6 comments

• 

  LB Resident

  1 year ago

  I don't care if it does happen that way. I just want something to happen so I can get my sidewalks fixed and beach restored. While they're at it they can end these stupid affordable housing programs and uplevel the demographics so we can get some decent retail downtown.
  reply
• 

  POLB Employee

  1 year ago

  The real truth of the matter - that a State law would have to be changed in order for the Port to funnel more funds to the City - is treated as an aside in this and earlier reporting. No one in the City has asked Port staff to prepare any information supporting or rejecting Schipske's idea, which, without legislation, is a non-starter.
  
  You can trust that most employees here at the Port, which is a City Department, would like to see revenues at the City increase. Instead, under Mayor Foster's direction, our salaries have been increasingly chipped away in the form of increased contributions to our pension and health care premiums, lower benefits, and postponed contract negotiations. Civil Service salaries in Long Beach are among the lowest in the area and staff retention is a serious problem.
  
  Because the "news" is all about negative reporting, Port staff have become practically demonized in this community. How 'bout we all take jobs in Torrance or Seal Beach and just fold up the Port? Huell Howser can have his maritime museum and the hundreds of thousands of commerce-related jobs in the area can go to Ensenada.
  reply
• 

  Leigh LB

  1 year ago

  POLB raises some fascinating points--and the specter of Huell Howser walking our streets. Crikey. And while I wasn't aware that port employees were losing salaries or that they'd been demonized, I doubt anybody but Ensenada would welcome the traffic, fouled air and dirty water. Seriously: Santa Barbara won't. Neither would Cabo. And that's what our city could become.
  reply
• 

  Dave Wielenga

  1 year ago

  Hi POLB...You're wrong...and you're right. First the wrong: The percentage of Port profits that is annually paid to the City's Tidelands fund could be increasted without any change in state law. The current 10 percent is an arbritrary number. Then the right: I did forget to revisit the issue of the state law that has to be changed for the Port to contribute money to the City's general fund. And I will tomorrow. And you'll be surprised!
  reply
• 

  JuanPardell

  1 year ago

  I take POLB Employee's comments, as a euphemism pertaining to the damage their agency has caused. If an independent cost/benefit analysis were conducted, I believe the mitigation alone, regarding how the port has affected quality of life issues for the nearby residents, would bankrupt the facility. Of course, being that most port employees likely don't live in the affected area, why would they care?
  reply
• 

  Mike Ruehle

  1 year ago

  If the Port can impose a container fee upon its clients to build bridges and improve Port operations, why can't the city also impose a container fee upon the Port to help resolve some of the city's budget issues? After reading the recent California Air Resource Board (CARB) study indicating that the Port causes significantly increased cancer risk to Long Beach residents, I think it is time that the Port start contributing their fair share to improve the quality of life for Long Beach residents. The Port should not be allowed to expand further without paying a higher price for poluting Long Beach's air and water. I recommend that the city should impose a $10 per container fee with the proceeds going to the City's general fund.
  reply