Category Archives: Rants

 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

Eight (Years) is Enough!

Redondo Beach voters will have the opportunity to change the city charter when they go to the polls November 4th. The changes that concern me might seem minor, really just two words. But the impact will be anything but minor.

I’m voting NO on Proposed Charter Amendments CM and BE. I hope enough of my fellow citizens will consider the real impact of these changes to our city charter and together we can defeat them.

The ballot measures will extend term limits for the Mayor, City Council and School Board from two terms to three terms. What was once a mandatory maximum of eight years in those positions would now be extended to twelve years.

I want to start on a positive note. I’ll get to the negative part soon enough. Members of the City Council who want to continue to serve the city beyond their mandated eight years should be commended. When it’s done correctly, sitting on the council takes a lot of time and effort and provides very little reward.

Power, even the relatively insignificant amount that comes with service on the city council of a small city, is a powerfully addicting intoxicant. Once people taste it, they almost always want as much as they can get.

I don’t believe that’s the only reason members of our City Council want to serve longer but I believe that’s the ugly, underbelly of these two proposed amendments. Candidly, proponents of the amendments might tell you they want to continue the momentum the council has established with harbor re-development plans. I like the sentiment behind that. I’m all for redeveloping the harbor and against getting bogged down in endless quarrels that divert us from those goals.

Past initiatives that changed city policy such as Measures G, DD and A wound up on our ballots because thousands of citizens signed petitions. Proposed Charter Amendments CM and BE didn’t follow that path. There was no popular uprising among voters who couldn’t bear the thought of losing council members who were about to term out. The only reason our current City Councilors might get a chance to continue sitting on the council after two terms is because three of five council members voted to put the matter on the ballot.

If the Amendments pass, two term councilmen, mayors and school board members will most likely return for a third term. Incumbents get re-elected. Ninety percent of incumbents in congress who ran for re-election in 2012, won their races. Earlier that year, polls showed only 23% of the public regarded congress favorably. You don’t have to do a good job to get re-elected. All you have to do is run.

Locally, the numbers are probably a little better. If you kept your head down, didn’t rock the boat, returned constituents’ phone calls and you’re not running against someone who’s better known and better liked, you are going to get re-elected.

Our entire government, from the president down to local elected officials, is a representative democracy. Every voter who wants to serve (with a few exceptions) has the opportunity to run for office. A candidate who convinces enough voters his or her vision and qualifications are better than the other candidates’, earns the privilege of serving.

An additional four-year term for our current elected officials will not subvert the democratic process. We will still live in a democracy. Waves will get bigger after a storm and parking will still be impossible near the beach on summer weekends.

But the chance to serve will be denied to many people who might have been able to offer new and valuable talents and experiences to the community. Nothing would keep these people from running but with a ten percent statistical probability of winning an election against an incumbent, few if any will get elected.

There are risks to voting NO on Proposed Charter Amendments CM and BE. New Council and School Board members will need to learn a lot and they may stumble a bit in the beginning. The risk of stagnant, predictable ideas and outcomes is far more frightening to me.

I’ve had serious disagreements with policies and positions some of our elected officials hold and have held in the past. I have always known the questions these people force the community to ask and answer are essential to making proper, informed and beneficial decisions. I believe in the end, the city of Redondo Beach will get most of it right and we won’t have to sacrifice any part of our democratic principles in the process.

AES Redondo Beach Announces a New Plan

This is the most exciting news from Redondo Beach since Fifi Maloof’s brothel appeared on the national news (look it up). AES, the energy company that owns and operates the Redondo Beach generating plant, announced it will voluntarily cease generating electricity in Redondo Beach and remove the plant if the city passes an initiative that allows mixed use development on the 50 acre site.

There will be plenty of time for lots of conversation and debate over a project that will take more than a decade to complete at best and probably more like two or three decades if past experience is any indicator. Right now, I’d like to speak to the good people of the community who have expressed their desire to get rid of the plant.

Some of you voted for Measure A. Others carried signs, signed petitions and attended city council meetings. Some of you did all of it.

Throughout it all, a few very vocal and visible individuals made some claims that probably spoke to you and made you think they were aligned with your interests. They weren’t.

Watch what they do next. Remember when they told you they wanted clean air for kids? Remember when they told you they wanted to improve the community and get rid of the ugly power plant? If that was all true, you could expect them to take a victory lap and celebrate the good news with the rest of us.

They won’t. They will reveal their true agenda in the moves they make next. Watch very carefully because they will have to craft future messages in a way that will continue to deceive you into thinking they want what you want. Don’t get fooled again.

The Worst Laid Plans

We generally categorize ideas as either good or bad, beach volleyball – good idea, beach basketball – bad idea. Some ideas can be both good and bad. Bringing your laptop to the beach could be tempting. You could get some work done while you’re enjoying a day of surf, sun and sand. But laptops don’t like salt and sand. Plus, you’d probably struggle to see the screen on a sunny day.

The plan that’s currently underway for a boat ramp in King Harbor is just such an idea, good and bad. It’s good because people like me, who keep our boats on trailers, would have an easier way to get in and out of the harbor.

Any boat that’s too big to carry has two options for launching in King Harbor. The King Harbor Marine boat yard has a hoist called a Travelift that can get a boat in and out of the water. Redondo Beach Marina has a hoist that can take a boat off a trailer, put it in the water and retrieve it when it’s time to put it back on the trailer. Most trailer boaters use the Redondo Beach Marina facilities.

The idea of building a boat ramp in King Harbor is as good as the idea of bringing your laptop to the beach. Unfortunately, salt and sand are minor considerations compared to the problems facing a boat ramp. Lots of questions should have been asked before Redondo Beach embarked on the path it appears to be following toward construction of a boat ramp

The first question that should have been asked is whether or not the trailer boating public needs a boat ramp. Imagine pouring millions of dollars into a boat ramp and finding out no one wants to use it.

Why did the city of Redondo Beach skip this most fundamental step prior to making their decision to proceed with plans for a boat ramp? The city council seems to have interpreted a relentless barrage of repetitive requests for a boat ramp from a single individual as a substitute for facts.

To its credit, the city has commissioned studies about the best location for a boat ramp. In my opinion, the best location for a boat ramp would be the current location of the King Harbor Yacht Club. I like the KHYC and I’m not suggesting the city replace it with a boat ramp but if we were starting with a blank canvas, that’s where I’d put it.

A city couldn’t just start planning an alternate use for the parcel of land KHYC occupies while the club is still there and it shows no signs of wanting to leave. That would be wrong. However, the current plan for a boat ramp will remove Joe’s Crab Shack and eliminate that location as a place for a restaurant in the future. I’m not sure why that isn’t wrong.

There is no good location for a boat ramp in King Harbor. If there was, a ramp would already be there.

One of the biggest issues surrounding the boat ramp is parking. A boat with a trailer needs two spaces. One of the things the city council would have noticed about nearby boat ramps if they had studied them, would have been they have ample parking for anyone who shows up even on holiday weekends in the summer.

That is simply impossible in King Harbor. There has been talk about using the AES property but is that something that can really be incorporated into a plan at this time?  How long will the new King Harbor boat ramp remain successful when the word gets out that after planning their day, packing up the family and provisions, then driving to King Harbor, boaters couldn’t find any place to leave their car and trailer?

Even if there was some place to park cars and trailers like the power plant or the open space under the power lines up the hill on Herondo, having to hike a quarter or half mile back to your boat after launching it would have the same effect as having no parking. It would drive boaters away.

Traffic is always an issue but in looking at the half-baked plans for a boat ramp, it’s hardly the most compelling reason to abandon the plan. Boat traffic is a different story. The harbor is about to get 24 transient moorings. Almost every visiting boat will arrive with a dinghy, which doubles the number of boats at any given time. Stand up paddling continues to grow in popularity. The 1500 boats in slips need to move freely in and out of the harbor. Peddle boats are everywhere in the nice weather. KHYC has a very active youth program, which puts dozens of small boats with kids in the harbor. The list goes on.

In short, there are a lot of boaters vying for the limited space inside the King Harbor breakwater. I welcome them all but safety is a concern especially as the numbers increase. I wish the city had studied boating safety issues surrounding the plan it has undertaken to build a boat ramp and increase traffic density in the harbor. It hasn’t.

There’s also an issue with the seawall. It’s about 3 to 4 feet above the grade of the land where Joe’s Crab Shack and the Portofino Hotel are located. If you cut through it for a boat ramp, you might as well destroy the whole wall. The protection it provided will be gone.

We don’t know how much demand there is for a boat ramp. We don’t know how it will affect vehicle traffic. We don’t know how it will affect boat traffic. We do know that the very expensive seawall that protects the land where the boat ramp will go will become nearly useless in high seas if it’s cut down to grade.

It makes you wonder why the city of Redondo Beach would be spending money to develop plans for a boat ramp before they bothered to ask these critical questions. Every city official I’ve heard speak on the matter says roughly the same thing. The Coastal Commission requires it.

So what happens if no one uses it or so many people use it traffic in the harbor comes to a standstill or boats and paddlers become engaged in mortal combat or a big swell from the south wipes out the land where the ramp sits? What do you suppose the Coastal Commission will say if the city pins the blame for an ill-conceived boat ramp on them?

Does anyone believe the Coastal Commission wouldn’t amend their requirements if evidence was presented to them about impracticality or threats to public safety? That conversation doesn’t seem likely because the city has begun planning the project without examining any of those issues.

I don’t expect anyone to have all the answers. But is it too much to expect that our elected officials, at very least, ask the right questions?

King Harbor Needs a New Structure

King Harbor generates somewhere in excess of $10,000,000 in annual revenue for Redondo Beach. The accuracy of that revenue figure may depend on how you count it or who you ask.

With that much money floating around, claims of mismanagement are about as certain as rising and falling tides. Looking for answers to questions about past errors may prove less productive than asking different questions. Chief among them, can the city of Redondo Beach find a better way to manage the harbor?

Every financial decision about the harbor is currently made by the city council. Hands-on management of the harbor enterprise is handled by the city’s Harbor & Economic Development (HED) department, which consists of a Director, Harbor Facilities Manager and an Executive Secretary. The city manager devotes time to harbor business but it is unclear exactly how much time.

The Harbor Commission consists of seven citizen volunteers who meet once a month. It has almost no decision-making power. A quick scan of past commission agenda will reveal most of its business appears on the consent calendar, which is little more than a list of harbor related business items that the council has already decided and voted on. The commission has no official role in the harbor budget, although in past years the city manager has asked the commission for input on budget issues.

Given that harbor fund reserves fluctuate between low and dangerously low, it’s fair to say most of the money that comes in gets spent on operations and maintenance. For the sake of this discussion, let’s call the annual harbor budget $10,000,000. The administration consists of five part time board level volunteers (the city council) and a professional, administrative staff of three employees. Only one of the three devotes his time exclusively to the harbor, according to their job titles.

It’s impossible to come up with a proper ratio of administrative personnel to annual revenue/expense for any enterprise. But five volunteer board members, a powerless, seven member commission, and an administrative staff consisting of two part-time employees and one full time employee seems a bit light by any applicable standard.

Ryan Clark is director of sales at the Veld Group, an L. A. based business brokerage. He cited examples of $10,000,000 businesses being administered by just a few people and others with directors and officers numbering in the dozens. When asked his opinion about whether an enterprise like King Harbor would be more efficiently run by city employees or some independent management group he said, “You’re kidding right? My ten year old knows the answer to that question.”

Rightly or wrongly, city governments have acquired the reputation of being out of touch with business and inefficient at managing anything. Recognizing those facts could be one reason our neighbor to the north, Ventura Harbor, seems to have much less substantial criticism leveled at the way it manages funds or its overall harbor operation.

The most obvious reason for Ventura’s success is that the city doesn’t run the harbor. The harbor enterprise is an Independent, Special District called the Ventura Port District (VPD). According to the California Special Districts Association, “Special districts are a form of local government created by a local community to meet a specific need.”

The VPD also gets a lot of the structure it uses for its operation from the California Harbor and Navigation Code. Those guidelines also govern some parts of King Harbor’s operations but Ventura appears to take more of its structure from the code.

Ventura has a more clearly defined and robust management team than King Harbor, in large part because of its incorporation as an Independent Special District. The Ventura city council appoints a five member Board of Port Commissioners, which makes all significant VPD decisions including control of an estimated $8 million annual budget.

A full-time, professional management team consists of a General Manager, Harbormaster, Accountant, Administrative Assistant/Clerk, Property Manager, Marina Manager and Marketing Director. General operation of Ventura Harbor is carried out by a full-time staff of 35 employees.

The city council and city staff, including the city manager, have no management authority over the harbor. “Relations with the city stop after the commissioners are appointed,” said VPD General Manager, Oscar Pena.

He added that the city has liaisons within the board and that two current commissioners are former council members. The Board of Port Commissioners makes a formal report to the Ventura City Council once every year.

Ventura has a smaller budget, a powerful board, a lot more management personnel and by all accounts, the whole thing runs much smoother than the South Bay’s only harbor. So why can’t we do the same thing in King Harbor? The simple answer is, we can. The unfortunate reality is, we probably won’t.

Human beings by their very nature do not give up power willingly. So asking the Redondo Beach City Council to give up control of King Harbor would have about the same effect as asking them to stop eating or breathing.

On the other hand, if you asked any current or past council member to imagine a world in which almost none of the council’s time would be spent on harbor related business, you’d probably get a pretty positive reaction. Can logic (or self-interest) triumph over human nature? Let’s hope we get a chance to find out.

The Miracle in Redondo Beach

If you did a side by side comparison of Redondo Beach and other similar cities and looked at the negative impacts of the Great Recession, I believe RB would look pretty good. My non-scientific evaluation of the years from 2009 to this past year shows cuts to jobs, salaries, benefits and services were more severe in many other cities.

Some people in city government would attribute that difference to better management. I noticed something different. I saw a unique loan program between Redondo Beach and the state of California. It was unique in that the state seemed to be largely unaware or unconcerned it was loaning the city money. Another thing that made it unique was the fact neither party expected the loan to be paid back. That’s what made it a miracle.

I wrote the article below a while ago, which is why some of the information is dated. The material is factual and the time between when it was written and now hasn’t changed any of those facts.

I had hoped to see it in print but it was turned down by the L. A. Times, Daily Breeze and other publications. Maybe there’s nothing there. Maybe I’m blowing it all out of proportion. My intention then as now was to make the information public and let my fellow citizens decide whether the issues should cause concern for our community. Publishing it here completes that process.

I apologize for all the words but they were all necessary to tell the story.

Harry Munns

Redondo Beach, January 2014


Longtime community activist Gary Ohst resigned midway through his second term as a Redondo Beach Budget and Finance Commissioner in December 2010. Ohst’s departure came as no surprise to observers of the city’s political processes. Gary Ohst had spent the previous four years warning city officials about what he perceived as the city’s abuse of funds generated in and around King Harbor.

“I believed that pulling money out of the harbor enterprise was not a sustainable activity and that the city is not meeting its fiduciary responsibility under the Tidelands Trust.” Ohst said.

In 1915 the state of California deeded the land west of the high water mark to the city of Redondo Beach. It was to be held in trust for the people of the state. The beach, the submerged land and the land that was created to build King Harbor belong to the people of California, not the city of Redondo Beach. The city has been given the right to develop and manage that land on behalf of everyone in California. The original document and amendments that were added in 1971 became known as the Tidelands Trust.

The harbor and adjacent land generate millions of dollars for the city every year. According to figures released by the city, property, sales and transient occupancy taxes amounted to more than $4,000,000 in fiscal year 2009-2010. Another $10,000,000 came from various sources such as rent for apartments, boat slips and offices, among others.

One of the main provisions of the Tidelands Trust states that the money generated in the Tidelands be reinvested in the Tidelands. The deed allows the city of Redondo Beach to manage the finances. The Tidelands Trust also mandates the creation and maintenance of an Uplands Fund for income and expense generated by the land adjacent to the harbor Tidelands, referred to as the Uplands. The Tidelands and Uplands together are called the Harbor Enterprise.

“One of the goals I had set was to improve the disclosure and financial reporting of the finances of the harbor to get at the root of the problem why there was never any money.” Ohst said.

He discovered that the city takes 100% of the $4,000,000(+-) property, sales and transient occupancy tax revenue and deposits it in the general fund. It isn’t accounted for as harbor revenue and it doesn’t directly offset any harbor expenses. It’s just considered revenue that’s generated within the city and it is used to pay for things the city needs just like the taxes people pay on their homes go to things like street maintenance and trash removal.

The city charges the Harbor Enterprise for goods and services it supplies for harbor operations over and above what the harbor property would get just by paying its taxes. They break down the expenses according to the department that supplied the goods and/or services and the extent to which either the Uplands or the Tidelands benefited from the expenditure. For example, in fiscal year 2009/10, the Tidelands and Uplands each paid the City Attorney’s office $41,752 in personnel charges.

The $10,000,000 generated from rent and other sources covers capital improvements and operating expenses. Renovation of the bathrooms at Seaside Lagoon and resurfacing the wooden portion of the pier are examples of capital improvements funded by the Harbor Enterprise funds.

I’m pretty sure no home or business owners outside the harbor got a bill for City Attorney services, although in theory that office did work on behalf of every household and business. I’d also suggest that some homes, businesses and areas of the city got more services than others yet everyone except the state of California (Harbor Enterprise) paid the same amount. It just came out of their taxes.

In addition to Personnel and Capital Improvements, Redondo Beach breaks down the fees it levies on the Harbor Enterprise by Maintenance & Operations, Internal Service Fees (ISF) and Capital Outlay.

Ohst published a detailed analysis of Redondo’s harbor finances and compared the data to other southern California harbors. The report reveals that between fiscal year 2001/02 and 2009/10 charges for Redondo Internal Services increased from about $330,000 to more than $2,000,000 for essentially the same goods and services.

Ohst’s report indicates that charges for items such as Personnel and Capital Improvements fluctuate year to year. He found no logical explanation for a 650% increase in Internal Service Fees over a 9 year period. When asked by the Harbor Commission in 2010 to predict the amount Redondo Beach would extract from the Harbor Funds in coming years, City Manager Bill Workman predicted it would decrease because, “we probably won’t need as much”.

There you have it. When the city of Redondo Beach needs more money, it takes that money from the people of California. That’s a great deal for the city. It must make Redondo the envy of most other cities in an era of declining tax and fee revenue. But it has to make you wonder whether the state would feel the same way about the deal California is getting.

Ohst examined finances for Santa Barbara, Ventura, Channel Islands, Dana Point and Oceanside harbors. ISF charges ranged from a low of $00.00 in Ventura to a high of $1,808,923 in Oceanside. At first glance, Oceanside parallels Redondo Beach’s FY 2009/10 ISF charges, which totaled $2,036,117.

ISF charges get paid into the other cites’ general funds, just like they do in Redondo. Something different happens in the other cities that doesn’t happen here. Their general funds pay money to their harbors. For example, Oceanside pays its harbor nearly $3,000,000 in subsidies from its general fund. That money offsets the ISF charges making the net ISF charge to the city a negative number. Oceanside’s harbor makes money on its financial relationship with the city.

Redondo Beach pays no subsidy to the Harbor Enterprise from the General Fund. The money flows only one way, from the harbor to the city. Ohst points out that by calculating ISF charges for all 5 harbors he used in his comparison, the total ISF charges as a percentage of total revenue is actually less than zero.

In other words, as a group, the other harbors pay nothing to their host cities for Internal Services. Redondo Beach charges its harbor enterprise 20% of the harbor’s gross revenue for Internal Services.

City Manager Bill Workman told the Harbor Commission at the commission’s March meeting, “Tidelands money is Redondo Beach money.”  If that was true, why would the Tidelands Trust document posted on the city’s web site devote more than a page to the permitted uses of revenue generated in the Tidelands? If it’s our money, shouldn’t we be able to use it any way we want?

The document allows the city to use Tidelands money for construction and maintenance of facilities that support a small boat harbor. It includes provisions for an airport or heliport. The Tidelands Trust contains clear references to protection of wildlife habitat and facilities that serve the public. It even covers advertising.

It does not specifically cover some of the expenses it currently pays such as subsidies to salaries for city staff, which amounted to nearly $3,000,000 in non-ISF charges to the Harbor Enterprise in FY 2009/10. The only apparent justification for these charges is found in Sec. 9 (J.) “For the acquisition of property and the rendition of services reasonably necessary to the carrying out of the uses and purposes described in this section…”

Does the fiscal year 2010/11 payment of $20,000 on a line item called Mayor and City Council meet that definition? I’m pretty sure no other tax-paying entity in the city got a bill for services performed by the mayor and council. The harbor got one.

Workman also claimed that the harbor finances have been audited and that the city passed the audits. Not exactly.

In 2006 the California State Lands Commission (CSLC) staff presented a financial management audit report to the commission. It had been spurred by a complaint from Jess Money, a Redondo Beach citizen.

Money claimed that, “During FY 2002-2003 and FY 2003-2004 funds were illegally transferred from the tidelands fund to the City’s general fund and to the Community Redevelopment Agency.”  Those were the first two years that the amounts of money debited to the harbor enterprise for Internal Services jumped from around $330,000 to more than $1,000,000.

The CSLC staff report concludes that, “CSLC staff reviewed the City’s method for determining cost allocations and found no evidence that funds were being transferred illegally.”

The year after the report was presented to the CSLC the amount of money transferred from the harbor enterprise to the Redondo Beach general fund went from $1,100,000 to $1,900,000, a jump of nearly 45%. The following two years it rose to more than $2,000,000 and it stayed there.

Those levels have not been tested by a CSLC audit. In essenc,e the city is saying that State Lands was OK with the jump from less than half a million to more than $1,000,000 so that means the city has permission to double those charges again.

That’s like a kid saying, I went to bed at 8 last year. My parents said I can stay up until 9 this year. That means I can stay up until 10 next year. In a few years I won’t have to sleep at all. Most adults and eventually most kids recognize the defect in that logic.

When city officials refer to an affirmative outcome from a state audit, they’re talking about CSLC scrutiny of two years, nearly a decade ago. The state does not conduct audits on any pre-arranged schedule. Ohst believes that an audit of current fees Redondo Beach charges the Harbor Enterprise would yield considerably different results.

He also takes issue with the city’s apparent belief that by failing to find errors in the city’s accounting practices in FYs 2002/04, the CSLC gave Redondo Beach the green light to nearly double the amount it charges the citizens of California for Internal Services.

The city council formed an audit sub-committee in response to questions about misuse of harbor funds posed by Ohst and others. The sub-committee retained a CPA firm, Mayer, Hoffman, McCann.

The report presented to the mayor and council was titled, “Independent Accountants’ Report on Appying(sp) Agreed-Upon Procedures”. It said, in part, “The firm was asked to Review the city’s cost allocation plan for fiscal years 2007-08 as it relates to the Harbor Tidelands and Harbor Uplands Funds.”

This was not an audit. In fact, the word “audit” only appears once in the final report. In the third to last paragraph the accountants state, “We were not engaged to, and did not, conduct an audit…”

When asked to comment on Gary Ohst’s report, Mr. Workman referred the matter to Harbor Business and Transit Director, Pete Carmichael. He replied. “His (Ohst’s) proposed methodologies do not conform with standard municipal accounting practices.  The city has had multiple audits of our budget practices in the harbor by both independent outside auditors as well as extensive audit by the State Lands Commission.  These audits have confirmed that the city’s finance practices as they relate to the harbor meet accepted accounting principles.”

In fact, a CSLC audit of two years before the huge spike in charges and a private auditing firm report that states it did not conduct an audit, strongly suggest that statement is false.

For the People, By the City

The Tidelands Trust document appears unambiguous in its position that the city holds Tidelands revenue for the people of the state. Redondo Beach can disburse that revenue to maintain and improve the land that belongs to the people of California.

In addition to double charging the Harbor Enterprise for city services (first through property taxes, second through billing for salaries, internal services, etc.), the city has awarded itself no-bid contracts for services it provides such as maintenance and administration. Paying itself fees for goods and services at rates the city set, has enabled the city to avoid more severe cutbacks than it has already put in place.

The Tidelands Trust document does not require the city to put any of the work described in the permitted uses of harbor revenue out for bid. But the city routinely puts goods and services it purchases for itself out to bid. Redondo Beach, like the state of California, invites qualified bidders to bid on an extensive list of goods and services it needs.

The bid process ensures the citizens of the city or the state get the best value when the city or state makes purchases on their behalf. When the city purchases goods and services such as maintenance in the harbor on behalf of the people of the state, shouldn’t it exhibit the same due diligence? Critics of the city’s financial policies wonder whether the $1,052,230 Redondo Beach will have paid itself for maintenance of the harbor area in FY 2010-11 was the best deal the people of California could have gotten for their money.

If the work had been put out to bid, the city might have a conclusive answer to that question. It was not put out for bid and the city cannot tell the state of California it got the best deal for it’s million bucks. The city set the rate and paid itself from the state money it manages. I’ll bet there are a few private maintenance companies that would like to have a chance to bid on providing maintenance in the pier/harbor complex. If things continue the way they have been going, they will never get that chance.

If the state decides to look into these practices and concludes there has been abuse, the city could be forced to pay back some or all of the increased fees it has charged the Tidelands plus damages and/or fines.

Redondo Beach has been allowed to borrow money from the state to keep the city functioning. If the state decides Redondo gave itself too much money or there was any fraud in the process, the people of Redondo Beach will be on the hook for any restitution the state decides it is due. It makes you wonder how Mr. Workman could have been so confident when he stated, “Tidelands money is Redondo Beach money.”

If it turns out the current charges are fair and accurate, the city might be entitled to adjustments to the amounts it charged the harbor enterprise for  in past years. If $2,000,000 is the right number, then the city of Redondo Beach is owed millions of dollars for the years when it undercharged the harbor enterprise. The city could always forgive that debt. Let’s hope the state is as generous if it finds Redondo Beach overcharged the people of the state of California.

Ohst suggests a relatively simple solution to a system that appears to enable the city of Redondo Beach to engage in practices that potentially put its citizens at considerable financial risk. He points out precedent among the cities he studied and others for use of an independent board or committee to administer the business of their harbor enterprises. That’s a mission that begs for a popular, public uprising.

In the end, it’s up to the state of California to determine whether the city of Redondo Beach has performed adequately and honorably in its role as steward of the tidelands. It would stand to reason though, the further the city pushes the limits, the closer we get to a breaking point.

Note: This article was sent to a few strategically selected people when it was written. They were asked not to share it with anyone at city hall but they were selected specifically because they were unlikely to follow those instructions. Shortly thereafter, projects such as the Harbor Patrol building, Seaside Lagoon bathrooms, Redondo Landing, Mole B and the Decron lease consolidation began moving ahead at an impressive speed, especially for city government.

Coincidence? You be the judge.


Note: This article was sent to a few strategically selected people when it was written. They were asked not to share it with anyone at city hall but they were selected specifically because they were unlikely to follow those instructions. Shortly thereafter, projects such as the Harbor Patrol building, Seaside Lagoon bathrooms, Redondo Landing, Mole B and the Decron lease consolidation began moving ahead at an impressive speed, especially for city government.


Coincidence? You be the judge.

Free Federal Money for Redondo Beach?

In 2013 the federal government offered up to $6 million to states and localities for projects that supported transient boaters. Sixteen awards, the highest of which was nearly a million and a half bucks, went mostly to local and private entities. The free money funded projects such as transient docks, fuel docks and a boat ramp.

Unless I missed something, Redondo Beach didn’t apply for any of this money. We have a mooring project in the works, but that’s only the beginning of an overall program to attract transient boaters. We will have to figure out how to get them here and what to do when they arrive,

Transient boaters will need things like a dinghy dock, bathrooms, showers and water taxi service. The transient boater program, such as it is, will almost certainly fail to reach its full  potential without a fully thought-out and executed plan. If there is one, I haven’t seen it.

The city council never asked my advice when I was on the Harbor Commission so I don’t expect them to begin now. I seriously doubt any council members or city staff read this blog, so if anyone who does read it knows anyone on the council, you might point out that 2014 should bring another opportunity for Redondo Beach to apply for free money.

I’ll do my part by sharing this link  Now all we need is for someone to alert the city to the opportunity.

Obamacare and the King Harbor Mall

Fox News viewers recognize Frank Luntz as a frequent commentator around election time. He has made something of an art form out of framing. No, he doesn’t wear a tool belt and double park his truck in front of your house, not that kind of framing. Luntz has become famous for framing words.

People like Luntz study how people like us react to different words and word combinations. If I want you to agree with me, I’m going to frame my words in a way that increases the probability of a positive emotional reaction.

Oil drilling conjures up images of grease covered men with hard hats wrestling with large pieces of machinery. What happens when it’s called energy exploration? It becomes exciting, appealing. I’d like to be involved in energy exploration – but oil drilling? I don’t think so.

Some framing isn’t quite as subtle. The Affordable Care Act is an example. The only way they could have framed it to get a more positive response would have been to call it the Don’t Suffer in the Emergency Room and Go Bankrupt Act.

Opponents of the Affordable Care Act weren’t about to let the law’s supporters get away with that. They nicknamed it Obamacare, rhymes with Welfare, Medicare. They attached the President’s name to an image of the impending big government apocalypse by inventing one word. Or at least that’s what they thought they did.

The plan worked brilliantly for awhile. Then one day during the 2012 presidential campaign, candidate Obama stood in front of the cameras and microphones in Denver and declared he liked the name Obamacare.

You could almost feel the outrage in the conservative press. After putting all that effort into creating a word that was intended to depict a fear-inducing image of a president destroying the country with his big government policies, it was taken away…poof…just like that.

The Obama administration and every supporter of the Affordable Care Act began calling it Obamacare from that day forward. And from that day forward, the intended negative impact from that made-up word was depleted. The word was no longer a weapon.

The campaign against Measure G, the 2010 ballot measure that changed zoning in King Harbor, used similar, yet less creative techniques.  Their messages intended to strike fear in the electorate with threats of timeshares and condos.

They didn’t make up a clever word to frame their position. Instead, they relied on a prejudice against timeshares and condos they hoped the voters shared with their small group. I remember getting beaten up by their messages about condos, Condos, CONDOS!

It turns out, the voters didn’t share that prejudice. Quite a few of them probably live in condos. I know some wonderful people who live in condos. How could I hate their homes?

I can think of some blighted properties that were brought back to life by building condos. Now the formerly vacant lots are beautiful homes for families and others. The only timeshares I can think of in the South Bay are at the Beach House in Hermosa, which happens to be the coolest commercial building on that part of the strand.

They’re at it again. The Opponents (I’ve given them a proper title) have begun calling the proposed development on the Redondo waterfront, the King Harbor Mall. This attempt at framing, at using our emotions to persuade us to agree with them, has a few obvious problems Mr. Luntz could have helped them avoid.

My guess is they want to tap into our hatred and fear of malls so we will join them in opposing the project. That’s a problem for me because I don’t hate or fear malls. I kind of like them. Like condos and timeshares, I don’t want one on every corner. And like condos and timeshares, there are large malls, small malls, boutique malls, theme malls and lots of other variations.

So from this point forward, I intend to call the waterfront project the King Harbor Mall. I invite all my fellow supporters to do the same. Now if I could only get that web site to let me sign up for Obamacare…

The Regressive Agenda

I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to call the people in Redondo Beach who speak out against any and all development, extremists. They hold extreme views, opinions outside the mainstream. They are also willing to back those extreme views up with actions intended to disrupt the things they oppose and draw attention to their agenda.

In fairness, I’m not aware of any illegal activities conducted by our local extremists aside from destroying an occasional political yard sign. So they don’t really compare to some of their counterparts who cause physical harm and property damage but they’re always looking for opportunities to put a stick in the spokes of progress, metaphorically speaking of course.

They’ve taken aim at the CenterCal project in the harbor. One of the regressives hopes he sees an opportunity to sabotage harbor development by writing to an organization that has funded CenterCal projects in the past. The tactic seems to be to supply this organization with a distorted picture of Redondo Beach and hope they decide not to fund the CenterCal project.

It would appear they hope an inaccurate letter or two will cause enough doubt to scuttle the whole harbor revitalization project. I doubt that will be the case but I decided to write my own letter just to make sure any future discussion had a little balance. Here’s my first letter.

“My name is Harry Munns. I served on the Redondo Beach Harbor Commission for eight years and served as its chairman for one year. I have also written a local newspaper column about our harbor/pier complex for six years. I recently discovered (your organization) had been contacted by some or our fellow citizens about the revitalization project Redondo Beach and CenterCal Properties have been working on for the past year.

“I won’t take up much of your time painting a picture of the struggle between the small group of citizens who insist on obstructing and interfering with any form of local improvement or development and the forward-thinking majority of the city’s population, represented by our city council. I’m sure you will figure out who’s who and what’s what without much effort.

“I’d like to inject a few facts into the discussion. The last local election cycle offered voters five opportunities to cast votes in support of the no-progress agenda. The citizens chose the alternatives to that agenda in four of five elections. Any claim that any group other than our city council represents the will of the people is simply not borne out by the election results.

“You should also consider the fact there has been some form of seaside recreation available to the public in Redondo Beach for more than a century. By nearly anyone’s appraisal, our waterfront is tired and outdated. Yet, people still visit by the thousands. Come take a walk on a Saturday or Sunday in the nice weather. You will see people young and old, couples, families and everything in between enjoying a little time off in our delightful seaside community.

“Those crowds are likely to double or triple when the amenities and attractions are improved. That’s what excites me and most of the city’s residents about what CenterCal plans to do here.

“In short, the CenterCal project is coming to a place where most of the local people will welcome it with open arms. Additionally, the Redondo waterfront has a 100 year track record attracting visitors. The modernized, revitalized waterfront CenterCal proposes is guaranteed an instant flood of visitors, eager to experience the next generation of seaside relaxation and recreation.

“I spent more than 20 years as an association executive. I’m guessing I grappled with many of the issues that challenge you day in and day out. One thing I learned is that while all constituents deserve to have their voices heard, you can never please everyone.

“CenterCal has gone to great lengths to listen to everyone’s comments and include their suggestions in the early planning stages of this exciting project. We can’t avoid the inevitable pockets of dissatisfaction but in the end, our city’s leadership and most of its citizens want the CenterCal project.

“It’s probably worthwhile for your organization to take a close look at Redondo Beach, its people and its politics. I believe you’ll find much more support than opposition and much more good than bad. I’d be happy to show you around if you decide to come for a visit.”


The last election?

Three elections in five months should be enough to sort out the business of a city of 65,000 people. That should give us about two years of election-free recovery time, that is unless some group of citizens decides our elected officials aren’t paying enough attention to their interests and they write another ballot initiative.

The one remaining election will consist of a mail-in choice between two candidates for city treasurer. How many people know what the treasurer does to earn a tidy sum, well over $100,000 of our hard earned tax money every year? It’s probably worth taking a few minutes to search the city’s municipal code for section 11.1 to find out.

What you’ll discover is that the city treasurer doesn’t really do much. He or she oversees money coming in and money going out. It seems we have a treasurer so we have someone to blame if our money is mismanaged by other city employees. Nevertheless, we need a city treasurer and we will all get to mail in our votes for one of two candidates in July.

You don’t hear that much about Measure A now that Redondo Beach voters have exercised their power of self-governance by rejecting that ridiculous piece of legislation. We need to remember there was an organization called No Power Plant. No Power Plant was Measure A and Measure A was No Power Plant.

A number of candidates attempted to leverage their association with or sympathy for No Power Plant/Measure A to get elected. The citizens of Redondo Beach rejected all but one of them the same way they rejected Measure A.

City treasurer candidate Dawn Esser is the last remaining person seeking elected office in the city who has attempted to use her association with No Power Plant/Measure A for political advantage. I join many of my fellow citizens in hoping she will experience the same fate other aspiring politicians who attached themselves to the divisive, misguided ideas that brought us No Power Plant/Measure A have had to suffer, defeat.

My real interest in this election isn’t to see one candidate lose but to see a more qualified, extremely bright candidate get elected. Steve Diels won’t need to study the city budget to figure out how to perform the duties of treasurer. For the past eight years he has had direct personal, responsibility for that budget as a member of our city council.

Everyone who serves on the council brings his or her own talents and abilities to that work. In eight years of working with the council as a commissioner, I often found myself considering what the council was doing on some issue or item on its agenda. Before I jumped to any conclusions about the wisdom or absence of wisdom of any council action, I always found myself asking one question. What did Steve Diels have to say about the matter?

That doesn’t mean I agreed with him. I probably disagreed more often than not but I knew his opinions would always be thoughtful and represent his genuine interest in doing what’s best for the city. I believe the city is better for having had Steve as a council member. The city has an opportunity to continue benefitting from Steve’s knowledge and experience by electing him our next city treasurer. Check out his qualifications at .

Harbor Drive improvement?

The strand provides an ideal hard, flat surface and picturesque, seaside environment for bike riding. It would be a fluid, uninterrupted ribbon of beachside bliss if it weren’t for one thing, the Redondo Pier and Harbor complex.

Parking lots, boat basins and buildings occupy the former beach that most certainly would have accommodated a bike path if the harbor wasn’t built first. With no beach between the strand in south Redondo and the strand in Hermosa, the only place for a bike path was on both sides of Harbor Drive and through the pier parking lot.

Mingling with car and truck traffic adds an element of danger and inconvenience bikers don’t experience elsewhere along the strand. The city has a plan it believes will address those problems called the Harbor Drive/Herondo Street Gateway Improvement Project. It’s hard to tell whether the plan will improve safety and traffic flow or just reshuffle a deck full of unattractive options.

Taking down the block wall at the south end of the Hermosa Strand and running the bike path diagonally through what’s now a metered, parking lot is by far the biggest improvement to both safety and traffic flow.

To compensate the city for reduction in parking meter revenue, the plan will reconfigure parking along Herondo Street. The plan calls for diagonal, parallel paid parking on both sides of the street.

Drivers will back into those spaces. They will cross a bike lane going backward after stopping to block the single lane of traffic. This part of the plan is perhaps, the dumbest idea the city has every seriously considered and definitely the dumbest thing the city ever approved.

Parallel parking is hard enough looking straight ahead, moving forward. The skills necessary too backward, parallel park aren’t taught in driving school nor are they acquired through experience. When’s the last time you backed into a parallel parking space (I mean sober)? Imagine a 17 year old new driver doing it in reverse looking over one shoulder. It looks like this plan has traded the risk of hitting a bike rider while backing out of a parking space for a higher risk of hitting a bike rider while backing into a space.

The only reason this hazardous parking plan was incorporated into the plan was because the transition from the strand to Harbor drive eliminates part of a revenue-producing parking lot. The revenue loss had to be offset somehow.

The plan moves the northbound bike lane to the south side of Harbor Drive so bikes moving in both directions will pass beside each other the way they do on the strand. That doesn’t change conditions much for bikers riding south.

Curbside parking along the north side of Harbor Drive will move to the south side. Looking across Harbor Drive from the north side of the street, the new configuration will begin with a northbound vehicle lane, then a southbound vehicle lane, curbside parking, a 5 foot wide sidewalk-style buffer zone, 2 way bike traffic and a pedestrian sidewalk.

Northbound bike traffic doesn’t have to cross Harbor Drive any more but those riders now have to deal with traffic in and out of Yacht Club way and 6 parking lots they were protected from on the north side of Harbor Drive.

Any way you look at it, it isn’t a net gain, especially when you consider curbside parking will obscure the view between the bike lanes and vehicles turning into parking lots. People who get out of cars in those spaces will now have to cross 2 lanes of bike traffic. Bikers will see people pop out from between cars every 25 feet or so. Some of the pedestrians will have no clue bikes are speeding by in both directions until they step off the curb.

Every benefit this plan will provide is offset by some new problem or increased risk. Harbor Drive will probably look better and the city will get some money from the state but calling the plan an improvement project is a misrepresentation of the facts. Maybe it should be called a movement project as in move this over there and that over here.

There’s one clear winner in this plan. Auto body shops in the South Bay stand to reap huge benefits by repairing all the dented doors that result from hundreds of people backing into parallel parking spaces on Herondo Street. Maybe it’s time to invest in a body shop?