Long Beach Shipyard Closing

* Re “Long Beach Loses Shipyard, 3,000 Jobs in Panel Vote,” June 24:

Like most others in our community, I am disheartened by the recent vote to close the Long Beach Naval Shipyard. The stark reality, however, is that the Navy is intent on moving to San Diego. To pursue saving the base by lobbying the President would be a fruitless waste of time and energy against great odds. I believe that we must let it go and devote our energy and resources toward finding a commercial tenant for the shipyard. The dedicated workers at the yard have endured years of threatened closure, never knowing whether their future is secure or not.

The Port of Long Beach/Los Angeles is one of the largest commercial ports in the world in terms of cargo handling, volume and ship traffic. The majority of commercial shipbuilding and repair in the United States has been lost to overseas yards in the past two decades. Even the few remaining American-flagged steamship companies build, repair and conduct their annual dry-dockings overseas due to the high cost of work in the United States. If some way were found to become competitive, I believe the shipyard could service many of the ships that currently call at the Port of Long Beach/Los Angeles. Additionally, I can envision the shipyard building offshore oil rigs, barges, container cargo cranes, etc., for use up and down the West Coast.

I believe that the solution may be a nonprofit cooperative alliance of shipping companies including oil companies, container ships, car carriers and tugboat companies that would run the shipyard to build and service their own ships, oil rigs and cargo cranes.

GREGORY P. WILLIAMS

Long Beach

* As a longtime active member of our Save Our Shipyard (SOS) Committee, it was very dismaying to watch the vote to close Long Beach Naval Shipyard. Nevertheless, there is a very slim possibility that it can be reversed.

Vice President Al Gore, interviewed on TV two days after the vote, said that President Clinton has not decided yet whether to accept the recommendations. I urge all Southern Californians to write or phone the White House and insist that the recommendation be reversed.

Sadly, Gov. Pete Wilson’s staffer told the state Senate Finance Committee nine days before the vote that Wilson opposed a bill (AB 1621) to help SOS’s efforts for the shipyard. (A month after he wrote a letter to the governor of New Hampshire stating that he, Wilson, supported the retention of its major base, Portsmouth).

BRIAN FINANDER

Long Beach

* As usual the press (“State Girds for Final Fight on Base Closures,” June 19) confuses the issue. Bases are being closed because of the cutback of defense personnel. Your article mentions 30,000 jobs--it could have said 5,000 military and 25,000 civilian jobs. Our sad-sack politicians should stop whining--California has many, many more bases than other states. Efficiency, economy and strategic planning would dictate California for big “hits.”

HOWARD F. EATON

Mission Viejo

* Are military bases and county governments established for the purpose of creating jobs? Is the big controversy over closure of military bases and cuts in the county budget that these actions will put people out of work or that needed services will be lost?

Since some bases will certainly be retained, there is a reasonable argument that at least a few of the lucky big survivors be in California. But what is the reason for county offices, again? Jobs or services?

FRANCES SPIELBERG

Pacific Palisades