Writing Shotgun

STAR TREK 3

Daniel de BoomFri. December 14
 

The future of Lincoln Park homeless? Maybe hungry

Responding to my story about Star Trek filming at Lincoln Park, reader Jeanine Birong asks, “Is Daniel really sure the homeless are getting nothing from this deal? Given my experience in locations, I would bet some kind of deal was cut on their behalf. Dig deeper: I bet that Star Trek is doing something nice for them.”

As my colleague Will Swaim discovered, Birong’s got pretty good instincts for these things: she works for John Robinson of Long Beach Locations, a company that markets Long Beach to the film industry.

First this note: I’m not saying Paramount Studios owes the homeless anything. But I did wonder in my first post whether a Hollywood mega studio would offer something to unofficial residents of Lincoln Park’s pushed aside to make way for filming this week.

So I followed up—went back to Lincoln Park and asked homeless people there if they’ve been compensated in any way by Paramount.

John Johnston has lived in Lincoln Park–as much as anyone can live in a park that closes at 10 p.m. Each night for the 18 months he’s stayed in the park, Johnston has to find a place to sleep. I might have got some of this wrong: Johnston is missing his front teeth, which makes it hard to understand him.

“I used to live in the apartments behind the police station,” he told me. “But they tore them down and built a parking lot and I had to come here to the park.”

Has he received anything from the film crew?

“No. Nothing,” he said.

Food from the crafts services tent?

Nothing. “They [Paramount Studios? the city? me?] don’t care about us. They [??] keep building condos that nobody can afford, and so I live in the park.”

I asked if he’s been harassed at all by the film crew and he told me that he hasn’t.

Has he gotten a glimpse of the alien characters Paramount is so trying desperately to keep under wraps?

He smiled. “I’m the alien,” he said.

Others at the park confirmed Johnston’s experience. No compensation. And none expected, actually. Robert Hall, who says he’s a Navy vet, offered that he guesses they’d get something if their home were an actual house with four walls. But what he was really concerned about is the weekend drop-off.

He said that for the last three or four years, volunteers have dropped off food and clothing for the residents of Lincoln Park, often on a Friday. Nothing had arrived today.

“They’re real generous around the holidays,” Hall said of the volunteers. “But I’m afraid they won’t come this weekend because the area where they park is being taken up by the film crew’s fences and trucks.”

Speaking with the optimism that comes with a full belly and a house with four walls, I said, “I think they’ll find another place to park,” I told him. “I bet you get your care packages this weekend.”

“I hope you’re right,” Hall told me, maybe just being kind.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Viewing 8 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    How'd we all find out Star Trek was filming at City Hall in the first place? Was it reported at LB Report, or the dying P-T, or what? Just wonderin'.
    • ^
    • v
    I first learned that the project was Star Trek from the fabulous Tim Grobaty in his Dec. 10 Press-Telegram column, "'Trek' in town? No one's talking":

    http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_7687505

    Despite the fact that Tim's column appeared Monday, city officials on Friday would not acknowledge that the tents, trucks, actors, cops, black-draped fences, and electrical cords snaking into municipal buildings were part of a project called "Corporate Headquarters." One official and others close to the film told me that Tim's column and the resulting publicity doesn't free them to acknowledge what's really going on, that the city is bound by an agreement to black-box the project.
    • ^
    • v
    It is somewhat entertaining that the city won't confirm that it is, in fact, Star Trek at City Hall. But according to the film permit that was issued it is not. (?!)

    I think you guys should ask the Location or Production Manager of the production if they did anything for the homeless. An insider at the city told me that the studio did feed the homeless while they were there. Not surprisingly, we have conflicting info.
    One thing is certain, we have a problem with homelessness in LB. And it is sad.
    • ^
    • v
    LB city owes nothing to the homeless. LB taxpayers owe nothing to the homeless. The studios owe nothing to the homeless... no more than any of you owe anything to any of us. This is the USA, a capitalistic, democratic country. You "get stuff" by working hard, paying taxes, saving, voting and being responsible to yourself, your community and your society. If you choose not to participate in contributing, you end up getting run out of "the park" sooner or later. Welcome to America! If you don't like it, go to the USSR where they will give you everything you NEED! Lets get back to reality now.
    • ^
    • v
    rkj
    thanks for the last 8 years, its been great.
    • ^
    • v
    ps.
    there is no ussr anymore.
    • ^
    • v
    wow rkj, i'm confused by your suggestion to be responsible to "your community" and "your society" since i thought they should only "get stuff" by "working hard, paying taxes, saving, voting, and being responsible" for themselves. so why don't you get your head out of your bad place and realize that you "get stuff" that you don't really fully pay for either, like your current war, which you are making other people's grandchildren pay for. but i guess that debt is just some of the "stuff" they'll get before they get a chance to work hard, pay taxes, save, vote, and be responsible for your sorry diaper-wearing butt sitting under a tree down at Long Beach city hall.
    • ^
    • v
    Why should the film crews give anything to the homeless? It's not their park, it is the public's park and they paid for their film permits. Should I go sit down at the partk at lunchtime, or any other part of town where there may be filming, and expect a free lunch or some swag? I find it interesting that John Johnston lived in apartments that were torn down and then he "had" to live in the park. He was paying rent before, then he couldn't? Why not? That is the story to be looking at, not why a film company won't feed homeless people. Why did Johnston go from having an apartment to living in the park? It could not be just because they tore down the building--unless he was a squatter and not paying rent. So instead of trying to paint another corporation with a coat of taint, why not dig a little into those who are in the park?
 
close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus
 

© 2007-2008 Seven Days Publishing LLC.