Redondo Beach City Treasurer, former City Councilmember
Measure C fails to resolve any important issue facing our community. Measure C merely risks diverting scarce resources — your money and your time — to the political ambitions of a few activists. Our little coastal community is flanked by the Pacific Ocean and the 10 million people of Los Angeles County. Naturally we have regional environmental and economic challenges — including traffic. The measure does nothing to resolve traffic on our nearby streets and roads, despite proponents’ claims.
Measure C threatens Redondo Beach’s primary challenge — to remain a vibrant and viable, independent, full service City. The enormous $200 million dollar cost of “C” can only be borne by increased taxes to you and by cuts in services. Measure C shifts the cost of revitalizing the crumbling waterfront from a public-private partnership to you, the taxpayer. Measure C’s lack of vision is eclipsed only by its lack of funding. It reaches into personal pocketbooks. Measure C proponents have spoken only of bonds and taxes to fund $200 million of asphalt, a barrier island, a swimming pool and a boat ramp. That means tens of thousands of dollars will be extracted from you on your property tax bill.
We don’t have to look far to see the serious impacts of poor financial and strategic planning. Hermosa Beach is about to lose its independent status as it loses its fire department.
The Great Compromise of Measure G took place in 2008 when potential new development was virtually limitless, at 1.6 million square feet. A range of options were discussed. One can watch Bill Brand on YouTube proposing 324,000 square feet.
James Light’s BBR (Build a Better Redondo) advocated for 325,000 sq. ft. The Measure C co-author wrote: “I applaud your compromise on the development cap on the pier and harbor rezoning. It resolves the compliance issues and provides a stable environment with reasonable growth for developers to make investment decisions.”
The CenterCal project is only 310,000 sq. ft.
Faced with a development less than that which they proposed, the activists pivoted. They demanded to open the seaside lagoon to the harbor, no-residential development, a new EIR and additional studies on traffic and economic feasibility. The answers to all of these concerns were yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. Voters approved Measure G in 2010.
But Measure C authors won’t take yes for an answer. So what does this mean? Measure C is political. Make no mistake about it. It’s a mayoral campaign disguised as a land use measure. It’s a cynical attempt to advance the ambitions of a few mischievous activists — one of whom wants to be mayor. Mischief is not my term. It was the term of Superior Court Judge Jones when she dismissed the activists’ last lawsuit against the City, in 2011. Measure C is one-third of the current attack on your little City, along with yet another lawsuit and yet another appeal to the Coastal Commission of the existing waterfront efforts.
This careless measure discards over a decade of public comment and hundreds of waterfront meetings. Hastily conceived and legally dubious, the measure has neither been reviewed nor approved by any oversight agency. Not the California Coastal Commission, the Harbor Commission, the Parks and Recreation Commission, the City Council, the State Lands Commission or the Association of Dog Catchers. Nothing.
The measure’s onerous consequences convert our little King Harbor into a giant boat ramp. Engineers report that either the breakwall must be enlarged or a barrier island must be installed in the boating traffic lanes (at your expense).
The severe economic consequences drive away $400 million of tax-free investment, shifting $200 million onto you, taxpayers and residents. Market studies requested by both sides of the issue demonstrate that anything smaller than the existing voter-approved Measure G will fail economically. Another study elucidates the $200 million in costs to be foisted on the residents of Redondo Beach.
After all is said and done, Measure C offers remarkably little new to enjoy in the harbor. Oddly, the authors flip-flop on their own recommendation for the Seaside Lagoon, thus converting it to a costly, one acre pool. The existing sweeping asphalt slabs will become shiny new giant asphalt parking slabs.
Did they tell you any of this when they asked you to sign the petition for the initiative? They told me there would be condos on the waterfront if I didn’t sign. Don’t fall for the mischief. Measure C authors won’t take yes for an answer. Neither should we. Vote no on C.
