DISQUS

I'm sorry, but calm down about what? I don't know what you're referencing.

As for the library and the bond, take the time to consider the events and what has been said in their totality. All along, management has dropped hints the library was going to be affected no matter what. If the measure passes, the place gets closed to fix it. The type and extent of repairs necessary don't lend itself to being open to the public. If the measure doesn't pass, then the place closes because it costs too much to keep it operating due to its poor condition. These facts are getting lost in the hysteria.

As for cutting fat, do you realize that's all they've done the last several years? Most departments are running on skeletal crews now as it is, either due to attrition, i.e. people leaving for better paying jobs, or cuts already made. Just to take one example- the police helicopter only flies when there's a situation requiring it. Used to be it went on regular patrol. Due to cuts, now it only goes up in an emergency. To get to that point, cuts in many other areas were made before they reached that part of the P.D.

As for travel for government workers, exactly what do you mean? They have to travel as part of their jobs. The days of pork barrel trips for Long Beach employees ended long ago. Matter of fact, travel has been restricted to the point already where some departments miss out on conferences and seminars that would have provided information on how to function better and more efficiently.

Foster wasn't kidding when he said that it would take the total elimination of some very large essential departments if some sort of accommodations aren't made for infrastructure repair, repair that has been put off far too long in order to balance previous budgets. If not this, then let the airport modernize and bring in more revenue. People opposing that should frankly get their heads out of their collective asses and let the airport join the 21st century. Let gaming onto the Queen Mary. Do something creative in this town for a change rather than say no no no all the time without coming up with alternatives. Sometimes the citizens here are just as backwards as the people they elect. And yes, I realize that will draw some heat, but as someone who is in and out of City Hall all the time, the amount of bad, half baked and made up information in this town that citizens choose to believe amazes me.

Oh please. Hold the library hostage? Facts, please, to buttress that allegation?

If that really is Schipske, then she should know it's disingenuous to compare the library to a fire station or even City Hall. If one had to choose between a late response time for a fire that could result in something horrible vs. not being able to access a Japanese art collection, one should sensibly opt for skipping the art. Fire stations, when presented with this choice, should be replaced only after a new one is done. It's public safety 101. As for City Hall, she surely knows of the study that says the emergency stairwells would fail in a large quake, leaving no way for employees to escape if the Big One during work hours. If she could provide us with a way to replace City Hall and all it does overnight, I'd bet Foster and West would close that place in a heartbeat and keep the library open (and then hope the stairs don't damage the library roof if they fall).

Finally, again if this is Schipske and even if it isn't, take up the literacy rate with the school board and the school district. After all, that's her full time gig. Since when is that the city's job?

Sorry, but strong and competent, much less track record of accomplishments, don't go into the same paragraph about Richardson, messy finances or not. What has come to light about the way she operates has been common knowledge among many Long Beach insiders if you will for sometime now. Simply because the general public is now only recently learning about her foibles doesn't mean she's just begun to behave this way. What has come light is indicative of a pattern of behavior that has gone on for several years now. I could cite you to ther things not yet made public, but without being able to substantiate them here, it would only be my word without anyone knowing who I am or what I based my claims on, which is how it will have to remain. However, enough has been made public to suggest what she's been revealed as doing isn't something that just suddenly happened. I had some hope there would be a local investigation, but apparently that possibility died.

The shame of it all is that she's unopposed this November with the exception of write- ins. She's nothing if not lucky. Just the same, I'd MUCH rather have a wacky substitute teacher than her. Hell, I'd rather have Bill Pearl run, but he's too busy being wacky in his own write.

Sorry for all the typos, but for anyone to claim Richardson is a strong, competent representative makes me type too fast in anger.

LB Serious- is that uyou, Laura? Why you MIGHT have a point about the state of the Sacramento house, it is absolute bullshit to then say " Laura is a strong, competent representative who can deliver for Long Beach." Until now, I have ye tto use such language anywhere I post but there's no way I could abide that statement. She's a freakin' embarrassment to Congress and our community. What else does she have to do, LB Serious, do make you question her integrity, competency and ethics? She's already stiffed local businesses for payment, and then only paid them when the debts became public, businesses that make up her constituency mind you, defaulted on all three homes, strong armed a bank to retrieve at least one of them contrary to all settled law in that area, and drives the most expensive vehicle in Congress, even after all the other crap has been made known. She's a criminal, and should be treated as such.

Don't have any idea what Crash Crowley is talking about, but I would like to address the notion that the city is responsible for the courthouse. It isn't. That building is a county/state responsibility. It's irresponsible to keep lumping in the courthouse with the rest of the area as a city expense.

As for City Hall and its seismic integrity, in a major earthquake, it's already been determined through studies that in all probability, the building itself, as it's on rollers, would remain reasonably intact. What could happen is that the stairways employees would utilize to leave the building (the "wings" on the place), likely could fall away, leaving everyone inside stranded. There are no internal stairwells that go all the way to the street. They're all affixed to the outside of the main structure, and apparently not very well at that. If a quake hit during business hours, it could take the Fire Department a period of days to get everyone out via cranes or hook and ladders.

Douglas makes a good point about Richardson. Why CAN'T people mobilize that quickly to rid everyone of Her Sleazyness?

Damn, Carl. You had so much potential, but now you're just another person the city has to keep away at arm's length. Has money really made you sacrifice your soul?

On the courthouse- that isn't a city expense. it's a state and county financial issue, mostly the state. And anyone who has occasion to go there would know it's a literal deathtrap. There's been at least one death due to medical personnel not being able to quickly access the sixth floor. It couldn't be sensibly retrofitted at all. That building is too far gone to save, and the only thing saving it from being condemned is that there aren't facilties around to accomodate the day to day activites. Comparing it to the police headquarters is apples and oranges.

But as for the library, okay, fine. Let's say it doesn't close. Where else does the city cut then? People like myself, who grudgingly acknowledge the need for the infrastructure bond, do so because we would like to avoid these types of issues too. However, if anyone remembers from the Infrastructure comments made by me, if you don't like that bond measure, you really won't like the alternatives. That isn't any type of blackmail, just reality. One way or another, the library HAS to close, either for a while to put $3 million worth of band aids on it, and then the city will be accused once again of only going part way when doing something, or permanently, while a new one is constructed.

I'd also question how many actually use the place. It's one thing to gather signatures from people going by the place, but how many of those people have really availed themselves of the main library enough to miss it?

So again, alternatives? It's one thing to say don't do something, but what else would you have them do? The place is in dire need of attention, one way or another.

Penny will land on her feet, but all those responsible for the demise of Acres Of Books should be going to Hell.

Mr. Pardell,

It's a pretty clear question, and you've yet to respond. If you don't think comparables are the way to go, how would you set salaries? The rest of post 41 doesn't respond to what I'v e been asking for days now.

Mr. Pardell,

Apparently you'd rather criticize than offer up alternatives. I asked a direct question and you're just not answering it. You haven't responded to my comments about hidden costs either and how it drains the city to ride a treadmill of hire and train. THAT'S the real world, Mr. Pardell. Eliminating that wasteful behavior would actually stabilize the budget.

Moreover, I don't work for the city, so these are not my colleagues. I simply have a realisitc view. What's sadly telling is your comment that you wouldn't trust a "city conducted report" on lateral transfers. The data that would be provided is fairly transparent and can easily be verified. What your comment tells me is you would rather not know the results, and prefer to believe your own version of things.

Laura Richardson makes me puke. I'm sorry if that isn't a professional thing to say, but it's the truth. The best part is, I've had the pleasure of telling her so. She doesn't care.

The responses back to me are indicative of the type of feedback the city gets when asking its citizens for ideas and/or solutions. I have posed the question- if the city didn't use comparable positions as a way to set salaries, what else would you have them do? I've yet to get a direct answer.

The answers I have received have criticized me ("you're the only one on here who hasn't run a company", a puzzling response to say the least, what does this have to do with ME?), another one ended with "boo-hoo" (not often found in adult debate but sadly often found on the Internet) and last but not least I have been told just simply that comparables aren't the way to do it, but no other alternative is given. And that's the thing. People can't keep saying don't use comparables if they're not going to offer up a viable alternative. Economides doesn't like the proposed infrastructure bond, but at least he came up with an alternative.

I've saved the response that Long Beach is not a top tier city separately. It's the fifth largest city in the state. Of course it's top tier, and it's about time it acts like one. Which ties into the last paragraph. If the city used private industry for the non-safety positions, there would really be an outrage. You, the taxpayer, really couldn't afford it.So they limit it to other cities as you can't just arbitrarily pick a number and say "this is what we can afford". If you did, and people actually took the job, they'd always be looking for applicants because people would be leaving for better paying positions.

Which, of course, is what we have here. No, I am not privy to the exact percentages as it relates to lateral transfers out of the city broken down by fire, police, or any other department, whether safety or non-safety. But if some enterprising journalist or public citizen wants to make that request of either the city or one of the unions, by all means have at it. The numbers will not be pretty. You'll find the city spends far too much money and time hiring and training, only to lose people to other areas. More money, in fact, especially when lost productivity is accounted for, than if these workers were simply paid a median wage to begin with. Many people here don't want to hear that or believe that, but's true. It ends up costing the city more in the overall budget to pay people less than if the salaries were higher to start with because of the constant hiring and training that occurs throughout the city.

I can't put it any plainer than that. It's why West and Foster went with the union contracts they've done. They've now got some known costs going forward and can plan accordingly. So if the public doesn't want to pass the bond measure, fine, don't. But don't scream about no main library and other similar cuts, either.

"Duke…. Dick Ray pretty much said it best. All I can add is that Long Beach, and many other municipal governments, should cease with the Fortune 500 mentality and pay employees what is amenable according to their own budgetary standard."

Fortune 500 mentality? Where does that kind of logic come from?

It's only prudent business sense to pay your employees according to industry standard, otherwise you'll never keep them. Why invest the time and money to train someone when you'll lose them to someone willing to pay them what they're worth? To draw a sports analogy, does Long Beach want to be the Kansas City Royals/Pittsburgh Pirates of California cities, continually finding, signing and training good people, only to lose the person and the investment to a better team or city, or does the city finally want to commit itself to being the Boston Red Sox/New York Yankees/Los Angeles Angels types of cities, who reap the benefits of Long Beach's sweat and blood?

Mr. Ray,

Using the firefighters as an example of your theory is somewhat short-sighted. First of all, there's always a large group of candidates for any fire department, much less Long Beach, because it's a desireable job. If that's your measuring stick for determining whether pay is too high, with all due respect, that isn't much by way of evidence or analysis. Long Beach fire fighters are still not at median even with this latest contract.

But even though it was Mr. Pardell I asked, you still didn't answer the question. If not other comparable cities, how would you set pay for any position, much less a fire fighter? What standard would you use to determine how to pay someone if you didn't compare it to other comparable jobs and employers? One of the overriding reasons the city wants to get all their employees (not just safety but all types) up to the median (and please note this is simply the median, not the highest paid) is that the city has long been a training ground for other agencies and municipalities. Long Beach hires someone, spends money training and grooming that person, only to have some other entity reap the benefits of Long Beach's investment by hiring them away for a higher paying, similar job. Long Beach then has to start all over again, thereby spending more money than it would have in the first place had the city paid enough to start with and not lost the worker.

It's that type of scenario that no one seems to want to take into consideration or mention when talking about salaries, These hidden costs are killers. The way it is now, in many instances, Long Beach serves as the minor league training facility for an Anaheim, Santa Barbara, Cerritos, wherever, because head hunters target this city and whisk away a lot of the good ones for lateral moves in both safety and non-safety areas. Foster and West want to put a stop to that, hence these contracts.

With all of this, at some point, people are going to have to ask themselves exactly when are they going to address these types of concerns that have long been put off and only cost more the longer they're ignored, whether it's infrastructure or salaries. Foster and West are trying to do it now. Given the sorry state of infrastructure, there will never be enough money in any budget to fix things unless there's something like this proposed bond. They'd need this whether or not these union contracts were done. But these contracts were necessary too, like it or not.

". Long Beach needs to stop comparing itself with other city salaries."

I've never, ever understood these kinds of remarks. With what else should they compare? How else do they set salaries that are fair to the worker, the city and the taxpayer? Where is it set in stone that government workers have to work for less than the median wage in their field? If a person was an accountant with 10 years of experience for a mid-level company in a mid-market area, they would expect to get paid as such. Conversely, a company employing that accountant would not want to pay him or her the same wages a CPA would make with 20 years experience for a high level firm in New York (or even San Francisco). They also wouldn't want to pay that person what the counter person at Starbucks makes, either.

The examples I could use are endless. It's just good, prudent business sense from both sides. Employees get fairly compensated and employers retain good help. Please explain, Mr. Pardell, how wages should be established if not by looking at other comparables.

Mr. Pardell, it isn't that I'm any kind of a sympathizer. I'm much more of a realist. Something needs to be done here. There are major parts of the infrastructure that are falling apart. They've put it off long enough.

Moreover, when I talk of slash and burn, I'm talking positions, not just people. It won't matter if there are other people out there looking for work, there won't be a job to for them to fill. A newly minted graduate looking for work as a librarian won't be able to replace the laid off, higher salaried librarian. Not only will the position be eliminated, so likely will the library branch he or she worked.

And as for the utility tax, remember the $90M shortfall that morphed into the $130M shortfall that Jerry Miller fixed. THAT was caused by the utility tax cut. Miller cut right and left, and positions weren't filled. Then the housing market exploded, and the city had cash on hand. Those positions were filled again because the public wanted their services back. Now the housing market has imploded, andso couple that with the utility tax cut whose effects were essentially masked by the housing boom, and we're right back where we were when the taxes were cut. Many city unions did not get new contracts and/or raises during that time and fell below standard. Even with these new contracts, police and fire still aren't up to par with their other comparables. Human resources, IT, and other Admin services are still, in some cases, as far behind as 25% with other city comparables AND private comps. In other words, believe it or not, they're underpaid for what they do no matter how one looks at it. So, no, I'd take issue with the idea that even with positions that are kept, others would step in if there were layoffs or restructuring (as has been discussed with Civil Service and HR, although that will take a Charter Amendment). Why work for Long Beach when a worker could go almost anywhere else and make more?

"I hope a theory i read somewhere is true that the mayor probably knows this won’t happen anyways but then can say he tried everything he could before really getting brave/creative and rethinking the overall city budget."

The first part of your statement isn't really a theory, it's true. The second part isn't entirely accurate. He and West won't need much creativity to slash and burn the budget. They'll just take a sledgehammer and start whacking.

Margie Diaz makes a very good, relevant point about the utility tax. People were told that cutting would lead to budget issues EXACTLY like the city faces now, but voters were too drunk with the idea of able to cut a tax, any tax. Well, be careful what you wish for people. She's also correct about budgets already being slashed that fall under city manager purview. Many departments are already cut back so much that they have countless people working overtime without compensation, just to get the job done. But, I'm sure, no one wants to hear that.

Mr. Pardell- There is no propaganda to be bought here. None. One needs to be here on a regular basis to see the situation. I also have no idea why I need to explain to you what I "do", or how that relates to you being in San Francisco. All anyone needs to know is I'm in and out of City Hall on regular basis on many floors. I know some of the players outside of City Hall as well. I live in Long Beach. I didn't vote for Foster, if that matters. But I do know the rationale for the bond measure as he's described it. He'll be surprised if it passes, I believe. He hopes it will. As I've said before, neither he or West can win no matter what they do. Most city departments have no fat to slash anymore. Further cuts will severely affect core services. They'll do them, if that's what it takes to get a balanced budget. But I guarantee more people will be unhappy about the cuts than they will be about this measure if it passes.

Oh yeah- they'd LOVE to sell the Queen Mary. People keep suggesting this as if it's a no brainer solution, but no one proposes a buyer. It ain't that easy, unless the city wants to entertain offers from other countries, who would then put even MORE residential property near the site. And even those types of buyers aren't growing on trees.

Juan, your IP address on the PT indicates you don't live here. Is that accurate? I ask because the existing problems are those that can't really be addressed on an "annual basis". If you live here, it just takes a drive around town to see what the rest of us do. There is so much, it is simply more prudent to lay out a funding scheme that works years into the future. Maybe even fix a few bridges as well.

Post 1 puts it correctly. No one is saying this is great, far from it. But the time has come to address infrastructure, and it will only cost more by waiting. Jackson and Pardell miss the point. This isn't about rewarding anybody. Their view tries to make Foster and friends accountable for a situation they didn't create.

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

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

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

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

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

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