The questions were prepared by the League of Women Voters of Los Angeles County, an Inter-League Organization, and constituent Local Leagues as available in communities holding elections on April 11, 2006 and asked of all candidates for this office.

See below for questions on Liquified Natural Gas, Airport Expansion, Air Quality

Click on a name for other candidate information.   See also more information about this contest.

Answer from Monica Raquel Blumenfield:

I oppose the proposed location of the Liquefied Natural Gas plant. Due to the highly combustible nature of LNG, even a small accident could result in a catastrophic event threatening the safety of our neighborhoods. The infrastructure necessary for such a plant is highly visible and easily identifiable making it a potential security risk.

Answer from Gerrie Schipske:

No. We need to listen to our local public safety personnel who indicate grave concern about the potential hazards such a facility would cause. Additionally, in 1992, the State of California rejected the building of an LNG facility in the Port of Los Angeles -- just yards away from the Port of Long Beach -- because of concerns regarding the earthquake fault underneath. California municipal law does not allow a legislative body such as a City Council to delegate its authority to a non-legislative body (i.e. Harbor Commission) in matters of health and safety. I would invoke that position as an elected member of the Council and direct the City Attorney to determine that the Council has the authority to approve or disapprove participation by the City of Long Beach.

Answer from Jackie Kell:

I share concerns that both our Police and Fire Departments have expressed over the safety of placing the LNG plant near our heavily populated downtown area. When the final EIR is released, I will confer with our first-responders to see if these issues have been resolved before making a final decision. Any definitive position or decision reached by a Councilmember before the final EIR is issued could show a predetermination on the issue and possibly lead to legal challenges.

Answer from Dave Radford:

As we know this will be a Harbor Commission decision. While there are many reasons to support an LNG terminal such as efficient fuel source, economic growth, and cleaner air, there is also a serious safety concern and a burden of protection on already over stretched public safety departements and those city departments in support. Everyweek there are new suggestions and nuances being being put before the public: from build, to do not build, to build off shore, and all need serious thinking. We should be guided in our opinions by what is the greatest good for the greatest number and for the safety of the citizens closest to the any proposed site. Clear thinking is always in fashion. Liquidfied Natural Gas is being used all over Long Beach. I have seen the trucks being fueled at the city yard with safety being the prime consideration. The answer is not fear and panic or blind acceptance. The answer is study, consult, investigate, and form a consensual decision.

Answer from Dennis I. Porter:

I do not think there is enough information to decide at this point as to how safe the LNG would be. I would want more information. Currently my contacts with the Homeland Security Director and former gas company engineers and gas company workers. Deputy Chief Jackman also claims it is safe.

Answer from Ed Barwick:

After reviewing the preliminary EIR I am inclined to support this project. Our friends and neighbors are correct in looking for ways to clean up emissions from the POLB, in seeking ways to reduce emissions from diesel engines and working to clean our air to reduce incidents of lung disease. Well here is our opportunity to take a step in the right direction. Clean burning natural gas is that step. It's nice to say we need to clean up our environment but someone must be bold enough to accept the challenge and begin taking steps in the right direction. This is one step in that direction. Are there risks, absolutely? Are there risks in refining gasoline, absolutely and they are greater than importing LNG; but we continue to have refineries and they exist right here in the south bay + but we need them to provide the fuel upon which our entire society depends. Why not take the small, actually smaller risk of incident than an oil refinery, of importing a fuel that takes all of us a small step in the correct direction to help ourselves and our neighborhoods begin cleaning up our environment! If you always look at the worst possible case of a potential terrorist attack and then fail to do what is right for our society then we have fallen prey to the terrorists and have let them win.

Answer from Dennis I. Porter:

Flights should not be increased. Keep them at 41. I am for modernizing the airport and making improvements and not expanding the airport beyond 103,000 Sq.Ft.

Answer from Jackie Kell:

The proposed Airport Terminal and Parking project should be structured to accommodate the mandated noise limits. Without accommodating the flights allowed under those limits the City's Noise Ordinance would be significantly more prone to successful litigation, which could ultimately increase flights. Preliminary evidence regarding the proposed parking structure shows that pollution from vehicle trip could be reduced if properly planned and adding additional parking spaces for planes on the runway side would reduce pollution caused by jet craft having to idle on waiting to load/unload. The Terminal size it self should only accommodate comfortably the number of passengers possible under the current flight restrictions (Again, anything less creates possible openings for successful legal challenges). I would not approve one "improvement" or change that would create additional flights beyond those allowed by the Noise Ordinance.

Answer from Ed Barwick:

We must support and maintain our current noise ordinance. Modernizing and upgrading our airport facility is a major step in this direction. It shows that the City of Long Beach truly supports the intent of this ordinance by providing an adequate facility to process passengers from these flights. An upgraded facility will also improve security of operations, provide a more positive image of our city to arriving passengers, reduce pollution related to the already existing traffic levels, and provide a better working environment for all of our airport employees. The addition of a vehicle parking structure will help reduce air pollution and improve revenue at the airport.

Answer from Gerrie Schipske:

The facilities need to be updated. However, the recent draft EIR indicates that the expansion will have significant impacts on adjacent homes due to increased traffic and relocation of parking facilities. This needs to be mitigated. The EIR also indicates that full "optimization" of the "flight slots" indicates an increase from 41 to 52 commercial plus an additional 25 commuter flights. I have already called for the City Council to provide sound proofing and insulation for those homes in the 60 + CNEL contour because of the impact these increases will bring.

Answer from Monica Raquel Blumenfield:

As a cancer survivor, I have become acutely aware of health and environmental issues. I do not support airport expansion. The Environmental Protection Agency has recognized both aircraft and their support vehicles as contributors to air pollution. An increase in the number of flights would also increase automobile and bus traffic thereby raising levels of particulates in our air. This exacerbates childhood asthma and other pulmonary diseases in our community.

Answer from Dave Radford:

The airport is one of Long Beaches most valuable resources. In general, our city enjoys the convienince of 'our' airport and we atr proud of the its history and design. However, most citizens are embarrassed by our terminal. Baggage claim on the side walk, and our modular waiting rooms are simply horrible. We can do better. We need a terminal that reflects our heritage and our future. Our new terminal needs to be distinctive and serviceable deep into the 21st century. Let's build something in which we can all be proud. I support the current 41 flight limit

Answer from Dennis I. Porter:

Crack down on the ships in the Harbor. Crack down on the the diesel trucks that have old engines, which put out more pollution then newer diesel engines. Look to more environment safe forms of energy.

Answer from Jackie Kell:

Over my terms in office, we have changed the make-up, and more importantly the attitude of the City's Harbor Commission. Now we are all working with a "Green Port" policy aimed towards removing air pollution generated by ships and trucks. The City is making substantial investments in solar-powered buildings and improvements. We are quickly moving the City's fleet of vehicles to alternate, less polluting fuels as well as hybrid vehicles. I brought forward the Council agenda item creating a Citizen's Commission on the Environment. We are positioning ourselves to become the environmental hub of the region.

Answer from Monica Raquel Blumenfield:

We need to focus on encouraging "green" programs for the Port of Long Beach, reducing truck traffic along Interstate 710 and replacing city vehicles with hybrids.

Answer from Dave Radford:

Air Quality Target areas

1. 710 Freeway
2. Harbor Area
3. Airport

These areas present a city conern not just individual districts. Environmental issues need macro solutions not micro self thinking.

Answer from Gerrie Schipske:

As a health care professional, I am deeply concerned about the data that indicates the high incidence of asthma and cancers in Long Beach due to pollution from the port and the freeways. I support the recent call by the ILWU to decrease pollution at the port by 20%. I support the proposed legislation to require "electrical docking" for ships that are coming into our ports. We need to support efforts to make our ports "green" and to encourage port tenants and users to develop more efficient energy useage. We need to encourage consumers to utilize the hybrid automobiles that reduce emissions. The City Council needs to work closely with our state and federal government to encourage strong legislation to maintain air quality controls and incentives to increase energy efficiencies by the users of the ports.

Answer from Ed Barwick:

We need to aggressively support the POLB green port policies. These include the vessel slowing program when vessels come within 20 miles of the port and the "cold iron" program. We need to support conversion of railroad engines to more modern and less polluting engines and the pier pass program. We need to fast track improvements to the 710 freeway that reduce congestion and a grade separation between truck traffic and automobiles. At the airport we need to provide the necessary number of airplane pads that minimize engine idling and allow these planes to hook-up to shore power.

The order of the candidates is random and changes daily.