A Response to BCHDs Poster's Bizarro View of the Redondo Beach General Plan FAR Proposal for Public Benefit Land

I was disappointed, but not surprised, to see BCHD’s Poster avoid any meaningful discussion of the facts surrounding BCHD’s new regional focus. BCHD has actively migrated from the Hospital District’s voter-mandated  focus of the “residents who reside” in the District to a new regional focus that provides services to 80% to 95% non-residents of the District. Why should BCHD be allowed to ignore the terms of the condemnation of the land that that District sits on? The land was taken from private owners who did not want to sell in order to service the District residents.

The land was not taken by the District for 80% non-residents in a 100% privately-owned assisted living facility as stated by BCHD’s own high paid consultants. Nor was the land taken by the District for a 91% non-resident service area for allcove that stretches from Avalon to Long Beach according to LA County records. And the District surely did not condemn the land to develop a PACE facility that will enroll up to 95% non-residents according to the National PACE Association’s data.

BCHDs funding, except outside grants, is the result of property taxes, rent from taxpayer-owned land/buildings or returns on other taxpayer-owned assets. BCHD programs lose money. BCHD programs may charge fees, but they are overwhelmingly under collecting and not paying their own way, especially for non-residents. Both the gym and AdventurePlex allow non-residents, but both facilities consume subsidies from resident-taxpayers. BCHD exports our property taxes and other funding to folks that never contributed to the District or its assets.

Poster is correct in her claims that BCHD has changed.  It is no longer serving the voters that founded and funded it. Instead, it plans to use Redondo Beach Public land to service 80% to 95% non-residents of the District. And the view for Redondo Beach residents and taxpayers is even worse. Redondo Beach residents will only receive 3% to 9% of the services of the new planned redevelopment. Instead, Redondo Beach residents will suffer 100% of the damages from BCHD’s non-resident focus in terms of traffic, noise, pollution, lost public land, and property devaluation.

Don’t let BCHD fool you into believing that it will deliver more services than costs or damages to Redondo Beach residents. BCHD doesn’t bother to evaluate the net benefits of its programs. In a Public Records Act reply, BCHD stated “calculating a dollar community benefit for each program is beyond the scope of the District’s mission, financial resources and abilities.”  The District is honest in this regard; the District doesn’t have the “ability” to determine if it provides more value than cost and community damage to neighbors.

BCHD has chosen to make the General Plan issue about BCHD. So be it. BCHD is providing 80% to 95% of its services to non-residents of the District and 91% to 97% of its planned service to non-residents of Redondo Beach. The City’s parcels will provide nearly 100% of their services to Redondo Beach residents. There’s no comparison between the non-resident future focus of Poster’s District view and the continued resident focus of the City of Redondo Beach to its residents.  BCHD doesn’t deserve to dump 100% of its damages on Redondo Beach residents for only 3% to 9% Redondo Beach resident benefit. FAR 0.75 is gift that BCHD doesn’t even deserve.

Mark Nelson

Redondo Beach