"Patronizing" letter? Read for yourself

Previous Entry | Next Entry
| | Comments (0) |

Long Beach City Attorney Bob Shannon calls it "patronizing."

Councilmembers agreed.

A letter addressed to the city council from a State Lands Commission attorney caused a bit of an uproar at Tuesday's meeting as members were deliberating a proposal to increase the annual transfer of port profits to city coffers.

The letter apparently bypassed Shannon's office in the hours before Tuesday night's meeting, prompting the city's top legal mind to blast it's "nature and tone" as "very unprofessional."

"It would be interesting to know where this came from and why...who was behind it," Shannon said. "I consider it very unprofessional."

To be fair, he's previously counseled the city's elected leaders as what they can and can't do with port profits. Much of what is in the state lands letter has been discussed - in public and private - by Shannon.

The city is considering increasing the transfer amount from 10 percent to 15 percent or higher - or setting a minimum dollar amount. The transfer this year garnered the city about $16 million for beach upkeep, lifeguard patrols and other uses along the waterfront.

The letter, signed by State Lands Commission attorney Jennifer Lucchesi, asks the city to reconsider its proposal to study increasing the transfer amount or setting a minimum dollar amount - a move Lucchesi and others contend may violate the spirit of a 1911 California law which gave Long Beach control of day-to-day port operations.

Port authorities and the businesses they serve also worry the move may prompt other cash-strapped cities to raid port profits in communities up and down the coast.

The law basically says that profit derived from public lands must be reinvested in ways that benefit the statewide public and not a municipality or local agency.

"The overarching principle of the Public Trust Doctrine is that trust asset lands and trust assets belong to the statewide public and are to be used to benefit the statewide public rather than for local community or municipal purposes," Lucchesi said in the letter.

Siphoning of port profits in Long Beach, which began during another fiscal crisis in 1993, is now limited under city law to no more than 10 percent. Any changes increasing or in any way altering that amount would need voter approval.

 

 

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

About the Bloggers

Paul Eakins reports on Long Beach City Hall, and local and regional politics. A newcomer to the Press-
Telegram, he previously has covered local and state government and politics in San Diego County, Mexico and his home state of Kansas.

E-mail Paul at paul.eakins@presstelegram.com.


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.

E-mail Kris at kristopher.hanson@
presstelegram.com
.


Karen Robes Meeks came to work for the Press-
Telegram in April 2002 as a beat reporter, covering the cities of Lakewood, Bellflower and Paramount. She now covers business, specifically redevelopment, tourism and small businesses. She also writes Eye on Redevelopment, a monthly column that appears in the Business Monday section.

E-mail Karen at karen.robes@presstelegram.com.


About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Kristopher Hanson published on September 24, 2009 1:30 PM.

Chamber opposes increasing port transfer; council to study further was the previous entry in this blog.

City offices close Friday for last furlough day is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Powered by Movable Type 4.25