> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Protecting the coast
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/protecting-the-coast-editor/
- Published: 2008-03-13T15:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-24T18:52:29.000Z
- Author: Guest Author
- Tags: Opinion, Pier, #archive-import

*By David E. Moss Santa Monica*

Kevin Herrera disclosed that Pacific Park (PP) announced plans to sell PP for an undisclosed price (“SM’s Pacific Park goes on the block,” page 1, March 7). The article discusses some of the PP history — that PP opened in 1996, the PP investors funded the original construction of PP and the police substation, and the investors always intended to sell the asset at some point in the future.

The article points out that the PP Web site says it is the only amusement park on the west coast located on a pier. Let’s consider that for a moment along with what the residents have gotten in return for the 12 years of having PP on their pier Issue 1 — The City Council and/or the Pier Restoration Corp. executed a lease for PP on or before 1996 that resulted in absolutely no lease revenues to the City for perhaps as long as a decade — up until recently the PP made no lease payments — in exchange for having fortified the pier to hold the structural load of PP. In other words, PP upgraded the pier construction solely to support the PP rides and amusements and in exchange paid no rent for most of its tenancy.

Were the PP pier fortification costs audited by a third party and did PP avoid lease payments that were valued in excess of the costs allegedly paid to fortify the pier for the sole benefit of PP?

Issue 2 — Not too many other coastal cities want to have an amusement park on their municipal piers. Most or all West Coast piers are for relatively passive recreation relating to the ocean environment, with a focus on fishing, walking and gazing out to sea. The city of Santa Monica, however, has invited finger-painting, rice-painting artists through some sort of central art casting company, to fill in the gaps created by the often-times nauseating, talent-less performers with over-amplified music that cannot qualify for a spot on the Third Street Promenade.

By way of example, the Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, Santa Barbara piers are enjoyable to visit because they are oriented towards passive ocean recreation with none of the noise, garbage generation, and chronic amplified musical atrocities associated with the Santa Monica Pier. If a poll were taken of the 90,000 Santa Monica residents, would they support the amusement orientation of the pier and would they want some accounting for what they are getting in return?

Issue 3 — Every weekend there a dozens of police patrolling the pier, controlling vehicular and pedestrian traffic along Ocean Avenue. Has PP contributed any money toward the likely huge overtime and added police costs associated with the masses that are attracted to the fun zone? The police department increased from approximately 100 in 1982 to (over 200) presently. How many of those could be eliminated or better used throughout the city?

Once again, I maintain that the coastal zone should not constantly be looked at as a money-making resource. It is best suited for relatively passive recreation consistent with its natural and manmade-attached landforms. Let’s protect this strip of land along the sea that buffers those who seek it out for peace and solace, from those that want to exploit it for what it isn’t. Again, I say, every square inch of Santa Monica doesn’t have to be a multi-purpose room.

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on March 13, 2008.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/031308.pdf?ref=smdp.com)