LBPOST.com: PT: Wetlands Deal Must Enter Escrow By Dec. 31, Says Owner

Thursday, September 2, 2010

PT: Wetlands Deal Must Enter Escrow By Dec. 31, Says Owner

by Ryan ZumMallen | Long Beach News | 11.25.09 |

| Text Size:

Just two weeks after the Long Beach City Council heard a report from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) informing them that large areas of wetlands property the City will be acquiring as part of a proposed land swap are contaminated with large levels of pollutants, the owner of that property informed city officials yesterday that the exchange must enter escrow by December 31 or the deal is off.

The EPA is still examining more than one dozen sites on the property and say that full testing could take more than one year.

Tom Dean, the owner of the wetlands-area property, issued a similar deadline to the City Council in August. Dean threatened to pull his offer from the table if the Council did not approve the deal in their meeting that evening - despite growing concerns that the City would be giving too much away for land that may (and we know now, does) include high levels of contaminants.

Dean issued that warning through an interview with the LBPOST.com, which you can read by clicking here.

The Press-Telegram's Joe Segura has the rest of today's story in this article.

Comments

Click Here to Join the Discussion on this Story

16 Comments so far.

Fredo
Ryan. It appears that Mr. Dean would like to close escrow by the end of the year, not just open escrow. So the "rush" card is being played again in hopes of forcing the community's hand; let's just hope the City Council does not bite again. The enormous pitfalls of this deal have already been shown all too clearly. Let Mr. Dean finally pull the plug if that is his wish. Its time to start from scratch on the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority's approach to securing this land, if they really want it that badly. Let them do it their way and get the city out of the middle now, before its too late.

Capster
I smell a rat here, and this time it isn't the city! I wouldn't cave to any deadlines, without clear and detailed knowledge of what costs are potentially involved in that mess.

V
It will be a fitting Christmas present for Mr. Dean to not go forward with this.

John M. Fentis
I always have to chuckle when I read a reaction to environmental news stories that is made by what I perceive to be a potentially responsible party. "Enter escrow by 12-31 or the deal's off," boldly state Mr. Dean's representatives. Hardly a reasonable statement to make after your property has been found to contain PCBs which, under California law is classified as a CARCINOGEN. This kind of statement is typical of an interested party who wants to push through a land deal at all costs. What is it about this land deal that the City of Long Beach doesn't understand? If I understand the deal correctly, he is still retaining the mineral rights in the event there is something underground worth extracting and, please understand this: if the City takes title to the land, they undoubtedly become the responsible party for the cleanup. Sure, they can sue Mr Dean's entity for indemnification, but don't you think that the entity's attorneys will try and put boundaries on their obligations to remediate the contamination now that the cat has been let out of the bag? Council Member Schipske's concerns are right on the money. It would seem to me that a more prudent approach by Mr. Dean would be to do the cleanup, have the cleanup certified by US EPA as being within the appropriate cleanup standards and then negotiate the land swap. Forcing this down the City's throat is hardly a display of good faith on the part of Mr. Dean. It's an ultimatim and, frankly, the ultimatim itself should be enough of a showing of bad faith by Mr. Dean for the City to show some intestinal fortitude and tell him to put the land deal in a "place where the moon doesn't shine" Think carefully folks...this guy is all about himself and wouldn't be doing the deal in the first place unless there was a pot of gold in it for him somewhere. Do the prudent thing and pay serious attention to the EPA findings. There's no hurry to do this thing. Let Mr. Dean march to the beat of the clean up drummer that EPA is about to introduce him to. Robert Wise is a very good environmental assessor who has done EPA work for years. I had the pleasure of working with him during my days as an environmental prosecutor for the City of Long Beach. He is the appropriate individual as a representative of US EPA to hold Mr. Dean's feet to the fire. Anybody want to talk about how the PCBs got there in the first place? I'm sure that Mr. Dean's representatives aren't willing to talk about it at all

Let this deal die
So what if "this deal" is dead. Dean really can't sell it to anyone else to "develope." Council needs to quickly rezone the entire area as "wetlands" to ensure it can't be "developed" in the future. The City saves the costs of relocating Service Yards by the LA River, non-profits have time to raise money to buy the wetlands, and the Dean group is stuck with the clean up costs. Win, Win, Win for the public.

LAEnviro
The key point for those following this is that the City is NOT responsible for costs to clean up to this parcel of land - current owners retain the rights (responsibility). Unbelievable that this is lost on the media. Go back and watch the council presentation given several months ago. That a councilwoman with political motivations chooses to ignore this is something different altogether.

plainview, inc
If Dean isn't just bluffing about this, then the deal is certainly dead - bet on it. No way the Council is taking this land before cleanup is done - and that simply will not be occur this year. What a tragic waste of time and money this has been. Next time Dean knocks on the City's door, I hope they don't answer.

LB resident and taxpayer
Let the deal DIE! It was a bad deal for the city and the wetlands in the first place. Dean played the "hurry up and give me what I want NOW, or the deal will fall through" one time too many! I do hope the city council has now understood what a bad deal it was in the first place--and tell him that he can just keep that land that he can't develop anyway! The wetlands aren't going anywhere--and can be purchased at a future time at a much better deal!

john m. fentis
@LA Enviro. Many thanks for the post, and without speaking to Ms. Schipske's political intentions, I can honestly tell you that cleanup and the extent of it are ALWAYS subject to negotiation. Mr. Dean and his entourage may say that they will engage in clean up, but, ultimately, it is the extent and standard of the cleanup that is held hostage in any environmental remediation. While Dean's clean up crew may go through the motions, they have the ability to litigate the extent of the cleanup and that will take years; in the meantime, they've got their deal on the City yards and will make the most of it without any interference from anyone. That's how litigation works...the side with the money usually tires out the other side (in this case it would be US EPA) in ad nauseum civil litigation which is designed to conclude decade(s) after it is initiated and sometime continues long after the original parties have moved on or died.

CHARLIE
LET TOM DEAN KEEP HIS PROPERTY - It's obvious why he wants to get rid of it so fast! It's sort of like the Scott's would say - I man, Who wants to buy a pig in a poke? :>)

Interested Outsider
It behooves no one to set a "drop dead" date. What could possibly be the motivation?

Swimmaven
After Dean cleans up the site per EPA requirements, then eminent domain it - the state, the city, the feds - any government body.

Not a Fan of You Dean
Can the city really legally accept toxic land and assume cleanup liability which ulitmately would be at the tax payers expense? I say sure, rush the deal through with the condition of a 75% off land swap sale for the city, good until Dec 31st but Dean retains the financial responsibility of all toxic cleanup! There, gift of public funds solved. Otherwise he can wait for the toxic problem process to complete and keep his toxic site and still clean it up too. There's a deal for ya Dean.

Pigeon
Let the deal die!!! The land isn't wetlands. It was converted to a TOXIC DUMP long ago!!

Paul
Recall that Prop I was not given any exposure as to what it would be used for by Bob Foster. We found later that it was to give money to his Pal, Tom Dean. Yes, that is what I want my taxes going for, Pal's of the Family. Lets get these corrupt people out of our hair if the voters of the city are smart enough to see that conflict of interest and outright corruption, in the case of the bulldozing with the City playing dumb. Otherwise it is business as usual. Millonare cops and fire, that don't live here. "Family" members feeding at the trough, and bullets flying and killing our kids, and pollution getting worse every year. This is one of the most disgusting groups to come along in a while. They put the crackerbox Council to the second or third place on the list of harmful Councils and Mayors.

Obedient Mayor
What's the magic word, Mr. Dean? NOW!! Yessir, Mr. Dean. I have tons of taxpayer money, we can cut the police, fire, and other luxury items.

Long Beach News

LBPOST.com Managing Editor Ryan ZumMallen keeps up on all the current and breaking Long Beach news.

Ryan ZumMallen has served as the managing editor of the LBPOST.com since 2007. He graduated from CSULB with a degree in Print Journalism in 2008 and is a member of the 2009 class of Leadership Long Beach. You can find him on various basketball courts around the city.

Ryan's Community