The District Weekly - Latest Comments in PAIN IN THE ASPHALT | The District Weekly

Re: PAIN IN THE ASPHALT | The District Weekly

wrongbeachJohn — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:45 -0000

Juan, it makes me wonder if there is any special "deals" with the pike parking revenues similar to the BS money-grab by the special interests?

Re: PAIN IN THE ASPHALT | The District Weekly

Ruehle — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:01:13 -0000

Belmont Shore Parking Commission meetings remained unchanged. Still no public participation allowed. 12 items were voted on by the commission. The public was graciously allowed to comment ONLY on the Conservation Corps recycle report that was ONLY given to the Parking Commissioners and was not available to the public. How can the public comment or question something that they are not allowed to see?

While the general public is not allowed to comment, the Parking Commissioners and Travis Brooks, their city liaison, again today openly discussed agenda items with Commission advocates in the crowd. However, anyone who may have questions about the Parking Commission decisions is not allowed to speak.

For example, residents were not allowed today to ask questions about the proposed gateway sign that will be installed in the residential area on Livingston nor the survey that will be conducted to select its design. It was approved by the Commissioners without allowing comments or questions from the public.

The Parking Commission meeting lasted an entire 32 minutes. Apparently there wasn’t enough time for public comment.

Re: PAIN IN THE ASPHALT | The District Weekly

Ruehle — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:53:32 -0000

Kurt,

Per your challenge to me, when are you going to meet with Dave W. to review the evidence? You constantly expound on how you always keep your word. Don’t disappoint everyone again.

Re: PAIN IN THE ASPHALT | The District Weekly

foofoo — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:18:19 -0000

nicely done. these clowns in city hall keep okaying projects that wind up costing taxpayers. instead of closing the library, why don't we close the damn aquarium? that's the real money pit.

Re: PAIN IN THE ASPHALT | The District Weekly

DTS — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 22:03:35 -0000

Foster better "flag" the property around 5281-5283 E 2nd as well.

Think this one may be flying below the radar.

http://www.abc.ca.gov/datport/LQSData.asp?ID=20...

Re: PAIN IN THE ASPHALT | The District Weekly

apatheticLBresident@gmail.com — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 22:18:04 -0000

Just finished watching the streaming video of todays council meeting.

Soooo SAD!!!! (shameful)

For all those in opposition to the 5.7M$ bond for Belmont Shore... ONLY A FEW went in front to the City council to share their compelling constitutionally protected arguments.

Your comment scribers preach democracy. I too, preach the same virtues.

The business owners were strongly represented and their collective tone was; "we run the shore. we bring the city tax money and revenue. let us run our street as we see fit. don't worry about what the neighborhood malcontents think or say."

Action speaks the loudest. CHANGE IS NECESSARY

Dave Wielenga, Keep doing what your doing... In time, more people will not only listen and read, but ACT.

Re: PAIN IN THE ASPHALT | The District Weekly

John_B — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 19:40:46 -0000

Andreas (44): One widely accepted definition of ‘special interest group’ or, if you prefer ‘interest group’ is: “A group that forms because of some special topic of concern.” By that definition, any such group, including the one you represented in advocating the check cashing business moratorium, can be described. Please understand; interest groups do not always have a negative connotation. Some groups, like yours, are simply well-intended people, forming groups…the better to influence public policy in their neighborhood.

Cool!

Unfortunately, even groups with the best of intentions sometimes have unintended and adverse impacts on others. For example, your group “represented the majority will in your neighborhood” as you so aptly put it, and advocated for a moratorium on check cashing businesses…in your neighborhood…so far, so good. Unfortunately, what your group advocated for somehow got changed from a neighborhood moratorium to one that was artificially declared an “urgency” (it was not) and then went into affect citywide. This was *not* what you advocated, nor what should have happened under these circumstances.

Extending this moratorium citywide impacted many, in fact all, of the other neighborhoods in the city, none of which were given much of a chance to exert whatever may have been their own “majority will” in “their own neighborhoods”.

I personally disagree with moratoria on otherwise lawful businesses. If businesses are operating unlawfully or somehow contributing to blight in a neighborhood, then take steps to bring those specific businesses into compliance with existing law and if they do not do so, then revoke their license to operate. But artificially suppressing the number of otherwise lawful businesses really only has a few direct, and adverse, effects: it reduces choice for the public, it limits opportunities for lawful commerce in the area and it limits the generation of tax and fee-based income for the city. Income that increases our general fund which, in turn, assists us with structural deficits like the one we are currently experiencing.

The next check cashing businesses that wanted to open somewhere else in the city might have proven to be the best corporate citizen possible, brought a much needed or much desired service to those who lived in *that* neighborhood and provided desperately needed income to our city. Now, unfortunately, that business is not allowed to open; not only in *your* neighborhood (which is fine if that’s truly how a majority of you who live there feel) but in *all* neighborhoods.

Thus your “neighborhood moratorium” grew to directly impact *all neighborhoods* and I rather doubt that your interest group either intended or wanted that to be the case.

Re: PAIN IN THE ASPHALT | The District Weekly

Janis — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 19:28:50 -0000

I have a few questions about former City Councilman Colonna's $1.5 miliion Park Avenue parking lot that is for sale.

The Local Coastal Plan (page 405 of LCP Appendix 58) states that existing use shall be required to maintain existing parking. The Colonna Park parking lot (which the Parking Commission wants to buy) has been there for 50 years. Since Colonna owns business property right next to the lot how can he take away parking and proposed to build residential homes.

Seems to me that he is required to "maintain existing parking. " Has the BS Parking Commission offered to buy any other private parking lot on 2nd street or only Frank Colonna's parking lot. Why not buy the Farmer's & Merchants Lot? And has the BS Parking Commission gotten a new appraisal for the parking lot since the real estate market has melted down or are they still going to pay top dollar for the property?
Just asking....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local Coast Plan Appendix: DETAILED POLICY STATEMENT AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Specific Parking Requirements Recommendations:
Established Use Shall be required only to maintain existing parking (this
shall apply even where an existing structure is destroyed or
torn down and replaced).
New Use Shall be required to provide only 50% of the required
parking for use. Credit shall be given for off-site parking
created by the user in the parking lot/R-2-S zone area or
thru payment of in-lieu fee."

Re: PAIN IN THE ASPHALT | The District Weekly

Andreas — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:39:05 -0000

John B, we see it the same way. Participation is key as just throwing rocks from the sidelines won't get you too far.

I was meaning to ask you a question about a comment you made above. You mentioned the special interest group that pushed through a check cashing moratorium in their part of town. I was part of that group...but i don't consider us to be a "special interest group" so much as just a group of residents.

My question is off topic but why were you so opposed to the moratorium against check cashing? I think it was a great example of what you espouse. Basically your comments about the power being with the people. In our case with the moratorium, that was exactly what we did. We represented the majority will for our neighborhood and our councilmember went to bat for us. Perhaps you have other reasons why you don't like this specific moratorium but it was a great example of democracy in action

Re: PAIN IN THE ASPHALT | The District Weekly

anonymous — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:14:16 -0000

the more i read this story, the more i like it. wielenga, you've outdone yourself here. this is exactly the kind of thing you should be writing about.

keep up the great work

Re: PAIN IN THE ASPHALT | The District Weekly

John_B — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:05:41 -0000

Andreas (38): Dissent is democracy but so is participation. If we, the people, as represented by a true majority of the electorate, would simply participate more in our government, it would have no choice but to be more responsive to us…because at the end of the day it *is* us. It’s not enough to observe a government action and express dissatisfaction and dissent, it’s *critical* that we maintain better control of our government *proactively* so that it doesn’t get out of hand in the first place.

Government, at all levels, stops responding to us because we stop participating. The responsibility to keep our government (and all members of it) firmly in check is entirely ours. When we are not writing and calling and emailing our elected and appointed representatives we should be speaking before them in person. When we hold elections we MUST TURN OUT AND VOTE and do so intelligently! When we stop participating (monitoring, questioning {*and* insisting upon answers} and voting intelligently) our government is left to its own devices. When that happens, as we have often witnessed to our very great detriment, government starts doing all sorts of silly and damaging things to our society.

Long Beach’s voter turnouts at elections are *horrendous*. They're not "poor" or "bad" or "sub-standard"...they are "horrendous". We should be collectively ashamed of ourselves for so squandering that one precious right. A right that people have literally died, in the hundreds of thousands, to demand, to secure and to defend for us.

Those in Long Beach who represent us (from the Mayor to the Parking Commission) do so with our consent (as expressed through our votes). If we do not vote intelligently then we cede that consent to others who, in many cases, do not represent the majority view and are, more often than not, far more self-serving than society-serving.

So, yes, Andreas, dissent is democracy…but proactive and informed participation can accomplish far more than dissent, and far more productively.

Participate in your government, Long Beach! Monitor it CLOSELY, question it CONSTANTLY and vote intelligently at EVERY SINGLE OPPORTUNITY!

Re: PAIN IN THE ASPHALT | The District Weekly

Tyler Durdan — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 11:29:17 -0000

Well, 40 posts and no one has been falsely accused of being a racist yet? Remarkable.

Re: PAIN IN THE ASPHALT | The District Weekly

Dave Wielenga — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 10:29:49 -0000

In my opinion, this is one of the best strings of comment that I have seen on our website. It refrains from name-calling, and instead seems to be an honest attempt by open-minded people to reach something like the truth. I have learned a lot from reading it. Thanks!

Re: PAIN IN THE ASPHALT | The District Weekly

Ruehle — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 01:52:35 -0000

Thank you Andreas. And thanks to THE DISTRICT WEEKLY for providing a format to air our concerns.

Re: PAIN IN THE ASPHALT | The District Weekly

Andreas — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 01:15:27 -0000

To John B and Mike Ruehle. Just spending a little time reading through the chain of comments and i find it all really interesting, thank you.

I guess you might call me an "activist" that lives in the downtown. I've learned some of the same lessons since i've gotten myself involved relating on issues that affect the DT.

I feel for you Mike, sometimes it seems like you're totally behind the 8-ball and nobody wants to listen or reply and you're running out of options. There seems to be a lot of corruption happening in this city, hence why so many people on this site are constantly bringing up conspiracy theories, including me. I would assume that many other cities suffer from the same problems but i'm not sure as to what degree in comparison to LB.

One thing i totally agree with is that trying to get the other councilmembers outside of your district to back you on a complaint about Delong is a waste of time. They definitely don't like doing that because when the time comes they want Delong's support on their issues, which are also sometimes looked at as conflicts of interest.

It sucks that you have to wait two years to get Delong out of there as he always sounds like a huge douchebag. Not sure what else you can do to fight this but i'm eager to follow the story as it unfolds as i'm sure it will be a case study for down the line. Hopefully you can get it to a vote that from the residents, as opposed to the special one sided commission. Power to the people.

Dissent is democracy, do your thing.

Re: PAIN IN THE ASPHALT | The District Weekly

John_B — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 22:26:51 -0000

Mike Ruehle (36): Thank you again for the education on these issues from the perspective of you and the BSRA.I intend to personally query my Councilmember (Mr. Delong) about your allegations and concerns.

Despite how you may feel, dealing with these challenges truly is as simple as I’ve lain out. As I mentioned, it’s clearly not *easy* (as your experiences have taught you) but it really is as *simple* as following a written, well-documented and escalating pattern of response to political injustice.

I would urge you to send your concerns to the Mayor, Council, City Attorney and City Manager in writing and by certified mail, requesting a response, in writing, by a reasonable date-certain that *you* set. I would recommend that you write representing all of the other members of the BSRA that agree with you and have each of them affix their original signatures to the letter. Have it notarized to remove all doubt as to the authenticity of the signatures. Advise the recipients that if you do not receive the required response by the reasonable date that you set, you will take your concerns directly to the FPPC (naming each of them in the complaint) and (if you feel the misconduct rises to the level of a crime) to the District Attorney's office. If you do not receive your response as requested then follow through with your next step…and your next…and your next…until you’ve either succeeded or have exhausted all possible appeals.

In the meantime you can defeat this measure by making sure the Council understands that the majority of the residents impacted by this initiative are patently against it and desire that it not be placed on the ballot (again) in November. Do this in writing and in person (all of you) at the Council meeting.

If the measure does go to the ballot then organize the majority electorate that is against it and make sure that they all vote to defeat the measure at the ballot box in November.

Again, Mike, it’s not easy…by any stretch….but it *is* beautifully…exquisitely…simple.

Re: PAIN IN THE ASPHALT | The District Weekly

Ruehle — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:29:27 -0000

John B (35), you have pretty much summed it up. I, among others, have emailed, phoned called and spoke before the Mayor and City Council on several occasions about this matter. Other than Mayor Foster expressing his concerns, I have never received a single comment from any of the City Councilmembers. They chose to remain silent. The other Councilmembers know things are wrong in District 3. However, they selfishly choose to remain silent to ensure Councilman DeLong’s vote of support on issues in their respective Districts.

I suspect the Mayor and City Council will have a difficult time saying that they didn’t know about what is going on in Councilman DeLong’s District. If you reviewed the tapes of previous Council meetings, you will find that I have spoke at 4 of the last 6 City Council meetings about our concerns. I spoke 3 different times at the last City Council meeting alone. Beginning last City Council meeting, I have now begun describing in detail how the City actions are furthering the Parking Commissioner’s financial interests. For instance, Parking Commissioner Lorbeer was granted variances without a public hearing on two of his properties, how Commissioner Schneiter was appointed by Councilman DeLong to lead a “secret” committee of business people to turn the Tot Lot children’s playgrounds into parking lots for his commercial properties, how Councilman DeLong sponsored and pushed through a full entertainment permit with no restrictions for Commissioner Lorbeer’s Belmont Station commercial property despite the outcry of the residents who had opposed it, how Councilman DeLong refuses to meet with me to discuss resident concerns about Parking Commission public participation. The list goes on and on and lengthens almost weekly.

Did I mention that one of the reasons that I am President of the BSRA is because Jeanette Gavin (currently a Parking Commissioner) was a BSRA Boardmember who tired to appoint Parking Commission Chairman Lorbeer as the BSRA President? That is probably one of the reasons that she was not re-elected to the BSRA board. That is also probably the reason that Councilman DeLong appointed her to the Parking Commission. He certainly did not ask the BSRA for our recommendation as defined in the Parking Commission CFD ordinance.

I agree that the Mayor and City Council is supposed to work for us. Unfortunately, it appears that nobody has told them that. When 7 residents (including 4 Boardmembers from 2 different resident associations) spoke before city council on May 20th in opposition to Councilman DeLong sponsored expansion of the Parking Commission geographical boundaries into residential areas, Councilman DeLong told everyone in city council chambers that day that we were all “malcontents.” Then City Council voted unanimously to approve the boundary change. It’s all well and good to talk about holding our elected representative accountable at the elections. However, it is 2-years until that happens. I respectfully disagree. There’s nothing “simple” about dealing with unethical issues such as this.

Re: PAIN IN THE ASPHALT | The District Weekly

John_B — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:39:25 -0000

Mike Ruehle (34): Thanks once again for a very informative response!

Comments and Questions:

So if I understand you: you (and BSRA) feel that Chief Assistant City Atty. Heather Mahood misrepresented, on the record and before the full Council, the true reason CLB will be changing the manner in which these votes would be counted should the measure go forward. Rather than doing so to bring CLB in compliance with Prop. 218 (as she so stated) you feel it’s being done for no other reason than to weigh a vote that already failed once in favor of those interests, notably the Parking Commission led by Chairman Lorbeer, most desiring to see it pass.

Further you (and BSRA) feel that there is a clear conflict of interest evident because those interests that are pushing to see this measure pass stand to benefit materially and monetarily from said passage, that they have essentially packed the Parking Commission with people (or their representatives) who will benefit materially or monetarily from this measure and that they have undue influence over the single Residential representative present on the Parking Commission.

Further you (and the BSRA) feel that the Parking Commission has undue and improper influence over 3rd District Council Member DeLong who, in your opinion, regularly advances the goals of the Parking Commission without due consideration for the area residents who are, or may be, unfairly and adversely impacted by the decisions made by the full Council, as influenced and encouraged by the Council Member DeLong.

Does that about sum it up? Have you committed these concerns to written format and sent them to the Mayor, the Council, the City Attorney and the City Manager by certified mail so you can prove that the each received them? If not, you should. If you have, has there been a written response from any of them? If so, what was it? If not, I would say you have done your due diligence and must now look beyond CLB resources to seek a resolution to your concerns.

Letters and columns in the local media (including this most excellent Internet local news source) are all well and good for raising public awareness and affording informal input. But there is no official response required from our elected and appointed officials to such letters and columns. Elected and appointed officials must (unfortunately) be put on documented written notice of your concerns and complaints and you must be able to prove that they received them before you can reasonably expect them to take action, before you take them to task for not taking action and before you resort to going beyond them to higher authorities.

It’s very nice that Mayor Foster has “flagged” this issue but what exactly does that mean? Will his staff monitor this issue closely for potential conflicts and take action if noted? If so, then he should clearly state that, on the record, so that you and others can be assured it will happen and so that you will have a specific quote from him on the record on this matter that he can be held accountable for later.

Will he hold public hearings on the matter so that all those who have input may be heard and understood? Will he compel all of the parties involved to sit down and meet together in company with City Attorney Shannon and a representative from the FPPC? Mayor Foster could certainly cause any of these responses to occur and many others besides that could very well resolve this to everyone’s eventual satisfaction.

Perhaps you should include those suggestions in your certified letter to him and the other recipients so that they can know clearly that you and those you represent insist upon being an active part of the long-term solution to this public policy challenge. Include a petition signed by all of those you represent who feel as you do, so that the recipients can be assured that you are not simply a “lone voice” but, rather representing a considerable portion of the electorate that is being effected by these issues without what you feel is adequate representation.

The Mayor, the Council and all of our other elected and appointed officials work for us. This means they *must* be responsive to the true and proven will of the majority of the electorate on *all* matters of public policy or they risk being replaced during subsequent elections with officials who will do so.

This is why true political power still resides (will always reside) with the people and not with special interests or other influences. Because it’s the people, wielding the precious power of the vote that can ultimately say “yes” or “no” on any issue of public policy, can open or withhold the public purse strings as they deem appropriate and who can ultimately determine who serves them in elected and appointed office, and who does not.

If any of our elected or appointed officials (federal, state *OR* local) have forgotten this most basic axiom of a representative republic, it’s only because the electorate has allowed them to.

If we have allowed them to it’s because we, as a people, have gotten far too comfortable with the idea of allowing others to think for us, to act for us and to determine what’s best for us.

We (the people) have forgotten that we are supposed to be doing all of those things for ourselves, and then electing and appointing others to carry *our* collective will, and not their own.

We must begin to remember and, in remembering, we must then remind those we have elected and appointed to serve us.

As I’ve mentioned in other postings: It’s not always easy…but it really is just that simple.

Re: PAIN IN THE ASPHALT | The District Weekly

Ruehle — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:58:47 -0000

Hello John B (32),

The proposition 218 requirement that “the provisions of this article shall apply” are already being met. Prop 218 doesn’t specify exactly what the definition of a parcel-by-parcel assessment is. Under the existing system, votes are already based upon the number of parcels each person owns. The proposed change and alternative method will essentially base the votes upon the total square feet of parcels owned. Both methods are acceptable under Prop 218. However, the alternative method will favor the Parking Commissioners when they conduct a revote in October on the bond that failed passage in March.

Let me explain why the Belmont Shore Parking Commission is the epitome of CONFLICT OF INTEREST. It has 7 Commissioners. 3 of these Commissioners, including Commissioners Lorbeer and Schneiter, are commercial property owners. 3 Commissioners are business owner tenants of Commission Chairman Lorbeer. The remaining Commissioner is supposed to be a resident representative recommended by the Belmont Shore Residents Association (formerly the Belmont Shore Improvement Association). However, the BSRA was never consulted when resident representative Commissioner Gavin was appointed last November by Councilman DeLong. Since her Appointment, resident representative Commissioner Gavin has consistently motioned and voted for Parking Commission actions that are the opposite of the wishes of resident surveys. There has not been one instance when Resident representative Commissioner Gavin has consulted with or asked input from the BSRA (BSIA) prior to voting on an issue that impacts residents. Commissioner Gavin has been a steadfast supporter of the Parking Commission commercial property owners, which is why she was voted off of the BSRA board last year and also probably why Councilman DeLong appointed her to the Parking Commission. If you doubt my words, I suggest you check her Commission voting record on actions opposed by residents.

Should the Parking Commission CONFLICT OF INTEREST be changed? Yes, of course it should. Over the past two months, several people, including former city attorneys and auditors have spoke on the record about how the existing Parking Commission CONFLICTS OF INTEREST should be changed. That is why Mayor Foster “flagged” the potential CONFLICT OF INTEREST during the last City Council meeting. In my opinion, the Parking Commission should have a minimum of 4 resident representatives out of a total of 7 Commissioners due to the Parking Commission’s impact on the surrounding Belmont Shore neighborhood. These resident representatives should be selected by the BSRA to represent the community. This resident representative Commissioner majority would insure that Parking Commission actions are for the betterment of the entire community and not just the commercial property owners.

When you ask, “why isn’t your group working to get them permanently changed?” it leads me to believe that you may have missed the four articles written in THE DISTRICT WEEKLY over the past month detailing residents' efforts to change the unethical way business is being conducted. However, it has been very difficult to achieve change within the city because Councilman DeLong is an avid supporter of Parking Commissioners Lorbeer and Schneiter. I can give you example after example of how Councilman DeLong has sponsored actions attempting to better the interests of these Parking Commission commercial property owners. Before joining the BSRA, Councilman DeLong told me that he could not act upon my concerns because I was only one voice. Councilman DeLong told me that I needed to join the BSRA to have my issues addressed. After I became President of the BSRA, Councilman DeLong then cut off all communication with the BSRA. He refuses to speak or meet with me about issues impacting residents. Like I said previously, I can forward to you my multiple email requests to meet with him and Councilman DeLongs repeated refusals.

I have sent several emails to the Mayor and other City Councilmembers in hopes that they would step forward to try to improve this situation and the inherent CONFLICT OF INTEREST. I have received no response. Unfortunately, each Councilmember refuses to stride outside of their respective districts. It appears that the next step will be to approach the FPPC, Attorney General and LA County District Attorney. It will be a shame if the Mayor and City Council chose to impose another black eye upon Long Beach because they are unwilling to correct this situation.

Re: PAIN IN THE ASPHALT | The District Weekly

John — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 22:46:14 -0000

Why would there even be a vote if change was mandatory, and even having one vote how in the hell do you justify another?
I bet all the BS businesses belong to the chamber, and the wizard of oz is behind the curtain pulling all the strings and levers.
How discouraging, disappointing, and despicable!

Re: PAIN IN THE ASPHALT | The District Weekly

John_B — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 19:39:00 -0000

Mike Ruehle (31): This was a most excellent and informative response! Thank you! It’s by no means my intent to dominate this format with my own comments and questions but I’m very much engaged and hopefully others are also.

Questions derived from your responses:

The text of Proposition 218 indicates, among other things, that: “…the provisions of this article *shall apply* to all assessments, fees and charges…”(emphasis added). If the provisions of “this article” were not previously applied in Long Beach, then doesn’t the wording “shall apply” in fact mandate a change to bring Long Beach into compliance?

Are there no residential property owners serving on the Belmont Shore Parking & Business Improvement Area Advisory Commission? If not, why not? I note the requirement for 7 members, 3 from the Belmont Shore commercial district, 3 that operate businesses (2 of which must be members of the Belmont Shore Business Association) and 1 that is a resident and must be a member of the Belmont Shore Improvement Association. Where is your “residential member” on the Commission? And why are you not being better represented by that person or, at least, being more fully noticed on the actions and efforts of the Parking Commission through that person? Perhaps it’s time to revisit the make up of the Parking Commission so that resident property owners are better represented?

I agree with your contention that minimum standards, in any area of government, should not be sufficient. Unfortunately to be quantifiable they must first be set. We, as a people, should always aspire to more than the minimum, the mediocre or even the average. We should aspire toward excellence always and, likewise demand that our government so aspire as well. If the current minimum standards in this case have proven to be neither sufficient nor reasonable, then why isn’t your group working to get them permanently changed? Or are you?

As to reporting allegations of political misconduct in this case, YOU know about it as, I’m certain, do many of your colleagues serving on or represented by the BSRA. Have you, individually, or has the BSRA as a group, filed any formal complaints concerning your allegations with the FPPC? If so, what has been the result of their investigation?

If not, why not?

Re: PAIN IN THE ASPHALT | The District Weekly

Ruehle — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 17:01:25 -0000

John B. (30), I don’t disagree that Ms. Mahood made those comments to the City Council, and I don’t disagree about what Prop. 218 says. However, she misled City Council by failing to explain that the current voting method and the proposed new voting method are both compliant with Prop 218. The proposed method may be more representative of Prop. 218. However, the proposition does not compel the city to make a change. Her staff report clearly indicates the proposed voting method is an “alternative” that City Council may consider. The point is that, other than Councilman DeLong’s desire to further the interests of his appointed commercial property owner Parking Commissioners, there is no requirement to make this or any change.

Regarding your question “Was the notification in accordance with the law?” I suspect it met the MINIMUM requirement. However is the MINIMUM requirement an acceptable and reasonable standard? There are only 63 property owners that need to be notified about the proposed voting change. It’s probably cheaper to send a notification letter to each of them rather than posting notification in the local newspaper. However, posting notification in the local newspaper meets the MINIMUM requirement without generating opposition because the 45 property owners who are having their voting rights reduced will probably never see the newspaper posting and won’t find out about the change until after City Council has approved it. Though it may be in accordance with the law, I contend it is unreasonable and wrong.

This is very similar to when City Attorney Mahood recently told City Council that her investigation concluded that the Belmont Shore Parking Commission complied with the MINIMUM requirement of the Brown Act by allowing public participation ONLY at the beginning of the meeting before agenda items were discussed but not during Parking Commission meet discussions and voting on actions. Her investigation was in response to numerous complaints to City Council from residents about their inability to voice their opinions into the record on numerous Parking Commission decisions that impact local residents. Considering that the Parking Commission area of authority is entirely surrounded by Belmont Shore and that many of their decisions impact local residents, does it seem reasonable that Ms. Mahood deem the MINIMUM Brown Act requirement as an acceptable standard?

As President of the Belmont Shore Residents Association (BSRA), I asked City Council and the Mayor numerous times for the public to be allowed to voice their opinion into the record during Parking Commission meetings. It wasn’t possible to do so at the beginning of the meeting because the agenda items did not provide enough information to understand what actions the Parking Commission were considering. Actions were approved during the meetings without public comment. Then, the next week’s Grunion Gazette would quote Commission Chairman Lorbeer as saying that everyone supported the proposed change. It's hard to dispute when nobody is allowed to comment.

Mayor Foster twice told City Council that Councilman DeLong was looking into public participation concerns at his 3rd District Parking Commission meetings. Councilman DeLong made no attempt to contact me or anyone else who had voiced concerns. I emailed Councilman DeLong three times asking to meet with him. He responded by refusing to meet with me. I can forward the emails if you don’t believe me. After continued resident complaints, Mayor Foster assigned City Manager West to investigate how the Parking Commission public participation and communication might be improved beyond Ms. Mahood’s MINIMUM standard. Furthermore, Mayor Foster flagged his concern about the Parking Commission’s conflict of interest. This was only after Councilman DeLong chose to do nothing that would deter the ability of his appointed commercial property Parking Commissioners from continuing to steam roll decisions in their self interest.

When you say that “Allegations of political misconduct should be reported, in writing, and investigated thoroughly,” I totally agree. However, how is that possible if nobody knows about it? It is my opinion that the intent of Ms. Mahood’s ill-defined agenda item and failure to notify impacted commercial property owners was solely to prevent the property owners and the public from challenging her recommendation. Mayor Foster has already questioned Ms. Mahood’s MINIMUM standard for public participation at Parking Commission meetings. If her only defense in this case is that she was again meeting the MINIMUM requirement of the law, I believe that she should not be allowed to continue her job as a public servant. That would be “swift and sure.” Moreover, that would send the message that a REASONABLE standard should be used by city staff, not a MINIMUM standard allowing developers and commercial property insiders from enriching themselves with public funds.

Re: PAIN IN THE ASPHALT | The District Weekly

John_B — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 00:35:34 -0000

Mike Ruehle (29): My information concerning the Prop 218 comment came, as I stated, from a review of the video footage of the Council Meeting in question. If you would also review this footage you might also see and hear Ms. Mahood make these comments, on the record, for yourself.

I do not attest to the accuracy of Ms. Mahood's comments, only that she made them. I do find in researching Prop 218 this explanation that appears to be on point:

"Set Assessment Charges Proportionally. Finally, the local government must set individual assessment charges so that no property owner pays more than his or her proportional share of the total cost. This may require the local government to set assessment rates on a parcel-by-parcel basis. Properties owned by schools and other governmental agencies--previously exempt from some assessment charges--now must pay assessments." (Source: California Legislative Analyst's Office/Dec 1996)

Mike, please don't misunderstand me, I am not currently taking sides in this apparent dispute between you, the organization you represent and the other interests involved in this proposal. Quite frankly I see merits to both arguments. But it's my overarching position that taxes and assessments (all of them) should be both limited in scope and equitably applied.

I also understand your frustration with the manner in which this proposal has been re-opened and the manner in which effected property owners were noticed. My question on that issue is this: Was the notification in accordance with the law?

As to the overall implied allegations of unethical or otherwise preferential behavior on the part some of our elected and appointed officials I can only say this: Allegations of political misconduct should be reported, in writing, and investigated thoroughly. If proven true then the consequences must be swift and sure. We (the electorate) must not tolerate such misconduct and the sooner we send that message to our elected and appointed officials the better.

But, Mike, regardless of any shenanigans that may or may not be occurring here, our best response, as the electorate, will always be our voices and our votes. If this proposal is unfair, then gather everyone directly impacted who agrees with you and send that message loud and clear at the hearing this Tuesday. If the proposal moves forward despite your objections, then make sure everyone who will be eligible to vote on the matter does so in November and defeat it that way.

An active, involved and informed electorate remains the best safeguard against political misconduct, at any level of government.

Re: PAIN IN THE ASPHALT | The District Weekly

Ruehle — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 22:44:56 -0000

Contrary to John B. (21), there is no mention in the City Council staff report, written by Chief Asst. City Attorney Heather Mahood, about making voting right changes in order to comply with Prop. 218. Ms. Mahood’s report says nothing about the current system being out of compliance. On the other hand, it clearly says that City Council has an “alternative” to change the way votes are counted to make it more reflective of taxes paid. City Council can leave it the same or change it. Councilman DeLong is sponsoring this change for the benefit of Parking Commissioners Lorbeer and Schneiter, whose bond vote failed in March.

I applaud THE DISTRICT WEEKLY initiating this discussion about the proposed change of property owners’ voting rights. The city attempted to make this change for the benefit of the Parking Commissioners without notifying the property owners. The only ones who knew about this proposed change were the Parking Commissions who saw their $5.8 million bond (insured by the City) fail in March and now want to change how the votes are counted before a bond revote in October. How is that not stuffing the ballot box?

There is no way that a Commercial Property owner would have known that City Council was about to changer their voting rights. The following is the description of this City Council Agenda item changing the way votes are counted and calling for a new bond vote:

“Recommendation to adopt resolution affirming prior Resolutions of
Intention relating to the City of Long Beach Community Facilities District
No. 2007-2 (Belmont Shore), and calling for a public hearing on the
District for Tuesday, August 5, 2008 at 5:00 p.m.”

How would anyone know that this agenda item requested voting for a $5.8 million bond backed by the City (us residents) and also changes the way votes are counted in CFD1? Is this the transparency that our Mayor Foster frequently talks about?

According to Ms. Mahood’s staff report, public notification of this voting change and $5.8 million bond vote was to be provided “by publication one time in a newspaper published in the area of the District…at least seven days before the…hearing.” Does Ms. Mahood truly believe that impacted commercial property owners would see this notification? Does Ms. Mahood truly believe that the above City Council agenda item description is sufficient for the public to understand what is happening? Does Ms. Mahood want us to believe that this is not the City again trying to pull a fast one for certain well connected insiders? With all of the public accusations of City insider deals for well connected individuals, why would Ms. Mahood not protect the City by making sure that proper public notification is made?

On Thursday, I received an email from the City claiming to have now sent notification to each property owner that may be affected by the proposed changes. I did not receive a response back when I asked when the notifications had been mailed. Though I am happy that the City has now made notification, I question why this wasn’t done from the beginning. We need City staff and Councilmembers who are up-front and honest, not acting in the best interests of certain commercial property owners.

If our Mayor is concerned about conflicts of interest, he should first address why Assistant City Attorney Mahood recommended sneaking this change through without notifying the other commercial property owners. Who was she accommodating? Second, Mayor Foster should question why Councilman DeLong continues to sponsor changes for large developers and commercial property owners without talking to his constituents and without the opportunity for public input. And finally, Mayor Foster should address why the Parking Commission and its funding are ENTIRELY controlled by commercial property owners whose properties benefit most from their expenditure of public funds.

Re: PAIN IN THE ASPHALT | The District Weekly

John_B — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 14:41:39 -0000

Dave (27): Thanks very much for these clarifications. As is often the case, the truth generally lies somewhere between two opposing points of view. I'm pleased that "Hizzonner" spoke up as he did. He seems to understand his responsibilities to his constituents better than some others on the current Council. There may prove to be a clear conflict of interest here and there may not. All we can do is scrutinize it carefully, as we should be doing with all aspects and activities of our government, and address conflicts as they arise.

I personally have no issue with contributing to the repayment of these bonds through my parking meter coinage. Like many other visitors to that area, I use those alleyways periodically and would be most pleased to see them widened and/or better maintained.