A Complex Issue at Its Core

The pastor leaned forward at the podium, his words carefully chosen to deliver the most impact, to perhaps shock his listeners into paying more than just casual attention.

“I’ll tell you what,” he said, “it’s not a very nice thing to bend over and hold the head of a bleeding Mexican kid who has been shot by a rival gang. . . . I’ve done that over and over.”

The Rev. Isaac Canales delivers his ministry in Carson. He lives only three blocks from his church, the Mision Eben-Ezer Family Church at Torrance Boulevard and Figueroa Street, in a neighborhood he describes as “a violent, gang-infested area.”

But on this particular May morning, Canales was in Long Beach in the sedate confines of the Dumke Conference Center, where the last thing the California State University Board of Trustees expected to be listening to was a lecture on street violence.

The trustees had gathered to decide whether to allow Phil Anschutz to build--at no cost to themselves--a $112-million sports complex on the campus of Cal State Dominguez Hills in Carson, and yet here they were, listening to accounts of gang warfare.

But Canales had a point to make.

“Let me tell you about environmental impact,” he continued. “You cannot mitigate a bullet in the head of a young Latino man in gang involvement.

“We have something coming into the city of Carson that can give a vision to a young kid who might have been going the wrong way. A vision of him going to play soccer here at this great place and also the possibility of going on to college.

“I see that possibility for all Latino kids. It goes beyond Carson, it goes to the white kids, to the black kids, to the Asian kids that love soccer.

“With all due respect to my neighbors who live near that campus and to the senior citizens, of course they’re concerned with the environmental quality, but let me tell you what, there’s more environmental impact [caused] by a bullet taking a kid’s life who could have gone on and done something at Cal State Dominguez Hills.”

Canales’ comments were the most dramatic of many that have been voiced in the last few weeks as the citizens of Carson debate whether they want to see the Anschutz Entertainment Group implement its grand vision of a national training center for soccer, tennis, track and field and cycling.

Today, the final decision is expected to be made when the trustees meet in Long Beach.

Already, the Carson City Council has given the proposal its blessing, albeit a mixed one on a 3-2 vote after loud, lengthy and sometimes ludicrous public debate.

When Anschutz decided he wanted to build a soccer stadium in Los Angeles to serve as home for the Galaxy, and then expanded that plan, he probably had no idea what he was in for.

That some homeowners in the vicinity of the 85-acre site at the intersection of Avalon Boulevard and Victoria Street might be upset was predictable. That attorneys would spring up like mushrooms overnight was unavoidable.

But Anschutz could not possibly have imagined that his proposed sports complex would pit him against poetry-reading octogenarians at board meetings, model glider club enthusiasts trying to protect their landing zones, mobile home park dwellers concerned about real or imagined vandalism and environmentalists rambling on about the habitat of such oddities as the Riverside fairy shrimp and the Western spadefoot toad.

The proposal also has brought unsubstantiated accusations of bribery and corruption and has split Carson residents into two very unequal camps.

The vast majority of citizens appears to favor the project or is neutral, but a small minority has been extremely vocal in its opposition.

The opponents include two former mayors of Carson, Gil Smith and Michael Mitoma, and their concerns center on environmental issues such as increased traffic, a deterioration in already poor air quality, the noise impact and a possible increase in crime.

Others, such as former police officer Robert Lesley, are worried about the impact on emergency services, if police and fire units are delayed in their response times by traffic congestion around the proposed site.

The bottom line for most, however, appears to be the fear that property values in the neighborhood of the sports complex will decline.

“I don’t want Carson to become like Inglewood [with ticket-scalpers, T-shirt sellers, trash and beer bottles up and down Avalon Boulevard],” Keith Meredith wrote in one of dozens of letters from the public that were included in the project’s three-volume, 1,800-page environmental impact report.

Past soccer hooliganism and stadium disasters worldwide also have helped fuel negative perceptions for some Carson residents.

One of them, Chris Bradley, wondered about “the security nightmare in protecting . . . students from intoxicated soccer fans.”

Another resident, Mary Apodaca, wrote: “The soccer people are the worst brand of people in the world. . . . why do you think Pasadena finally got rid of them?”

Although claims such as this are unsubstantiated, it hasn’t stopped others to voice similar concerns.

Stuart and Crystal Galloway were more all-encompassing in their opposition.

“Sports events are becoming increasingly partisan and violent,” they said. “These violent episodes are not confined to European and South American soccer games. Several recent sporting events in this country have resulted in looting and riotous behavior.”

And from Lynne Griffin: “I think this is just a way for wealthy business to get more wealthy at our expense. I don’t want Carson to become the next Sports Arena disaster.”

Wrote Shirley Conley: “Don’t let Mr. Anschutz turn your campus and our neighborhood into another Staples Center. Have the courage to just say no to his money.”

Contrary to public belief, the Carson City Council never has had any power to say yes or no to the proposed sports complex. It is the university board of trustees’ decision to make.

“The city has no approval authority, it can only endorse,” Mayor Daryl Sweeney said at a council meeting where project opponents wore bright yellow T-shirts bearing the words “No CSUDH Soccer Stadium” and proponents sported blue and green stickers reading “I Support the National Training Center.”

The Anschutz group believes that it has the overwhelming support of the community and the university and that the opposition has been created by only a few dozen residents.

Certainly, those who favor the project include many influential residents. One of them is Cal State Dominguez Hills President James E. Lyons Sr.

At the May 16 meeting where Canales spoke, Lyons told trustees he had not taken on the position of university president to oversee a sports complex but said he believed it was a unique opportunity for the school and one that should be welcomed.

In an interview Friday, he reiterated that view.

“This is an outstanding project,” he said. “I’ve been in higher education for 30 years and a project like this obviously only comes along once every 30 years because I haven’t seen any at any institution, large or small, public or private, to compare with this opportunity.”

Lyons described the physical development itself and the revenue it will generate as “clear and measurable benefits,” adding that “and then you’ve got untold benefits in terms of bringing local and national attention to our campus.”

Even so, he said, opponents have criticized his support of the sports complex.

“There are some who have even spread the story that the reason I was hired was to ram this project down the throats of the citizens,” he said. “That is not the case at all. I came here to do my third and final presidency. . . . It’s a great project. I think you have to be visionary. . . . I think Monday, June 4 will be one of the pivotal days in the history of our university.”

All the same, Tim Leiweke, president of Staples Center and president of the Anschutz Entertainment Group, is concerned that when trustees vote today they might be swayed by the fact that opponents, although relatively few in number, have been visible and vocal.

He said AEG is close to resolving the remaining differences that are troubling local homeowner associations.

“People say that we’re going to have riots,” he said. “People say we’re going to bring crime. People say we’re going to bring pollution. . . .

“I think change sometimes brings on fear, but I have said steadfastly from Day 1 that this is probably a lot like Staples Center. There was a lot of fear about traffic congestion, pollution, crime, etc. And now that Staples Center has two years under its belt . . . the neighborhood now widely endorses the entertainment district [concept].”

The fact that Anschutz is footing the entire $112-million bill for the Carson sports complex should stand for something, proponents believe. And the university--which produced an NCAA Division II championship-winning soccer team last year despite not having a home field to play on--certainly can benefit.

“I think it creates not only great hope on campus for the future but it creates a new identity for that school,” Leiweke said. “I think it not only has a tremendous impact on their athletic department but on the whole university.

“So if the trustees ultimately are empowered to create a great environment for kids to learn in, I don’t understand how they do not approve this deal. It’s no risk, all upside, and despite a hundred people in the community who, to their credit, have shown up everywhere we’ve gone, the reality is . . . the vast majority, 69% of the residents of Carson, support this project [according to AEG polling].

”. . . The council is in favor of it. The university president is in favor of it and the kids on campus are in favor of it and there’s no [financial] risk.”

The arguments are over. Now, only the vote remains.