The South and Bellflower shopping center saga continues

As we have reported previously the ongoing "former Vons" saga at South and Bellflower lingers on for what seems like an eternity. Just getting the parking lot fixed took over a year. They were finished in August 2009. [read our update to this story here]

Vons/Pavillions is owned by the lovely Safeway people headquartered in Oakland CA. When the current owner of the properly bought it many years ago Vons had a very long term and cheap lease on the building it vacated in 1998. They did not want to let go of the lease for fear that another grocery store would move in there and heaven forbid "compete" with the Pavillions over at South and Woodruff (which has the worst prices of any grocery store in the area thanks to union and other issues...but that's another column). Clearly the Fresh and Easy has not been any competition. We are still banking on that operation to fold up as the novelty has worn off.

The real problems began when the current landlord (Lings Property Management..located in LA) tried to buy Vons lease interest out. Of course Von's wanted to make sure that a Trader Joes market or some other savvy competitor cannot get in that spot. This created two problems. First it harms Lakewood shoppers who have a lack of real shopping choice for groceries (as most cities in the this area, especially Long Beach, backed the unions and disallowed Wal Mart grocery stores). Secondly it reduces the chances of leasing that entire former Vons store due to its sheer size. But the city apparently refused or failed to intervene on behalf of the city residents and encourage Von's (Safeway) to drop that requirement and so there you have it. No competitive food stores in that center for years to come thanks to heavy handed action by Safeway. Quite frankly we feel that is appalling and only hurts residents.

So as it stands now the former Von's store will be subdivided into three equally divided store units. More doors and glass will be added to the front. The building is essentially gutted inside now. As of Sept. 15, 2009 it is supposed to be ready for the build out of the first of three new tenants.

The first will be "Dollar Tree" And of course they will sell little if any "food items" at the store thanks the our pals over at Safeway. It is not clear on who the other two tenants will be but given the glut of commercial space in Lakewood we are not optimistic that it will be leased quickly (especially given the site had had for lease signs up for about 3 years..one actually rotted and fell over!) We are also not at all impressed with Lakewood's very shallow and transparent redevelopment efforts which don't seem to be getting much bang for the tax dollar. Also the city seems to focus all their attention on the mall and second or third tier shopping centers like the one at Bellflower and South and Palo Verde and South languish with years of vacancies and decay. We all know where that leads.

Dollar Tree is one of a number of large chains that appears to be doing well in this 12% unemployment economy.

Here are Dollar Tree's current local stores:

6426 E. Spring St. Long Beach, CA 90815

Norwalk Town Center 13913 Pioneer Blvd Norwalk, CA 90650

8111 E Wardlow Road Long Beach, CA 90808

In related news, in the same shopping center the Hanalei restaurant has reopened after being closed for about a year. No idea what the problem was but its good to see businesses operating as opposed to empty buildings. We know thats not good for anyone.

We also hear that the Movietime Video rental store in the same shopping center is supposed to be subdivided and that a 7-11 will go in on the Bellflower Blvd side. We will believe that when we see it.

Finally the South and Bellflower site is supposed to get a minor facade upgrade for all stores. That has not yet been defined. But anything would be an improvement over what we have now.

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Community Workshop to discuss proposed improvements to the San Gabriel River Bikeway

Today we received a press release (below) from the city of Seal Beach regarding the section of the San Gabriel River bike path that is situated in their city and Orange County. We have complained about the deterioration of the path for years (since June 2006 to be exact). The County of LA claimed they could do nothing as the path was Seal Beach's responsibility by an agreement created in the early 1970's when the path was first built. We argued that that should never have been the case. We argued for OC transportation funds to be used. We argued for federal "Stimulus funds" to be used. All to no avail. Finally it appears that the money that was originally "promised" by the State on Sept. 2008 (then "withdrawn" on Dec. 2008) is now starting to ooze thru the mess that we all know is ongoing in Sacramento (don't get us started on that). Well don't hold your breath for the funds to ever make it into "real" improvements you can ride on. They may all get eaten up by consultants and other types of "pre-groundbreaking activities". But at least this is a good start.

So for those of you that use this section of the San Gabriel River Bikeway (405 south to the ocean) we hope to see you at the meeting on Sept. 10. It is important that bike riders that use the trail show up and provide input (and support) as we are actually the ones that know the problems and how to fix them. Its your trail and your tax dollars. So please pass this along.

Press Release text:

“The City of Seal Beach will be holding a Community Workshop to discuss proposed improvements to the San Gabriel River Bikeway and River's End Staging Area. This project will include repaving the bike trail from the First Street parking lot to I-405, improvements to the First Street parking lot, and remodeling the existing First Street restroom. The workshop will include a presentation of the draft plan for the area followed by an opportunity to ask questions and provide your feedback.

The project is being funded through a grant from the State of California, Rivers and Mountains Conservancy. Funding restrictions through the State had caused the City to place this project on hold recently. However, with portions of funding back in place, the City is pleased to bring this project back online and would like to gather input and feedback from the community and those who utilize the San Gabriel River Bike Trail.

The workshop will be held at the City of Seal Beach Council Chambers on Thursday, September 10, 2009 at 6:30 pm.

For further information regarding this project, please contact David Spitz, Associate Engineer at (562) 431-2527 ext. 1331.”

David Spitz, P.E.
Associate Civil Engineer
City of Seal Beach
211 8th Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
p - (562) 431-2527 ext 1331
f - (562) 430-8763
dspitz@ci.seal-beach.ca.us


Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

click here to receive LAAG posts by email

California Proposition 59 - freedom of information or "sunshine" law

California Proposition 59 was an amendment of the Constitution of California that introduced freedom of information or "sunshine" provisions. On November 2, 2004 it passed with 9,334,852 (83.4%) votes in favor and 1,870,146 (16.6%) against.

The amendment adds to the state constitution Article I, Section 3 (b). Section 3 (a) is the provision of the Declaration of Rights that guarantees the right to freedom of assembly, the right to petition the government and the right to instruct ones elected representatives. The amendment added to these rights the following provisions:

(1) The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.

(2) A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people’s right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access. A statute, court rule, or other authority adopted after the effective date of this subdivision that limits the right of access shall be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

(3) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies the right of privacy guaranteed by Section 1 or affects the construction of any statute, court rule, or other authority to the extent that it protects that right to privacy, including any statutory procedures governing discovery or disclosure of information concerning the official performance or professional qualifications of a peace officer.

(4) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies any provision of this Constitution, including the guarantees that a person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denied equal protection of the laws, as provided in Section 7.

(5) This subdivision does not repeal or nullify, expressly or by implication, any constitutional or statutory exception to the right of access to public records or meetings of public bodies that is in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, including, but not limited to, any statute protecting the confidentiality of law enforcement and prosecution records.

(6) Nothing in this subdivision repeals, nullifies, supersedes, or modifies protections for the confidentiality of proceedings and records of the Legislature, the Members of the Legislature, and its employees, committees, and caucuses provided by Section 7 of Article IV, state law, or legislative rules adopted in furtherance of those provisions; nor does it affect the scope of permitted discovery in judicial or administrative proceedings regarding deliberations of the Legislature, the Members of the Legislature, and its employees, committees, and caucuses.


Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Water costs to increase 109% in Lakewood

Just as LAAG was getting ready to write an article on what a poor job cities like Lakewood are doing on water conservation and recycling (other than lip service), this story below pops up and grabbed our attention. Bottom line: water fees are going up 109% due to spending on pork projects that do not appear to be directly related to water delivery to residents in Lakewood. Whatever happened to all the federal stimulus money? Again this is yet another sad example of how government agencies (especially little known, little watched ones like the Central Basin Municipal Water District) just do not care what the taxpayers think about spending. They know that most of what they do is carried out in utter obscurity and hidden from ratepayers, and unless things really get out of hand, most increases are gradual, slow or hidden in "obscure fees" and unnoticed by most ratepayers (like the frog in the boiling water; turn up the heat (or costs) slow and he wont jump out before he cooks).

Charges for water need to be based more on rational formulas than simply raw usage. Charge based on lot size and number of occupants. Once they go above the allotted threshold fees go way up. Then perhaps we would see all those silly lawns in Lakewood replaced with drought resistant plants. People in LA county fail to realize that we live in a desert and its going to get worse before it gets better. We are now in year round drought mode. Rain in LA country means very little as the vast majority of it just goes out to the ocean (after it picks up a bunch of toxic chemicals after coursing over miles of driveways, streets, gutters and storm water drains. Some non run off waste water is treated then released to the ocean. Only a very small percentage of water in LA County is reclaimed and used to water lawns. Not only is this a waste of money and energy but also something that is even more precious: water.

Of course the irony here (as usual) is that this "fee" increase has nothing to do with the scarcity or usage of water (or even the cost of water) but rather poor judgment by bureaucrats and pet projects of dubious value. Still this cost increase may have the "beneficial" effect of making people cut back on water use and starting to be come more rational in terms of their landscaping choices.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-water-rates18-2009jul18,0,756615.story
From the Los Angeles Times
Doubling of water fees in largely blue-collar L.A. County area stirs uproar
The Central Basin Municipal Water District says the money will go to projects that are cheaper to build during a recession. But client cities and agencies question the expenditures.
By Louis Sahagun

[bold text from LAAG editor]

July 18, 2009

A water district's decision to double water fees has sparked outcry from largely working-class and impoverished areas of Los Angeles County.

The Central Basin Municipal Water District unanimously approved the charges June 25, despite objections from cities including Compton, Lynwood, Santa Fe Springs, Huntington Park, Bellflower, Norwalk and Lakewood.

The fee hikes will be phased in, from $44 per acre-foot of water to $62 per acre-foot on July 1, then to $72 per acre-foot on Jan. 1, 2010, and $92 on July 1, 2010.

An average household in Lakewood, for example, can expect to pay about $88 more a year on water services, officials said.

Officials in Norwalk, which buys 80% of its water from the district, say the city's water fund cannot support the increase without passing the cost on to customers.

"This issue is not dead yet," said Adriana Figueroa, administrative services manager for Norwalk. "We have lots of questions and we want answers -- we deserve them."

Cities and local water agencies have begun questioning the board's spending on projects, including a 12-mile-long pipeline for recycled water, and contributions it made toward building an "interpretive center" in the Whittier Narrows wildlife sanctuary.

Art Aguilar, district manager for the central board, sympathized with customers, but insisted that "the money we get will be spent wisely" on projects that he said are more efficient to build during a recession, when costs have fallen.

"I do not disagree with their anger and being upset," Aguilar said. "If we didn't have to do it right now we wouldn't. . . . It's just one of those things. We have a bad economy, which means that the cost of building the recycled-water pipeline will be less than it would in a strong economy. So we'll save money in the long run." The pipeline project "was initially projected to cost about a total $110 million," he said. "We believe it will come in at less than that."

But Jeanne-Marie Bruno, general manager of Downey-based Park Water Co., a district customer that serves portions of Compton, Norwalk and Artesia, was not convinced that her customers would benefit directly from that project.

"We have lots of questions," she said. "Does this project make sense for our region? Are the right customers being billed for this project?"

Robb Whitaker, general manager of the Water Replenishment District of Southern California, argued that this was not the time to raise fees. The agency manages groundwater for nearly 4 million residents of southern Los Angeles County, according to its website.

"In the worst of times," he said in a letter to Aguilar, "when our respective public and private customers are laying off employees and implementing mandatory furloughs and generally slashing their budgets, such an increase is unimaginable."

Some environmentalists took issue with the district's donation of $80,000 last year in support of a controversial proposal to build a $30-million interpretive center and parking lot in the Whittier Narrows wildlife sanctuary.

Aguilar said the district wants to use the proposed center for new student programs designed to enhance understanding of the San Gabriel River watershed and its water districts. He pointed out that as part of an effort to cut costs, the district did not donate money this year to the San Gabriel River Discovery Center.

Jim Odling, chairman of the Friends of the Whittier Narrows Natural Area, which opposes the center, said the environmental impact report on the project "indicates the real purpose of the center will be to serve as a fancy meeting place for water and government agencies."

"In other words," he said, "while the district claims to be so desperate for money it is raising surcharge fees, it managed to come up with $80,000 to help build an interpretive center nine times bigger than the one that exists there now."

The Commerce-based district supplies water to 2 million residents in 24 cities and unincorporated county areas. Each year, it provides about 60,000 acre-feet of imported water to its 227-square-mile service area.

The district "is doing everything it can to provide information," Aguilar said. "If we need to sit down and have more meetings and outreach, we will do that too." (LAAG editor: yes we can have the meeting at the new interpretive center!)

"I understand that a 109% increase sounds horrible to people," he added. "But in the long run it will allow us to put together projects that will allow us to serve them better in the future."

louis.sahagun@latimes.com


Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

click here to receive LAAG posts by email

LASD contract cities have nowhere to turn

This was an issue we brought up with the city of Lakewood over two years ago. Namely that without competitive bidding contract cities like Lakewood may be getting ripped off. In the sectors where there is real private competition (like street sweeping, tree trimming, trash collection etc.) the city is arguably well served by at least appearing to have used some competitive bidding. But given the length of time some private contractors have been "serving" Lakewood one really starts to wonder just how much these budget increases are due to lack of competitive bidding.

In the law enforcement arena this is doubly so. The problem of course is that the LASD services are offered on a take it or leave it basis. Surely Baca laughs off any complaints by Lakewood as we just built his deputies a $20 million new locker room. So its not like we can drop the LASD at the drop of a hat and get other law enforcement. Thats a real problem and its starts to breed the problems set forth in the story below. The first was total lack of accountability and oversight as to how the "liability trust fund" money was being spent. This issue has been brewing for years and there is still no resolution. Clearly the current situation with the trust fund was brought about due to pressure (in secret) by the deputies labor union.

The other problem is an unclear chain of command and lack of real accountability. The city council only has moderate control over the LASD as a contract city. This is unlike the control cities have over their own city police departments.

The other problem (as exemplified by the trust fund issue) is that cities that have few deputy "problems" (i.e. lawsuits) end up paying a larger share of the "rogue deputy cases" involving "shootings gone bad" etc. that occur in cities that have more crime problems or police clashes with citizens. Again this does not work in Lakewood's favor.

Finally this lack of real bargaining position by the small contract cities is resulting in costs just being passed on to the cities with no real way to control or curtail them, again because the city really does not "run" the LASD and has little ability to control costs other than when at the yearly "bargaining" table.

This lack of real bargaining power due to a lack of alternatives is fostering runaway costs. In FY 2007-2008 the Lakewood LASD contract was $8,862,113.00 (or approx. $216 per year for each registered voter in the city...such a deal!) The FY 2009-2010 the Lakewood LASD contract was $10,423,367.00 (or approx. $254 per year for each registered voter in the city). That is a 17.6% increase! How is this possible with no inflation and almost flat cost of living increases (how many of you in the private sector got a 17% raise in 2009-10?)

So what to do. Well surely we cant continue to deal with LASD the same way as in years past. We need to look at their services and cost of delivery like we would with any other contractor...more critically, especially in light of the budget probles we are sure to have over the next 5 years. One of the problems is that certain people on this city council are probably not very objective when looking at the LASD negotiations or service efficiency.

The other problem is where to turn for a competitive bid. Long Beach PD is an obvious choice but they have their own problems, mostly budgetary. But the real issue is would adding Lakewood to their patrol area and a large chuck of cash to their budget improve not only Lakewood bargaining position with LASD but also raise up the LBPD situation? The other option is looking at starting a city police force but pooling common resources with other small contract cities. Drawbacks include bringing in the same "bad apple" officers that are problems now at LASD. LASD also touts that we get "bonus" services like SWAT and the LASD crime lab etc. included in the deal. However that is not a free "add on". Also when was the last time we needed SWAT in Lakewood? And given the new crime lab's reputation its clearly no bargain.

We think given the way the state and country are headed budget wise that Lakewood is going to have a very tough budgetary road for the next 5 years (Lakewood admits that). The sales tax declines are also going to hurt badly and we dont see that improving any time soon. And we dont see LASD helping Lakewood financially in the future.

We think its time for some real competitive bidding.

http://www.whittierdailynews.com/news/ci_12765178
La Habra Heights to consider ousting sheriff's; look elsewhere for police contract
By Mike Sprague Staff Writer
Posted: 07/06/2009 11:00:00 PM PDT

LA HABRA HEIGHTS - The tiny rural community of La Habra Heights is at the vanguard of group of cities considering dumping the Sheriff's Department.

La Habra Heights City Manager Shauna Clark will ask the City Council at its 7:30 p.m. meeting Thursday to give her permission to consider contracting for police services with another agency and consider leaving the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.

La Habra Heights is among 40 cities that contract with the Sheriff's Department refusing to renew. They are upset that Los Angeles County is forcing them to pay for legal liability in criminal misconduct cases against deputies.

Calls Monday to La Ca ada Flintridge, Duarte and the California Contract Cities Association were not returned. Officials in La Ca ada Flintridge and Duarte have criticized the new contract language.

The cities have threatened to sue the county after it took $5 million from the liability trust fund to settle a case against a Compton deputy who raped three women while on duty.

The cities pay for the fund, which currently has $52 million.

"We don't get to choose our deputies," Clark said. "We don't get to train them. For a small city like us, a large lawsuit in a case like that could break us."

It could mean that La Habra Heights, population 5,712, must purchase additional general liability insurance and establish a liability reserve, she said.

David Sommers, spokesman for Los Angeles County Supervisor Don Knabe, said the liability issue may be on its way to being solved.

"We're pretty close to a final resolution," he said. "The talks are still ongoing and the supervisor is hopeful that it will be resolved shortly."

Sommers said he believes the issue between the cities and the county could be smoothed out.

"For more than 50 years, the contract city relationship has worked well," he said.

"Contract cities are the number one customer of the county," he said. "There are more residents in contract cities than in unincorporated areas. They are our No. 1 customer and we have a responsibility to provide excellent customer service."

Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina has said that if the issue isn't resolved by Aug. 31, the contracts with cities won't be renewed.

The contracts were due to expire July 1, but the county extended them until Aug. 31.

In La Habra Heights, liability isn't the only issue.

Clark also is concerned about the rising costs of sheriff's services.

The cost for patrols rose a combined 47 percent over the last five years. In contrast, property tax - the city's main revenue source - increased by only 21 percent during that time.

One possible provider of police services could be Whittier.

Whittier City Manager Steve Helvey said patrolling La Habra Heights might not make financial sense for his city due to its small size and distance from Whittier.

The Sheriff's Department typically only keeps one car in the community.

"We'd still have to be prepared to send in other units," he said. "It's probably not the most convenient situation."

He needs to talk it over with the Whittier City Council, he said.

Should the issue remain unresolved, La Mirada could be another city that would look elsewhere for services, said Councilman Hal Malkin.

One of the last area cities to leave the Sheriff's Department was Santa Fe Springs, which contracted with Whittier for police services in 1995.

mike.sprague@sgvn.com

(562) 698-0955, Ext. 3022

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Our hopes went up in smoke

Well we had high hopes for July 4, 2009. Things were looking up July 1-3 when sales at the fireworks stands were way down for the first three days they were allowed to open (July 1-3). We were hoping the economy was finally knocking some sense into people's heads. Why pay $200.00 for some fire and smoke when you can go to a public fireworks display for free? But alas Lakewood residents did not disappoint come July 4. By 8:30 things were rockin'. It seems that those that like to make the most noise and irritate the most people and pets are apparently doing well in the recession and spent like mad on "Chinese safe and sane" fire and sparks being pedalled by our "good friends" over at TNT (who appear to have gobbled up most of their competition) But we had hope. We saw a few LASD Sheriff cars cruising around with smirking deputies (knowing they were halfway to buying that new boat with fireworks duty OT).

But alas as 11 pm came and went the big guns came out (big illegal "fireworks"). And where were the sheriff's? I guess they had mostly gone home for the night having used up all the amount Lakewood budgeted for the holiday weekend (160 deputy hours for $10.931...fyi thats $68.31 per hour for that fine sheriff "protection" for a grand total of 16 deputies for one 10 hr shift...such a deal!). Also note that none of the clubs benefiting from these sales or TNT which benefits the most offered to pick up the any of these extra costs. At least the Lakers and AEG picked up some of the Lakers parade OT costs. Hear that TNT?

Calls to LASD station after midnight were met with 20 min hold times. When you did get through residents reported a litany of stupid questions (after you reported "illegal fireworks" at a specific address were still being shot off well after the 11 pm cut off). Questions like:

"how long has this been going on?"
Who cares? Its illegal! Its midnight already!

"What is the cross street?"
What you dont know the city street grid by now...how long have you been patrolling...or have you ever?

"What color is the house?"
Its midnight you idiot how am I supposed to know the color of the house?

"How many people are at the house?"
Are you serious? Who cares? How should we know? Do you need to know haw many tasers to bring?

All the time this was going on you could hear the rocket scientist on the phone typing this in. Oh and their tone of voice over at LASD is usually one of "why are you bothering us...go away you bothersome resident..." (I assume in the new sheriff locker room the words are not so kind)

Most of the time this is done after the long hold time so that callers will eventually just hang up and give up (and never call back). That is the way LASD works; make it a pain for people to report problems, then show up two hours later and do nothing. After two hours you know everyone will be gone from the scene so thats even better. You can bill 2 hrs for the call, honestly say you drove by but nothing was seen. How true! This is typical even on low call volume days.

So Capt. Christy Guyovich's "pleas" or "warnings" (depending on your vantage point) were nothing more than words or idol threats at best. The third 4th of July since the March 2006 "Dunrobin" (Brian Miler) "incident" and we really dont have much to show in terms of progress. Can't wait to hear the post July 4th spin from City Hall. They need to hire some retired Bush spokespersons to boost their credibility.


Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

click here to receive LAAG posts by email

2009 fireworks displays..see any on June 27th?

Ever wonder why Lakewood does their display so early? (June 27 2009). Do you think there would be fewer problems with illegal displays in the city if they did the display on July 4 like they used to years ago and most cities do currently? Given the budget crisis that were are in and the fact that the professional displays can cost upwards of $80,000 we think Lakewood should eliminate the professional display or hold it on July 4. Unless we change Independence day to June 27. Plus we can save on law enforcement costs as all the 'activity" is on one day (not spread over two weekends)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
(all events below are on July 4, 2009 unless otherwise noted) The cities of Pico Rivera and Placentia are not be holding fireworks presentations in 2009.

Artesia: Fireworks at 9 p.m. Artesia Park, Elaine Avenue and South Street. (562) 860-3361.

Baldwin Park: Program starts at 5 p.m.; fireworks at 9 p.m. Sierra Vista High School, 3600 N. Frazier Ave. (626) 813-5245.

Calabasas: Gates open at 5 p.m., fireworks at 9 p.m. Calabasas High School, 22855 Mulholland Highway. $10. (818) 222-2782.

Castaic Lake: Program begins at 5 p.m.; fireworks at 9 p.m. All-day entrance to the park is $25 per car or $5 per person. Castaic Lake Recreation Area, 32132 Ridge Route Road, Castaic. (661) 257-4050.

Cerritos: Fireworks at 9 p.m. Cerritos High School, 12500 183rd St. (562) 916-1254.

Claremont: Program begins at 6:30 p.m., fireworks at 9 p.m. Pomona College, 340 N. College Ave. $6-$8. (909) 399-5460.

Commerce: Fireworks at 9 p.m. Rosewood Park, 5600 Harbor St. (323) 887-4427.

Diamond Bar: Festivities begin at 5 p.m. and fireworks start at 9 p.m. Diamond Bar High School, 21400 Pathfinder Road. (909) 594-1405.

Hollywood: John Fogerty concert begins at 7:30 p.m. and fireworks at 10 p.m. Hollywood Bowl, 2301 N. Highland Ave. $12-$116. (323) 850.2000.

Huntington Park: Program begins at 2 p.m., fireworks at 9 p.m. Salt Lake Park, 3401 E. Florence Ave. (323) 584-6218.

Inglewood: Program begins at 11 a.m., fireworks at dusk. Edward Vincent Jr. Park, 700 Warren Lane. (310) 412-5370.

Lake View Terrace: Program begins at noon, fireworks at 9 p.m. Hansen Dam Amphitheatre, 11770 Foothill Blvd. (818) 899-8087.

Lancaster: Gates open at 6:30 p.m.; fireworks at 9 p.m. Antelope Valley Fairgrounds, Avenue H at California 14. (661) 723-6077.

Los Angeles: Festival and jazz concert 1 p.m to 5 p.m. in Leimert Village at the Vision Theater, 3341 W. 43rd Place. Fireworks from the Coliseum at dusk. Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, 3911 S. Figueroa St., L.A. (213) 485-7616.

Marina del Rey: Fireworks at 9 p.m. Fisherman's Village, 13755 Fiji Way. (310) 305-9545.

Palmdale: Gates open at 6:30 p.m.; music starts at 7:30 p.m. followed by fireworks. Palmdale High School, 2137 E. Ave. R. (661) 267-5611.

Pasadena: Family festival begins at noon. Fireworks at 9:05 p.m.; Rose Bowl, 1001 Rose Bowl Drive. $13; 7 and younger, free. (626) 577-3101.

Redondo Beach: Program begins at 2 p.m., fireworks at 9:30 p.m. Seaside Lagoon, 200 Portofino Way. $12-$300. (310) 746-7650.

Rosemead: Program begins at 12:30 p.m., fireworks at dusk. Rosemead Park, 4343 Encinita Ave. (626) 569-2256.

Santa Catalina Island: Fireworks at 9 p.m. can be seen from anywhere in Avalon. (310) 510-1520.

Santa Fe Springs: Fireworks start at 9 p.m. Los Nietos Park, 11143 Charlesworth Road, Santa Fe Springs. (562) 948-1986.

South El Monte: All-day festivities with fireworks at 9 p.m. South El Monte High School, 1001 Durfee Ave. (626) 579-2043.

Studio City: Program begins at 6 p.m., fireworks at 9 p.m. CBS Studio Center, 4024 Radford Ave. Adults $15, Children (6-12) $8, Children 5 and younger are free. (818) 655-5916.

Torrance: Fireworks at 9 p.m. Wilson Park, 2200 Crenshaw Blvd. (310) 372-2166.

Valencia: Fireworks at 9 p.m., off the roof of a parking structure, can be seen from the Valencia Town Center parking lot, 24201 W. Valencia Blvd. (661) 287-9050.

Walnut: Program begins at 7 p.m.; fireworks at 9 p.m. Suzanne Park, 625 Suzanne Road. (909) 598-5605.

Woodland Hills: Program begins at 6 p.m., fireworks at 9:05 p.m. Warner Park, 5800 Topanga Canyon Blvd. (818) 704-1358

ORANGE COUNTY

Aliso Viejo: Program starts at 6 p.m., fireworks at 9 p.m. Grand Park, Aliso Viejo Town Center, near Aliso Creek Road and Pacific Park Drive. (949) 448-5922.

Anaheim: Canyon Hills community celebration begins with annual Mary Castle Memorial run at 7:30 a.m. Fireworks at 9 p.m., Peralta Park, 115 N. Pinney St. (714) 283-6653.

Dana Point Harbor: Fireworks at 9 p.m., launched from a barge in the harbor. Dana Point Harbor Drive. (949) 248-3530.

Fullerton: Gates open at 5 p.m.; fireworks at 9 p.m. Fullerton High School, 201 E. Chapman Ave. (714) 738-6545.

Huntington Beach: All-day community celebration culminates with fireworks at 9 p.m. Huntington Beach Pier Plaza, Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street. (714) 536-5486.

Laguna Hills: Gates open at 4 p.m., fireworks at 9 p.m. Laguna Hills Community Center, 25555 Alicia Parkway, Laguna Hills. (949) 707-2680.

Los Alamitos: Gates open at 2 p.m., fireworks at 9 p.m. Valid ID will be required for adults. Joint Forces Training Base, Katella Avenue and Lexington Drive. (714) 229-6780.

Mission Viejo: Street fair starts at noon with fireworks at 9 p.m. Olympiad Road between Marguerite Parkway and Melinda Road. (949) 830-7066.

Newport Beach. Fireworks at 9 p.m. Newport Dunes Waterfront Resort, 1131 Back Bay Drive. $50 per car for five all-day wristbands. (949) 729-DUNE; www.newportdunes.com.

City of Orange. Program starts 4 p.m., July 3, fireworks at dusk. Fred Kelly Stadium, 3920 E. Spring St. $5 for anyone older than 2. (714) 744-7278.

San Juan Capistrano: Program starts 4 p.m., fireworks at dusk. San Juan Capistrano Sports Park, 25925 Camino del Avion. (949) 493-5911.

Yorba Linda: Gates open at 5 p.m., fireworks at 9 p.m. Yorba Linda Middle School, 4777 Casa Loma Ave. (714) 961-7100.

VENTURA COUNTY

Camarillo: Program starts 4 p.m., fireworks at 9 p.m. Adolfo Camarillo High School, 4660 Mission Oaks Blvd. $2 for adults and older children, free for children 5 and younger. (805) 388-5307.

Simi Valley: Gates open at 4 p.m., fireworks at 9 p.m. Rancho Santa Susana Community Park, 5005 Los Angeles Ave. (805) 584-4400.

Thousand Oaks: A daylong celebration concludes with fireworks at 9 p.m., with best viewing from the Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace parking lots. The Oaks Mall, 222 W. Hillcrest Drive. (805) 381-2747.

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

Fontana: Program begins at 2 p.m., fireworks at 9:15 p.m. Auto Club Speedway, 9300 Cherry Ave. Adults $20, Children (7-12) $10, Children 6 and younger are free. (800) 944-7223.

Indio: Program begins at 5 p.m., fireworks at 9 p.m. Riverside County Fairgrounds, 82-503 Highway 111. (800) 811-3247.

Palm Desert: Concert starts at 7:15 p.m., fireworks at 9 p.m. Palm Desert Civic Center Park, Fred Waring Drive and San Pablo Avenue. (760) 346-0611.

Temecula: Program begins at 2 p.m.; fireworks at 9 p.m. Ronald Reagan Sports Park, 30875 Rancho Vista Road. (951) 694-6480.

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle? Thats what we think of Lakewood's half baked attempt at curbside recycling

It is good to see Lakewood join the majority of cities in LA County and step up to curbside recycling to try and reach the AB 939 mandated diversion goals. Lakewood is quite a few years late to the curbside recycling game however. Bellflower for example made the switch at least 10 years ago. Even Paramount beat Lakewood! But better late than never. We called into question over a year ago Lakewood's recycling percentage "claims". Your slide presentation implies that Lakewood is still not meeting its diversion and recycling goals. It also appears that Lakewood is in the bottom 5% of cities in LA county as far as diversion rates.

I saw the staff presentation slide show (there was no written report). I hope that Lakewood has surveyed all the other similar cities to learn what works and what does not.

Here are some areas we are currently concerned about your proposed plan:

1. Cost. Yes we know you indicated that costs will be the same (only thru 2010) as the current collection service but there were no surveys done to compare Lakewood's new service to other cities service. We hope that the city surveys all other cities with similar programs to determine if the proposed month costs are above or below the average (and posts the results of that survey promptly on its website) Also it would seem that since residents were now doing the sorting themselves instead of being sorted by a facility, that costs would go down. Perhaps you should give small carts away free but charge for all larger ones.

2. Green waste. Keeping our old cans for green waste seems like a responsible idea but we do not know of any other cities doing that. We also see an opportunity for fraud here by residents slipping garbage into the old cans. It also needs to be limited by the numbers of old cans residents can set out. The other problem is that this preserves the quaint "back alley" look to Lakewood streets by keeping all the old beat up, mismatched, overflowing trash cans instead of replacing them with all new carts that match, have lids that stay closed and dont tip over so easily.

3. Remember the the three R's that you like to put on all your fliers. REDUCE, reuse, recycle. As far as "reduce" (the first 'R') residents need to be charged as they are for every other utility: by the amount they use. The more waste you put into the system the more you should be charged. Some of this cost can be recovered by charging more per month for the collection of larger carts and for the collection of more than one standard sized green waste can (self supplied). Failure to do this might cause residents to think your three 'R' campaign is a bit hypocritical or that its all hot air or 'greenhouse gas' anyway...

4. No penalties for co-mingling trash with recyclables? Well this is typical of Lakewood's lack of enforcement of other city ordinances. The fear of irritating a few residents and loosing a few votes paralyzes the councils thinking and action. If some lazy person does not want to do their part why should other residents doing their job by separating recyclables pay more (through increased duping costs passed along to all residents) for those that are simply too lazy to do what many residents are already doing? This lack of penalty (and likely enforcement) will doom the entire purpose of the system.

5. Parking (yes the sacred 'P' word) With trucks making three passes in front of your house the city better reconsider allowing parking on the street on trash days. No parking will make it safer and faster to collect the trash. Also as the new trucks are automated, not parking on the street would allow them to line up better with the new cans and pick them up with less human manual input for alignment and collection.

6. Scavengers. Most cities enact ordinances that prevent scavengers from profiting off the separated curbside recyclables. As there is no separation going on now (except for those of us that really care about the environment) there is no need to prevent scavengers. But once separation is widespread (we hope) then scavengers will be a problem as we will be the only city in the area with no anti scavenging ordinance. This is likely to be a problem.

Overall I think Lakewood has finally woke up and realized that they have to put some teeth into their recycling effort or there will be some serious cost increases hitting Lakewood residents in the near future. But from the looks of this plan all we see is non sorted trash and just enough non compliance to ruin any chances of lowering our "tipping" or dumping fees. Lakewood's three R's are just what we thought: just words printed on slick paper ("Lakewood Living" newsletters) that fill the landfill. (oh and we would like to know what percentage of that paper is "post consumer recycled")


Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Sheriff's fail to timely warn parents of school molester

The print media failed to pick up on the anger most Lakewood parents have expressed at LASD (Lakewood Sheriff's) in TV news reports. Most were rightfully upset when they realized that this crime occurred on April 14 2009 (Tuesday) yet nothing was released to the media until the story appeared on the news on April 22, 2009 (Wed). No excuse for the delay was given by LASD. It seems to us that if you want to catch a perpetrator you get the sketch out the same day the crime it occurs, not EIGHT days later. This is especially true if you want to warn parents and teachers to protect against the perpetrator who could strike again. Way to go Lakewood Sheriff's department. I guess the school kids were not the only ones on vacation last week.

Sheriff's (LASD) Search For Lakewood Child Molester
LAKEWOOD, Calif. (CBS) ―

Sheriff's deputies want the public to be on the lookout for a man who exposed himself to a 12-year-old girl attending a spring break program at a Lakewood elementary school.

The girl was walking down a hallway at Samuel Gompers Elementary on April 14 when she was approached by the man, Sheriff's spokeswoman Sgt. Diane Hecht said.

The man put his hands on the girl's hips, then exposed himself and began laughing. He walked out of the school a few seconds later, Hecht said.

The suspect was described as a man between 18 and 25 years of age. He is approximately 5 feet 6 inches tall and weighs about 160 pounds. He has crooked teeth, spiked blond hair and blue eyes, as well as a tattoo of a snake or dragon on the left side of his neck. He was also wearing a hoop earring.

He drove away in a champagne-colored, four-door Chevrolet Tahoe.

Anyone with information about his identity or whereabouts can call Sgt. Dan Scott of the Special Victims Bureau at (562) 946-8282, or a 24-hour tip line at (866) 247-5877.


Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Yoshinoya to open at south and woodfruff

There is a new Yoshinoya Beef Bowl fast food restaurant opening next to the existing Fresh and Easy market at South and Woodruff. No date on the expected opening but construction is moving briskly at least for now. We believe that the Yoshinoya at South and Palo Verde is still open (and one of the few remaining tenants at that strip mall disaster; more on that later). It is possible that that store may close as it is very close to this new one.

When the Fresh and Easy opened in Nov 2007 it did not use all of the space that had been used by the old Petco. It has taken 15 months to sublease that extra space and it is still not clear if the Yoshinoya will use all the space or not.

It seems that South and Woodruff is attracting all the attention as it is larger than the South and Bellflower shopping area and has larger anchor tenants. Yet progress is slowly being made on the new parking lot at the old Vons. Apparently they are going to subdivide the old Vons as its just too hard to lease a single tenant space that large. And in case you haven't heard the supermarket biz is not going gangbusters these days.

We hear that much of the delay at that Vons site was the city itself not the landlord. What a surprise. A complaint we hear frequently now. Apparently the city could care less about helping businesses to open quickly. They are more interested in red tape and pumping fees out of starving tenants. Nothing new for typical low level bureaucrats who have never worked in the private sector. I have talked to a number of remodeling commercial tenants and as amazing as it sounds in this recession the city does not appear to be in any hurry to get businesses up and running. Apparently the Lakewood Chamber of Commerce is not reaching out either.

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

click here to receive LAAG posts by email