-
Website
http://thedistrictweekly.com/ -
Original page
http://thedistrictweekly.com/2009/print/features/with-friends-like-these/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
the brackish pond and the evolution of the site in chief.
Very informative and instructive.Let me suggest that the DW reprint such in a article
so that it does not get lost within the blogs.Indeed,distribute such to all local media out
lets;designate someone to read it at the next Council Meeting.Let me also suggest
the City include such in its next utility bill.
Keep up the good work and forget not....
The most dangerous to the cause are not those who do not know-rather it is those
that do not know-they do not know!!!!
Laurence Goodhue
Long Beach
Can't have it both ways o'donnell; you've made a fool of yourself. For years I always though you were a great guy.
What a shame!
Listed below are email excerpts from six different dates discussing Mayor Foster or his Chief of Staff approving various stages of Tom Dean’s wetlands deal appropriately titled Schemes 2 & 3. This is just the tip of the iceburg regarding Mayor Foster's and Councilman DeLong's involvement in this shady scheme. I can only imagine what was on the emails the city refused to provide.
May 27, 2008
Dean to Conway, I think in summary we are there. We can finalize the last residual properties as we go. What is our next step?”
Conway to Dean, “MAYOR is next step. You can probably talk in confidence to DeLong. Then Uranga. I’ll need to reconnect with Oil Operators. Can you give me details on “last residual properties?”
Dean to Conway, sent email detailing eleven pieces of city property listed included East Police Athletic League, Boy Scout Property, 3 billboards, look out park lot, oil well and 1/2 acre on Spring, etc.
Conway to Dean, “Just had a briefing with the MAYOR et al. He’s on board, loves the idea. He didn’t like handing over the signboard sites, so we have to work through that problem. He wants us to quietly move things along while he is on vacation.
July 28, 2008
Dean to Conway, “Mike, Not sure if you are watching email from the road but was curious what our next step is.”
Conway to Dean, “Meet with MAYOR and confirm his support. Still haven't quite worked through Gas & Oil. Maybe you can noodle through the process.
Dean to Conway, “Lets hook up when you get back, When will you meet w/MR. FOSTER?” No email response was provided.
August 18, 2008
Dean to Conway, “What is our next step here? Should we start finishing language and do a term sheet?”
Conway to Dean, “I’m thinking that to make the Amerigas deal more palatable, the wetlands deal should be somewhat concurrent. I don’t think there’s much to delay us now (except for Minimum Wage Murchison). I need to brief the MAYOR. A term sheet would be helpful. Here’s the Purchase and Sale Agreement for Amerigas. Please keep it in confidence.
August 21, 2008
Conway to Dean, “Met with the MAYOR, et al. MAYOR likes the deal, very much. Suzanne Frick struggles with the future costs to the City for leasing a build to suit for Public Service Yard and Gas & Oil. If infrastructure bond passes, we’d have funds to construct our own, but would need the land.
December 12, 2008
Former City Manager Jerry Miller to Dean, Berger and Bill Townsend, “Mike Conway mentioned that he has a meeting planned today with Pat West and Suzanne Frick, and added he would still need to get this in front of Becki Ames (MAYOR FOSTER’s Chief of Staff) as well.
December 25, 2008
Dean to his Partner Jeff Berger, “I had lunch with Gary Delong after our meeting and he is fully supportive of the plan to break the deal into two pieces where the first half is at counsel January 20.” Gary confirmed that BOB FOSTER is also supportive of the truncated deal…. We are planning on scheduling the Council meeting for the 20th of January so we don’t have a lot of time to finalize details”
CD/LBA - Lease Kilroy Airport Center
Type: Contract Status: To Be Introduced
File created: 3/26/2009 In control: City Council
On agenda: 4/14/2009 Final action:
Title: Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute any and all documents necessary for the Third Amendment to Amended and Restated Lease No. WDL-96 with Kilroy Realty, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership, to continue negotiations for the proposed development of property owned by the City of Long Beach and the Water Department at the Long Beach Airport in the Kilroy Airport Center. (District 5)
RECOMMENDATION:
CITY OF LONG BEACH R-1 6
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
333 WEST OCEAN BOULEVARD • LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90802
Authorize the City Manager to execute any and all documents necessary for the
Third Amendment to Amended and Restated Lease No. WDL-96 with Kilroy
Realty, L .P., a Delaware Limited Partnership, to continue negotiations for the
proposed development of property owned by the City of Long Beach and the
Water Department at the Long Beach Airport in the Kilroy Airport Center .
(District 5)
At the end of this process, KRC would (i) commence the construction of improvements, (ii) commence payment of Initial Ground Rent, or (iii) terminate the current Lease . The City and KRC engaged in negotiations regarding the Initial Ground Rent ; however,
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
April 14, 2009
Page 2
Because of the complexity of the various issues concerning the development of the site and then existing market conditions, the Initial Ground Rent negotiation and appraisal process had not been concluded .
Though the wetlands are in the 3rd District, Councilman DeLong has chose to not involve himself with stopping the wetlands bulldozing, attending LCWLT vigils or attending the recent Beer & Politics forum on the wetlands. This meeting would be a wonderful opportunity for the public to ask him why. This meeting is open to the public.
REQUIRED READING...and required that readers send on to Council!!
(they who have so little time to realize what is happening in their city)
Wake-up call.
1. "tore away...and leveled...brackish ponds". Please show me any where on this landill site where a "brackish pond" exists? Is it even physically possible for a brackish pond to exist on top of a city dump landfill?
2. "Dean gives up nothing in the trade". 30+ acres of coastal zone property is "nothing"? I will take it, oh yeah and apparently the city, state and wetlands would LOVE to have it. I would call that biased, wouldn't you?
3. continued remarking of the site as a "wetland". How is a city dump landfill a wetland? Again, it this really possible? It may be in the SEADIP as a future plan (that will never happen), but it is definetely not currently a wetland.
4. "first he said he was obeying a weed abatement order....then he said he was building soccer fields". As if these were conflicting statements. I read the response to the work as weed abatement and then later the response for ultimate plans as a park with soccer fields. There were no statements posted that the initial work was to start building the park or soccer fields?
5. West never said the site was "zoned commerical", he said "open space commercial" which is completely different I assume.
6. "knocking down nest filled trees". There were no nest filled trees or we would have seen plenty of pictures of them instead of old doll's heads.
Respectfully, please show me the basis of facts from the District's reporting for the above.
The City zoned this area Brackish Pond/ Wetlands after reshaping the soil to collect water in a dozen locations. We just returned from viewing the area again, and 2 such areas are still there. A 'brackish' pond means that fresh, or slightly salty water stands there for a period of days after the rain. We have ample evidence of what was there, for over 40 years. Unless you regularly walked the area, as we have, then you are without any factual basis to opine, erroneously, as you have.
And yes, if Dean clears over 100 Million on this exchange, viewed against no chance to market the land elsewhere, he gives up nothing. But then, there will probably be a series of lawsuits, so we will just see who gives up what, when.
As for your truly moronic assertion that this area was....a dump? Go research the facts idiot. City Dump and Salvage #4 was closed safely, before most of the homes were built in this area. A clay cap way steamrolled and watered, year after year first. Then native soil was collected from the area where the Golf Course and Bixby Village was built, to form a clean, natural, native soil cap of about 8 to 10 feet in depth. This soil was rolled and contoured to rise and fall on purpose, to provide water collection areas. The design was intended to simulate the native California aesthetic. All H2 need to do was manually remove a few non native plants and all of the wildlife could have survived.
And the trees had provided nesting and breeding areas, for decades. And you need a Coastal Permit to even trim them, let alone kill them.
Spin as you may try, the City, who oversaw this work, and H2, are in a lot of trouble here, and so is Tom Dean.
Happy Easter, clown !! Soccer field on a Wetlands..Brilliant !! Try to get a permit for that !! LOL
Explain to us since you come across as such an all knowing expert:
How do you get salty water ponds when the elevation is way above sea level and over a trash pit?
I have walked the area several times in the past years and have NEVER seen a pond of any type on this property.
Clearing $100Million? Where did you hear that Einstein?
How is my stating that the area is a landfill dump moronic? It is a landfill over a dump, right? Yes, the mobile homes are on it too, the golf course is on it too (hence the vent pipes) and so are the condos. But, you contend it is not appropriate for a park? Please explain why this would be a moronic stretch. Again, it is not a soccer field on a wetland bozo, it is a soccer field on a land fill just as we have mobile home park, golf course and condos on the same landfill (all these people must be brilliant too that developed, live in and utilize these facilities). Go stand at the river channel and look at the wetlands that is at sea level with ponds and streams and then look to the other side of the channel and look at this piece of weeded property and tell me if you can see any differences Einstein.
and practical than you receiving public permit to
Explain to us since you come across as such an all knowing expert:
How do you get salty water ponds when the elevation is way above sea level and over a trash pit?
I have walked the area several times in the past years and have NEVER seen a pond of any type on this property.
Clearing $100Million? Where did you hear that Einstein?
How is my stating that the area is a landfill dump moronic? It is a landfill over a dump, right? Yes, the mobile homes are on it too, the golf course is on it too (hence the vent pipes) and so are the condos. But, you contend it is not appropriate for a park? Please explain why this would be a moronic stretch. Again, it is not a soccer field on a wetland bozo, it is a soccer field on a land fill just as we have mobile home park, golf course and condos on the same landfill (all these people must be brilliant too that developed, live in and utilize these facilities). Go stand at the river channel and look at the wetlands that is at sea level with ponds and streams and then look to the other side of the channel and look at this piece of weeded property and tell me if you can see any differences Einstein.
and practical than you receiving public permit to
With your permission, once again, I humbly submit some answers to your questions….
“Nice way to conduct yourself with the statements clown, idiot, etc... Just shows your class. “
My response: I am NOT speaking for “Coastal Restorationists”, nor would I, but these are MY responses.
RE:” Nice way to conduct yourself with the statements clown, idiot, etc... Just shows your class.”
Sometimes, while responding to the repeated statements of persons that have yet to perform even the most rudimentary search for information on the subject before posting,
It seems that even the most energetic, knowledgeable persons respond to them in a frustrated, impolite manner.
RE: “Explain to us since you come across as such an all knowing expert: “
My response: Your answer is in the following comments.
RE: “How do you get salty water ponds when the elevation is way above sea level and over a trash pit?
I have walked the area several times in the past years “
My response: Educate yourself of what the FACTUAL WETLAND DEFINITION is. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetlands#Technical...
After doing a bit of research, you must agree on the following FACTS: The parcel IS A WETLAND, that has been covered with a trash dump, that has been meticulously sealed, then intentionally reconfigured to include wetland features, which has been altered, which will entail some repair or apology or fine, or … after doing some research, YOU can finish the statement.
RE: “I have walked the area several times in the past years and have NEVER seen a pond of any type on this property. “
My response: Were you looking for a brackish pond, or an “El Dorado Park Lake” ducky pond?
RE: “Where did you hear that Einstein? “
My response: After a little education, you will surely find “Coastal Restorationists” is much closer to Einstein than you are sir/madam. I suggest if you don’t like name calling, you might refrain from such as well…
RE:” How is my stating that the area is a landfill dump moronic? It is a landfill over a dump, right? Yes, the mobile homes are on it too, the golf course is on it too (hence the vent pipes) and so are the condos. But, you contend it is not appropriate for a park? Please explain why this would be a moronic stretch. Again, it is not a soccer field on a wetland bozo, it is a soccer field on a land fills just as we have mobile home park, golf course and condos on the same landfill (all these people must be brilliant too that developed, live in and utilize these facilities).”
“this would be a moronic stretch. Again, it is not a soccer field on a wetland bozo, “
My response: after your education on the wetland definition, the SEADIP document contents, and other research which I hope you will perform, I do believe you will see the error of your statements. And again, if you do not desire name calling, please refrain…
“Go stand at the river channel and look at the wetlands that are at sea level with ponds and streams and then look to the other side of the channel and look at this piece of weeded property and tell me if you can see any differences Einstein. “
My reply: If you have seen the property and the torn out trees, I do not understand how you can refer to the property as “weeded”. See pictures of “weeded “area here:
http://longbeachwetlands.shutterfly.com/
As for the parcel across the channel, I’m sure that you, by now, have been educated upon why, EXACTLY, sub parcel 23 is in FACT A WETLAND.
And, as for “tell me if you can see any differences Einstein. “, you know.
After you have learned about wetlands and how they relate to this parcel, the actions performed by the owner, and our City leaders, perhaps you can aid in assisting others as I have you, in public forum postings. Thanks in advance for your help!
Respectfully,
Com_Mentor
That is all you got?
a Song? no reply when it gets to the facts and guts of the situation.
Your song is old.
See MY response to your questions.
The song REMAINS the same, and yes, has been repeated as often as is necessary.
1. "tore away...and leveled...brackish ponds". Please show me any where on this landill site where a "brackish pond" exists? Is it even physically possible for a brackish pond to exist on top of a city dump landfill?
2. "Dean gives up nothing in the trade". 30+ acres of coastal zone property is "nothing"? I will take it, oh yeah and apparently the city, state and wetlands would LOVE to have it. I would call that biased, wouldn't you?
3. continued remarking of the site as a "wetland". How is a city dump landfill a wetland? Again, it this really possible? It may be in the SEADIP as a future plan (that will never happen), but it is definetely not currently a wetland.
4. "first he said he was obeying a weed abatement order....then he said he was building soccer fields". As if these were conflicting statements. I read the response to the work as weed abatement and then later the response for ultimate plans as a park with soccer fields. There were no statements posted that the initial work was to start building the park or soccer fields?
5. West never said the site was "zoned commerical", he said "open space commercial" which is completely different I assume.
6. "knocking down nest filled trees". There were no nest filled trees or we would have seen plenty of pictures of them instead of old doll's heads.
Respectfully, please show me the basis of facts from the District's reporting for the above.”
I'd like to comment on your questions, if I may,
1. show me any where on this landill site where a "brackish pond" exists?
My response:
Please view the following picture that shows a “brackish pond” that was excluded during the “weed abatement”:
http://longbeachwetlands.shutterfly.com/65#66
Is it even physically possible for a brackish pond to exist on top of a city dump landfill?
Please see the following for a definition of what a wetland actually consists of, and why this Wetland, covered by a dump, covered with a landfill, modeled to form a wetland site is actually, in fact, a Wetland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetlands#Technical...
(If I may, I will post the definition so that others may learn a bit BEFORE asserting “this is not a wetland, because it is not at the channel water level”, etc.)
Technical definitions
Wetlands have been categorized both as biomes and ecosystems.[2] They are generally distinguished from other water bodies or landforms based on their water level and on the types of plants that thrive within them. Specifically, wetlands are characterized as having a water table that stands at or near the land surface for a long enough season each year to support hydrophytes.[3][4][2] Put simply, wetlands are lands made up of hydric soil.
Wetlands have also been described as ecotones, providing a transition between dry land and water bodies.[5] Mitsch and Gosselink write that wetlands exist "...at the interface between truly terrestrial ecosystems and aquatic systems, making them inherently different from each other, yet highly dependent on both."[6]
Under the Ramsar Convention:
• Article 1.1: "...wetlands are areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres."
• Article 2.1: "[Wetlands] may incorporate riparian and coastal zones adjacent to the wetlands, and islands or bodies of marine water deeper than six metres at low tide lying within the wetlands".
2. "Dean gives up nothing in the trade” I’m not informed enough to comment.
3. “continued remarking of the site as a "wetland". How is a city dump landfill a wetland? Again, it this really possible?”
My response: See above, and yes, yes it is.
And:
“It may be in the SEADIP as a future plan (that will never happen), but it is definetely not currently a wetland.”
My response: It IS in fact in the SEADIP plan. See:
http://www.lbds.info/civica/filebank/blobdload....
Your feelings about the future of the current SEADIP plan, fully noted.
And, once again, see above.
4. “4. "first he said he was obeying a weed abatement order....then he said he was building soccer fields". As if these were conflicting statements. I read the response to the work as weed abatement and then later the response for ultimate plans as a park with soccer fields. There were no statements posted that the initial work was to start building the park or soccer fields?
“
My response: see:
http://thedistrictweekly.com/2009/daily/writing...
Interview with Mr. Hitchcock:
http://www.lbreport.com/news/mar09/wetasout.htm
And, I myself received an email from Mr. Hitchcock on 03/24/2009:
The property is NOT a part of the wetlands (check the wetlands map). This property is a landfill over an old city dump (same property as the mobile home park next door).
We were merely clearing the overgrown weeds in order to replace with grass to make the area nicer for the community. It takes large equipment to effectively clear weeding over such a large area.
Your comments are very malicious and undeserved.
5. I am not able to comment...
6. “"knocking down nest filled trees". There were no nest filled trees or we would have seen plenty of pictures of them instead of old doll's heads. “
My response: See pictures:
Tell me if it is possible to find a nest in the trees that were torn out and dragged across the parcel…
http://longbeachwetlands.shutterfly.com/
Here is an aerial picture by GOOGLE maps of the parcel BEFORE “WEEDING” was performed: (I am assuming that you can find the parcel from there)
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.7650205809268...
“Respectfully, please show me the basis of facts from the District's reporting for the above. “
My Response: Respectfully, a little research by you would have yielded the same results.
Thank you very much for doing such a fine job here. This story gets more and more interesting as we peel back layer after layer of this story.
For those who have reviewed the file, and the external facts, there still seems to be more questions, than answers.
There are far too many inconsistencies as well. Hopefully we can learn more as this investigation proceeds, and it is, on several levels.
Thank you for this great investigative reporting. When the mayor and councilmembers called for transparency in government, I doubt this is what they had in mind, but it certainly is what I have been wanting for years.
Gratefully,
Granny Fly
When will Foster et. el. be sctrutinized? I'm surprised the Los Cerritos Wetlands isn't filing a law suit over such corruption and destruction.
And, really how can De Long in good conscious make such a horrible deal for the taxpayers when the city is in great debt? Oh, that's right, De Long has no conscious.
Not only are is there no ethics committee, according to the city’s own staff report, Long Beach is the only major city in California without a lobbyist ordinance. Last fall, Councilwoman Schipske proposed a lobbyist ordinance to City Council. It was voted down by Councilman DeLong and his gang of five (DeLong, Lerch, Lowenthal, Andrews and O’Donnell)
Considering the number of contacts in the public records request emails by Mr. Dean and his lobbyists Mike Murchison and former City Manager Jerry Miller made with city staff and elected officials, wouldn’t it be interesting to now have that lobbyist information to better understand who, what and when was contacted regarding the wetlands bulldozing and the wetlands exchange deal? Furthermore, the public records request emails clearly show much of our city’s business is communicated via private phone and emails in order to avoid public scrutiny. Why is that allowed? Why is it not required that city business be conducted over city provided email addresses?
Except for Bonnie Lowenthal and Gerrie Schipske, the entire city council voted against having lobbyists like Mr. Murchison and Mr. Miller report their contacts with City Councilmembers and the gifts they give. After reading the emails regarding this wetlands deal, wouldn't it have been valuable to taxpayers to have information about the lobbyist contacts with city officials?
Our City Council creates their own problems by not having a Lobbyist ordinance that could make people feel more comfortable with their decisions. But that was their choice. However, doesn't it make you wonder why they made that choice?
Great job reporting, thank you.
http://www.lbreport.com/news/mar09/wetbul.htm
The next day, Sean Hitchcock said he had met with the city and the property was a landfill ZONED COMMERCIAL (see below link).
http://www.lbreport.com/news/mar09/wetbul4.htm
Four days later, City Manager West told City Council that Mr. Hitchcock’s property is in fact ZONED WETLANDS (see below link).
http://www.lbreport.com/news/mar09/wetbul6.htm
LIE #2: On March 20, 2009, City Manager West claimed the asphalt dumped on the wetlands was NOT provided by the city (see below link)
http://www.lbreport.com/news/mar09/wetbul.htm
The next day, Sean Hitchcock said the asphalt was supplied by the city. According to Mr. Hitchcock, “It's their stuff they gave to me TO HELP ME with what I'm doing there.” (see below link)
http://www.lbreport.com/news/mar09/wetbul4.htm
City Manager West told City Council on March 24th that the CITY had indeed supplied Mr. Hitchcock with the asphalt free of charge (see below link).
http://thedistrictweekly.com/2009/daily/writing...
It turns out that City Manager West knew all about it but takes the posture of a shocked executive (see below link).
http://thedistrictweekly.com/2009/daily/staff-i...
LIE #3: On March 20, 2009, City Manager West said NO PERMIT were issued by the City or [to Mr. West's knowledge] by the Coastal Commission (see below link).
http://www.lbreport.com/news/mar09/wetbul.htm
The next day, Sean Hitchcock said in an interview he had met with several people (would not provide names) in the city about turning the property into a park (see below link). According to Mr. Hitchcock, “I met with them and said 'this would work' and they said 'that would be great. I had conversations with the City about the intent of what we're going to do and HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO IT and they were all on board.”
http://www.lbreport.com/news/mar09/wetbul4.htm
On March 24, 2009, Councilman O’Donnell said. “I know he did meet with some people and then with some people at City Hall.” (see below link)
http://thedistrictweekly.com/2009/daily/writing...
LIE #4: On March 24th City Councilman O’Donnell said Sean Hitchcock twice met “with some people and then with some people at City Hall,” but claimed to NOT KNOW who those people were.
http://thedistrictweekly.com/2009/daily/writing...
On April 2, 2009, Development Services Director Craig Beck indicated Mr. Hitchcock had met 2-weeks prior to bulldozing the property with him and Councilman Delong in DeLong’s office on the 14th floor of City Hall.
http://thedistrictweekly.com/2009/daily/writing...
LIE #5: On March 20, 2009, City Manager West said construction company owner Sean Hitchcock was not aware of the permitting requirements (see below link).
http://www.presstelegram.com/ci_11964187
At 13 minutes into the March 31st Beer and Politics meeting (see below video link), Assistant City Manager Suzanne Frick said “whether or not Mr. Hitchcock knew he should have needed permits, we’ll never know.”
http://www.instantpresenter.com/WebConference/R...
At 37 minutes (24 minutes later) into the March 31st Beer and Politics meeting (see below video link), Assistant City Manager Suzanne Frick discussed the meeting Mr. Hitchcock had with the city before he bulldozed the property. Ms. Frick said “At that meeting he was informed of the appropriate permits for that kind of development.” Which one is it? Pick a story and stick with it.
http://www.instantpresenter.com/WebConference/R...
On April 2, 2009, Development Services Director Craig Beck insisted he warned contractor Sean Hitchcock more than a month ago that it would be illegal to build soccer fields.
http://thedistrictweekly.com/2009/daily/writing...
LIE #6: When asked whether Mr. Hitchcock would be fined for his actions, at 43 minutes into the March 31st Beer and Politics meeting (see below video link), Assistant City Manager Suzanne Frick said, “what we are discovering is that the city of Long Beach may not have great remedies to deal with people who do illegal construction. This has been an educational process all of the way around.”
http://www.instantpresenter.com/WebConference/R...
This isn’t an educational process. This is a re-education process. Ms. Frick told me exactly the same thing a year ago when construction workers continued building an illegal 3-story house while disobeying a posted city stop work order.
LIE #7: On March 20, 2009, Sean Hitchcock said he was bulldozing his wetlands property to satisfy a Fire Department imposed weed clearing abatement notice (see below link).
http://www.lbreport.com/news/mar09/wetbul2.htm
Mr. Hitchcock said “he hadn't seen the notice personally but had been informed about it by Mr. Dean” (see below link).
http://www.lbreport.com/news/mar09/wetasout.htm
At 23 minutes into the March 31st Beer and Politics meeting (see below video link), Assistant City Manager Suzanne Frick said the city had no record of a weed abatement order being issued by the fire department.
http://www.instantpresenter.com/WebConference/R...
You appear before the City Council, and then are mad because they don't take your concerns seriously. But you bash the Mayor, don't like the 3rd District Councilman, and now call Pat West a liar? How do you ever hope to partner with City Hall to get anything done for Belmont Shore?
Or do you think you can intimidate these people into coming around to your point of view? If so, it doesn't seem to be working . . .
Over a year ago, I met with City Manager West and members of his staff about an unrelated issue that was impacting the neighborhood I live in. This came after months of requests to no avail to city staff and Councilman DeLong for assistance. During that meeting, I was provided with some, but not all of the general information that I had requested. I have since received other, much more specific information that indicates the original information received in my meeting with Mr. West was incorrect. It also corroborates the concern I had in the first place.
When someone seeks to mislead me with false information, I don’t consider that to be truthful. Especially considering the frequency of occurence. When someone at Mr. West’s executive level continues to provide false information, I do not consider that honest. A response such as “I don’t know, I will get back with you,” is an appropriate answer.
It appears to me you are arguing that all of these false statements are the result of Mr. West’s incompetence. Whether it is dishonesty or incompetence, neither is a quality that should be associated with our city’s highest executive.
Re Lie #2: On 3/20 Mr. West did *not* say that the asphalt “was not provided by the City”. He said it wasn’t “owned” by the City. Once the asphalt had been transferred (albeit improperly) to Hitchcock’s workers at the City Yard didn’t Hitchcock, and not the City, “own” it at that point? If so, wasn’t Mr. West’s comment on 3/20, concerning the asphalt now piled up on Sub-area 23, accurate? I’ve carefully reviewed both the "De-crying game” and “Back Door Men” articles again and I do not see anything that proves Mr. West “new all about it” (assuming the “it” you refer to was the spreading of asphalt on Sub-area 23, which, of course, is the “it” that this allegation concerns).
Re Lie #3: On March 20, Mr. West said “NO PERMIT were (sic) issued by the City or [to Mr. West's knowledge] by the Coastal Commission”. This statement was correct, yes? No Permit was issued by either the City or Coastal, correct? Did Hitchcock’s comments concerning his interview with City personnel change the factual nature of Mr. West’s statement on 3/20? Did Council member O’Donnell’s comments concerning Hitchcock’s interview with City personnel change the factual nature of Mr. West’s statement on 3/20?
Re Lie #4: How does Mr. O’Donnell’s lack of knowledge, on 3/24, of whom in the City Hitchcock met with and Mr. Beck’s statement on 4/2 that Hitchcock met with he and Mr. DeLong constitute a lie on the part of either O’Donnell or Beck?
Re Lie #5: What Mr. West actually said was that Hitchcock “seemed unaware of the rules” (concerning the activity he *claimed* to be engaged in…abating weeds). How does this statement conflict with what Ms. Frick said during B&P? Ms. Frick’s comment was in the context of whether or not Hitchcock knew he should have needed Permits (for the activity he *claimed* to be engaged in…abating weeds). Later during B&P Ms. Frick said: “At that meeting (Hitchcock) was informed of the appropriate permits for that kind of development.” “That kind of development”, as described as being discussed in the meeting with Beck and DeLong, was “potentially some sports field application” and Mr. Beck’s comments support this.
Re Lie #6: Is it possible that the remedies, whatever they may be, are, in fact, not great? Did you feel they were great a year ago, Mike? Do you feel they are great now? Is it possible that, rather than lying, Ms. Frick is in full agreement with you that they are, in fact, not great?
Re Lie #7: Hitchcock is neither quoted nor paraphrased in the 3/20 LBR story you linked, West, Dean and Murchison are. As of the B&P appearance, no one had been able to find evidence of a weed abatement order. We have since learned that City staff sent Dean an official email advising him of a complaint concerning weeds on the parcel and asking him to “look into” their removal. Dean, through Murchison, claims to have advised Hitchcock of this “notice” (Murchison’s term). Hitchcock claims that Dean advised him of the “order” (Hitchcock’s words) and claims to have taken action to comply with it. The email is not an official order and it did not come from the fire department. It appears to be someone in the City’s idea of trying to be responsive to a citizen complaint in a less- than-formal manner than they should have. This is unfortunate, because less-than-official notices can be far too easily ignored, as Dean did for about a year, and then misinterpreted by others, as Hitchcock appears to have when advised of it.
You spent a lot of time researching all of this and putting it together in one post, Mike and you should be commended for your attempts at thoroughness. But I hope I’ve been able to offer what could very easily be reasonable alternative interpretations of the information you find to be so suspect.
Mostly, though, I really wish you’d try to stop expecting everyone in City government to know everything everyone else in City government knows at any given moment. We really aren’t that efficient. Would that we were. Just because one official’s statement appears to contradict that of another doesn’t necessarily make either of them liars. It most often means they have a different understanding of a situation based upon the information available to each of them at the time.
Just because an official says one thing, and then something else 3 days later doesn’t mean he or she is lying. It could just mean that they got it wrong the first time then got it right afterward. City officials are human, Mike. They make mistakes.
When you can prove, equivocally and specifically, that a City official has, in fact, lied, I will be right there with you calling for their removal from office. Till then, how about checking your facts a little more closely and holding people accountable for their own statements and actions, and not those of others.
Happy Easter!
The preponderance of evidence generated shows a problem with our city. Your attempt at EVERY opportunity to defend EVERY past dubious action on the part of our city does not lend well toward your honesty or objectivity any more than your characterization of me.
Truth requires more from us, Mike. Justice deserves better.
You don’t like some of the elected and appointed officials who serve this City. I get that. But that doesn’t make them, de-facto, bad or wrong or inept or malicious.
Absent credible and irrefutable evidence, it just makes them people you don’t like.
Like me, you feel that there are many things that our City should not do but does; many things it should do but does not and many things that it does that it could do so very much better. On that we are in full agreement. But those truths do not mean that everything the City did in this situation was wrong; or that every comment uttered by a City official is a lie.
Absent credible and irrefutable evidence, it just makes the City less effective than it can and should be.
You infer that I lack honesty or objectivity because I do not accept, as unquestioned fact, your view or your perspective, and that of some others, on some of the issues you raise here.
I lack neither.
What I do lack is a willingness to draw a definitive conclusion concerning a person or an event until I have all of the facts that are available to me. What I do lack is a willingness to manipulate information, mislabel it as “evidence”, and then attempt to use it to condemn people, actions, statements and institutions.
Such practices are patently dishonest, whether one engages in them knowingly or not.
What I do possess is the intellectual honesty necessary to:
1. Understand and accept that I do not know and, indeed, may never know all there is to know about this situation and,
2. Reserve judgment on a matter until as many of the facts are in as can reasonably be gathered
Whenever I can I prefer to be circumspect, patient, calculating, fair and open-minded. I have no problem whatsoever in condemning people or institutions when they are proven to me to have behaved unlawfully, maliciously or negligently. But I happen to believe that we should base such judgments upon unbiased and credible facts.
If any City officials are proved to have violated the law or their Oaths of Office or to otherwise have performed negligently, maliciously or unlawfully, then they must be held fully accountable and receive consequences that are appropriate.
If any one else is proved to have violated the law or to otherwise have performed negligently or maliciously, then they, too, must be held fully accountable and receive consequences that are appropriate.
At the end of the day, Mike, I believe the approach I advocate will prove far more effective and productive than the one you seem to be applying.
It’s amazing that you feel it’s supposedly acceptable to make a false statement about me yet when I dare to object and refute that statement you claim the failing is somehow *mine*. Your comment that I attempt to defend every past dubious action on the part of our city at every opportunity is patently false.
I did not “throw” that at you, Mike. You arrived at that bit of erroneous commentary all on your own.
Comments you have made concerning some City officials (both on this issue and on matters that, you admit, had nothing whatsoever to do with this issue) have led me to believe that you do not like those officials. Perhaps I have erred in this perception, but I don’t think I have.
I do not presume to know, of a certainty, what you think. I can only extrapolate from the things you say. Whenever I refer to “what (you) say” I take great pains to copy & paste your quotes exactly. If I have ever misquoted you I assure you it was inadvertent and I apologize, but I do not think I have done so.
If it’s true that: “This is about providing (information) to voters about our elected and city officials’ misconduct.” Then I would respectfully request that you try to deal more in the realm of fact and less in the realm of assumption; more in the realm of credibility and less in the realm of hyperbole; more in the realm of circumspection and less in the realm of fixation.
In short, Mike, try applying a bit more fairness to your evaluations. When and if you do you may that find your perception may change a bit.
Truth is subject to perception, facts are not. People once perceived that the earth was flat. To them this was "truth", but facts intervened.
People once perceived that it was right to keep some human beings as slaves. To them this was "truth", but facts intervened.
Some people in Long Beach believe that some in City government have lied to us concerning the activities that occurred on 3/19 and 3/20. To them this is "truth", but facts may, indeed, once again intervene.
Those who seek less after truth, and more after fact, are more likely to see things as they *are*, rather than merely how they *desire them to be*.
It appears to me you have a tendency to obsess over facts while ignoring the truth. Deng Xiaoping said “I don't care if it's a white cat or a black cat. It's a good cat so long as it catches mice."
Here’s an example from your own comments:
“Truth” according to Ruehle: Mr. West lied when he “told the public and reporters that Mr. Hitchcock was entitled to bulldoze his property because it was ZONED COMMERIAL”
“Fact” based upon what was *actually* reported in the LBR story Ruehle referenced to support his “truth”: Mr. West never told the public and reporters that Hitchcock was “entitled to bulldoze his property”; he never told the public and reporters that Hitchcock was “entitled to bulldoze his property because it was ZONED (COMMERCIAL)” and he never told the public and reporters that the property “was ZONED (COMMERCIAL)”
What LBR *reported*, Mike, was that Mr. West said (paraphrasing): “It’s part of the SEADIP area, zoned PD1, subarea 23. (Its) underlying use is commercial.”
Now, you can argue with the “facts” all you like, Mike, but your “truth” in this case is clearly different from those “facts”.
In this example, as with so very many others, you reviewed the “facts” as reported in LBR and then filtered them through your PERCEPTION that Mr. West lied and then created your own version of “truth”, a “truth” that is clearly not reflective the “facts” at hand.
Everything Mr. West said other than his erroneous comment concerning “underlying use” is fact, is it not? So did he lie when he commented on what he believed to be the “underlying use” or was he simply mistaken?
Since there do exist SEADIP subareas that are identified as having a “commercial” use and since Mr. West later corrected himself on the record and before Council on this matter, I’m thinking he simply made a mistake.
But even that is beside the point. Whether or not I think Mr. West made mistake or whether you think he lied is irrelevant. It’s what can be *proved* that matters. I do not believe that you have proved that Mr. West lied in this instance and to assert that he did is just wrong, Mike.
It’s just as wrong for you to assert without proof that Mr. West lied in this instance as it would be for me to assert that YOU lied in asserting it.
Like Mr. West in that instance, you made a mistake in this one, Mike. Humans do that. It happens. It doesn’t mean you “lied” when you did it. And it doesn’t mean that Mr. West “lied” when he made his mistake either.
Mr. West’s statement was inaccurate. You have not proved that it was deliberately so and the totality of the circumstances, the “preponderance of the evidence” as you put it, leads the reasonable person to believe Mr. West simply uttered an inaccurate statement, by mistake, and then later corrected it.
As mentioned, this is but one of many such flaws in your supposed “truths” on this issue, Mike.
So forgive me if I continue to choose to rely upon “facts” instead.
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.
Some men, or teams of men and women, who are accomplished Legal Experts, find it moronic when people opine in abject ignorance of a range of operative facts which are central to an analysis, let alone the Law.
And Sir, we work with some of the best, of the best, and ask you to save your magnificent Legal Skills for something like....''The People Court' or something.
You and your buddy are in for a lesson and hasn't H2 already admitted liability, and fault? The City Attorney and City Manager assigned culpability?
As custodians of the actual Evidence concerning these Brackish Pond Wetlands, and Uplands, we have clearly stated, 3 different Jurisdictional Grounds to protect this area under Federal Law, State Law, and Local Law. Kindly review the prior related posts. You might learn something. You comments make that painfully obvious to many.
Since you feel competent to give Legal Professionals Legal advice, assemble your moving papers, marshall your moronically inaccurate facts, and see us in Court. We will blow you, and you friend Hitchcocks cases right out of the back door on the merits of our concerns here? And if you doubt us, challenge our filings? You guys got your clock cleaned before the Coastal Commission last week? The Commission was livid about your wanton and reckless misconduct? But according to you, and the good tooth fairy, you want to be right.....for all of the wrong reasons.?
The harsh words applied to your fallacious rant against the Venus group, was incendiary. So that you understand what a wimp you appear to be, you are picking upon a disabled woman, and her team, which consists of highly respected, highly trained, highly successful, East Coast Legal Professionals who have literally moved mountains, on a big stage, with their pro bono advocacy, in the common , or public interest. and in the interest of Justice. Tell Hitchcock that she has been also working on a series of State and Federal charges. Are you an accesory before or after the fact? Looks like you may be earning yourself a SUBPOENA too?
Regardless, picking on women just makes certain men hurl insults, then other things. Rather than pick on the Sage Legal minds at the Venus Group, one who is quite endeared, pick on us, and take, what you give.
As for Brackish Pond, go hire a Wetlands Biologist. We have some talented ones. A Brackish Pond normally exists adjacent to the Ocean, as here, and can obtain salinity by percipitation, and dew, and by salt water intrusion, or existing soil salinity. In this case, all of those factors affected the PH of the water which ponded there regularly. Also the presence of Salt Water based Dredge Spoils had an effect.
Who cares if you viewed the area at the wrong time, the ponds would fill after prolonged, measurable rain. A general mud condition would be there for a few days, and the water had been measured, and observed, and tested, many weeks after a series of Winter/Spring storms. Of course now that it was all ruined, we will have to restore these features. We have 40 years of Evidence here, and you have, friend serving, groundless conjecture, actually, drivel. Water has been observed there far in excess of the legal requirement deemed definitional?
Apply the actual FACTS, to the LAW. Which you are clearly clueless about. Have experts reason the matter by way of balanced ANALYSIS, and then join us in the proper CONCLUSION.
Wetlands were present. Species flourished, Habitat thrived, and your friend is in made a series of terrible, expensive mistakes. And let him know, that a 1000 yards of the WRONG kind of fill dirt, is not much help. Just a temporary Bandaid, that will have to come off.
I do not have near the time or desire to research and reply to your comments. I do find it humerous though that you contend anyone with a differing opinion to yours should be supoened and hauled into court (that is really funny). I had no idea that challenging a poster's opinion on this blog site would mean that I needed to do so in court. What a boring blog site this would be if it were just all full of the same opinions.
Further, I would have no idea the description or make up of the posters on here. To me all are just random posters that are faceless and mere various opinions. You seem to think everyone should or would know who each poster is and should be handled differently pending their gender; that too is simply ridiculous.
With all your time on your hands I imagine that there is some truth to your statements. However, my guess would be that all is not as you portray and that there will be discovery that existing conditions do not meet the jurisdiction requirements you cite or that certain items had already been approved, or ??
Again, I am sorry but I do not have the time to investigate and support my thoughts with legal documentation. Therefore, I will bow out and simply say that I have a differing opinion and that I am not the only one as most all my neighbors have the same feeling about the situation (will we all now have to get hauled into superior court against you??).
JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.......and the birds and mammals may just get their homes back.
And IKK, we have employed many, and have built much, and have lots, and have helped tear down plenty that needed a slight refurbishing, but demolishing a thriving estuary, while killing a range of native animals, and ignoring well known zoning Law, Coastal Law, and Federal Law, without one of over 11 Approvals needed, is wrong, and wrong headed.
It is a travesty, and abomination, a crime, and a sin.
To many, a crime against Nature is akin to cause for War, so when you square off against anybody who is passionate about Coastal Preservation, or Justice, or the Rule of Law, just remember....know you enemy....and come loaded for bear.
And also know, this angered, affluent, educated, connected group that Tom Dean built to oppose him wild schemes, plays for keeps, and is as serious as a heart attack. We have been mistreated long enough, and afford our adversary......no quarter. He has threatened our homes, our way of life, our etlands, our once quiet neighborhoods, and our once far more respectable town, more than long enough for most.
Look at all of the disquiet and controversy his latest scheme has loosed upon City Government? It is even backing up onto the Mayor too?
Sooner or later, we hope people will cut and run from a lot of this, and succumb to their basic self survival instinct.
It will be very interesting to see who will, or who will not fall on their sword for this guy. Doing favors for Campaign financing is one thing, but shame and career suicide is another thing entirely.
And the fun part is, for now, a whole bunch of people get to keep guessing while looking over their shoulders.
Again, thank you for abandoning your Action, for failure to state a cause, insufficient Evidence, Errors of Fact and Law. You claim will be dismissed, with Prejudice, Res Judicata. Judgment for the Wildlife and Residents.......
Madamme Clerk.......call the next case
See you back in two weeks time--and do have a fabulous time!
Tip: Swim, instead of blogging, you ( and we) will be better off!
If you dislike what I write or how I choose to write it, then the solution seems simple: Don't read it.
But if you do choose to read it, then maybe you shouldn't complain.
Just a suggestion.
http://www.presstelegram.com/opinions/ci_12136445
Maximum Transparency... Wish they would apply this principle to everything else that is done in a backroom deals with lobbyists in City Hall. What was that quote by DeLong about if you voted no on the backdoor deal you did not "trust" City staff. Was Shannon asleep again at the Council meeting when they voted to approve the deal without knowing the details violating the City Charter? Shannon has consistently enabled the City to conduct public businesses at the minimum required by the Brown Act or at times not even that.
..all those attacking Mike Ruehle. It is not personal, read his posts...His arguments are about the way the City is being run . Values I wish everyone in this city would want- transparency, openness, a responsive government, and citizen access and input into decision making.
Great work Tom, Bill (LBReport) and entire The District Weekly. Thank You!!!
Drat! So sorry--guess your trip was canceled.
Call, email your phone your Councilmembers, do call the Contractor's licensing Board and report Sean Hitchcock and TRY to get to Council tonight for the open public speaking--must be there by 4:40 pm to get a speakers card. Keep the pressure on!!!
Of course, you are right. But as an activist--and an idealist-we have to fight. Gerri Schipske has brought the Land Swap again to Council next week--this is a PLUS--before the closed session. Everyone will have 3 minutes.
We have to make it count! Be there Venus-please, we need you, and everyone like you who feels the city has sold out.
Tonight, our presence was felt amd although the mayor seemed embarrassed when his city was compared to a Chicago mafia-it was cool!
Of course, there will will be work to do educating the Council prior to next Tuesday--they never reserch anything! And ultimately, Hitchcock will probably have to be sued.....but we will win in the end, Venus.
Believe it.
Thank you for your helpful Legal analysis and for your desire to help preserve what few Coastal Resources we still have in a fair, disclosed, coast effective and reasonable manner. You have a fine Legal mind.
Now for the Latest,
Somebody submitted a jingle.....
Lawyers are meeting DA Hooray !
Lawyers are briefing DA Hooray !
Some dirty dealers may pay Hooray !
Maybe they'll all go away? Hooray !
The way that the land has been contoured recently will most likely never allow for any type of pond, bog or other form of water collection to take place.