It’s time
Dear ER:
It’s time for the ancient, historic Old Salt Pond to finish seeping up to the surface and take its rightful place as a resting place for humans and other species.
It is said that California has lost 99% of its original wetlands to development.
Barbara Epstein
Redondo Beach
Six acres, maybe more
Dear ER:
The AES property in Redond Beach is a closed power plant site with active wetlands. When AES turned off their dewatering pumps, the Old Salt Lake returned as best it could in the industrialized landscape. The Audubon Society local chapter is actively cataloging the birds thriving in the wetlands… now at over 100 species. On a recent visit, I noted fish swimming in at least a portion of the wetlands. Nature is prevailing on the site. The Coastal Commission has designated the site as having about six acres of active wetlands – which are now protected from development. What we do not know is how far the wetlands extends under the concrete and asphalt on the site.
So we have a shutdown powerplant and an active wetlands whose size has not been determined yet on property that has been zoned for public utility or parkland since 2010. The bankrupt developer bought the property speculating on a zoning change that hasn’t happened. He overpaid on speculation.
Jim Light
Mayor
City of Redond Beach
Do nothing party
Dear ER:
Is it leadership when the Manhattan Beach City Council states “There is nothing we can do. Our hands are tied,” in response to high-rise apartments in our community? I don’t think so. In essence, Manhattan’s City Council is telling residents that they think it is hopeless. In my experience as a City Official, there is always something you can do if you have the political will to do so.
Here are several options for our City Council to explore in opposing high-rise apartment projects in our community. First, form a coalition of other small, densely populated cities in California to lobby for legislation to amend the State’s Density Bonus Law to exempt such cities from the automatic approval of height waivers for such projects. These cities need to retain the discretion to approve or deny such projects on a case-by-case basis. Second, the City Council should direct their City Manager and Staff to conduct both a parking study and a traffic safety study. Although the City can’t require a developer to do so, there is nothing prohibiting the City from conducting these studies. Third, direct the City Manager and Staff to develop criteria, tailored to our community, to determine if there is a significant health or safety issue that permits the City to adopt findings to deny an application for a waiver for height for such projects.
“Where there is a will, there is a way.” This November, we need to elect candidates to our City Council with the will.
Mark Burton
Manhattan Beach
Navel gazing
Dear ER:
What reporter Garth Meyer describes is not a true strategic planning session (“Redondo Beach city council sets new strategic planning session,” ER April 2, 2026). It’s more accurately an annual accomplishments review, which is not the same as strategy.
It feels like a regurgitation of the project review because it is mostly that.
1. There is heavy emphasis on past accomplishments. The City Manager listed 127 items, such as park refurbishments, grants received, permitting system, pothole response times, etc. This is classic annual report content, not strategy. Even his quote, “We don’t celebrate our successes that often,” signals the purpose — recognition and validation, not direction-setting.
2. The “future” portion lacked structure. When they finally moved to “what’s next,” the discussion was focused on more projects – Waterfront land swap (maybe), seaside Lagoon plans (ongoing), holiday decorations at the pier, Vacant storefronts (no defined plan yet), Artesia Blvd / PCH improvements (someday), Underground parking (idea stage), AI strategic plan (very vague). This is idea generation, not strategy.
3. There’s no prioritization, no timelines beyond “12 months”, no metrics, no trade-offs (what gets funded vs. dropped)
4. It was explicitly short-term. The article even says, “an abbreviated strategic planning this year”.
The session did a good job highlighting accomplishments, but it would benefit from a clearer, long-term strategic framework—prioritized goals, measurable outcomes, and a multi-year vision for addressing key issues such as housing affordability, rapidly rising fuel costs, challenges faced in the timely execution of the 93-million-dollar project to build new police headquarters and fire stations, economic development in North Redondo, to name a few.
A true strategy for a city like Redondo Beach should be 3–5 years minimum, addressing these issues. A genuine strategic plan that would answer questions like:
What are the city’s top 3 priorities for the next 5 years?
How will it handle the most pressing issues mentioned above?
What are the measurable and achievable goals, and can they be achieved without adding the tax burden on the residents?
What’s the long-term vision for weathering the economic headwinds that the country faces in view of the current war in the Middle East?
How and when will the city streamline internal processes and project management using AI to make administration more cost-effective and responsive to residents’ needs?
How will it balance quality of life vs. revenue generation? The latest report published by L.A. County shows our city ranked 22nd in terms of Human Development Index, well behind MB, HB, RPV, Rolling Hills, and Santa Monica.
That doesn’t mean an accomplishment review is useless. It serves political and administrative purposes. It shows progress, builds consensus, and lets councilmembers float ideas safely. But in terms of real strategy, it falls short. Sessions such as this one are necessary every quarter, but they should not replace a Strategic Planning session that focuses on the long-term goals and plans for achieving them.
Vijay Jeste
Redondo Beach
New Cup of Cold Water
Dear ER:
Hermosa Beach faces a sobering reality: over $50 million in high-priority, unfunded capital improvements are already on the books.
This includes $20 million for a new City Yard, $15 million for deferred Civic Center maintenance, $10 million for a new police station, and $10 million for essential pier and City Hall maintenance & upgrades.
Most of these projects have languished for years without an identified funding source. Compounding this is a projected $14.2 million operating deficit by 2031.
To make matters worse Mayor Michael Detoy has reportedly signaled that new Los Angeles County Fire and Lifeguard contracts alone could threaten the city’s solvency.
With expenditures growing at three times the rate of revenue, “business as usual” isn’t just unsustainable—it’s suicidal.
Yet, despite this crisis, some of our city leaders insist we “must” build a new pier. Construction and financing are estimated at $90 million, with an additional $60 million in maintenance through 2070.
Call me an alarmist but the city can’t cut its way out of this fiscal crisis.But maybe the old adage when your in a hole.applies… but that is way above my pay-grade
But to reestablish fiscal credibility the City must prove it can make hard choices today; like do we really need a new pier and if so what are we willing to give up for it.
This also starts with a transparent, honest sales tax initiative this November—one free of one-sided promotional mailers disguised as “education.”
Furthermore, the City appears to be rushing toward a “torrent” of Westside Short-Term Vacation Rentals (STVRs) to chase the 14% Transient Occupancy Tax.
This TOT essentially asks residential westside neighborhoods to risk their quality of life to help bridge the budget gap.
Maybe we have no choice but I fear that in a rush to cash-in on STVR the city will propose ineffective and unenforceable quality of life protections.
Also if the City is serious about this revenue, will they hold owners of previously unregistered STVRs accountable for back TOT taxes? Residents deserve an answer.
Ultimately, we must ask: Can a 1.4-square-mile city survive the weight of its own expanding bureaucracy or should we pursue a public to public partnership with Mb or Rb?
We are at a crossroads of two potentially competing visions.
One pursues big events, international tourism and nightlife and the other strives to protect a safe, family-friendly coastal community where the main attractions are our great schools, beautiful sunsets and outdoor activities like surfing, swimming and participatory sports like beach volleyball, little league, lawn bowling, dog walking and long walks on our beautiful coast
Given our fiscal realities, can these two visions truly coexist in a small 1.4 sq. mi. community; and if so how is this best accomplished?
Clearly it’s time for Hermosa residents to speak up and be heard as our city leaders map their way through this looming fiscal crisis.
The answers are way above my pay-grade but I hope this is food for thought.
Anthony Higgis
Hermosa Beach
