Letters

Meter madness revisited
Dear ER:
  The Hermosa Councilmembers who’ve proposed adding more parking meters to Hermosa Beach sidewalks in front of homes are displaying nothing less than ignorant, uncreative, insanity. (‘Meter Madness’, ER, 6/4/26)

  Having lived in or parked in Hermosa Beach for well-over 65-years, commencing with my first car in 1959, at age 17, a 1950 Plymouth I parked near the Green Store on Hermosa Avenue, I, like others, have long dreaded Hermosa Beach’s city parking ticket operation.

  Today, it’s more likely that I’d park near the beach in Manhattan Beach to walk The Strand than risk a ticket trying to park in my own city.  Just comparing Hermosa Beach to Manhattan Beach is essentially proof that parking meters in front of homes, as here in Hermosa Beach at the beach, accomplishes little to nothing in solving parking issues.

  Especially questionable is proposing the addition of more parking meters, or increasing the city’s sales tax for one’s campaign platform for Hermosa Beach City Council election/reelection this November.

   Howard Lee
   Hermosa Beach

Candidate economics
Dear ER:
  Last week, recently announced Hermosa Beach City Council candidate Elka Worner shared her thoughts on the City’s ongoing budget discussions (“Meter Madness,” ER Letters to the editor, June 4, 2026). Unfortunately, her piece represents a troubling first impression for someone seeking to lead our city. At a time when Hermosa Beach is facing a $3.2 million structural operating deficit and a massive $220 million backlog in critical Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects, Worner’s immediate reaction to a viable revenue stream is an outright, unhelpful “no.” Worse, she offered absolutely zero alternatives to fill the gap.

  Hermosa’s May 26 budget presentation explicitly noted that expanding parking programs into high-utilization coastal corridors like Monterey Boulevard and Manhattan Avenue could generate up to $2 million annually in locally controlled revenue. Outside of increased sales taxes (which will require a third attempt at voter approval, and which Worner notably advocated aggressively against last time it was on the ballot), this expanded parking program was the only option for significant, seven-figure revenue generation offered by City Staff. And this is revenue that would be paid almost entirely by out-of-town visitors seeking access to our beach, and not by residents living in that area, who already enjoy unrestricted (including in metered parking spaces) neighborhood parking permits at an extremely low price of $70 per year.  

  Worner’s position difficult to reconcile with her concurrent actions on the Parks and Recreation Commission. Just last week, the commission voted to balance its own program budget by raising fees on after-school and summer programs. And to be clear, even as a parent of young children in Hermosa (who will be utilizing these programs), I attended this meeting and provided my support for these fee increases. But think about the message Warner’s outright rejection of expanding metered parking sends to the city. Worner is perfectly comfortable voting to offload the city’s financial burdens onto young, local working parents who rely on after school and summer childcare. But when it comes to asking homeowners in North Hermosa to contribute by supporting revenue generating parking on their street (which would bring in revenue from non-Hermosa residents), she draws a hard line.

  Worner’s position relies on a bizarre geographic double standard. She claims Monterey and Manhattan are “quiet neighborhoods” where meters don’t belong. But what about South Hermosa? Monterey, Manhattan, Herondo, 1st, and 2nd Streets in the southern quartile of Hermosa are metered everywhere from the Strand to the Greenbelt. Why are South Hermosa businesses and residents (who also have children and dogs) expected to shoulder this parking monetization and traffic while the (likely) wealthier enclave in North Hermosa gets a free pass? 

  To stoke fear, Worner employed a classic bad faith, slippery slope argument, warning that if we meter parking on Manhattan and Monterey, then Gould, Valley, and Silverstrand will be next. Nobody is proposing metering deep, interior residential blocks. We are talking about the primary coastal impact zones with streets that are already utilized for parking by beachgoers every summer. Right now, the city’s unenforced 1-hour parking limits (which apply only in the summer months) on North Monterey and Manhattan do nothing to curb all-day parking anyway. Other residents have proposed that better enforcement of the 1-hour parking limits could be a way to raise revenue, but this would require costly and consistent police enforcement, and even then is unlikely to deliver anywhere near the volume of revenue that would come with generating recurring parking revenue from these 500+ additional parking spaces. Increased enforcement has also been demanded for years, with minimal improvement due to our police department’s limited resources, which are especially squeezed in the busy summer months. Flipping these parking spaces to a digital, sign-and-QR-code system under the city’s existing ParkMobile contract would cost the city nothing upfront and instantly convert an unavoidable parking frustration into a passive seven-figure revenue stream.

  We are leaving millions of dollars on the table while our police, fire, and infrastructure costs skyrocket. If city council candidates want to kill viable, visitor-funded revenue streams, they owe it to the residents to explain exactly which core community services they plan to cut or provide real actionable ideas for raising material amounts revenues. Empty “no’s” won’t fix our sidewalks, fund our public safety, or balance our budget. We need leadership that prioritizes the fiscal health of the entire city over the concerns of a protected few.

Alain Jauffret
   Hermosa Beach 

Let city heads roll back
Dear ER:
  All three of our beach cities are facing serious fiscal challenges.  Recently, Hermosa Beach had a projected budget deficit of over $2 million that they had to plug with one-time transfers.  Worse yet, Manhattan Beach had a projected budget deficit of over $10 Million that they had to plug by using the entire $4 million from the Economic Uncertainty Fund and holding back a $3 Million transfer to the Pension Fund.  Redondo Beach is now considering a hiring freeze to save money.  Of course, staff in all three cities have recommended a menu of higher fees and taxes, not savings! 

  I’ve worked in city government for over thirty years, in boom-and-bust times.  During bust times, city government needs to get lean and that means it’s time to start savings.  The first step is always a hiring freeze. In Manhattan Beach, the number of full-time employees is at an all-time high, so a hiring freeze should be easy to implement.  In fact, several years ago Manhattan Beach had 268 full time employees, and they are now at 357!  Reducing that 357 by 30 would save the City an estimated $7 million or more!  Rather than increasing fees and taxes, reducing the number of full-time employees is what our residents really would like to see happen.

Mark Burton
Manhattan Beach

Payback time
Dear ER:
  For years, Hermosa Beach operated under a pattern of managerial complacency and weak council oversight. A city manager whose political priorities closely aligned with the sitting council was allowed to steadily expand the size, cost, and authority of the city bureaucracy while simultaneously taking on too many major projects with too little accountability for delays, overruns, and failures.

  Rather than serving as an independent check on executive management, the council majority repeatedly approved staffing increases, budget expansions, and project extensions.  The city is now confronting the problems created during that era.

   I have historically opposed increasing Hermosa Beach’s sales tax, both philosophically and on libertarian grounds. Residents already live in one of the most heavily taxed and regulated states in the country, and my opposition was strengthened by the certainty that any new revenue would simply disappear into the ever-expanding bureaucracy built under former City Manager Suja Lowenthal and the council majority that empowered her.

  To be clear, none of this implies criminal corruption. The problem was something more dangerous: ideological complacency, groupthink, and a governing culture that treated taxpayer money as an endless resource while insulating City Hall from meaningful accountability.

  Fortunately, Hermosa Beach now appears to be moving in a more responsible direction. Under the leadership of Rob Saemann, Dean Francois, and Michael Keegan — and under the stewardship of new City Manager Steve Napolitano — the city appears to be regaining a firmer financial footing and a renewed sense of fiscal discipline.

  But the city must still confront difficult financial realities honestly and responsibly. Residents and local businesses are already under tremendous economic pressure from inflation, rising insurance costs, labor costs, regulation, and California’s overall tax burden. If taxpayers are ultimately asked to help stabilize the city’s finances through an additional sales tax measure, City Hall must demonstrate that it is equally willing to tighten its own belt.

  The structural debt and financial obligations created by previous leadership are real, and they cannot simply be wished away.  If the city places another tax measure before voters, I believe it deserves a fair evaluation. Not because higher taxes are inherently desirable, but because the current leadership has at least begun restoring confidence that public funds will be managed ethically, competently, transparently, and with meaningful oversight rather than absorbed into unchecked bureaucratic growth.

   Raymond Dussault
   Hermosa Beach, CA