DISQUS

I just awoke after a long nap.
Can someone explain to me why we stopped calling them swamps and now call them wetlands? Actually, seems the same thing happened to jungles. They seem to have been replaced the world over by rainforests. Maybe all these folks who are upset about a few little bulldozers running around our local swamp could try to find out who destroyed all the worlds jungles and replaced them with rainforests.

It's on my birth certificate.
Now, do you want to debate the issue or simply toss out juvenile ad homonym barbs?
Very classy Mr. Williams.

Maybe Mr. Bradbury would be willing to reach into his own pocket for the $10 million needed to fix that monument to municipal malfeasance.
Just stay the hell out of my pocket!

$800,000, $3,100,000, $9,100,000, or $10,000,000?

Doesn't matter how much we might spend.

Can you say, "Lipstick on a pig", boys and girls?

"Please explain, Mr. Pardell, how wages should be established if not by looking at other comparables."
While I won't presume to answer for Mr. Padell, I would like to take a stab at answering Duke's question.
The answer as I see it is really very simple and straightforward and is the basis for most private industry ---
An employer is obligated to pay a salary that is exactly the amount required to recruit, hire and retain a staff of employees of sufficient skills to accomplish the objectives of the enterprise. The employer is obligated by the owners of the corporation to ensure that this philosophy is followed.
Many corporations utilize comparative salary surveys as part of the methodology in arriving at salary levels for it's employees and find that they are an invaluable tool.
What is wrong with most government entities is that they seem to rely almost exclusively on comparable salary surveys when negotiating with their employee unions. Why do they do this? Because the unions find it to their advantage to simply play one city off another and, after all, it's the employee unions that recruit, organize, run and finance all too many municipal election campaigns here in California -- Long Beach not excepted.
The best example I can think of when I try to explain to people that we may be overly generous to city employees is our fire department. Seems that whenever there is an announcement that they are hiring, upwards of 5,000 people apply for a handful of annual openings. Now call me old fashioned, but if I have that many people wanting a particular job maybe, just maybe, the applicants figure that the pay might be really, really good. While I realize that some of the folks lining up for applications may well be motivated for the altruistic reason of wanting to serve their fellow citizens, I suspect there are many many more who see it as a fabulous opportunity to make a great salary and receive benefits that are unapproachable in private industry. And who can blame them?
I realize that even hinting that we might be overpaying our fire fighters will be seen by some as an attack on municipal demigods, I would ask that you consider that from the perspective of setting salary levels, these folks are no different than the local librarian, street sweeper, or crossing guard. The bottom line is "How much do we have to pay to hire and retain qualified fire fighters?" With thousands of folks beating down the doors to get the job, I think we have to ask whether we are paying too much, not simply, "Are we paying as much as Rialto or Santa Monica?"

good govt 4 all seems to have enjoyed an extended cocktail hour this evening just prior to sitting down to his keyboard.

Let's see............
A proposal that, if passed by the voters, will add a debt of $638 million and bond payments by property owners for the next 35 years is given just over two hours of debate prior to passage by an 8-1 majority. Actually, if you deduct the time spent by the Mayor touting what a marvelous new toy this will be and the 41 page PowerPoint presentation, I believe actual public comment and council colloquy lasted for less than one hour. During that time several very cogent points of discussion were raised only to be dismissed by Mr. West saying in effect, "Sorry, but it's too late to make any changes. You will approve this as it is or you won't, but you will tweak it in anyway."
This is sheer madness!
Nobody has any idea of the pros and cons of this. Most of the numbers thrown out were guesses at best, and documented lies at worst.
This is one Long Beacher who will oppose this measure and work hard to convince every voter I know to do the same.
Let's get it right rather than get it now.

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

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





Duke

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

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

In response to lindaonline's question about what streets and other projects are included in this proposal, just go to LBReport.com for the map of all the streeets that will be repaired. Of course, if you look closely at the map you will find that it includes many street repairs that have already been completed. Seems the Mayor is relying on some bad info and makes me wonder what else about his plan was similarly thrown together without much thought or careful review.