Talk:Huntington Beach, California

Does Huntington Beach, incorporated in 1921, really have the country's oldest 4th of July parade? -- Zoe

If it does, it's news to me. (On the other hand, I managed to live over two decades in Southern California without being aware that Huntington Beach had a 4th of July parade.) Hmm, according to [1] they've been running it annually for 98 years (ie, since before the city was incorporated). Several other sites I turned up on google claim it's the largest and oldest such parade in the West, but make no claims over the entire country. --Brion VIBBER

Huntington Beach Parade

I live in Huntington Beach and I am pretty sure that the city's 4th of July parade has been around since the beginning of our city but I'm not sure if it's the oldest in the nation.

metric (imperial) or imperial (metric)?

There should be some consistancy to this article as to how tempuratures, distances, etc. are presented. Which way should we go? Can we come to a consensus?

I vote for Imperial (Metric), as Imperial is the standard in the city itself.

- Ianneub 18:29, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

City flag?

Does Huntington Beach have a city flag? We need one for the city template...

- Ianneub July 8, 2005 01:02 (UTC)

Danger Danger Roy Robison! (or however you say it)

Gee, this sounds like one dangerous city. Are the residents simply unaware of the danger? Jaberwocky6669 21:20, July 17, 2005 (UTC) lol

To be honest, that's likely the case, but it's also simply that most really don't bother worrying about it.. I lived in Huntington Beach up until adulthood (when I joined the Navy), and I never really gave a second thought about the dangers. Yes, we know about the oil and the (probable) nukes at the WEPSTA, but when your main concern is earthquakes, tsunami and the OP Pro Surf Tour, everything else tends to take a backseat.--Mitsukai 03:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are there really nukes at the naval weapons station there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.9 (talk)

During the Cold War when there was till a shipyard and naval base in Long Beach, it was highly likely that they stored nuclear weapons at the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. My best guess is that it is much less likely that there are any there now.

I disagree. There's still Naval Station San Diego to the south, as well as the Submarine Base at Point Loma (also in the SD area). Seal Beach was kept because it was the most viable place for a weapons facility and prevented ships from having to sail to Washington state to pick up weapons before going out on deployment. Truthfully, if there were any there to begin with, they are probably reduced in number, but would still exist.--Mitsukai 14:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else have problems with the title to this section: "Nice place, but is it safe?". To me, it sounds rather sensationalistic, and highly non-encyclopedic. I think that the section probably should be divided up between natural and man-made hazards, with some of the rhetoric toned down as well. BlankVerse ∅ 13:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, that was a damper. I have relatives that live there, and to think that they'd be the first to get hit in a war is nice. I knew that there was a Boeing installation there - my uncle points it out all the time when he drives us around - but a naval station? Hbdragon88 20:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're driving through the industrial section of the town, the most you'll ever see of the WEPSTA is the area that's also a National Wildlife Refuge, with the occasional ship loading at the pier - and you'll see that much because you have to drive over a bridge to get to that point. It's not a big deal, really, and to suggest otherwise is paranoia, IMHO.--Mitsukai 14:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the liberals from Wikipedia are making it sound a little too paranoic about HB. Since I live in SF, I would think that we would also be on a "first strike" for many reasons. I really think you should remove the paranoiac ramblings of the biased person about the city.

vandalism?

why was the demographics section removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SameerKhan (talk • contribs) 8 September 2005

A single edit by an anonymous IP (a DSL account from the Irvine area). Probably vandalism. BlankVerse ∅ 18:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Surf City "controversy"

Honestly, do we need this section? I don't see an issue about it at all, and it feels like someone's looking for a reason to either stir up needless edit wars or to add space filler.--Mitsukai 14:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it could be expanded, including the court cases which decided the issue, the history of the usage in the city and any potential fall out those rulings may've had, I think it could be of benefit to the page. However, the section is misleading and underrepresented as it is now. see: Surfer Mag, Huntington Beach press release 1, HB press release 2 and myriad other sources/news articles regarding this issue. WesleyPinkham 05:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That would help much. As it stands currently, it looks frivolous at best, like space filler at worst. If anyone has more information on the issue, they might want to work it in there.--Mitsukai 14:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lame sunshine sentence ?

I actually edited the HB page to remove the sentence "The beach is very brightly lit by the sun, and the sunlight pleasantly falls over the shoulders of surfers facing the beach" because it is so lame. But I see it was added back, so I guess the author really wants that there. Does the author think the beach in particular is brightly lit by the sun ? What about the rest of HB ? Does the author think that a surfer's shoulders are especially suited to receiving pleasant rays of light ? DuH!!! I live in HB and that is why I navigated to this page out of curiosity, and I was sort of nonplussed by these two statements.