Navy Eliminates Long Beach as Home Port for the Missouri

Long Beach has been eliminated from the competition to become home port for the battleship Missouri, leaving only San Francisco and Honolulu’s Pearl Harbor in the running for the ship and its economic benefits.

The final decision is expected by early summer, Commodore Dudley Carlson, the Navy’s chief of legislative affairs, said in a letter to congressional delegations involved in the home-port contest. The letter was made public Monday.

Changes in the Navy’s plans could send some new ships to all three cities that sought the Missouri, Carlson added.

The Missouri is the third of four World War II-era battleships to be recommissioned by the Reagan Administration. The battleship New Jersey is already based in Long Beach. The other two are to be stationed on the East and Gulf coasts.

Originally, the Navy was planning to choose one home port for the Missouri and four accompanying ships. That prospect provoked spirited lobbying by the three rival cities, with Honolulu and San Francisco promising in September to provide millions of dollars worth of housing and major road repairs. They were motivated by the prospect of as much as $60 million in annual payrolls, much of which the crews were expected to spend in the home port, as well as repair contracts for beleaguered local shipyards.

Long Beach made no grand promises and instead emphasized its long tradition of support for the Navy and its history of donating land for military use. The city also noted that the Missouri is being renovated at Long Beach Naval Shipyard, so relocation costs could be avoided.

“Obviously, I’m disappointed,” Long Beach Mayor Ernie Kell said Monday. “We worked very hard; we thought we had the best proposal.”

However, he added, “Looking at it realistically, I don’t find it shocking. I would have been more surprised, frankly, if they had stationed both (battleships) here.”

Although the original plan called for stationing the Missouri and four support ships in one of the competing ports, the Navy is now considering “assigning up to nine additional ships to one or a combination of all three ports by the end of fiscal 1992,” Carlson wrote, adding that the ships could arrive by 1987.

Carlson wrote that the Navy wants all three cities to re-examine their proposals and provide revisions by April 1 “with an eye toward providing increased funding support.”

Carlson, who was not available for comment, did not explain in his letter why Long Beach was removed from consideration for the Missouri.

In Honolulu, the initial reaction was confusion over whether Pearl Harbor is large enough for the additional ships. “I don’t know if the capacity is there,” said Roy Yee, chairman of the task force formed by state and local officials to win the battleship.

In San Francisco, Mayor Dianne Feinstein was described by Deputy Mayor James Lazarus as “very happy” about the Navy’s development. Lazarus said the city’s proposal already could support all of the added ships, although extra dredging of the harbor would probably be required.

Rep. Sala Burton (D-San Francisco) said in a statement, however, that she finds the inclusion of San Francisco “disturbing.”

Burton and San Francisco Supervisor Richard Hongisto have led an effort to reject the Missouri, unless the Navy guarantees that no nuclear weapons will be aboard.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 6 to 5 not to invite the Missouri to town, although Feinstein later vetoed the resolution.