The city and port authority of Long Beach are going ahead with their
plans to turn the abandoned U.S. Naval Station into a cargo container
terminal — despite the fact that there is now no tenant for the site.
In September, responding to public outrage, Congress killed the deal
allowing Long Beach to lease the terminal to China Ocean Shipping Co.,
the mega-transport firm that’s a subsidiary of the Beijing government.
Under the 1998-1999 Defense Authorization Act, COSCO is prohibited from
leasing any part of the naval station after it is converted into a
container terminal, and President Clinton is not permitted to waive the
ban.
“COSCO’s out of it for now; COSCO’s not even a player,” attorney Richard
Fine told WorldNetDaily in a phone interview. “The port has said in
their papers in answer to our request for a temporary restraining order
[to block demolition] that they do not have a tenant for the base.”
Fine is handling two lawsuits for preservationists who hope to prevent
the bulldozing of the historic buildings at the station. These
structures, built in 1940, are considered the masterpiece of famed
African-American architect Paul Revere Williams. Their fate has been at
the center of the controversy even before the public realized that COSCO
was the tenant of choice for the cleared site.
On Friday, in a case brought by television host Huell Howser, the U.S.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Fine’s request for a temporary
restraining order against demolition.
Then on Monday, in a similar case, U.S. District Court Judge Dean D.
Pregerson likewise refused to issue a temporary restraining order. That
suit was brought by Anne Cantrell, preservation chair of the local
chapter of the Audubon Society, Margherita Underhill and six other Long
Beach residents and business owners.
The cases themselves have not been dismissed and are very much alive,
but the refusal by both courts to issue emergency injunctions has
inspired Long Beach to move ahead with its agenda.
“We need to get on with the project,” says Executive Director Richard D.
Steinke of the Port of Long Beach. “These latest rulings clear the way
for us to redevelop these closed properties and put them to productive
use.”
“Until some court says what we’ve done is improper, we’ll go ahead with
the demolition,” says port spokesman Art Wong. “We’re very close to
beginning demolition of the non-historic buildings on the site. And
we’re about to begin taking the asbestos out of the historic buildings.
Asbestos removal necessitates tearing down walls, according to Wong.
That process was begun in August on the non-historic structures. The
bulldozers, apparently, won’t be far behind.
As Fine sees it, this represents “a state of total ridiculousness.”
“They don’t have a tenant, and they say they aren’t even going to build
a terminal until they find a tenant,” he said. “They are tearing down
these buildings for the sole purpose of tearing them down — that way
there won’t be anything left of the lawsuit.”
From his first involvement in the issue, Fine has stressed that
converting the site to use as a container terminal is a gross waste of
public assets and tax dollars. New figures bear him out, he said.
“The new costs on the Naval Station now are $568 million,” he explained.
“That is basically $400-and-some-odd million to build the cargo
container terminal, and another $134 million to build other terminals —
that’s just on the Naval Station. If you go onto what they call Pier S,
which is part of the naval complex, you’re adding in another couple of
hundred million (dollars). So you’re really going over $800 million.
“I think the total is $850 million,” he said, pausing briefly before
continuing.
“They’re floating a $350 million bond issue to do this. Figure 30 years
at 6-percent — the interest alone is going to be $21 million a year.
That will be another $630 million. There’s the cost of the value of the
land. Then you add in the $350 million in buildings — you’re pretty
close to $2 billion.
“So we’re looking at a $2 billion expenditure, with no tenant — and
they’re wanting to tear everything down as fast as possible.
“It’s the ultimate level of stupidity,” Fine said flatly.
Despite the setbacks Fine remains optimistic. A hearing is scheduled in
the Cantrell case for Nov. 9.
“Long Beach’s basic defense is that these people (the plaintiffs) have
no standing — no right to challenge the government’s decision,” Fine
said. “At the hearing the judge will either grant standing in the
Cantrell case, at which time he’ll order them to stop tearing down the
site, or he won’t grant standing — at which point we’ll appeal
immediately to the Ninth Circuit.”
“We’re pretty near the end of the road here — They’re saying they want
to destroy those buildings, and we’re saying they can’t. It’s a real
hairpuller, but we’re going to stop them,” he said.
RELATED ITEMS:
Long Beach won’t give up on COSCO:
September 21, 1998
Is COSCO deal dead?:
September 10, 1998
Fate of Long Beach port still up in air:
September 7, 1998
The COSCO cover-up:
July 10, 1998
Roadblock removed in COSCO deal:
June 1, 1998
A big break for COSCO deal:
February 9, 1998
