The Daily Briefing

MAYOR FOSTER AND HIS INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN

Theo DouglasThu. July 17
 

Mayor Bob Foster gets the profile treatment from Paul Eakins in this morning’s Press-Telegram, and his $571 million plan to rebuild the city’s infrastructure gets a separate examination.

Foster’s own take on his plan–which according to the P-T will require Long Beach City Council to “unanimously approve a declaration of fiscal emergency”? He doesn’t think it will pass.

“I’ve got one council member who doesn’t believe that infrastructure is important, at least in her area,” Foster says in the P-T–and he points the finger at Fifth District Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske (the pointing finger, not … you know).

Schipske says she’s not against rebuilding our infrastructure–which in English means rebuilding cracked streets, improving fire stations, police stations and parks, and maybe even building a new Main Library.

“There’s no question our infrastructure needs to be repaired; there’s no question our fire stations need to be upgraded,” Schipske tells Eakins, who writes: “But with the council yet to see the proposed city budget for the next fiscal year, Tuesday is too soon to vote on an infrastructure investment plan, she said.”

“The cart is before the horse,” Schipske says. “We haven’t been given the budget for this year. To declare an emergency before we even see the budget doesn’t make sense.”

But wait, there’s more. Eakins writes:

“If the council doesn’t vote to declare a fiscal emergency, Foster said, he would reintroduce the parcel tax as a special tax that would require two-thirds voter approval and would strictly outline its infrastructure uses.”

That’s the other thing about the $571 million bond plan as it’s currently laid out.

According to Eakins, if it gets on the November ballot and passes, “the parcel tax could legally be used for any general fund needs if approved by voters. However, the money would be restricted to specific infrastructure projects when the bonds are issued, a deal from which the mayor pledged he and the council wouldn’t back out.”

Sounds like everyone on Council will have lots to talk about in the next few weeks.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Viewing 25 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    What are the details? What libraries will be done, what streets? Did anyone ask the community what they wanted to see done, and according to my council office no one asked the council offices priorities in their districts. Who would know better than the council offices and the people.
    I am sure Foster looked at voting patterns and chose the projects accordingly. Does he really care about our infrastructure? If so, show me the list...you go Gerrie!
    • ^
    • v
    In all due fairness, Mayor Foster inherited the poor decisions of a previous administration and the city council. However, he is now perpetuating those poor decisions. The elected bretheren of Long Beach, are the ones who got the municipal government into this financial malaise. They need to fix those problems, before ever attempting to implement a tax increase on the city's residents. Is the infrastructure a serious problem? You bet! Is it the taxpayer's fault these items weren't taken care of? Hell no! This bond measure should be registered DOA at the next council meeting.
    • ^
    • v
    In response to lindaonline's question about what streets and other projects are included in this proposal, just go to LBReport.com for the map of all the streeets that will be repaired. Of course, if you look closely at the map you will find that it includes many street repairs that have already been completed. Seems the Mayor is relying on some bad info and makes me wonder what else about his plan was similarly thrown together without much thought or careful review.
    • ^
    • v
    Gary DeLong brought this matter up today at his 3rd District Council Meeting to survey how the attending public felt about the bond
    Responses were not good. Many wondered why only the home owners would be taxed (not renters). Gary thought maybe the landlords could just raise their rents to compensate!? What if you were landlord of 8 apartments? Lots of missing pieces in the proposal.
    • ^
    • v
    Long Beach is so very lucky to have Gerrie Schipske on our city council. Hers is the only moral compass that seems not to have been "de-magnetized" by City Hall politics and pressures. I agree with her, that while our infrastructure does indeed need help, we should not be stampeded into the current proposal or declaration of a fiscal emergency.

    There is no pretense of fairness in said proposal. Those living on the Peninsula or on the Alamitos Bay waterfront areas in homes worth some $3million to $8million would pay the same rate as those living in houses, apartments and condos worth 1/10th to 1/30th of that. That is an absolutely unacceptable disparity!

    Then, there is that pesky "escalator clause", that when compounded over time will more than double taxpayer's annual "investment". This is being cloaked as a General Fund bond measure to lower required voter approval to the minimum. What assurances do any of us have that those extra monies generated by the escalator clause will not be swallowed up by the General Fund and pissed away on bloated salaries and fattened pensions? You know, business as usual at Long Beach City Hall.

    There are a good many of us in the 8th council district that are counting on Gerrie Schipske to "stick to her guns"!
    • ^
    • v
    Well said, Mr Deats.

    "In all due fairness, Mayor Foster inherited the poor decisions of a previous administration and the city council."

    You know what, Juan, let's be done with rationalization. Long ago, there should have been a complete purge of everyone in city management with any kind of influence from the Hankla/Taboada/Miller years. Hell, PURGE HANKLA. His stagnant behind has no business running a clambake in this town, much less a harbor commission. It's this staid thinking that keeps Long Beach in its trademark malaise. Pat West . . . what a joke. The veneer of "outsider" without the jagged edge of innovation.

    Once you've had your lunch handed to you on this tax measure in sheep's clothing, Mr. Mayor, consider truly reconfiguring the way this city is run . . .It's never too late to start from scratch, sir.
    • ^
    • v
    Several good comments have been made here. As for Mayor Blob's fiscal inheritance, what has actually happened is that he inherited a steaming pile of crap, yet he's actually squatted mightily to make that pile higher now than it was when he assumed office.

    Gerrie Schipske is on the record as being opposed to any and all tax increases. Since being elected to office, so far, so good. She deserves an atta girl for that. Knowing that her district is overwhelmingly opposed to a tax increase, especially the mayor's confiscatory nightmare of a proposal, it's reasonable to assume that she will not aid and abet the crime of putting it on the ballot.

    Apparently, the mayor has either threatened or is planning to threaten councilmembers' staff budgets over this deal. Now how chickenshit is that, if true?

    Evidently the mayor is undeterred by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association's public threat to file a lawsuit if Long Beach puts this abortion of a tax increase proposal on the ballot. The city attorney's office believes their own BS that the proposal survives the sniff test. Apparently the mayor is pushing ahead come hell or high water. If he fails to extort or bribe a council majority to declare a fiscal emergency, he'll push ahead with a proposal that would require 2/3 majority voter approval.

    The mayor and his sycophants have got to finally come to grips with the raw fact that fiscal responsibility cannot happen without pension reform.

    The council is also going to discuss some sort of UUT deal to increase the flow to that revenue stream. Not sure how they're going to do that. Seems to me that the only way to do that would be to go after companies like Vonage, who provide VOIP services, to start collecting taxes on that service. If that's their intention, I call BS. I don't think the city's UUT proposal is as innocuous as many people believe.
    • ^
    • v
    Who cares if the measure gets on the ballot? The voters will never approve a tax increase, especially in these economic times.
    • ^
    • v
    Nicely done, Theo!

    Two facts seem clear: 1. Our infrastructure needs serious attention and 2: Schipske seems to be the only person on the current Council who seems to consistently understand that increasing taxes (special or otherwise) is not always the only way, or even the best way, to address item 1.

    Is anyone else just a little confused that, on the one hand, the Council routinely bemoans its current cash-strapped condition and seems constantly scrambling for new taxation solutions to resolve it and, on the other hand, spends far too much time (any time spent is too much, really) attempting and enacting business-unfriendly ordinances like the ill-fated Big Box Ban and the recent citywide moratorium on check cashing businesses?

    There's a very simple formula for municipal financial success:
    Limited government (government that does not routinely exceed its mandates)
    + Fiscal responsibility (living within our financial means and establishing rainy-day funds to deal with the inevitable periodic economic downturns)
    + A business friendly attitude (passing legislation that welcomes and encourages business rather than drives it away and discourages it)
    + Crime and blight intolerance (helping the population feel safe in their community)
    = a healthy, vibrant, growing, safe and financially-flush city

    "Focus On Results" notwithstanding, there remains a lot of waste and inefficiency in our city government. Let's cut some serious governmental fat before we even consider further burdening *any* segment of our tax paying population.
    • ^
    • v
    "+ A business friendly attitude (passing legislation that welcomes and encourages business rather than drives it away and discourages it)"

    You've got to be shitting me! Until foster, business did whatever they wanted. And even with foster, the "unofficial" mayor keeps calling the shots with his bag of tricks.

    Additionally, this city has the very worst legal counsel to be found on the planet. I'm for contracting it all out to some real slicksters. randy, is your last-years puppy dog looking for more business?
    • ^
    • v
    What part of "HELL NO!" doesn't city hall understand? Just watch as they decide to chuck over $ 400 Grand down a rat hole on a measure that has no chance of garnering a 2/3 majority at the polls! Heaven help us if this is anybody's idea of prudent fiscal stewardship.

    How many potholes would $400,000.00 fix?
    • ^
    • v
    jdonline wrote: "how many potholes would $400,000 fix?"

    Good question JD! I seriously doubt that city hall could even come close to finding a polling firm crazy enough to come up with a plausible scenario of the mayor's wacky plan passing with a 2/3 majority. I also wonder if any councilmember is lame enough to believe this could pass. For the council to piss away $400K to put this on the ballot would be absolute lunacy and downright irresponsible.
    • ^
    • v
    Mayor Foster: Can your half-billion dollar-plus infrastructure bond proposal include a measly few million dollars to permanently resolve the decades-old parking shortage problem in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd districts?

    Or is that just pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking......
    • ^
    • v
    While I'm not saying I favor Foster's plan, just the same, those of you who have cursed here, called it an "abortion", and alleged Foster is going to threaten councilmembers (details or just guessing?), what are you going to do when certain services are cut back or eliminated entirely in order to come in at budget? Are you ready to pay for sidewalk and street repair yourself? Haul your own trash to the dump? Take care of the fallen 50 tear old city tree yourself? Go the Cerritos Library because all of Long Beach's are closed? Take loose animals to a county shelter because Long Beach's is closed? Mow Heartwell Park yourself because the city only does once every thre months now?

    Don't laugh too much, these and other similar things, as far fetched and ridiculous as they sound, get put on the table if cuts are the only solution.
    • ^
    • v
    Interesting that the Mayor has had to back pedal a bit considering the first proposal might be, in part, a violation of Prop 218. Now Mr. Foster is attempting a bond. If you recall about a year and a half ago there was another attempt at a bond for libraries, police stations, and fire stations which failed. Now we're back at the table asking for more dollars in order that we tax ourselves for the specifics of a new bond measure with a tax as the revenue stream for the next 30 years. Granted, the timing is a little bad considering the economy is flatlining, foreclosures are at a record high, the hedge fund for mortgages is out the door with banks holding the bad and worthless loan paper and soon failing. Construction starts have been down for the past two quarters and gasoline costs are on the the rise. Thess are just the obvious things that we deal with daily. Now government is asking to stick their hand in our pocket for $120.00 per year. Again, for about 30 years. Looking at the bond, the devil is always in the details so, those streets that have already been done I must assume the dollars will be placed into reserve so in the future they can be repaired. Over half a billion dollars is being asked for the rate of $10.00 per month for the next 30 years. Considering we have a huge debt service already for Aquarium bonds, Convention Center Bonds, downtown Cityplace bonds or subsidies for redevelopment,Town Center and Queensway Bay subsidies and I did not see or hear that this bond measure would be insured or who would be the committee for oversight, yet,this bond is a provocative idea. Usually bonds (and they are now being enacted all across the state) are a means to cry wolf when our government has outspent themselves and do what government needs to do. So, government steps up with their tin cup and asks us to charge ourselves and then expect our elected officials not to overspend and trust them? Previously, they said they need to declare an emergency with a 100% vote. Then the first proposal which is the same tax and revenue source (scheme) could go to the general fund and be spent without reservation. At least now it is specifically dedicated to the specifics of an infrastructure shopping list and will have the people look at this at the November election. One of the council members last night at a meeting thought this was the only way to repair the infrastructure but his original stance was "No New Taxes" and we needed to develop some new revenue sources. I am still am waiting for those new revenues and someone to lead the way instead of being in lock step with whatever the downtown says. Surprising, bonds aren't new but they do obligate our families, usually our grand children and sometimes the our great grand children as this one will.
    • ^
    • v
    Alin (15): Just what brilliant ideas do you (or anyone else who opposes modest taxes increases and bond offers) have to pay for the city services of which you are consciencely -- and unconsciencely -- a consumer. When you set foot into any number of private businesses and then walk out with some goods or services rendered, do you expect not to have to pay for them?

    It sure is a lot easier to oppose government revenue generation -- whether through taxation or other means -- than to come up with politically correct ideas to secure such revenue.

    Anyone who complains about government fiscal policies better be practicing prudent fiscal measures in his or her private life.
    • ^
    • v
    Maybe the time has come for the residents of LB to do without some things. If the city is living beyond its means, maybe it needs to cut some fat, like pensions that city council votes itself and what not.
    DW Reader, you should know that some people who oppose increasing taxes may be struggling financially for reasons out of their control, like the family whose main source of income experienced a lay-off recently. Are you going to tell this person that not only do they have to cough up more money for our city's mismanaged budget, but add the insult of telling them they are not practicing prudent fiscal measures?
    I see so much waste and poor use of city resources on a daily basis, I don't think the first course of action should be to raise new taxes.
    • ^
    • v
    Anon(17): I agree that cutting services -- and waste -- can help balance the budget. But much of the public will still cry foul just as they do over taxes. I also agree that a tax increase is not the best way to go during troubled times. On the other hand, the public will still oppose new taxes even during the GOOD times.

    Now, I'm not an ardent proponent of always higher taxes but John Q. Public needs to pony up if he expects to receive the municipal services we ALL tend to take for granted. But I also expect government to keep waste and mismanagement under control.
    • ^
    • v
    Mayor Blob was certainly forced to back-pedal on his tax scheme...why? Because he knew it was illegal. Shannon and his backdoor gal, Mahood, knew it couldn't pass the legal sniff test.

    Let's face it, all of our local politicians are scrambling for revenue. LA County is chasing after a feckless local income tax increase, the ports are attempting to drive away competition with their global warming scam, and Mayor Blob (and his sycophants) want to stick property owners with an onerous parcel tax...not to mention LB Unified's BS property tax proposal to perpetuate an even higher drop-out rate.

    I still have a question to ask about Pat West...was he hired only because he is shorter than Mayor Blob?
    • ^
    • v