To Tree Ordinance, or not to Tree Ordinance, That is the Question    

While I was walking neighborhoods campaigning prior to the June election I happened to knock on the door of longtime Torrance resident Shirley McNair.  She graciously let me into her home and I was immediately struck by her regal beauty.  She walked me into her living room and asked that I look out her expansive living room window.  From there, I was able to see a magnificent view of the ocean.  I quickly noticed, however, that the view was somewhat obstructed by a clump of Eucalyptus Trees.

treesShirley explained to me that the 40 foot trees were City owned and that the City would not pay for workers to come and trim the branches to help restore her view.  She also related to me how numerous would be or actual Torrance politicians had stood in the exact spot in her home where I stood and that all had committed to passing a Tree Ordinance in the Hillside Overlay area but that none had delivered.

Perhaps in the hope that would change, Shirley was one of about 30 residents to appear before the City Council at Tuesday’s meeting.  She related to the Council much the same story I had heard in her living room that afternoon.  She also warned the Council that “without rules you have chaos” and urged the Council to finally pass the Tree ordinance that her and many other residents had been wanting for the past 40 years.  In a symbolic gesture of the support such a measure would have many in the crowd resoundingly applauded at the conclusion of her remarks.

There are valid reasons why politicians have failed to act all these years.  Tree issues can be surprisingly complex and as Councilmember Weideman lamented, “the devil is often in the details.”  They often pit one homeowner’s desire for privacy and the quiet enjoyment of their home versus another’s desire to maintain an ocean view that one resident with a background in real estate noted could be worth as much as $250,000 dollars.

Unfortunately, some motivations behind such disputes are much more nefarious.  Judy Brunetti, the current Hollywood Riviera HOA Co-President, stated that residents denied 2nd story home renovations due to view obstruction complaints will sometimes retaliate by planting “spite” trees.  With no legal recourse to protect those impacted by such actions, some have resorted to poisoning the view obstructing trees.  She offered that residents were looking to City government for help in avoiding such confrontations and suggested they use the Rolling Hills Estates ordinance as an example as that ordinance is cost neutral and has seemed to work quite well for that community

Judy English, another Riviera HOA Board member, emphasized fairness and compromise and described her situation as the poster child for why an ordinance is necessary. She stated that her neighbor recently surrounded their property with 220 Leyland Cyprus trees specifically selected for their rapid growth with heights reaching up to 90 to 100 feet.  She believes this was done to enable a 2nd story expansion on the property once the trees are full grown.

Another resident, Jim Delurgio, commented that he and his neighbors had been victims of the tree vandalism mentioned by Brunetti and that he has the video evidence to prove it.  He claimed that he previously brought that evidence to the City and that they did nothing to prosecute the perpetrators.  He tried to avail himself of the City sponsored mediation process to resolve the dispute but the other party simply refused to participate in the process.  For that reason, he felt that solely establishing an alternative dispute resolution process to resolve disputes about trees among neighbors would be ineffective.

The rest of the residents that spoke at the meeting echoed many of the thoughts expressed above.  Of those 30 residents, none spoke in opposition to the Tree Ordinance.  During the past election, I don’t recall any of the City Council candidates being opposed to such a measure.  Of course, there are some that would disagree, but it does appear that the overwhelming consensus of the community is that some action needs to be taken.  I believe Councilmember Weideman captured the feeling of the community precisely when he stated “It’s about time!”

Given then what appears to be overwhelming support for this initiative I am pleased the Council is acting and moving the ball forward, but if I had a wish it would be that City Government were able to respond more quickly.  Mayor Furey indicated at the meeting that with some residents waiting as long as 40 years that another several months would not be too much longer to stomach.  I tend to think the opposite.  Isn’t 40 years long enough?  Why delay this any longer?  Despite all the fanfare, the only real action taken by the Council was to direct staff to hold some community meetings with HOA’s and explore the possibility of a phone survey with the anticipation that the matter would return to Council sometime in April 2015.  Is any of that outreach really necessary on this particular issue?  Councilmember Ashcraft even voiced opposition to the proposed $30K phone survey questioning whether such an expense would be worth it.

I worry that sometimes when the Council truly doesn’t want to pass something they default to community outreach as a means to delay the proposition.  Case in point is the chickens and bees ordinance many were advocating for months ago.  The City’s position on that issue was that more community outreach needed to be done.  Now, nearly a year later nothing has happened.

When the City wants something, it seems like they can act fairly quickly.  Take the Optimized Street Sweeping Program for example.  It could be argued that that Program will have a much more far reaching impact on the community than a Tree Ordinance yet the Council didn’t conduct any community outreach at all prior to bringing that item up for a vote.  Car2Go is another example.  The City didn’t even bring that matter before the Council instead opting to broker a deal behind closed doors even though that company operates in an apparent conflict with a current City ordinance and despite many complaints from residents about parking and having to “view” a Car2Go in front of their home.

For Shirley’s sake, and for the rest of those that suffer from view impairments, I do hope the hearing was more than a token tip of the hat to campaign supporters and that it will be followed up with real action resulting in a fair ordinance that residents can rely on to help resolve any future view impairment issues.  After all after 40 years, isn’t it about time?

Council Weighs In on Proposition 47 and Collection Bins

Yes on 47The City Council unanimously voted to adopt a resolution opposing California Proposition 47 last Tuesday night. The vote of opposition comes on the heels of a similar vote by the LA City Council where that body voiced support for the measure. The measure would re-classify petty crimes such as shoplifting or theft where the value is less than $950 as misdemeanors rather than felonies. It would also require misdemeanor sentencing instead of felony for certain drug possession offenses. Under the initiative about 10,000 current inmates would be allowed to apply for resentencing in accordance with the new guidelines.

In addition to the LA City Council, the proposition was also recently endorsed by the LA Times. Other proponents include the California Democratic Party, the League of Women Voters, the ACLU of California, and labor groups like the California Teachers Association. The measure has also drawn support from conservative politicians and businessman like Newt Gingrich and B. Wayne Hughes Jr. A recent poll also showed strong support for the measure among voters indicating it will likely pass with 62% in favor and only 25% against.

In backing the proposition the LA Times stated that, “Opponents offer arguments that are familiar for their fear-mongering tactics but are new in some of their particulars: baseless yet ominous warnings that waves of dangerous criminals will be released; odd predictions about, of all things, date rape.” These so called “fear-mongering” tactics were exactly those offered by the Torrance Police Department and the City Attorney’s office at the Council meeting. Resident Lloyd Brown spoke out against these scare tactics at the meeting and offered his opinion that the proposition was a good law.

In voicing his opposition to Proposition 47, Mayor Furey expressed concern that the measure would allow the early release of convicted felons. He commented that released criminals come to Torrance to “shop” at the homes of residents by stealing their property. Former Torrance Police Officer and current Councilmember Geoff Rizzo was much more forceful. In a strongly worded statement he claimed that the proposition “decriminalized behavior,” that it would allow “deviant behavior to become the norm,” and that it was “not something we should accept in a civilized society.”

Rizzo’s strong opposition is not surprising given that many police groups have united to oppose the initiative and that politicians, especially in Torrance, are loathe to support anything that may be viewed as soft on crime. Still, the unanimous vote of opposition including that of progressive politicians on the Council like Goodrich is curious as the measure seems to have garnered wide support from the democratic political base.

Handout photo of a Goodwill Donation Bin in New JerseyThe Council also heard input from the community on Collection Bins. The Council had previously imposed a moratorium prohibiting the placement of new bins within the City until November 15th, 2014. The staff report acknowledged, however, that during the 10 month moratorium period that the amount of bins within the City increased substantially. Julie Dover, the Chief Operating Officer of Goodwill, spoke out against the bins claiming that unregulated for profit businesses were taking advantage of the Goodwill brand and hampering legitimate non-profit enterprises that served the poor. Representatives from two different collection bin operators offered their view that the bins encouraged recycling and diverted items from the waste stream resulting in less recyclables ending up in the landfill.

Councilmember Ashcraft made an animated argument against the bins expressing her belief that the projected total of upwards of 350 bins would blight the community and that she already sees too much junk. She thought residents would be better served using attended locations such as the Salvation Army.

Councilmember Weideman admitted that he initially thought the bins should be prohibited in the City but that he has since been persuaded by a remark made by Mayor Furey that it’s better to appropriately regulate than prohibit. He then suggested they table the item until the end of October giving City Staff more time to work on appropriate regulations such as how many bins should be allowed, how far apart they should be, what should be the maximum size, how often operators should be required to clean them, and what the fees should be. In a perplexing move, despite voicing strong objections to the bins Councilmember Ashcraft joined the rest of the USA mayorsCouncil in voting for the staff to draw up regulations that would allow the bins.

At the conclusion of the meeting Mayor Furey asked the Council’s concurrence for the City of Torrance to join the USA Conference of Mayors. Joining the group would cost the City upwards of $12,000 a year.

TUSD Bond Measures T and U Take Center Stage at Community Meeting

T high schoolA meeting to debate the pros and cons of the proposed bond measures T and U that will be voted on this November drew a crowd of civic leaders and concerned residents to the Torrance Historical Society Museum late Thursday evening.  Former Mayor Frank Scotto provided the argument for the school bonds while Rick Marshall, a current candidate for the Board of Equalization, delivered an argument against the measures.

Measure T is a $144 Million bond that will improve school security systems, upgrade classrooms and science and computer labs, add new STEM courses, renovate auxiliary gyms, and make energy efficiency improvements.  Measure U is a $50 Million bond that will provide an aquatic center, add multi-purpose gyms at middle schools, and renovate facilities and playgrounds.  Together the bonds represent about $30 per year in property taxes for every $100K of assessed home value.

Scotto reiterated that people come to live in Torrance for the safe community and good schools and expressed his belief that the community should finish what it started when it passed bond measures Y and Z.  He confessed that as a Republican he is generally the last person that would ask for more taxes but said he believed in the bond measures as he thought of them as a good investment for the community as quality schools will help to maintain high property values that benefit all residents.

The former Mayor acknowledged that the aquatic center with its hefty $15 Million price tag has become a target for those opposing the bonds.  Part of the consternation is due to the lack of details about the proposed facility and the yet to be determined location for the pool. Current plans are to have an Olympic sized pool with stadium seating and an open roof. It will be made available to the general public, but high school swim and water polo teams will have priority use. Local schools currently use the outdated Plunge for swimming activities.

The question was raised whether the project could include more family friendly amenities such as slides and splash pads for younger children in addition to the pool. Those additions are not currently in the plans, but they are suggestions that could be raised at future community meetings should the bond measure be approved.

As for the location, no funds are included in the bond measure to acquire property for the project necessitating that it be built on City or TUSD property. According to Scotto, utilizing City property for the estimated 10 acre site might allow the City to help with maintenance costs and could lead to the City eventually assuming control of the facility. He commented that he didn’t want to see SCROC close, but suggested that if it did that the SCROC site could be a possible home for the Aquatic Center due to its central location.

To argue against the measures, Rick Marshall stated that increased taxes are an impediment to economic growth and job creation. In defense of that assertion, he quoted a recently released book entitled “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of States.” The book claims that California has tax rates that are roughly 65 percent higher than are Texas’s tax rates and overall tax revenue that is 25 higher. Yet according to the book, “Texas grows faster, employs more people, and attracts more residents. Texas also has better roads, police protection, fire protection, schools, and prison facilities, as well as less poverty and less need for welfare workers.”

Marshall was also critical of utilizing borrowed money for many of the projects included in the bond measures and suggested that the taxpayers would get better value for their money if the School District used the General Fund to pay for such measures. He expressed concern that interest payments on the bonds often results in the taxpayers paying two or three times as much.

Marshall also stated that the 2010 census indicated that Torrance has an aging population with a decrease in the number of kids attending Torrance schools. Marshall used that statistic to suggest that TUSD could reduce the number of schools and facilities in the district and possibly sell the property as a way to raise the money for some of the projects included in the bond measures. Mark Steffen, a TUSD Board Member in attendance, acknowledged that the District currently relies on about 3,000 kids coming from outside Torrance to fill out its 25,000 enrollment figures, but claimed that argument was a red herring as the kids from outside Torrance bring with them needed state funding.

TUSD has formed a committee comprising of community leaders like former Mayor Scotto and head of the Torrance PTA Council Janet Tajii to spearhead a campaign in support of the bond measures. To help raise awareness, the Committee asked PTA organizations at each school to voice their support and provide a suggested donation of $500. Residents wanting lawn signs, pamphlets, or other materials can contact TUSD or their local schools for more information.

At the conclusion of the meeting, one resident seemed to capture the mood in the room when he commented that he did not like taxes, but that sometimes you just have to suck it up and bite the bullet for the good of the community. Whether the rest of the community agrees with that sentiment remains to be seen.

1 51 52 53 54 55 61