Long Beach Vice Mayor Bonnie Lowenthal was all smiles Saturday after receiving 67.3 percent of the vote at the Democratic Party’s Pre-Primary Endorsement Conference. But Councilwoman Tonia Reyes Uranga escaped as the short-term survivor by keeping Lowenthal from getting the 70 percent needed to qualify for the party’s official backing in their race for the 54^th District seat in the State Assembly.

“That’s OK,” Lowenthal said with a grin, standing in the back of an old brick union hall in Gardena, savoring the lopsided show of support. She received 35 votes, compared to 12 for Reyes Uranga and five who declined to endorse either candidate. Two votes more would have earned her the party endorsement Saturday. “I feel very good about getting the endorsement at the state convention later this month.”

If Reyes Uranga wasn’t feeling great, she also wasn’t feeling as badly as she might have but for that two-vote margin. Her only goal going in was to block Lowenthal from getting the 70 percent needed for an endorsement.

“That’s what we want to do — buy time to campaign,” said Reyes Uranga. “Everybody already knows Lowenthal. We want to give people a chance to know more about Reyes Uranga as a candidate.”

Lowenthal, who won a lopsided vote at Thursday’s meeting of the Long Beach Democratic Club [see LBReport.com's story], is by far the best-known candidate. She has the strongest political connections, too — both because of her combined 14 years on the Long Beach school board and as First District City Councilwoman and her membership in the city’s most-powerful political family. She is the ex-wife of State Senator Alan Lowenthal, the mother of Superior Court Judge Daniel Lowenthal and the mother-in-law of Long Beach Second District Councilwoman Suja Lowenthal. Alan and Suja voted Saturday, and the senator — who has endorsed his ex-wife — also appointed several members of Bonnie’s staff as delegates, who cast their votes for her, too.

“It really helps having every one of your relatives on the delegate list,” says Reyes Uranga, who represents westside Long Beach’s Seventh District, mustering a chuckle. “My family either is not big enough, or my kids — who just turned 21 — really need to get it together.”

Lowenthal acknowledges some of her advantages, but suggests that they are overrated and insists she has earned them.

“My work stands by itself,” she says. “I am known for what I have done, not only for my last name.”

Reyes Uranga and Lowenthal are seeking to replace Betty Karnette, who is ineligible to return to the Assembly because of term limits. The winner of the June primary will advance to the November general election, where she will likely oppose Republican Gabriela Holt.

Besides Long Beach and Signal Hill, the 54^th District includes San Pedro, four cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, Avalon, and portions of Los Angeles County. It is the only district that includes portions of both the Port of Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles.

Tags: 54 Assembly District, Alan Lowenthal, bonnie lowenthal, Democratic Party, endorsement, suja lowenthal, The District Weekly, Tonia Reyes Uranga

COMMENTS

1

They are both awful.

[report]

Posted By lbresident on March 15th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
2

Really? How so?

[report]

Posted By Dave Wielenga on March 15th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
3

The above states: “…the senator — who has endorsed his ex-wife — also appointed several members of Bonnie’s staff as delegates, who cast their votes for her, too.” I find such actions by our elected representatives very disturbing. Paid staff members are allowed to vote for their boss! This is a bunch of crap. I am going to start a new website –lbthatscrap.com — and this matter will be my first post.

[report]

Posted By Dwight K Snider on March 15th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
4

I think they are both awful because they are incredibly beholden to special interest groups, particularly unions, and it shows in their votes. They also are strong supporters of affordable housing. I think that is harmful longterm to neighborhoods, especially in distircts like the ones they represent. They are also strong supporters for city funded social services. I don’t believe things like daycare are a government responsibility, particularly in a city and at a time when our streets are filled with potholes and we don’ have enough police. I could go on but you get my perspective.

[report]

Posted By lbresident on March 15th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
5

Way to go Tonia! I have worked with Bonnie and Tonia and think either would be a good candidate, but enough of the Lowenthal dynasty already. I have seen the behind-the-door, deal-making local demo-machine up close and just don’t want to eat that product no more. It’s time for a change.

[report]

Posted By LB_neighbor on March 15th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
6

Yeah, those unions sure are dangerous. Imagine what a paradise we would have if we had officials that were beholden to corporate interests instead. Would that it were so! Working conditions would improve. Parity in salaries and wages would finally be acheived. And there would be more paid holidays, too, as well as increased access to health care for all. And if we just made housing unaffordable to everybody except the lucky few, …

[report]

Posted By Kelson on March 15th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
7

I don’t advocate being beholden to any special interests, including corporations.

Housing isn’t affordable to the lucky few. It’s affordable to those who work hard and make smart choices in their lives.

Anyone who wants healthcare can have it if they priortize their life.

Unions do serve a purpose in some industries but often times they hurt the very people they supposedly help. A good example is the teacher’s union.

Assume a little personal accountability and stop complaining because you don’t get Presidents Day off. .

[report]

Posted By lbresident on March 16th, 2008 at 8:44 am
8

Oh don’t get me started on teacher’s unions…. I hear crap all the time on that subject and it always sounds like people expect the teacher’s union to be solving management problems, rather than doing the only thing that unions are supposed to do: advocate and protect the teachers who are the constituency of the union. Why do folks universally expect unions to do anything else, especially when managements makes bad policy decisions? But now you got me fired up, in a discussion about other things. I just don’t understand your point of view, but hey, when people fall off the grid because they lose their jobs in a crappy economy, we’re always supposed to blame the victim and tell them they could have had health care and a house if only they took some personal responsibility.
The median household income is simply not sufficient for homeownership in this county. You can’t tell me that those 50% (below the median) aren’t working hard, and aren’t making smart choices. Do the math. We have the lowest homeownership rate (or close to the lowest) in the country, and people here aren’t special in some desire to be lazy or make stupid choices.

[report]

Posted By Kelson on March 16th, 2008 at 8:50 am
9

Is someone actually arguing against affordable housing?

Really?

[report]

Posted By Rachel Powers on March 16th, 2008 at 9:05 am
10

I agree. The math doesn’t work out. But I disagree with the premise of your argument. Homeownership isn’t a right. Some people will be renters. That’s Okay.

The teachers union consistently implements policies that encourage teachers to do one thing and that is stay employed until tenure. And that is pretty easy to do given the current rules. There are no incentives for performance. Who gets hurt? Good teachers and students. It is next to impossible to get rid of a bad teacher. There are lots of good teachers who work hard, but they do so because they love what they do not because of the structure the union has created.

[report]

Posted By lbresident on March 16th, 2008 at 9:06 am
11

I am arguing against government subsidized housing. It hurts neighborhoods and is not the job of government anyway.

[report]

Posted By lbresident on March 16th, 2008 at 9:08 am
12

I don’t think that anyone here ever said that homeownership is a *right*. I certainly don’t feel that way. All that was said is that affordable HOUSING (not “homes”) was a good idea. Because it is in a *society’s interest* that as many members as possible live in safe, sanitary conditions. So municipalities need to find a balance between scooping up every homeless person and giving them their own MTV Real World crib, and saying, “screw you: if you can’t afford rent, then *obviously* you’re lazy and/or stupid.” If you are able to boil down mankind’s greatest problem–poverty–to such simple one to one relationships, well…I guess that must provide some comfort. You can tell yourself that you ended up where you are because of your innate awesomeness and self-discipline. You are a modern-day Abraham Lincoln, doing your homework by candlelight with no shoes on, and making the determined march to the presidency. But to my mind, not having a home is proof that you don’t have a home, nothing else.

Should people reap what they sow? Sure! Absolutely! But let’s be clear: a lot of people are poor and undereducated because their parents were poor and undereducated. Is it impossible to stop that cycle oneself? Absolutely not–plenty of people do it–but *apparently* it is pretty damn hard, because only a percentage of those who grow up in poverty find a way.

[report]

Posted By Rachel Powers on March 16th, 2008 at 9:22 am
13

If either candidates were currently doing such a good job as councilmembers, why does The City of Long Beach continue to be such a mismanaged municipal government? BTW, why aren’t any city officials talking about the budget? Is the news really going to be that bad?

[report]

Posted By Juan on March 16th, 2008 at 9:22 am
14

good question: I keep hearing the stories about the LA budget, and they’re pretty scary.

I have some friends who teach grade school, and the stories that they tell are worrisome. An example: At one local grade school, class size is going up to 35. 35 4th graders, and one teacher! They are losing their librarian. They are losing the PE coordinator. They are losing their science teacher.

At least, that’s what’s been planned thus far.

[report]

Posted By Rachel Powers on March 16th, 2008 at 9:28 am
15

Rachel:

A California city (Vallejo), with similar financial issues to Long Beach, is on the verge of bankruptcy. I find it disturbing, that your councilmembers are being so silent on this subject. Being that the Press-Telegram will probably not delve into the matter, you should hope The District Weekly and LBreport begin prying city officials for answers.

[report]

Posted By Juan on March 16th, 2008 at 9:37 am
16

“lbresident”: you’re right! Not everyone will be able to own a home. It’s just very very sad that the homeownership rate in our county and state is among the worst in the country. Why not only have it merely as bad as the average? Homeownership is one of the (many) keys to feeling a sense of belonging to one’s community, and is key to maintaining a solid middle class.

I still don’t understand why a union has to make distinctions among its members regarding who is a bad teacher and who isn’t. The union is meant to protect every member. Somehow the teachers’ union is supposed to *help* management make up for the managerial mistake of hiring a bad worker? Really? Especially when managements (everywhere) have had such a long, distinguished history of firing/punishing employees for political/non-work-related behaviour or practices? Really? Why is it such a problem that management has to actually show proof that it isn’t trying to fire someone for petty, political reasons, when that’s what manegement used to do for so long? Management needs to get off its butt and just deal with the fact that it *should* be hard to terminate employees. It isn’t the job of the union (any union) to choose which of its members to value more than others. Why would you assign that task to anyone but management?

[report]

Posted By Kelson on March 16th, 2008 at 9:42 am
17

Rachel, I never said I was awesome. You don’t have to be awesome to be able to afford a place to live. You just need to not do drugs, finish high school, get a part time job at McDonalds while in high school, refrain from having children until you are 21, can afford them and are married. Those are not that difficult to achieve. And just about anyone who follows that path will be able to afford a good place to rent.

Kelson, homeownership rates should be a function of the market, not government.

I agree a union should not do management’s job. But any time there is an effort to put pay for performance incentives in a contract, the union fights it.

As far as being hard to fire someone, that is subjective. I just think it shouldn’t be harder to fire teachers than any other profession. There are plenty of good teachers that are upset that they will always make the same amount of money as a teacher who is only in the profession for the summers off.

[report]

Posted By lbresident on March 16th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
18

… but the market is hugely distorted by non-market forces, such as when Wall St gets interested in dumping tons of equity into real estate, inflating prices by driving a bubble. Government is in place, partly, to protect the little guys from market manipulation like that. At least, when those in power aren’t on the take or don’t have massive conflicts of interest.

Are we surprised when unions fight against those performance incentives? Management has never taken the time to build up trust by actually working with the unions on these sorts of issues. So should we be surprised when unions and union members get upset by management’s perpetual adversarial posturing? In the end, *who* gets to decide on the performance metrics? Management has a very poor record in that area so one should be naturally suspicious that it wants to be the sole arbiter of performance evaluations. I’m not totally stupid here: there is a place in the workplace for metrics and performance evaluations. But management, in the history of the workplace, has a really crappy record of turning those hurdles and metrics into another method of employee punishment.
Workplace protections always come at a cost, and the cost is exactly you stated: good teachers make what bad teachers make. So management should go through all the hurdles that are defined in the contracts they have negotiated, follow labor law, and then they can rid themselves of the bad teachers. It isn’t that it should be harder to fire teachers than any other profession, it’s just that teaching is one of the last remaining workplaces where workers have adequate protections (maybe not quite adequate) from the arbitrariness and capriciousness and vindictiveness that comes with unchecked power bestowed on today’s (and yesterday’s) management.

[report]

Posted By Kelson on March 16th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
19

Government’s job is to provide security and infrastructure. That really is it. If Wall St. dumps equity into real estate they do so at their own risk / reward. See Bear Stearns this past week. Bubbles happen, and pop. That doesn’t mean government should get involved. The little guy can protect himself. Don’t buy a house you can’t afford and don’t buy a house with a mortgage on bad terms.

Who is this management your refer to? There are good companies and bad and management is good at some and bad at some. If you think management is bad in the school system, fine. Let’s work on that. But the way to fix that problem isn’t by creating a huge beuracratic union that hurts good teachers and children. And don’t get me started on the teacher’s union fight against vouchers.

[report]

Posted By lbresident on March 16th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
20

“The little guy can protect himself” is not the issue, right? We were talking about the conditions in which people can or cannot buy homes. So when Wall St dumps a bunch of money, the issue isn’t about their risk, it’s about how it makes homes unaffordable for middle class people. When I was raised by my parents, homes were affordable by folks in the middle class. Now they simple are not. So the middle class today just doesn’t look like the middle class anymore, in large part because homeownership, what used to be one of the cornerstones of middle class society, is out of reach — and it has nothing to do with “protecting” themselves. Some other jerkweed priced them out of the market because it was simply legal to do so. And because it’s legal, we’re supposed to like it? I don’t think so. But maybe you have a very very very very very narrow definition of “security” and “infrastructure?”

[report]

Posted By Kelson on March 16th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
21

You said government’s job was to protect the little guy. I disagreed. I think the job of government is roads, fire, police, etc.

Homes are unaffordable right now because there are more people that want to buy than available houses. It’s just supply and demand. Affordability has gotten better as the speculators have moved on during the recent bubble burst. But, longer term, as long as population growth outpaces new housing units, homes will continue to become less affordable. If you want to make homes more affordable we’re going to have to build a lot more houses or hope population growth slows a lot.

The above is compounded in southern california because a lot of the cities are already built out. Screwing with the market fundamentals only makes it worse.

At the end of the day, some people will buy, some people will rent. But everyone has the opportunity to live in a clean, decent place. They just need to prioritize and make non-stupid decisions. I am not rich. But I do have a decent place to live. I just don’t have a flat screen tv. I don’t wear a lot of designer clothes. And I don’t have 4 children.

[report]

Posted By lbresident on March 16th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
22

Tonia Reyes Uranga has demonstrated her ability to tackle tough issues that matter most to residents in her district. She is an independent thinker and has been an effective change agent in implementing plans that benefit real famlies - she is well experienced to lead this state assembly seat. I am also certain that in her many years of service to Long Beach families, Tonia Reyes Uranga has demonstrated the type of integrity we want in Sacramento.

[report]

Posted By Edward Acevedo on March 16th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
23

Wow! Somebody actually responded to the story! (Not that I haven’t enjoyed the tangent the discussion has taken.) On that tip, what was that comment about Bear Stearns representing the risk/reward of investment? Didn’t they just get bailed out by the government — uhhhh, that would be us — this morning?

[report]

Posted By Dave Wielenga on March 17th, 2008 at 8:19 am
24

The share price went from $130 to $2 in a year. I don’t call that a bail out. If you were a shareholder, you got hurt, badly.

[report]

Posted By lbresident on March 17th, 2008 at 8:58 am
25

Status quo…do we really need that?

[report]

Posted By drnoe on March 17th, 2008 at 4:31 pm

DISCLAIMER: We do not screen comments in advance, but we do reserve the right to delete or edit any we find inappropriate. Please note that commenters are free to use whatever name(s) they choose.