Jumping Without Parachutes

As the Town Council tinkers with the contract language that looks like it will end up on the November ballot, I hope they don’t forget the obvious. This cannot merely be a vote on “sell or don’t sell.” This issue is much more complicated than that.

Currently the discussion seems to be centering on creating a firmer agreement on which to vote in referendum. However, that only addresses whether the agreement is acceptable as an option; it does not offer the consequences should some feel that we could “do better.” This is a recipe for disaster.

Here is the analogy in simple terms. I put the following on a ballot: “Do you think jumping out of a burning plane spiraling to the ground would be a good idea?” Well, if the plane were burning and running out of fuel and the pilots incapacitated, I would probably consider it! However, I would be rather mad if AFTER I made my decision I was told other crucial pieces of information, like: “There will be no parachutes, so the fall will probably kill you,” or, “Oh, and you’re jumping into the mouth of a volcano.”

The Town expects us to make this huge leap without any knowledge of how things will work out if we choose one alternative. In this case, I would sell under some conditions, and would keep it under others. Without addressing all conditions of the sale (what would happen if we DON’T sell, for instance), the referendum is useless at best, misleading at worst.

For example, how much would it cost for the Town to properly maintain this property, as many contend we can do? Where will this money come from, and is it possible to sustain this arrangement for a considerable amount of time? If the answer is that taxes must be raised and more items cut from the existing budget, many would balk. On the other hand, if another funding source from grants or creative budgeting would minimize the tax increase, many would prefer to keep the land to ensure the access that the Fish & Wildlife Service cannot guarantee. Even if the tax increase were minimal, would it be sustainable? If we can only cover for the next two or three years and then we run out of money to maintain it, we’re right back where we started from.

Another factor is how we’ll pay for tearing down the existing structures. Some will hope to keep the footprint for future construction, while others would hope to keep it clear for future generations. Who wins out? If we vote to keep it, are we voting to sell it to the highest bidder or maintain it as open land? Is there any guarantee it will stay “open” if we keep it?

In short, are we jumping without a parachute, here?

If I ran my business the way this town runs itself, I’d have been ousted a long time ago. Bedtime stories are for kids, not town councils. Either come up with the facts and give us all the information we need to make informed decisions between two alternatives, or go back to the drawing board and get someone to help you do it right. Failing that, the vote I’ll be looking forward to is a referendum on the Town Council, not the sale of Long Beach West.