DISQUS

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?

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.

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.

While I personally favor the removal of the breakwater, I find the water-quality argument a bit of a red herring and certainly not well documented. Plenty of beaches without breakwaters are persistently less clean than the city's. Heal the Bay's 2006-07 report naming Long Beach the worst in the state even noted that it was an unusual event. Typically, ocean-water quality here is decent. Our worst beaches are in Alamitos Bay and Colorado Lagoon, not on the ocean.

If we're being honest and not trying to prop up some questionable "green" front, the main arguments in favor of the dismantling are aesthetic and recreational - and of, course, it probably would raise property values. Those are perfectly good reasons to favor taking it down. .

The sticking point for me would be potential harm to the port. It would be hard to justify the change if it ruined the engine of the local economy. I'm hoping the feasibility studies provide some clarity on that issue.

In a past life, I thought the District might actually bring something worthwhile to this media-starved town. Oh, well.

Oh goodie, yet another pointless blog composed of seemingly random links to other media. The Cleveland Indians, UCLA and Rice-A-Roni, Great idea wasting your meager resources on more non-Long Beach material.

The contention that the breakwater is related to these water-quality problems is false. As Heal The Bay said in its own report:

"Long Beach has traditionally fared well in the Beach Report Card despite the fact its beaches are completely enclosed by a breakwater. Typically, beaches located inside a breakwall are more prone to poor water quality than open ocean beaches, but this has not been an issue for Long Beach except at Colorado Lagoon."

If the breakwater were the issue, water-quality problems would not be just now arriving.

I don't have any idea where beaches "B-69" and "B-70" are, but the rest of the beaches listed in the NRDC report are in Alamitos Bay or Colorado Lagoon. As there is no breakwater in front of the Alamitos Bay opening, knocking it down is not going to fix the water there.

The problem of Colorado Lagoon, located at the far end of Alamitos Bay and separated from tidal flow by Marina Park, is particularly intractable.

Clever ideas. Of course, the District and it's anti-development, ultra-preservationist point of view would oppose any of the changes required to put them in place. Perhaps someone will build a time machine and transport you all back to the Long Beach past you seem to crave. Once the hover monkey is developed, we'll shoot one back to you.