A game changing opportunity
If Hermosa Beach Measure O passes, our city will receive millions of dollars that can be used to hire more firefighters and police, upgrade our sewers, stop storm water pollution from polluting our beaches, fix our streets, and much more. Our schools stand to receive millions of dollars to help maintain smaller classroom sizes, pay for art and music classes, and provide our students a brighter future.
If measure O fails, we have to repay E & B Natural Resources over $17 million they loaned us to pay off a debt we owed Macpherson Oil, as a result of lawsuit they filed after we voted to approve and later ban Macpherson’s right to recover oil.
I think embarking on oil recovery is a reasonable thing for us to do. We all take risks every day. We drive cars, fly in airplanes, and ride bikes on the shoulders of busy streets. We take risks because on some level we know it’s worth it. That’s a mindset I’d like Hermosans to consider adopting when they vote on Measure O.
Properly stewarded, the City of Hermosa Beach could do transformative things with the oil revenue. We could put money toward green initiatives, or underground utilities, or put in storm drains that better protect the ocean—whatever the citizens and the council agree on.
Cindy Lee Smet
Hermosa Beach
Collective shame
Dear ER:
That such a cowardly act of hatred could take place in our community shames us all (“Manhattan Home if firebombed,” EasyReaderNews February 4, 2015). The family, including children, escaped with their lives, but $200,000 of damage was done to their home. This is the time when the people of our community should show their support for good neighbors of all races.
Joan Engelhaupt
Manhattan Beach
The power to walk away
Dear ER:
You’ve read the Environmental Impact Project Report and the Health Impact Assessment and decided Hermosa can live with the identified risks of oil drilling. The conclusions of the independent environmental groups Heal The Bay and the Surfrider Foundation have not swayed you to vote NO on O.
You should still vote NO on O. Why? Because there will always be a better deal available to Hermosa. A deal following an arms-length negotiation in which the City of Hermosa has some leverage. A deal which is the result of competitive bidding among several oil companies.
The proposed deal on which the Hermosa residents will vote on March 3, is far from best possible deal. The City had no leverage to negotiate. It was nearing a trial in which McPherson Oil was seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. The deal was not the result of competitive bargaining. The City negotiated with one company — the plaintiff, McPherson Oil (who subsequently assigned the contract rights to E & B). Business people know the “power to negotiate is the power to walk away.” The City had no ability to walk away from this deal without going to trial.
If O is defeated and the City’s residents decide later to consider oil drilling, the City would be able — through a competitive negotiation process among several bidders — to get a much, much better deal. The City could, for example, insist on an early termination clause if the environmental/health/quality of life impact proves to be too severe. The City could negotiate reduced hours of operation, maximum noise and odor levels. And of course the City could negotiate better financial terms.
Finally, the City could also negotiate with larger, more financially sound oil companies. If something goes badly wrong, a British Petroleum or Chevron has far greater financial resources and insurance than does E &B. Here, E & B will likely set up a subsidiary to operate in Hermosa that it can put into bankruptcy to avoid liability if necessary.
Even if you are in favor of the concept of oil drilling in Hermosa, the current deal on the table is far from the best deal the City could negotiate if it didn’t have a “litigation gun to its head.”
Robert Meylan
Pacific Palisades
$20,000 on the table
Dear ER:
Twenty minutes of simple math using the latest Cost Benefit Supplement reveals a $20,000 impact for how you vote on Measure O.
I’ve computed numbers on a per-household (HH) basis, assuming 9,550 city households. The Hermosa budget for 2014-2015 was $33.7 million, or $3,528/HH. Hermosa Beach has over $100 million in unfunded capital projects in the city’s 5 year plan.
If Hermosans vote No on Measure O, the city must repay E&B $17.5 million, plus interest. The city has $6 million in a rainy-day fund, so assume that debt is $11.5 million. That’s $1,204/HH. Financing at $850,000/year for 20 years with interest drives up the cost to $1,780/HH.
The contaminated city yard clean-up costs are $3.7M, or $387/HH. Voting No will cost you $1,591 minimum, leaving all those capital projects still underfunded.
If you vote Yes on Measure O, the $17.5M loan is forgiven. The mid-case net revenue estimate from the CBA (at $95/barrel) is $227.4 million, or $23, 811/HH. $81 million is unrestricted Uplands royalties, providing significant money to fund capital projects. At $70/barrel, it’s $163 million or $17,068/HH. The Educational Foundation gets one percent of gross royalties, from $16.5 million ($95/barrel, $1,727/HH) to $12.2M ($70/barrel, $1,277/HH), plus mineral rights. The city yard cleanup is gratis. Voting yes provides benefits from $25,538 ($95/barrel) to $18,345 ($70/barrel).
Add these up, and your household’s vote is worth $27,129 using the independent consultants’ midpoint numbers. Even at $70/barrel, it’s $19,936. Keep this in mind when you consider how to vote!
Dave Schrader
Hermosa Beach
The beam in their oil
Dear ER:
The entire process involving the Manhattan Beach city council’s vote opposing oil drilling in Hermosa Beach was a travesty (“Council opposes Hermosa oil drilling, ER February 5, 2015). Manhattan has enjoyed millions of dollars in contributions from its Big Oil neighbor Chevron. Manhattan has never once seriously opposed anything it does. It is astonishing that the the Manhattan council can so blissfully ignore the Chevron Marine Terminal’s presence just off Manhattan’s pristine beaches as though it presents no threat to the sacred Santa Monica Bay. Yet it happily attacks Hermosa’s opportunity to secure its own financial future with a state-of-the-art onshore operation. The hypocrisy is staggering, but politicians gotta be politicians. I assume we will see Manhattan councilmembers Any Howorth and Wayne Powell on stage in Hermosa on Thursday Feb 12 jockeying with Hermosa councilmembers Nanette Barragan and Hany Fangary for a photo opp with Bobby Kennedy, Jr. A trophy photo for their future campaign materials?
Jim Sullivan
Hermosa Beach
B not fearful
Dear ER:
Measure B “yessers” have had a tough time selling residents on hundreds of high density, four to five story condos lining the waterfront. So they’ve had to resort to a misleading and inaccurate fear and smear campaign.
The fear tactics: AES will abandon the plant. AES will rebuild a new plant, battery storage, or desal plant. AES will build other industrial uses…. None of these outcomes are realistic and some simply cannot happen. AES did not get a contract to produce power from this site because it is too far from where power is needed. For the same reason, they would not put battery storage here. Desal need lots of power, that’s why they’re usually built next to power plants, like at AES’ Huntington plant. The property is not zoned for industrial. And for fiscal, legal, fiduciary, and political reasons, squatting on the property is just dumb.
Smears include mistruths like opponents expect AES to give us a giant park for free. We’ve never advocated all park or AES giving away property. But we are advocating reasonable, balanced zoning. I
Measure B’s high density housing zoning is far from reasonable. Measure B rigorously protects high density condo and housing development while making parkland an option for the developer. Profits override reasonableness and balance in Measure B.
Jim Light
Redondo Beach
B gone
Dear ER:
I have lived and worked in Redondo Beach for over 40 years, and am now happily retired. My family and I love it here. However the power plant has been an aggravation and annoyance that has tarnished our otherwise wonderful community and environment. The power plant property is over 50 acres of blight that has negatively affected much of the surrounding area for many decades. We never thought we would see its demise, not in our lifetimes. After all the squabbles, controversy and failed attempts to remove or reduce it, we gave up. Now, amazingly, the property owner AES along with City leaders have offered us a way to remove the plant and replace it with an upscale mixed use village. Proposition B offers a once-in-a-century opportunity to remove the privately owned power plant, permanently. Proposition B proposes a compromise with open space, hotel rooms, residential and commercial space…and no power plant. Any future projects will be subject to a master plan and approval of the City Council and California Coastal Commission, along with thorough environmental review. Conversely, If Prop B fails AES will pursue other industrial uses (as prescribed by existing industrial zoning) for the property they own. There is also the very real possibility that the plant would shut down in 2020 and remain empty for years.
The choice is clear. Lets move our City forward in ways that will benefit the entire community. Vote Yes on Proposition B
Sue Armstrong
Redondo Beach
B nice
Dear ER:
After listening to the Redondo Beach City Council meetings over the last few months, I believe the council members need to focus more on collaboration and less on confrontation. To begin moving forward we need to start with mutually agreed upon change. The first priority should be the resident’s interest and not personal ambitions.
Elections are golden opportunity to bring smart leadership to our City, and that’s why it’s crucial that we all come out and vote on March 3. We need council members who are willing to work with others and whose opinions are based on facts and the needs of their constituents, not the influence of other council members.
We have finally been given the opportunity to tear down the power plant, recreating the entire waterfront area and revitalize our City, all without a penny from our own pockets. There is no other way to know when, or if, this will happen again.
That’s why Redondo’s vote on March 3 is more important than ever. Vote for the candidates who will continue to move us in the right direction and for Measure B to permanently get rid of the power plant.
Ken Klade
Redondo Beach
