Writing Shotgun

FAMED BELMONT SHORE COURTS SAVED … NOT THAT ANYONE KNEW THEY WERE IN DANGER

Steve LoweryFri. January 11
 

I’m still amazed at the meeting I went to last night in Belmont Shore. Amazed at how quickly nothing happened–and by nothing, I mean a whole lot. So much, in fact, that by the time Marine Bureau Manager Mark Sandoval said “I think we’re done here,” the meeting broke out into the kind of cheering normally reserved for youth soccer games and midget tossing.

Sandoval had, apparently, effectively just killed an “improvement” plan that included moving the basketball and handball courts and roller hockey rink that sit at the end of Alamitos Bay, at the crux of Ocean and 54th Place, a block away–onto the beach at Granada Avenue. It appeared that most of the people attending Thursday’s Belmont Shore Residents Association meeting at the Bayshore Library–it was standing-room-only in the library’s small community room–were surprised to find out there was such a plan, apparently having only recently heard of it.

They seemed downright shocked to find out that the plan had not only been proposed but had already been discussed and artistically rendered: on a photocopied handout, residents saw that the courts had been replaced by a rather inocuous park with a few canopies and benches.

The rapid and graphic nature of the whole thing seemed to throw the room into a panic and questions immediately were thrown at Sandoval and his Parks & Recreation colleague Dennis Eschen, who had shown up to explain the project and gauge community support.

As for the project, the pair said it was part of a proposed $120 million bond designed to make improvements in the marina and along the beaches. As for community support … yeah, no.

Sandoval and Eschen were peppered with questions such as why the city had thought to move the courts–the basketball courts have been there since the ’30s–in the first place. The pair answered it was because of the numerous complaints they had received about problems with parking and crowding and noise.

This seemed to surprise the residents who said they couldn’t remember anyone complaining about crowds and parking and noise at the courts and that all of those problems were probably less attributable to the game courts themselves and more to the fact that they’re located at the end of a beach, next to a restaurant, a sail center and another beach across the street.

Pressed on the subject, Eschen and Sandoval said most of the complaints came from the tenants of the apartment building at 15 54th Place, located directly across from the courts.

Some in the crowd theorized that the proposed move was the work of former Long Beach City Councilman Frank Colonna, who they said owned the building and stood to benefit in property value if the asphalt and chain-link was replaced with a park offering a great, unimpeded view of the bay.

“It’s a win for whoever the person is who owns those apartments,” said someone in the crowd.

Another asked that if the courts were such a problem, why was the city simply proposing to move them a few blocks west, surmising “seems like you’re just moving the same problem to another location.”

Another resident, William Sheehan, got up to address the problem of putting a basketball court on the beach and the requisite sand that would accumulate on a windy day. He showed two enlarged photos taken after the recent storms. One showed the bike path on the beach, completely covered by several inches of sand; another showed a photo of the basketball courts after the same storm littered with only a few puddles.

The pictures illicited applause and moved Sandoval to ask the room: “Is anyone here for this,” referring to the improvement. An immediate “No!” thundered back at him.

“I think we’re done,” he said, and the room broke into spontaneous applause at his call to non-action.

But had Sandoval killed the project? Or was he just signaling that the time to talk was over?

Several people followed up and asked if the project was effectively dead, to which Sandoval said: “If you hear a rumor that they’re still talking about this, I’ll be very surprised.”

That still sounded vague, so I caught up with Sandoval after the meeting and asked him again. While he said ultimately the decision to go ahead or end the project rested with his boss, Parks & Recreation head Phil Hester, he said that Hester and he “agreed that we didn’t want to do anything for the neighborhood that the neighborhood didn’t want,” adding “Why would we want to fix something the residents don’t want fixed?”

So, just like that, the project was killed. I guess.

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

RELATED

COMMENTS

  1. 1

    There’s an interesting contrast between this article and your cover story on Armory Park. If the neighborhood wants it (Armory Park), it takes only one city official to keep it from happening. If the neighborhood doesn’t want it (54th Basketball Court relocation) the city official in charge of the project can’t guarantee that it’s dead.

    I’m not pointing a finger at individuals here. The problem is the overall culture at City Hall, where residents can only get desirable results by fighting hard and winning ugly (Airport expansion, Home Depot, Seaport Marina Hotel) or endure the mediocrity that city staff produces (The Pike, City Place, Towne Center, Aquarium of the Pacific…). This culture is what the new city manager should have eliminated from Long Beach on Day 1 in office. This is why City Council should have had the courage to hire a city manager from outside.

    [report]

    Posted By Sam Lowry on January 12th, 2008 at 12:55 am

     

  2. 2

    You make a well-thought case, Sam, with some excellent examples. I’m always looking for perspectives and would love to consider yours on a more-regular basis. Please feel free to write me — whenever — at DAVE@thedistrictweekly.com

    [report]

    Posted By Dave Wielenga on January 12th, 2008 at 7:14 am

     

  3. 3

    Am I the only one who gets the sense that the Peninsula and Shore residents do not want an “attractive nuissance” in the area that might draw the masses to their little corner of the city? Expanding the facilities on the beach will encourage more “outsiders” to visit their semi-private beach areas that are somewhat inaccessible due to parking issues. Or am I seeing something that is not there–at least not that would be admitted publicly?

    [report]

    Posted By LBRez on January 12th, 2008 at 10:14 am

     

  4. 4

    I had a similar experience with a meeting concerning proposed bike improvements in the city. The meeting held at Bixby Park was hardly publicized to one of the concerned parties…the cyclists. If it were not for some cylists that heard about it through the grape-vine and posted it on craigslist and myspace, there would have been no cycling presence at all, and it would have been a very one sided meeting and yet another missed opportunity.

    I can’t tell if it is willful negligence or a complete lack of media savvy. I would hope it would be the latter because it is less sinister, but then again, the thought a city that can’t communicate important issues to its public doesn’t provide that much more comfort.

    [report]

    Posted By Russ Roca on January 12th, 2008 at 10:16 am

     

  5. 5

    There isn’t really anything “private” about that area. There is huge parking lot that sits mostly empty. If people want to go there, they can.

    I don’t know Colonna and have no vested interest in his finances. That said, let’s assume he drove this project initially and his intent was to increase his property’s value. Who cares? If the project enhances the beauty of the area, it’s a good thing even if Colonna benefits.

    I was at the meeting. I thought the city officials handled a somewhat rude crowd very well. The folks who opposed the court move all had their own interests in mind. For example, a few “moms” apparently want the preschool rebuilt instead. I’m not saying they should not rebuild it, I’m just saying people have different priorities depending on their perspective and that is what is playing out here.

    For the most part, all of the proposals on the project list that was passed out have merit. Prioritizing is the controversial part.

    [report]

    Posted By LB Resident on January 12th, 2008 at 1:01 pm

     

  6. 6

    I dunno, LBRez. At the meeting, I didn’t get the feeling that the changes they were talking about were designed to bring more people to Alamitos Bay. I mean, I can’t see that replacing the courts with that nothing-looking park I described could attract anybody. And moving the courts to a new location down the beach would no doubt mean less players showing up because the courts would be in poor condition for play because of strong winds and sand. Actually, if the folks in this area wanted less people, they probably would have supported these chances.

    [report]

    Posted By Steve Lowery on January 12th, 2008 at 1:08 pm

     

  7. 7

    I don’t think the goal was to get more people to Alamitos Bay. The goal there was to beautify the area and reduce noise and nusiances. I personally think those are good goals and are accomplished by moving the courts and replacing them with a park. (I don’t live there just to be clear so I’m not biased.)

    The argument then is that you’re moving the noise to another spot. However, the Granada area is much further from the neighborhood (you have to cross Ocean Blvd and a parking lot) so you’re not going to have the same complaints.

    As far as the area being wind blown, that can be solved with wind protection elements.

    I’m not saying it’s a perfect plan either. I’m just saying it has merit for consideration.

    [report]

    Posted By LB Resident on January 12th, 2008 at 2:07 pm

     

  8. 8

    No surprise that Colonna has something to gain. So happy he lost for Mayor. I’ll take Foster over him any day.

    [report]

    Posted By LB Resident on January 12th, 2008 at 3:53 pm

     

  9. 9

    The real story here is the $120 million bond issue using future Tideland funds for City projects without public input. That is why the BSRA requested the meeting. Anything which impacts the City’s financial resources by millions of dollars and changes uses in a parking/traffic congested neighborhood should be open to public disclosure and discussion. Have not seen anything written on the big dollar projects-Marina, Pier/Belmont Pool.

    [report]

    Posted By janis on January 16th, 2008 at 8:51 am

     

  10. 10

    what it does do is further enhance the area for more filming, more weddings, etc. - private events on public land. the answer to all questions regarding the doings of any govt is REVENUE. figure that out, and you will figure out the real reasons that things are done.

    [report]

    Posted By Bay User on January 24th, 2008 at 9:41 am

     

Leave a Reply

DISCLAIMER: We do not screen comments in advance, but we do reserve the right to delete or edit any we find inappropriate. Please note that commenters are free to use whatever name(s) they choose.

 

© 2007-2008 Seven Days Publishing LLC.