Dear Madam Mayor and City Council Members:

We all know that redevelopment is a very complex process.   We also know that redevelopment in Long Beach needs improvement.  The council is proposing that some kind of change in governance will make these improvements, yet there are very few that agree with this. 

The matter that deserves extended public discussion and the real focus should be the improvement of redevelopment in this city, not governance.  The independent study is expected to give all stakeholders in this process much needed direction through unbiased and responsible research and analysis.  It will identify best practices allowing for greater accountability.  There will be a more thorough examination of governance, organization, communication, project evaluation, and how to better engage the public in the process.  This city does not need the confusion and disruption of an interim governance structure because we can not wait for six months for direction.

As you know and have brought forth there are many issues related to redevelopment and a 3 minute public comment period does not really allow the dialog and discussion needed on this complex topic.  This is particularly true when council members speak at extended length and there are no opportunities for the public to discuss the issues, reply, or engage.  The study sessions have used this constrained public input in sessions held during the work day when most people can not attend.  And now the hearing is being held four days before Christmas.  What is the message the council is conveying to the public? 

At the study sessions the public has learned that many of the questions and discussion by councilmembers to staff have occurred outside of council meetings.  Which is OK.  Answers to multiple lists of questions and background requested have been painstaking provided by staff in notebooks and documents, which have not yet been made available to the public.  So any facts the public should be using have not been shared.   When I requested the information staff indicated that this process has been moving so fast there has not been an opportunity to provide information to the public, yet that is given as one of the reasons the council should serve as the redevelopment agency board – to enhance the public process.  If this is an example of how the council will engage the public, I say no thank you. 

If we could have extended discussion on these very important issues I believe a better analysis and review of the situation would come to light.  Most would expect an issue of this importance would offer public debate and discussion as the independent study is tasked to do before any action is taken.  Further, the governance issue before the council and all of the information the council needs to make a very quick decision not only leaves the public out of the process it also pulls staff away from the business of redevelopment, once again. 

For me, I have found that publicly held PAC meetings allow real discussion, when each issue individually can be discussed at length.  The PACs provide representation for those in the path of redevelopment, the meetings are held monthly and the public is encouraged to attend. 

As Barbara Kaiser pointed out in the last study session, because of their extended life in Long Beach, PACs have developed a different role than simply providing input on eminent domain.  The uniqueness of how Long Beach undertakes redevelopment is what makes it not fit into a standard cookie cutter mold.   Reading each PAC Bylaws will give the council a better understanding of the role of the PACs in the process. 

I truly appreciate the appeals by the council to the public in the newspaper, in e-mail, via phones calls and meetings.  The engagement indicates the importance of the matter, but the public, as a whole, needs to be fully engaged in an interactive discussion and dialog.  Thank you for making your positions known.  Now allow a public process that more fully addresses the intricacies of the issues at hand to transpire as necessary in the independent study.

Respectfully submitted,