | The District Weekly
Started by districtweekly · 3 months ago
No excerpt available. Jump to website »
4 months ago
The facts:
1. Infrastructure is our gov't top priority next to public safety
2. Our infrastructure is awful
3. Waiting to fix our infrastructure will only make fixing it more expensive
There is no other viable way to fix our infrastructure. I am very conservative. I would support cutting everything in our gov't except public safety and infrastructure. The fact remains even if we did that (never would happen with the liberals on the council and many residents) we would not have enough money to pay for what we need. You can talk about pensions, salary increases and all the other rhetoric. The fact remains this is the only viable way to fix our infrastructure in an acceptable timeframe.
Passing this bond will improve resident quality of life, increase property values, and bring more quality residents and businesses to our city.
I support this bond and hope everyone else will help make Long Beach great by passing this bond.
4 months ago
4 months ago
4 months ago
4 months ago
4 months ago
You're overstating the impact of those components. Yes, they need to be fixed. However, do it without raising taxes and make it a spending priority. Sorry, but when Mayor Foster gave the same rebore of comparative analysis, in explaining the salary increases, he lost credibility.
4 months ago
4 months ago
A proposal that, if passed by the voters, will add a debt of $638 million and bond payments by property owners for the next 35 years is given just over two hours of debate prior to passage by an 8-1 majority. Actually, if you deduct the time spent by the Mayor touting what a marvelous new toy this will be and the 41 page PowerPoint presentation, I believe actual public comment and council colloquy lasted for less than one hour. During that time several very cogent points of discussion were raised only to be dismissed by Mr. West saying in effect, "Sorry, but it's too late to make any changes. You will approve this as it is or you won't, but you will tweak it in anyway."
This is sheer madness!
Nobody has any idea of the pros and cons of this. Most of the numbers thrown out were guesses at best, and documented lies at worst.
This is one Long Beacher who will oppose this measure and work hard to convince every voter I know to do the same.
Let's get it right rather than get it now.
4 months ago
well connected minority of old guard neo cons that think they run this town, or
know what is best for all of us. These are the same guys that preached that the Wetlands Home Depot was GREAT !!, This line of reasoning is so familiar to many of this, our antenna are up .
Many are reviewing this budget and saying...Boy Oh boy are we spending hard dough on buildings for Police and Fire here? How will that attract business? Who is in the bid pool there? We'll see. We have faith, and honest friends inside. I recall when when fire would work on the station with all that spare time, and staff tradesmen would help?
Thus far, some are quitly asking,'' Can we afford this'', as we flirt with recession, endure 3 years of Real Estate softness, and an official Bear Market in stocks?
We moderates, and centerists, and Blue Dog Dems, independents and more, can often smell the 'Hawks' spewing with Jay Beeler types, Gordon, and on and on. Are they bullying Bob ? Squeezing him? Is he over a political barrel? We'll see, but guys....you have 1 vote on Council for a reason ? Cut us some slack, please.
If not our old pal Markey Marc, who's basically a good man inside, lbresident comes off like he has it all figured out, again and again. His little click shares many similar unpopular misconceptions which we have debated for a long time.. If so, it ends up this click often speaks for 4 or 5 percent of the voters, and a dozen or so of the old guard. Sadly, the IPT , or what's left of that dying 'fish wrapper', usually goes along . Gary then does what he often appears to have been kind of hired to do?
We trust Bob implicitly, and his heartfelt sincerity last night explaining this at Council was moving, but, if this other click is pounding the table, they are probably getting paid somehow. Bob may have not realized it yet.. We need to look at the beneficiaries closely, and we have, and will continue to seek equity.
For example, on the Wetlands plan alone, is Tom Dean, who they say bought Bixy A, and B, slated to make a killing on a sale of the Wetlands? Is all of the open space planned for the estuary? Bet it ain't ? What about the tank farm parcel where The Design Center failed? (Time to pull the sign guys, we hear the Depot walked)
Is Dean and crew being bailed out for a problematic tank farm sale to him years ago, from SCE ? This is where Bob promised to recuse himself, while campaigning. If so, he should because he was with Edison when this was sold to Tom, shouldn't he? He will, for he is an honorable man
And what of the Dean/Berger 'pumpkin patch' nightmare over abandoned, and heavily contaminated City dump # 1, are they being bailed out in this measure ? We need to know so that we may proceed with our eyes open.
Some of us love this bond issue at a glance, but have questions, and suspicions until further vetting.
Finally, we are hearing that The failed 'Lennar' deal at 2nd and PCH, has Taki-Sun fronting for a big investor too? Maybe Dean, or Pook? Has anyone else heard about any of this? Any substance?
4 months ago
4 months ago
We finally have a Mayor and a management team that understands with the lower utility user tax, and reduced revenues from ToT and property taxes, that the General Fund budget can only patch things up....never fixing them completely. So what are the alternatives?? Close libraries and no longer offer recreation programs?? Any resident knows that this causes problems with our youth, many that don't have parental guidance. Ask the police and firefighters to contribute more to their outlandish pensions?? Never happen.....heck there are plenty of these guys making well over 100K a year with their overtime and big raises. So where do you get the money from? Other funds have restrictions on them abd can only contribute small percentages to the General Fund.
Juan offers no solutions...instead he says live within your means. The City has done that now for the past 3 years slashing every department's budget (well, under the City Manager). I am all for people saying they won't support an issue but offer an alternative. Don't talk about old Council and management mistakes when you have a Mayor that has done several things to try and fix many of the problems left by the former Mayor. About the only thing I don't believe he should have done was give police and fire big raises without getting some give backs, especially in the form of pension contributions.
4 months ago
4 months ago
So you know I haven't had a drink since 1977, you? ( I could use one at times around here ! LOL ) I have been too used to MSFT word xp tho..sorry !
Also, Marjie and Dukes posts are excellent in my humble opinion. Not speaking for the group here.
As for the Queen Mary, haven't the shrewd insiders known for decades that the only way to stop the fiscal bleeding on that deal , is to sell it, or haul it away, or sink it half was to Catalina? That has been a loser since day one and many who had to swallow it to keep there job, said so then, and now ?
4 months ago
Sure they "Gutted' police and fire'' say some, , be we lived? Isn't there any belt tightening middleground ?.Many of us grew up in and around old and new City Hall, and we recall the years of 'Cutbacks', vividly? It built character and fostered competition and excellence among those fighting to keep their jobs ?
Are we immune from capital destruction ? Insulated from the business cycle?
4 months ago
Mr. Pardell- There is no propaganda to be bought here. None. One needs to be here on a regular basis to see the situation. I also have no idea why I need to explain to you what I "do", or how that relates to you being in San Francisco. All anyone needs to know is I'm in and out of City Hall on regular basis on many floors. I know some of the players outside of City Hall as well. I live in Long Beach. I didn't vote for Foster, if that matters. But I do know the rationale for the bond measure as he's described it. He'll be surprised if it passes, I believe. He hopes it will. As I've said before, neither he or West can win no matter what they do. Most city departments have no fat to slash anymore. Further cuts will severely affect core services. They'll do them, if that's what it takes to get a balanced budget. But I guarantee more people will be unhappy about the cuts than they will be about this measure if it passes.
Oh yeah- they'd LOVE to sell the Queen Mary. People keep suggesting this as if it's a no brainer solution, but no one proposes a buyer. It ain't that easy, unless the city wants to entertain offers from other countries, who would then put even MORE residential property near the site. And even those types of buyers aren't growing on trees.
4 months ago
How much would the measure be reduced if these non-essentials were cut from the plan? If the measure were reduced to a more reasonable number, the Mayor might receive more support.
Also, I am not a big fan of granting any exemptions. Does the City have any idea how many people could claim an exemption? It could be a significant number. There are a lot of elderly homeowners in this city.
4 months ago
I for one think it's bogus as well. Sure, our infrastructure is important but just creating a bail out program isn't going to solve much. Chances are that money will be mismanaged or end up going to other programs that jump in front of it the way it seems to have happened in the past. For anyone that has managed a budget you understand that robbing peter to pay paul only lasts for so long. we have bigger issues to deal with that won't be solved by taxing our residents...or should i say home owning residents.
I hope a theory i read somewhere is true that the mayor probably knows this won't happen anyways but then can say he tried everything he could before really getting brave/creative and rethinking the overall city budget.
Here's a good question, why are rich areas like the park estates getting a bunch of new sidewalks right now? How the hell does that make sense if so many other parts of the city are in such dire need.
And how this will help rid our city of its reputation is just a joke. You guys believing that should really get out more. "Wow, this alley is really nice, look how comfortable the homeless look. Gee, this nice new sidewalk really allows me to enjoy all the wonderful graffiti on the walls. Hey gimme back my purse!"
Screw this tax and the horse it rode in on.
4 months ago
The first part of your statement isn't really a theory, it's true. The second part isn't entirely accurate. He and West won't need much creativity to slash and burn the budget. They'll just take a sledgehammer and start whacking.
4 months ago
To dispel one of the the conspiracies, I assure you I am not who you think nor do I know personally any of the people you referenced.
I am just a normal guy with a family. I work hard for a living and want this city to be great. I chose to raise my family here for a number of reasons but I'd like to see the infrastructure substantially improved. I'm not rich, but for 10 bucks a month I think we're getting a lot.
I agree with many of the bond opposers that this is not a perfect plan and we should do all the other cost cutting things mentioned as well. (After all, I am a conservative and generally believe in small gov't.)
However, this bond is a viable way to take care of (in my opinion) Long Beach's number 1 issue in an acceptable timeframe. For that reason, I'm going to act like a liberal for once and support a tax increase.
4 months ago
I'm doubting the mayor's parcel tax will pass. His intentions are good, but the delivery of such a proposal will fall victim to bad timing. Taxpayers have grown tired of bailing out the poor decisions of their elected officials. Long Beach is a prime example of such a practice. You seem to be a bureaucratic sympathizer. That's fine. But never forget that "TAXPAYERS" own the municipal government. They deserve the most respect of anyone in your city.
4 months ago
Moreover, when I talk of slash and burn, I'm talking positions, not just people. It won't matter if there are other people out there looking for work, there won't be a job to for them to fill. A newly minted graduate looking for work as a librarian won't be able to replace the laid off, higher salaried librarian. Not only will the position be eliminated, so likely will the library branch he or she worked.
And as for the utility tax, remember the $90M shortfall that morphed into the $130M shortfall that Jerry Miller fixed. THAT was caused by the utility tax cut. Miller cut right and left, and positions weren't filled. Then the housing market exploded, and the city had cash on hand. Those positions were filled again because the public wanted their services back. Now the housing market has imploded, andso couple that with the utility tax cut whose effects were essentially masked by the housing boom, and we're right back where we were when the taxes were cut. Many city unions did not get new contracts and/or raises during that time and fell below standard. Even with these new contracts, police and fire still aren't up to par with their other comparables. Human resources, IT, and other Admin services are still, in some cases, as far behind as 25% with other city comparables AND private comps. In other words, believe it or not, they're underpaid for what they do no matter how one looks at it. So, no, I'd take issue with the idea that even with positions that are kept, others would step in if there were layoffs or restructuring (as has been discussed with Civil Service and HR, although that will take a Charter Amendment). Why work for Long Beach when a worker could go almost anywhere else and make more?
4 months ago
4 months ago
So I wonder...aren't we already addressing our infrastructure? Why must everything be torn down and rebuilt every ten years? Perhaps it's time to honor the legacy of previous builders and also be prudent. Maybe we should just start taking alot better care of what we already have. Bigger may not be better. Newer may not be better.
Also, I think every Long Beach resident should spend time in a third world country and then return to Long Beach. It's an eye opening experience because when you return you realize how truly good we have it. A pot hole here or there? A tree root popping up the slab slightly on the sidewalk? so what...there are many places in the world where the streets aren't even paved, there are no sidewalks, no curbs.
When economic times are tough, it is not the time to embark on endeavors that are merely solving matters of aesthetics or convenience. The voters won't approve this because it is a bad time to undertake big chances to our infrastructure if they are going to cost anything at all.
From where I'm sitting, Long Beach looks pretty good in many ways. I see ongoing city improvement of street and sidewalks, and the police and fire in my neighborhood do a good job. The infrastructure is looking pretty good from here. I don't think it needs overhauling. So I am voting NO in November.
We all are gonna have to trim the fat in today's economic times, and that includes the City of LB. I have make my tighter budget work, and so do they.
4 months ago
4 months ago
I've never, ever understood these kinds of remarks. With what else should they compare? How else do they set salaries that are fair to the worker, the city and the taxpayer? Where is it set in stone that government workers have to work for less than the median wage in their field? If a person was an accountant with 10 years of experience for a mid-level company in a mid-market area, they would expect to get paid as such. Conversely, a company employing that accountant would not want to pay him or her the same wages a CPA would make with 20 years experience for a high level firm in New York (or even San Francisco). They also wouldn't want to pay that person what the counter person at Starbucks makes, either.
The examples I could use are endless. It's just good, prudent business sense from both sides. Employees get fairly compensated and employers retain good help. Please explain, Mr. Pardell, how wages should be established if not by looking at other comparables.
4 months ago
I'm voting No and I will tell my neighbors to do the same.
4 months ago
As with most small group discussions, each of the responders makes one or more valid points and that’s the true beauty of this format…it encourages public interest, discourse and participation, which is something we really need a lot more of, concerning *all* levels of government.
To the topic at hand: I agree that Mayor Foster and Manager West inherited, in large part, this challenge. But neither does this fact excuse them from the admonition that they certainly could, and should, have taken more decisive, or at least more comprehensive, action before now. They have not been entirely idle, of course. Budget cuts throughout the city have been on-going and, in some cases, most painful, especially for a city that, in the not-too-distant past, had and did pretty much anything it wanted, whenever it wanted.
Have the cuts that have been made gone far enough? Some would say that the fact that we will now be asked to approve this parcel tax is clear evidence that the to-date cuts have not gone nearly far or deep enough. It can also be argued that no matter how much we cut, at some point increased revenue is required to continue to operate, maintain *and grow* a large city (5th largest in the state) and to keep it safe.
But neither does ‘revenue’ axiomatically equate to ‘taxation’! The best kind of revenue is that which at once enriches our city without burdening its residents. Far too often the knee-jerk response to the municipal question: “How can we make more money?” is “Let’s tax it away from our citizens”. We must become far better at generating non tax-based revenue than we have been. One way is to stop wasting time creating non-business friendly environments (like ill-advised Big Box Bans and Check Cashing moratoria) and more time leveraging the many assets at our disposal.
I think we need to do all three, quickly and continuously:
1. We need to continue cutting waste, mismanagement and inefficiency in our city’s budget and then, as an electorate, become *much better* at monitoring our government more closely.
2. We need to generate more revenue by making our city more business-friendly and by better leveraging our many assets.
3. Finally, and always as a very last resort, we should approve only those tax measures that are both equitable in their application and *severely* limited in their scope.
We must remember that ultimately the governing, the managing and the maintenance of Long Beach is *our* responsibility. We may temporarily delegate the authority for certain tasks to others, like the Mayor, Council and City Manager, but at the end of the day this city will only be the sort of city that we, as the electorate, insist that it become and remain. If we want City Hall to remember that they, to a person, are accountable to *us*, then it’s our responsibility to remind them of that...loudly and often.
When we don’t…when we fail in *our* responsibility to keep our government (at all levels) fully in check...
…then we truly do get the government we deserve.
4 months ago
While I won't presume to answer for Mr. Padell, I would like to take a stab at answering Duke's question.
The answer as I see it is really very simple and straightforward and is the basis for most private industry ---
An employer is obligated to pay a salary that is exactly the amount required to recruit, hire and retain a staff of employees of sufficient skills to accomplish the objectives of the enterprise. The employer is obligated by the owners of the corporation to ensure that this philosophy is followed.
Many corporations utilize comparative salary surveys as part of the methodology in arriving at salary levels for it's employees and find that they are an invaluable tool.
What is wrong with most government entities is that they seem to rely almost exclusively on comparable salary surveys when negotiating with their employee unions. Why do they do this? Because the unions find it to their advantage to simply play one city off another and, after all, it's the employee unions that recruit, organize, run and finance all too many municipal election campaigns here in California -- Long Beach not excepted.
The best example I can think of when I try to explain to people that we may be overly generous to city employees is our fire department. Seems that whenever there is an announcement that they are hiring, upwards of 5,000 people apply for a handful of annual openings. Now call me old fashioned, but if I have that many people wanting a particular job maybe, just maybe, the applicants figure that the pay might be really, really good. While I realize that some of the folks lining up for applications may well be motivated for the altruistic reason of wanting to serve their fellow citizens, I suspect there are many many more who see it as a fabulous opportunity to make a great salary and receive benefits that are unapproachable in private industry. And who can blame them?
I realize that even hinting that we might be overpaying our fire fighters will be seen by some as an attack on municipal demigods, I would ask that you consider that from the perspective of setting salary levels, these folks are no different than the local librarian, street sweeper, or crossing guard. The bottom line is "How much do we have to pay to hire and retain qualified fire fighters?" With thousands of folks beating down the doors to get the job, I think we have to ask whether we are paying too much, not simply, "Are we paying as much as Rialto or Santa Monica?"
4 months ago
4 months ago
Using the firefighters as an example of your theory is somewhat short-sighted. First of all, there's always a large group of candidates for any fire department, much less Long Beach, because it's a desireable job. If that's your measuring stick for determining whether pay is too high, with all due respect, that isn't much by way of evidence or analysis. Long Beach fire fighters are still not at median even with this latest contract.
But even though it was Mr. Pardell I asked, you still didn't answer the question. If not other comparable cities, how would you set pay for any position, much less a fire fighter? What standard would you use to determine how to pay someone if you didn't compare it to other comparable jobs and employers? One of the overriding reasons the city wants to get all their employees (not just safety but all types) up to the median (and please note this is simply the median, not the highest paid) is that the city has long been a training ground for other agencies and municipalities. Long Beach hires someone, spends money training and grooming that person, only to have some other entity reap the benefits of Long Beach's investment by hiring them away for a higher paying, similar job. Long Beach then has to start all over again, thereby spending more money than it would have in the first place had the city paid enough to start with and not lost the worker.
It's that type of scenario that no one seems to want to take into consideration or mention when talking about salaries, These hidden costs are killers. The way it is now, in many instances, Long Beach serves as the minor league training facility for an Anaheim, Santa Barbara, Cerritos, wherever, because head hunters target this city and whisk away a lot of the good ones for lateral moves in both safety and non-safety areas. Foster and West want to put a stop to that, hence these contracts.
With all of this, at some point, people are going to have to ask themselves exactly when are they going to address these types of concerns that have long been put off and only cost more the longer they're ignored, whether it's infrastructure or salaries. Foster and West are trying to do it now. Given the sorry state of infrastructure, there will never be enough money in any budget to fix things unless there's something like this proposed bond. They'd need this whether or not these union contracts were done. But these contracts were necessary too, like it or not.
4 months ago
Fortune 500 mentality? Where does that kind of logic come from?
It's only prudent business sense to pay your employees according to industry standard, otherwise you'll never keep them. Why invest the time and money to train someone when you'll lose them to someone willing to pay them what they're worth? To draw a sports analogy, does Long Beach want to be the Kansas City Royals/Pittsburgh Pirates of California cities, continually finding, signing and training good people, only to lose the person and the investment to a better team or city, or does the city finally want to commit itself to being the Boston Red Sox/New York Yankees/Los Angeles Angels types of cities, who reap the benefits of Long Beach's sweat and blood?
4 months ago
Long Beach isn't a top tier market, you have to compare apples to apples.
4 months ago
I want my gov't to stop wasting/stealing what they already get.
City pay should be cut until lines for the jobs only stretch
halfway around the block.
By way of suggestions I'd like to see city hall burned down and
insurance collected for it. If you're going to hold the library
hostage then it can burn too. As for all those fat pensions, I'd like
to see a huge spike in retiree and soon to be retiree deaths as soon
as it can be arranged. These bastards are trying to kill us.
4 months ago
1) Mayor Bob gave it to Colonna pretty hard about his vote to spike pensions.
2) Mayor Bob made a campaign promise not to raise taxes.
3) Mayor Bob lobbied extremely hard to ram through city employee raises, despite his disingenuous campaign rhetoric.
4) The city council places loyalty to city employees above loyalty to taxpayers.
5) City hall has failed to prioritize infrastructure and public safety, going all the way back to the start of Mayor Bev's reign...actually, long before that, but Bev really screwed the pooch. While she pimped, pandered and gave lip service for retail, she and her cronies foolishly chased it away. Oh sure, they accepted COPS grants from the Feds, but they merely used that money to supplant general fund monies.
6) Folks who criticize the UUT cut really don't have a clue. UUT revenues predictably have continued to increase, despite the cut in the rate. The city has had ample time to budget accordingly. The city has had 8 years to plan for UUT revenue, not to mention to plan for projected property tax revenues. Oil revenues have also dramatically increased.
7) The reason for LB's current fiscal condition has to do with politics, and nothing else.
8) The taxpayers will overwhelmingly oppose Mayor Bob's parcel tax scam. BooHoo if you don't like that!
4 months ago
4 months ago
4 months ago
The answers I have received have criticized me ("you're the only one on here who hasn't run a company", a puzzling response to say the least, what does this have to do with ME?), another one ended with "boo-hoo" (not often found in adult debate but sadly often found on the Internet) and last but not least I have been told just simply that comparables aren't the way to do it, but no other alternative is given. And that's the thing. People can't keep saying don't use comparables if they're not going to offer up a viable alternative. Economides doesn't like the proposed infrastructure bond, but at least he came up with an alternative.
I've saved the response that Long Beach is not a top tier city separately. It's the fifth largest city in the state. Of course it's top tier, and it's about time it acts like one. Which ties into the last paragraph. If the city used private industry for the non-safety positions, there would really be an outrage. You, the taxpayer, really couldn't afford it.So they limit it to other cities as you can't just arbitrarily pick a number and say "this is what we can afford". If you did, and people actually took the job, they'd always be looking for applicants because people would be leaving for better paying positions.
Which, of course, is what we have here. No, I am not privy to the exact percentages as it relates to lateral transfers out of the city broken down by fire, police, or any other department, whether safety or non-safety. But if some enterprising journalist or public citizen wants to make that request of either the city or one of the unions, by all means have at it. The numbers will not be pretty. You'll find the city spends far too much money and time hiring and training, only to lose people to other areas. More money, in fact, especially when lost productivity is accounted for, than if these workers were simply paid a median wage to begin with. Many people here don't want to hear that or believe that, but's true. It ends up costing the city more in the overall budget to pay people less than if the salaries were higher to start with because of the constant hiring and training that occurs throughout the city.
I can't put it any plainer than that. It's why West and Foster went with the union contracts they've done. They've now got some known costs going forward and can plan accordingly. So if the public doesn't want to pass the bond measure, fine, don't. But don't scream about no main library and other similar cuts, either.
4 months ago
4 months ago
Apparently you'd rather criticize than offer up alternatives. I asked a direct question and you're just not answering it. You haven't responded to my comments about hidden costs either and how it drains the city to ride a treadmill of hire and train. THAT'S the real world, Mr. Pardell. Eliminating that wasteful behavior would actually stabilize the budget.
Moreover, I don't work for the city, so these are not my colleagues. I simply have a realisitc view. What's sadly telling is your comment that you wouldn't trust a "city conducted report" on lateral transfers. The data that would be provided is fairly transparent and can easily be verified. What your comment tells me is you would rather not know the results, and prefer to believe your own version of things.
4 months ago
Alternatives? How can there be any when the damage has been done? The city is locked into fiscal obligations with the employee unions. This is precisely what landed the City of Vallejo in bankruptcy court. What did your mayor and city manager come up with? After knowing your city government was spiraling into a budget deficit, they advocated salary increases, based upon your same argument, and decided to spare the news until after the fact. So, what was the alternative? A tax increase! That is something Mayor Foster had stated he wouldn't do. However, I don't squarely place blame at his or Pat West's feet. They inherited the terrible decisions of current and past councilmembers.
Alternatives? I'll give you two: 1) raise taxes 2) Chapter 9 bankruptcy
Which one do you believe the taxpayers of Long Beach will support?
4 months ago
It's a pretty clear question, and you've yet to respond. If you don't think comparables are the way to go, how would you set salaries? The rest of post 41 doesn't respond to what I'v e been asking for days now.
4 months ago
4 months ago
4 months ago
Convincing unions shouldn't be an option. They have to understand the economic realities of working for Long Beach's city government. Private industry unions have come to understand this. The UAW, ILWU, etc., have all had to make concessions. Why should municipal employees be the exception?
4 months ago
You're right. It is not an easy balance, and municipal employees, including police and fire, have actually taken some considerable concessions over the years. Some have actually gone years without pay raises and/or promotional opportunities. And despite popular thought, most don't enjoy great retirement benefits. Think about a what Long Beach would be like if they just stopped services for a week. Trust me, you would come to appreciate the value of their contributions real quick. We should be clear about who to blame for mismanagement and inefficiencies in the City. It's not the police, firefighters or city employees. They play important roles, but they are not the responsible decision makers.
Bad Policy - The Mayor and City Council
Bad City Management - The Mayor and City Council
Poor Services - The Mayor and City Council
FIscal Irresponsibility - The Mayor and City Council
In my honest opinion, I think the mayor and members of the council are playing political roulette with our lway of life and our tax dollars. I don't think for a second that Foster is being completely honest about his intentions, nor do I believe he cares about the infrastructure bond measure passing. We will see who he gets to pay for the measure. In the end, the little man will lose out as Foster laughs and slaps backs with his cronies at the yacht club.
Don't go for the head fake. Say no to Foster's fradulent tax scheme!