Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske has called for a closed City Council session to discuss the land swap that is intended to preserve at least part of Los Cerritos Wetlands initially after learning about "outrageous" documents that reveal e-mail conversations between city officials and Tom Dean, who owns the wetlands.
Schipske and many community members previously had raised concerns about the deal, for which the City Council gave City Manager Pat West authority to finalize in February, and were skeptical about whether the city was getting a good trade. In the deal, the city is swapping its 12.1-acre public service yard by the Los Angeles River for 33.77 acres of the wetlands on the Eastside south of 2nd Street next to Studebaker Road. The city hopes to eventually acquire the entire 175-acre Bixby Ranch portion of the wetlands. The council voted 6-2, with Schipske and Councilwoman Rae Gabelich dissenting.
A published report in The District Weekly the last week about e-mail documents obtained by a concerned citizen reveal some potentially troubling conversations between Dean and Director of Public Works Mike Conway, who is leading the city's negotiations. Among other things, Conway gave Dean his personal e-mail for unknown reasons and seems to be bending over backwards to help Dean in the deal, noting in e-mails that the deal will be "excellent" for Dean and "defensible (barely)" for the city.
"I am also concerned to read in the documents the costs to remediate the contamination of the City Public Service Yard. This cost was not disclosed during Council discussions of this transaction," Schipske said in a statement.
Schipske said she is calling for a closed session because City Attorney Robert Shannon has said that is how real estate transactions should be handled. In the meantime, Schipske wants City Manager Pat West to hold off on finalizing the deal.
Paul Eakins reports on Long Beach City Hall, and local and regional
politics. A newcomer to the Press-
Kris Hanson reports on the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles,
covering environmental issues, economic triumphs and
pitfalls and trade trends of America’s largest port.
He also writes a weekly column “On The Waterfront”,
appearing Tuesdays, and also produces an occassional video
and column titled “On The Job,” which follows the hard-working
men and women who keep Southern California’s economy humming.
Karen Robes Meeks came to work for the Press-
The following is a portion of the wetlands negotiations emails prior to presentation to City Council. On October 14, developer Tom Dean emails Public Works Director Mike Conway, “It looks like we have an Amerigas appraisal but not the Sports Park, am I missing it?”
Mr. Conway responds to Mr. Dean, “I PURPOSELY AVOIDED APPRAISALS SO THAT VALUE WAS NOT THE PRIMARY FOCUS OF THE TRADE (caps mine)....How do you want to handle?”
Mr. Dean responds to Mr. Conway, “Are you going to need one for the trade?”
Mr. Conway responds to Mr. Dean, “I don’t currently intend to.”
First, if Mr. Conway does not wish to use the property value as the basis of negotiations, what is he using? How does one negotiate a trade without knowing the value of what is being traded?
Second, is it common for the city staff person negotiating in the best interest of the public to ask his counterpart how they want to proceed with the negotiations?
There is another curious comment Mr. Dean made on February 12, 2009 when he sent an email to Mike Conway titled, Closing of LCW part 1, where he talks about closing the sale of the wetlands. In the email Mr. Dean states to Mr. Conway, “I look forward to closing the first part of the trade with you…. I am putting together six copies of the due diligence disc that has the reports from WHEN WE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FOR YOU (caps mine)."
Doesn't this make you wonder whether the City of Long Beach had a prearranged agreement with Tom Dean that encouraged his original purchase of the wetlands last year for sale to the city? If so, what was the agreement and why wasn’t it disclosed from the beginning?
On January 29, 2009, Mr. Dean’s lobbyist and former City Manager Jerry Miller sent an email to Mike Conway regarding the February 3rd City Council meeting on the wetlands exchange, “Do you anticipate objections from Coastal Commission on the 3rd to referring this matter to City Manager for presentation of the deal on the 10th? Stated another way, ARE THERE FIVE VOTES TO APPROVE TUESDAY'S REQUEST (caps mine)?”
The next day, Mr. Conway response to Mr. Miller is, “WE'RE COUNTING FIVE, MAYBE SIX IN POCKET.”
Mr. Miller’s response to Mr. Conway, “PER YOUR SUGGESTION, I believe Belinda Faustinos, Jerry Schubel and Mary Parcel (El Dorado Park Chapter of Audubon) will be present. I am still working on Port of LB representative and Lenny Arkenstall (the official docent/caretaker of the LCW). I believe we’ll also have a letter from Catalina Conservancy. There will be a few other friendly faces in the audience as well.”
When did it become common practice for the city staff person negotiating in the best interest of the public to work with Mr. Dean’s lobbyist to secure council votes and speakers to support the deal he negotiated with Mr. Dean?
Why should city staff suggest taking a position one way or another on a deal they have negotiated? I thought they were supposed to be unbiased.