The city has rented out and fenced off over half of Lincoln Park for Paramount Studios’ filming of the latest Star Trek movie—displacing homeless people who squat there in this happiest time of the year.

The fenced-off area is a base camp for the crew. Filming will take place inside City Hall. The base camp is also covered in tarp to protect the costumed actors from photographers like me.

park

Included in the off-limits area is the seldom-used concrete park atop the library. This area overlooks the set and is watched over by Long Beach’s finest. Asked if the upstairs park was closed, a uniformed cop busy locking the gates said that it was. Asked if it was really possible to rent a public park she replied, “The park is closed.”

I wonder how we can spare cops to guard movie sets when every politician who runs for public office says that he will hire more cops to battle escalating crime. Maybe they just schedule less crime for the days that Hollywood is in town. I wonder if they keep statistics on how much the crime rate falls when Long Beach cops are busy being paid to guard Hollywood’s most essential secrets.

I also wonder if Paramount couldn’t feed the homeless they’ve put out with some of that tasty crafts services food.

The sidewalk has been fenced off along Pacific Ave. to prevent pedestrians from walking anywhere near the entrance to Paramount’s base camp and discovering what people in the future will look like.

Don’t try to walk around that [barrier], a homeless man told me. “The cop on the other side is a real asshole.”

A couple minutes later I hear the police car’s speaker system screech out, “USE THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET!” to someone who apparently tried to cross from the other side of the barrier.

I’ll bet the cops are being fed.

Tags: Corporate Headquarters, Film, homeless, Long Beach, movie, Paramount Studios, pointy ears, Sex Pistols, Star Trek, Vulcan, writer's strike

COMMENTS

1

Evidently in the 23rd century, the season of Peace on Earth and Goodwill Toward Men no longer exists…pity.

[report]

Posted By kba on December 14th, 2007 at 6:24 am
2

Is the city picking up the tab for the police time, or is Paramount? Would be really interesting if someone did some actual reporting on this rather than just speculating.

[report]

Posted By grendl2000 on December 14th, 2007 at 8:57 am
3

The studios pick up the tab.

[report]

Posted By Selfish Causes on December 14th, 2007 at 9:39 am
4

FYI, the city charges the production companies for the police and fire marshall assigned to the set. In addition, these people sign up for this duty on their days off. They are not pulled from the officers that are assigned to active duty. It is an opportunity for these public servants to earn some overtime without it coming from the city’s budget. Film revenue generated from the issuance of permits is a considerable contribution to our community and the local economy.
My office is across the street from Lincoln Park, and I for one, don’t think that the homeless people should even have been allowed to set up permanent residence in the park to begin with. It is a shame that the beautiful water feature in the Friendship Garden must be left drained because of the fact that the homeless were using it for their restroom, while others were using it to bathe in.
If people are really concerned about the homeless people’s welfare, it is time to offer some real solutions to their blight rather than just letting them live in the park. It is not Star Trek’s fault that the homeless have no where to go–they didn’t have anywhere to go to begin with.

[report]

Posted By Jeanine Birong on December 14th, 2007 at 11:16 am
5

I understand that these cops were pulling the extra duty on their days off and I understand it was an opportunity for them to make more money than they normally would. But, while they are presumably free to moonlight on their own time, when they wear the LBPD uniform while doing so it gives the impression that the uniform is for sale. Why don’t they wear a Paramount Studio Security Guard uniform? (A Star Trek uniform would look quite spiffy.)
Also, it’s their day off and they’re making the extra money for watching an entrance. They might lighten up a little. At least go easy on the homeless who are getting nothing out of this deal save added inconvenience

[report]

Posted By Daniel de Boom on December 14th, 2007 at 11:28 am
6

Nice try reinventing your earlier position. Perhaps in the future you will exhibit a little more journalistic professionalism instead of running to print because some cop yelled at you. Grow up.

[report]

Posted By grendl2000 on December 14th, 2007 at 11:53 am
7

I like Jeanine’s comment quite a lot. I’ve worked with the homeless a bit and can tell you a park is no solution (neither, by the way, is a home: homeless people have problems deeper than that, and a place to live only begins to answer them).

But as Daniel points out there’s an absence of real solutions–an observation I make (as Grendl will no doubt point out) without a single phone call. Jeanine: What do you think? Get the major players together for a confab at City Hall? At the District Weekly’s magnificent, sprawling compound? What’s a little weekly magazine and website to do?

By the way, Grendl: You might have congratulated Daniel for his honesty in answering the question about police payroll rather than accuse him of reinventing his position. I’d call that “openness”–a quality sadly missing in, say, the White House and in most public debate, in part because people like you attack at any sign of compromise or flexibility.

Notice too that the key in Daniel’s story is not police payroll, but a film studio pushing out the homeless. You don’t have to agree that the homeless own the place or even belong there temporarily to acknowledge that THAT’s the centerpiece of the story.

So, Grendl: forget the police for a moment. What do we do about the homeless?

[report]

Posted By Will Swaim on December 14th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
8

The LBPD uniform isn’t for sale, but it is for rent and don’t act so surprised, when your watching the football or baseball game who do you think is guarding the game, a private security guard? Hell no it is the local Police department. Every city a Studio goes to almost always hires off duty cops to help provide security.

[report]

Posted By Daiv on December 14th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
9

Thanks for the compliment, Will.
I don’t know the answer to how to help the homeless. I think the city allows them to stay in the park because they don’t know what to do either. It’s arguably the most humane thing to do, given the situation.

The suggestion that having our police in uniform on set makes them look like rent-a-cops smacks of bitterness more than it does constructive reporting. The park belongs to the residents of the City of Long Beach, not just the few people who have chosen illegally to make it their home. The City does have the right to move them along for a few days or weeks in order to use the property for filming, without apologizing or make excuses for it.

I have been working on set for 8 years on locations mainly in Long Beach. I can tell you first hand that the majority of the officers are public-safety oriented and view the position on set more of a public relations scenario than one of roughing up the locals. Occasionally an officer is assigned from Gang detail, or a rough part of town and they don’t quite fit into the dynamic of the set, but let’s just try to be a bit forgiving, shall we? These officers are often assigned to our locations to help direct traffic and the uniform is necessary for public compliance & safety. I’m about as liberal as they come, and I have learned to appreciate and respect LBPD in the time that I have worked with them on set. Instead of being so afraid of authority and the uniform, why not stop and consider that the people in these uniforms are real people like you and I with families and a genuine concern for our citizens’ welfare. Talk to them and you will find out that they even care about the homeless people too.

It is time to permanently solve the problem of homelessness. Maybe demanding our officials get them out of the park and into decent shelters with programs to really help them is in order. Perhaps we could even suggest that some of the revenue from film permits is directed toward it. I think a visit to the City Council’s next meeting would be the correct forum to address this topic.

One last question: 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.

[report]

Posted By Jeanine Birong on December 14th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
10

i wonder what percentage of the homeless down there are veterans? any solution should involve the VA stepping up big time and keeping the promises we made to these men and women when they served. its a travesty and a tragedy what we let happen to these people once we are done “supporting the troops”.

[report]

Posted By howardx on December 14th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
11

Really? You think Paramount / Star Trek is doing something nice for the local homeless? Someone please dig deeper on that point and report back asap. An autographed headshot doesn’t count.

[report]

Posted By Labca on December 14th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
12

How kind of you to criticize me personally for questioning the motivations of a report on your website - one that had plenty of baseless and inaccurate accusations. Somehow when the reporter backtracks on his earlier statements and tries to say that wasn’t really the point of the original post - which quite clearly it was - that is simply “openness” and should be congratulated. And I am wrong for pointing out the unwise choice to print the original article.

So let me see if I can summarize your position. The District’s policy is to aim baseless accusations as it sees fit. If these accusations are proven wrong, that’s not what the District meant. Anyone who criticizes you is to be attacked.

Is that about it?

[report]

Posted By grendl2000 on December 14th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
13

Grendl:

You’ve got it exactly. Congratulations on your prescience.

And thanks for raising the payroll issue. Because of you, I picked up the phone and called some people and got an answer; it’s in my later post on the blog.

Unlike you, I think there’s value in this: we’re not monologuing on the website. We’re working with our readers. Because of your contribution, we got a really great answer to everything but what to do about homeless in LB.

But so far, you haven’t identified what Daniel got wrong–never mind “plenty”–and you’ve speculated about his motivations (and speculation is something you find revolting when you think Daniel de Boom does it). My “attack” was to recommend that you consider acknowledging that he honestly answered your straightforward question.

Finally, I’m sorry you think I “attacked” you. We can let others review your posts and mine and see if they agree that that’s the right word. But seriously: a guy who calls himself Grendl? Who makes ad hominem attacks on reporters (he’s not professional, not grown up, just upset about a cop who yelled at him)? . . . I figured you’d be able to take a gentle suggestion as well as you dish out hyperbole.

[report]

Posted By Will Swaim on December 14th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
14

I live on 3rd and Chestnut and have been monitoring the activities for quite some time via footwork and and rooftop monitoring. From observations, they have been giving out food almost every night of filming and, according to two transient people, sourced separately, they have been offering to house people in a motel on PCH.

Planning on footwork on PCH Sunday to determine facts.

[report]

Posted By The Detective on December 15th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
15

I don’t know who “The Detective” is, but I admire his energy and reportorial instincts.

[report]

Posted By Will Swaim on December 15th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
16

it’s amazing to me that people would even question what the homeless get for being kicked out of their “home”. gimme a break. they should be kicked out on a daily basis or at least tucked away somewhere else in the city. sure they have rights, but i don’t feel bad for most of them who have chosen to suck off the teet of the city.

[report]

Posted By bertrund on December 30th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
17

whats a teet?

[report]

Posted By howardx on December 31st, 2007 at 2:23 pm

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.

UPCOMING EVENTS

Join Our Mailing List!

WANT FREE
TICKETS??

MUSIC & SPORTING TIX
CLICK HERE FOR DETAILS

DTV

Watch This Video on Youtube

PROJECT: MAKE MCCAIN EXCITING - Jul 21

PREVIOUSLY ON DTV

CHARLTON LANCASTER
› BUTTOCK CLEFT CONFIDENTIAL
› DTV BOOK CLUB: VOL. II
› MORE DTV VIDEOS

This Week'sIssue

Navigation

Real Estate

Sections

Columns

Classifieds

SPONSORS

Writing Shotgun

HOMELESS TOLD MOVE OUT OF PARK, MAKE WAY FOR STAR TREK!

COMMENTS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17