Writing Shotgun

ROAMIN’ BOB FOSTER TRANSFORMS HIS INFRASTRUCTURE-TAX PROMOTION TOUR INTO A TOGA PARTY

Dave WielengaSat. August 23
 

Several dozen of us had filled the banquet room of a Bixby Knolls restaurant—quite appropriately, Nino’s Italian restaurant—to hear a fascinating talk on the history of the Roman Republic Thursday night. (Fascinating fact: it’s the only republic to endure longer than the one we’re currently enduring in the United States). Suddenly, a Long Beach ballot-measure campaign broke out. Surprise? Yeah, not so much.

“There is one other thing I want to add,” Mayor Bob Foster said about a half-hour into his lecture (even-more-fascinating fact: he’s an expert on the Roman Republic), just as it seemed he was going to wrap things up. “You’ll see the transition here,” Foster promised, and most of the people who’d gathered for the Bixby Knolls Community Happy Hour had probably foreseen it—for some, it was why they had come.

“The Romans were extraordinary builders,” Foster said, and it was official—the evening had switched gears, from ancient history to the anxiety over the future of Long Beach, another step in the mayor’s non-stop tour of the city to promote passage of his proposed $571 million parcel tax. It’ll be Proposition I (that’s the first letter in the word “infrastructure,” not a Roman numeral) on your November ballot.

“The first thing the Romans did, anywhere they went, was to build roads,” Foster continued. “You’ve all heard of the Roman roads; incredible stuff. Aqueducts to carry water. Bridges to do everything. Their infrastructure was so good it’s still around today. And much of it is still usable, such as the aqueducts. Would that we were in that condition.

“So, I’d be happy to talk about the infrastructure proposal and what it means to the city, but I’m only being half-facetious. One of the lessons I’ve learned from looking at history is you cannot build wealth without adequate infrastructure, you cannot avoid civil strife without adequate infrastructure, and you can’t deliver the services for the people who most need it without adequate infrastructure. And we are in dire need of fixing ours. I know that’s kind of a strained transition, but I believe in my soul that it’s important to do these things.

“All the things that we enjoy, the success we may or may not have had in our economic lives, but certainly our economic our social success, our societal success, were built on the generation of World War II, who thought in 30- and 40- and 50-year increments. That’s what’s needed in this country again, to get that longer-term view. To get away from just focusing on the self. We’ve benefited from that for decades; all of us have benefitted from it, and we’re putting far too few resources back into it for our kids and our grandkids. I couldn’t be more deadly serious about this. We’ve got to build things, we got to do for our kids and our grandkids what my father and his father did for us.

“I’ll leave it at that … and I’ll be happy to answer any questions.”

As the crowd responded with polite applause, Ryan Smolar—who somehow got Foster to wear a Roman toga to give this same lecture, minus the Long Beach infrastructure stuff, at University-By-The-Sea last autumn–raised his hand. While he waited to be called upon, Smolar whispered to me that he was going to ask Foster whether or not the Roman Republic had a Redevelopment Agency.

But I had to leave—I was already late for the grand re-opening of the Art Theater down on Retro Row—and I was outta there without knowing whether or not he did.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

  • Kevin
    See you at beer and politics tonight Foster you imperialist bastard.
    Measure I must die!!!!
  • Lindaonline
    Yes everywhere the Romans went they built roads but this parcel TAX is not about building roads. Only 27% of the money collected will go to streets, sidewalks and alleys. The rest, over 70%, will go to special projects.
    What are the projects and who do they favor or rather what favors do they repay? Don’t be fooled by the dog and pony show.
    The emperor has no clothes!
  • RJ: We “INVEST in LB” as you put it, every day of every year. With a $3.1 *BILLION* dollar annual budget proposed for next fiscal year I would submit that the challenge does not appear to be a lack of investment but, rather, a lack of satisfactory return on that investment. The contention, of course, is that our elected and appointed officials could be doing a lot better at securing the best return for our investment and considering all of the additional taxes that are currently being proposed, I am inclined to agree.

    Juan: Despite your implication, our front line and supervisory municipal employees are not, to any degree, overpaid… quite the contrary. When you compare them, type-for-type, with the city employees of comparably sized cities in the State, Long Beach workers tend to be, and remain, compensated well below the median. These salaries and pensions are arrived at through a lawful collective bargaining process. If you don’t feel that those bargaining with the various City employee unions on our behalf (various elected and appointed officials) are doing so in an appropriate manner, then work to have those elected and appointed officials removed.

    Theo: I feel certain that any taxes and fees imposed upon non-resident property owners will be quickly passed on to their tenants. Thus renters also ultimately have “a dog in this hunt” even though, by virtue of their status, they won’t get to vote on these matters come election day.
  • JuanPardell
    "Despite your implication, our front line and supervisory municipal employees are not, to any degree, overpaid… quite the contrary. When you compare them, type-for-type, with the city employees of comparably sized cities in the State, Long Beach workers tend to be, and remain, compensated well below the median. These salaries and pensions are arrived at through a lawful collective bargaining process. If you don’t feel that those bargaining with the various City employee unions on our behalf (various elected and appointed officials) are doing so in an appropriate manner, then work to have those elected and appointed officials removed."

    If Long Beach managers, and staff, believe they're so ridiculously underpaid, why don't they leave for other positions? As of yet, there has been no concrete evidence to support a mass exodus of Long Beach municipal employees has occurred. Although salaries and pensions were achieved through a "lawful" process, it probably wasn't ethically consumated. We all know of the backroom deals between former city managers and council members. However, there were a couple of notable defections, who discovered the grass isn't always greener on the other side. Just ask Susan Schick and Robert Paternoster.
  • Juan: I didn't say anything about "managers and staff". I spoke of "front line and supervisory municipal employees". Nor did I say that anyone believes they are "ridiculously underpaid", what I said was that those employees I mentioned "are not, to any degree, over-paid..."

    While I wouldn't characterize previous municipal employee movements to other employers as "mass-exodus", I can certainly attest to periods, at least in the Police Department, when large numbers of well-trained, senior officers did, indeed, depart contemporaneously. Pay and benefits are but two of the factors that sometimes account for such movements. People, regardless of profession, will generally sell their labor to the employer that will compensate them the most for it and in that, police officers are no different.

    I can assure you that there have been several occasions over the years, during contract negotiations when we, the electorate, in our guise as the City, have asked our municipal employees to accept far less than what other jurisdictions were offering at the time and *on each occasion* the employees have agreed to do so.

    I can likewise assure you that on several occasions over the past 3 decades, our police employees have accepted better benefits in lieu of better pay, only to see those benefits later whittled away…ultimately leaving those employees with neither the improved benefits *nor* the better pay they so well deserved.

    We can certainly write entire volumes on “ethical consummation” (boy, doesn't *that* phrase beg a comment or 2?) as relates to the manner in which Long Beach is periodically operated but, again, if enough of the electorate decides that they dislike the manner in which their city is being run, they have a very effective means of dealing with it at their disposal…

    ...all they need do is employ it.
  • JuanPardell
    What you're referring to, happens on a daily basis throughout this country. If an employee finds a better opportunity elsewhere, they'll leave. As you mentioned, pay & benefits are just two components that factor into the decision process. However, there are other factors that considered. For example, if I lived in Orange County, and worked as a Long Beach police officer, if it were to be offered, I would strongly consider a similar position in Anaheim. Location plays a big difference.
    Granted, municipal employees have, at times, accepted salary & benefit cuts. Well, who hasn't? As of yet, there has not been any credible evidence to support a mass exodus of municipal employees has occurred. If anyone is dissatisfied with what they're receiving, they can surely test the current job market. As I stated in my previous post, the grass isn't always greener.
  • Duke
    "As of yet, there has been no concrete evidence to support a mass exodus of Long Beach municipal employees has occurred. "

    A rather disingenuous thing to keep saying, since you've already said you wouldn't believe any figures you were presented to support the claim people are leaving.
  • JuanPardell
    First, there would have to be data to first analyze what city officials keep alluding to. Second, whomever comprises the data, has to be an independent source. Third, why is there no data, from the Human Resources Department, that supports the assertion that a mass exodus of city employees has occurred? Until it can be proven, it is merely propoganda.
  • Duke
    First, there is data. Second, what type of independent source? A consultant? You'd have to pay that consultant. Asking for an independent source seems like a convenient crutch to continue to able to say that>Third, you'd never believe H.R. anyway. H.R. has data. it's out there. Ask for it. but, >Fourth- you keep exaggerating what others are saying. Who has used the phrase "mass exodus"? Only you, just like only you said "managers and staff" and only you said that I believe taxpayers aren't paying enough. What city officials ARE saying is that enough employees are leaving from all walks of the various departments that it costs more to hire and train replacements than it would to pay employees a median wage to retain them.
  • JuanPardell
    Well, what does that data conclude? Yes, an independent source. Lord knows the city has wasted money on independent consultants for frivilous issues. Am I exaggerating? City officials are the ones who are making it sound as if a mass exodus of employees has occurred. Just listen to Steve James everytime he speaks before the city council. If there isn't a mass exodus, the city government is most likely experiencing the same amount of turnover that probably every employer in the country deals with. However, as I've previously stated, there is no evidence presented, that suggests city departments have experienced a mass exodus of employees. Certainly, you haven't presented anything credible.
  • Duke
    it isn't up to me to present anything credible. I'm there on a regular basis, I'm aware what they say is true. You're pre-disposed not to believe anything anyone says on these issues. Propose an independent source and have them do an FIA request.

    And again, you ARE the one spreading the hyperbole. I doubt James used the words "mass exodus", but no matter what claim he might make, it certainly could be verified. Call him on it, or accept it as true.
  • JuanPardell
    If you can't provide anything credible, why should the readers of this blog trust what you have to say? Isn't that the credo of this parcel tax/infrastructure bond? The mayor asking the taxpayers to trust him? You're not interested in how a parcel tax may affect Long Beach taxpayers, who've gotten the short end of the municipal stick, but you're greatly interested in how city employee's salaries & benefits may be affected. Who works for who? Is there any respect at Long Beach city hall for the taxpayers? Once again, you've chosen to preach propaganda instead of fact(s).
  • Duke
    Mr. Pardell, I've lost track of the amount of times I've invited you to check for yourself in any number of ways, seeing as how you've already stated you wouldn't believe anything coming from the city, and I've admitted to having connections there. To continue with this position on your part is simply lazy, and worse, dishonest. This knee-jerk "no more taxes" attitude is what got the city where it is in the first place, and we all know it.
  • JuanPardell
    If you simply go to the Job Opportunities section, on the City of Long Beach's Civil Service Dept. website, you will see there are currently "23" job openings with city government. There are thousands of city employees. Twenty three job openings tells me there isn't a multitude of municipal workers bailing out of any city departments. In fact, that number is terribly insignificant. Why don't you give me some specific examples where labor shortages in city departments exist? Maybe I can be persuaded, even if just a little. Otherwise, your bias rhetoric will become very mundane.
  • Duke
    You've got to be kidding. In this time of budget crisis, you're using that as a basis for opinion? Do you really think they're filling all the openings they have? Do you know how many positions are going away due to jobs not being filled? What's becoming mundane is your refusal to utilize your vaunted independent source. Are you ready to tell me you'd believe what I'd tell you? Are you ready to believe the reasoning behind the five year contracts and raises, as opposed to a shorter contract and no raises? Are you ready to believe me when I tell you it's cheaper long term to do it this way than to hire and retrain based on projected loss of employees, numbers which are based on past attrition?

    So far, I haven't seen you believe a thing the city or any government says about anything, which is why I keep encouraging you to find out for yourself.
  • JuanPardell
    In this time of budget crisis, do believe an employee with the City of Long Beach, is going to leave the security of civil service protection, a good salary & benefits, to start all over somewhere else? Until you provide readers with specific examples, your opinions are simply bias rhetoric. You have not substantiated anything. How many employee losses have there been? Give us some data.
  • Duke
    In this time of crisis, they'll leave in a heartbeat. Did you even read what you wrote?

    Moreover, you can keep labeling me all you want, but it's obvious you're avoiding answering why you don't have someone check for yourself. You haven't substantiated a damn thing, either. Living up north as you do, you're out of touch with reality down here.
  • JuanPardell
    Why should I investigate anything? I've simply made an assertion that Long Beach's city government has not had a mass exodus of employees. What crisis are you talking about? If anything, the only crisis I foresee is one similar to the City of Vallejo. However, you need not look further than to the city government salaries & benefits programs to blame for such a calamity. That's what bankrupted Vallejo, and will surely do the same to Long Beach. Has Vallejo lost city employees as a result? Of course. Why? Because no one stemmed the tide of red ink when the city council was handing out golden parachute salaries and benefits. This is the truth and you can't refute it. All you seek is a continuation of a failed system. That's why you are for increasing the taxes of Long Beach residents.
  • Duke
    And no one has said employees are "ridiculously underpaid", either, besides you. You're putting words in my mouth and the mouths of others, and then essentially arguing with yourself, because we sure never said these things.
  • Theo Douglas
    Two sentences RJ wrote really caught my eye, and they are:
    "Of course some of it will make it's way to somebody's "special interest," it's being managed by politicians for Gods sake."?
    And ...
    "Listen, if they spent the entire amount on nothing more than hosing the sidewalks off, removing grafetti, and a pot whole here and there, thats ok... "
    RJ, part of the reason we have crooked politicians is because when they steal or behave inappropriately, some people just stand idly by and shrug their shoulders. But that's assuming I've correctly understood the two sentences I excerpted from your comments.
    So let me just ask you, RJ--because I literally couldn't believe what you wrote: Are you genuinely okay with people ripping off the City of Long Beach? I'll tell you right now that I'm not okay with that. It appalls me.
    And, if you don't mind, RJ I have a second question for you: would you really be okay with it if the bond passed, and the city spent all that money hosing off the sidewalks, removing graffiti, and filling potholes?
    I'm just asking; after all, we're in a drought, so maybe you were being facetious. Personally, I think homeowners like myself should get a little bit more for our money if the bond passes. We'll be paying for it--as will you, if you own property.
    Thanks.
  • JuanPardell
    You're missing the point of those who oppose this parcel tax measure. Everyone agrees its time to invest in Long Beach. However, how should it be done? Where has all the taxpayer money been going? Why has there been so much allocated for municipal employee salaries & pensions and not to infrastructure? The reason many are opposed to this parcel tax measure, is city officials have gone to the well one too many times, in asking the taxpayers to foot the bill for items that should already been paid for with general fund revenues. Your city council does not adhere to the best interests of it's residents. That's why most voters will not trust them to manage any new tax revenues. Its time for Long Beach taxpayers to stop bailing out the poor decisions made by their city council.
  • RJ in the BK
    Call it what you will. A tax, a bond, a new pot of cash. LB desperately needs to be invested in. Too many are worried that some of this dough will be spent on something other than a road, curb or sidewalk. Therefor they want to throw the whole thing out. Of course some of it will make it's way to somebody's "special interest," it's being managed by politicians for Gods sake. Listen, if they spent the entire amount on nothing more than hosing the sidewalks off, removing grafetti, and a pot whole here and there, thats ok... WE NEED IT ! How much longer are we going to let LB rot away. We have catered to the poor, uneducated, unemployed, who have been "takers" of this city for way too long. It's time to INVEST in LB. It's a whopping $120 a year, who cares? Raise the damn money and lets get to sprucing-up our city. WE NEED IT DESPERATELY! Anyone who can't afford the $120 a year, needs to move to Riverside, it's more afforable.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 

© 2007-2008 Seven Days Publishing LLC.