As TV helicopters whirred overhead, the tower of the administration building at the abandoned Long Beach Naval Station was dynamited into near oblivion during a pre-dawn blasting session yesterday.
It was the first of the historic buildings to be subjected to the blaster and wrecking ball, and the demolition sent a sharp message that the city of Long Beach is determined to move quickly with its plans to clear the site and turn it into a cargo container yard — despite the fact that the future of the base is the subject of active lawsuits and that the city has no tenant for the site once it is converted.
There was virtually no warning. Activists only learned of the city’s intentions late Monday afternoon and promptly notified the media.
Otherwise it would have gone unnoticed and unremarked.
Los Angeles attorney Richard Fine calls the action “outrageous.”
“It’s a true example of the arrogance of local government officials who don’t feel they have any responsibility to the public,” he told WorldNetDaily in a phone interview.
“It’s also the dumbest thing that Long Beach officials could do,” he said. “I think they know that in the end we’re going to win this case, so their only alternative now is to try to destroy everything first. It’s a
kind of scorched earth tactic — just wipe everything out.”
Fine has several lawsuits pending in the courts aimed at blocking the
destruction of the naval station and its buildings. Built in 1940, the structures are considered the masterpiece of famed African-American architect Paul Revere Williams.
One of the suits has been brought by a group of eight Long Beach residents and business people, headed by Anne Cantrell, preservation chair of El Dorado Audubon, a non-profit environmental group.
“I watched what they did on television,” Cantrell told WorldNetDaily.
“And as it was happening, a part of me died.”
Cantrell said that though this was the first historic building to be razed, hundreds of trees were taken out last summer. Not only were the trees over 60 years old, they were nesting spots for the black crown night herons. It was to save these birds and other wildlife that Cantrell got involved in the first place in the effort to preserve the base.
“There was no need for them to do this,” she said, sadly, referring to the ongoing destruction. “They could have left at least the 37 acres (where the historic buildings are).”
Asked about the extent of the damage, Fine said that there are still about 20 historic structures left at the base.
“Unfortunately, this was part of the flagship building, so as part of
our suit we’ll ask that they restore it. It’s not all down; just the tower’s down,” he said.
According to Art Wong, media relations manager with the Port of Long Beach, there’s been a substantial amount of preliminary wrecking done at
the site — though not in public view. That’s in addition to the cutting
down of the trees.
“We’ve been in the process of removing asbestos and demolishing buildings since August,” Wong explained. “We’ve demolished about a dozen
buildings already, but none were historic. The one we did today is not leveled entirely. There are still parts standing that will come down in the next couple of weeks; but we’ve been inside the [historic] buildings
in the last month or so removing asbestos — so we’ve been tearing out walls, pretty well gutting the buildings at the Naval Complex.
Wong admitted there is no tenant for the site; not even China Ocean Shipping Company, which was the tenant of choice from the beginning. Responding to public outrage at having COSCO — the mega-transportation firm owned and operated by the Beijing government — in control of the naval base, Congress passed legislation in September barring that company from being a tenant.
Even that hasn’t dampened the enthusiasm of the port authorities and the Long Beach city council for the project.
“We can’t lease it to COSCO, but within the next couple of months we’re going to lease it to somebody,” Wong said. He added that Long Beach is talking to some of the other shipping lines that currently lease facilities at the port, and will probably select a tenant from among these.
Not necessarily, Fine counters.
Dismayed by the determination of the city to plunge ahead on this project, and rebuffed at points by the judicial system, Fine and Ken Larkey — a plaintiff in the Cantrell suit — filed a petition yesterday
calling for the issue to be put on the ballot in the March 2000 election.
If it passes, the base will be developed for commercial, historical, cultural, and recreational use, with some of the buildings converted to a museum featuring U.S. naval history. A citizen’s committee of seven publicly elected members would oversee the development and operation of the naval complex.
Funding will come from generated revenues and a restricted trust fund — not taxes.
And — what should satisfy the city council and the harbor commissioners — there would be room for a 300-acre container terminal after all: to be built on 267 acres of landfill and 63 acres from the naval shipyard. All the historic buildings would be preserved, the trees replanted, and the city could have its container terminal.
“That solves all the problems,” says Fine. “And it means that even if
the judges rule against us in the lawsuits, this (petition) only needs 18,000 signatures to qualify it for the March 2000 ballot — and some of
the city council will be up for reelection.”
“The bottom line is that the city council is going to have to explain
why it wants to put in a cargo container yard that will not generate the
greatest income or the largest number of jobs and will not protect the environment. At the same time, we can take the same amount of space they
want for a cargo container yard and put it somewhere else — and there will be no buildings destroyed. Everyone would get everything they want.”
“How are they going to justify what they’re planning to do? he asks.
RELATED ITEMS:
COSCO’s out of port deal — for now October 21, 1998
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
The end of Obama – thankfully
Jack Cashill