Letter to the Editor 7-14-2016
Learn from the past
Dear ER:
I read with interest the letter to the editor last week regarding cancelling the Manhattan Beach March, 2017 election for city council members and treasurer and changing the local election to coincide with the state and national elections held in November of each even numbered year. The choices are to vote to extend current council members terms for up to 19 months, or shorten the term of council members elected through March 2017 and March 2019 to three years and seven months.
I served on the city council from 1978 to 1986. In the mid-eighties similar but optional state legislation was passed, which would have allowed city council members to extend their terms for 19 months.
Jim Walker and I were the council members who first would have had our terms extended if we had voted in favor of the concept. We both rejected this option.
I believe my exact quote was, “It would be extremely unethical and self-serving of me to vote to extend my own term beyond the four years the citizens of Manhattan Beach elected me to serve.”
The council unanimously rejected the term extension concept. It was the honorable thing to do.
It makes much more sense to pass an ordinance shortening the terms by five months for the council members elected in March of 2017 and 2019 instead.
I hope the current city council will continue the precedent that we set the first time this issue came up and not take the self-serving action to extend their own terms.
Russ Lesser Former Mayor,
Manhattan Beach
Will of the people
Dear ER:
A new law (SB 415 – Voter Participation Rights Act) requires cities that have municipal elections during odd numbered years, with resulting low voter turnout, such as Manhattan Beach, to consolidate their elections with statewide elections in June or November of even-numbered years). While the new law has an implementation deadline by November 8, 2022, I believe in early implementation in the spirit of the law. Manhattan’s odd year election cycle, set by a City Council many years ago, unfairly favors incumbents by reducing voter turnout. This is wrong and only career politicians favor it.
Last week’s Letter to the Editor (“Past mayors urge council to shorten, not extend terms,” ER July 7, 2016) stated that the next municipal election, scheduled for March 2017 should be moved to November 2016. However, the state legislature never intended that SB 415 be implemented retroactively to reduce the terms of existing council members. That would circumvent the will of the voters who elected current council members to serve a four-year term. More importantly, that would give incumbents running for re-election (and a former council member who is a declared candidate) an unfair advantage over new candidates. This is because new candidates don’t have the name recognition and campaign experience of incumbents and it leaves them less time to catch up, campaign and meet voters.
Wayne Powell
City Councilman
Manhattan Beach
| Shared goals
Dear ER: Many thanks to Jeff Ginsburg for his many years of service on the Redondo Beach Planning Commission and now the City Council (“Redondo Beach Councilman Jeff Ginsburg to resign,” ER June 30, 2016). Had a great chat this past weekend with him about community service, activism and standing up for what people believe in. Although he and I differ on many issues, we’re both trying to make this community better. Hopefully, a reasonable and balanced District 1 councilperson becomes appointed. Family first, take care of the most important aspect of life. Redondo Beach Checkmate? Dear ER: District 1 Councilman Jeff Ginsburg could not vote on two of the Redondo’s biggest projects: the Waterfront and Legado mixed use developments. All because he had financial dealings near the projects (“Redondo Beach councilman Jeff Ginsberg to resign,” ER June 30, 2016). He is resigning only after enough of his term has been served so that his seat is not open for a vote of the people of Redondo. Instead, the new councilman will be appointed by the council, with Mayor Steve Aspel casting the deciding vote in the event of a tie. The mayor says he “doesn’t necessarily want someone who is divisive,” which means someone who does not disagree with him. By appointing someone whom the mayor knows will vote in favor of the Waterfront project, it saves the mayor from casting the deciding vote for the project, giving him the appearance of being project neutral. Laura D. Zahn Redondo Beach |
|||
Playing for time
Dear ER:
Redondo Beach is giving the Harbor Commissioners only 10 days to review over 1,000 pages of over 500 comments before the commission will certify the Final Environmental Impact Report on a 524,000 square foot development in King Harbor. The CenterCal development will be more than 10 times the size of the new Shade Hotel, add 12,500 cars to an already congested area, construct buildings over one-third of Seaside Lagoon, open Seaside Lagoon to polluted harbor water, block 80 percent of views along Harbor Drive, construct a 3-story parking garage, and dedicate coastal land to a movie theater. Recreational uses like Seaside Lagoon and the boat launch ramp are afterthoughts, squeezed into leftover footprints not dedicated to consumerism.
The Final EIR will also include a new proposal for the boat launch ramp, which was not focused on during the Draft Environmental Impact Report. A 10 day review period on all the above changes, along with a significant change that has not been fully vetted, is blatantly rushed.
We believe it is only prudent that the Harbor Commissioners and the public be given adequate time to digest the tremendous changes being proposed. Rescue Our Waterfront, a local community activist group representing over 1,000 concerned citizens, business owners, and boaters, has requested the Final EIR review period be extended from 10 to 60 days. Revitalize, not supersize!
Martin F. Holmes
Redondo Beach
Co-Founder, Rescue Our Waterfront
Redondo showtime
Dear ER:
People first complained that the movie theater proposed for the Redondo Beach Waterfront was too big. Now, they’re complaining it’s too exclusive and trying to leave out families. Some people are going to find something to complain about no matter what. Personally, I think this smaller, specialty theater is just right. With only seven screens and 560 seats, this is 20 percent smaller than the initial theater plan, based on concerns our community expressed. I think this unique theater will be a huge asset to Redondo. When you add all of this up, plus the full bar and kitchen, along with being located in the greatest beach city in Los Angeles, we will have a unique, one-of-a-kind experience for everyone to share in.
Sincerely,
Brian Robinson
315 S Maria Ave
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
Bring down the curtain
Dear ER:
On July 18, the Redondo Beach Harbor Commission makes its final decision on the EIR, resolutions and CUP’s for CenterCal’s “vision” for King Harbor. Those of us who oppose a theater in our harbor understand that home entertainment centers, Netflix, huge screens and the high cost of going out has resulted in low attendance and many theater closings in the Beach Cities. And while I’m glad to see some commissioners and councilmembers questioning the wisdom of the theater, others prove that “foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” Hopefully those commissioners who vote for this loser will share their reasons for doing so. I assume they have good ones. Because otherwise who knows what we will conclude about their relationship with CenterCal. Just sayin’.
Ross Yosnow
Redondo Beach
