The Q question
Measure Q failed. Maybe $54 million was too high a price tag for the voters of Hermosa Beach. Maybe they thought that a sum of money that large would be squandered. Maybe there weren’t enough voters with school-age children. Or maybe, they’re holding out for free money from the oil recovery project. No bond measure. No increased property taxes. No annual appeal. Just sit back, relax and let the revenue from the oil project roll right in.
Lorie Armendariz
Hermosa Beach
Questionable behavior
During the latest elections Measure Q required 55 percent of the vote to pass. It failed by only 32 votes. There are several factors why the bond measure failed to get the 32 votes, such as the language on the intended use of the funds not being descriptive enough and a vocal opposition that hadn’t been engaged enough in the planning process.
As a Hermosa property tax payer, I would love to know all the reasons so that the School Board can adjust for next time. A week before the election, Measure Q was likely set to pass. But it didn’t – what happened?
A very likely reason for the 32 vote difference is School Board member Lisa Claypoole, who stepped up during an open mic session at the Hermosa Beach City Council meeting, as a private citizen, and publicly shamed Nanette Barragan for being the only Council Member to not support the measure. This unprofessional outburst caused one resident, who had been watching the meeting from home, to come down to the meeting and defend Nanette. It is why at least five of the 32 needed votes, that I know of, said no to Measure Q (up to six counting Nanette).
Claypool has yet to publicly apologize. Based on tradition, Claypool is set to become board president next year, which will only make her unprofessional presence even more prevalent. Positively changing the lives and education of so many children is something we should all support in a civil way, and it’s unfortunate that one person whom we trusted to drive that effort has let us down.
Cary Stein
Hermosa Beach
Mall cave-in
A 3-2 majority of the Manhattan Beach City Council granted final approval to the Manhattan Village Mall remodel by surrendering to political expediency. The majority (Mayor Wayne Powell and Councilmembers David Lesser and Amy Howorth) caved to the twisting arm tactics and threats of REIFF, the mall developer. Additionally, it unconscionably limited greater community input by scheduling the decisive meeting in proximity to Thanksgiving.
Councilmembers Mark Burton and Tony D’Errico, alert to REIFF’s tactics of backing the city into a corner, sought approval of a consolidated Macy’s, freeing up the Macy’s Men’s’ store, placing the parking garage at the location of the theaters, and the extension of Cedar Avenue to Rosecrans Avenue. Moreover, they fought to obtain agreements from REIFF to ensure meeting the quality of life of the community and a financially viable mall.
The Council majority succumbed to the faulty logic of “bigger is better” rather than recognizing that a distinct, unique, and welcoming mall would achieve both financial success by promoting our community’s distinctiveness.
The mall approval by the council majority opens up a floodgate for inappropriate business development inconsistent with the mainstream interests of residents. In contrast, Councilmembers Burton and D’Errico are committed to forging a mall agreement further enhancing our pride in Manhattan Beach.
Edward C. Caprielian, Ph.D.
Manhattan Beach
Carbon Neutral footprint too small to matter
Hermosa Beach resident Robert Fortunato must be given his due when it comes to personal responsibility in achieving his goal of Carbon Neutrality [CN]. Our country was built on the pioneer spirit.
The Brendle Report, referenced obliquely by Fortunato (ER Letters, November 27), does call for lofty goals that they say are feasible. In two of the four findings they actually down play the “First-to” achieve CN, stating that it is ‘less substantiated and very difficult to quantify” and that “our greenhouse gas inventory [ghg] may be too small to garner significant outside attention.” In other words, we don’t have much of a carbon footprint to begin with. All we have to do is invest $130 million and our return will be $36 million/yr. That’s a terrific return on investment and it beats the banks and stock markets, with the added satisfaction of helping save our planet. That’s a win-win. Bernie Madoff, eat your heart out. This project will financed through a partnership with the city, homeowners, business, contractors, developers, utilities, transportation agencies, Federal/ State agencies, grants, and other organizations and foundations. Did I forget anyone? The other option in Hermosa Beach, maybe, is to just drill for oil? Just a thought.
Gary Brown
Hermosa Beach
A bad Bill of lading
Why is Redondo Beach Bill Brand halting progress of the whole community for a selected few? Let me remind Council Member Brand, District 2 consists of more views than that of the personal interests of the Village, the Colony and Seascape Condos. He has done everything in his power to derail and halt progress on well-deserving projects that will benefit the whole community for generations, and will raise the property values for all, including the coastal condos.
The Waterfront Project and CenterCal Project will not only beautify our community, but also bring in millions of dollars in infrastructure improvements and taxes. However, at the rate Brand tries to delay and impede process, we will run out of money before we get there.
Civil war tactics and stubborn grandstanding have left many frustrated and disappointed, Residents in District 2, including myself, a resident of Redondo Beach for over 25 years, deserve a council member who works toward the well-being of the entire City. Our Waterfront is indeed a gem and will remain one with updated polish that will entice visitors and commerce for generations. Measure G has passed. The people of Redondo Beach have spoken. Cooperation and compromise are needed.
Redondo District 2 resident
Name withheld by request
A bad movie
I have serious doubts about the viability of the movie theater planned for the Redondo Beach Waterfront Development.
From the KTLA Morning News, October 6, 2014, by Sam Rubin: “To the movie business and their million maybe zillion dollar question… what to do with movie theaters when there’s nobody in them and the fact is on most week nights or throughout the days during the week they’re kinda empty. Well one movie chain has done a study and this is a very interesting statistic. Movie theaters have the largest amount of excess capacity of any industry we could find in the free world.
Perhaps Center Cal should offer a community theater instead, which would be much more palatable to the community and make much more sense. We have so many talented people in the South Bay who would love the opportunity to get hands on experience in the arts. Getting volunteers wouldn’t be a problem. With a bazillion performing groups in the South Bay a small intimate theater of 100 to 125 seats would be terrific.
A movie theater was another thing those at the now infamous community meetings said they didn’t want.
Joanne Newman
Redondo Beach
The good selfish gene
Dear ER,
I am a selfish person. But I am a “long-term” selfish person. Because of this, I support drilling for oil in Hermosa even though I live very close to the drill site. So close, in fact, that if drilling is allowed they will be digging the pipeline trenches a few feet in front of my driveway. I say I am “long-term” selfish because I believe, in the long term, oil drilling in Hermosa will greatly benefit Hermosa which, in turn, will greatly benefit me in terms of quality of life and property values.
Each property owner can estimate their share of the $17.5 million fine if oil drilling is banned. Their share is about $300 for every $100,000 of assessed value. So a homeowner whose property assesses for $1 million will pay, one way or another (through increased taxes, fees, reduction in city services, etc.), about $3,000 if oil drilling is banned.
I feel if I were a “short-term” selfish person I’d be in opposition to oil drilling. After all, during the time the facility is being built the value of my property certainly won’t increase and it will probably decrease far more than my share of the $17.5 million fine. Plus I’d have to deal with minor construction hassles.
But since I’m “long-term” selfish I feel my short-term property value loss and minor construction hassles are worth paying to get the long-term rewards that drilling will provide.
John Szot
Hermosa Beach
University of oil
Recently, the pro oil drillers have published “undisputable facts” regarding the drilling of 34 wells in Hermosa Beach.
One of these “ undisputed facts” states that the Health Impact Summary report shows measure O has no significant impact on our community.
What should be pointed out is that the first Health Impact Analysis, definitely revealed that significant health issues would result. After complaints from E&B oil, this report was withdrawn, and a new report was generated and published by Intrinsik, Inc, a Canadian company who had purchased the original Venice Beach Company. This report hid the distinct possibility of headache, nausea and sleep deprivation, in the numerous pages of text, but it is there if you dig deep enough. Of further interest to me is the fact that the peer report for the second study was conducted by the University of Alaska, who by the way, has received at least $27 million in grants and donations from Conoco Phillips Petroleum.
Tom Northup
Hermosa Beach
Council objection
My rebuttal to the argument for Measure O: say no to Hermosa Beach oil drilling March 3, 2015.
The Health Impact study concludes that oil drilling in Hermosa Beach may cause “headaches, eye/skin irritation, respiratory conditions, anxiety and depression” and could result in “serious injuries and/or fatalities.” Is this significant to you?
Per the Cost Benefit Analysis, the School District will receive less than $68,000 per year, and that is at a price per barrel much higher than today’s price. The oil company proposes to give a third party nonprofit 1 percent for school related funding, but the nonprofit has not accepted the offer and with declining oil prices and inflated volume estimates this could be negligible.
With declining oil prices, the CBA projects the City could receive $900,000 total over 35 years to spend as it sees fit, firefighters, police or potholes. That’s less than the $1 million per year our city spends now on street repavement. Any other restricted Tidelands funds cannot be used for parks or firefighters.
If Measure O fails we repay $17.5 million with $6 million we have set aside, and pay $800,00 per year out of the $1 million per year we already have budgeted. Result: no decline in city services.
Documented health problems in Beverly Hills and Huntington Beach include over 200 complaints at E&B’s Huntington Beach facility from odors that can lead to “headaches, and respiratory conditions.” Beverly Hills has had too many to name but the City Council will no longer allow drilling.
These facts are from independent city studies and/or my investigation.
Nanette B. Barragan
Hermosa Beach City Council member
