DISQUS

Rachel, this story had me from 'hello.' Thank you for writing this! It is its own work of art.

howardx, would you kindly be a bit more specific? Are you asking if a reconfigured breakwater would enable increased illegal immigration? I really can't link the two issues otherwise. Am I close?

FYI, the city of Long Beach Marine Advisory Commission published a 28+ page document about this subject in 1998.
It was titled "Observations and Comments on Current City Beach Use" and proposed to create a "Mothers' Beach West" on the shore in front of the Villa Riviera. Wouldn't that have been interesting? Or not?

For years, this city has touted its "safe & non-threatening beach" to beach-goers with small children, omitting the section that is most vital: "unless your kids want to get in the water."

I have no idea who was on the this commission and/or who drafted this report, but the recommendations of this group are bizarre.

In the report, that section referenced in post #6 is called "The Empty Quarter"-- west of the Belmont Pier until the Villa Riviera.

Here is the full text of the report's executive summary:

"Of the 5 1/2 miles of beach front in Long Beach, it is noted that 4 miles of the ocean beach is [are] under utilized. Contrary to this observation is the Mother's Beach development in Alamitos Bay, which has proven to be very popular. The apparent reasons for this popularity include tranquil water for small children, ease of access and nearby parking, along with shaded grassy areas for picnicking which prove attractive to a wide range of ages. Another area experiencing popular use is in the downtown area where the water is tranquil in the protection of the near shore oil island. At this location, the width of beach sand from the waters edge to the back of the sand area is more than 400 feet, however, the utilized portion of the sand area is less than 100 feet. In comparing this pattern of the width of active beach usage, it is apparent that much of our beach, measuring up to 800 feed width, is unused. Several potential ideas to increase beach use are provided in concept. It is suggested that the City consider initiating efforts to pursue these or other ideas to enhance the utilization of these beach areas."

As far as I know, nothing has come of this report.

However, I think this commission is missing the point: People in Long Beach use mother's beach, not because of its tranquility and grass, but because they have no other choice but to swim in the mouth and at the ass of the most polluted river in America. Talk about oversight!

I completely agree with you that the city has failed to 'work with what they got.'
My theory is that city representatives foresee a slew of issues that would demand money and attention immediately after someone prettied-up the beach--parking, refuse, security, etc.... No one wants to touch the subject.

But if it's any consolation, I hear they're adding a separate pedestrian walking lane next to the bike path. Apparently, too many small children are crossing that 8-inch line that divides strolling humans and whizzing-by bikes. Couldn't have seen that one coming...

Thank you for reading this.

Lilia, you right about facts, and yes the people I met at Morningland were good people.

Honestly, though, Al Stone's commentary was included in this article for the sake of responsible journalism. Morningland is not without its controversy and to ignore that in the article would have been irresponsible.

If I left out Stone's input, I may have had the respect of the monastery, but I would have lost the respect of the crowd critical of Morningland. You might already know that print publications can't afford to lose their already-ADD readers, especially in the name of fairness.

And yes, Russ Roca is the best photographer I know. And, he bikes everywhere to photograph! Both the cover and inside photos for this story were taken at Morningland--the latter of which was taken in the courtyard with the brutal 2-o'clock sun beating down. Great shots. Totally ethereal, fitting and true to life.

Check Russ out online:
http://www.russroca.com/
http://www.russroca.com/about.html
http://lbcyclists.blogspot.com/

Sachi also had a case against it a few years ago because someone had installed cameras above the toilets in the womans bathroom, to spy on and post online the inebriated young things doing the doo in there. Great place...very popular indeed. I would vote for anyone with ties to this palace.

Joeseph, please contact me: jenny@thedistrictweekly.com

I would love to talk to you about this further. And don't worry, I work on the weekends all the time. Drop me a line.

Mr. Hare, thank you for clarifying the story. When I showed up at the monastery unannounced, the members did the best they could to fill me in. But, I had a feeling I didn't quite get the details down when I retold that part of the story-- with all the metaphoric components colliding into the rest of it.

And Leila, great points.

My father always said, "you are what you stand on."

In the case of the Queen Mary, he'd probably say, "you are what you float on" --which is a dank, dark pool of human refuse blockaded by a circular breakwater. It speaks volumes really for how the place is run.

Dan Gross, the founder of Dive Corr Inc. and the man responsible for doing most of the Port of Long Beach's underwater structural inventory, has been brave enough to scuba dive under the Queen.

He told me in an interview last year that, even though the Queen isn't supposed to dump its human waste in the water, the moat that's surrounding her wide sides is "the most polluted water in Long Beach." And by polluted, he means 'full of shit!'

You are what you stand on...

Thanks for posting this Chris.

Wow, I'll look into it Ryan, thanks. I'm no expert either...

Thanks folks. I did read those two stories about Bud Johnson's report (which I've read in its entirety and whom I've actually interviewed a few months ago). What a great guy!
His study is really interesting and his personal observations and recommendations are sound and intelligent. The only catch is, his study doesn't follow US Army Corps of Engineers' standards or methodology--things required to move the project forward. He's right when he says that more studies will always be required, even though they may not be necessary, but that's the downside to federal operations.
I'm sure Johnson's study will be used by Moffatt & Nichol in the coming months for its great information, but since the breakwater is federally owned and maintained, there is no short cut that can be taken by the city to circumvent the USACE's bureaucracy--which includes more studies, going through the process of receiving federal funding and approval for the recon, feasibility and pre-construction phases of its operations.
I really wish that political will existed, enough to drive Bud's initiatives into action, but I've never seen that kind of action taken until there's been a major disaster. For example, hurricane Katrina finally provoked the Corps to fix Louisianan levees. A few earthquakes and a major bridge collapse instigated better building codes, etc...
And, just for the record, the term "reconfiguration" refers to every kind of modification to that hard structure--be it a full leveling of the breakwater, an 1800-ft section removal just below sea level like Johnson's proposing, or anything in between. Moffatt & Nichol will likely look all combination of alternatives for the breakwater and test them with the mathematical model simulator they are famous for.

Both of those stories are great though, because they're getting the message out that this recon study will not result in absolute ignorant doom for the coast and coastal properties. And, they have people--who've been against the project from the beginning-- talking about it. The more smart discussion and communication lines open, the better. Great job guys!

Well, to start with, thank you for commenting on the story -- a story I didn't even want to write, and wasn't going to until my editors insisted upon it. Judging by your responses, though, I am both a wonderful person, a fool and a lunatic who has touched a nerve in the community, so maybe publishing it was the right decision. I also have to admit that I did not write (nor do I totally agree with) the headline of the story. I do not think Det. Peck is so much a lousy detective as a busy one who was juggling multiple, higher priority cases when mine landed on her desk. Nowhere in the body of the story does it state that I think she is "lousy." In fact, I tried remain as factual as possible and keep my soapbox out of it, mainly because (as many of you said) she was doing her job (maybe not as quickly as my self-interest would have dictated, but she did help me). The existing headline is not the one I would have written, but writers don't often get to choose their own headlines.

I will say though, that the Long Beach Police Department in general was not very receptive to my type of case, mainly because stolen wallets/identities are a dime a dozen and they simply don't have the manpower to correct the problem (parking citations are another matter, one that they can control because the criminal's car is parked in their plain view). I also understand that it is just a wallet (not an endangered life or a commercial burglary), but any crime committed against you is injurious, it chips away at your peace of mind, and is unnecessary. I also think that when the LBPD admits that wallet theft is low priority crime (which translates to: we probably won't get to this one) it enables people like my criminal to continue stealing things, because they can rest easy knowing the odds they might get caught are slim. I can't see how that's justifiable under any circumstances.

I also agree with comments stating that the woman who stole (or found-and-did-not-return, or robbed, or whatever) my wallet and triggered all this bad momentum is in the wrong, but I'm handing it over to Karma from here on out.

I think Sam Lowry's response is incredibly accurate, we all see things differently through the lens of our experiences. The lens on this story is my own. Maybe you share it because you've had a crime committed against you, maybe you disagree with it because you're on the other end of it, but it is what it is, and hey, IT HAPPENS.

Thanks for reading. And if you find a wallet, for Chrissakes, do the right thing.