Multimillion-dollar hotel project nixed by Long Beach council - latimes.com

Multimillion-dollar hotel project nixed by Long Beach council - latimes.com

I live in long beach and frequent this area of SE coastal LB, which i call the Marina, which actually could benefit from addition of more hotels, condo, retail upgrade. Normally i have reservations about Long beach adding more retail developmemt, as we have tons of retail mega-developments all over the city and retail dosen't create much high- paying blue-collar jobs. However, this part of long beach is fairly wasted. There is a huge decepit oil patch brown field there and a quite uselss eyesore old marina seaport motel, currently shuddered. Can't see much upside to adding another big mega-complex retail housing developemnt in LB but then the present site as it is seems a quite useless drag and eyesore.
Enviros are happy about not cluttering long beach with yet more retail and housing and perhaps they have a point here but then enviros are opposed to any developments period if it is in their own hood(nimbyism)) Long beach does have a small but quite vocal anti-growth faction but it is confined to the prim upscale SE coastal 90803 zip where the few owners of high-priced homes wish to keep their turf free of any new housing urban developements. This is Classic nimbyism and it is a quite common feature of LA OC coastal suburbs.

Here's the article:

'A four-year stalemate over land use in southeast Long Beach came to an end when the City Council rejected a $320-million development that included a boutique hotel, science center, shops and condominiums. In a 3-to-5 vote, the City Council declined to change zoning and permit requirements on the 2nd Street and Pacific Coast Highway parcel, which would have allowed the construction of a 12-story condominium complex. A long-standing moratorium limits the size of buildings to three stories in the southeast area.'...

'The council also did not uphold the Planning Commission's certification of the environmental impact report, which had been approved last month but appealed by environmental and community groups. It also unanimously agreed to direct city staff to return to the council with a report on revising a 34-year-old land-use requirement.'

'It was the second attempt to develop the southeast parcel. Developers first had partnered with Lennar Corp., a national home-builder, which funded and designed a project. But the giant company pulled out four years ago because of city opposition.

'Since then, developers say they have spent millions in an attempt to bring their new project to life.'

'The Seaside Village or 2nd+PCH project would have replaced the old SeaPort Marina Hotel with 20,000 square feet of restaurant space, 275 residential units, 155,000 square feet of retail space, 50,000 square feet of hotel space, plus an underground 'garage for 1,440 cars. The 12-story tower building would have had 126,000 square feet of condominium space topped by a helipad. Supporters had argued the project would have created hundreds of new jobs and millions in revenue.'

'Long Beach already benefits from hundreds of businesses, such as Boeing, Long Beach Airport, tourism, a large oil field and the nation's second-busiest port, which produces thousands of jobs and generates $16 billion in annual trade-related wages statewide, according to city officials. Still, the city has an unemployment rate of 12.7% as of last month, compared with the county average of 11.5%. Opponents of the project argued it would have increased traffic congestion at already backed-up intersections and harmed nearby wetlands. What's more, they said, changing the city's Local Coastal Program and the Southeast Area Development Improvement Plan to accommodate the project would have set a precedent for other high-rises along PCH.'

'Dozens of residents showed up to Tuesday night's council meeting, including another developer who offered to pay a portion in updating the development improvement plan. Amid the mixed crowd, those in favor of the project wore green T-shirts with the words "Live, work, eat and play in Long Beach" on the back, while opponents wore stickers with "Second and PCH" crossed out. Councilman Gary DeLong, whose district includes the parcel site, supported the project, as did councilmembers Robert Garcia and Suja Lowenthal.'

'And while the conversation between councilmembers and lead developer David Malmuth seemed to hint the project would be approved, the council's final decision shocked many. "I'm pleasantly surprised," said environmental activist Heather Altman, a resident and foe of the project. "I was not anticipating that the vote would go this way." But for Malmuth and SeaPort Marina hotel owner Raymond Lin, the council's vote was painful and bitterly disappointing. "I feel horrible," Malmuth said. "We need to process this, but I think the project's dead." "I now have to try and do what's best for my family," Lin said of the SeaPort Marina hotel. "I've already tried to do what was right for the community."

Rediculous OWS manifesto full of BS. lies and half-lies

This is a manifesto and rediculous action epigram of the OWS port protestors which was put out by the long beach/LA OWS coalition:

"As part of the Dec. 12 Boycott and March for legalization and good jobs, the Occupy movement will protest at one or more facilities belonging to SSA Marine, a shipper owned by Goldman Sachs, with 5 terminals and a warehouse in the Harbor area. SSA Marine was recently fined for building an illegal road to the site of its massive, dirty coal terminal project in WA. It was also caught recently not alerting workers to the threat of explosive cargo in Oakland. SSA/Goldman Sachs symbolize the ruin that corporate greed has brought into our lives. The 1% are depriving port truck drivers and other workers of decent pay, working conditions and the right to organize, even while the port of LA/LB is the largest in the US and a huge engine of profits for the 1%. The 1% have pursued a conscious policy of de-industrialization that has resulted in "trade" at the port meaning that there are 7 containers coming in for every one going out. The 1% have driven migrant workers into a "grey market" economy and repression. The 1% use police brutality and repression, jails and prisons to suppress, divide and try to silence the 99% and all who oppose their insatiable greed. To put an end to all that, we call on the 99% to march, boycott, occupy the ports, and STRIKE on December 12 for full legalization, good jobs for all, equality and justice."

I want to point out the lies, half-truths,and contradictions of this OWS port shutdowm manifesto. I will ignore and bypass the SSA Marine/Goldman Sachs issue and go on to other critiques of the manifesto:

"The 1% are depriving port truck drivers and other workers of decent pay, working conditions and the right to organize, even while the port of LA/LB is the largest in the US and a huge engine of profits for the 1%."

Port big rig truck drivers are mostly driven by Teamster unionized truckers but there is a significant percentage which are independent contract non-unionized truckers, operating as small businesses on wheels. IC trucking is a major part of SoCAl delivery and logistical trucking, esp in small/ medium-sized hauling/delivery/same day courier delivery operations. Most well-known is Fed-Ex. I was for a long time involved in independent contract small truck delivery/courier services and sometimes I made out fairly well, though there are pitfalls in negotiating your delivery skills in the open market in the admittedly unregulated, dog-eat-dog world of independent contract delivery services. It is very much like starting and running your own business on wheels, and you have to set up and carry your own benefits.

IC trucking or owner-operators allow the little fellow(the 99%) to invest in their own hauling business and should not be put down by OWS. IN SoCal lots of immigrants, mainly Hispanics, operate their own big-rigs. Does OWS despise immigrants owning their own trucks and getting paid per job. BTW the biggest expense for ind contractors is high fuel prices, a result of CA and USA policies of not allowing unrestricted drilling of oil, and CA/EPA's rediculous over-strict emissions rulings, such as CA AB32 and LA Clean Ports Act.

:"The 1% have pursued a conscious policy of de-industrialization that has resulted in "trade" at the port meaning that there are 7 containers coming in for every one going out"

Who persues a conscious policy of de-industrialization in America?. It is anti-business greens and their enviro-freak political allies who have driven out all 'polluting' businesses from CA and the other 'green' states. Overly restrictive enviro-rules make it impossible to operate so-called 'dirty' businesses in CA such as resource extraction, cement plants, chemicals/metel processing, oil extraction, ect. OWS loves the green agenda but excess green enviromentalism results in loss of 1000's, even millions of jobs in dirty extractive/processing industries which would, at least in CA, employ the 99%, including a huge CA population of low-skilled south-of-border immigrants, which OWS claims to be protesting on behalf of.