Statement in Respose to Questions Regarding Parkland

By David P. Wong

With increased population density we should avoid actions that would reduce park space. The City's decision-making process should be open and transparent.

1). What is your position on preserving existing parks while increasing park inventory?

I believe that open space is a valuable commodity. Once lost, it will probably will not ever be regained. I think the intent of creating parks and open space was to enhance the quality of life. This is all the more important as our population increases and some of our neighborhoods are even more crowded.

I would oppose any plan which would decrease, for the shortsighted interests of economy, our park space. I would propose the opposite: that we find ways to increase our open space and parklands.

I have been wondering why some of the abandoned properties along Long Beach Blvd., for example could not be made into parkland which would provide recreational areas and enhance the "Blue Line" entrance into our great City.

2). What about building non-recreational buildings on recreational lands?

This is related closely to my statement to the first question. It is clear -- non-recreational use of recreational space will result in a reduction of recreational space. Our goal should be the opposite!

3). How do you feel about the proposed "parks in perpetuity" Charter change?

I think this is an excellent idea. In some matters, the City Council must be allowed the discretion to change laws and land use decisions to reflect current or changing needs. However, the need for park and recreational space is ongoing and will only increase. I think it would be proper to make it extremely difficult for any future council to take away open space in our city. A Charter amendment or revision would be appropriate to accomplish this.

4). Specifically, what is your position on the 20,000 square foot NLBPD police compound in Scherer Park?

It is a big mistake on two fronts. First, I think we should not lose any more parkland.

Second, I think the decision-making process in Long Beach stinks!!!!!

The key reason I decided to run for Mayor was that the City has been operated in a paternalistic fashion. Over and over, decisions have been made, seemingly in secret, without consulting the residents. Whether it is Queensway Bay, the Boeing PacificCenter proposal, the areas targeted for redevelopment or the use of parkland for other City functions, decisions are made and then negative reaction must be dealt with.

At a minimum, the decisions are not adequately explained (which is a public relations problem). Or worse, the decisions are made by an isolated and imperial government that is trying to avoid the need to consult with the "ignorant masses" that will be affected by the decisions.

I am shocked that the City didn't even bother to consult with the neighborhood closest to the park.

I have proposed the use of neighborhood organizations and task forces on an ongoing basis to gather information and opinion for the City Council deliberations.

5). What is your position on transparency of government operations and information?

I agree that governmental decisions should be as open and as grass roots as possible. I am running for Mayor because I believe that the people of Long Beach have NOT had a voice in the running of this City. One of the roles of the Mayor is to make sure that ALL voices in the City are heard. The Mayor is the only citywide position on the Council and, as such, should be the voice for those that are not otherwise represented.

I think that the City Charter should be reviewed with an eye toward restoring authority and RESPONSIBILITY to the elected officials, who are more directly responsive to their constituents than the paid professional members such as our present City Manager.