Writing Shotgun

FOSTER WON’T DEBATE, BUT EX-RDA BOARD MEMBER JENSEN STILL ON FOR PRESS CLUB’S MEASURE I FORUM

Dave WielengaThu. October 16
 

MEANWHILE, LBREPORT.COM SAYS BELMONT SHORE RESIDENTS ASSN. EXCLUDED JENSEN FROM SPEAKING AT MAYOR’S MEASURE I ADDRESS THURSDAY NIGHT 

Although Mayor Bob Foster has opted out, former Redevelopment Agency board member Terry Jensen will still appear at tonight’s meeting of the Long Beach Press Club to debate his opposition to Measure I—the Nov. 4 ballot issue that proposes to raise Long Beach property taxes to fund infrastructure projects.

The meeting, which is open to the public, begins with a 7 p.m. social hour on the rooftop patio of Smooth’s Sports Grille, 144 Pine Ave., in downtown Long Beach.

Jensen will speak at 8 p.m., and his 20-minute presentation will be followed with a question-and-answer session that will be moderated by representatives from three local media outlets—Paul Eakins of the Press-Telegram, Bill Pearl of LBreport.com and yours truly from The District Weekly.

Friday night’s event was originally conceived as a debate of Measure I between the issue’s two most-visible opposing partisans. Foster brought Measure I to the City Council for approval on the ballot and has been incessantly promoting it to community groups since August. Jensen has likewise been pointing out what he considers to be the shortcomings of Measure I.

Thursday evening, for example, Foster addressed three community groups regarding Measure I—including the Belmont Shore Residents Association, which excluded Jensen from countering the Mayor’s points with an  opposing view on the ballot issue. [CLICK HERE FOR LBREPORT.COM STORY]

As a founding member of the Press Club—along with Press-Telegram reporters Kristopher Hanson and Kelly Puente—I was the person who presented the invitations to Foster and Jensen for tonight’s event.

But Foster declined to debate, through his chief of staff, Becki Ames, who described the scenario of the mayor debating a former member of the Redevelopment Agency board as “a little odd.”

“We were happy to provide a surrogate,” said Ames, who at one point offered to get Third District City Council member Gary DeLong to take the pro-Measure I side.

Ames suggested that the press conference that was to have been part of the Foster-Jensen debate was unnecessary.

“Every member of [the Press Club] knows how to get ahold of the mayor and ask tough questions,” she said, “because they have all done it before.”

Tags: , , ,

  • The Toad
    What would have been so bad about Gary DeLong being Foster's surrogate? DeLong has been sucking farts out of Foster's butt for so long he has given a whole new meaning to "dancing cheek-to-cheek"!
  • Bink
    Well done, Toad! The current list of so-called fart suckers is getting longer by the day. These pinheads are getting more desperate every day. Very sad how Foster is dispatching his surrogates/sycophants, aka fart suckers, to spread the gospel of fiscal irresponsibility. Will there be anything left to suck after Measure I deservedly goes down in flames?
  • Dwight K Snider
    Dear Paul: Two questions regarding your post on making the homeless go away. Where do you want the homeless to go? They can’t go home...they are homeless. And, how much time and resources have you contributed to remedy this decades-old problem of the homeless?
  • paulde
    If Foster is worried about the image of the town, he should get the homeless encampments out of town. One under the Ocean Av. bridge on Shoreline is right at the entrance to the Downtown. This has been allowed for decades.
  • wrongbeachJohn
    The most qualified person to stand in for the mayor would have been Randy Gordon, CEO and President of the Long Beach Chamber of Commerce, the so-called “self-appointed mayor of Long Beach.”
  • Dwight K Snider
    Sorry for the late post but hindsight is said to be 20-20 vision. Regarding Mayor Foster declining to debate the pro-side of Measure I and the offer of a surrogate by his chief of staff, Becki Ames, the most qualified person to stand in for the mayor would have been Randy Gordon, CEO and President of the Long Beach Chamber of Commerce, the so-called “self-appointed mayor of Long Beach.”
  • lbresident
    The parcel tax is not perfect but I believe the following to be true:

    The money must be spent on infrastructure projects. A backfill scenario is possible but highly unlikely as it would result in significant backlash against the Mayor and council. Further the amount that could be backfilled is minimal.

    The council (particularly DeLong) has worked to streamline gov't spending this year and eliminate waste and return to core services. Is there still room for improvement? Absolutely. Stopping the investment in subsidized low income housing is a particular pet peeve of mine, but they are moving in the right direction.

    Both the Mayor and DeLong have said they will work to renegotiate pensions for city employees. This seems to be a significant sticking point for Measure I opponents.

    The $10 / month amount will escalate but when inflation is accounted for it is not material. $35 or whatever it will be in 30 years is still not much considering the potential return.

    There is no guarantee that all the projects will be completed but even if half of them were completed we would be a much better city, quality of life would drasticlly improve, and property values would rise.

    Given the need is so great, and this measure would solve many of the problems now, not in 10 years when detractors are satisfied with pension reform, etc., measure I warrants passing.
  • With all due respect, lbresident, all of the current Councilmembers and the Mayor will be long gone well before the Measure I funds come to term. The entire reason for codifying concerns such as backfill directly into the proposed ordinance for Measure I is to assure that all future Council and Mayoral successors are held to the same standard that the current representatives promise to hold themselves to. In short, if they agree that backfill should not occur then there should be no objection to codifying the prohibition against it.

    While I appreciate that you feel CPI increases are "not much" in the way of financial burden, you really aren't in a position to make that determination for others. The point is not that the cost will necessarily go up but, rather, that Mayor Foster is not reporting these costs accurately. If he wants our support for this new tax, he needs to be more accurate when reporting the facts surrounding it.

    Guarantees are tough in any aspect of government but not, by any means, impossible. The Mayor would better assure success of this measure by setting realistic and measurable benchmarks for some of the infrastructer projects planned and then designing a reliable and trustworthy method by which the City will be held accountable to those benchmarks. This approach is both reasonable and achievable and would help us to feel more comfortable about taxing ourselves still further for infrastructure improvements that should rightly have been budgeted for all along.

    In my humble opinion, Measure I needs a lot of work before it's ready to bring before the electorate.
  • 835
    Could it be Mayor Foster is ill-prepared to venture beyond his talking points and go toe-to-toe with one of the many L.B. residents who oppose this Measure I vague scheme?
  • It's most unfortunate that Mayor Foster has chosen to not participate in this event.

    He's proven very available to answer questions from the public at many other venues and before many other groups. Unfortunately many of his responses deserved follow-up questions that were not permitted, at least not at the event I attended.

    Here are just a couple of examples:

    CLB Resident: How can we be assured that you wont divert existing infrastructure funds to other projects once you start receiving Meause I funds?

    Mayor: You have my word that as long as I'm in office, that wont happen.

    Follow Up That Could Not Be Asked: "Your word is all very good but many would prefer to see an expressed prohibition against that possibility written right into the proposed ordinance. Would you be willing to do so and, if not, why not?

    CLB Resident: How much will this cost residents, per month?

    Mayor: About $10 per month plus adjustments for CPI increases.

    Follow Up That Could Not Be Asked: Since CPI increases at an average of 3% per year, by 2044 your "About $10 a month" will be more like $27 a month. Thats 270% more per month than you are currently quoting us, so, in the interest of accuracy, why not simply quote the correct figures?
  • Juan Pardell
    So, it the aforementioned question an assurance that Mayor Foster will be in office for the next thirty years? The only guarantee of Measure I is there are no guarantees.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 

© 2007-2008 Seven Days Publishing LLC.