By Michael S. Klein Santa Monica
Editor:
As chair of the board of directors of the Santa Monica Pier Restoration Corporation (the “PRC”), I have some knowledge of the stories that you have been reporting on the Boathouse and the PRC in the last several days.
While I can understand people who loved the Boathouse and are sorry to see it go (there will always be a constituency for any existing facility and it did have its own unique flavor) and I know that it makes a better story to portray the Boathouse as put-upon and the city and PRC as “big meanies,” a few facts to leaven the mix:
1. The Boathouse lease expired. It would have been unfair to everyone, including, most importantly, to the people of the city to simply renew the Boathouse lease without testing the waters for alternative ideas.
2. No one can inherit public property. There was an open competition for the space. Despite that, the Boathouse had the inside track because they knew the property and all the players.
Furthermore, if the Boathouse had come up with the best bid, the public relations angle would have been much better for the city and the PRC — and we all knew that.
The city and the PRC hoped that the Boathouse would come up with a competitive proposal, but their proposal for a motorcycle-themed restaurant simply did not meet the criteria the city had set down. Their proposal was judged by everyone who reviewed it, including staff, PRC, council members, and others as being either the worst or the second to worst proposal.
6B7,3. What did the PRC and the city want? A reasonably priced family restaurant. The PRC and the city also wanted a place that had the financial ability to do the job right and to survive the seasonality and other vagaries of tenancy on the pier. The PRC and the city also wanted synergies that would benefit all the tenants on the pier, and the citizens of the city. A successful restaurant will benefit everyone.
4. The Boathouse building was a shambles. The plumbing leaked, causing environmental damage. There were problems with access for the disabled. In short, it needed significant work and investment. Bubba Gump will be putting several million dollars into the property. Among other things that Bubba Gump promised is an elevator to bring people, including of course, people with disabilities up to the pier. Everyone on the PRC board is very excited about that.
5. You include statements in your article, such as, “It is widely known that behind-the-scenes political maneuvering has been occurring on the PRC for years, particularly when it comes to the Boathouse...” without attribution.
That sentence has such an ugly sound to it. I know how I would feel if I read it and didn’t know what was going on from being on the board.
Look, the PRC is appointed by the city council, so I guess anything we do is, by definition somewhat political, but I’ve been on the PRC board and my impression is that every person on that board is simply a volunteer without compensation trying to do the best for the city and its people. I can’t deny that there is politics on a politically appointed body, but let me put it this way: I haven’t seen see any unusual political maneuvering on the PRC board itself in this process.
Of course, the PRC has no control over the city appointment process whereby PRC board members are named or any delays therein.
6. And as to the new appointments to the PRC Board, they weren’t a majority of the board. Three people were named to an 11-person board after the Bubba Gump decision.
7. Although your article contains allegations that this wasn’t widely discussed or noticed, it was, at publicly noticed meetings, and a whole series of them that were well attended. It was even discussed in front of the city council, and if you read the minutes of that meeting you will see the astonishing sight of council members speaking ill of a local establishment — the Boathouse. That alone demonstrates why the Boathouse is not returning.
Your compatriot, Bob Scheer, ran a whole series of columns in the Los Angeles Times akin to those that he used so powerfully in the area code brouhaha.
57F,8. In the selection process, local content was considered as one of the major factors. Despite that, Bubba Gump, was judged the best proposal.
I should add that Bubba Gump is Southern California based and is a small chain, unlike Landry’s, another competitor which lost. Landry’s is huge and not based here.
Furthermore, if we are going to have local content, what the pier needs most is a winner. There have been some failures on the pier of late, including the Arcadia and the Ashgrove.
A winner will draw other winners, and will make it easier for a local entity that may not have the same financial strength to get the funding needed to compete for the next vacancy on the pier.
Why? Well, if you go to a lender or to investors, and tell them that there is a vacancy down the pier from Bubba Gump, which is doing land office business, you may very well get the loan or the investors. But if you go to that same lender or investors, and tell them that there is a vacancy on the pier, which has had 5 losing businesses in a row, good luck.
So, in summary, we think and hope that Bubba Gump will:
1) provide good, reasonably priced food
2) invest millions in our pier
3) give us handicapped access from the parking and in general
4) help every tenant on the Pier
5) help in the long run with local content.
One thing I do know. We did our best with this. I hope we’re right.
Michael S. Klein
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on April 4, 2002. Read the original PDF.