Rich...Larry...you guy's feeling ok? Bev is going to be very pissed at you both. Don't hold your breath for any future peninsula dinner invites if this unnecessary reporting continues.
Isn't there something new coming out of Leadership Long Beach to report? How about a canalis series about traffic signal repairs?

Development Services Director Craig Beck’s judgment and credibility is suspect. During last night’s Planning Commission meeting to determine whether a permit should be granted for the Wetlands bulldozing, Mr. Beck defended Sean Hitchcock, the person whose company bulldozed the wetlands, by saying Mr. Hitchcock did not know a permit was required. Specifically, Craig Beck said, “If he would have met with us we would have told him about the Coastal Development permit requirements.”

This is exactly opposite of what Beck claimed in the April 2, 2009 District Weekly article at the below link. Mr. Beck was quoted as saying, “Mr. Hitchcock was fully informed relative to the need for getting permits and relative to what permits he would be able to get under the land’s zoning.”

http://thedistrictweekly.com/2009/daily/writing...

This was also exactly opposite of what Beck’s boss, Assistant City Manager Suzanne Frick, claimed during the March 31, 2009 Beer and Politics meeting (37 minutes into below link) when she said Craig Beck and Councilman DeLong met with Sean Hitchcock 2-weeks before the bulldozing and advised him of his permitting requirements. Specifically, Ms. Frick said, “At that meeting he was informed of the appropriate permits for that kind of development.”

http://www.instantpresenter.com/WebConference/R...

If Development Services Director Craig Beck can not be truthful about whether Sean Hitchcock was informed of the permits required to bulldoze the wetlands, why should the public believe Beck when he claims lobbyist freebies won’t influence his decisions?

It must be viewed within the context of the errant Parks and Recreation Commission action last week(see LB report)giving their stamp of approval
to selling beer and liquor on City Park Lands.

They are essentially putting all our park facilities on E-Bay,for any and
all to so what ever they want.The "cafe" would then be available for
private functions where beer and liquor could be sold.

In sum,the same problems the neighborhoods currently face where
supposedly professional bar owners,their own security and LBPD are
unable to control,will now flow and roll into our parks.

Hardly a week goes by in the summer when many of our parks are
plagued with out of control,unruly"gatherings" well beyond the control
of park rangers.Imagine interjecting alcohol into the mix.

Laurence..newsflash:
those out of control parties are ALREADY boozing it up---the city selling overpriced beer won't matter because people won't buy it, they'll bring their own cheap beer.

You realize the kind of events that book places like these are usually weddings and bar mitzvahs, right? You know Jesus even went to weddings?

It occurs to me that coastal access laws are intended to keep the beaches available for use to the public--not to restrict access because locals like you, Laurence, don't want the public there.

who is C.A. Wood?

haha! I love disqus!

Is the Craig Beck related to the new Los Angeles Chief of Police Charlie Beck?
New Police Chief was born in Long Beach....LAPD Website say that his father was a retired LAPD officer.

Mister Beck went tasting wine
On Murchison Lobbying’s crooked dime.
Frick and West knew the score
And did their best to ignore.
Now Long Beach stays covered in slime.
.

FLASH ITEM DW TAKE NOTE: DECEMBER 21 ZONING HEARING FOR..what at
first glance would seem to be a non issue:

Upgrading of Life Guard Station at Mothers Beach--not an issue to be sure.
HOWEVER,included in the plan is to build a cafe' snack bar.
RED FLAG!!! KEGGER PARTIES AND WORSE ARE PENDING!!!
With the pending advent of beer and liquor on the beach being approved
by Parks and Recreation Commission---WHICH HAS NO AUTHORITY TO
APPROVE SUCH ON TIDELANDS==per state law..given the push to offer
private parties to hold special events---DO WE WANT A 2ND STREET BAR
PROBLEMS FLOWING ONTO OUR BEACHES AND NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!

We certainly don't want anyone having...FUN, God Forbid.

A snack bar does not a kegger make.

Besides, isn't there already a snack bar there (it's not open)...isn't the plan just to improve the existing one?

Does Beck live in Long Beach?

In my view where an employee lives is irrelevant.Yes,it would be nice if they
person did live here.However what we want is the best person for the job.Do
we take the less qualified simply because they live here?That smacks of the
social engineering which is at the root of so many of the problems this-and
indeed the entire country faces.

There is no question that having police officers reside in the community
they work in is beneficial.Who would not like DIRTY HARRY or Paul
Bronson character on every block.

The brutal reality however is in many Cities the police have to spend
10-13 hours working in and dealing with what flows in what are
social cesspools. As such:

l.No clear think individual could go off to work and leave their
family to deal with such.

2.Mentally it would take its toll on the officers.It would be like
living in Iraq 24/7.That is why troops are rotated.

In Cities such as Long Beach,where social engineering has, for
to long,been the order of the day,the situation has reached the
point where the only pragmatic solution is to;by eminent domain
raze to the ground the problem areas,take care of legal seniors,
those that can not fend for themselves--and in coastal cities like
Long Beach;convert the area into extended Marinas and Port
facilities.Eliminate the warrens where the problematic live-they
self evacuate.

It is not unlike the seminal scene in TITANIC--when--shortly after
the iceberg was struck;gathered in the ship's architect's on board
office were the Captain;ships;owners etc--peering over the diagrams
and plans;architect calmly moves his pointer across the line of water
tight balk heads saying,,,if water reaches here,we are ok;if it reaches here,we are ok,if it reaches here we are ok etc--then he
stops--and says=--when the water reaches here.-CALMLY,sates...
THE SHIP WILL GO DOWN....

That is why,this individual has,for the past few years
advocated and urged the City to adopt the CARPATHIA PLAN!!!
Instead the City has spent the time re arranging the deck chairs and
playing NEAR TO GOD MY THEE!!!

I don't agree. Let's face it. These are government jobs. The "best" people don't apply for government jobs. Government jobs provide job security and little risk. That doesn't attract the best talent. I'd much rather have someone vested in the city than the best of an average group who could care less about the city.

A resident requirement or incentive would be great for our city. It would mean those $100,000+ salaries would go back into our own community.

To say Government jobs do not attract the best talent is simply not
true .Nor is it fair,.Does it attract some void of talent?Certainly.Does
it attract those would have trouble getting and keeping a job in the private sector? Have you met Laura Richardson,Jenny Orepza?

However,in my experience of having worked,very closely with dozens of City staff and elected from circa 1982 up until the
FOSTER DE LONG GATE ERA,on a wide range of projects from minor
to the most seminal,my experience is the overwhelming number of
those people were,dedicated,knowledgeable,professionals,who took
pride in their work and the product and projects they worked on.

The same can be said for the Commissions---which,to a large measure are the back bone of the City--at least before the onset
of the Foster De Long Gate area. Like to many,but certainly not all
within the City Staff,Comissionaa now suffer from a serious lack of
independent thought,subordinating the interest of the City and Citizens to marching orders of the destructive direction of the
Foster De Long Gate culture--so at war with the best interest of this
city.

I agree. I wish it were possible to make it a requirement that city employees must reside in Long Beach. It would be nice to see them have some skin in the game.

Looks like it is possible.

"Simpson said she was particularly frustrated by the number of police and firefighters who live outside the city, given that the city’s financial troubles were largely caused by police and fire pension obligations."

http://www.sj-r.com/local/x599207841/Almost-one...

Until the late 60's or early 70's, LBFD (probably LBPD too) had a "within city limits" residence requirement. Since then the ordinance was changed.

There was a very good reason for the rule - in case of a natural disaster or a large fire emergency, you wanted these people to be able to get to work within a reasonable time frame. The ordinance made a lot of sense when you consider public safety personnel are required to report for duty during emergencies 24/7 unless on vacation.

We grew up here in the 50s and 60s, and all City Employees had to live in town. If you accepted a job, you had to move here. It was such a benefit. There was a policeman, or somebody who knew one, or worked with one, on every block it seemed like. 100's of little sub stations gathering probable cause all of the time.

To get out of the fish bowl, employees took vacations.....or built a mountain home.

But hey, that was also when all Staff worked 8 to 5, M-F, no flex time, and Staff heads, or those seeking promotion, did tons of free overtime, and night appearances, as part of their higher pay package

We recall when rookies would live in mid town, out North, out West, and those areas were much safer as a result. As they got promoted, they would move. Often, they would buy their home from a policeman who got a promotion and was moving up.

Believe it or not, so many City Employees used to live in our neighborhoods, they would often car pool ....a smart idea way before its time.

People say that it has gotten so bad that there is this story about a Fireman and a cop, who stack their schedule, holidays and off time, plus over time thrown in, and live in Idaho in 1 case, and Arizona, or is it Colorado in another ?? Here for a few weeks, there for a few weeks. That seems abusive . Apparently it has something to do with being tight with whoever writes the schedule or something.

We have known Police and Fire that live in San Diego County and commute and keep a bed here. Seems like a real stretch of common sense again.

Two of our closest PD friends live a solid hour drive away, given light traffic, why ? To get as far away as possible from the problems here, so yes, if we had a natural disaster, there could be serious issues.

And we lose many helpful synergies that once were part of the deal. In better times maybe.

The incentive aspect might help, or maybe significant concessions for new hires not willing to live in town, or very close ??

Candidly, if you do not love long beach enough to live here, you have to wonder how right you are to serve this town. Seems more like you are using it, rather than investing in it.

Iteresting article. It indicates other citys have ordinances requiring city workers and/or department heads to reside in the city they work in. Why can't Long Beach do likewise?

I don't know. Maybe you could bring it up next time you're speaking at council?