The District Weekly - Latest Comments in MAYOR FOSTER AND HIS INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN | The District Weekly

Re: MAYOR FOSTER AND HIS INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN | The District Weekly

Noah — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 15:48:42 -0000

Hey Duke,
I appreciate you for being smart!! Noah

Re: MAYOR FOSTER AND HIS INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN | The District Weekly

Duke — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:48:03 -0000

The fact remains that all manner of infrastructure repair has been needed for some time now, and has been put off so the city can have such diverse things such as snow at El Dorado Park to open libraries. The time has come to stop ignoring it. Erase the raises, and there would still be this problem and there would still be a bond measure. What it seems you're doing is assigning ulterior motives to a management group that has only been in place about two years now, and was brought in to address these very issues. Now that they've had a chance to get the lay of the land and are trying to do something, they're simply playing games? This just confirms my earlier statement that Foster and West can't win no matter what they do.

Re: MAYOR FOSTER AND HIS INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN | The District Weekly

Dick Ray — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:48:43 -0000

Duke:
The proof you seek is right before you.
Let me try this ----
The city is near a financial meltdown due to over-promised wages and benefits made to it's employee unions. The Mayor and City Manager sit down to find an answer to this impending doom. What do they offer? An infrastructure bond measure that raises $571 million dollars to fix crumbling city property.
How is fixing potholes and building new fire stations going to cure a structural budget deficit?
It simply cannot do this unless all General Fund spending on infrastructure is diverted to fill the hole in the budget.
This ain't rocket science.

Re: MAYOR FOSTER AND HIS INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN | The District Weekly

Duke — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:37:06 -0000

"We may well face massive cutbacks and there is a chance that even with all the cutbacks the city will find itself without sufficient money for continuing operations. While that would in the short cause severe harm to us all, I feel that it may also give us the opportunity to finally face the long term challenges of the city in a better informed and realistic manner. That, I think, is worth the short term pain."

It will be more than short term pain, it will be the elimination of some departments and programs that once gone, will cost more to bring back than it would to fund right now to keep going. There will be areas cut that have never been touched before. And I'm not trying to scare anybody into supporting Foster's plan. I'm just stating that from what I've been privy to so far, all of which is merely ideas on the table and not at a "definite" stage, to ensure they never find themselves in this situation again, the word "bloodbath" has been tossed around, in describing both programs, jobs and practically entire departments lost.

Re: MAYOR FOSTER AND HIS INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN | The District Weekly

Duke — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:29:35 -0000

I don't need proof of more pay raises. I KNOW they're coming. I also know there are more to be negotiated. I know this because I'm at City Hall on a regular basis and that there are still more unions with expiring contracts. What I can't figure out is why you asked me that.

Where I would like to see some proof is from the statement of yours I quoted. Is it your assumption that Foster is going to fund the pay raises with the proposed infrastructure money or have you been privy to conversations, memos, something along those lines? And let me be clear- for all I know, you could be correct. But to make such a blanket statement, I'm curious as to how you arrived there. I also would bet Foster wouldn't care about your proposed verbiage.

As for what Foster thinks of the prospects of this passing, I'm willing to bet if you asked him, he'd tell you he doesn't think it will. See my post number 20 above. He's likely just covering his bases here. In order to avoid the biggest cuts this city has ever seen, he's trying this first. Because if he and West do have to cut, every Long Beach citizen will notice, and many will be unhappy, for a variety of reasons. More than unhappy, they'll be pissed. And then he'll say something like "I told you so" or "be careful what you wish for", because the coming cuts won't be pretty at all.

Re: MAYOR FOSTER AND HIS INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN | The District Weekly

Dick Ray — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:14:38 -0000

Duke:
You ask for 'proof' but don't specifiy what it is you feel the need for proof of.
I don't think anyone disputes that the city has a structural deficit of $17M that is being addressed only with windfall profits from oil revenues and a few wallpaper cuts in staffing and services. If you want proof of that you need only go to the city's website and review a few of the quarterly budget reports presented to the council.
You want proof of the pay raises? Again I would direct you to the council agenda archives to see the items and the votes.
You want proof of the plan to use the bond money to replace the current infrastructure spending from the General Fund? We'll all have to wait for that. But I would ask that you take a good look at the FY 09 Budget when it is made public.
Once you've done that, I believe you will be satisfied.

Duke

Re: MAYOR FOSTER AND HIS INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN | The District Weekly

Duke — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:00:00 -0000

BTW- they're not done negotiating yet with everyone and there are more raises coming.

Re: MAYOR FOSTER AND HIS INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN | The District Weekly

Duke — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:58:59 -0000

"All this bond measure does is to allow the Mayor and Council to take General Fund money that currently supports these repairs and allows it to be spent to fund all the new pay raises we gave city employees at a time we were facing a $17 million budget defecit."

Proof?

Re: MAYOR FOSTER AND HIS INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN | The District Weekly

Dick Ray — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:39:51 -0000

In reply to naplesres:
I couldn't agree with you more about the importance of infrastructure repairs in this city. We absolutley must take action. However, this proposal will not. I repeat, WILL NOT provide us with any more repaved streets or repaired sidewalks than what we are currently receiving. Keep your eye on the ball, please. All this bond measure does is to allow the Mayor and Council to take General Fund money that currently supports these repairs and allows it to be spent to fund all the new pay raises we gave city employees at a time we were facing a $17 million budget defecit. The $12 to $15 million in General Fund dollars will now be freed up to pay for those raises and to otherwise backfill the budget. That is the real reason for the bond - not to improve infrastructure.
Please ask Mr. DeLong if he will support an amendment to the proposed verbiage in the authorizing legislation that will require the city to maintain future expenditures of General Fund money to infrastructure projects at the same level as the average amount of these dollars spent over the previous five years plus the same 3% inflation guard built into the $120 per residential lot tax. If this measure included such a guarantee, I would support it's passage in a New York minute.
Sadly, I doubt Mr. DeLong or any of the others on the council would support such a sensible safeguard. For they are as aware as I am that they have no money to meet the vast new obligations they have committed us to without some way to 'find' a pool of unrestricted General Fund money. This is the best the Mayor could come up with to locate such a pool. Without this measure passing, we may have a true financial emergency, not the phony one that the council is asked to declare in order to facilitate the inclusion of this bond measure on the November ballot. We may well face massive cutbacks and there is a chance that even with all the cutbacks the city will find itself without sufficient money for continuing operations. While that would in the short cause severe harm to us all, I feel that it may also give us the opportunity to finally face the long term challenges of the city in a better informed and realistic manner. That, I think, is worth the short term pain.

Re: MAYOR FOSTER AND HIS INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN | The District Weekly

naplesres — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:57:45 -0000

I live in Naples and even though because I live in Naples I pay more than my fair share of property taxes compared to people in other areas of the city I would still support this proposal. Infrastructure is the number one problem in this city and so far I haven't heard a single, realistic alternative. Thank you mayor for taking this problem seriously.

Re: MAYOR FOSTER AND HIS INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN | The District Weekly

RoseParkResident — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:41:37 -0000

This city has a ton of money. They have been doing massive construction improvements and landscaping in Rose Park. If they can find the money to wall up and re-build a park in Suja's front yard, they can find the money to fix sidewalks. We subsidize the Grand Prix and a bunch of other things the politicians want. Why is the city still giving a car to councilmen and women? Years ago Jason Gewirtz and the PT broke the story about the wasteful luxury cars Laura Richardson and others had at the City expense and the city car Bonnie Lowenthal took on vacation, to Las Vegas, let her boyfriend drive, and the didn't claim it on her own insurance when he wrecked my city property. The city has money to treat the elected officials like pampered rock stars, and none left over for sidewalks and libraries? I don't believe that.

Re: MAYOR FOSTER AND HIS INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN | The District Weekly

hankla — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:28:17 -0000

Dick Ray is correct. To approve the mayor's tax scheme, is tantamount to rewarding all of city hall for fiscal irresponsibility. Bankruptcy is looking mighty tasty right now...it would probably be the only way to reform pensions.

Re: MAYOR FOSTER AND HIS INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN | The District Weekly

DW reader — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 19:16:57 -0000

22: If you are accurate -- and I hope you are -- then you make quite an excellent point. Thank you.

Re: MAYOR FOSTER AND HIS INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN | The District Weekly

Dick Ray — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:09:32 -0000

Folks --
Some good comments by and large, but everyone seems to be missing the point of the Mayor's "Infrastructure Bond". This measure is much less about infrastructure than it is about bailing the city out of the swamp the council and the Mayor tossed all us tax payers into recently when they voted, I believe 9-0, to give everyone in the city's employ that had not gotten a raise in the last go around, a massive package of raises for which we have no money in the till to pay for.
By dressing this pig up as an "Infrastructure Bond" the Mayor figures there is a fair shot at getting it passed - even with a 2/3 requirement. However, what everyone doesn't seem to understand is that by having this new pot of money to spend on infrastructure, future budgets will have no need to use General Fund money for infrastructure purposes. While it's difficult to determine just how much General Fund money goes to this purpose each year (and it's obviously not enough), the best I can tell it is in the range of $12-$15 million. So if this measure passes, the Mayor has suddenly 'found' that amount of unrestricted money that he can use to pay for those new raises and still maintain an increased budget for infrastructure.
Unless and until the measure somehow includes a guarantee that General Fund infrastructure spending from the General Fund is maintained at the same level as the average over the past five years all we do by passing this massive tax increase is reward the Mayor and the Council for there continued malfeasance.
Let's just say no.
Without the ability to fund these pay raises with General Fund money diverted from infrastructure the city will approach such a financial tipping point that it should finally wake up the electorate to what they have allowed to happen to our city. Maybe the threat of bankruptcy will bring us to our senses. Nothing else seems to have worked.

Re: MAYOR FOSTER AND HIS INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN | The District Weekly

JuanPardell — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 15:47:21 -0000

Mayor Foster needs to realize people are fed up with business as usual from city government. He has yet to address taxpayer's frustrations. I will reiterate, the past decisions that are now affecting much of Long Beach, didn't occur under his watch. However, he needs to show effective leadership and not repeat those past mistakes. The reason Gerrie Shipske has been the sole councilmember to voice opposition, is because her large voting block council district has opposed any tax increase. Well, good for her and them. Everyone else is just trying to play politics. This is what's gotten Long Beach into a fiscal crisis. The Aquarium, Cityplace and The Pike, have all failed to generate the expected tax revenues to fund Long Beach's improvements. To the contrary, they've become a drain on the taxpayers. Until the political culture changes, voters should not pass this infrastructure bond/tax increase.

Re: MAYOR FOSTER AND HIS INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN | The District Weekly

Duke — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:17:22 -0000

Are you all THAT uninformed? Ascribing shady motives to the fact that Foster's plan has taken different forms is ludicrous. He comes from the corporate world. In that environment, floating different ideas in various shapes and sizes is what people do in order to see what would work and not work. This is why the voters elected him, for pete's sake, because he promised a different approach. Now that's he's doing it, he gets called names. Nice.

Foster is well aware that his plan is unpopular, but he feels obligated to put it out there so that he can say he did all he could before he starts slashing and burning city services, which is the only other alternative. He can't win no matter what he does. If he tries to save the services, he gets called all the names we see here. And I guarantee that when the inevitable budget axe falls, he'll still be just as unpopular with the same people. He and Pat West have an unenviable task ahead.

And on West- whoever has cleverly appropriated Jim Hankla's last name here should leave the sophomoric comments about West's height and the Mayor Blob remark on the playground where it belongs.

One more thing- on the pensions already approved in the past- good, bad or indifferent, there's nothing to be done about them. The city owns them. All the kvetching in the world isn't going to help. Orange County recently tried to explore going to court as they're similarly situated and found it wasn't an option. Pensions for employees hired that aren't affected by those contracts are another matter.

Re: MAYOR FOSTER AND HIS INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN | The District Weekly

hankla — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 02:19:03 -0000

Mayor Blob was certainly forced to back-pedal on his tax scheme...why? Because he knew it was illegal. Shannon and his backdoor gal, Mahood, knew it couldn't pass the legal sniff test.

Let's face it, all of our local politicians are scrambling for revenue. LA County is chasing after a feckless local income tax increase, the ports are attempting to drive away competition with their global warming scam, and Mayor Blob (and his sycophants) want to stick property owners with an onerous parcel tax...not to mention LB Unified's BS property tax proposal to perpetuate an even higher drop-out rate.

I still have a question to ask about Pat West...was he hired only because he is shorter than Mayor Blob?

Re: MAYOR FOSTER AND HIS INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN | The District Weekly

DW reader — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 01:06:45 -0000

Anon(17): I agree that cutting services -- and waste -- can help balance the budget. But much of the public will still cry foul just as they do over taxes. I also agree that a tax increase is not the best way to go during troubled times. On the other hand, the public will still oppose new taxes even during the GOOD times.

Now, I'm not an ardent proponent of always higher taxes but John Q. Public needs to pony up if he expects to receive the municipal services we ALL tend to take for granted. But I also expect government to keep waste and mismanagement under control.

Re: MAYOR FOSTER AND HIS INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN | The District Weekly

LB_City_Girl — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:43:50 -0000

Maybe the time has come for the residents of LB to do without some things. If the city is living beyond its means, maybe it needs to cut some fat, like pensions that city council votes itself and what not.
DW Reader, you should know that some people who oppose increasing taxes may be struggling financially for reasons out of their control, like the family whose main source of income experienced a lay-off recently. Are you going to tell this person that not only do they have to cough up more money for our city's mismanaged budget, but add the insult of telling them they are not practicing prudent fiscal measures?
I see so much waste and poor use of city resources on a daily basis, I don't think the first course of action should be to raise new taxes.

Re: MAYOR FOSTER AND HIS INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN | The District Weekly

DW reader — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:11:28 -0000

Alin (15): Just what brilliant ideas do you (or anyone else who opposes modest taxes increases and bond offers) have to pay for the city services of which you are consciencely -- and unconsciencely -- a consumer. When you set foot into any number of private businesses and then walk out with some goods or services rendered, do you expect not to have to pay for them?

It sure is a lot easier to oppose government revenue generation -- whether through taxation or other means -- than to come up with politically correct ideas to secure such revenue.

Anyone who complains about government fiscal policies better be practicing prudent fiscal measures in his or her private life.

Re: MAYOR FOSTER AND HIS INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN | The District Weekly

Alin — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 20:52:23 -0000

Interesting that the Mayor has had to back pedal a bit considering the first proposal might be, in part, a violation of Prop 218. Now Mr. Foster is attempting a bond. If you recall about a year and a half ago there was another attempt at a bond for libraries, police stations, and fire stations which failed. Now we're back at the table asking for more dollars in order that we tax ourselves for the specifics of a new bond measure with a tax as the revenue stream for the next 30 years. Granted, the timing is a little bad considering the economy is flatlining, foreclosures are at a record high, the hedge fund for mortgages is out the door with banks holding the bad and worthless loan paper and soon failing. Construction starts have been down for the past two quarters and gasoline costs are on the the rise. Thess are just the obvious things that we deal with daily. Now government is asking to stick their hand in our pocket for $120.00 per year. Again, for about 30 years. Looking at the bond, the devil is always in the details so, those streets that have already been done I must assume the dollars will be placed into reserve so in the future they can be repaired. Over half a billion dollars is being asked for the rate of $10.00 per month for the next 30 years. Considering we have a huge debt service already for Aquarium bonds, Convention Center Bonds, downtown Cityplace bonds or subsidies for redevelopment,Town Center and Queensway Bay subsidies and I did not see or hear that this bond measure would be insured or who would be the committee for oversight, yet,this bond is a provocative idea. Usually bonds (and they are now being enacted all across the state) are a means to cry wolf when our government has outspent themselves and do what government needs to do. So, government steps up with their tin cup and asks us to charge ourselves and then expect our elected officials not to overspend and trust them? Previously, they said they need to declare an emergency with a 100% vote. Then the first proposal which is the same tax and revenue source (scheme) could go to the general fund and be spent without reservation. At least now it is specifically dedicated to the specifics of an infrastructure shopping list and will have the people look at this at the November election. One of the council members last night at a meeting thought this was the only way to repair the infrastructure but his original stance was "No New Taxes" and we needed to develop some new revenue sources. I am still am waiting for those new revenues and someone to lead the way instead of being in lock step with whatever the downtown says. Surprising, bonds aren't new but they do obligate our families, usually our grand children and sometimes the our great grand children as this one will.

Re: MAYOR FOSTER AND HIS INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN | The District Weekly

Duke — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 20:05:34 -0000

While I'm not saying I favor Foster's plan, just the same, those of you who have cursed here, called it an "abortion", and alleged Foster is going to threaten councilmembers (details or just guessing?), what are you going to do when certain services are cut back or eliminated entirely in order to come in at budget? Are you ready to pay for sidewalk and street repair yourself? Haul your own trash to the dump? Take care of the fallen 50 tear old city tree yourself? Go the Cerritos Library because all of Long Beach's are closed? Take loose animals to a county shelter because Long Beach's is closed? Mow Heartwell Park yourself because the city only does once every thre months now?

Don't laugh too much, these and other similar things, as far fetched and ridiculous as they sound, get put on the table if cuts are the only solution.

Re: MAYOR FOSTER AND HIS INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN | The District Weekly

DW reader — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:16:14 -0000

Mayor Foster: Can your half-billion dollar-plus infrastructure bond proposal include a measly few million dollars to permanently resolve the decades-old parking shortage problem in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd districts?

Or is that just pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking......

Re: MAYOR FOSTER AND HIS INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN | The District Weekly

drnoe — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:03:04 -0000

jdonline wrote: "how many potholes would $400,000 fix?"

Good question JD! I seriously doubt that city hall could even come close to finding a polling firm crazy enough to come up with a plausible scenario of the mayor's wacky plan passing with a 2/3 majority. I also wonder if any councilmember is lame enough to believe this could pass. For the council to piss away $400K to put this on the ballot would be absolute lunacy and downright irresponsible.

Re: MAYOR FOSTER AND HIS INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN | The District Weekly

jdonline — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:49:21 -0000

What part of "HELL NO!" doesn't city hall understand? Just watch as they decide to chuck over $ 400 Grand down a rat hole on a measure that has no chance of garnering a 2/3 majority at the polls! Heaven help us if this is anybody's idea of prudent fiscal stewardship.

How many potholes would $400,000.00 fix?