Writing Shotgun

SAY WHAT? BELMONT SHORE COURTS STILL IN JEOPARDY

Steve LowerySat. January 19
 

I’m an idiot.

Last week, I gushed about how well this city’s government worked, how sensitive and in touch it was with the wishes of its residents. Yeah, well, that was a bunch of crap because apparently city officials are once again engaged in that behavoir where they say something and that something turns out not to be the truth. They have a word for that, don’t they?

Now, the word city officials gave at a January 10 meeting of the Belmont Shore Residents Assn. was that they would scrap their plans to move the basketball and handball courts and hockey rink from their present location at Ocean Blvd and 54th Place to a spot on the beach at Granada Avenue. That was what the majority of residents at the meeting wanted to hear and they cheered loudly when the news was delivered by Marine Bureau Manager Mark Sandoval.

But, just a week later, Sandoval was giving a powerpoint presentation at a meeting of Third District Councilman Gary DeLong, whose district includes Belmont Shore, and what project do you suppose was still on the table? Uh-huh, moving the courts.

Someone emailed me this information Friday, so I called Gary DeLong and he confirmed that the project is still alive, as are all projects involved with a bond designed to make beach improvements.

“All projects [related to the bond] are on the table,” he said. “We still have to go through a process where we include the public. An outreach and it’s going to take a while for that process. There are a lot of steps.”

Hey, I like outreach. It’s one of the reasons I gushed after the Janaury 10 meeting. You can read about that meeting in greater detail in this Writing Shotgun post but the upshot was Sandoval and Parks and Rec colleague Dennis Eschen showed up to gauge the neighborhood’s feelings about the game courts plan and the reading was off the chart: The neighbors no likey.

Sandoval and Eschen were peppered with hostile questions and comments regarding the plan to the point that an exasperated Sandoval finally asked, “Is anyone here for this [plan].” An immediate “No!” thundered back at him. “I think we’re done,” he said, and the cheering began.

Several people followed up with Sandoval to make sure that what he was saying was that the project was dead. Yes, he said, telling the crowd “If you hear rumors about [the project] I’d be very surprised.”

I still wasn’t sure, so I talked to Sandoval as he left the meeting–held at the Bayshore Library–and asked him, did “we’re done” mean the project was dead. He said that, ulitmately, the decision lay with his boss, Parks and Rec head Phil Hester, but that he Hester “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?”

All that changed a week later when Sandoval presented his proposal saying that the move was necessary because of all the complaints from the neighborhood. Funny, just a week earlier, a good deal of the neighborhood had not only NOT complained, but said specifically they liked the way things were.

I asked DeLong if he was aware of Sandoval’s comments at the January 10 meeting and he said he was. I then asked if Sandoval had spoken out of turn. DeLong said “I wasn’t there so I don’t know how the question was asked. I need to understand the nuanaces of the question.

Uh, I was there. There was no nuance, there was a lot of “Does this mean the project is dead,” followed by “why would we want to fix something the residents don’t want fixed.”

The latter seems to be the salient question. More on that later …

Tags: , , , , ,

RELATED

COMMENTS

  1. 1

    I think the City is just trying figure out where consensus is.

    Generally folks on the Peninsula and in the immediate Bay Shore area like this project. There are a few specific groups that don’t. The daycare group doesn’t because they use the hockey rink. The basketball players don’t because of sentimental reasons. And the folks by Granada are concerned about parking.

    There are lots of folks who like the idea of making the area quieter and prettier so the City finds itself in a bit of a bind.

    [report]

    Posted By LB Resident on January 19th, 2008 at 8:42 pm

     

  2. 2

    For those of us that have fought the city, this is no surprise. City staff has a vision, common sense and the neighborhood be damned. Now it’s only a matter of wearing out the opposition by scheduling endless meetings/presentations/”outreach” sessions until people with jobs, families, and other time commitments can’t show up. It’s called management by attrition, and it’s how we get results like the razing of Shoreline Park to make way for the Rainbow Harbor food-court-by-the-sea.

    I’ve seen four city managers during my residence in Long Beach, and I’m still waiting . . . . waiting for City Hall to have it’s Moment of Clarity when it realizes that it shouldn’t make its residents have to fight for common-sense progress.

    [report]

    Posted By Sam Lowry on January 20th, 2008 at 1:16 am

     

  3. 3

    What he said … except for the times when the “outreach” sessions are stocked exclusively with hand-picked supporters (beneficiaries) of the issue, as in SEADIP.

    [report]

    Posted By Dave Wielenga on January 20th, 2008 at 11:15 am

     

  4. 4

    I think someone should start recording these sessions so there is no question about what questions are being asked, what “nuances” are getting lost….

    [report]

    Posted By Russ Roca on January 21st, 2008 at 12:23 pm

     

  5. 5

    I am president of the Belmont Shore Resident’s Association and presided over the BSRA meeting where Marine Bureau Manager Mr. Sandoval spoke for the city. I believe the most alarming aspect of this controversy is that city management feels it is acceptable to mislead the public. What Mr. Sandoval told the residents during the recent BSRA meeting is the opposite of what he told a group at the Long Beach Yacht Club, less than one week later. This is not second hand information. I attended both meetings.

    City officials that talk out of both sides of their mouth are an issue that all residents should be concerned about. Taxpayers should demand that the people who work for them are upfront and honest. No matter how hard City Manager West works on transparency and cutting cost, it will mean nothing if normal residents can’t rely on his staff being honest.

    [report]

    Posted By Mike Ruehle on January 21st, 2008 at 12:46 pm

     

  6. 6

    I think Mr. Sandoval jumped the gun. He got caught up at a meeting of about 50 people and pronounced the project dead when there was still more information needed. He didn’t have the information to make the decision at that point and he didn’t have the authority to kill it anyway.

    [report]

    Posted By LB Resident on January 21st, 2008 at 1:10 pm

     

  7. 7

    The day after the BSRA meeting, I sent a thank-you email to Mr. Sandoval and confirmed in writing what I thought he had told the residents. I copied his boss, the City Manager, my Councilman and his entire staff. If Mr. Sandoval didn’t have the authority to make his statements to the residents, I don’t understand why the city didn’t make an attempt to communicate that to the residents?

    Also, the Treasurer counted 80 residents when the BSRA meeting began at 6:00 pm. Residents continued to stream in afterwards and many had to stand in the hallway outside the meeting room because there was no room. If you don’t believe me, I suggest you ask Mr. Sandoval. He was one of them waiting in the hallway.

    [report]

    Posted By Mike Ruehle on January 21st, 2008 at 2:15 pm

     

  8. 8

    I believe you. I was there too and was just estimating attendance. Still, even if it was 100 people, that is a small number. I think Mr. Sandavol should have said he didn’t have the authority. I don’t know his motives for not saying that. Maybe ego. Who knows.

    Ultimately my point is there are thousands of people affected by this project and the city needs to find out what the majority of folks want. At the BSRA meeting you had small number of people there and the people who spoke mostly fell into the camps I describe above. I’m sure if I wanted to I could find 100 residents that support the move.

    There are merits to both sides of the argument. I just think the conspiracy / city is a bunch of liars talk isn’t helpful to finding the right decision.

    [report]

    Posted By LB Resident on January 21st, 2008 at 2:40 pm

     

  9. 9

    LB Resident, I agree you could FIND 100 residents who support the move, but the BSRA meeting didn’t go out to FIND 100 residents who oppose the move — it was an open meeting, in which anybody (including whoever might support the move) could voice an opinion. A good question is why those people either weren’t there or didn’t speak up. But the greater point is that Mr. Sandoval said one thing to one group and another thing to another group. And if he was speaking out of turn, it is even worse — especially for a veteran city staffer, who ought to know better. Mr. Sandoval was representing the city. Residents had no other option but to trust his word as official. But they do now. And that option is mistrust of the city…again. Personally, I don’t care whether the courts stay or go. But residents deserve accountability and trustworthiness.

    [report]

    Posted By Dave Wielenga on January 21st, 2008 at 4:03 pm

     

  10. 10

    When there is a city proposal of any kind, the folks against tend to be the ones to show up. That’s why the meeting had that make up.

    I agree with you. It’s not good that he was speaking out of turn. The city needs to do better with communication.

    [report]

    Posted By LB Resident on January 21st, 2008 at 4:39 pm

     

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.