That’s because Wednesday was the day that owners Philip and Jackie Smith of Newport Beach (he’s the grandson of founder Bertrand Smith, she’s his wife) literally handed over the keys to the City of Long Beach.

Photo by Daniel de Boom

Or, to be precise, they gave the keys to Israel F. Rosales, who is project support specialist at Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc.–in a transaction that somehow reminds me of the anticlimactic final scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark, in which the Ark of the Covenant is simply crated up and filed away in a vast, nameless warehouse somewhere.

Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. transacts doings like business and residential relocations, and Rosales says they’ll be, er, stewards of 240 Long Beach Blvd. until the city’s plans for that piece of land move forward.

Rosales said he had no idea when that would be, and the folks at the city’s Redevelopment Agency haven’t called us back yet with an update.

That wasn’t all the excitement, though. When the Smiths showed up to punch in for their last day at Acres–in a blue Econoline with a busted taillight that Jackie Smith says will hold 42 boxes of books or just 2,500 books–a security guard from Platt Security in Signal Hill told them they couldn’t go inside.

This was somewhat comical, Acres employee Jedediah Laub-Klein tells me, because he and several other employees had gone inside hours earlier for their final day–and hadn’t been hassled by The Man. At all. (Maybe it was the broken taillight.)

The Smiths called Long Beach police and managed to make their way inside. (The police car was just driving off as I arrived.)

The Platt people (their business card reads “Committed to the Community”) had already left–and they haven’t called me back to offer their version of whatever went down out there.

“A security company decided they needed to harass us,” Philip Smith said, after handing over the keys to Rosales. His wife seemed to disagree.

“They didn’t give us any trouble,” she said.

“Petty bureaucracy,” Philip Smith said. “I didn’t need that.”

And that was it. The couple walked to their van, carrying two cardboard boxes–one marked with the legend “X-mas books”–got in, and drove off.

Phillip Smith gave us a big wave, but his wife had harsh words earlier, for photographer Daniel de Boom.

“We’re going to turn over the keys, drive away, and never set foot in Long Beach again,” Jackie Smith told de Boom.

Now we’re really sad.

Tags: "Raiders of the Lost Ark", acres of books, Bertrand Smith, California, Israel F. Rosales, Jackie Smith, Jedediah Laub-Klein, Long Beach, newport beach, Overland Pacific & Cutler Inc., Philip Smith, Platt Security, Southern California, the Broadway Block, The District Weekly, Theo Douglas

John_B

Look, I understand the whole iconic-historic-tradition-laced hyper-angst that has surrounded this entire Acres of Books episode.

Once upon a time, in 1934, when Alcatraz became a prison and the Justice Department offered a $25,000 dollar reward for John Dillinger and Hitler officially became "Der Fuhrer" and Sergei Kirov was shot; Bibliophile and entrepreneur Bertrand Smith opened a book store and many, many people (our family included) bought many, many books there from.

Time passed, circumstances changed and Phillip and Jackie Smith ultimately agreed to sell the aged, leaky, moldy, creaking, teetering cave of a used book store.

And many nostalgically-inclined patrons and employees were overcome with sadness and tears. I get it.

But the Smiths drove away with over $2.8 million plus closing and relocation costs for their trouble.

Seriously, if the Smiths wanted to re-open “Acres of Books II” or even “Hectares of Books” in a much newer space somewhere in the downtown area they certainly could have done so, yes? Heaven knows there are ample vacant storefronts up and down Pine and all over the Pike at Rainbow Harbor that would have no doubt been very happy to help them carry on old Bertrand’s vision.

But instead they chose to “turn over the keys, drive away, and never set foot in Long Beach again”.

Fine…see ya!…are ya gone yet?

howardx

clearly john, you dont get it.

Andreas

totally out of touch, i agree.

Andy

That's $2.8 million of your dollars, John_B, to buy out a business, that was self-sustaining and brought folks to Long Beach. For no particular good reason, other than developers and the city wanted it gone.

Yeah, I'd take it personally.

John_B

Andy: So good to hear from you again, sir!

I’m sure you know by now that I’m no great fan of the RDA. But no one forced the Smith’s to accept the City’s latest offer. I do not doubt that if they had truly wanted to they could still be there patiently awaiting a better offer either from the City or from some private developer.

Plans for that particular block of our downtown area are not new. Far from it. In fact, in a DW article from over a year ago we learned that the City had been looking at “The Broadway Block” generally and “Acres” specifically since at least 1982 and Jackie Smith is quoted in that article as saying the City told them in 1986 they were going to have to move but never followed through.

At that time the economy started trending downward so they enjoyed a reprieve but, really, wouldn’t a savvier businessperson see the handwriting on those very crumbly walls? Why, if they truly wanted to stay in Long Beach (as other articles have quoted them as saying) did they wait another 22 years to take the money and run?

Relocation costs were supposedly part of the deal…so why didn’t they...you know...relocate?

The now-closed location wasn’t even the original store. It was simply the second incarnation. So if old Bertrand (May he rest in peace) was so quick to move the first store, crate by crate (and under interestingly similar City-driven circumstances) why did Phillip and Jackie prove to be so intransigent?

Historic Landmark or not, the place is (was) a business. What, beyond their millions of course, did their 22-year reluctance and reticence accomplish? If they truly wanted to carry on the business, they had 22 years worth of warning in which they could have easily done so.

With due respect to both of them, Phillip and Jackie seem to have missed a very simple truth that old Bertrand (May he rest in peace) seems to have clearly understood…the business he had built could not be defined simply by the building that housed it. His business was a grand idea and the building that first housed it was just the place wherein that idea first resided for a while.

When the first building no longer suited his idea, he moved. It took him the better part of two years, crate by book-filled crate to do it, but do it he did. I suspect that he probably came to believe that the 2nd building was an improvement over the 1st. So who’s to say that the 3rd building wouldn’t have proven better than the 2nd?

Actually, Jackie Smith said it…when she chose to “turn over the keys, drive away, and never set foot in Long Beach again”.

But that’s not what Jackie was reported to want back in August ’07. Back then it was: “relocation costs—somewhere around $250,000—and a new address as part of the deal.”

Apparently she forgot to mention that the new address she wanted would be in another city.

So rest in peace, Bertrand *and* Acres of Books…this time the idea apparently couldn’t outlive the building.

Sadly.

Andy

I think that the threat of eminent domain, which the RDA has used in the past, does, in fact, constitute a "gun to the head."

The rest is subjective, that the location makes the business (can we still say "Lite-a-Line" is the same thing now that it's in a strip mall on LB Blvd?), that the back-and-forth of LB's City officials didn't change their mind (or that someone told them to hold out for more), or that there was a need for them to move at all.

All that matters now is that it's gone, and so is a huge chunk of misspent money.

John_B

Hmm. The threat of eminent domain is just that, a threat. Did the City provide a date certain beyond which no additional negotiations would be entertained?

I don't know.

So much of life is subjective, Andy. That the Smiths made a conscious decision to sit and wait for 22 years for the hammer to fall (making money all the while, by the way) was an exceedingly subjective one.

That they apparently negotiated re-location costs and then failed to actually re-locate (at least in this city) was a subjective decision on their part as well…as was the decision to close the business...old Bertrand's "idea" of Acres of Books…altogether.

Like Bertrand before them, Phillip and Jackie Smith made many conscious and subjective choices concerning Acres over the years. And now they, and we, must live with those choices. I do not lament, to any degree, the loss of that particular building (Historic Landmark or not).

What I lament is what I interpret to be the abject squandering of Bertrand Smith's idea. And the conscious and subjective decision to squander that idea can be laid at no one's feet other than those who made it...Phillip and Jackie Smith.

The Smiths are not victims in this, Andy. And neither are we, unless we provide our consent to become so. The Smiths are (were) business people who made a decision to close their business even when they did not have to. Nothing more.

As for Lite-A-Line; are we also to be blamed for Mike Cincola's conscious and subjective decision to relocate to 2500 Long Beach Blvd? There were other places he could have moved *his* business idea…places that would not have required the conditional use permit he had to apply for, and receive, before moving. It’s reported that Cincola made a ton of money selling the old property to Camden Property Trust. Could Cincola not have lived off the proceeds of the sale, stored his game machines during construction and then re-opened Lite-A-Line in any of the newly built Pike retail spaces? Sure he could have.

But Cincola, much like the Smiths, made a conscious and subjective choice to not do so.

Were the $2.8 million + costs paid to the Smiths misspent? Time will tell. But it doesn’t matter, one whit, at least to me, that Acres is gone. Acre’s is, unfortunately, now a part of our city's past. It would have been nice had the Smiths chosen to remain here but at the end of the day it was, in fact, their choice to allow old Bertrand’s idea to die.

Personally I don’t waste a lot of energy fretting over businesspeople who choose to take our money, complain about doing so and then make the conscious and subjective choice to abandon our city afterward, especially when they had many other very reasonable options available to them.

My energy and interest (and hard-earned purchasing dollars, by the way) are reserved for those businesspeople who believe in our city and it’s people, who prove to be good and responsible corporate and community citizens and who are willing to commit to staying here and becoming a part of this fine city’s future.

Andy

To me, it's not whether the Smiths' are saints or goats. These businesses define a city's character. If a business wants to close or move, fine. If a business wants to jack the city because the city has a stiffie to get rid of the business, fine.

But these businesses (and others) defined a downtown that was a downtown with a unique and viable cultural character. The city didn't want them as part of the new downtown (or the owners didn't), and they're gone.

And for that reason, and some others, my tax dollars will also soon be gone. If I need a Borders bookstore or a Wal-Mart, they're in lots of cities, so what is unique about Long Beach anymore? Like I said, it's subjective.

John_B

It's always at once educational and entertaining to dialog with you, Andy.

Thanks!

Tara

sad to lose one of the last true long beach landmarks with character

Andreas

John B...Andy has wisely expressed what you still don't get. Sadly enough there are many city employees that still don't get why this was a bonehead move either.

AOB helped to define the city's unique character. It was part of what made us special and unique. Basically it was part of what makes long beach long beach and what draws people to this city.

Although you can argue that the city didn't force them out, they provided them some really strong bait that certainly helped to push/buy them out. What they should have done is the complete opposite, which would have been to embrace them.

I realize it might sound like a strange concept but many of the great cities around the world have done just that. Powell's books in Portland represents one such great example of what now has become a cultural institution for that city. I have no idea why Suja Lowenthal, who i know has been to Portland, would not back such a move to embrace a unique business rather then contribute to them being pushed out.

A creative city interested in protecting its unique assets would have done just that. They could have embraced it, built around it, helped it evolve into more, etc. Instead it's now lost forever and so is another chunk of the city's soul.

John_B

Andreas: Thanks for the comments.

You and others repeatedly bemoan the loss of Acres of Books. The loss of, what you characterize as, a "unique asset" and "a cultural institution". You and others likewise repeatedly lay the responsibility for this loss at the feet of "the City" or "the RDA".

It seems very easy for some to demonize "The City" or "the RDA" in these situations. I believe that in doing so detractors attempt to distance themselves from an entity that they, themselves, have helped to create and to avoid their fair portion of the responsibility for the poor decisions made by our various elected and appointed officials.

If we are dissatisfied with a given decision of the LBRDA (such as with Acres of Books) then we should be petitioning that Board to change their decision in numbers sufficient to cause them to reverse course.

If a pattern develops of what we believe to be bad decisions on the part of the LBRDA Board (as seems to be the case judging by the number of complaints I’m reading about that Board both here and elsewhere) then we should be petitioning our Council and Mayor to remove the current RDA Board Members in numbers sufficient to cause those elected officials to agree to do so.

If we petition our Council and Mayor to remove the current RDA Board Members in numbers that should be sufficient to cause those elected officials to agree to do so but they, in fact, refuse, then we should be recalling those elected officials and electing replacements that will better represent us in governing our City.

Ultimately, Andreas, “the City’s” failings are our own…as are those of the LBRDA and of any other entity of our government, at any level. We elected those who eventually appointed the LBRDA Board. If the LBRDA makes decisions that are not reflective of the desires of a majority of the electorate here, then it’s only because we have elected a Mayor and Council that has, in turn, appointed an LBRDA Board that is making those adverse decisions.

Like it or not, Andreas, we get the government we deserve. Either by virtue of the votes we (collectively) cast or the votes we (collectively) fail to cast through our apathy, our ignorance or our laziness.

Our government is the construct that we (a majority of the electorate) have created. If our construct is broken, then it’s our responsibility to fix it.

If we fail in that responsibility, then we have no one to blame, ultimately, but ourselves.

howardx

im just bummed the place is gone, really its everyone's fault (city and the owners)

John_B

I'm bummed too, howardx. I really liked the place and I very much would have preferred that the Smith's had decided to stick around and make a go of it in another location rather than take the money and run.

I have a feeling that old Bertrand might not have made that choice.

But it's pointless to try to lay blame...in this case...since Acres is now, for good or ill, a part of Long Beach's past.

It's in the present that we should be living and in the future that we should planning and placing our hopes.

If we don't want another episode like Acres with the next "unique asset" or "cultural institution" or "Long Beach landmark with character" then we must be pro-active and not reactive.

We must work to assure that the members of the RDA Board and those who appoint them (our Council and Mayor) better understand our priorities.

Unless we, the electorate, do a much better job of making our priorities clear...in all areas of public policy...and then placing people in elected and appointed office who will work to assure that it is our priorities, and not their own, that are followed, then episodes like Acres will continue, over and over and over again.

So how about it, Long Beach electorate? Would you care to get a little more involved in what really is, at the end of the day, your City government?

All you need to do is communicate, clearly and directly and in sufficient numbers, what your public policy priorities are and then elect people who will carry out those priorities and who will appoint others to assist them in doing so.

The public lands in this city belong to you.

The public funds used to manage this city...to pay its employees, to keep it safe and secure, to keep its infrastructure sound, to rejuvenate its beach and to develop its parks...are your funds.

That thriving public port is yours.

That busy public airport is yours.

Those public schools and libraries and museums are all yours.

Over the years you've delegated a lot of authority to people you've elected and appointed to manage all of these things and many others on your behalf, but the *responsibility* for managing them cannot be delegated.

That responsibility is yours...ours...alone.

It's past time to remember that, Long Beach electorate, and, in remembering, to start doing something constructive and pro-active about it.

Andy

I agree, as far as the part about being our responsibility. I don't think previous second district councilman Dan Baker (foibles and all) would've let the city buy out Acres, and feel that Suja certainly betrayed her constituency. I wrote a letter to my current (for the time being) Councilperson Bonnie regarding this issues and received no response. A similar email to the RDA was also ignored. I should have attended board meetings, I suppose, but I'm never sure if it's the RDA, the planning commission, or....even if these decisions are discussed in public.

With the planned demolition of the Pine/Pacific/3rd/4th street block, which, in essence will wall off the residents from Pacific westward, it seems there are still battles to be fought, though I can't quite get as passionate about saving the "Lovers" adult store.

I agree it is up to us to make the elected officials feel that they are responsible to their active constituents.

Andreas

John B, although your comments are appreciated, you're preaching to the choir. I still feel like you don't fully grasp the significance of the AOB loss and you seem to defend the buyout...but we can agree to disagree.

Andy, i totally agree. Since we're in the same district perhaps we can connect to chat about coordinating efforts. You can email me at drisee@gmail.com

John_B

Andreas: In your analogy, the choir doesn't seem to be getting the message. Given that it is they (we) that ultimately create the “music”…this is most unfortunate...and extremely counter-productive. But, then again, in your analogy we should not be considered the choir but, rather, the preacher. It is the electorate that should be preaching to the “choir” that is our Mayor, Council and other elected and appointed officials.

It is they (our elected officials) that should be taking direction from us (the electorate), and not the other way around.

I do not defend the "buyout". I do not even acknowledge that characterization as fully accurate. Acres' closing was just as much a "sellout" as it was a "buyout". And yet it seems that only the buyer is to be blamed in this case.

The Smith's provided their voluntary consent to the transaction by agreeing to sell. In effect, they abandoned both the place *and* the idea that had been Acres of Books. Then they voluntarily took the considerable money they made from the sale and they left...rather than carrying on Bertrand's idea in a new location.

Your ire concerning the loss of Acres should be directed first at the Smiths and then at the electorate who placed people in power (the Mayor and Council) who, in turn, appointed other people (the RDA Board) who, if reports are accurate, pressured the Smiths into selling.

If you insist upon feeling angry, sad, annoyed and victimized...if you're looking for someone to blame...start by looking to every single registered voter in the city, yourself included (if you are a member of that group).

Look to the ones who voted unintelligently but, more importantly, look to the ones who didn't vote at all…but who could and should have…and ask them why they dropped the ball when they had it squarely in their court.

Acres is a symptom, Andreas, nothing more. As are our incessant budget deficits, our crumbling infrastructure and our failing schools…all just symptoms.

The disease is a disengaged electorate.

Facts: Total Long Beach registered voter turn out in April 2004 (four Council seats) was 14.4%. Total Long Beach registered voter turn out in June 2006 (Mayor and three Council seats) was 28.8%. Total Long Beach registered voter turn out in April 2008 (one Council Seat) was 12.4%. (Source: City Clerk’s Office)

So, if my math is correct, in three elections an average total of 18.5% of us selected a Mayor and eight of our nine Council members.

Less than 1/5th of our registered voters are showing up to vote on local candidates and we wonder why some of our elected officials, and those they appoint on our behalf, may not be representing us properly?

How can these people possibly represent us properly when we won’t even represent ourSELVES properly?

Come on, folks, if we truly want a government that is representative than we MUST participate in the process. We must vote intelligently; communicate with our elected representatives clearly and often; monitor their activities closely, hold them accountable and visit reasonable consequences upon them when they fail to represent us properly.

We can’t just do some of these things all of the time or all of them some of the time. We must do all of these things constantly and indefatigably.