League position
Dear ER:
Following the Jan. 29 forum sponsored by the League of Women Voters of the Beach Cities (LWVBC) and the Redondo Beach Public Library on the proposed Redondo Beach Power Plant, many people asked the League of Women Voters of the Beach Cities to take a position on Measure A, the March 5, 2013 Redondo Beach ballot initiative to rezone the AES property on Harbor Drive. While the League of Women Voters does take positions on some ballot initiatives, we cannot take a position on Measure A.
The League of Women Voters takes action on issues or advocates for a cause when there is an existing League position that supports the issue or speaks to the cause. Positions result from a process of study and consensus. (For information about the League process, see our Web site: lwv.org/content/overview-program).The League of Women Voters has strong positions on the environment and on energy that we developed following extensive study. We support development of a state energy policy that will ensure reliability of energy resources and protection of the environment and public health and safety, at reasonable customer rates, giving primary consideration to conservation, energy efficiency, and renewable resources. State government should provide an efficient, coordinated energy administrative structure with open transparent procedures.
However, the scope of the very complex Measure A involves issues of power, pollution, property rights, financial impacts on a city and areas that reach far beyond the League energy positions. Therefore, the LWVBC is unable to take a position on this Measure. The League of Women Voters has a citizen education function and we fulfilled that function when we co-sponsored the forum with the Redondo Beach Public Library to provide information to the citizens of Redondo Beach to help clarify the issues so that they might make their own personal voting decisions.
Thank you for your attention and thank you to the Redondo Beach Public Library and to all the concerned residents who attended the forum.
Barbara Arlow, Janelle Freeman
LWVBC co-presidents
Relatively clean operation
Dear ER:
When Edison built the first power plant at the site now owned by AES, the plant burned high sulfur heavy oil to produce electricity. Years later, they were required to change to low sulfur heavy oil, and burned that fuel for many years. Blowing the oil scale deposits off the boiler tubes in those days created a REAL particulate fallout to area residents. Luckily for us all, some years back the State required power plants to completely abandon oil as a fuel and required them to burn natural gas for fuel fired power plants — the same natural gas that we use in our kitchens, water heaters, and home heating systems. Look at the south side of the AES site. You will see open space in the areas formerly occupied by huge fuel oil storage tanks.
Liquid and solid fuels burn far dirtier and produce more varied and more dangerous pollutants than natural gas does. The soot, Benzene, Toluene, and Xylene (BTX) belched into our faces by diesel vehicles on our streets is immeasurably more toxic than emissions from the combustion of natural gas. When bus and truck owners want to clean up the emissions from their fleets, they switch to – you guessed it — natural gas. Same with automakers. Short of electric power or hydrogen, natural gas is the cleanest fuel commercially available to us. So I find it pretty hypocritical of Bill Brand and his supporters to focus solely on AES and their relatively clean operations while turning a blind eye to the truly big and most dangerous polluters in our area — the cumulative pollution created daily by our vehicles, trucks, homes, fireplaces, small businesses, and airports.
Denise Groat
Redondo Beach
Corporate bully
Dear ER:
AES is NOT a good neighbor. They don’t pay their fair share in taxes and, in fact, pay less in taxes per acre than any property in the City, have sued private citizens, pay private citizens to perpetuate AES’ propaganda, donate funds to organizations and political campaigns to influence decisions on their behalf, and are now spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to dupe Redondo voters again. If we fall for it, it may very well be the costliest voter mistake in the history of Redondo Beach, negatively impacting the health and welfare of our community for decades.
The basic facts of Measure A are: 1) Honors AES’ property rights — changes zoning, not ownership, increasing economic value to AES; 2) Is on firm legal ground; 3) Doesn’t cost us a dime — no new taxes — Redondo is not obligated to purchase or fund any future land use of AES’ property, and 4) Forces the CEC to perform a needs analysis to determine the necessity of AES-Redondo for grid reliability.
It won’t take hundreds of thousands of dollars to defeat the AES “Fear and Smear” campaign designed to fool Redondo Beach voters into preserving AES’ profit, at the expense of our community. All it takes is for the majority of registered voters to vote YES on Measure A. Let’s not abdicate our responsibility to take care of our children and our future, for fear of the baseless, meritless threats of an $18-billion, corporate bully. YES on A!
Lezlie Campeggi
Redondo Beach
Measure’s purpose
Dear ER:
The purpose of Measure A is to force the California Energy Commission (CEC) to evaluate the LA Basin’s future power needs when considering AES’ application to build a new plant on the property when the current one is retired. The CEC has already indicated that, with three new power plants coming online in the LA basin over the next couple of years, including the new NRG plant in El Segundo, there is no capacity need for a plant to be built on the coast in Redondo Beach. Measure A rezones the 50-acre property as 40% commercial, retail, and office space, and 60% open space. Measure A does not allow industrial and residential use of this coastal property.
It was written by Redondo Beach residents to prevent the building of a power plant that AES’s own CEC and AQMD filings say will produce up to 15 times the current level of particulate air pollution, the worst for our health. Measure A also prevents AES from developing the majority of the property not used for a new power plant to build as many as 3000 condominium units, which will increase traffic congestion on PCH, pollution, and put additional burden on city services. AES attempted to do this a few years ago with their “Heart of the City” plan, which Redondo Beach voters rejected.
Measure A does not obligate the City of Redondo Beach to buy any property, or fund any park, and will generate millions in incremental revenues for the city.
Robert Gaddis
Redondo Beach
No guarantee
Dear ER:
Measure A lacks the authority to guarantee the removal of the power plant. It merely introduces a custody battle, benefitting lawyers, leaving residents nothing to show for the drain on city’s resources. The reality of this structure remaining dormant for decades is of real concern – that won’t improve view corridors. Just recall how long the “blighted” car wash on Torrance Blvd sat abandoned or consider the homeless encampment at Malibu Castle, to appreciate stalled progress.
AES will be generating power through Dec. 31, 2020 – so for those concerned over health impacts, Measure A does not change that fact. AES does not lease the land from our city; as property owners they are afforded constitutionally protected rights. In order not to infringe requires providing sufficient economic value to rightfully acquire the property. City and State agencies indicate they do not have it. Measure A offers no substantial funding source for the mandated 35-acre regional park, nor environment impact reviews required if drafted by the city.
The initiative claims that City Council “failed to take action,” yet Council indeed acted to become “interveners,” a prominent role in the permit process. Council also acted appropriately when 4 out of 5 city councilmen and the mayor refused to draft a resolution to oppose. Taking action without hearing all the data necessary is irresponsible and bad policy. Our elected officials are sworn to act in the best interest of all district residents in our community, not just those nearest to the power plant. Simply because the “action” was not what No Power Plant supporters wanted does not mean “failure to act.” To exercise the power of initiative under these conditions seems an abuse of this privilege.
While the verdict is out on whether AES can indeed be retired – avoid sentencing our community to a less than perfect plan. Support collaboration for the best and highest solutions for our waterfront. VOTE NO on A.
Lisa and Doug Rodriguez
Redondo Beach
Hermosa Trash Contract
Dear ER:
LAST CHANCE for HERMOSA RESIDENTS to protest the new trash contract! Our City Council is entering into a 7-year contract that will cost residents more each month for much less service. Currently we can put out unlimited trash for a reasonable cost. The new contract limits us to one can for more per month, or way more for extra cans. Sign and mail in the protest form sent to you, or check your email for one being circulated, or contact the City Clerk for one. Send in your protest form now. Next month is too late to stop this dumb decision.
Paul D. Gerhardt
Hermosa Beach
Manhattan Beach term limits
Dear ER:
We have been fortunate through the years to have had many fine people serve as our city council members and mayors. This year we are having another election for three city council seats. I have been very impressed with the qualifications of most of the candidates. However, I am disappointed that Mitch Ward chose to run again after already serving two terms. We have a two-term limit in Manhattan Beach, but after sitting out two years, a person can run again. Mitch Ward has chosen to do this even though there are a number of other well-qualified candidates who can do the job. I believe Mitch’s decision to run is not within the spirit of the voter-imposed term limits.
Steve Schlesinger, CPA
Former MB City Treasurer
Oil-drilling sellout
Dear ER:
I have lived in Hermosa for many years, and have never been so disappointed in our City Council as I am over the shameful way they have handled the latest oil drilling attack on our city. The back-room maneuvering of Kit Bobko and Michael DiVirgilio has painted the rest of us into a corner — with expensive, oil-based paint.
This should never have been allowed to go this far, especially without public input. I suspect there is much legal fallout coming, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it touched these two council members. Is the welfare of Hermosa residents is taking a back seat to their own interests? The City Council should be protecting us, not selling us out!
Allan Mason
Hermosa Beach
Redesign possibilities
Dear ER:
After sitting through a couple two hour meetings about redesigning Harbor Drive and Herondo Street, I’m very disappointed with our city’s current direction. For me, the most alarming element is the proposed transition between the Hermosa Strand and Harbor Drive, especially when I consider all the efforts underway to make our community more livable. As part of the Blue Zones Project our city recently adopted the Vitality City Livability Plan which is about transforming streets into places for people and not just cars by giving all users equal consideration.
The proposal falls woefully short of meeting the Living Streets Principles being adopted by all three Beach Cities.
The plan proposes replacing the wall with an abrupt street crossing, with no traffic light, that creates a more dangerous situation than currently exists. After crossing the realigned street one must then navigate around a relocated parking lot which leaves no room to create an inviting place where people can gather and interact.
But I believe we can do far better and create a plan that would truly be the embodiment of livability. Why stop at removing the wall? How about the parking lot too? Then create a welcoming park that provides all Strand users with a more gradual and safe transition, plus an inviting place for people to gather and interact. As for parking, the improvements proposed for Herondo Street would add enough spaces to replace all those removed. Visit vitalitybeach.org. The Planning Commission will review the proposal Thursday February 21, 2013 7-10pm at Redondo City Council Chambers. Come down and be a part of the change.
Trinity Singer
Redondo Beach
Downwind
Dear ER:
My wife and I have lived up the hill (and down wind) from the power plant for 25 years. During that time we have suffered from: black soot that settles on our roof, windows, screens and fruit trees; high-pressure steam emergency releases in the middle of the night that sound like a bomb going off; the unsightly plant and smoke stacks, in addition to the power lines; and all this from AES who pays less than 1 percent of the city’s tax revenue, has as its largest shareholder the Communist Chinese Government, and is by far the largest polluter in the South Bay. And has a record of suing private citizens who disagree with its position.
Now the old one has to go away, and we certainly do not want another one put in its place, especially since the new will dramatically increase air pollution in Redondo Beach.
Also I am not impressed by politicians and others who are being paid by the power company to support their position, nor by endorsements from people who do not even live in the city.
Patrick Wickens
Redondo Beach
Two-term Public Works Commissioner
Memos issued
Dear ER:
Elvis is dead. The Earth is round. Cigarettes cause cancer. Saddam Hussein did not attack us on 9/11. Measure “A” would NOT “take” AES property. It would not require the purchase of a 30-acre park. It would not expose the City to an imminent lawsuit.
Memo to AES: “Enough with the lawsuit threats.” You can’t sue the City unless and until the City denies you a building permit. That would be some time in the next decade. You can’t win a “takings” lawsuit because you can’t prove that Measure A would wipe away 85-90% of the value of your 50 acres. (See U.S. Supreme Court “takings” cases cited in Brace v. U.S. (2006) 72. Fed. Ct. 337). You know that.
Memo to City Council: “Where’s your spine?” If a Fortune 200 company threatened to sue my Ohio home town, our City Council would put aside their political differences, pay the CEO a friendly visit, and promise to personally kick him and his company back to Virginia. Quit posting AES talking points online. Quit making robo-calls for AES like a paid spokesman. Quit acting like regular pals with the CEO on local talk shows. Quit trying to scare my neighbors.
Memo to Neighbors: “Please, please throw the scary mailers in the trash and read Measure A for yourself.” Then decide for yourself.
AES banks on voter fear and ignorance. Legally speaking, the residents of Redondo Beach have nothing to fear from AES. We should all feel free to vote according to ours interests and our good conscience.
David A. Mallen
Redondo Beach
Trivial thing?
Dear ER,
With regard to oil drilling in Hermosa Beach, an interesting detail is already missing from some of the “facts” and other essentially pure-propaganda of E&B Natural Resources’ public website “http://ebnr-hermosa.com/”.
Their website-displayed copy of the “OIL AND GAS LEASE NO. 2” document is in fact missing page 24 of some 54 pages. A differently notated copy of the same document on the City’s website however is not missing the page.
While this may seem like a trivial thing, it already indicates clearly that E&B is somewhat of a neophyte and sloppy operation which cannot even properly display, on its own website, one of the most important existing documents.
If E&B can be so careless in such a simple thing as this, what does Hermosa Beach have to look forward to with respect to E&B’s absurd and greed-based interest in drilling 35 oil wells in the tight confines of a little over one acre, a stone’s throw from where men, women, and children have their homes and their lives’ future invested here in Hermosa Beach?
Additionally per some of the marketing on E&B’s website, it is highly doubtful that the President of the United States’ interest in extracting more oil from existing oil leases can be interpreted logically as meaning the drilling of 35 oil wells on such a tiny piece of land in 1.3 square mile Hermosa Beach (one of the most densely-populated residential areas in the nation) simply because there’s an existing oil lease that was so-stupidly issued by the City some 22 years ago, and which will thankfully terminate in about 13 years.
Howard Longacre
Hermosa Beach
Measure G opposed
Dear ER:
In response to Mr. Jackson’s letter reminding everyone that I opposed Measure G in 2010, of course I did. Measure G raised the building height limit in the Ruby’s parking lot to 45 feet! It also allowed an additional 400,000 square feet of harbor development on top of the 940,000 square feet that is already built.
Michael Jackson supported those increases in development, but he’s the incoming Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce. Neither of them ever met a development plan they didn’t like.
And while I worked hard for four years and reformed employee pensions that were crippling our City financially, Mr. Jackson was busy getting the endorsement of the unions whose pensions I helped reform. Another conflict if he gets elected.
Now, Mr. Jackson has raised over $17,000 in campaign contributions for the District 2 Council seat with the majority of it coming from out of town residents, businesses and consultants. Only a handful came from actual residents of District 2.
I co-authored Measure A, but Mr. Jackson is opposing it along with the AES Corporation. Yet another conflict of interest given AES is a Platinum Sponsor of the Chamber of Commerce.
Vote to re-elect your voice on the Council, Bill Brand, who has only your best interests in mind. Demonstrate that the residents of Redondo Beach run Redondo Beach, not the fire and police unions, not outside interests, and not the Chamber of Commerce.
Bill Brand
District 2 Council Member
Redondo Beach
