Daily Breeze: No on BC

Endorsement: No on Measure BC in the Beach Cities Health District

By The Editorial Board | opinion@scng.com

PUBLISHED: October 28, 2024 at 3:38 PM PDT

There are lots of reasons for a citizen to vote for or against a given bond measure on a ballot. Sometimes we see that taxing ourselves for a public project will result in tangible benefits to ourselves or our families — schools in need of upgrades when our children attend them, for instance. But yes votes for sound economic reasons can certainly be made for the same measures by seniors, say — they may not have kids in the schools, but having excellent school campuses may increase the value of their property and create community goodwill.

And then there are times when a local bond measure comes from a bit out of nowhere, fronted by an entity that isn’t a City Hall or a school district.

Such is the case voters in the Beach Cities — Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach — face with Measure BC on the Nov. 5 ballot.

It reads: “Beach Cities Health District Community Health and Wellness Measure: To complete construction of the allcove youth mental health center; install water/energy conservation systems; and remove outdated facilities to create approximately 2 acres of public outdoor space for youth/older adult community wellness programs, shall Beach Cities Health District’s measure authorizing $30,000,000 in bonds, at legal rates, levying approximately $3.00 per $100,000 of assessed property valuation, generating approximately $1,700,000 annually while bonds are outstanding, with financial accountability requirements, be adopted?”

The allcove (lower-case is its preferred style) Beach Cities organization promoting young people’s — aged 12 to 25 — mental health currently operates on the fourth floor of BCHD’s main campus, 514 Prospect Ave., in Redondo Beach. According to reporting by our Tyler Shaun Evains, officials at the physical and mental health agency want the youth gathering space to have its own standalone, 9,000 square-foot, two-story center, which the bond would pay for.

She adds: “The current BCHD building, which is more than 60 years old and was originally the South Bay Hospital, needs seismic and safety upgrades, BCHD CEO Tom Bakaly has said. But it would ultimately be demolished to create two acres of open green space for youth, older adult and community wellness programs as well as public leisure.”

That’s fine. But, to be clear, the bond would not pay for any new hospital serving Beach Cities residents. It’s a niche project for an already funded program operating elsewhere. This measure also seeks to deal with the fallout from a contingent land lease agreement with the property that officials say is no longer viable as originally contemplated. The demolition of the hospital and development of open space was not supposed to fall on taxpayers under that plan.

It’s true that the BCHD has not come to voters for a bond measure since 1956. But that successful bond actually built the hospital. This new ask for new money would not bring the hospital back.

We think that there would be dubious benefits for the citizens who proponents are proposing to tax, and we recommend that they vote no on BC. The BCHD should go back to the drawing board, develop a broadly-supported plan for the property and do what they can with the funds they have in the meantime.

Local bond critics note that BC would increase the tax levy on residents of the three beach cities for up to 40 years. For a super-worthwhile project serving the health needs of the Beach Cities, maybe. But BC is not that, and deserves a no vote.

--

StopBCHD.com (StopBCHD@gmail.com) is a Neighborhood Quality-of-Life Community concerned about the quality-of-life, health, and economic damages that BCHDs 110-foot above the street, 800,000 sqft commercial development will inflict for the next 50-100 years. Our neighborhoods have been burdened since 1960 by the failed South Bay Hospital project and have not received the benefit of the voter-approved acute care public hospital since 1984.Yet we still suffer 100% of the damages and we will suffer 100% of the damages of BCHDs proposal.