News

PAIN IN THE ASPHALT

Dave WielengaWed. July 30
 

Belmont Shore businessmen want taxpayers to pay for improvements around their properties


PHOTO by JENNY STOCKDALE

A small group of wealthy Belmont Shore businessmen and landowners, some who hold quasi-governmental positions, are taking another run at a $5.8 million bond issue to pave alleys around their properties and pay one of them—former city councilman Frank Colonna—$1.5 million for a parking lot that serves the tenants of his building.

Belmont Shore Business Association President Gene Rotondo and the Belmont Shore Parking Commission Chairman Bill Lorbeer and Vice-Chairman Kurt Schneiter put the same proposal before the same property owners in March.

“I don’t think there’s any controversy,” Lorbeer told The District before the March vote. “Who wouldn’t want the alleys resurfaced and trash put in a single trash enclosure in a parking lot? Those alleys are 30, 40, 50 years old, broken and cracked and dirty and smelly. Who doesn’t want that fixed? And in terms of the proposal to purchase the parking lot currently owned by Frank Colonna, who doesn’t want to preserve parking in Belmont Shore? Nobody objects to that.”

Not quite nobody, as it turned out: The referendum lost when the plan failed to get two-thirds of the votes of local property owners.

What makes the men think they can win this time? The rules have changed to increase the weight of their votes. Instead of each property owner getting one vote per acre or less, the new rules link landowners’ votes to how much money they would pay in increased taxes, thus giving the wealthier landowners more votes.

The Long Beach City Council approved that change in the municipal code, then unanimously approved the Belmont Shore powerbrokers’ request for a public hearing on Aug. 5, when a new election can be green-lighted.

But as eight council members were silently pushing their YES buttons at the July 22 meeting, mayor Bob Foster—who doesn’t get to vote—looked rather uncomfortable. “I’m gonna flag this,” he said. “I just want to make sure that the property owners involved who may benefit from this, that there are safeguards—that there’s no conflict-of-interest here.”

Good lookin’ out. Rotondo has financial interest in several Belmont Shore bars, including Legends. Lorbeer and his family constitute one of the biggest landholders on Second Street and its side streets, and some of his fellow parking commissioners are also tenants in his buildings. Commissioner Schneiter also owns significant property in the area. Jim McCabe, a retired Long Beach deputy city attorney, voiced his objections to the situation before the July 22 council meeting, calling it “inappropriate and highly unfair.” McCabe was following up on a complaint he sent the day before to Foster and all nine city council members.

The District Weekly has obtained a copy of that letter, in which McCabe laid out the tightly knit politics of Belmont Shore—the relationship among members of the Parking Commission, the Business Association, former Third District City Councilman (and prominent real estate mogul) Colonna and current Third District City Councilman Gary DeLong.

“The Parking Commission is controlled by large landlords and it and the Belmont Shore Business Association behave as though they are of one mind,” McCabe wrote. “The Gene Rotondo-led Business Association rents its offices from a large Belmont Shore landlord, the Colonna family. The Business Association endorsed Gary DeLong for election to the city council. Gary DeLong successfully proposed a $500,000 city loan for bar owner Gene Rotondo, a major tenant of [Bill] Lorbeer. Part of the proposed bond issue will pay Frank Colonna $1.5 million so that a Colonna-owned parking lot can be used as a parking lot convenient to one of Frank Colonna’s buildings. Colonna is, of course, a large landowner in the Shore. Around and around we go.”

While McCabe was addressing the city council meeting, DeLong took issue with his characterization that he had “successfully proposed a $500,000 city loan” for Rotondo, insisting that the loan was brought forward and worked out by city staff.

Minutes of the July 5, 2007, city council meeting show that DeLong made the motion to approve the loan—$500,000 at seven percent interest for seven years; it was seconded by Second District City Council member Suja Lowenthal. Before the final vote, DeLong gave the loan a glowing endorsement, calling it “a great thing.”

Tags: , , , , ,

Viewing 26 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Dave: Playing devil's advocate here, but advocacy is neither monarchy nor oligarchy.

    Doesn't the fact that there exist 9 Council members prevent the sort of cabal-like activity you're implying is in evidence here? Any Council member can make a motion and any other Council member can second it, but must not a majority of the members agree for a motion...any motion...to pass? The fact that, as you point out, this initiative has been attempted once before, and defeated, would seem to indicate that those so strongly endorsing it are not nearly as powerful or omnipotent as you infer.

    Why is one special interest group's desire to seek a bond measure for the improvement of alleyways in *their* neighborhood any different from another special interest group's seeking a moratorium on check cashing establishments in *theirs*?

    I don't recall noting any objections (other than mine) when that other special interest group petitioned their Councilmember to move their initiative forward to impose a moratorium on check cashing businesses in their part of the city. This their Council representative did, even taking it further and asking her colleagues to declare that an "urgency" existed and to apply the moratorium citywide and this a majority of the Council chose to do.

    I disagreed, and vehemently, with that ordinance but isn't that how a municipal corporation that operates under a Council-Manager form of government and in compliance with our State Constitution is supposed to work? An electorate, either individually or collectively, advocates for certain benefits, for themselves, for others or for both; they petition their elected representatives to move their initiative forward and then they either prevail or do not according to the rules establishing their governance?

    And why is it important to describe those seeking this bond as "wealthy Belmont Shore businessmen and landowners"? Is it somehow a crime to own property, to accumulate wealth or to become successful in business? Is that not something many, if not most, of us aspire to ourselves? Do not business owners, wealthy or otherwise, create jobs and other opportunities, pay taxes and fees and sell products and services that the rest of us desire to buy? Why is being such a person a bad thing? Do not most of us aspire to own property, either one parcel, or several or many? Why then are those who are owners looked upon as somehow sinister or unscrupulous?

    Also, wouldn't these alley improvements benefit everyone who lives in, works in or visits the area? Everyone who, in fact, uses the alleys? Wouldn't the parking lot in question serve far more people than just "the tenants of (Colonna's) building"?

    Argue against this initiative on its merits, or lack thereof, Dave. But it seems to me that attacking those who seek to move this forward is no different from attacking every other special interest group throughout this city that has appealed to the Council representative to get something done for them.

    I'm just asking...
    • ^
    • v
    It was the Mayor who listened uncomfortably to the give-and-take at the July 22 council meeting and spoke up, deeming the situation worth sorting through for potential conflicts-of-interest. I don't think I was demonizing the men for their money, but if you think their power and their positions on those commissions aren't connected to the "freedom of speech" they can measure in dollars and cents then you may be naive. If you check out the structure of the Business Association and the Parking Commission, you'll find that the leadership circle is a tough one to break into and that those leaders have control over a lot of public money in an area of town where they own lots of private property. What's so bad about pointing out a potential conflict-of-interest before an upcoming council vote on a matter of importance? But to be completely honest, it wasn't me who pointed it out---it was Mayor Bob Foster, who's amassed more than a little money and toys over the years, himself. I just took his lead and reported it. I'm just saying...
    • ^
    • v
    Fair enough, Dave. Thanks!
    • ^
    • v
    Dave, excellent job as always .Gary quietly tried to slip this inequitable scam past us and a few good folks raised a red flag. We can and will urge a NO vote. This has been very unpopular in the rest of the District for years. You greedy fat cats need us to pay for your alleys while the rest of our roads and sidewalks crumble? And as buildings crumble or close? Isn't it a cost of business for all the people that you draw down there? The alleys smell? Pay to have them cleaned behind your bars and grills? Insist on clean dumpsters too? Spend a little and contribute some concrete or asphalt repair, others do?

    I know few that visit the shore much anymore because the parking is horrible, as is the traffic, noise and rowdiness? All the added density, pull through in or out traffic from downtown,and loads of promised, required, but never performed traffic or other mitigation in and around the area, has harmed us all in some tangible, palpable way.

    Put the dough towards test lowering sections of the breakwater, stormwater filters, sewer shutoff valves and alarms, and Wetlands restoration. We are fully built out.
    • ^
    • v
    yes, agree w/ coastal advocate. good job reporting this story mr. wielenga
    • ^
    • v
    Isn't it interesting that there are streets and alleys in Europe that haven't been repaved in hundreds of years and they are still clean smelling and functional?
    • ^
    • v
    The Belmont Shore Parking Commission was formed to improve parking conditions on 2nd street. Instead, the public money pays for widening sidewalks that are now rented out to tenants without any parking requirements (worsening the parking problems) and pay for various "improvements" that should be paid for by the property owners.

    The City has spent hundred of thousand of dollars on parking studies. One of these studies recommended off site shuttle parking for the 1000+ employees.

    Along with an employee shuttle the City should consider residential street parking meters. Resident parking meters would allow the public to park for a short period of time (2 hours). Residents parking stickers would allow residents to park without meter restrictions. The meters would pay for the cost of the stickers.

    The BS Parking Commission should go back to its core mission, which is to improve the parking on 2nd street and lessen the negative impact of business on residents.
    • ^
    • v
    The BS (how appropriate) parking commissioners are two-legged pigs at the trough, never getting enough to fill their bloated gullets.
    • ^
    • v
    2nd St. in Belmont Shore continues to be a popular, successful, district. Much of this is because of the money spent on sidewalk widening, landscaping improvements, etc. This is another effort to improve the asethics and will benefit everyone who visits and lives in the Shore, not just the business owners.

    The District is a great opportunity for critically investigating the happenings in Long Beach. But lately the articles and in particular the reader postings have become such a liberal, whine fest of conspiracy theories that it is hard to take it seriously. I really hope The District continues to investigate and report but pull back a little on the bias and belief that everything is a conspiracy driven by "evil rich people" meant to attack the poor working folk.
    • ^
    • v
    Hi lbresident.... I again will point out that it was not me who noticed the potential conflict-of-interest --- or conspiracy, if you prefer --- but Mayor Bob Foster. I just reported on what happened, and the upcoming City Council meeting to consider another bond referendum.
    • ^
    • v
    I don't think there is a problem of bringing up the issue (you or Foster). I was more commenting about the characterization of the business owners. There is a tone in the article. It's ok as you have a reader base that it resonates with. I just think it's pushing the envelope. Who cares though it's just one man's opinion...
    • ^
    • v
    If the Belmont Shore Business Association wants the improvements bad enough, why don't they leverage their assets and pay for them? After all, they're the ones who will benefit the most. Taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize their enterprises.
    • ^
    • v
    Actually as a resident I think I benefit a lot from these improvements.
    • ^
    • v
    lbresident... You live in an alley?
    • ^
    • v
    The Belmont Shore Business Improvement Area property assessments are not tied to inflation. Over the past 15-20 years their financial contribution to the 2nd street has gotten worth less and less. Yet their demand that the City improves their property or pay for their business development has gotten louder and more political.

    The BS Parking Commission recently changed the hours of the meters and upped the cost for people to park. It might be fun to track how little they are now contributing in real dollars to the fund.

    The BSBA is making money off of 2nd street events (wonder why they want two 3 story advertising signs?). Event profits go into their coffers to spend on their own advertising. The City Auditor questioned why these pseudo non-profits did not adequately pay for City services/staff/permits for these large events.

    The sales tax revenues to the City from 2nd street business is $900,000, the Parking Meter revenue is about $500,000, and the Business Association makes over $100,000 (need to verify the precise number) from events.

    So the Business District gets $600,000 dollars while the City only benefits by $300,000 minus the unpaid costs of events minus the cost of extra police because of all the bar problems. I'd say its break even at best.

    Resident's property tax is worth more than the pittance 2nd street contributes to the City's coffers. 2nd street business leases/thriple nets are some of the highest in Southern California. The City is broke. Why is the City handing out this outrageouly large subsidy to 2nd street property owners?
    • ^
    • v
    Wow! Expect an onslaught from the (spoiled brat) commissioner(s)/landlord(s). Busted with both hands on the teats!

    I bet the chamber awards them this year for "best corporate welfare."

    Look, second street, even going back to pre-earthquake days, was always a "cool" place to go, and there was always an abundance of successful establishments to take your money.

    (Certain whorish carpetbaggers wouldn't know this).
    • ^
    • v
    Oh I see, the city of LB doesn't have enough money to keep libraries open (WAR ON BOOKS, Chris Ziegler, Fri. July 25, "FIRST ACRES, NOW MAIN LIBRARY READY FOR CLOSURE...") and properly stocked, but there's money to subsidize some of our wealthiest residents' pet projects? That makes so much sense...
    • ^
    • v
    Very excellent point Cyndie! Let's see how your city government and the BSBA offers a rebuttal for that one.
    • ^
    • v
    Cyndie (17) and Juan (18): A brief primer concerning bond measures, if I may: Bonds are sold to raise money for municipal projects not otherwise already funded. Thus the bond being sought in this case is intended to raise additional funds for this particular project. There is no "money to subsidize some of wealthiest residents' pet projects" as you erroneously assert. This is precisely why the proponents are seeking the bond...to raise that money.

    We, the electorate, must approve such bonds because they are repaid with interest, in large part, by tax increases. In other words, if we are to be taxed, we are afforded the opportunity to refuse...as was the case the last time this bond measure was attempted, and defeated, back in March.

    Our city government is (or should be) an extension of ourselves. Those we elect are constitutionally mandated to represent the interests of the majority of those who elected them.

    I feel strongly that we, the electorate, are long overdue for a bit of a paradigm shift. We must change the way we have been looking at our government at all levels, including, or one might say ESPECIALLY, at the local level, where public policy decisions effect us much more quickly and far more directly. It’s also at the local level that we have the best opportunity for direct input.

    In short, we must recall that we are in charge of our government, and not it, of us.

    Once we recall that one essential and critical fact, we must then begin to behave accordingly.

    1. We must participate more in the process of selecting our representatives. We must vote. If we would all simply do that, we would ensure that our representatives are actually chosen by a majority of us, rather than merely a majority of those who bother to get to the polling place.

    2. We must communicate what we want. We must be on a first name basis with our local representatives and they must hear from us so much that they recognize our names as soon as they see them on the envelope, on the email or in the voicemail. we must demand that they be responsive to us...the people that they work for.

    3. We must stop tolerating abuse and corruption. When such acts are alleged they must be investigated thoroughly, rapidly and unequivocally. If such allegations are proven true then the violator must be removed from their elected position of trust immediately and then prosecuted criminally if their actions sink to that level.

    If only we could return to those three basic principles of citizenship, we would never need to worry about special interests or corrupt politicians.

    Against a truly informed and involved electorate, such creatures wouldn't stand a chance...
    • ^
    • v