DISQUS

Laurence B.Goodhue · 8 months ago

As least Dan baker had the.dignity,and good sense to resign.

Laurence B.Goodhue · 8 months ago

..and of course he does deserve to have his name spelled correctly:

At least Dan Baker had the decency,dignity and common sense to resign.

Guest · 8 months ago

Middlebrow · 8 months ago

Write about the Wetlands not the Press Telegram! I don't read one publication to learn about another - I read a particular publication to learn about, among other things, that publication.

What do you think I am learning about The District Weekly?

Mike Ruehle · 8 months ago

Of course City Manager West is going to defend Mr. Conway, his public works Director. After all, it was City Manager West who recently promoted Mr. Conway at the request of Councilman DeLong who has long maintained his displeasure about the past Public Works Department.

Moreover, City Manager West doesn’t get it. The issue isn't that Mr. Conway polled the Council for support of the deal he was putting together for developer Tom Dean. The issue is that Mr. Conway was caught assisting Mr. Dean’s lobbyists in securing the deal for Mr. Dean.

If I have a real estate agent representing me on the sale of my house, I would fire him if I found out he was disclosing confidential information that may influence my decision to the buyer’s agent.

Who needs a Swamp? · 8 months ago

The city is bankrupt - Bob Foster made the pensions time bomb a campaign promise. He has yet to address it.

The city seems willing to give $25 million worth of valuable land for some depleted oil fields that need toxic waste clean up ($$$ unknown, maybe we should find out FIRST)

The city wants to put a property tax increase on the ballot to keep the libraries open ($4 million per year)

I have an idea: Let the city fund the libraries and then put this toxic waste land swap on the ballot!!

The corruption is odious! Former city manager? Five or six votes in pocket - they held a private meeting? in whose pocket is our city government? No appraisals? Council members voting before we know what the deal is?? This is a stinking mess! West and Conway have some explaining to do with the public because the mayor and "5 or 6" council members are AWOL.

wrongbeachJohn · 8 months ago

What's really shocking is when you have a one-time "good guy" o'donnell jumping into the cesspool with the rest of the stinking turds. What gives? What did he whore himself out for? lerch, sue-ja and debong diving in head first not surprising.

Business as usual in wrong beach...queen mary, aquarium, breakwater, airport, chamber of whores, clean (?) trucks sell-out etc etc etc hold your noses!

foster I have lost all respect for you. I want my campaign donation back you phony.

Theodore Doug Las · 8 months ago

This comment has been removed due to impersonation. (If you want to make fun of us, pick a different anonymous name.)

Dave Wielenga · 8 months ago

Judging by your punctuation, whatever you are reading can only help you, bub. Keep trying. We're with you.

Coastal Protection · 8 months ago

All the naysayers are focused on the wrong issues.

If you don't think the City should make efforts to acquire the Wetlands, and that it is not a priority, just say so.

Otherwise, stop picking the proposal apart.
For me and many of my neighbors & friends, we want the acquired and then restored. We never thought Councilman DeLong would be the leader in this environmental initiative, but all we want is to see the Wetlands protected.

HighHat · 8 months ago

Even if Dean doesn't have to move a single oil well or clean up ANYTHING? Who's going to pay for that? And will they even be ABLE to since Dean will still retain all mineral rights? This is NOT "Wetlands Protection," buddy boy--this looks like crooked politicians lining the pockets of their rich pal. Or maybe just like minded folks pushing a crooked agenda.

Anyway, if you want the Wetlands "protected," this is NOT the deal you're looking for.

Coastal Reality · 8 months ago

All of you boosters are buying into a specious sales pitch.

All stakeholders have made preserving this area a priority for 40 years. And to over 90% of the District this laudable goal will not change.

This proposal is ridiculous. It diverts a huge amount of the restoration budget into our Councilman's 'best friends' pocket, rather than apply it to the huge soil remediation expense, restoration and remediation cost, and oil well relocation need.

And this imagined ploy to 'protect' the area is also puffed up sales pitch 'puffing'. The area has been protected for 40 years too.

Why do you think that many of the best builders in the business never built anything out there? Did Dean just suddenly get the idea? No!

The massive soil remediation expense strips the profit potential out of any project. Also, under Federal and State law, the entire area is Wetlands and thus protected. Who holds title does not change this. Sales talk to pump up the selling price is just that.....talk.

Doing a paper exchange on the Wetlands Triangle to set a high comp in the area is not going to wash either. In a material way, this is perpetrating a Fruad.

Trying to zone or entitle any of the area would be a hugely contentious, very costly, 10 year fight that would fail. And if you want to use these 'imagined' valuations to prop up the sales price, prepare to fight just as hard for this Wetlands negative scheme as you would to try to build anything out there.

The entire parcel, with the Oil rights, is worth about 30 Million $ in today's market. Attempting a 5 or 6 time profit is tantamount to Municipal Robbery.

Guest · 8 months ago

Coastal Reality · 8 months ago

You are incorrect that acquisition is required to protect this land, it is already protected by Law.

If you want to prevent any further action in the area, join us in urging that a MORATORIUM by placed on the agenda.

If Council really wants to protect this land, support a simple MORATORIUM. This will lower the sales price and put the Wetlands Developers out of business

Dave in Alamitos Beach · 8 months ago

Coastal Reality, you make it all sound so clear and logical.

Part of the exchange that also upset me was giving up the property along the LA River for the wetlands. Now THAT is property which is very valuable and in a very park-poor and eco-sensitive area to boot.

But of course the biggest part of the wetlands exchange that upset me was all the smoke and mirrors. Why the secrecy? Why the hurry? If this is supposed to protect everything and we're all on the same side. Yeah, right.

Guest · 8 months ago