Comments on: O, HOW HAPPY WE WILL BE!

By: Kristoffer Stetson

Kristoffer Stetson — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 05:09:19 +0000

Check out http://www.lbsurfrider.org. Let’s sink this breakwater and restore the shore in Long Beach. Wealthy Peninsula residents shouldn’t be holding the rest of Long Beach hostage so they can enjoy slightly cheaper flood insurance premiums.

By: Jenny Stockdale

Jenny Stockdale — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:08:33 +0000

Bill,
I’m flattered, but this is not about me.

In fact, it’s not even my plan. The copyright belongs to Keith Higginbotham.
I’m a bit concerned now that the story was hard to follow. Did you have trouble reading it?
There’s a big segment in his plan that aims to collect and recycle the trash in the flood control channel, bringing it to the SERRF plant down the street to turn it into energy. By doing so, the water going out to sea (and past the shores of Santa Catalina Island) would be monumentally cleaner than it is now.
Granted, it doesn’t stop northern cities from polluting, but that effort hasn’t been so effective as of late. I believe the last major efforts to beautify the river were in 2001 and 2005, and little change has come of both endeavors.
As for the breakwater, no one really knows for certain what modifications would be the most sufficient, but one highly regarded engineer’s opinion suggests knocking an 1800-ft gap east of Queen’s Gate in the wall and leaving the rest of it in tact. If you want information on this, let me know.
And, that’s a whole other mess, involving city, state and federal cooperation. I never meant to make the procedure sound simple and am sorry if I did.
Further, as I noted above, the port probably won’t adopt this plan in its entirety, but maybe there a few new things the city and the port will have to think about for their 2030 plan.
Shooting at every idea that comes in on a white horse isn’t exactly an effective way to change things. Communicating about what the problems are and how they “could” be fixed is at least a start, right?

Theories perpetuate testing, which instigate laws and provoke change.

I know you don’t have all the answers (I don’t think anyone expects you to, and I’m not claiming to either). And, aside from your personal attacks on my character, you seem to have some solid ideas for reform. It may be in your best interest to get involved and publish your own theories, especially if you don’t agree with the ones in circulation.

But, then again, I suppose this isn’t about you, either.

If you have anything else you would like to discuss, please, contact me. I would love to hear from you.

By: bill from LB

bill from LB — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:58:54 +0000

Jenny , I am well aware that the port could care less about our social ills, but do you? I brought the issue up to demonstrate priorities. You obviously have not lived in LB very long. Once you have been here for awhile and fully understand the politics in LB you probably will be as cynical as me! So what you’re saying is the port will pay for all this , really, like so many other projects where the city ends up holding the bag. I have seen others ride into town on their white horse and jump on the ..lets fix LB without affecting the cities bottom line bandwagon and our bandwagon is still not fixed and the fixes are still costing us. All you write about are theories and if this or if thats. Example: Flusing and circulation? Only a theory but you make it sound so simple and effective that once we take down that old breakwater wall the good water will come in and flush out the bad water,but one of the most polluted beaches in SoCal is AVALON and its on the edge of an island. Talk about flushing! You write “it (the port) has the money to spend and IF given the right incentive, it MAY do so” This is part of your great plan ? You need a real plan and to be honest with the people of LB about what this could cost.
I ‘m sorry if I don’t have the answers Jenny but I don’t know how to cure cancer either but I know Mexican treatment centers won’t work.You come up with a real plan to stop the cities up river from using the flood control channel as their trash can and then we can work on the beaches.

By: Andreas

Andreas — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:31:59 +0000

To add to the added, i believe in the sphere of influence. We may not be able to solve drugs, gangs, etc, but there are things that are within our control like improving our water quality and beaches. The end result being that other things come along for the ride, basically what Dave is saying as well.

These aren’t new concepts and they shouldn’t be considered pipe dreams. Other people have dealt with much worse and turned around their situation.

By: Dave in Alamitos Beach

Dave in Alamitos Beach — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:07:38 +0000

I just want to add, if we’re not all sick of the discussion, that I DO think there is a correlation between a healthy, vibrant beach scene and reduced poverty and crime. It’s not much different than the “broken windows” theory of blighted neighborhoods. Unfortunately for us, what we’ve got right now is the sandy equivalent of broken windows.

But, as Jenny so eloquently states, the harbor can contribute to the beautification of Long Beach, but only up to a point, but fortunately that includes the beach. So why not come up with a good plan to help them contribute?

A good beach leads to good recreation which leads to good neighborhoods which leads to good citizenship which leads to less gang warfare….

By: Jenny Stockdale

Jenny Stockdale — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:31:32 +0000

Bill, just for clarification, Keith Higginbotham’s plan seeks to use the Port of Long Beach’s power and financial resources to increase circulation and water quality along our coast, while decreasing L.A. River mouth pollution. The port would, ideally, be obliged to do this as a mitigation project in return for expansion (something that is required for port expansion by law anyway).
The Port of Long Beach, as a department of the city, does have an obligation to keep its harm to a minimum and serve city residents through commerce according to the Tidelands Trust Act, but it has no interest in funding mitigation for the social issues you mention above. Those issues are presumably handled by an entirely different city department using finances from the general fund — allocations that handle policing, construction, etc…
So you see, this has really nothing to do with Surfrider (a nonprofit organization in no way affiliated with the city of Long Beach), and although the port is using city resources (because it is a department of the city) it will not be using money from the general fund to spearhead Higginbotham’s plan (it probably won’t be using his plan anyway). Therefore, those residents from the “hood” who you speak of would have no qualms about how the money is spent, because it will not be their money.
The Port of Long Beach makes upwards of $90 million in profit annually — money it traditionally reinvests in itself. The point being, it has the money to spend and if given the right incentive, it may do so. But this incentive does not include correcting, “gangs, infrastru[c]ture, schools, crime, sub par non code housing, etc…”
That said, I think both notions (bettering our beach front and bettering the segments of our “neglected LB”) should be priorities. And I agree, the shootings and loss of life here are tragedies that need immediate attention.
However, this article doesn’t focus on ridding Long Beach of crime, poverty and the like, and although I appreciate your extensive attention, I think your comments are out of place.
Maybe you should take your observations on the social ills of Long Beach to City Council meetings on Tuesday nights. I think it would be a much better forum for you, save the fact that you must state your full name and address.

By: bill from LB

bill from LB — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:31:02 +0000

Since we started discussing this ‘restore the beach’ topic (theory) last week there has been multiple shootings and murders in Long Beach including the murder of an 11y /o boy. Now tell me again how your war on fecal coliforms is going. I have an idea, maybe you could send the Surfrider people into the hoods with their clipboards and see what neglected LB (gangs,infrastruture, schools,crime,sub par non code housing etc) has to say about money and resources going toward your neglected beaches . Its all about priority. Lets work on straightening the inner-city cestpool before the beach cestpool.

By: Juice

Juice — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:19:45 +0000

i totally have crabs and i caught them on Pine street!

By: Dave in Alamitos Beach

Dave in Alamitos Beach — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:10:15 +0000

Not shifting the mouth of the river, but getting the port to help the city deal with the pollution is what I had proposed above. I also think that there must be a way to get every city upriver to contribute to the pollution cleanup, either by doing it themselves in advance, or paying for their share of the cleanup based on the size of their population.

But getting back to the larger pragmatism of the approach, the main thing is to make a grand overall proposal a win-win for everybody. No one will get exactly what they want, but hopefully a large part of what they want.

By: Jennifer Stockdale

Jennifer Stockdale — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:55:42 +0000

I do have to admit I made a major error in this story. Higginbotham’s plan does not intend to shift the mouth of the L.A. River, as I had initially stated. Instead, his idea addresses the problems associated with the river and the breakwater, giving the Port of Long Beach incentive to help fix these problems. The error has been corrected online.