News Alert
LAX Terminal Closed after Bomb Scare

Blog: Real Answers to Measure A - Vote No On A

Redondo Beach United is a citizen's PAC of residents, business owners, community leaders, and supporters standing together for a NO VOTE on Measure A.

"AES has no grounds for a lawsuit against the City from Measure A, which simply rezones the land and does not take ownership or inflict “eminent domain” as the opposition falsely claims." (according to NoPowerPlant.com)

This is not true. While neither the City nor AES have any desire to get into a legal battle, if Measure A passes this is exactly what AES will be forced to do in order to protect their rights and the value of their property (just as any property owner with 50 acres of beachfront property would do). They have strong legal arguments that Measure A violates private property rights, and they do not need to wait until 2020 to file a legal challenge as some have suggested. It can be done immediately. City leaders agree this could happen. Mayor Gin and 4 out of 5 Redondo Beach City Council members oppose Measure A and they cite violation of private property rights and potential lawsuit costs as reasons. Measure A is not the answer.

Posted by Doug Rodriguez, Treasurer 'Redondo Beach United for a No Vote On Measure A' - Funded by Redondo Beach Residents

For more information please visit:

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Fred Reardon February 27, 2013 at 09:42 AM
So, exactly what private property rights does Measure A take? AES does not have a permit to run a new power plant? Measure does not effect their current operation. So please enlighten us, what is being taken? AES does not have a "right" to operate a polluting power plant into eternity. They got suckered into buying a power plant without a guarantee to operate beyond 2020 +\-. If they had a permit to operate a new power plant you may have an argument. Therefore, most of us are not buying the propaganda and will not be hoodwinked. Without the passage of Measure A, we will likely get a new power plant, little additional tax revenue, thousands of condos, an aquatic life killing desalination plant, and particulate matter health risks. Without the passage of Measure A, AES will not come to the table and discuss anything. They will go on their merry way, submitting documents with the California Energy Commission, and likely get their permit because Redondo Beach showed no backbone and put forth absolutely little or no resistance to a new plant. Negotiating without Measure A is code for Redondo Beach gets a new power plant. This argument can be summed up in one brief way "accept the new power plant and all its negative side effects or your going to get it." Sounds like Bullying to me. In our household we teach, stand up to Bullys, don't cower and fight for what you believe in. I trust my neighbors to man up and woman up and Vote Yes on Measure A.
Kelly Sarkisian February 27, 2013 at 04:01 PM
The measure takes away 60-70% of AES's land throught the rezone. I'm sure AES would have been willing to work with the city without the loss of a huge amount of their property. You seem to say that condos are mandated without measure a when we all know thats not true, any new project on the land will require approval through multiple processes. Whos fear mongering now!? Measure a could have been written without the land grab, but the no growth people chose to go for the throat of a lawful business. I don't blame AES for not negotiating with the npp folks, they never had a plan to negotiate, it was the my way of the highway type offer. The npp folks have backed the lawful business into the corner!
Jim Light February 27, 2013 at 04:23 PM
But Kelly, Measure A is just a rezoning. It does not take anyone's land or obligate anyone to buy it. Measure A gives AES 433,333 sq ft of commercial development - the same density applied to the harbor area. If the CEC denies AES' application, Measure A is an upzoning. And you seem to be confused. It is not the land that determines the value, it is the density and designated uses. The value of land changes with those two variables. You seem to confuse the total acreage of the land as the key variable when it is really the amount and type of development. Given the same plot of land, land zoned for more development is worth more. We have allocated the same density as the harbor to all 50 acres of AES land. Then we built the land allocation using FAR's, heights, etc to fit in that amount of density on 30 to 40% of the property. Most single family lots cannot build on about 50% of their property between setbacks, right of ways, FAR's etc. And housing has less impact than commercial development. Measure A is not a land grab. It allocates a fair amount of development to AES. You must not be used to seeing good balanced zoning. Or perhaps AES is being too greedy...which I don't blame them... that is what businesses do. It is the zoning that is supposed to strike the balance. And Measure A is a fair balance.
Tom Fisher February 27, 2013 at 05:24 PM
Jim, I see the Daily Breeze endorsed Jeff Ginsberg for District 1 Councilman. They figured you're a "one issue" candidate, and the evidence to support their conclusion is well documented. The evidence (Daily Breeze, Patch, Easy Reader, Beach Reporter etc) shows you sit behind a computer all day, and night responding to any and all opposition to Prop A. Face it, you and your supporters are banking on Prop A to sweep you into office. However, the voters of Redondo Beach are not obsessed on this one issue! Furthermore, your direct connection to the City losing over $300.000.00 in a lawsuit doesn't help persuade the informed voter. Jim, take the week off from you computer, and let the chips fall where they may. Ps...Your flippant attack on businesses being "greedy" indicates anti-business attitude. Redondo depends on businesses! Take note Redondo business owners!!!!!!!!
Jim Light February 27, 2013 at 05:50 PM
Tom - yet another personal attack that has nothing to do with the post If you read the article, that is not what Daily Breeze said. But also note they accidently endorsed two District 2 candidates and no District 4 Candidates. They also said Aust is termed out, which he is not. Their endorsements were rushed, they had 14 candidates to vet for the Redondo election alone and they obviously didn't have time to do any research. They have been moving staff around and no one in the decisionmaking had been tied in to local politics in Redondo for any length of time. Weigh their candidate endorsements as you wish, but the errors are telling. On the lawsuit you neglect to point out three key facts: 1) Four judges found the City Council had illegally violated the City Charter or BBR would have gotten no legal fees. 2) The Council would have avoided all legal fees had they followed the charters and listened to their voters. 3) While someone had to put their name on the lawsuit (me), it was backed by donations from over 200 residents from all over Redondo. Had I really been the only one sueing the city, the judges would not have awarded fees. They only award fees if it is a general public concern not a single individual. I am not anti-business. Note that I say I don't blame them. I am an executive at an aerospace firm. My duty to our stockholders is to maximize profit. Just like AES'. Zoning is the check and balance.
Kelly Sarkisian February 27, 2013 at 06:15 PM
How about we try this standard: How much of AES's land will they have use of under measure A? Answer: 30-40%. How is that acceptable? They invested their money in a plot of land and a power plant, part of the reason they bought the land was speculation of the real estate as any large company does. Your lawyer friend David seems to think as long as they get paid back their original investment it is legal, moral and acceptable. The reality is AES deserves to reap the benefits of their investment, especially when you are trying to take away their source of income ( the plant). The quid pro quo in measure a is very one sided. You don't seem to understand that measure a is an attempt to cut off the lawful companies income and total land value, that is a taking! If measure a had the numbers in reverse and laid the ground work for a compromise AES would agree to, I might even support it. The fact is you guys went for broke to punish AES for your hatred and personal opinions about power plants or their business practices. This is a David Vs Goliath type situation, I generally side with David in these type things. Measure a is so foul that I have to side with Goliath on this one. You pushed a corporate giant into putting up their dukes. It's speculation on my part, but I believe that prior to measure a, the city could have negotiated a deal that would have solved the problem prior to 2020. Your groups actions forced AES's hand into the mess we have now.
Kelly Sarkisian February 27, 2013 at 06:22 PM
Well said Tom! Someone needs to add up a Jim Light bill. The total cost of taxpayer money that he has wasted. The lawsuit total of 300k only shows the payout to light, the city also spent a pretty penny on the defense. Between the lawsuit and measure a, Light has cost the city over a million dollars. He has aligned himself to waste public money, without being elected and without having personal liability. I sure hope my fellow voters see through to the real Jim Light because if he gets elected, it's really going to cost the taxpayer!
Jim Light February 27, 2013 at 07:03 PM
If you think AES would negotiate any option without a power plant - you ignore the history. That was our first approach. AES made it VERY clear they are in the power plant business and that is how they were pressing ahead. Your statement is simply unsupportable and ignores the mountains of evidence. I don't think you understand how to calculate ROI. AES bought that property knowing they had a power plant near the end of its life and a contract that eneded in 2018. Their price was discounted because of the site contamination. I am quite certain AES did their ROI assessment based on these facts and not speculating on the future beyond that 2018 contract. You again display that you don't understand that is the density and uses that define the value of a plot of land. If we remove all requirements for open space, the fair denisty to allocate to this site is the 433,333sq ft becasue that is the same density allowed in the harbor. We could go lower based on other zoning, but the harbor zoning seemed fairest. So AES gets the same density whether spread across 50 acres or 20 acres. That does not have a negative impact on the value. In fact knowing that a portion is setaside for openspace actually increases the value of the developed property. It's not rocket science Kelly. But you either you don't get it or you are in denial.
mark schoennagel February 27, 2013 at 07:26 PM
Why is so wrong that a man running for office is posting his views? Isnt it funny, and a touch sad that our city leader on the No side of the fence hardly write a thing? Keep writing Jim! YES ON A!
Fred Reardon February 27, 2013 at 07:28 PM
For those of you new to this debate, Kelly S is not a registered voter in Redondo Beach. This person hides behind a fake, deceptive name. Many Redondo Beach citizens believe this fake name represents a paid public relations firm representative out to deceive Redondo Beach voters?
mark schoennagel February 27, 2013 at 07:30 PM
Quick question, when AES purchased the plant from So Cal Edison in 98 were they aware their license to generate power would expire in 2018? (I think 2018)
Kelly Sarkisian February 27, 2013 at 07:48 PM
If that were true, would that chance the points I make? I think not Fred, nice try tho!
Wolfman February 27, 2013 at 08:49 PM
I don't trust power company's or governments or politicians
Gerry O'Connor February 27, 2013 at 10:09 PM
You're right, "Kelly"! Even if you were to post using your real name, your repetition of the same, tired, unfounded and repeatedly disproven claims and vile ad hominem attacks would STILL drive the smart voters of Redondo to *VOTE YES on A!* :-))
Diana G February 27, 2013 at 10:30 PM
Well said Gerry about Miss or Mrs. Kelly Sarkisian!! YES on "A"!!!!!
Tom Fisher February 27, 2013 at 11:06 PM
I have a question for Jim, Fred, and Gerry. How did you determine Kelly Sarkisian is a fake? Are the names of private citizens posting an opposing view on the Patch, Easy Reader, Beach Reporter being investigated? If so, by who? Please explain how you guys came to this conclusion. Gerry, look at the post above you. "Wolfman?" It appears you and your crew have no problem with fake names if they support your position.
Tony Czuleger March 03, 2013 at 07:22 PM
This morning while driving down to the esplanade, I notice a woman walking north on the Esplanade on the east side of the street. What caught my eye was she was carrying the Yes on A signs. What happened next, I could not believe my eye, when I saw what this woman had just done to the signs. I just caught a woman, with two Yes on A signs under here arm on the Esplanade “in broad day light” and Ave I defacing the No on A signs. I confronted her and she just denied doing it. Wow Wow. I did get a picture of the woman and told her what I had just seen her do, she said what did I do, so I said that she just defaced the sign on the property owned by the Mirassou family. She had that look on her face like a deer caught in head lights. “Huh” . I truly believe the Yes on A camp has rallied the troops to pull as many signs and deface them as possible all over the city. Yet the Jim Lights and Bill Brands have not said Boo about this and have not come out and stated that do not approve of this behavior. Hmm, I Wonder Why. So it is my belief, that they as well condone this behavior. They have pulled over 30 signs at one location on Catalina Avenue and several at Council man Diel’s office as an example and countless other across this city. Shame on you all, we now have video and still shots of some of the offenders.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something