The District Weekly - Latest Comments in COUNCIL APPROVES PUTTING PARCEL TAX ON NOVEMBER BALLOT | The District Weekly

Re: COUNCIL APPROVES PUTTING PARCEL TAX ON NOVEMBER BALLOT | The District Weekly

GoodGovt — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 05:35:52 -0000

John, please take a step back and be objective, realistic and think like a businessman or tired tax payer. . We are at least 7 Million in the hole, and still have impaired debt ratings. And the PD has needs, but so do hundreds of thousands of residents?

I love our PD, mostly, and have many high placed friends who have retired, and lamented what I relate, and several other close friends who I have been on over 150 ride alongs with ,during the 70s,80s and 90s.They were always 2nd or 3rd shift, and 2 to 6 hours long, and we spent nearly all the time chasing girls, meeting girls, eating, visiting friends, checking out fun places, racing around, pretending we couldn't respond, blowing red lights, discussing sports,politics, joking, pulling practical jokes, checking on guys girlfriends, getting deals on this or that, picking up boxes of free steaks, and having a great time. I am fine with that because when it hits the fan, the hero steps up, but my friends have an excellent life, viewed as a whole? Why all the endless complaining? We all have challenges.

We were always cruising in the nice areas of course. in total, we wrote 2 tickets, broke up 1 party, settled 2 girls fighting and checked some licenses and registration. We rolled on 2 false alarm silents. Drive, hide, hide, drive,,here there, BSing to high heaven.....I love these guys....and bleed blue for you all, but we are in deficit, and many feel as if Police and Fire have held budget after budget hostage, time after time. And yes, young blood, in higher numbers would be great. As long as the position of the unit is tracked finally, and the radio keeps us all focused on finding probable cause, doing FI cards like in the good old days, establishing a beat, and a continuing rapport like foot cops used too, and yes, listening to citizens reporting crime or suspicious activity, as I did after politely waiting for the officer to get his mind back on the job.

Many have no problem relaxing some of the standards for certain roles, and insisting on retention to amortize training, or a no compete clause. These stories about Officers being hired away, leaving for a better deal, don't move a lot of us. Long Beach, Love it or Leave it. Simple. My house could use a roof too, and I don't have medical, let alone dental. Ever pony 4,000 for 2 teeth?

I know a guy with a replacement heart and MILLIONS of paid medical costs because he smoked and drank into his 60s?

I know a guy with a retirement, he was up there, of 120 k roughly, he went to LBCC?...do you realize that those of us in the private sector, with MBA's, MD's. JD.s, etc. have to set aside 3 Million in Municipal bonds to get that kind of retirement income? Then pay health care too? And we work til 65, or 70, or quite often until we die ? None of this 85% or 90% at 50 something either.

A lot of us still feel offended at how poor John Stolpe was pretty much hung out to dry too. I was there, and I don't recall any letters in the paper...just a bunch of quiet..unfair silence......distance....

Did we pay for the hour or two it took for this response? Were you on the clock? Nevertheless, thanks for the input and energy. We all have infrastructure needs, and we chose to live here with the Pension Potholes, and the Worst Air In America..!!!

Finally, the last 2 detectives I had to deal with did absolutely nothing, but wait.....and then send the form....we can't help you letter.

I had had a 30,000$ car stolen, a spotless show car, It was covered with prints, as was car 2 they also tried to get. Thet refused to even print either. When I insisted, they then refused to process them. My friend was the HEAD Dectective. I never said a word because....he meant well...and ...he always got home at 3pm, to go fish. I couldn't and wouldn't complain, or ask a favor?

In the 80.s, we, and a BUNCH of units hid behind community all the time. I never heard of a single sex assault, but we were all after those nurses !! Our angle, was using the clean toilets too !!

Re: COUNCIL APPROVES PUTTING PARCEL TAX ON NOVEMBER BALLOT | The District Weekly

John_B — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:10:24 -0000

GoodGovt (50): A few responses to parts of your posting if I may:

LBPD sworn staffing is currently right about where it’s budgeted to be. That is to say, right where our elected and appointed city officials have determined that police staffing should be. If you feel we should have more cops, perhaps you and others who believe as you do could convince our elected and appointed officials of that fact?

The Department already has a lower ratio of “desk assigned” sworn officers than most comparably sized California agencies and those “desk” personnel are predominantly Detectives who, to a person, already have severely overburdened investigatory caseloads. To re-assign any appreciable percentage of these Detectives from their current duties would only serve to severely exacerbate the current caseload challenge further: more street cops making more arrest + a proportionately less number of Detectives available to provide investigative support and case filing = sure administrative disaster and severe adjudication backlogs.

The police facilities that need renovating and/or rebuilding are quite literally falling apart around the officers’ heads:

The East Patrol Division moved into its current station *over 14 years ago* and, in doing so, somehow managed to cram an entire Patrol Division into a 7,000 sq. foot building they inherited from the Auto Club of Southern California that had NEVER been intended to operate on a 24-hour basis. Contrast that to the newer West and North stations each of which are more than four times the size of the East Station. The footprint for the West and North stations includes ample off-street parking for their respective police vehicle fleets whereas the East station does not. This, by the way, is why you are seeing so many police cars parked around the East Station. Those cars are, predominantly, cars not being used for the current patrol shift but for which they, lamentably, have no off-street parking options.

The current police academy is essentially a trailer park set up in a parking lot. Many of the decks between the trailers are rotted and heavily patched and some of the trailers have persistent roof leaks in one or more places. LBPD has been running sometimes back-to-back academies plus many other training activities in this *temporary* training facility for over 10 years now. By the way, you are no longer able to use the “civilian” side of the shooting range because the civilian side can no longer accommodate firearms practice of *any* sort. The area where civilians (myself included) once enjoyed firearms practice is now a K9 training facility, a work-out field for recruits and building mock-ups where recruits and more advanced officers are able to practice tactics that can prove critical to their survival on the street. Room for all of these training functions was irretrievably lost when the old police academy grounds and structures were razed to make way for the current Wal-Mart portion of what is now Long Beach Town Center.

“Retention clauses” might seem like a good idea in public safety but they just don’t work here in Southern California, where competition for the best qualified police candidates is extremely stiff. Imposing such restrictions would only serve to make LBPD even less competitive in the current labor market than it already is due to wages that are consistently below the median and benefit packages that are comparatively sub-standard.

Officers are human (believe it or not) and some are finding it just as challenging as anyone else to adjust their cell phone habits while driving. I note, however, that what you describe is officers who are seated in parked cars and having (but for your attempted interventions) a private conversation which is not, after all, unlawful…for them or for anyone else. Neither should you extrapolate from what you claim to be your personal experiences, behaviors and motivations for *all* cops who are observed speaking on their cell phones. A good deal of police work is conducted on the fly and most cops are exceptionally good at multi-tasking, mainly because they have to be or they tend to get hurt or killed. Because the current law exempts public safety personnel when they are placing calls in the course and scope of their duties, I think it’s reasonable to afford them the benefit of the doubt for a while. At least until they have a chance to become better acclimated to the whole Bluetooth thing.

Police car congregations at East Station have, I hope, now been explained to your satisfaction. Community Hospital is a contract care facility and you are seeing police cars parked behind the emergency room because that’s where the officers must park when they have all ill and injured prisoners medically cleared prior to booking them into jail. Community is also the county contract hospital in Long Beach for sexual assault victims and some officers are, sadly, there having related evidence collected from such victims. As for the burger stands and coffee shops; well, LBPD can’t very well control what CHP and Seal Beach officers do, but I do know that LBPD tries to limit its cars to 2 at a time at any given meal location. It doesn’t always happen that way primarily because of the large number of cops on duty at a given time compared with the much fewer number of decent yet *affordable* places to eat. But I believe they try and I also believe that, when considering the incredible risks they take each shift just so that we won’t have to do so ourselves...

...perhaps we could ease up just little a bit on the hyper-criticality.

Re: COUNCIL APPROVES PUTTING PARCEL TAX ON NOVEMBER BALLOT | The District Weekly

John — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:00:21 -0000

See # 48 above, specifically "minimal private sector investment"; didn't randy and his cartel of commerce finally once gift (not voluntarily) $15,000 out of the $165,000 they always netted from bev's annual okie-doke that she gifted them? What generous, fair, civic-minded citizens!

randy gordon for (official) mayor!

Re: COUNCIL APPROVES PUTTING PARCEL TAX ON NOVEMBER BALLOT | The District Weekly

Juan Pardell — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:40:06 -0000

Sorry, no can do the mayor thing. I'm no longer a Long Beach resident.

Re: COUNCIL APPROVES PUTTING PARCEL TAX ON NOVEMBER BALLOT | The District Weekly

goodgovt4all — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:06:03 -0000

Professor, at least 2 of us may be in appointed positions now, and one of us may have run and won, and lost a few races as well. One voice here could have been an effective Leader, but he would have really upset a bunch of people while slaughtering more than a few sacred cows. The fun would have never ended and we would have a bunch of fresh new faces !!'' But that dream died years ago. And enough 'What's my line'..

The more we discuss this, the more we figure BF and PW....know this will never pass, they can say we tried, blame voters, and start with more concessions, some serious hard ball negotiations, and blood, sweat and tears on a blank sheet of paper?

Also, we are hearing, why prioritize more ,or better facilities and stations, not more officers? Retire the older higher paid desk cops and have a lower pay entry tier to increase the total of men and women deployed, visable and patrolling? Put a retention clause in the hiring agreement, to amortize our training investment? 5 years or more? We have heard these suggestions for decades, couldn't better management and a leaner and meaner stance help avoid a tax hike too? Free up repair dollars at the margin?

And more new training facilities? The original ones lasted decades, the new one, 10 years or so? Many of us are still quite upset that we residents with permits can't target practice at our own gun range anymore? We often hear residents say''Give us back our range rights, we paid for them didn't we?'' Seems like another PR gaff? A popularity detractor ?

We'.ve known several retired Chiefs,Commanders,or beat cops for years. Why is it, after retirement, they say building more, or bigger substations kills productivity because officers tend to stay inside and hide, or relax more, and work less, rather than get out and work their beat? Why have past Chiefs, seeking higher productivity forced many inside Officers back out to 'work' more, and investigate, patrol and make cases? We hear less Office space means more deployment, again and again ? We support you and have respect and sympathy, but is this measure going to be well perceived?

I see these common observations, and more, as a challenge in the voters eyes . We also hear too much criticism about Officers smiling and laughing into a cell phone non stop these days. This is a big perception problem. What a productivity killer and distraction ?. The last 5 times I have approached a parked unit to say , Hi , I have politely waited for these conversations to end....''Where are we going saturday night'', next time, , what are we bringing to the party, can I come over tonight, we had a blast...we have to try that again, , and will you pickup my dry cleaning''. I think this causes a perception problem at the ballot box when we are asked for more and more money. We love most of you as heros, but I think enhancing productivity, efficiency and overall fairness will resonate more with the voter in these tough economic times

As another common lament, many notice that the present East Station is always packed with units, all the time, rather than out cruising. We have seen 10 -12 units at one burger stand for an hour too, including CHP's and Seal Beach Officers. We recall 4,6,8 units hanging out for hours behind Community Hospital too, day after day,year after year.. It seems as though voters want less of this, not more?

Coupled with our friends often retiring to Idaho or someplace similar, in their 50's. For too many voters, it's going to be a hard sell. Many people think they should bring back the you must live here, or be very close, to work here rule too. You get a lot more bang for the buck and the mentality is far more 'Invested' and local. No disrespect intended with any of this, just what we hear a lot of.

Duke, Juan, great style, kudos and respect. I am betting this proposal is dead on arrival. The Wetlands part is the only very popular portion, and only if equitable upon closer scrutiny, which is in the works.

We may try the wetlands piece alone some day....finally !!

Let's keep working on a better Long Beach for ALL. . It is pretty obvious that w care?

Re: COUNCIL APPROVES PUTTING PARCEL TAX ON NOVEMBER BALLOT | The District Weekly

Professor Pisoff — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:29:15 -0000

I have a dream.
In spite of references labeling folks like me "racist fuck", "bigot", "right-wing fanatic", etc., I hope someday to vote for...
Mayor Juan Pardell...or maybe...Mayor drnoe,
though my endorsement might doom their non-candidacies.

Re: COUNCIL APPROVES PUTTING PARCEL TAX ON NOVEMBER BALLOT | The District Weekly

Juan Pardell — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:02:09 -0000

John B ....... I've never stated, that police officers in Long Beach do not do a difficult job, nor they shouldn't be compensated accordingly for their work. However, I do not know of any correspondence that supports any contention that a mass exodus from the Long Beach Police Department has occurred. Have officers left for other agencies? Of course. I'm sure many law enforcement agencies suffer from defections.
Your contentions of Long Beach not being a safe city, because of a police officer shortage, is telling only half the story. You can turn Long Beach into a police state and still have crime. Factor in the rampant poverty levels, minimal private sector investment, high rates of social services, illegal immigration, etc., and you can fill in the blocks of why your city has so many safety concerns. I don't believe employers won't come to Long Beach simply because of public safety concerns. There are many other issues aside from that one factor.

Re: COUNCIL APPROVES PUTTING PARCEL TAX ON NOVEMBER BALLOT | The District Weekly

Dr.Jim Grant — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:19:22 -0000

So Dr. noe, Mayor O'Neil screwed the pooch? Boy, that must not have been a pretty site !! Got any video? Stills? LOL.. Can we add that to the Official City Seal? That was bare assed rude !! And a clue to the author? Hmmm.

You were a cop, a commander, a 2 term councilman and Vice Mayor, we would pretty much bet,...regardless... how do you suggest we give those who got the spiked pensions a well deserved haircut? Bankruptcy? Concessions? A cleaver? How about having a few '' Drawn and quartered''....at the convention center...we'll charge admission....send it to CALPERS??

We can criticize all we want but where are the real world solutions? Bob can't do it all. We hear he may seek CA Attorney General or something similar some day, thus he must support Police and Fire or he'll never have a chance to step up. Others on Council fall into a similar dilemna .

We talk to a lot of people each year and none of them seem happy with the state of the City, sadly. The economic timing for this measure is terrible too. I can't see it passing in this economy.

However, If you placed a measure on the ballot to reduce taxes, and trim all spiked, overly generous, undeserved pensions and salaries, and related benefits by say 15%, and then allocate1/2 the savings to the people, and the remainder to fairly distributed street and sidewalk repairs,, you'd.have a winner,

Dream on. Why do you think they call it wrong beach? Dirty, smelly, bought and sold Wrong Beach. Once a shining gem on the Pacific, now where the 'sewers meet the sea', and we have 'The Worst Air in America''. And you want more money?

Want to bet a zero growth amendment and or budget freeze would?

Fascinating discussion people.

Re: COUNCIL APPROVES PUTTING PARCEL TAX ON NOVEMBER BALLOT | The District Weekly

John_B — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 03:32:06 -0000

Juan (44): If you look into the genesis of the Murrieta (CA) Police Department you will find that it was founded in large part with Long Beach PD expatriates back in the early 90's. Those who left for Murrieta were only a small percentage of the good experienced cops that Long Beach PD lost to other Departments and other jurisdictions during that period due, in large part, to the deplorable manner in which LBPD was being managed during then Chief Binkley's tenure.

And with that exodus LBPD lost a considerable wealth of professional law enforcement experience and capability.

You may also recall that L.A. County Deputies patrolled large parts of east and north Long Beach at one time. This occurred due to hiring freezes but also as a result of the seeming mass-exodus of good, experienced, hard working cops to other jurisdictions that offered better pay and benefits than Long Beach was willing to at the time.

So it *has* happened, it's not "propaganda" and it could very well happen again.

This is not to say that Long Beach Police Officers should be able to name their price, regardless of economic conditions…far from it. But they should at least be able to routinely receive both pay AND benefits that are equivalent to the top 10% of comparable California Police Departments rather than always struggling to play catch up to the median of those agencies.

It’s really no different from what routinely occurs in business: As employees become more knowledgeable and experienced and, thus, more valuable, they will desire to be compensated accordingly. The labor market for experienced and professional cops drives this perception also. If these cops are not compensated competitively, they will eventually look elsewhere to earn what they feel they need to feed and care for themselves and their families.

The difference from the business-world, of course, is that it takes a good 3-5 years and tens of thousands of dollars to properly train and equip a good qualified and professional police officer. To lose experienced cops, especially in large groups, is a very poor return on the City’s initial investment in them and can directly and adversely affect public safety. Thus comparatively low pay and benefits can directly result in a city that is demonstrably less safe than it would be otherwise.

Neither are those who have considerable seniority with Long Beach PD (10-20 years) particularly mercenary in their approach to bargaining with the City. There have been *several* past contracts during which police officers have made *severe* concessions to try to do their part to help the City through difficult budgetary times. On some occasions officers have accepted benefit packages in lieu of pay increases, only to have those benefit packages pared down or rescinded altogether during subsequent contracts, leaving the officers with neither the pay *nor* the benefits they deserved.

The bottom line, Juan, is this: If people and businesses do not feel safe in their community, nothing else really matters. Businesses will leave, good citizens will relocate, tourism will dry up and few organizations will want to book a convention here ever again. The manner in which we compensate our police officers, fire fighters and, indeed, all of our city employees can have a direct impact on public safety. For this reason we should be consistently compensating our public safety professionals at or near the top of the comparable scale.

Re: COUNCIL APPROVES PUTTING PARCEL TAX ON NOVEMBER BALLOT | The District Weekly

Joey Zasa — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 01:51:35 -0000

Juan,
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!

Re: COUNCIL APPROVES PUTTING PARCEL TAX ON NOVEMBER BALLOT | The District Weekly

JuanPardell — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 23:36:13 -0000

Police officer salaries should be based on market rate and what the city can afford to pay. There has to be a balance. However, there has yet to be any concrete evidence, provided by the City of Long Beach, suggesting a mass exodus of law enforcement officers have left the agency. Most of the propaganda has been derived from statements made by the POA's president.
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?

Re: COUNCIL APPROVES PUTTING PARCEL TAX ON NOVEMBER BALLOT | The District Weekly

Duke — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 23:03:05 -0000

And at what point would you implement something like this? What would you use as a baseline to determine what to pay a police officer? A librarian? A clerical in Parks and Recreation? How would you convince the unions to go along?

Re: COUNCIL APPROVES PUTTING PARCEL TAX ON NOVEMBER BALLOT | The District Weekly

JuanPardell — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:45:26 -0000

My response? Very simple. Expand the formula for calculating city employee salaries to include: a) realistic revenue growth projections b) the actual annual GDP of Long Beach c) compare Long Beach with cities that have similar socio-economic demographics.

Re: COUNCIL APPROVES PUTTING PARCEL TAX ON NOVEMBER BALLOT | The District Weekly

Duke — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:08:07 -0000

Mr. Pardell,

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.

Re: COUNCIL APPROVES PUTTING PARCEL TAX ON NOVEMBER BALLOT | The District Weekly

JuanPardell — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:56:31 -0000

Duke,

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?

Re: COUNCIL APPROVES PUTTING PARCEL TAX ON NOVEMBER BALLOT | The District Weekly

Duke — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:24:41 -0000

Mr. Pardell,

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.

Re: COUNCIL APPROVES PUTTING PARCEL TAX ON NOVEMBER BALLOT | The District Weekly

JuanPardell — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:59:24 -0000

Vallejo attempted to reconcile itself as a "top-tier" city, based upon its geographical region and population size. Obviously, this was met with disasterous results. Whatever the case, we're going around in circles. You will continue to support the current process of determing city salaries, and others will oppose it. In addition, I would not support a city conducted report on the amount of lateral transfers that have taken place. An independent, unbiased study would be more reliable. Also, you did utilize a baseball team analogy for justifying your opinions. I did provide you with an appropriate response. If your methodologies were beneficial to the taxpayers, Long Beach would not have a budget deficit. Unfortunately, your city's elected officials, staff, etc., have placed the municipal government in a position where libraries will be closed and services cut. Of course, you make no mention of cutting salaries and benefits. That shows you, like most of your colleagues, refuse to live in the real world.

Re: COUNCIL APPROVES PUTTING PARCEL TAX ON NOVEMBER BALLOT | The District Weekly

Duke — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 18:03:58 -0000

The responses back to me are indicative of the type of feedback the city gets when asking its citizens for ideas and/or solutions. I have posed the question- if the city didn't use comparable positions as a way to set salaries, what else would you have them do? I've yet to get a direct answer.

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.

Re: COUNCIL APPROVES PUTTING PARCEL TAX ON NOVEMBER BALLOT | The District Weekly

Juan Pardell — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 05:10:12 -0000

Duke. Just a quick response to your baseball analogy: The reason the Angels/Red Sox/Yankees, can afford to pay extremely high salaries, is because they have very deep pockets. That's what differentiates them from the Royals/Pirates, etc.

Re: COUNCIL APPROVES PUTTING PARCEL TAX ON NOVEMBER BALLOT | The District Weekly

Juan Pardell — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 04:55:10 -0000

Duke..........Perhaps we should take this argument globally. Then we can purport to make a comparative analysis of a municipal employee's salary from Long Beach with, oh shall we say, Jakarta, Indonesia? Why don't you comprise for readers of this blog, a specific five year report, which details how many Long Beach city employees left for other agencies? Perhaps, we can have some concrete evidence as to why this phenomena exists?

Re: COUNCIL APPROVES PUTTING PARCEL TAX ON NOVEMBER BALLOT | The District Weekly

drnoe — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 04:37:36 -0000

We obviously have a mixture of folks making comments who have either swallowed the kool-aid or get it. Let's look at some irrefutable facts:

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!

Re: COUNCIL APPROVES PUTTING PARCEL TAX ON NOVEMBER BALLOT | The District Weekly

Johnny Pisoff — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 03:58:20 -0000

I will vote NO on any tax increase or new fees or bond indebtedness.
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.

Re: COUNCIL APPROVES PUTTING PARCEL TAX ON NOVEMBER BALLOT | The District Weekly

Andreas — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 02:14:56 -0000

Duke, you sound like the only one on here that perhaps hasn't run a company. If you the only thing you have to motivate and keep your employees is budget you're in trouble. Sometimes if your company isn't at the top of the food chain, which in comparison long beach aint, you have to find other ways to motivate your employees if you want the top dogs out there. Or, you take the second tier of talent and hopefully train them and get them to first tier level.

Long Beach isn't a top tier market, you have to compare apples to apples.

Re: COUNCIL APPROVES PUTTING PARCEL TAX ON NOVEMBER BALLOT | The District Weekly

Duke — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 01:21:34 -0000

"Duke…. Dick Ray pretty much said it best. All I can add is that Long Beach, and many other municipal governments, should cease with the Fortune 500 mentality and pay employees what is amenable according to their own budgetary standard."

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?

Re: COUNCIL APPROVES PUTTING PARCEL TAX ON NOVEMBER BALLOT | The District Weekly

Duke — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 01:07:31 -0000

Mr. Ray,

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.