City Staff Effort to Kill Prior Efforts for Transparency -- Stopped by Planning Commission

The Press Telegram announced at the beginning of the year that it would take on "transparency"as a major issue in the City of Long Beach...okay...so where is the editorial criticizing the Mayor-appointed Planning Commission's agenda item that would eliminate the requirements of public notice within 750 feet of a proposed development to 300 feet and completely eliminate notification of tenants and instead require the erection of a large sign?

In 2009, Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske authored legislation that expanded the requirements to notify residents of proposed development from 300 to 750 feet and to make certain renters as well as property owners received notice.

This week, the Planning Commission took up a staff recommendation to reduce the notification requirements but rebuffed the idea on a 4-0 vote.

You can thank the members of the Planning Commission for their votes (click here to see who they are) and make sure to contact your Councilmember and insist this issue not be taken up by the Council, especially since the City is getting ready to start approving a long list of developments.

Here is what the Planning Commission staff recommended. Notice the complaint that the City has "bad addresses." (No one could get the list cleaned up??)

Public Noticing Requirements Staff Report

Related articles

• Open Government Partnership and Fiscal Transparency
• Open Data at Berkeley
• Civic Awesome: Open Data New For The Week Of January 9, 2015

City Hall Survey on "New" Civic Center Misses Important Question for Taxpayers: Do You Want the City To Obligate Money for a New Structure?

The train has left the station about what would be included in the design and build of a "new civic" center. But no doubt insiders at City Hall are touting the on-line survey posted at http://lbciviccenter.com/ which asks a series of questions about the potential  "New Civic Center" as "public engagement."

Admittedly, there are questions asking for input on this project which is estimated to cost between $380 million to $463 million dollars. 

But the first three questions are "softballs" -- intended to make it seem this is providing real input. The subjects of the remaining questions (4-9) are ALREADY INCLUDED in the proposal picked by the City Council as elements offered by the developer. 

The rest of the questions are included perhaps to make the case that the City Hall and City Library are not utilized very much and therefore are an afterthought in what the real intention of developing this parcel of land is really about.

But check the questions out and find what wasn't asked:

 Where are the questions about whether or not taxpayers want the City to obligate taxpayers in any financing scheme let alone one which will obligate taxpayers for many years? With dire predictions about pension costs and low oil revenues, is this the most prudent use of tax dollars?

Also missing, are questions as to whether or not taxpayers would prefer that the City Hall be retrofitted. You have to ask yourselves if the structure is so unsafe (which staff has claimed since 2007) then why is it still occupied and why will it continue to be occupied until a new building is completed in 2018?

A hidden fact is that the RFQ included a statement that the developer would be given the Lincoln Parking Garage (which generates a great deal of revenue for the City). When is the public going to be asked about that transaction?

Long Beach Inside will keep looking at this project.

Related articles

• Expert calls for more awareness on PPP projects
• Is Two Better Than One? The Public-Private Partnership- Chuck Brooks
• What Makes Public-Private Partnerships Work? An Economic Analysis