DISQUS

Duke And more FWIW, Futch at the PT said the comments are still there, just attached to an article now that is long since buried from yesterday.

lbresident agreed

John_B Duke: If that was in response to my comments I would simply say this: Not all motives are either sneaky or ulterior, but some certainly are, and have sometimes proved to be so where these wetland areas are concerned.

I'm more than prepared to take Mr. Hitchcock at his word and would normally gladly do so but for the fact that even if he had every right to do what he did with his property, he clearly did not do it in a manner required by law (hence the stop-work order).

Mr. Hitchcock's comments to LBR seem to indicate that he is very well aware of the extremely sensitive nature and development difficulties surrounding these properties as well as the many authorizations, studies and Permits, that often must be obtained before a person turns a single shovel-full, let alone a tractor full, of dirt. So why does he seem so surprised at the uproar the work on this parcel has caused?

I do not "accept all of the guy's answers for the time being" because some of his answers were not answers at all. Why not disclose the sale price, for example? How could it possibly harm him to do so? Such sales are matters of public record and the sale price would come out eventually. Why not simply disclose it?

Why not disclose the names of the City officials he has spoken to, to date, exactly what they discussed and when? How could it possibly harm him to do so? These officials supposedly represent us and, so, anything said to them in the course and scope of their service to us should be fully disclosed at the first official request. What, exactly, does Mr. Hitchcock feel he needs to protect these people from?

You see, Duke, it's not that we feel all motives are ulterior and sneaky. It's that when people are dealing with our elected and appointed representatives, they sometimes behave in sneaky and ulterior ways and we, the electorate, the people in charge, are then left to try to figure out why.

To his credit, when Mr. West started receiving phone calls from some of our elected representatives he went straight to the site and stopped the unlawful activity he found there. But it shouldn't have been necessary.

If Mr. Hitchcock is truly the philanthropist he presents himself to be, why not “cross all the T's and dot all the I's”, double and triple check what he wanted to do with all of the authorities involved BEFORE proceeding with any work?

Were you in his position, wouldn’t you?

And then, once you had, wouldn't you want to release a very public statement as the new owner of the property, explaining your now-fully-approved plans to turn your private property into a public park that everyone could use and benefit from? Given the sensitive nature of all of these parcels, wouldn't that make sense?

If so, why do you suppose it didn't go down that way?

DWR and four of my neighbors said NO......

Mike Ruehle Hello Mr. Duke,

I'm certainly not a financial genius, but I'm pretty sure that there is a difference between "a sizable loss" and a 100% loss. I agree with you that knee jerk reactions are undesirable. However, I’m still waiting for our city leaders to announce that they are investigating this loss further. Personally, I’d like to hear the city announce that an independent group will be investigating and reporting how the decision was made to invest in Lehman days before its bankruptcy. Failing that, maybe you can tell us what reaction, other than knee jerk, that we, the tax paying public, should start with.

JuanPardell Why should I investigate anything? I've simply made an assertion that Long Beach's city government has not had a mass exodus of employees. What crisis are you talking about? If anything, the only crisis I foresee is one similar to the City of Vallejo. However, you need not look further than to the city government salaries & benefits programs to blame for such a calamity. That's what bankrupted Vallejo, and will surely do the same to Long Beach. Has Vallejo lost city employees as a result? Of course. Why? Because no one stemmed the tide of red ink when the city council was handing out golden parachute salaries and benefits. This is the truth and you can't refute it. All you seek is a continuation of a failed system. That's why you are for increasing the taxes of Long Beach residents.

JuanPardell In this time of budget crisis, do believe an employee with the City of Long Beach, is going to leave the security of civil service protection, a good salary & benefits, to start all over somewhere else? Until you provide readers with specific examples, your opinions are simply bias rhetoric. You have not substantiated anything. How many employee losses have there been? Give us some data.

JuanPardell If you simply go to the Job Opportunities section, on the City of Long Beach's Civil Service Dept. website, you will see there are currently "23" job openings with city government. There are thousands of city employees. Twenty three job openings tells me there isn't a multitude of municipal workers bailing out of any city departments. In fact, that number is terribly insignificant. Why don't you give me some specific examples where labor shortages in city departments exist? Maybe I can be persuaded, even if just a little. Otherwise, your bias rhetoric will become very mundane.

JuanPardell If you can't provide anything credible, why should the readers of this blog trust what you have to say? Isn't that the credo of this parcel tax/infrastructure bond? The mayor asking the taxpayers to trust him? You're not interested in how a parcel tax may affect Long Beach taxpayers, who've gotten the short end of the municipal stick, but you're greatly interested in how city employee's salaries & benefits may be affected. Who works for who? Is there any respect at Long Beach city hall for the taxpayers? Once again, you've chosen to preach propaganda instead of fact(s).

JuanPardell Well, what does that data conclude? Yes, an independent source. Lord knows the city has wasted money on independent consultants for frivilous issues. Am I exaggerating? City officials are the ones who are making it sound as if a mass exodus of employees has occurred. Just listen to Steve James everytime he speaks before the city council. If there isn't a mass exodus, the city government is most likely experiencing the same amount of turnover that probably every employer in the country deals with. However, as I've previously stated, there is no evidence presented, that suggests city departments have experienced a mass exodus of employees. Certainly, you haven't presented anything credible.

Duke And no one has said employees are "ridiculously underpaid", either, besides you. You're putting words in my mouth and the mouths of others, and then essentially arguing with yourself, because we sure never said these things.

JuanPardell First, there would have to be data to first analyze what city officials keep alluding to. Second, whomever comprises the data, has to be an independent source. Third, why is there no data, from the Human Resources Department, that supports the assertion that a mass exodus of city employees has occurred? Until it can be proven, it is merely propoganda.

JuanPardell Duke - - - - Your position is clear. You believe Long Beach residents don't pay enough in taxes. Many will disagree with you.

Duke cuttung=cutting

LB City Girl Do you own a parcel?

LB City Girl It seems to me that Duke can't stand the voice of dissent. You must be worried that people may listen to Pearl, hence the ad hominom attacks on his person.

So which department at the city do you work for Duke? You seem to have an awful lot vested in no one questioning the mayor's parcel tax.

Do you live in LB, or just work here?
I want to know if you'd be paying this tax too, or just expecting LB residents to do it.

JuanPardell "He's got it wrong on Jerry Miller. The guy is almost single-handedly responsible for getting the city back in the back after voters short-sightedly slashed the utility tax."

Don't you mean the taxpayers and past housing boom got the city back in the black? The only thing Jerry Miller's methods offered was a temporary quick-fix for the city's financial problems. There wasn't much that changed. The city's government is still largely depending on one-time revenues to finance its expenditures. That is a holdover concept utilized by Hankla, Taboada, Miller and West. Whatever the case, stop blaming the utility tax measure as a scapegoat for the poor decisions made by current and past city councils. If you want line-item excuses, you should factor in the aquarium, CityPlace, The Pike, the Queen Mary, Museum of Art, etc., as other catalysts that have greatly contibuted to your city's poor financial condition. Of course, that would require certain officials to accept blame. Fat chance that will ever happen.