Murastuchi Buying Votes in Hermosa Beach

State lawmaker introduces bill to help Hermosa Beach fight oil drilling proposal

Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance), speaking at a press conference convened on Friday, April 25, 2014, to announce his bill that will address the oil drilling settlement in Hermosa Beach. (Submitted photo)

By Sandy Mazza, Daily Breeze

Posted: 04/25/14, 3:03 PM PDT|Updated: 3 mins ago

0 Comments

Two state lawmakers opposed to a proposed oil and gas drilling project in Hermosa Beach announced legislation Friday that would make it easier for the city’s voters to turn it down later this year.
Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, and Sen. Ted Lieu, D-Redondo Beach, told anti-oil supporters gathered on Pier Plaza that they would work to gather support for AB 2711, a bill that would provide the city with a no-interest, $17.5 million loan.
The money would be used for a one-time settlement fee with E&B Natural Resources Management Corp. of Bakersfield if the company does not win voter approval of its plan to install 34 wells near the coast and drill underground to tap the Torrance Oil Field.

Under terms of a settlement with another oil company, the city would required to pay $17.5 million to E&B if the project is rejected. The vote is tentatively scheduled to take place in November.
“AB 2711 would loan state funds to the city from state tideland oil revenues to cover this financial penalty,” Muratsuchi said. “I love Hermosa Beach. I love the hippy beach vibe of this little community. This city is a strong leader in the fight to protect our environment.”
The Muratsuchi-authored bill is in response to a 2012 legal settlement between the city and MacPhearson Oil over rights to drill, which the city approved in the 1980s but then rescinded with a resident-approved initiative in 1995. The settlement lets the city off the hook, with the condition that voters be allowed to decide whether E&B can drill.

Muratsuchi, who is campaigning for re-election, said the state would loan the funds from its general fund, where oil and gas revenues are deposited by the State Lands Commission. The city would be required to pay at least $500,000 a year until the sum is repaid, and those payments would be placed in the State Coastal Conservancy Fund for its Climate Ready Program.
Along with Muratsuchi and Lieu, congressional candidate Wendy Greuel also announced her opposition this week to E&B’s proposed drilling project.

“I’ve always opposed oil drilling along our coast,” Lieu said Friday. “I can’t really think of anything more stupid than drilling along our coastline. This is an ingenious bill that I believe will help resolve our situation.”
E&B Natural Resources spokesman Eric Rose said company officials are a bit bewildered by AB 2711.
“During the past two years, city officials and community activists have consistently and forcefully stated that the city has the financial capacity to repay the $17.5 million loan E&B provided,” Rose said. “This loan allowed the city to avoid bankruptcy and to end 14 years of litigation with MacPherson Oil Co. The loan repayment will not be necessary if Hermosa Beach voters agree to once again allow safe oil recovery at the city’s maintenance yard.”

Some residents have actively campaigned against the proposal for about two years through a grass-roots organization called Stop Hermosa Beach Oil, which has placed signs around town reading “Keep Hermosa Hermosa” and worked to get political support opposing the project.
Representatives from Heal the Bay, Sierra Club, Los Angeles Waterkeeper, and other local environmental groups attended Friday’s press conference to show their support for AB 2711.
Stacey Armato, an environmental activist and founder of Stop Hermosa Beach Oil, praised the bill, which has been introduced in the Assembly and will be heard in committee on Monday.

“This offer of a $17.5 million interest-free loan makes it easier for voters to make decisions to protect the health and safety of our community,” Armato said.
Hermosa Beach officials have been setting aside funds to cover a settlement, if necessary. Of the $17.5 million, about $6 million already has been saved. Officials have said the balance would be paid off with annual payments of $850,000 to $1 million.
But if AB 2711 passes and the city accepts a no-interest loan, those payments likely would be reduced significantly.

Highlights From March 15, 2014 Muratsuchi Coffee

Coffee With Muratsuchi

Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi had a coffee meet-n-greet at Catalina Coffee and Café in Redondo Beach on Saturday, March 15.

I arrived at 2pm, where I met Vic Locicero, who right away was talking with Muratsuchi about the transgendered bathroom law.

While Vic shared his concerns, I also added why he supported a bill which a number of residents in the South Bay do not support.

Muratsuchi claimed that the procedures were already in place in other school districts, and the law just codified it for all the schools in California.

Often, we ended up arguing about issues

"Then I guess we will have to respectfully disagree," Muratsuchi would recite from time to time.

I then asked him about the law which permits illegal immigrants to obtain drivers' licenses. He had told me prior that signed off on the legislation based on the suggestion of law enforcement, that allowing anyone to get a drivers' license, regardless of their citizenship status, would make our streets safer.

I countered: "Do you ask any of the police chiefs in the South Bay?"

He hesitated, then offered that he might have done so. Might have? One would think that the representative for the South Bay would consider the opinion of law enforcement leaders in his own district.

Frankly, Muratsuchi spends more time justifying these votes, when the fact remains that his votes on these issues is merely a rubber stamp for an aggressive, progressive agenda, one more regressive than anything else.

After that, I mentioned the statistics about the most Hispanic state in the Union, New Mexico, where the Hispanic Governor, Susana Martinez, wants to repeal similar legislation in her state because the law has not created safer roads, and has even invited fraud.

He was not aware of those statistics, apparently, either. Over a decade ago, the voters in the state of California forced a repeal of a similar statute. How far the state leadership has fallen.

Muratsuchi justified many of these decisions by pointing out that he took the experts' opinion on these issues.

The experts are often wrong, or often limited in their understanding of key issues. Muratsuchi was elected to represent the best interests of the voters in his district and uphold the state and federal constitution. He already failed to do this when he voted to allow illegal immigrants to get drivers' licenses. Unconstitutional violation of the supremacy clause, which places federal statutes above state laws.

I then pressed Muratsuchi about raising the state minimum wage. I recalled that he had agreed to the raise, provided that the language tagging the increase to the rate of inflation was removed. I asked him once again why he did it.

"It was time for a wage increase."

I told him that many economists resist minimum wage increases, which increase unemployment along with forcing up prices on goods. He told me about reports which he had read, "many, many reports".

His assistance, Melissa Uribe, was at hand, and she agreed to contact me with the information which Muratsuchi appealed to in order to justify voting for legislation which would force up the minimum wage in the state of California.

As of Tuesday, March 18, I contacted Ms. Uribe once again, and she told me that she was meeting with the individuals who offered the information.

Then, another South Bay resident, Mike Shields of Redondo Beach then showed up. He started discussing the negative impacts of the minimum wage increase. He argued at length, and cogently, too, that the minimum wage increase leads to more layoffs.

This kind of discussion is what I  was looking for. I wanted to hold the Assemblyman accountable for voting for these bills which have no value, merit, and have caused more harm than good.

I tried to find some things that he did which I agree with -- his proposed legislation which would require transparency for school superintendent salaries, for example:

"Finally, we agree on something!"

I then asked him why he did join with State Senator Fran Pavley (D-Ventura) to block or end the bullet train boondoggle. I also shared that State Senator Ted Lieu voted with the Republicans against referral to expel convicted felon Roderick Wright (D-Inglewood)

At any rate, I was hoping that more people would attend the Muratsuchi coffee in order to hold him accountable for the offensive legislation which he had supported.

On another note, I started talking with a Hermosa Beach resident. On his green shirt was written "Keep Hermosa Hermosa". I started asking him his stance on the E and B oil drilling. His reason for opposition: he was a staunch believer in climate change, and he also feared the potential dangers of an oil spill. He then admitted that of the E and B company demonstrated good faith and planning to deal with oil spills, he would be willing to reconsider whether E and B can drill for oil.

Frankly, my discussion with "Hermosa" was very productive, I just wish that more people could have been there to make their case about the bills which Muratsuchi had voted for, and the bills which need to be considered: school choice: better, simpler tax structure.

I am still waiting to hear from Ms. Uribe regarding the information which justified a state-forced minimum wage increase.

Coffee With Muratsuchi, Anyone?

Want a Cup of Coffee with Me?
It's Free (For me. . .You Paid for it!)

Assemblyman Muratsuchi will host a free coffee talk at Catalina Coffee and Café

on March 15, from 1pm to 3pm.

Here's a print out of the event on Muratsuchi's website:

Join Assemblymember Muratsuchi for a free cup of coffee at Catalina Coffee & Cafe. This is a great opportunity to visit and discuss state and legislative issues that affect the community.

No RSVP needed for this event.

Saturday, March 15, 2014

  1 – 3 p.m.

Catalina Coffee & Café

  126 N. Catalina Avenue
Redondo Beach, CA 90277

I plan on being there, and I hope that every able-bodied and enraged voter in the South Bay will be there, too, to confront Muratsuchi on key issues affecting the South Bay.

Here are a list of issues which concerned residents in the city should discuss:

1. Forcing up minimum wage, which raises prices, unemployment, while reducing available jobs.

2. Drivers licenses for illegals -- how this may make our streets less safe..

3. AB 1266, the transgender bathroom bill for public schools.

4. His massive union money support.

5. Why he is pursuing green technology, yet said nothing about a car plant moving to Michigan.

6. Why he supported the Local Control Funding Formula , which actually takes money away from South Bay Schools (including PV)

7. Why he claimed to be a moderate, when he has supported a liberal-Democratic-unionist agenda 95% of the time

8. Why he supported a bill which would allow other medical staff besides a doctor to conduct an abortion.

The list goes on and on. Please pick any one issue which affects you the most, and pleas come to the free coffee and share this concern with the Assemblyman.

This man has got to go.

Need I remind you: the coffee is free (perhaps taxpayer funded, though . .)

Bird's Flighty Reason For Reelecting Muratsuchi

This kind of fawning politicization is unjustified and unconscionable.

PVE Councilmember
George Bird

Palos Verdes Estates Councilmember George Bird, a registered Republican, and an elected Republican in a Republican stronghold, opted to endorse a Democrat for the state Assembly in 2012, despite the strong credentials of the Republican candidate, and the unprecedented severity (and deleterious consequences) of the 2012 election.

In the Friday, February 14 edition of the Daily Breeze, Bird's letter was published regarding Assemblyman Muratsuchi's decision to run for reelection instead of seeking higher office this year:

Reward Muratsuchi for not seeking a higher office

Re “Muratsuchi says he’ll run for re-election” (Feb. 7):

How refreshing to see a member of the Assembly choose to stay and continue to serve those who elected him instead of jumping at the first opportunity to run for the state Senate.

There is nothing refreshing, let alone remarkable or significant, about a politician choosing to run for reelection. How is this refreshing, again? Such rhetoric defies definition, requires explanation.

Al Muratsuchi has placed the citizens of the 66th Assembly District before his self-interest by not running for the next office. Al Muratsuchi has well served the interest of the 66th District during his freshman year. The experience he gained will serve him well during his next term.

How did Assemblyman Muratsuchi serve his constituents by signing onto legislation which would permit illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses, a measure which violates the United States' immigration laws, as well as the United States Constitution?

Muratsuchi was not serving the South Bay business community by agreeing to a minimum wage increase, which will only force out entry level workers, including young, minority employees seeking to enter the job market, especially during these difficult economic times.

Local leaders have criticized Muratsuchi's reticence to vote "Yea" or "Nay"  on a number of bills. Not much integrity there. He sponsored an aerospace forum, which very few businesses attended. Not much leadership there, either. He waffled on the minimum wage increase by asking for the legislature to remove language which would tie the increase to the rate of inflation. Still, he assisted hurting small businesses even more in the state of California.

And what leadership has Muratsuchi demonstrated on comprehensive pension reform, or tax reform, or the reduction in regulations?

He also supported AB 1266, legislation which will permit students of decided gender (transgender students) to enter the bathroom of their choice with other students. This unseemly law motivated local leaders to promote an initiative to vote down this outrageous legislation.
 
The constituents of our district recognize that the personal integrity of the candidate and his demonstrated ethics are more important than whether he or she is a Republican or a Democrat. Let’s elect good people, not political opportunists.

With all due respect, Muratsuchi had indeed shown some interest in seeking higher office. Even though the Los Angeles Times and later the Daily Breeze covered for the Democratic lawmaker, there is no hiding the fact that Muratuschi was looking for any opportunity not to run for reelection in a district with a rising Republican resurgence, in which the Democratic brand has been tarnished not just by a tax-and-spend liberal supermajority in Sacramento, but also a distant, hyper

Bravo to an individual who recognizes that we elected him to do a job and we don’t expect him to always be looking for his next higher political office.

Muratsuchi deserves no bows, Bravos, or applause for warming a seat, sought and paid for by public sector unions. Even if Muratsuchi had intended to serve exclusively as an Assemblyman for this election, no one can tell whether this lawmaker will seek higher office or not. State Senator Ted Lieu has demonstrated twice before his first interest in seeking higher office (and serving his interests at the expense of the public interest.)

If we ignore the self-interest of Muratsuchi, we certainly cannot ignore the pandering from Mr. Bird. Is he looking for favors from Assemblyman Muratsuchi? Have Republican leaders become convinced that the only way they can accomplish anything is to acquiesce to Democratic dominance in the state of California? Rhode Island and Massachusetts are facing unprecedented budget an pension shortfalls, with a mass exodus of residents tired of taxes, regulations, and a fraudulent Democratic political hegemony which has bled businesses and wealth dry while enabling dependence and poverty.

Now more than ever, Constitutional conservatives, respect for the limited government and fiscal discipline, and most importantly the proper domains of the state regarding the identity of students an their liberty to learn free from social engineering, are values worth fighting for. Muratsuchi does not fight for these values.

While the former school board member advertised himself as a moderate in comparison to a Tea-Party backed conservative (Huey was not a Tea Party candidate, another leftist smear), Muratsuchi has tilted, or rather fall in line with the out-of-touch liberal leanings of the current state legislature. He is indeed too extreme for the South Bay, and should not seek reelection to any statewide office.

Let’s reward the lack of self-interest and the lack of self-promoting by someone who puts us before him, by re-electing Al Muratsuchi to the Assembly.

Once again, there is nothing commendable about a candidate choosing to run for reelection for his current office instead of seeking higher office. This kind of compliment is akin to thanking people for obeying the law, or congratulating people for getting dressed before they leave their homes for work.


— George Bird, Palos Verdes Estates

The voters in Palos Verdes Estates should ask their Councilman why he continues to support a politician whose values clash, rather than complement, the values of the South Bay, particularly registered voters in the Palos Verdes Peninsula.

I emailed Mr. Bird the following:

As a registered Republican in the South Bay, why did you endorse Democrat Muratsuchi for election in 2012, and reelection in 2014?

David Hadley has announced and mounted a sizeable campaign to represent the 66th Assembly District.

Your letter gave the impression that you are seeking a higher office with Muratsuchi's help.

Please explain your insistence on supporting a liberal Democrat who had advertised himself as a moderate, especially since you are a registered Republican.

Bird certainly owes his constituents an explanation for his flighty reasons for supporting Assemblyman Muratsuchi's reelection.

Muratsuchi Mum About Roderick Wright (and Bob Filner)

S

Muratsuchi: See no evil. . .

Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance) wanted to run for state senate earlier this month, convinced that party leaders would allow him to jump out of his not-so-safe Assembly seat nestled in the heart of the South Bay. At least taking on a state senate seat, connected with more progressive voting blocks throughout the Santa Monica Bay, would let him play out all his liberal leaning.

State Senator Ted Lieu laid the ground work for a more liberal voter constituency, yet Democratic Party Leaders told Muratsuchi to stand down and run for reelection in his own seat.

Muratsuchi has pedaled back, bracing for a major challenge to his incumbency

Yet even though Muratsuchi has given up on a state senate run, he still has nothing  about convicted felon Roderick Wright (D-Inglewood), who remains in the state senate, even though three Republicans have called for a vote to expel him.

Roderick Wright has been convicted on eight counts of voter fraud and perjury, as he listed his legal address within his district, yet he actually lived outside the district. Big problem.

Muratsuchi has said nothing about his convicted felon Democratic colleague.

In 1994, state senator Frank Hill (R-Whittier), following a conviction for bribery, was forced to step down from committee assignments, then the state senate government committee voted to expel him. He left office. There is no excuse for state legislators to remain silent as Roderick Wright stays in the state senate.

Then again, Muratsuchi has chosen to "see no evil" before, as when resigned, disgraced San Diego Mayor Bob Filner of San Diego had harassed a number of women in his staff, yet no one in the state Democratic delegation demanded that Filner step down. San Diego Republicans launched a recall effort, but Filner finally stepped down, and later paid a settlement to his accusers.

The South Bay should not send Muratsuchi back to Sacramento in 2014. Muratsuchi has no business serving in the state legislature as long as he insists on remaining silent in the face of one felony politician after another.

Muratsuchi Running for State. . .Assembly (Promise!)

PHow about that?

Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance) took in less money over six months than GOP candidate David Hadley (R-Manhattan Beach) in four months.

Not only that, but Muratsuchi attempted to bolt from his Assembly race and run for state senate.

The Los Angeles Times gives the full story on the rush for Ted Lieu's state senate seat:

State Sen. Ted Lieu’s announcement that he is running for an open congressional seat has sparked interest in his Senate seat from a crowd of possible contenders, including Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi and former Assemblywoman Betsy Butler.

Betsy Butler lost her seat in the new assembly district which included Santa Monica and Malibu, in part because she helped kill SB 1530, which would have made it easier to get rid of perverted teachers in the classroom.

Is Muratsuchi worried about the onslaught he will face in 2014.

In spite of his projected interest in the seat, the LA Times retracted its (or Muratsuchi's) story:

"I AM running for reelection in AD-66"
(The Party Bosses Told Me So!)

Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance) said Thursday he will run for reelection rather than join a crowded field of contenders for a state Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Ted Lieu.
His reason for staying in the 66th, according to the LA Times?:

Muratsuchi said he and his family love living in the South Bay and serving the 66^th Assembly District.

Right. Of course, let us never forget that the California Democratic Party takes it very seriously about the chain of command, and that candidates need to get in line with the party leadership before choosing to run for office.

Ted Lieu jumped into the Congressional race, and the Dems in California already know that they will see millions go up in flames in a 33rd intraparty blood bath, and that will happen before the June Primary!

If two Dems advance to the general election, the Dems will have Berman-Sherman Part Deux!

Certainly Democratic Party bosses want to avoid as much blood-letting as possible.

Then Muratsuchi declared:

“After years of budget cuts and partisan bickering, California is coming back,” he said in a statement. “ I look forward to continuing to fight for good jobs, good schools, safe neighborhoods and a clean and healthy environment.”
Muratsuchi believes that California is coming back, even though businesses are fleeing the state, and the local schools in his assembly district are still operating on a shoe-string to get through every year.

He wants to fight for good jobs. . .Here is the LA Times take on his attempt to keep aerospace jobs in the South Bay:

By the slimmest of margins, aerospace giant Boeing Co.'s largest union approved a controversial contract proposal that cut benefits in exchange for decades of work in Puget Sound on a new jetliner.

Washington State union locals were willing to relent on pensions and benefits to keep their jobs in the state. "An injury to one is an injury to all" has given way to "look out for yours, and forget about theirs."

Unions must realize that they have to compete with each other now, since businesses can move their operations to "right-to-work states", of which twenty-four were vying for Boeing's business.


Muratsuchi's resigned response:

"Obviously, California would have loved to bring the 777X program home," said Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance), chairman of the Assembly's Select Committee on Aerospace. "But we'll continue to reach out to Boeing to try and bring manufacturing jobs to Long Beach."

 It's funny that Muratsuchi wants to bring business to Long Beach, even though he represents the South Bay. Why is it that he stumps about commerce outside his own district so much? Maybe it's due to the fact that he gets most of his dwindling resources from oustide the district in the first place. . .

Muratsuch is running for reelection, yet the political landscape, both nationally and locally, is looking nasty for Democrats and liberals, especially as local leaders are pooling their resources and pulling their energy behind one candidate to take down Muratsuchi and end the Democratic supermajority in Sacramento.


 

Muratsuchi Voted for Drivers Licenses for Illegal Immigrants

Following the Affordable Care Act seminar, I also asked the Assembly why he supported granting undocumented residents, or illegal immigrants, drivers' licenses.

He justified his vote because the Los Angeles Police Chief, Charlie Beck, supports the measure.

He also argued that the law will provide future drivers, whether they are in the country illegally or not, to receive proper training before they drive.

These individuals will also be able to purchase car insurance, so that in future accidents, which including illegal immigrant drivers, insurance companies will cover the costs for any damages.

The logic behind Assm. Muratsuchi's decision is flawed on many levels.

What difference does it make what the Los Angeles Police Chief thinks about driver's licenses? Did the Assemblyman contact the police chiefs in Torrance, Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, or even the Palos Verdes region? What about the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department?

Their opinion on this policy matters too, and moreso since Muratsuchi represents the South Bay, including the Beach Cities, not Los Angeles.

Yet even if the Police Chief of Los Angeles offered his opinion, his authority on the matter still conveys very little. Why does the Police Chief support the measure? Does he have any research or evidence to support the argument that permitting undocumented immigrants to earn a state document will create safe roads and reduce accident liabilities?

What if Pope Francis had supported drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants? President Bush? Desmond Tutu? Or even Bozo the Clown? An established authority's opinion does not establish any authority for an opinion.

Not only that, but Susana Martinez, the first Hispanic female governor of New Mexico, the most Hispanic state in the Union, opposes drivers licences for illegal immigrants.

Her opinion ought to matter, shouldn't it?

She pointed out to reporters in her state that the roads are not safer since New Mexico adopted the statute to allow licenses for illegal immigrants. She further cited that the rate of fraud and human trafficking has increased because of the law. When runninng for office in 2010, she ran specifically on a platform of repealing the DL law, and she won.

"73% of New Mexicans opposed drivers licenses for illegal immigrants".

Political pressure had forced the repeal of the 2002 California law granting licenses to illegal immigrants. But societal realities should have convinced Assemblyman Muratsuchi to vote against permitting undocumented individuals from obtaining drivers licenses.

The logic behind the measure fails to consider that since individuuals have entered the country illegally, and a number of them are driving anyway, what makes anyone believe that they are going to change their behavior habits and earn a license?

Furthermore, legal and illegal residents drive without insurance, so the notion that someone with a drivers' license will automatically purchase insurance is also illogical.

Eight states have already repealed similar legislation. There is no research which suggests that expanding licenses to illegal immigrants will ensure safe roads and more insured drivers.

Not only that, but Muratsuchi as a former state prosecutor should have rejected any law which would violate the federal immigration laws of our nation.

Hopefully, a legal challenge will force injunction and repeal of this law.

In the mean time, Muratsuchi should have worked with his Republican colleagues to streamline the naturalization process and make it easier for immigrants to become legal residents of the state of California in the first place!