Pound foolish
Dear ER:
The sitting Manhattan Beach City Council is considering moving the upcoming municipal election for council from March to November of 2011. That, presumably, in order to save the cost of a stand alone election (maybe $50,000 though some dispute that number) and increase voter turnout which, in and of itself, may or may not be all that good of an idea.
However, moving the election is really a bad idea. Particularly because it would extend the incumbency of two sitting council members; they would serve a half-year beyond the term to which they were elected.
If council members think that combining elections (county and municipal) is such a good idea let them approve such a measure that would not affect their terms in office. Then we would know their decision would be in the best interests of the city and not self-serving.
Voting to extend one’s time in office while in office is, to my mind, a clear conflict.
David Wachtfogel
Learn the rules
Dear ER:
I am in complete agreement with the comments made by Lee Hennis regarding bicyclists [Letters, ER Oct. 21, 2010].
I believe that we should do our best to educate folks to the rules of the road as they appear in the California Vehicle Code. I strongly suggest that, as we teach the driving rules at the high school level, we should begin to teach the bicycle rules in our elementary schools and middle schools starting at about fourth grade level and review them each year. A few hours each semester could reduce the injury and death rate for bicyclists.
Frances B. Parker
Hermosa Beach
A regret
Dear ER:
On Friday, Oct. 15, during competing rallies by opponents and proponents of Measure G, I made comments to former [Redondo Beach] Councilman Chris Cagle that some people have taken offense at [Measure G supporters win a street corner,” ER Oct. 21, 2010]. Therefore, an apology is in order.
I never should have voiced my feelings in a public setting where my comments would be viewed, or construed, as representing those of Building A Better Redondo, its officers and members (of which I am neither) or other voters who oppose (as I do) Measure G.
A few minutes prior to that incident I was forced off the sidewalk into the path of oncoming traffic by a backer of Measure G and I was, well, fed up. Nevertheless, I should have kept my thoughts to myself. By not doing so I handed the pro-Measure G forces a gold-plated opportunity to attack the leadership, motivations, and tactics of BBR while also diverting attention away from the fundamental issues of Measure G itself.
The late former House Speaker Tip O’Neill once described a vote as “an emotion looking for a reason.” I sincerely regret my comments, and the thought that they could swing a tight election makes me physically ill. I hope and pray that an emotional reaction to my comments does not determine anyone’s vote on Measure G. Condemn me all you want, but please judge Measure G on the harm it will bring to our city. Hopefully this will convince you to vote No.
Jess Money
Redondo Beach
Looking forward
Dear ER:
Yes on Measure G will zone the power plant area for park uses. Yes on Measure G will restrict the power plant property to the other alternative land uses should the plant downsize or become obsolete, such as parks, parkettes, open space, recreational facilities, beaches, and coastal bluffs; public buildings; adult education centers; agricultural and horticultural uses; child day care centers; community centers; cultural institutions; government maintenance facilities; government offices; public gymnasiums and athletic clubs; hospitals; medical offices and health-related facilities; nurseries; performance art facilities; parking lots; public safety facilities; and schools (Ballot Text Section 31).
As a resident, I sure hope many of these alternative uses are developed one day.
No on Measure G is a vote to return the zoning back to that adopted in 1964. A no vote will only permit industrial and manufacturing uses plus buildings up to 110 feet high on the power plant property — and no park use.
Contrary to misleading tactics by opponents of Measure G, a no vote will not revoke AES Redondo’s right to continue operating a power plant. Voting no on G will eliminate park zoning and require yet another expensive vote to permit a park on the power plant property.
After all, we did vote for a park in the Harbor area. Let’s zone it that way now. Vote Yes on G! For more info visit RedondoMomsForMeasureG.com.
Marna Smeltzer
Redondo Beach
(Smeltzer is CEO of the Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce)
No harbor mall
Dear ER:
Here in Redondo Beach hundreds of our citizens have joined forces during the last 10 years to collect signatures for referendums (2) and initiatives (2), just so we would all have a fair chance to vote on issues about large development that will affect us forever.
Finally we have the chance to send the message most of us have been trying to send to our City Council for years, we don’t want a mall and timeshares in King Harbor, we want something nice, fun and safe, like it used to be. All the plans that our City Council has brought forward in the last 10 years have been for more building. Enough already!
Our City Council has been trying to thrust big development plans on us for all this time, and we just keep saying no! We elected our City Council members to represent all of Redondo, as well as the citizens in their district. In the last 10 years of my involvement, I can assure everyone, the residents of Redondo do not want our waterfront turned into a cash register for our city staff to ring every time a new pension obligation from the state comes knocking, like some sort of mobster extorting payola on a liquor store in his territory.
Vote No on Measure G. It allows way too much development. The “limits” are a ruse. We need a better plan. There hasn’t been a public workshop to design our waterfront in six years and it shows.
Florence Swiger
Redondo Beach
Public interest
Dear ER:
I’m writing this to reinforce that I have never represented any special interest group, just the citizens of Redondo Beach regarding the rezoning of our harbor area. Our job as council members is to fully represent what is best for the entire city, not just the group who is the most vocal or personally supportive.
I believe your former City Council did the right thing, when they unanimously voted to:
Down-zone the amount of allowable new square footage that can be (not will be) built in the harbor area from 1,600,000 square feet (Heart of the City) to a new maximum allowable limit set at 400,000 square feet (Measure G). This represents a 75 percent decrease in the allowable new square footage that could be built within the harbor area.
Eliminate the possibility of any new residential building ( No Condos) on the power plant site or west of Harbor Drive from The Pier to Herondo Street.
Establish a three-story, maximum 45-foot height limit (approximately north of Ruby’s restaurant and only two stories south of that) for any new construction, while protecting specific existing view corridors within the Harbor Area.
Reinforce parks and open space as a use option on the power plant site.
It only takes simple common sense not a vast knowledge of zoning law, to understand that a majority of your City Council is not the over-development activists they have been accused of being by taking that action.
If our only goal was to remove the last remnants of the failed Heart of the City zoning by decreasing the allowable building limit by 75 percent before there was any Measure DD language even written, how can we be guilty of violating the will of the people before its authors ever had a chance to retroactively establish any of those requirements?
I will be Voting Yes on Measure G because all my years of city Experience tells me it’s the best thing for all the people, as it will continue to ensure a quality future for our city.
Pat Aust
Redondo Beach City Council
District 3
Flabbergasted
Dear ER:
It’s time for certain [Redondo] council members to accept responsibility for their actions and stop the blame game [“BBR law firm seeks $355,000 from city” ER Oct. 7, 2010]. If for one moment, they actually feel “outraged” and ”flabbergasted” over what they call “obscene fees” being charged by the attorney representing Building a Better Redondo, they should realize all they had to do was listen to the residents and taxpayers who put them in office.
The same council members who are seemingly shocked by the fees are the same ones responsible for incurring these fees. If anyone should be “flabbergasted and outraged” it is the voters and residents of this city over the continual childish behavior and lack of decorum shown by their elected officials. We know we’re nearing the end of October, but it’s time to stop the witch hunt against Councilman Bill Brand and start listening to the people who put them in office, who care for this city and are concerned about over-development.
James McLeod
Redondo Beach
Mintz man
Dear ER:
Nathan Mintz is active in the South Bay! Nathan supports local functions and attends local events even when he’s not running a campaign. This means a lot, because he understands what the residents of the 53rd Assembly District care about and routinely discuss.
For one, Nathan understands that a budget is real and not something to aspire as a Hollywood daydream. He’s a strong leader and does not have a tax, borrow, and then spend mentality.
Second, Nathan will make California a better place to do business by minimizing the arduous paperwork businesses must file to simply “do business;” incentivize and regulate taxes to attract employers; reform employment law to empower existing businesses to hire again.
Nathan is our candidate that has common sense and will work for the common good. As someone who is active in our community, I believe in Nathan Mintz and I respectfully ask your help in supporting him on Nov. 2.
Ken Hartley
Hermosa Beach
Making mockery
Dear ER:
When you’re thinking about how to vote on Proposition 23, consider this: while Fox News spews a loud and endless stream of global warming denial, Rupert Murdoch pursues a strategy to reduce News Corps carbon footprint. Even as he benefits by making a mockery of what we once called the news, Mr. Murdoch knows better. He knows that reducing carbon emissions makes good business sense.
It would appear that California’s legislation to reduce carbon emission is well advised. The ability of oil and energy interests to use our proposition system to forestall or overturn those measures is another example of corporations exerting inordinate influence on the political process. Don’t let them forestall needed action for the sake of corporate enrichment. People who care about the future will vote No on Proposition 23.
Stephen Carey
Redondo Beach
More Mintz
Dear ER:
The election next week is really an up-or-down vote about whether the people we send to Sacramento will represent us, the taxpayers, or instead represent people and groups who are paid by our taxes. It’s that simple.
California is on the road to economic perdition because for too many years we have elected people to Sacramento who seemingly do little more than conjure new and inventive ways to take more and more money out of our paychecks each month.
And where does that money go? It certainly doesn’t go into your 401(k) or your child’s college fund. It doesn’t provide the seed money for your new business, or allow you to remodel your kitchen. Instead, much of your money is poured into a broken, exorbitant, and unsupportable public employee pension system that was designed for a singular purpose – to deliver votes and public employee campaign contributions to the politicians who support it.
I am voting for Nathan Mintz for Assembly because he will work to end this self-perpetuating, economically destructive circle that is strangling the Golden State.
People have asked me if I am concerned about supporting a “Tea Party” candidate. Absolutely not. Frankly, I don’t care if a candidate is a member of the “Tea Party” or the Tupperware party, as long as he understands there is a direct correlation between sky-high taxes, a horrendous business environment, and the loss of jobs.
We need representatives who are at least as good at economics as they are at politics. I believe Nathan Mintz is that guy. I hope you will join me and vote for him on Nov. 2.
Kit Bobko
Hermosa Beach
(Bobko is a Hermosa Beach councilman)
Sharing the road
Dear ER:
The Hermosa Beach Public Works Commission (PWC) held an open forum Oct. 20 regarding bike sharrows on Hermosa Avenue. Over 30 people – almost entirely residents – spoke to concerns or supported various features of the Bike Master Plan.
The Commission will submit to City Council to maintain the current sharrows and promote an education campaign on safety, vehicle code and road-sharing protocol. Regarding Pier Avenue, it is recommended that the city first assess traffic volume and lane usage once development has been completed prior to installing sharrows.
On behalf of the PWC, we thank our community for your participation – your opinions and emails were constructive, insightful and most appreciated.
We also thank our speakers Charles Gandy, mobility coordinator/transportation programs, Long Beach; Dan Gutierrez, certified bike instructor, League of American Bicyclists; Marissa Christiansen, South Bay initiative director, Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition; and HBPD Chief Greg Savelli for contributing additional perspective.
Visit hermosabch.org to view the presentations and public comment.
The benefits of cycling as exercise, culture and lifestyle are globally recognized. The PWC is committed to coordinate education, cooperation and logistics with our residents, neighboring cities, and South Bay health, law enforcement and special interest groups. Please watch for forthcoming events and continue to share your issues, solutions and the road.
Julian Katz
Public Works Commission Chairman
Kimberlee MacMullan
Public Works Commissioner
Hermosa Beach
