Long Beach council stalls MLK Center lease after vote fails to reach required supermajority

The Long Beach City Council failed to approve a resolution authorizing the city manager to enter a new lease agreement with MLK Center Inc., after the measure received three affirmative votes but fell short of the four-vote supermajority required by the city charter.

The measure, which would have granted MLK Center Inc. a 30-month lease with automatic renewals (potentially extending to 12.5 years if the tenant met lease terms) and an option to purchase the building for $1, drew both support and concern at Tuesday’s meeting.

City Manager Dan Creighton urged the council to approve the lease, saying the agreement “puts past issues behind us and gets the MLK Center back to providing a service to the community.” He recommended the council approve the agreement that night.

Councilmember Mike Lester said he could not support the measure. “I have to vote no,” Lester said, citing legal concerns about a clause in the lease that would allow the nonprofit to purchase the property later for $1 and arguing the provision may run afoul of New York law’s gift/loan limitations.

Supporters — including MLK board chair Sheena Curry and several community members — told the council the center provides vital programs and that the lease would take MLK out of pending eviction litigation if signed. Curry listed programs she said are planned or underway at the center, including an enrichment program, a food pantry and a planned culinary-arts program, and added, “We received a hundred thousand dollars” for culinary arts in a grant pitch.

Deputy Corporation Counsel Joseph Lupo said the automatic renewal was negotiated as a sign of good faith and that renewal would be conditioned on the tenant not breaching lease terms. Lupo also described a statutory mechanism crafted for a possible sale that would keep the property restricted to community-center use if purchased by the nonprofit.

Council members and staff acknowledged the lease had been revised shortly before the meeting, prompting objections from members who said they had limited time to review the new language. After the vote failed, councilmembers moved into executive session to receive legal advice from the corporation counsel’s office.

The vote tally recorded on the public record was: Councilmember Bridal — yes; Councilmember Lester — no; Councilmember Reinhart — yes; President Fenn — yes. Because the charter requires four affirmative votes to lease city property, the resolution did not pass. The council recessed to an executive session to obtain legal guidance and discuss next steps.

If the council returns with a revised proposal, the item will need to be placed on a future agenda and re-voted. Community speakers urged quick resolution so programs for children and seniors can continue; several said the lease would make eviction proceedings moot once signed.