-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- Thank you, Ellen.
- Come on, Dave, ease up a tad. "Quiggydytes" is "name calling" but "puss" and "kook" aren't? This site allows commentors to remain anonymous if they so...
- The whole article has a subtext about what it takes to succeed in a My Fair Lady sort of way. It isn't enough to be bright and funny as a woman. I think that Maureen Dowd feels a <a...
- John, I think your ideas to close pine to traffic and add cable cars are perfect. We just need to involve major retailers in the planning process before spinning our wheels any further. If only we...
- If it is Tom Marchese, then the Wetlands supporters are lucky. I met him over 30 years ago when he was still the City Engineer; he's one of the smartest guys around. Someone I'd want in my...
The District Weekly
News, Arts, Entertainment & More for Long Beach, Huntington Beach, and Costa MesaHOMELESS TOLD MOVE OUT OF PARK, MAKE WAY FOR STAR TREK! | The District Weekly
Started by districtweekly · 3 months ago
11 months ago
11 months ago
11 months ago
11 months ago
My office is across the street from Lincoln Park, and I for one, don't think that the homeless people should even have been allowed to set up permanent residence in the park to begin with. It is a shame that the beautiful water feature in the Friendship Garden must be left drained because of the fact that the homeless were using it for their restroom, while others were using it to bathe in.
If people are really concerned about the homeless people's welfare, it is time to offer some real solutions to their blight rather than just letting them live in the park. It is not Star Trek's fault that the homeless have no where to go--they didn't have anywhere to go to begin with.
11 months ago
Also, it’s their day off and they’re making the extra money for watching an entrance. They might lighten up a little. At least go easy on the homeless who are getting nothing out of this deal save added inconvenience
11 months ago
11 months ago
But as Daniel points out there's an absence of real solutions--an observation I make (as Grendl will no doubt point out) without a single phone call. Jeanine: What do you think? Get the major players together for a confab at City Hall? At the District Weekly's magnificent, sprawling compound? What's a little weekly magazine and website to do?
By the way, Grendl: You might have congratulated Daniel for his honesty in answering the question about police payroll rather than accuse him of reinventing his position. I'd call that "openness"--a quality sadly missing in, say, the White House and in most public debate, in part because people like you attack at any sign of compromise or flexibility.
Notice too that the key in Daniel's story is not police payroll, but a film studio pushing out the homeless. You don't have to agree that the homeless own the place or even belong there temporarily to acknowledge that THAT's the centerpiece of the story.
So, Grendl: forget the police for a moment. What do we do about the homeless?
11 months ago
11 months ago
I don't know the answer to how to help the homeless. I think the city allows them to stay in the park because they don't know what to do either. It's arguably the most humane thing to do, given the situation.
The suggestion that having our police in uniform on set makes them look like rent-a-cops smacks of bitterness more than it does constructive reporting. The park belongs to the residents of the City of Long Beach, not just the few people who have chosen illegally to make it their home. The City does have the right to move them along for a few days or weeks in order to use the property for filming, without apologizing or make excuses for it.
I have been working on set for 8 years on locations mainly in Long Beach. I can tell you first hand that the majority of the officers are public-safety oriented and view the position on set more of a public relations scenario than one of roughing up the locals. Occasionally an officer is assigned from Gang detail, or a rough part of town and they don't quite fit into the dynamic of the set, but let's just try to be a bit forgiving, shall we? These officers are often assigned to our locations to help direct traffic and the uniform is necessary for public compliance & safety. I'm about as liberal as they come, and I have learned to appreciate and respect LBPD in the time that I have worked with them on set. Instead of being so afraid of authority and the uniform, why not stop and consider that the people in these uniforms are real people like you and I with families and a genuine concern for our citizens' welfare. Talk to them and you will find out that they even care about the homeless people too.
It is time to permanently solve the problem of homelessness. Maybe demanding our officials get them out of the park and into decent shelters with programs to really help them is in order. Perhaps we could even suggest that some of the revenue from film permits is directed toward it. I think a visit to the City Council's next meeting would be the correct forum to address this topic.
One last question: Is Daniel really sure the homeless are getting nothing from this deal? Given my experience in locations, I would bet some kind of deal was cut on their behalf. Dig deeper, I bet that Star Trek is doing something nice for them.
11 months ago
11 months ago
11 months ago
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?
11 months ago
You've got it exactly. Congratulations on your prescience.
And thanks for raising the payroll issue. Because of you, I picked up the phone and called some people and got an answer; it's in my later post on the blog.
Unlike you, I think there's value in this: we're not monologuing on the website. We're working with our readers. Because of your contribution, we got a really great answer to everything but what to do about homeless in LB.
But so far, you haven't identified what Daniel got wrong--never mind "plenty"--and you've speculated about his motivations (and speculation is something you find revolting when you think Daniel de Boom does it). My "attack" was to recommend that you consider acknowledging that he honestly answered your straightforward question.
Finally, I'm sorry you think I "attacked" you. We can let others review your posts and mine and see if they agree that that's the right word. But seriously: a guy who calls himself Grendl? Who makes ad hominem attacks on reporters (he's not professional, not grown up, just upset about a cop who yelled at him)? . . . I figured you'd be able to take a gentle suggestion as well as you dish out hyperbole.
11 months ago
Planning on footwork on PCH Sunday to determine facts.
11 months ago
11 months ago
11 months ago