Category Archives: Rants

 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

Two Redondo sailing teammates plan to take on the world

RUHS sailors Micky Munns and Michael Fineman have their sights set on sailing in the 2018 International 420 (I420) World Championship in Newport RI, in August. Talent, grit and hard work have put them on a course that may enable them to test their skills against the world’s best sailors in the I420, a two person boat sailed by youth and adult sailors worldwide.

Remarkably, the young sailors have organized the six-month campaign that will lead to the east coast sailing capital (a term coined by Newport, RI locals) with limited outside help. It started when they began sailing Club 420s (C420) together in fall 2017.

The I420 is a more technical version of the C420. The I420 is also less popular, so there are fewer boats available to young sailors. I420s are so rare, when Munns/Fineman needed a boat for the West Coast Championship last November, they had to go all the way to San Diego. They finished fourth in that regatta after only a few hours of practice in a boat neither young man had sailed before.

That success planted the seed that grew quickly into the dream of taking on the world’s best. Big dreams often come with bigger challenges. The South Bay sailors soon discovered the opportunity to compete against the best in the world wasn’t going to be given to them. They were going to have to win it.

Good coaching can produce results in most sports, including sailing. Munns/Fineman found world-class coach Maru Urban the same place they found the boat, San Diego. Among other accomplishments, Maru coached the US Sailing team in the 2016 Rio Olympics. The young sailors worked with Maru for six days of intense training in December.

Their work with Maru will be put the test in January. The teammates will travel to Miami to compete in the North American I420 Championships. They go to Miami again in February for the I420 Midwinter Championships. Their scores for the two events will determine whether they go to Worlds next summer.

The South Bay team scans the field of competitors at the two upcoming qualifying events and they see sailors with decades more experience, better equipment and intimate knowledge of the local sailing venue. “It’s kind of an uphill battle,” Munns said.

They also see something much more clearly than those challenges. They see themselves standing on the podium with medals around their necks, proudly representing southern California and the South Bay. The smart money is betting on Munns/Fineman to make an impressive splash in waters off Newport, RI next summer.

Learn more about the I420 campaign and donate at

Trojan Boat Ramp

Remember the story of the Trojan horse (nothing to do with USC)? The Greeks and Trojans were engaged in an epic battle. One day, the Trojans awoke to find a huge wooden horse standing outside their city gates. The Greek army was nowhere to be seen.

The Trojans figured their enemies had given up and honored Troy’s victory by building the horse, which was the ancient city’s mascot. They opened the gates and rolled in the statue.

The Trojans partied while the Greeks hidden inside the horse waited patiently. You probably know the rest. The Greeks piled out of the horse after the Trojans passed out and defeated them from inside, rather than outside the walled city.

The concept of a Trojan horse has become a metaphor for sneaking anything that’s disguised as something else past unsuspecting observers who choose to see what’s presented to them rather than what’s hidden inside. Measure C contains just such a Trojan horse in the form of a boat ramp.

Measure C supporters would tell you there’s nothing hidden about the boat ramp but I beg to differ. Granted, there’s nothing hidden about the fact the boat ramp could kill the CenterCal project all by itself.

By my estimate, the boat ramp would take 20%-25% of the land available for development. The ramp won’t generate any significant revenue. In addition to reducing the potential revenue-generating land, a ramp would cost the developer money.

One thing that’s hidden in Measure C’s language is the fact the ramp described in the initiative and the necessary space for parking and maneuvering vehicles could only fit one place, the area bordered by Samba, Captain Kidd’s and R/10.

Samba would get demolished to make way for the ramp. The entire parking area from the driveway behind the tollbooth to the water would be devoted to trailer/vehicle parking.

If you like the walkway between the fishing pier and South Bay Sailing, voting for Measure C may allow you to continue to enjoy a marina view from that long stretch of open sidewalk. Unfortunately, there will be a portion of that stroll that will tilt down to the water and require you to dodge boat trailers and trucks during your walk.

Measure C requires, “…safe launch and recovery in surge conditions…” I recently observed a surge of about three to four feet in the area of the Measure C boat ramp, on a fairly calm day. There were no waves breaching the breakwater, even at the lowest part near the harbor entrance.

The only way I can see to reduce surge in the area of the marina where surge is greatest (the boat ramp location) would be to build a detached breakwater inside the harbor. Can you imagine removing even more of the already tiny recreational space inside King Harbor? Probably not and it’s just as likely the state and federal agencies that would need to approve such an obstruction to navigation wouldn’t be able to imagine it either.

For that reason and others, it would be impossible to meet the boat ramp requirements written into Measure C. Measure C’s authors either didn’t think it through carefully or they didn’t care. Or…they want to add impossible requirements to our current zoning.

I have a boat on a trailer sitting in my driveway. I served six years as the Boater’s Representative on the RB Harbor Commission. Boats and boat ramps are important to me and many other potential beneficiaries of a King Harbor boat ramp.

That’s probably why it irritates me to see a boat ramp used by non-boaters to further their political agenda. A vote for Measure C is a vote for stalemate, more regulation and status quo. Allow King Harbor to become more than it is today. Vote NO on Measure C.

Supersized Regulations

You will see various Redondo city documents refer to the harbor area between Torrance Boulevard and Herondo as the Harbor Enterprise. Like most successful enterprises, the Redondo Beach Harbor Enterprise generates a substantial amount of money. Benefits of that cash are enjoyed by everyone in and around the city.

Lots of families pay their mortgages or rent, pay for their kids’ daycare, healthcare and much more with the money they make within the Harbor Enterprise. Their very existence comes from the work they do in that relatively small plot of land. Many of us derive great pleasure from the time we spend boating, fishing, swimming or just relaxing in and around King Harbor.

The Redondo Beach Harbor Enterprise makes enough money to pay all its own expenses and then some. Even those of us who don’t work in or even visit the harbor enjoy the benefits of that financial success.

Regulation is necessary to keep business from interfering with the public good. Elected officials at all levels of government spend a considerable amount of time crafting regulations that protect the public while enabling business to succeed and thrive. We expect them to find the balance between protecting the public’s interests and allowing businesses to succeed. Over-regulation upsets that balance. Business suffers as a result.

I recently read the proposed language for Measure C, the ballot initiative that claims it will “Revitalize not Supersize!”. The citizens of Redondo Beach are being asked to enact this extremely complex set of restrictive rules that I can only describe as the worst case of over-regulation I’ve seen in years. Every voter in Redondo Beach should read the document posted on the city web site before stepping into the voting booth.

You have to ask yourself, do I really care about most of this stuff? Do things like the type of keys used in hotel rooms matter to me? Do I really care about how long a hotel owner maintains records of room rental rates? Do I want to approve a boat ramp that will take away 120 parking spaces directly adjacent to the harbor without conducting a study to see if any of those parking spaces will ever be used by boat owners?

Perhaps the most important questions are, who thinks 27 pages of incomprehensible, new regulations are a good thing for Redondo Beach and why do they try so hard to sell it to us?

The citizens of Redondo Beach approved Measure G in 2010. It took years of hard work by city councils, mayors, commissions, city staff , consultants, and citizens to come up with that complex set of regulations. A majority of voters agreed, those land use guidelines were what we needed to move forward with reasonable redevelopment of King Harbor. An additional 27 pages of regulations was not needed then and it is not needed now.

The proponents of Measure C say it was “…written by residents for residents”. I’m a resident of Redondo Beach. I didn’t write this business-crushing set of unnecessary regulations. Did you?

A Call to Action

Those who oppose or as I call them, The Opponents, are at it again. They held a press conference recently announcing their intention to get an initiative on the ballot that will propose scaled back development (I’m paraphrasing. I wasn’t there). I don’t really feel obligated to supply the details here. You can get them pretty easily elsewhere.

This initiative should be stopped before it gets approved for the ballot. As a community, I believe we have the ability to do exactly that.

If you look deeper into the backgrounds of the people who lead the charge for the status quo you will find they work for big companies like American Airlines and Northrop Grumman. They work for companies they did nothing to build. Their jobs were just there when they applied. All they had to do was get someone in the company to tell them they were hired. No one among them knows the least bit about business or community planning yet they believe they should be allowed to dictate to this community what it will and will not do with its most valuable resource.

I do believe they understand that if they can thwart a project that is capable of supporting itself financially by promising to scale down development, they can eliminate development altogether. The beauty of that plan is that they can create an environment in which no developer would touch King Harbor, then come away saying, “we were all for development, just not as much as the city council approved.”

The most important thing the people of this community can do now to ensure we get a waterfront we can all use and enjoy is to get out and stand side by side with the paid operatives they will have collecting signatures for their initiative. We need to talk to our neighbors while the people from out of state holding clipboards pretend to know our city and try to get them to support yet another plan…to have no plan.

We need to mobilize. We need to stand in front of Von’s and Whole Foods and go one-on-one with their paid operatives. Before our friends and neighbors provide their signatures, we need to have a few seconds to explain to them why an initiative would scuttle the CenterCal plan and leave us with no plan and little hope of transforming our waterfront to match the needs of this community in this century.

I’m ready to sign up to pull some shifts around the city and to help educate my fellow citizens. Are you?

Vision and Opportunity, King Harbor’s Future and Its Past

A twenty-year career in recreational boating afforded me some insights into that industry and the places where people enjoy their recreational boats. I often called on that expertise during my two terms on the Redondo Beach Harbor Commission.

The boat business taught me many things, not least of which was to look for other examples of any endeavor I was about to undertake. So as I examine the inevitable conversations that have arisen around the Redondo Beach waterfront development plans, I find myself looking at other harbors for answers.

Recreational boating didn’t exist when most of the major U. S. harbors began taking shape. People, goods and commodities crossed oceans and moved along coastlines by ship. Harbors and bays were places where ships could load and unload their cargo and passengers. Warships used coastal harbors during and between wars.

Up and down the east coast, fortunes of places like Portland, Maine, Boston and New York ebbed and flowed with changing trends in transportation, war and society. Wooden shipbuilding, once the lifeblood of many northeast port cities, disappeared in the early 20th century. Steel hulls required a different set of natural resources, tools and skills. It was no longer necessary to set up shop near forests and logging operations to ensure the supply of lumber.

Railroads spread out like a spider’s web connecting cities and towns. Farmers discovered it was cheaper to send their crops and livestock to larger ports by rail instead of using smaller, local ports.

Industries such as whaling boomed for a while then nearly disappeared. Harbors that were once home to whaling fleets, vibrant wooden shipbuilding industries and transshipment of agricultural products adapted and evolved to accommodate changing times.

History of west coast ports doesn’t stretch back as far as that of their east coast cousins but we see the same patterns. The Navy had a substantial base in Long Beach for nearly a century. It included a shipyard and shore side facilities including housing and a hospital.

Most of the Navy’s activities in Long Beach were curtailed by 2000. The shipyard, docking and land facilities have been converted to accommodate commercial shipping. Every harbor I know that has been used as a harbor for any substantial amount of time has undergone change due to the changing needs of the community that uses it.

Redondo Beach had a robust commercial harbor around the time the Navy began expanding in Long Beach. Mariners discovered the deep water trench leading up to what’s now King Harbor enabled them to bring in deep-draft ships laden with lumber and other materials needed to support a growing population.

A shift in commercial shipping to the Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach forced Redondo Beach to repurpose itself. The 225-room Hotel Redondo helped the city transition into a popular tourist destination. Reliable rail and steamer service made it easy to get here. (For a much more rich and detailed account of Redondo’s history visit the historical society,

The industry that had serviced commercial shipping moved south and a new industry devoted to tourism took its place. The embedded community grew along with the hordes of visitors.

The next repurposing of Redondo’s harbor came in the early 1960s when the current breakwater was built to accommodate recreational boating. It became King Harbor. The transition may not have been as drastic as the change from commercial harbor to tourist destination but it allowed the city to diversify.

Leisure time had become an important part of American Life. King Harbor gave people access to fishing, recreational boating and other water-related activities. Numbers of people who came to enjoy the shore-side attractions grew even bigger than those who used King Harbor for boating.

We’re lucky. We don’t have to figure out how to change from a commercial harbor to something completely different or even how to accommodate a new population of recreational boaters. The transition facing us will not alter the purpose of King Harbor. Our little man-made water feature will still provide access to Santa Monica Bay and the Pacific Ocean. Our harbor will still have a collection of shops, restaurants and other recreational attractions adjacent to the water.

Proposed development plans will consist of some fairly basic reconfiguring, some rehabilitation and rebuilding but that’s about it. The bulkheads that make up the shore-side contour of the harbor will remain the same. The moles that were created by dumping thousands of tons of fill behind concrete bulkheads will remain unchanged. The breakwater made from huge quarried boulders and arranged to define the outer contour of the harbor won’t change. When you look at harbors that transition from commercial to recreational or others that change due to quantum shifts in an economy or a society, the proposed changes to King Harbor seem more like redecorating than repurposing.

Those of us who support the Centercal plan believe it’s time to move from the harbor that served our community’s needs when it was built in the 60s, to something that’s more relevant to the world we live in today. Clearly, times have changed since the 60s. Someone cryogenically frozen in that period of history and thawed out today (Austin Powers?) wouldn’t recognize our travel, recreation, information and entertainment options. Yet, the South Bay’s premier waterfront complex hasn’t changed in any substantial way in the last half century.

You can visit harbors such as Mystic Seaport in Connecticut and see all the elements of a working harbor from a bygone era, the 1800s. They build wooden ships with hand tools that were forged by a blacksmith. It’s fascinating. I go there whenever I get a chance.

The people of Mystic Connecticut chose to use a portion of their community’s seaside resources as a museum. They entertain thousands of people every year and treat them to an education they couldn’t get otherwise.

Have the people of Redondo Beach chosen to use part of our seaside resources as a working museum that exhibits a southern California coastal waterfront from the 1960s? That’s what we have here and I can tell anyone who hasn’t been to Mystic Seaport, our 60s museum lacks all the charm and educational aspects of that wonderful place in Connecticut. Ours is just old and run down.

Even though the people of Redondo Beach have not chosen to make their waterfront a 1960s museum, the possibility exists it will remain exactly that. If the small minority of Redondo citizens who oppose the Centercal project were somehow able to derail waterfront development by making good on their threats of ballot initiatives and lawsuits, we could all bear witness to the continued decline or our city’s most valuable and unique resource, its harbor.

If you think that’s an unwarranted accusation against our progress-phobic neighbors, consider the defeat of Measure B. I won’t bother predicting what happens to the property that contains the AES power plant. I will predict that whatever ends up on that land will be a lot less desirable than the community that Measure B would have enabled. I will also predict Redondo Beach will host the current monstrosity for at least another generation.

I watched the Centercal video and came away saying what I was supposed to say. “I want to go to this place. I want to go there now!”

Watch the video then take a walk through the Redondo Beach Marina property and up the International Boardwalk. We will all be asked to choose between those two options multiple times before any construction begins.

Amateur community planners will try to convince us they know a better way, a more desirable opportunity. What they’re actually offering is what they were offering when they opposed Measure B., status quo…an opportunity to leave things exactly the way they are now. In my humble opinion, that lack of vision offers no opportunity whatsoever.

Where were the crossing guards?

I walked up Beryl Street on a recent Tuesday morning. A little before 8 o’clock. I passed Beryl Heights Elementary School. I stopped to wait for the light to change at N. Maria and saw a young man who I guessed was in the second or third grade. His backpack was about as big as he was. The young scholar waiting patiently on the opposite sidewalk to cross the last intersection before reaching his school.

He looked both ways then cautiously stepped off the sidewalk when the light changed. It wasn’t that long ago I taught my son the finer points of staying alive while navigating traffic. I never got to see him cross a street without my supervision so I have no idea whether he did it with as much care as the little guy who passed me in the crosswalk. I hope he did.

I couldn’t help but wonder why these students weren’t protected by a crossing guard. I’ve passed this intersection many times in the morning and afternoon on school days. This was the first time I noticed it unguarded. I couldn’t help but wonder why.

A friendly, young woman held up a stop sign so I could cross Prospect. She had a more regal uniform under her reflective vest than other crossing guards I’d seen. I asked her why the other intersection was unmanned. She told me she was a police cadet and she was filling in until the city hired enough crossing guards.

Was it merely a coincidence that two nearly adjacent intersections leading to Beryl Heights Elementary didn’t have their own crossing guards? Was it this way throughout the city? Maybe this group of sweet-looking, little kids was actually so hard on their crossing guards that they stressed out and quit in protest.

There were lots of possibilities for the absence of crossing guards on that street, that day but the cadet had said the city needed to hire more guards. Could the lack of adequate personnel be due to budget issues? That would be hard to believe. Tax revenue form a handful of Redondo Beach homes could probably fund the entire crossing guard program. Hopefully, the city hadn’t spent its crossing guard money on more frivolous line item expense such as consultants, focus groups or new vehicles for city departments.

If I were still the parent of a grammar school-aged kid, I would have had a bigger problem with the N. Maria intersection than I would have had with Prospect. N. Maria had no safety measures in place, no warning sign, no crossing guard.

Redondo Beach crossing guards operate “under the jurisdiction and supervision of the Police Department”, according to the city web site. If the police department found a cadet for the intersection of Beryl and Prospect, why hadn’t they found someone for Beryl and N. Maria? Why hadn’t they redirected someone from parking enforcement or some other department?

I’m reasonably sure parents would line up for the opportunity to volunteer to fill spots for sick or absent crossing guards. It would take a little coordination to recruit and train parents but it would certainly be worth the effort.

The little boy I passed didn’t need any help crossing the street but needing help shouldn’t be the test for providing public safety resources. I think we’d all be happy if we never needed to call on the police, fire personnel or lifeguards. But it’s important to know that like crossing guards, they’re ready to help if we need them.


The existence of conflicting truths and facts make parts of modern life confusing. It’s no wonder people disengage from important issues. They want truth and facts but instead they get opinions and interpretations that come disguised as truth and facts.

Take the issues surrounding Measure B as an example. I got an email with the subject; “Quick Facts Why NO on Measure B”. I love facts, so I was anxious to dig into the message.

One of the first facts stated, “Southern California Edison has made it clear they will not be awarding AES a long term power contract so AES will not build.”

I asked AES for their take on that fact and got, “Certainly over the next decade, while we are operating our existing units, there will be additional opportunities to get a contract to build a new power plant in Redondo Beach.”

When the fact from the email can be so clearly refuted by a credible source, it isn’t a fact at all. It’s an opinion. You need to ask yourself, why would someone try to give their opinions more credibility by labeling them as facts? The simple answer is, he wants something and he believes it’s worth sacrificing his integrity to get it.

It would be unfair to say self-serving messages like the Facts email don’t contain any facts. They’re just mixed in with opinions and it’s hard to tell them apart. For example, down near the bottom it says Redondo Beach should, ”…find a way to finance the purchase of the site for $200 million.” How could that be a fact?

The text leading up to that suggestion summarizes what the property might be worth. Not only is it a little vague about where the city will get the $200 million, it’s pretty vague about how the city will force the company to accept a purchase price that’s considerably less than the fair market value.

Granted, the value of the property is variable based on its zoning. But one has to wonder whether the city could be legally liable for withholding a zoning change that would be favorable to the owner if its motive is to force AES to sell out to the city at a lower price than it would have sold the property for otherwise.

There’s more to the message but when I add it all up, I see a set of opinions about future power generation in Redondo Beach, some opinions about the potential revenue to AES and the city and some opinions about what should be done with the AES property.

That’s all fine except the message was billed as Facts. There’s no way to sugar coat it. Calling the content of that email a set of facts is simply not factual.

Here are a few facts.

  • Passage of Measure B will set the city on a path that could and should lead to replacement of the power plant with a development the community can use and enjoy.
  • Failure to pass Measure B will put AES in a position where it needs to come up with some other plan for its property.
  • Failure to pass Measure B will retain the current zoning for a power plant and/or a park.

Look at the second and third facts on that list. If you ran AES and on March 4th you were looking at a failed initiative and your plans to develop your property were cancelled, what would you do?

I will admit there are a number of ways to run the various scenarios that result in AES surrendering to the will of the small group of people who oppose Measure B. But before that happens, years and probably decades of fighting will have taken place. Many thousands, probably millions of our tax dollars will have been spent in legal fees.

Here’s a fact you might not see elsewhere. If AES is going to be forced to lose, Redondo Beach is also going to lose. It isn’t a matter of “if”. It’s a matter of how much.

The people who oppose Measure B would probably call my predictions fear tactics. I disagree. I moved to Redondo Beach knowing there was a power plant on harbor Drive. I’ve lived here the past 20 years knowing the plant is there. I’m not afraid of the AES power plant nor am I afraid of it continuing to be here.

I just don’t like it. For the first time in my 20 years living here and the 15 years visiting before that, I can see a clear path toward a waterfront without a power plant. There’s no fear about the plant staying or going, just hope. Hope that the rest of the community will see what a growing number of concerned citizens see, a realistic, comprehensive plan for what can be the most exciting development in Los Angeles county in our lifetime. It all starts with Measure B.

Oh, by the way, everything I’ve written here is my opinion unless it’s labeled otherwise.

An Open Letter to Voters in Redondo Beach District 3

Dear Neighbor,

Unless you’ve ignored all the mail, the doorbells ringing, the TV ads and the phone calls, you know there’s an election March 3rd. I’d like to ask for just a few minutes of your time to tell you who I am and why I believe this election is so important.

Like you, I live in District 3. I’ve lived here for more than 20 years. I served two terms on the Harbor Commission. I was both vice chairman and chairman of that commission. I also write a column about our harbor for Easy Reader. It’s called Harbor Lights.

I support Measure B, the initiative that will rezone the power plant property but I’m writing to you for a different reason. Passing Measure B is only the beginning of the process that will replace the old, ugly power plant with a vibrant community we can all use and enjoy.

We also need a city council that will make the dream of a beautiful, exciting waterfront into reality. If our community is really committed to the process of replacing the power plant, we need to band together behind our shared vision.

Contrary to rumors from some corners, the community will decide what will be built, how much open space will be set aside and most of the details of the final project. See for yourself. There’s a full text version of the initiative on my blog,

Measure B isn’t the end. It’s just the beginning. That’s why it’s so important to elect city council members who will help move us toward the goal of a waterfront that serves the needs of this community and makes us even more proud we live here.

We will elect a new city council member to represent our district from a field of five candidates. It isn’t my place to suggest which candidate to choose on your secret ballot. I would simply ask you to consider voting for a candidate who supports Measure B.

You may need to tune out some of the noise to realize that our new council member will have plenty of opportunities to act on our concerns about traffic, revenue and other issues that will arise down the road.

Voting for the candidate who opposes Measure B will guarantee division and obstruction on the city council. We deserve better. We deserve a representative from District 3 who wants to work toward our shared goals, not stand in the way of our dreams.

Once again, I won’t try to tell you how to vote. But I have listed the four candidates who have shown some degree of willingness to move ahead with a comprehensive plan to help our waterfront reach its full potential. It’s up to you to decide.

This election is incredibly important. Vote March 3rd!


Harry Munns


Measure B

The No on Measure B (the Redondo Beach ballot initiative that will re-zone the AES power plant property) campaign doesn’t seem to be gaining the momentum it would need to succeed. My years of immersion in the issues and interacting with the personalities on both sides of the seaside development debate, lead me to a few theories that might help explain the apparent lack of energy behind opposition to Measure B.

My first theory has to do with Measure A, the 2013 initiative that proposed rezoning the AES property to exclude power generation, among other things. The petition that put Measure A on the ballot got thousands of signatures by asking a simple question. Would you like to get rid of the power plant?

My second theory came to life immediately after the reelection of District 2 councilman, Bill Brand in the same election. I concluded his decisive victory was attributed to a number of factors, chief among them his success in convincing property owners he was their champion in the fight to rid their neighborhood of the big, ugly, old power plant.

According my theories, thousands of residents showed their support for getting rid of the power plant by signing the petition. A majority of the people who cast votes for District 2 city council, in 2013 believed Bill Brand could help remove the power plant from our waterfront.

Those two theories lead to a third theory. The reason we aren’t seeing any ground swell of enthusiasm for opposing Measure B is because the core supporters of Measure A and councilman Brand see a clear path to the goal they all share with many of the rest of us.

Memes like reducing air pollution and removing the power plant for the good of the community have been used to shield the ambitions of a very small group of people. They successfully seduced thousands of citizens into supporting their campaigns but this one seems different.

AES drew the curtain back by offering a realistic, comprehensive plan to give them exactly what they claimed they wanted, removal of the power plant. Now, the same people who brought you Measure A want their fellow citizens to follow them in opposing Measure B.

Only this time, they can’t offer voters the chance to reduce air pollution and rid the waterfront of the power plant because that’s exactly what Measure B offers. In addition, Measure B offers a way to get it done that would benefit everyone.

So what’s left for the opponents of Measure B when AES has taken the pollution and monstrous power plant arguments away from them? Their yard signs say, Big Traffic, Big AES Profit$ and Big City $ lo$$e$.

Nobody likes traffic but if you want to avoid it, you’ll need to move somewhere lots of other people don’t want to live, like the desert. That just isn’t going to happen so traffic will be a reality with or without Harbor Village.

I haven’t seen any realistic projections of the amount of money AES stands to make from the proposed Harbor Village development. It’s probably a lot. I just don’t get the logic behind the argument that if AES, a public corporation, makes money, Redondo Beach loses something. They aren’t stealing the money they make from the city. They’re exercising their right to sell what they own and use it to do what corporations do, make money.

I won’t claim to speak with any authority about the economics but I will make a personal observation. I paid about $6,000 in property taxes per year for my modest house in North Redondo. Based on what I would expect to be much more valuable residences in Harbor Village and the number proposed, there should be a ton of money generated in property taxes. And that’s just one source of revenue. There will be others.

In my humble opinion, any voter in Redondo who doesn’t vote for Measure B is nuts. If the measure fails, you can expect to live with the power plant for a long time to come. If you like the power plant, vote NO on Measure B. If you don’t, you know what to do.