July 6, 2006
Chamber Urges Planning Commission to Support Home Depot Project

Good afternoon, my name is Randy Gordon and I am president and CEO of the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce. I am here today on behalf of the Chamber in support of the Home Depot project. The Chamber officially supported this project in August of 2005.

Our support is based upon three major economic development priorities set by our board of directors:

1. To support improvements to major Long Beach corridors to enhance economic development and provide a positive image of the City;

2. To support private enterprise and development projects within Long Beach and the region to enhance economic development;

3. And to support the implementation of development which benefits the city and of the City of Long Beach’s Jobs and Business Strategy.

The Chamber believes that the new Home Depot project fulfills this economic development vision set by the business leaders of our city. Specifically, this project will drive $2.5 million in sales tax revenues into the city in the first five years. The project has committed $1 million in traffic improvements and they will meet a 30 percent open space requirement.

Furthermore, the council approved Jobs and Business Strategy calls for Long Beach to be “a great place to live and work, with a diversified high-quality job base and a skilled workforce.” The strategy also calls for businesses that prosper in attractive and modern industrial, office and institutional space and that we retain industrial land for manufacturing and trade so that we can achieve a prosperous economy. The Chamber believes that the proposed Home Depot project is a positive outcome of the goals set in the Jobs and Business Strategy.

For these reasons, the Chamber urges continued support of this important project.
 

August 23, 2005

Chamber Opposes Redevelopment Merger at Council Meeting; Council Votes to Not Take Over Redevelopment Agency

Good evening Mayor and members of the city council. My name is Larry Whitley and I am Chairman of the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce. I am here tonight to speak in support of the council to retain the current appointment process of the Redevelopment Agency Board Members appointed by the Mayor which has stood well through significant changes.

In late 2004, this council made the right decision to postpone a vote on the RDA until the pending independent study was completed. The study is now complete and recognizes the redevelopment agency is functioning as designed. It does NOT suggest that the redevelopment agency board be appointed by the council. The Long Beach Chamber strongly agrees.

The administration of redevelopment in Long Beach is a highly complex issue that affects a wide range of interests. Major successes under the current Redevelopment Board structure include many downtown office buildings, Pine Avenue, City Place and the Convention Center; rehabilitation of businesses and homes near Poly High; police substations; East Village Arts Park; Los Altos Market Center; and Atlantic Avenue stores in North Long Beach.

The Chamber believes that an independent board will ensure that the money will be used for redevelopment purposes. The Chamber’s reasons for supporting the current governance structure and appointment of the RDA board include:

- An independent board lessens thoughts/ideas about filling the City budget gap with redevelopment money:

- An independent board minimizes politicizing the battle for redevelopment money;

- An independent board decreases the amount of time a part time City Council would have to commit to act as the RDA Board; and

- An independent RDA Board is an independent check on the proper use of redevelopment dollars.

- The study confirm the appropriateness of the current RDA structure and process

- There is no independent data that indicates changing the way the RDA Board members are appointed would improve the RDA operations

The City Council retained its existing veto power over any and all redevelopment projects since all redevelopment projects approved by the RDA Board must go through the City Council for final approval.

The Chamber supports all efforts to increase effective communication between the council and the agency to better serve our residents. A commitment to more effective communications between the RDA and the city council is a key action step. We recognize the need to maintain the RDA’s relevance to future city development initiatives and changing the appointment aspect of the Board memberships would not necessarily impact that required relevance.

The Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce urges the council to retain the current appointment process which has stood well through significant changes and allows the RDA to retain its relevance as a city-wide tool for community and economic development.
 

August 24, 2005

Council ends bid to control RDA, defers LNG vote
 

From Don Jergler, PressTelegram

A three-year battle over redevelopment ended with a resounding conclusion Tuesday: The City Council will not take over the Redevelopment Agency any time soon.

"I think we need to end this," said Councilman Patrick O'Donnell, who reversed a position last week that would have given the council greater control over redevelopment in Long Beach. "I want the healing to begin."

However, a motion to rescind last week's decision to require council approval for redevelopment projects greater than $1 million will be placed on the Aug. 30 agenda.

One by one, council members who supported a motion that would have enabled them to appoint RDA Board members backed away from their stance. Council members and board members also promised to establish better lines of communications.

Most on the council said they just wanted to be done with the issue.

"I think we've talked this issue to death," said Councilman Dan Baker. "My votes from here on out are going to be to stop the discussion. Let's move on."

In the end, the council voted unanimously to take no action on a report issued by City Manager Jerry Miller last week for council members to appoint board members. Under the current method, the mayor makes four nominations at-large and three from a list provided by citizens advisory committees in North, West and Central Long Beach.

Last week, the council considered a proposal to have seven of the nine council members nominate RDA board members for the full council's consideration. A motion that would have disbanded the board was narrowly rejected, and put off for a vote on Tuesday.

Some council members said the board needs greater community representation and diversity, while those opposed to a takeover say having council control would politicize redevelopment.

On Tuesday, Councilwoman Laura Richardson had made a motion to have the board issue a report on what the board has adopted from a recent independent redevelopment study and meet during the spring. However, O'Donnell and the other council members wanted to put the issue to bed.

"For the last three years and one month we, the City Council, have done more damage to the RDA," said Councilman Val Lerch, who has fought takeover efforts from the beginning. "It's over with. It's done." On Tuesday, three new board members were approved for board openings. The new board members are Diane Arnold, Terry Jensen and Vivan Tobias.

The long-running debate over governance of the board was enough of a hot topic to make it the focus of interest in a $430,000 independent study released May 31.

That study, which gives overall high marks to redevelopment in Long Beach, contains myriad suggestions for improving the process, and only modestly addresses governance. It makes no specific recommendations for or against retaining an independent RDA board, though it lists many more pros than cons for keeping the board intact.
 

June 16, 2005

Long Beach Chamber Opposes Redevelopment Merger

Good evening Madam Mayor and members of the city council. My name is Larry Whitley and I am chairman-elect of the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce. I am here tonight to speak in opposition of an ordinance declaring the City Council to be the Redevelopment Agency for the City of Long Beach.

In late 2004, this council made the right decision to postpone a vote until the pending independent study was completed. The study is now complete and it is clear that there is no need for the council to eliminate the RDA board. The Long Beach Chamber strongly supports an independent RDA board.

The administration of redevelopment in Long Beach is a highly complex issue that affects a wide range of interests. Major successes under the current Redevelopment Board structure include many downtown office buildings, Pine Avenue, City Place and the Convention Center; rehabilitation of businesses and homes near Poly High; police substations; East Village Arts Park; Los Altos Market Center; and Atlantic Avenue stores in North Long Beach.

The Chamber believes that an independent board will ensure that the money will be used for redevelopment purposes. The Chamber’s reasons for supporting the current governance structure of the RDA board include:

- An independent board serves as an important check and balance system.

- An independent board minimizes politicizing the battle for redevelopment money;

- An independent board decreases the amount of time a part time City Council would have to commit to act as the RDA Board; and

During the time while we waited for the study to be completed, the City Council retained its existing veto power over any and all redevelopment projects since all redevelopment projects approved by the RDA Board must go through the City Council for final approval.

The Chamber supports all efforts to increase effective communication between the council and the agency to better serve our residents. A commitment to more effective communications between the RDA and the city council is a key action step. The Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce believes that commitment is necessary and the responsibility of this council.  

June 16, 2005

Takeover unlikely; Council retreats on RDA plans

From Don Jergler, Press Telegram

LONG BEACH -- Those pursuing a City Council takeover of the Redevelopment Agency Board backed away from their position Tuesday during what could have been the final vote on the matter.
In a reversal of his position, City Manager Jerry Milller asked council members during their meeting to allow him time to draft a plan to improve redevelopment in Long Beach, including establishing regular meetings between the council and the RDA Board.

The council voted unanimously for a motion to give Miller 45 days to produce his plan, with no comments by council members other than those by Councilwoman Tonia Reyes Uranga, who made the motion.

While her motion included orders for Miller to give a recommendation on whether the council should become the RDA Board, that's a softer position for Uranga, who has been the most vocal council member in favor of the takeover.

A vote on the proposed takeover was on the council's agenda, and many thought it would have been close.

However, a City Hall insider who spoke on condition of anonymity said that a council member told him that an informal poll before the meeting showed six council members were ready to vote against the takeover.

Ironically, their retreat has been widely credited to the takeover efforts themselves, which have fostered a steady dialogue between the two bodies.

Four joint meetings have been held between the Council and the RDA Board in the past few months to discuss a study on redevelopment and a possible council takeover. That's significantly more communication between the council and board than in recent memory, both sides have said.

For months, the proposed takeover has been one of the most divisive issues at City Hall, and the council was scheduled to formally decide Tuesday who will control tens of millions of dollars and the power of eminent domain in Long Beach.

City councils in most California cities also operate as the redevelopment agency board. Redevelopment uses tax money from property taxes to eliminate blight, as well as to rehabilitate residential, commercial, industrial and retail areas.

Takeover proponents say putting RDA Board duties in the hands of elected officials would streamline redevelopment projects, and make the practice more accountable to the public.

Those opposed to a council takeover say they are concerned redevelopment funds would be used to bail the city out of a severe general fund deficit.

Almost all of the speakers during a public comment spoke in favor of tabling the vote, or for keeping an independent RDA Board.

"This Redevelopment Agency Board has been doing a great job for years,' said Don Darnauer, a member of the Central Project Area Committee, a citizen's advisory group on redevelopment. "I don't think it's a step forward by having the council take over.'

$430,000 study

An independent study released May 31 set the stage for the council to decide whether it should assimilate the agency's duties. The study seems to indicate support for maintaining an independent RDA Board, or establishing a quasi-independent board, but offers pros and cons on both sides of the debate.

The study also recommends better communication with the public and the council on redevelopment issues.

Miller said he believes that more than two dozen items in the voluminous, $430,000 study on redevelopment can be implemented in short order, such as hiring a dedicated person for redevelopment communications.

The report states that the RDA should create a wide- ranging public-information program and dedicate RDA staff time to communication.

There has not been a paid spokesman dedicated to redevelopment since community development spokesman, Greg Davy, left the job in April 2003 to take a job with York County, Va.

RDA Board Chair John Gooding, who has fought the takeover, was encouraged by the apparent change in attitude by takeover proponents, but said he wanted action.

"I'm disappointed that the council didn't make a final decision,' Gooding said, adding, "There clearly wasn't momentum to remove the board at this time.'

Gooding and other board members, most of whom were at the council meeting, indicated support for holding regular meetings with the council.

Uranga said she hoped that the RDA board would do a better job of considering the wishes of the council.

"It's pretty clear that the City Council has been ignored,' she said.
 

June 10, 2005

The Long Beach Chamber Supports the Redevelopment Agency Study Findings

December 22, 2004

City Council Unanimously Supports Long Beach Chamber Position on Redevelopment

The City Council, at its December 21 meeting. voted unanimously to postpone the vote on the Council becoming the Redevelopment Agency Board until the study is completed in late-May 2005.

The Chamber applauds the Council's decision to wait until the study is completed and more information can be made available relative to the governance structure of the Redevelopment Agency.

The Long Beach Chamber strongly OPPOSES an ordinance declaring the City Council to be the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors UNTIL:

1. The pending redevelopment study is completed with recommendations relative to the role of the Council's oversight of the Redevelopment Agency, and

2. The redevelopment study is completed in a timely manner and an informed, public debate can take place.

On November 16, 2004, the Long Beach City Council voted 6 (Lowenthal, Baker, O'Donnell, Kell, Richardson, Uranga) to 3 (Colonna, Gabelich, Lerch) to delay a vote on merging the City Council with the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors until December 21, 2004. The Council held two study sessions to discuss the redevelopment agency issue before the December 21, 2004 vote.

Background

The administration of redevelopment in Long Beach is a highly complex issue that affects a wide range of interests.  Any action taken in haste and without a complete understanding of this issue is ill-advised.  A study is currently pending, which will include an evaluation and recommendations regarding the administration of redevelopment.  Until this study is complete and informed debate can take place, the Long Beach Chamber opposes the City Council's proposed ordinance.

Lou Anne Bynum, 2004-2005 Chairman for the Long Beach Chamber, states that the Chamber membership is concerned that the City Council is inexplicably rushing this ordinance.  “A study is expected this summer which will look at best practices for redevelopment agencies across California, including the specific issue of the City Council acting as the redevelopment agency.  The council should wait for the study before taking action.”  Ms. Bynum stated that the Long Beach Chamber was also concerned that this study has been delayed and that it should be completed as soon as possible.  

On November 11, 2004, the Long Beach Chamber of Commerce Government Affairs Council (GAC) considered issues related to the Redevelopment Proposal before the Long Beach City Council on Tuesday, November 16, 2004.  GAC considered testimony by Councilwoman Tonia Reyes Uranga (District 7), John Gooding, Chairman Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors, and Tom Fields, Vice Chairman, Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors.  

In debate, many questions were raised concerning both sides.  GAC members ultimately questioned the rush to bring this issue to Council, and expressed concerned that the Council has not had an informed debate.  Committee members also believe the redevelopment report should be completed as soon as possible with time for public debate. 

The Long Beach Chamber’s Board voted to agree with the GAC’s position.

November 17, 2004

Reviewing the Redevelopment Issue

Redevelopment has captured headlines lately in Long Beach and is paramount for our City’s prosperity. What’s it all about?

What is Redevelopment? Long Beach first adopted its Redevelopment Agency in the 1960’s and has adopted 7 redevelopment project areas. The Agency can use tax dollars for area improvements. Such areas must be urbanized and characterized by prevalent and substantial physical and economic blight. Long Beach, like many large cities, has historically appointed citizens to serve on the Redevelopment Board, which would work with local Project Area Committees (with citizens from the project area—"PACs") and other community groups to create redevelopment policy, to be approved by the City Council.

Has Redevelopment been Successful? Major successes under the Redevelopment Board include many downtown office buildings, Pine Avenue, City Place and the Convention Center; rehabilitation of businesses and homes near Poly High; police substations; East Village Arts Park; Los Altos Market Center; and, Atlantic Avenue stores in North Long Beach.

What is the Merger Issue? Project areas receive "tax increment" as their major source of funding. Some areas have a large amount of tax increment, others not so much. The larger tax increment comes from completed projects which generate larger revenues. It is argued that the areas without the increment have a larger need. A change in state law has allowed a merger of the areas, which would allow tax increment from one area to be spent in another area. Proponents also argue that merger would result in greater efficiencies and greater capacity to borrow money.

What’s the Downside to Merger? PAC’s oppose merger because they want to keep the tax increment in their local areas, which still have need. Some argue that merger would needlessly politicize the issue, causing divisions between communities vying for redevelopment money. Also, merger would have costs, including a required Environmental Impact Report. The Redevelopment Board commissioned a study on the issue, due out this summer.

Why should the Council take over redevelopment? Some argue that the Council should have greater control over redevelopment because they are more accountable to citizens than the unelected RDA Board. Removal of the RDA Board would also streamline the process. Some also argue that the council know their districts better and will be able to better allocate scarce redevelopment dollars. Finally, the Council could use some redevelopment funds to fill gaps in the City budget.

Why shouldn’t the Council take over redevelopment? The concerns include that (1.) the budget gap should not be filled with redevelopment money, (2) removal of the RDA Board would needlessly politicize the battle for redevelopment money, (3.) a part time Council does not have the time necessary to act as the RDA Board, and, (4.) the RDA Board acts as an independent check on the use of redevelopment dollars for pork barrel type politics.

Redevelopment will be an important issue for our City for years to come. Appropriately used, redevelopment will raise the City’s prosperity. Wrongly applied, redevelopment threatens to engulf the City in regional and political divisions for years to come.

Matt Kinley is a Partner with Tredway, Lumsdaine, and Doyle, LLP and is Chairman of the Chamber's Government Affairs Council

November 15, 2004

The redevelopment rush - Council should wait for facts before anointing themselves.
 

From the Press Telegram - Opinion Page

At tonight's meeting, Long Beach's City Council will take up a proposal to wipe out the city's redevelopment board and replace its members with themselves. But what's the hurry?

That's the question their own community advisers ask. That's the question also on the minds of leaders of Downtown Long Beach Associates and the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce. The council already has ordered a $350,000 study of redevelopment; why not wait to see what the study says?

Val Lerch, the only council member who has worked in the trenches of redevelopment, says he can't find anyone in town who agrees with the proposal except the six council members who are pushing it (and the staff people who work for them). Lerch says he's strongly opposed to doing away with the redevelopment board, but he'd be quick to change his position if the study were to recommend it.

Lerch plans to ask his colleagues again tonight to refrain from using redevelopment as an excuse to give themselves pay raises. (If council members appoint themselves as redevelopment board members, legally they can pay themselves whatever they want.) He tried last week and failed.

Councilmen Dan Baker, the most aggressive promoter of the redevelopment scheme, says nobody on the council is about to propose any pay raises. Councilwoman Bonnie Lowenthal maintains that, thanks to a Code of Ethics and other restraints, nobody should be worried about council members using redevelopment to feather their own nests inappropriately. Maybe.

That aside, Baker and others say redevelopment projects take too long and council members are accountable anyway, so there shouldn't be an appointed redevelopment board in the mix. But neighborhood advisers who serve on project area committees disagree. So do the business and professional people serving on the Redevelopment Board.

Accountability isn't the real issue. Neither are delays. Pay raises and ethical behavior are side issues. The real issues are control and careerism.

Millions of dollars are available for redevelopment projects. Certain council members with career plans want to decide among themselves where and how that money gets spent, and who gets credit for it. City Hall management people want to spend the money where it will take the most pressure off their budget problems.

Redevelopment is supposed to clean up blight. But blight gets defined loosely, as in paying for a new public building that should be financed from the general fund, or rebuilding a shopping mall in a decidedly unblighted part of town. Neighborhood advisers and business people don't always agree with politicians and bureaucrats on the definitions.

But agree or disagree, opponents of tonight's proposal are asking only that a system that's been in place for decades not be disassembled until completion of a study that will analyze how well the system works.