I hope that January was productive for you and that you are settled into your 2017 routines.  I wanted to take an opportunity to share my thoughts on the airport vote with you, since most of you are residents in my district and definitely entitled to know my thought process on major Citywide issues.

 

Last Tuesday I made an important decision that required an analysis of multiple factors. The process ultimately led to my decision not to support an international terminal at Long Beach Airport.

Based on some of the reactions that I have received since the vote,  it appears that both sides felt it was a foregone conclusion that the Council would vote to support the international terminal.  The pro-FIS interests seemed to think this two-year review process and vote was a "no brainer." Conversely, the impacted residents thought we would just automatically side with the pro-FIS interests. I know there is often a lot of chatter leading up to important votes, but I want the public to know that these assumptions could not be farther from the truth.  While we may not always agree, we are committed to having a fair and transparent process.

 

Business interests are often at the forefront of my mind, and JetBlue is certainly a good partner that we want to see succeed. I have had little to no contact with them since being sworn into office, but I met with them at their request the morning before the vote. I kept an open-mind going into the meeting but I did express my concerns to them, and I very much appreciated their candor.  The meeting and my research afterwards really pushed me to weigh more heavily the concerns of the residents who are impacted by airport issues.

 

I learned that JetBlue is operating with a single-digit profit at LGB.  In some of their other markets, they are making double-digit profits. In my assessment, the primary objective in the FIS proposal was to meet financial objectives that are similar to some of their other markets.  I understand, respect and fully appreciate that objective.  That business goal, however, is not my duty as a policy maker.  And the location of our airport, within a few miles of multiple residential neighborhoods, is not the same as other markets that we were being compared to.

 

For me the decision involved a cost-benefit analysis. The regional benefits identified in the study were, at best, speculative. The potential or perceived harms regarding reduction of domestic flights, increased passenger traffic, noise, and property values, while only partially supported by the study, are very real for the impacted residents.

 

Voting no meant we maintained a status quo that results in a continued profit for JetBlue and a stable and acceptable reality for the impacted residents.  The alternative would have been to begin a process that takes us toward an uncertain end as to how it will ultimately impact these residents and the city as a whole.

 

People who follow my votes and actions know that I am always willing to make tough decision for things I know will ultimately be found to be positive. Especially when I know we can alleviate the fears shortly after implementation.  In this situation, however, if the benefits to an FIS turned out to be true and all the harms turned out to be false, it would be years before any of that was realized and proven. During that time these residents would be worried about their futures, their quality of life, and what this change will mean for their families. The stress we would be putting on the residents most affected was very difficult for me to accept.  Even though the majority of these residents do not live in my district, a vote in support of their concerns to me, meant that in the future, if my residents had genuine fears about how a citywide issue could impact their homes, quality of life, etc. (for example with the breakwater or zoning) my colleagues would take their fears and concerns into consideration in weighing the potential benefits of a proposed change of course.

 

After the vote, I received some emails from people claiming that the vote was "ignorant."  Frankly, that is unfair to those residents who have attended countless meetings expressing sincere worries that have not been resolved. In my opinion, moving forward in spite of those concerns would be contrary to our responsibility as council members.

 

These decisions are difficult and ultimately my role is to make decisions that I can defend in terms of the course they put us on. Based on the information and resident involvement that has occurred, prudence dictated maintaining a reality that includes continued single-digit profits for a valued corporate partner, mitigation of our residents' fears and protection of our noise ordinance. To me, that is a balanced and fair decision.

 

I hope that even if you did not agree with my specific vote on this issue, you can respect the process that went into formulating a decision.  

The Marina Vista Park restrooms will be relocated to the area south of the tennis courts near the E Eliot Street parking lot. The new structure will be using pre-fabricated building and design details similar to the beach restrooms at 8th Place, Cherry, and Coronado. The project is currently out to bid and a zoning administrator hearing took place on Monday, January 23. 

 

Public Works is working on a lighting plan to ensure that the area is well lit and Long Beach Police Department is looking at the possibility of installing video cameras on the building for additional security. The decision to adjust the proposed location of the facility came after collaboration between city staff and area residents who found that the agreed upon location satisfies both public and private interests. 

    Current Restroom Location                                 Future Restroom Location