Disqus - Latest Comments for TheShore

Re: DELONG TIME NO SEE! RECLUSIVE COUNCILMAN MEETS PUBLIC TODAY AT 11:45 A.M.

TheShore — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 00:33:47 -0000

If I recall correct the Council meeting where the breakwater study was approved, Councilman DeLong was opposed to the "process". E.g., spending $100,000 of City funds before the Army Corps of Engineers is authorized to officially receive the study.

If the ACE does not receive a congressional appropriation to receive the study, then the $100,000 will have been wasted. Even the Coastal Conservancy was smart enough to make their $50,000 contribution dependent on the ACE reviewing the study.

Re: DELONG TIME NO SEE! RECLUSIVE COUNCILMAN MEETS PUBLIC TODAY AT 11:45 A.M.

TheShore — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 00:30:18 -0000

I agree with you that elected officials should have a thick skin. But, if they feel their position is always taken out of context, or someone deliberately misinforms, why would they want to deal with the at person? Whether you agree with Councilman DeLong or not, HE BELIEVES that Mike Ruehle is disingenous (at best). Therefore, why would DeLong work with Ruehle?

Re: NEW WETLANDS SWAP HEADED TO COUNCIL TUESDAY

TheShore — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 21:55:30 -0000

I apologize. I didn't realize it was a no-no. Please edit my post and remove that information, or remove the post entirely.

Thank you.

Re: QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL BEFORE APPROVING LAND SWAP WITH DEAN

TheShore — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:10:44 -0000

Even if you are correct, which I don't think you are, following your approach will kill the deal. We will be back in the situation you describe with the Bixbys where the landowners will not sell the land because a public entity (the City or the LCWA) can't or won't pay the price. This type of position doesn't result in a restored Wetlands, at least not in our lifetime.

In regard to Congressman Rohrabacher and Councilman DeLong, at least they are trying to do something positive - give the Port the ability to restore the Wetlands. How does giving the Ports the ability to provide funding to the LCWA result in enriching any landowners?

It sounds to me like you just want to fight, rather than figure out a way to restore the wetlands.

Re: POORISM

TheShore — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:32:26 -0000

These hotel jobs are entry level jobs. They are not supposed to be "careers". The report mentions how much has been "invested in the hotels", does it outline how much money has benefited the City through Transit Occupany Tax, or by people coming to Long Beach for a convention (and a reasonably priced hotel) and then spending their money in our economy while their here?

Do Long Beach hotel pay wages that are similar to hotels in other cities?

Less low income housing will result in fewer Long Beach residents living in poverty. If that means the hotels have a smaller potential workforce and have to pay higher wages, so be it. But that is the way to fix this problem, not through some arbitrary regulation.

Re: QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL BEFORE APPROVING LAND SWAP WITH DEAN

TheShore — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 02:57:23 -0000

You've raised some good questions, but unfortunately, it may not be possible to provide the answers you (and the rest of us) would like to hear.

Let's look at your last question. What should happen If the City can't give a 100% "guarantee" against any future development? If all they can say is that if any development was proposed it would be a very public vetting process, should the deal be killed? Are we better off having the land in the City's control or the developer's?

Re: QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL BEFORE APPROVING LAND SWAP WITH DEAN

TheShore — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 14:18:40 -0000

P.S. The city has posted answers to the 10 questions on the City's website.

Re: QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL BEFORE APPROVING LAND SWAP WITH DEAN

TheShore — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 10:50:06 -0000

Where is the $100 million Dean is making? The land he is being traded is worth $7 millon or so. And he paid over $30 million for all the acreage. No one's "ox" is being gored.

Your comment "retaining funds" doesn't make sense. You're assuming that if the City pays "a million too much" there there is a million less for restoration. Not true. Prop 84 money should be used for acquisition, and Port money (and other State & Federal sources) for restoration.

In regard to Lennar, Councilman DeLong blocked this project at Council. Not May or Earthcorp, or the LCWLT or any of the other "experts" you mentioned. And don't forget, it was your friend Frank Colona who supported the Lennar proposal and let it get off the ground.

However, Frank was responsible for the Bryant acquisition, not any of the other people/entities you mentioned. And in regard to Hellman, what has your group done? Absolutely nothing. I'm very familiar with the LCWA meetings and the only person who has asked questions and tried to push the Hellman acqisition along is Councilman DeLong. I'm surprised you haven't attacked him for trying to make the deal happen. After all, won't some landowner get enriched by selling the land to the LCWA? How can we let this happen? Oh no!

I could refute all your other "statements of fact", but it would be a very long post.

Re: BIKE LANE ON THIRD STREET?

TheShore — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 00:55:52 -0000

I attended Councilman DeLong's recent neighborhood meeting where Ms. Gant talked about the proposed bike paths. They sound great to me, especially since they are grant funded . . .

Re: QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL BEFORE APPROVING LAND SWAP WITH DEAN

TheShore — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 00:53:18 -0000

What changes have been made as a result of the Land Trust's questions? They have provided no meaningful contribution that I can see. The Land Trust should learn to work with the City where possible and work together on behalf of Long Beach residents.

I want to take advantage of this opportunity now to acquire the Wetlands. Things change and this deal might not be available a month or a year from now.

In response to Gordana (who I know in the community and like), what has the LCWLT provided towards restoration goals? Nothing as far as I can tell. In fact, when Councilman DeLong proposed at the last LCWA meeting that the LCWA move forward with developing a high level Wetlands restoration plan so that he could continue to work on Port funding for the restoration, his motion didn't pass. Did the LCWLT support his efforts to proceed with a restoration plan? No.

Let's stay focused on the goals - acquire the Wetlands and then restore them - and don't worry about whether it is Councilman DeLong, or Councilman O'Donnell or city staff or the LCWA or whoever gets it done. Let's not even worry about whether Tom Dean makes a buck. Let's just accomplish the goal.

Re: NEW WETLANDS SWAP HEADED TO COUNCIL TUESDAY

TheShore — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:55:49 -0000

Make that we "can't" restore what we don't own . . .

Re: NEW WETLANDS SWAP HEADED TO COUNCIL TUESDAY

TheShore — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:32:54 -0000

Maybe we were at different meetings, but I have heard Councilman DeLong state in two public forums that the City definitely will sell the land to the LCWA, but it may take a couple of years for the City to be fully repaid.

I have also read a quote from Belinda Faustinos that the sooner the City can put this project in line, the sooner it will be funded. A few months delay in the purchase could result in a few years delay in selling it to the State. The sooner we get in line, the less time the City will own the land.

And if Prop 84 money runs out, the deal is dead.

Re: NEW WETLANDS SWAP HEADED TO COUNCIL TUESDAY

TheShore — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:28:35 -0000

We can restore what we don't own.

Re: NEW WETLANDS SWAP HEADED TO COUNCIL TUESDAY

TheShore — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:25:45 -0000

I agree with "Optimistic" and "lbresident". My sole focus is on obtaining and restoring the Wetlands, and I don't mind the City paying market price. The City pisses money away on pensions and overpaid employees, at least we'd get something in return this time (the Wetlands), and we'll be paid back by the State.

Sounds like a great deal to me.

Re: LOS CERRITOS WETLANDS-O-RAMA

TheShore — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:58:33 -0000

It will be wonderful to see the Los Cerritos Wetlands restored. I like the proposal!

Re: MAJOR PLAYER

TheShore — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 11:43:46 -0000

Has Councilman DeLong ever been invited and declined the invitation?

Since the Beer & Politics forum is run by the Long Beach Jr. Chamber, are you suggesting that they have less than honorable motives regarding the Wetlands?

Re: RANK AND FILE

TheShore — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 01:35:44 -0000

I think you may have drank the koolaid.

Just read her blog once and then ask the question "who is she working for?" She has accomplished very little other than asking lot's of questions of city personnel, and then doing nothing with the answers. It is YOUR tax dollars that she is wasting.

How about her recent statement "Who Gave the City Manager Authority to Pursue Selling or Leasing the City Airport?". Why shouldn't the City Manager consider any opportunity to improve efficiencies, reduce costs, or generate revenues? Is leasing the Airport a good idea? Who knows? What are the benefits? What are the negatives? Will the noise ordinance be protected?

Let's give Mr. West a chance to present the facts before concluding this is a good idea or a bad idea.

Re: MAYOR FOSTER TO CITY: “LET’S TALK”

TheShore — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 02:49:43 -0000

Maybe making it free was the only way they could get people to attend?

Re: THREE LOS CERRITOS WETLANDS LAND TRUST BOARD MEMBERS RESIGN OVER LAND SWAP

TheShore — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:24:58 -0000

While Ms. Altman clearly has an environmental agenda, I have also found her to be a REASONABLE person in her pursuits.

The LCWLT may have forced out their best leader . . .

Re: STUDEBAKER LLC APPLIES FOR PERMIT TO BUILD HOME IMPROVEMENT CENTER ON EDGE OF WETLANDS–AGAIN

TheShore — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 02:45:36 -0000

Hey Mr. Dave Wielenga,

Is there any chance you can restrict Tom Marchese to one "post" name? He's driving me crazy with the same dribble under multiple names!

Re: LOS ANGELES TIMES VISITS THE WETLANDS

TheShore — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 00:01:34 -0000

Dear Concerned Coastal Advocate (aka Tom Marcheesy),

Yes, we know you think you are the great negotiator. And you've negotiated what? That's right - nothing.

There's a good reason why the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority listens to Lenny and Eric. They have expertise in this area - you don't.

Re: STUDEBAKER LLC APPLIES FOR PERMIT TO BUILD HOME IMPROVEMENT CENTER ON EDGE OF WETLANDS–AGAIN

TheShore — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 23:42:10 -0000

As I understand the deal from reading the media, the City won't have a "multi-million clean up bill", the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority will oversee the restoration.

Re: ANIMALS CONTROLLED?

TheShore — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:03:03 -0000

I'm with Dave W on this one. The Panda needs to stop complaining.

Re: STUDEBAKER LLC APPLIES FOR PERMIT TO BUILD HOME IMPROVEMENT CENTER ON EDGE OF WETLANDS–AGAIN

TheShore — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:59:04 -0000

I'm not surprised. The court battle seemed too easy. I'm not sure what is meant by " . . . the Courts clear spoke to our Councilman . . ." All the courts said was that the EIR was flawed. In order for any development to occur, the EIR needs to be fixed in the areas identified by the court.

Hopefully it will be a smaller, low impact proposal this time around. The best option would be to just stick with the existing zoning - general industrial.

Re: NO CINNAMON ROLL LEFT BEHIND

TheShore — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:03:59 -0000

Mr. B - What do you think I am bitter about Councilwomen Gabelich? I think she tries to do the best she can, but is in way over her head. Her successfulness with HUSH 2 has not translated into being an effective councilperson.

Also, since you represent yourself as being "facts" oriented, could you provide the facts behind your comment "But, then again, considering the current sorry state of our School District's finances...due, in large part, to financial misfeasance of precisley this sort..."?

It's likely that the school district wastes a great deal of money since it is a government bureaucracy, but "financial malfeasance"? You maket sound like employees are stealing funds.

The problem with California's educational system is that we pay way too much, and receive way too little.