Squishy programs
Dear ER:
I am thoroughly disgusted that the Beach Cities Health District is spending our tax money on anecdotal programs that are sponsored by poorly managed insurance companies [see story page 20].
BCHD is one of the worst managed agencies in the state and it is currently taking funds that otherwise belong to police, fire and schools and using them on programs that belong on Oprah.
Jane
Web comment
Bringin’ me dune
Dear ER:
Bill Hory’s Citizens for Outdoor Recreation website and Jake Rome’s Sand Dune Park Facebook page are together disseminating false information to whip up fear against what is presently a fair and balanced solution to overuse of the popular Manhattan Beach Sand Dune.
Their websites are claiming the City Council is considering a $280K fence around the Dune. The truth is the $280K being considered is for repairing and replacing fencing only at Live Oak Park and Manhattan Heights Park. There is no proposal at this time to build a permanent fence around the Sand Dune.
The new reservation system has been highly successful for everyone. The one hour time slots are never filled to the 20-person capacity so everyone from anywhere who wishes to workout on the dune is doing so.
The crowd pressures on the neighborhood have been alleviated. Manhattan Beach families are again enjoying time with their young children in the tot lot and on the dune. Parents that want to play with their 7 to 12 year-olds on the dune only have to make a reservation for themselves and bring the kids with them.
Abusing the internet by spreading falsehoods is irresponsible and unethical. Using misinformation as a scare tactic to garner support is great for political campaigns but not helpful for uniting neighbors in our community.
Dennis White
Manhattan Beach
Facebook follow-up
Dear ER:
Recently, the City of Manhattan Beach considered a proposal to build an expensive, permanent fence around the dune at Sand Dune Park. Before the City Council held its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) study session, CORE identified the fence as an item of interest.
After reading the meeting agenda, CORE posted to our Facebook page, “There is a city council meeting Tuesday, where the council will consider spending about $280,000 to build a permanent fence around the dune.” We later learned that the agenda contained an error and the proposals under consideration would spend $80,000 to $200,000 (including overhead costs).
Several CORE members did contact the City Council, and subsequent to that city staff explicitly recommended that any plans to build a permanent fence around the dune be postponed. After listening to these constituent concerns via email and at the public hearing, some City Council members expressed an interest in eventually removing the fence on a trial basis.
CORE is proud of our activism on this topic, as it may have saved the city a substantial amount of money while providing a chance to beautify Sand Dune Park by removing the fence altogether.
CORE remains committed to making the dune welcoming to all residents and encouraging the young and old alike to exercise. CORE seeks three changes in dune management to achieve these goals while maintaining neighborhood peace: (1) Expand hours to accommodate working adults and families; (2) Open the dune to all kids 17 and under and allow their parents to play with them; (3) Eliminate the fence.
Jake Rome
Manhattan Beach
Co-Founder, CORE
(Citizens for Outdoor Recreation & Exercise)
Closing time
Dear ER:
With another Hermosa Avenue eatery apparently morphing from a daytime deli-diner into a sports bar, and an additional upper Pier Avenue restaurant now also wanting hard liquor sales, it’s worth recalling that Hermosa’s council has essentially set in concrete a police and fire department hiring freeze further below already understaffed levels [“Lean budget costs police positions,” Feb. 25, 2010]. Thus why are the Hermosa Council and Planning Commission approvals continuing to be akin to handling a firetrap by stuffing in more combustibles, while at the same time freezing the means to control the eventual fire?
Hermosa’s elected and appointed officials are encouraging unlimited liquor-dispensing expansion knowing full well the city is over-concentrated in liquor selling, and that this added liquor selling and its associated visitor intensification, both day and evening, increases the need for costly fire, paramedic, and police resources at a rate faster than the received penny share of sales tax on each additional reported dollar of liquor-related sales.
The ludicrous myth of huge sales tax revenue from Hermosa’s liquor-selling drinking establishments continues to be perpetuated, even while the city’s finance director indicates the city’s total share of sales tax revenue from all bars and restaurants citywide, dispensing full liquor, is only $1,300 a day. And that’s while Hermosa’s public safety costs have reached a “staggering” $50,000 per day.
When it comes to freezing the already understaffed Hermosa police and fire departments while there’s no freeze or moratorium enacted as to the number of liquor outlets or gross amount of liquor-selling occupancy permitted in city, Hermosa councils are continuing an official policy of head-in-the-sand insanity.
Howard Longacre
Hermosa Beach
Come and sharrow
Dear ER:
On Wednesday, Oct. 20 the Hermosa Beach Public Works Commission (PWC) hosts an open forum to discuss the bike sharrows on Hermosa Avenue, which were implemented as Phase I of the Bike Master Plan approved by the City Council earlier this year. The cornerstones of the forum are to educate attendees on cycling initiatives in the South Bay, gather comments on the lane markings, and determine whether Pier Avenue should be the second sharrowed thoroughfare per the Master Plan.
The PWC advanced the Plan to provide bike routes and safety features throughout the city, and to promote cooperation and accountability among pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. We will welcome the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition at the meeting to present the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan, which is a collaborative seven-city effort to champion and celebrate cycling as a lifestyle throughout the beach and adjacent communities.
We share a social responsibility to ensure the credibility and success of such initiatives. In addition to LACBC, representatives from retailers, South Bay Bicycle Coalition, Beach Cities Cycling Club, and neighboring municipalities will attend.
Don’t miss this opportunity to discuss the sharrows and learn more about South Bay cycling programs, the Bike Master Plan, local interest groups and “playshops” like Hermosa’s Cycle Saturday (May 2011). The PWC forum starts at 7 p.m. Oct. 20 at Hermosa Beach City Hall. If you are unable to attend, please email your opinions to BikeMasterPlan@hermosabch.org.
Kimberlee MacMullan
Public Works Commissioner
Hermosa Beach
Nonsense measure
Dear ER:
Measure G supporters claim it’s a blueprint for controlling growth on our waterfront. Nonsense!
Page 132, Table T9 of your Supplemental Ballot Pamphlet summarizes the additional development that Measure G allows: 940,000 square feet, the size of the South Bay Galleria, and the additional daily traffic trips it will generate: 30,270 to be exact! Even if only half of this gets built, it will generate 15,000 additional trips, leading to traffic gridlock. Measure G is not controlled growth, it’s a blank check!
The other claim Measure G supporters make is that Redondo will revert back to unlimited, 1964 zoning if Measure G fails. More nonsense! The California Coastal Act passed in 1976 and put the Coastal Commission in charge of what happens on our waterfront. 1964 zoning is illegal under the Coastal Act, and everyone who knows even a little about coastal zoning understands this. If G fails, the Redondo Beach City Council will still have the discretion to approve or deny any project in the Coastal zone, subject to Coastal Commission review.
Measure G supporters claim this new zoning is the result of a 10-year public process. Don’t buy this one either. There has not been a public workshop concerning the Redondo waterfront in six years.
Where’s the dialog where residents said they want to allow three-story timeshares in the Ruby’s parking lot, add enough zoning for a mall, build more mini-storage units along Catalina, allow a new power plant, and are willing to endure another 30,270 vehicle trips per day? There isn’t any, which is why Measure DD passed, why the residents raised enough money to successfully sue their own City to get this on a ballot, and why you should vote NO on Measure G.
Bill Brand
Councilmember
Redondo Beach
District 2
‘Nice’ but wrong
Dear ER:
Mayor Gin is a nice man. But his letter to the editor [last week] does not paint an accurate picture of Measure G.
According to Gin, Measure G “was developed by our city through public meetings involving residents, citizen groups and community leaders over a 10-year span with thousands of hours of public input through workshops and hearings.”
The problem is Measure G ignores that public input.
The last public workshop occurred in Spring 2004. In 2005 residents voted for mostly park and open space vision for our harbor and the AES site. Instead, Measure G gives us overdevelopment in our harbor. It allows the power plant to rebuild and continue indefinitely. It allows the addition of a desal plant. In fact, Measure G allows more commercial/industrial development than the failed Heart of the City.
The overdevelopment allowed by Measure G will add over 30,000 car trips and will cause gridlock throughout South Redondo per the City’s own analysis.
Mayor Gin and other Measure G advocates never tell you what Measure G actually allows. I think they know if they revealed the details and the impacts, the public would never vote for it.
If Measure G really reflects the public’s input, why did it take a resident lawsuit to force the city to put it on the ballot? No one in their right mind would vote for this much density.
Measure G is no good for Redondo. Vote “no” on Measure G.
Jillaine Force
Redondo Beach
New lows
Dear ER:
As a Redondo Beach resident, I’ve witnessed some dirty politics but Building a Better Redondo and Jim Light have stooped to new lows.
The latest falsehood posted on the BBR blog by Mr. Light is: “FACT: If Measure G fails we force the City to come back to the table with more balanced zoning that voters will support. Until that time, the Coastal Commission will get the final say on any development. The Coastal Act will not allow skyscrapers or the 1964 zoning to be effective.”
Not true! For starters the Coastal Act neither regulates building heights nor density limits and the proof of this is all the new development and high rises being built in the Coastal Zones of Marina Del Rey, Long Beach and San Diego. As for the Coastal Commission having final say, it has already approved by an 11-1 vote all the land use regulations in Measure G.
It has taken us 10 years and millions of dollars to get to this point. Forcing us back to the table could end up taking another 10 years and more tax dollars. We need improvements in Redondo Beach now! Contrarily, voting “Yes on G” will most certainly result in restricting building densities to less than half the maximum permitted in Riviera Village and Downtown Manhattan Beach.
The choice is clear, “Yes on G” provides certainty, whereas the consequences of a “No” vote is totally unknown.
Zoe Caldwell,
Redondo Beach
Fact check
Dear ER:
The group calling itself “Building a Better Redondo” needs to fact check the information posted on its website about Measure G. The site says Measure G “allows the AES power plant to rebuild and add a huge desal plant,” which isn’t true.
According to the city’s impartial analysis of Measure G, the measure has no impact whatsoever on the future of the AES power plant or the private land on which it sits. Measure G simply rezones the area to allow parks, open space and recreational facilities to be developed there, while limiting development and imposing new height restrictions in the Harbor/Pier area.
You can read the “Impartial Analysis of Measure G” on the city’s website.
It also turns out that the desalination plant is actually being proposed by the West Basin Municipal Water District, not AES — and this project too is unaffected by Measure G’s passage or defeat.
We’re all entitled to our opinions, but let’s not present them as facts — especially when they’re not accurate. Voters need real information to make an informed decision this November.
Kim Warner
Redondo Beach
‘Sniff test’
Dear ER:
City officials supporting Measure G are basically asking us to trust them: “you elected me, so trust me that I know the zoning that makes the most sense for the Harbor/Catalina corridor.” Even though several of these same officials said “trust me” when voting/supporting the original Heart of the City plan and then Village Plan a few years later.
They say “trust me” they won’t allow timeshares to be built in the Harbor, even though Measure G zoning would allow it. “Trust me” they won’t block waterfront-view corridors though Measure G doesn’t define them and one councilman doesn’t feel there are any worth saving. “Trust me” they won’t allow over-development that would bring gridlock, even though the City’s own Measure G traffic study shows gridlock at five major intersections is exactly what happens if Measure G zoning is ever built-out.
Many Measure G supporters truly have the best intentions. I applaud their optimism. But G just doesn’t pass the sniff test for me. By voting No on G, we effectively get the City to come back to the table and hopefully this time, work out a Harbor zoning plan that residents and visitors will enjoy and Harbor leaseholders will support.
Don Vangeloff
Redondo Beach
Beware of wolves
Dear ER:
Measure G is nothing more than a wolf wrapped in sheep’s clothing.
Actually, our City Council didn’t want you to see Measure G at all. It’s only on the ballot because a resident lawsuit forced City Hall to follow our Charter.
Measure G’s ballot language reads all development caps and additional parkland. Our City Council doesn’t want you to look underneath the cloak of the wonderful sounding ballot language they concocted to conceal the true zoning.
Don’t let them pull the wool over your eyes. The development “caps” allow the equivalent of two and one-third South Bay Galleria malls west of Catalina (excluding the power plant property, which has zero cap). Not a “cap” worth bragging about.
The park zoning at the power plant is optional. There is no open space requirement on the Catalina Corridor. The harbor’s open space requirement is a paltry 10 percent. For a Cheesecake Factory-size restaurant, Measure G only requires the equivalent of one fourth of an average residential lot for open space. Open space will dwindle under Measure G.
Measure G’s four view protection statements apply only to the harbor. None have measureable standards. View preservation is at the whim of the Council, not a definitive zoning mandate. Views will disappear under G.
According to the City’s own analysis, Measure G’s overdevelopment would drive an additional 30,000 daily car trips, causing gridlock throughout South Redondo.
The City is hoping you won’t peak under Measure G’s disguise. Measure G is bad for Redondo. Vote NO on G.
Jim Light
Redondo Beach
Listen
Dear ER:
Redondo Residents should vote No on G! Remember, the City didn’t want residents to be able to vote on Measure G because they knew that residents would never go for it. Redondo residents had to sue their own City to just to get this issue on the ballot.
Measure G supporters claim that it will control growth on our waterfront. Instead measure G allows a total of 940,000 square feet of additional development in King Harbor — this is the size of the South Bay Galleria. This is the exact opposite of controlled growth! The amount of traffic that this new development will generate has been estimated at 30,270 car trips per day.
The other claim Measure G supporters make is that Redondo will revert back to unlimited, 1964 zoning if it fails. This is a dishonest scare tactic. If G fails, the city will need to propose zoning that residents can live with. Measure G zoning came from a private process guided by the city manager that involved a small group of hand-picked people. The public was not invited. There were no published agendas/meeting minutes, and the group was not subject to the Brown Act, the state law that governs public meetings. Three-minute comment periods at council meetings were the public’s only opportunity to be heard. Now it is time to finally listen to Redondo residents!
Christine Wike
Hermosa Beach
East Coast/West Coast
Dear ER:
I bike and skate, but I do neither along the beach [“Resident gets citation for rollerblading,” Aug. 26]. I tried a few times immediately after relocating to SoCal from NYC. Horrible!
For cycling it is too slow and too easy, something better left to tourists or weekend warriors. For skating it is often too crowded and too dangerous and also too slow to even work up a sweat. I could probably skate from Santa Monica to San Diego at those extremely low speeds, if only I had the time.
However, it is unfair that only bikes are allowed when really these paths are built and maintained (not too well) with public money.
I lived in another Manhattan, Manhattan in NYC, and skated/biked in Central Park with hardly any problems (except tourists who cross without looking around before actually crossing) and I cannot understand why some common ground cannot be found in SoCal.
However, I do insist that I really do not get why anybody should want to either cycle or skate on the Strand or anywhere close to the Ocean.
In my opinion, it is a total waste of time (cannot even get my heart into any decent training zone!) and it is only good for overweight people trying to shed a few pounds. But, I think that the current law should be changed.
Maurice Tiso
Web comment
Animal farm
Dear ER:
Oct. 2 marked the 28th annual observance of World Farm Animals Day, dedicated to exposing and mourning the suffering and death of 58 billion land animals in factory farms and slaughterhouses.
There have been undercover investigations showing male chicks suffocated in plastic garbage bags or ground to death, their female counterparts crammed together in tiny wire-mesh cages, pigs clobbered by metal pipes and killed by hanging, and assorted farm animals skinned and dismembered at the slaughterhouse while still conscious.
Studies have linked consumption of animal products with elevated risks for heart disease, stroke, cancer, diabetes, and other chronic killer diseases. A 2007 United Nations report blames meat production for 18 percent of greenhouse gases, and the animal waste “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico is actually larger than the BP oil spill.
We’re certainly much more aware of the devastating impacts of animal agriculture – on animals, the earth, and humans — than we were 28 years ago. Let’s acknowledge all the suffering, disease, and destruction connected with animal agriculture and adopt a plant-based diet; it would do a world of good!
Jack Matler
