-
Website
http://thedistrictweekly.com/ -
Original page
http://thedistrictweekly.com/2009/daily/writing-shotgun/good-news-press-telegram-finally-discovers-controversy-in-wetlands-deal/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
law being broken.
Years ago as a reporter for local station in Boston, one of my stories led
me to a- one on one with the editor/publisher Erwin D Canham whose
paper was, somewhat reserved -one might say-in comparison to the good District
Weekly-but passed on this advice-in a post interview chat.." As long as a
reporter smiles when asking the question,one can ask hardest and most
pointed questions."The Press Telegram might take note.My sense is that the
good Mr.Canham might be smiling at the good work produced by the District
Weekly-but counsel more coverage of some of its display ads that appear in
the paper.
1.Dean owns the Wetlands area.Let him have it.He is stuck with it.He can not
develop it.
2.He wants other City property.Thus we make any sale or trade contingent upon:
his not destroying any wetland;allowing quarterly inspections; the
City having first refusal rights if he puts it back on the market; him cleaning up
up any visible eyesores with PCH/2nd/Studebaker-all those conditions would flow
to any subsequent buyer;land being certified toxic free;oil and mineral rights flow
with the land.
3.Circa six years from now when: the Obama show gets canceled;the socialist are
are removed from office; economy gets back in full swing- private sector
money will begin to flow to levels that the property can be acquired.
He needs to understand that the First National Bank of Long Beach Taxpayers
will not touch any deal brought to them by De Long Foster and Company.Such a
deal would be to toxic.Neither should any conservancy be duped into acquiring
the land now-even though De Long resigns-as resign she should -visa s via-what
must be cleaned up tomorrow morning.
However, we also need to sharpen the teeth on the mechanism that deters those that might otherwise damage those properties...
http://www.gazettes.com/articles/2009/03/30/com...
http://www.gazettes.com/articles/2009/04/10/com...
Regarding the two articles above,
I was taken aback by the strong feelings of the reporter that was behind the writing of this article. It was hard to believe that he would risk putting his feelings “on public display” like this. My head was reeling as I read this lengthy tome about such an important subject to both adjacent neighbors and concerned public members regarding the “weeded” parcel and the law(s) that were broken. What are the possible side effects to exposing a landfill/dump site that was covered and sealed way back when? There was no equivocation in the facts there. I salute him. The editor delved into the entire background of the parcel and the resulting questions. The damage to the flora and fauna was explained in detail. I thank him for this important information, because BACKGROUND is important to reporters when bringing “facts” to light. I believe he called in quite a few markers to expound on the information already made public by others. I respect a rag whose reporters let it all hang out, and whose intentions are to bring those to justice that break the law…… I know that I’ll continue to subscribe to this important publication.
Some article quotes:
(Headline): “Section Of Wetlands Bulldozed For Weed Control”
“SKINNED. The center of a nine-acre strip running along Loynes Drive has been cleared of vegetation — without a permit — by a new owner who hoped to build soccer fields there. “
“Hitchcock said he had purchased the property less than a month before from Tom Dean, and that he was clearing weeds, as had been ordered by the city.
“All that was out there was weeds,” he said. “There were no nesting sites, no pickle grass — just weeds. I was told that there was a weed abatement order, and that’s what I was doing.”
Hitchcock said he had purchased the nine acres with plans to create soccer fields there.
“I had talked with parks and rec, and was looking for a site for park space with athletic fields,” he said. “There’s not that much around. This site was pretty trashed, and I was just going to clean it up and put in grass before getting the permits for the sports fields.” “
“The supposed weed abatement order appears to have been a miscommunication.”
“The land Hitchcock purchased was never part of a large land trade proposal between the city and Dean. It is road frontage along Loynes Drive between the Belmont Shores Mobile Home Park and Studebaker Road, and is separated from most of the wetlands property by the Los Cerritos Channel,”
“Most of the center portion of the land was scrapped to bare dirt before the work stopped. A small hill of mixed dirt, gravel and asphalt also was deposited near the entrance to the property.
Hitchcock said he wanted to do what is best for the city.
“I’m not looking for a fight,” he said. “This could cost millions, and all I’d get out of it is a place to have my kids play soccer.
“I’ve asked the city what they want to do. Maybe they could take it and give me some place that needs a soccer field. But it will be a huge task to ever make that wetlands.” “
" Hitchcock sparked a storm of controversy March 20 when he had his crews scrape weeds off a nine-acre parcel between Loynes Drive and the Los Cerritos Channel."
"City officials said there still was a need for a work permit, and issued a cease and desist order. "
" The property is a former landfill, and AQMD officials tested the site on March 26, detecting methane emissions."
" The notice to comply requires Hitchcock to file a plan and complete work to add topsoil and compact it to stop the methane leak. There is no requirement to add vegetation or restore the property to its original state, as environmentalists are demanding."
" Hitchcock has said he does not believe the property is wetlands, and that he purchased it in hopes of adding soccer fields there.", Third District Councilman Gary DeLong said that while the city attorney looks at potential punishment, the focus should be on the future of the land.
“Our focus should be on what the best method is to acquire that land and place it in the public domain,” DeLong said. “The alternative is to allow Mr. Hitchcock to go through the feasibility studies to put soccer fields there.
“There are three alternatives. A nonprofit could come forward to raise funds to acquire the property. The Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority could acquire the land directly. Or the city could pursue another land swap. But before the city could do that, we should complete the current land trade — and by complete I mean have the property in the Wetlands Authority’s hands.”
" Trade Coming Back
The trade DeLong refers to is with Tom Dean. It would give the city title to about 34 acres of land southeast of Second Street behind the Marketplace shopping center in exchange for about 12 acres in west Long Beach known as the San Francisco Yard and currently used as a Public Works maintenance yard. The land Dean owns currently is a working oil field (and Dean would retain the mineral rights), but some of the property currently has wetlands marsh areas and the rest is believed to be degraded wetlands. “
Stay tuned for part two. I am sending another memo requesting that the sale of City Hall East last year be reviewed because of the emails that indicate it was being bartered for during the "wetlands swap" and I do not believe it is a coincidence the first "buyer" of the public service yard (which Dean ultimately wanted) was then sold City Hall East at a very low price.
there are more plights and beleifs than just yours beleive it or not......
It is the responsibility of Mr. Dean and Mr. Hitchcock to conduct their due diligence to ensure their eyes are wide-open before purchasing the property. It is unreasonable for new property owners to expect windfall profits because they should be allowed to do things with their property that was not allowed for previous property owners.
If a person purchase a property next to a children’s school, would you likewise argue the property owner should be allowed to build an adult bookstore or liquor store there? Public policy and city codes outweigh property owner desires with some properties, including wetlands. I don’t feel sorry for the property owner. It was their responsibility to research the code restrictions prior to the purchase.
“Shannon said the most significant issue revealed by the documents is that Conway inappropriately counted council votes.” Are you kidding me? Is he only identifying this one issue because of the notice to cure delivered to the city? How about Conway providing his home email address to communicate outside of city prevue? How about Conway’s statement that he “purposely avoided appraisals” of the properties so value was not the focus of the deal? Do those actions among many others not also cause you concern City Attorney Shannon?
According to City Attorney Shannon, “it's the council's (city) charter-mandated responsibility" to bring the wetlands deal back before the public. Is that right? Then why didn’t Mr. Shannon happen to mention this responsibility during the February 10, 2008 City Council meeting when exactly the opposite was approved by City Council? After all, there were two Councilwomen and several citizens who spoke before City Council requesting to have the deal come back. I don’t remember hearing City Attorney Shannon speaking up about the Council’s responsibility back then. Only now, after the light starts to shine on this dirty deal, does Mr. Shannon attempt to escape complicity. Too late.
City Attorney Shannon has steadfastly and consistently scoffed at past allegations of Brown Act violations and underhanded dealings by the City and its Commissions. His actions have truly contributed to the arrogance of our city elected officials in dealing with the public. However, when subjected to closer scrutiny, Mr. Shannon backpedals and goes on the defensive in attempts to distance him from the culture his attorney’s office helped to cultivate.
This wetlands swap scandal is similar to the Queen Mary fiasco in many ways. For example, it took the public records request of Traci Wilson-Kleecamp, a private citizen, to spur questions about the city’s preferential treatment provided Joseph Prevratil. It wasn’t until after Traci’s questions and the media attention it drew that Mr. Shannon began to question the appropriateness of that dirty deal. Though also involved in the Queen Mary deal, Mr. Shannon looked the other way until the dirty dealing was exposed in the newspapers. It wasn’t until afterwards that Mr. Shannon became an outspoken critic of the Queen Mary Scandal. How convenient. How similar the Queen Mary fiasco is to the dirty wetlands deal he supported two months ago. Now, Mr. Shannon is again criticizing a deal he earlier facilitated. Good job attempting to distance yourself Mr. Shannon. Good job facilitating corruption in our city.
http://www.topix.net/forum/source/long-beach-pr...
Public Records Request emails show many emails between Mr. Miller and Mr. Conway starting on October 13, 2008, months before the land swap went before city council.
OVERNIGHT MAIL TO THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL!!!
Thank you for your intelligent and insightful comments and actions.
I respectfully add, the LA County District Attorney's Office investigates violations of the Brown Act, and the CA State Attorney General's Office prosecutes them.
With Respect And Admiration,
Venus
The current appraised value of the property in question is only $336,402 from a recording date of 6/29/05. At a value of less than $40,000 per acre, this was obviously not considered land with a lot of potential. Whoever sold it in 2005 must have understood that clearly at that time.
Interestingly, Sean Hitchcock paid more than $2.3M, after four years in which real estate has generally depreciated (especially land). There are several options to explain this unusual appreciation. One could be that Hitchcock got seriously ripped off in the transaction. But he seems to be a pretty savvy developer, and he didn't put out much cash ($2.3M of the purchase was carried back by the seller). A second option could be that this transaction was an attempt to establish an artificially high value for the land to use in future negotiations with the city, the LCWA or other interested party.
We need to offer 30 Million for all of Dean's land, including the Oil rights, peroid.
We need to have 5 votes on Council immediately vote to reveal, and disclose, all of the witheld documents and emails remaining around this transacation.
We need to seriously consider a Summer Recall of Gary DeLong.
Happy Easter Tom Dean, Gary, Mike , Minimum wage Murchinson, and Pat !! You guys begged for all of this, and it is only going to get a lot worse.
Thanks Bob Shannon, for siding with the people, fairness and the Rule of Law. Please, conduct a formal, written investigation. Let DeLong retain Council this time. He needs to learn what he has put many other citizens through with his 'Buddy Bailouts' and 'Special interests first' schemes. Tell him that people are discussing Indictments here. Remind how he let so many of us down, and that he is DIRTY.
Kudos Wielenga, Pearl and Segura for having Journalistic Integrity, Ethics and a sense of fairness towards the average resident, and similar respect and concern for our Coastal Resources.
As we said from day one, may the Devil take the hindmost.......
We citizens need to clean up city hall and hold the people representing us responsible for the wetlands destruction. The City Council members should take the lead and vote to require an independent investigation, fire highly paid pensioned city employees who have violated the law and the public's trust, and put in place a moratorium on all land swaps, land sales, and land use updates (SEADIP, Local Coast Program, General Plan).
We need a nationwide search to find ethical progressive public process oriented people to run the City Managers office, Development Services and Public Works department. The wetlands deal is just the tip of a mountain of corruption. Someone needs to look seriously look at how the Redevelopment Agencies and business associations misuse the public’s money and seize private property for buddy deals. It is time to throw out corrupt crony economic policies and take back Long Beach!
First of all, it's a little too easy, secondly it is just bad form.
Stay classy you paragons of Journalistic Excellence!
Why do you need a by-line?
Why did you feel compelled to read this story, even though it did not have a by-line, especially since it did not have a by-line?
IN MY OPIN, I believe the statement about the Telegram was only in regards to a largely circulated newspaper and it's decision to OMIT potentially important, quickly developing news stories from the paper. This prevents a large portion of Long Beach (those purchasing the Telegram, and using it as their ONLY local news source) from being apprised of, and following those events.
It it easy?
I, personally think it is important.
Paragons of Journalistic Excellence?
I'm happy to keep their company, and thank you, for checking in at an alternative publication. Keep up the good work.
Com Mentor.
Yes, I think that a by-line is important. It helps insure integrity. I just want The District to be the best publication it can be, and this is not the path.
Hey, I have friends that work at The District (and the PT for that matter) so this was directed at them, not you Com_Mentor. So, on your bike now.
“Investigative journalism, in which journalists investigate and expose unethical, immoral, and illegal behavior by individuals, businesses and government agencies, can be complicated, time-consuming and expensive — requiring teams of journalists, months of research, interviews (sometimes repeated interviews) with numerous people, long-distance travel, computers to analyze public-record databases, or use of the company's legal staff to secure documents under freedom of information laws.
“Because of its inherently confrontational nature, this kind of reporting is often the first to suffer from budget cutbacks or interference from outside the news department.
“Investigative reporting done poorly can also expose journalists and media organizations to negative reaction from the subjects of investigations and the public, and accusations of gotcha journalism.
“When conducted correctly it can bring the attention of the public and government to problems and conditions that the public deem need to be addressed, and can win awards and recognition to the journalists involved and the media outlet that did the reporting.”
(Source: Wikipedia – The Free Encyclopedia)
Currently, Mr. Dean operates approximately 40 oil wells spread across his property. These old technology oil wells, storage facilities and their spider web of pipes and conduit are spread out across the wetlands property. The current 40 oil wells average less than 10 barrels per day oil production for a total of no more than 400 barrels per day production. The widespread spider web of old, corroded facilities poses a significant and on-going environmental threat to the wetlands. The solution is to consolidate the oil facilities to central location. Properly abandoning the oil wells and removing the facilities are the only way of preventing future oil spill episodes from contaminating the wetlands.
City Hall should encourage Mr. Dean to pay the cost to consolidate his oil facilities to a 5 acres site. In return for Mr. Dean’s largess, City Hall should allow Mr. Dean to drill 100 new oil wells from a centralized 5 acre location utilizing current directional drilling technology. Each of these new oil wells will average over 25 barrels per day of production for a total of 2500 bpd. The increased oil production represents a revenue increase of $30 million per year at today’s oil prices. Revenue may increase to over $100 million per year if oil returns to last years’ prices as expected in the future. If 100 new wells are not enough economic incentive, allow Mr. Dean to drill more. It should matter little to the public because, if properly done, the new technology wells will not be visible.
These economics should cause Mr. Dean to jump at this opportunity to consolidate his oil holding to an unobtrusive oil well cellar complex at Mr. Dean’s expense. When the oil field consolidation has been completed and there is no longer a risk of a wetlands oil spill, only then can I agree that City Hall need NOT be concerned with oil issues.
On November 11, 2008, I emailed this proposal to Councilman DeLong, who told me he would forward it to Public Works Director Mike Conway. I never heard back.
On February 9, 2009, I again emailed this proposal, this time to Mayor Foster, each City Councilmember individually, City Manager West and Public Works Director Conway. Again, I received no response.
I have been critical about the city’s role in the wetlands deal with developer Tom Dean. My actions do not come without a reason. Besides the public records request emails, I actually have technical expertise in oilfield consolidation and know a little bit about it. However, by ignoring and refusing to respond to me, the city leaves me little choice but to second guess and criticize in a public forum.
I’ve sent many suggestions to various elected officials over the years, on everything from the budget to water conservation to art collection inventory systems to creative airport solutions.
Some of these suggestions have received responses, and some of have not.
Much like you; where I feel strongly about a suggestion I keep at it (and them) in one way or another and you are to be commended for your own tenacity in many areas.
I don’t pretend to know everything about everything so I suspect that sometimes there are very good reasons why my suggestions are not workable or otherwise impractical. I don’t take this personally to any degree, but it would, indeed, be nice to receive some simple feedback.
If nothing else, a quick note: “Mr. Greet, you are a goofball and a crackpot but thank you very much for your interest in suggesting that we build and operate a monorail from the Queen Mary complex to 6th & Pine and back. Very truly yours, the third assistant to the second deputy to the 1st adjutant to the Mayor.”
Hey, even goofball crackpots have good ideas sometimes, right?
Your letter and the director of PW response (to the city manager, not you) is posted on the city's website.
http://www.longbeach.gov/civica/filebank/blobdl...
There are also responses to many other questions, FAQ's, etc. that you can find by clicking on the wetlands picture on the City's home page.
It all sounds kind of half-baked. Also a lot of "trust us, we'll work it all out..."