-
Website
http://thedistrictweekly.com/ -
Original page
http://thedistrictweekly.com/2009/daily/staff-infection/briefing/city-targets-marijuana-dispensary-for-violating-its-own-business-license/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Whereas alcohol is readily available and enjoyed recreationally by adults in front of their kids, it is the first drug most kids try. Hence, it is the true gateway drug......close all the bars!
I would love to include your comments in our Letters to the Editor section, if you would please send them--with a full name--to letters@thedistrictweekly.com
Anybody else, too!
If they did not, they most certainly should have.
"It's my personal hope that all businesses, regardless of genre, that operate fraudulently or without a license be fully investigated, promptly closed and their operators prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."
The current title presents the fallacious appearance that a marijuana dispensary in Long Beach had a business license and that said dispensary violated that license, when the fact is that *no* marijuana dispensary in Long Beach is currently lawfully licensed. True?
But is it your assertion that if we do not enforce all of them, that we then should not enforce any of them?
And let me be clear (because apparently some feel I haven't been so far) "The City should scrupulously enforce all of it's business licensing laws, regardless of violation or type of business involved." If limited resources and personnel make spot-checking necessary, then such should be done in a fair and equal manner, inclusive of all types of businesses and not merely these.
If this closure of "The Green Nurse Collective" proves to be the example of disparate enforcement that you fear, then I would say it's wrong to engage in such. Just as it is wrong for the federal executive branch to engage in disparate enforcement of our federal drug laws. They, like our local business licensing laws, should be fully and fairly enforced throughout the jurisdictions in which they apply.
Either that or they should be repealed altogether so that the Tenth Amendment might truly apply in this case as it rightly should in this and so very many others.
Greggory feels that something "smells awfully fishy" here and your comments seem to indicate that you do as well. Based upon your considerable experience with the manner in which the City does business in the legal realm, how might one go about proving or disproving such a concern?
I do know that the kind of example I just described is both unethical from the prosecutor's point of view and bad government.
As for me, I prefer that we enforce all of our laws as fully and fairly as possible in all cases. The argument that we should not enforce a law in one case because we have neglected to enforce it in another, serves as little more than misdirection.
It could certainly speak to whether the law should remain on the books at all, since it really serves little purpose if it cannot be shown to be applicable, equally, to all. But such is rightly within the purview of a given legislature and not that of the prosecution or of the defense.
If Party "A" is guilty of violating a given law, then whether Party "B" is also guilty of violating that same law is not particularly relevant to the guilt of Party "A". Much though Party "A" would have it so.
Would it not have been best if they had simply honored our local laws, as written, until such time as our Council finally got it's act together? Isn't that sort of the way those in a civil society that supposedly operates according to the rule of law are supposed to behave, rather than doing whatever they want because they don't happen to like a given law that forbids it?
I realize that the Council's timetable may prove inconvenient for some of these folks but you know what, fully honoring some of the City's parking ordinances sometimes proves inconvenient for me, but I rather doubt that the officer writing the ticket if I violate them will be particularly sympathetic to that particular appeal. Nor should the officer be.
Some keep trying to shift the responsibility for the lawlessness of others away from those who behave unlawfully and, instead, toward the City as if to say: "It's not the violator's fault for breaking the law, it's the City's fault for not better accomodating the violator."
Really? The last time I checked, people had an affirmative duty to obey laws forbidding or commanding an act or omission. When did that change?
The City should be doing a good many things that it isn't or doing more of those things than they currently are. But this persistent complaint that unlicensed medpot operations should somehow be exempt because the City hasn't chased down every single other unlicensed business in the City, or done so quickly or more efficiently enough seems entirely specious to me.
Is a legitimate business license required to operate in Long Beach? Yes.
Did the Green Nurse allegedly operate with a fraudulent business license? Yes.
Did the City have a right to investigate this allegation? Yes.
If the City believed the allegation to be true, did it have the right to take steps to close the business? Yes.
Did the business have a right to appeal the closure and make their case in Court? Yes.
So why didn't they? Why, instead, did they close their own doors voluntarily, rather than face the City's allegations and defend themselves as was their right?
Can you cite for me the statutory or case law that stipulates what timetable the City must follow in crafting regulations of this sort?
While I appreciate your characterization that the City is "go(ing) after the odd situation", do we truly know, of a certainty that fraudulent business licenses of this sort are really all that odd? Mr. Ruehle claims to have been told be a City official that they have actually been advising medpot operation applicants to file fraudulent applications. Thus isn't it just as likely that operations like Green Nurse could be the rule, rather than the exception?
Two years ago, I received a citation from the city’s business license department advising me that I needed to license my business they claimed I was conducting in Long Beach. The business they were referring to was a stock investment club created by 7 work friends who wanted to learn more about investing in stocks. The maximum a clubmember could invest was $200 per month. The club met monthly and only had total investments of $15,000 after 15-years.
I had just been elected Treasurer for the investment club. When I began receiving the ETrade monthly statements at my home, the business licensing department claimed I was conducting a business in my home and sent me a letter with a citation requiring me to get a business license. I called them and was granted no leniency or reasonableness. I guess in your eyes, I should have known this friendly investment club was a business requiring a business license from the city. Using your rationale, I was a fraud and should have been incarcerated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for failing to get a business license. Next, you will say all of the city non-profit resident associations are all frauds and need to be prosecuted for not having a business license. Go get them Greet. You are the cop.
Rather than pay the ridiculous cost of a business license, I instead had the statements sent elsewhere outside of Long Beach. I suspect doing so to avoid paying for a Long Beach business license was another fraudulent action in your eyes. In fact, Reeves and the cops are probably at my door now to arrest me and shut down our fraudulent investment club.
Though irrelevant, it's amusing the raided dispensary occupies the same space as Suja's former campaign HQ.
One of the things I'm suggesting in my response, though perhaps I may be too obtuse to convey it properly, is that "the City should scrupulously enforce all of it's business licensing laws, regardless of violation or type of business involved."
Perhaps the best answer to "why this business and why now" requires more information? How long had they been operating fraudulently? How long had the investigation been in progress? What other fraudulent business licenses are being investigated and, of those, how many are related to this medpot challenge?
Perhaps we should obtain more facts before jumping to conclusions either way? Or am I just being too obtuse?
So let me get this straight, you feel my comments constitute an "implicit justification for apparently selective code enforcement" despite that I justify *nothing* other than following the rule of law in all cases and despite that there has been no "selective code enforcement" established as yet, but you object to being cautioned against jumping to conclusions?
I see. Thanks for clearing that up!
B) The sad thing is, you're well aware of the truth of what I allege, and I think it would be a lot more honorable to say so. Because all Mr. McCabe did was raise the question (due to that fishy smell you pretend to ignore, like a fart one doesn't acknowledge out of politeness), and you immediately attributed (the interrogative form in no way hiding that it wasn't really a question) to him an "assertion that if we do not enforce all of them, [...] we then should not enforce any of them" -- because from your tortuous position even to acknowledge that something stinks means that we hate law and order. So...
C) You're welcome. I'm here to help.
B: Sadder still, to my mind, are those who claim to know a thing before sufficient facts are available to reasonably draw a conclusion one way or another. Even Mr. McCabe, who likely knows far more about such matters than either you or I, does not presume to *know* what you claim to. He merely suspects and is rightly concerned. It's quite possible that you have facts on this matter that we do not, but if so you have not offered them for consideration. How very convenient that must be for you. Of course my question for Mr. McCabe was rhetorical, but it was a sincere question nonetheless. I felt confident in what I believed Mr. McCabe's answer might be but I thought it was an answer, and a point, that others also might benefit from hearing and considering. But, once again, thanks for yet another insult. Now it appears that I am to be considered both obtuse and less-than-honorable. Very nice.
C: You might do well to work on helping yourself out of some of your assumptions. As I have stated to you elsewhere, we are both evaluating this challenge through our respective biases, mine toward the rule of law and yours toward outright legalization. You seem to prefer that we simply ignore laws when we disagree with them. I advocate for changing those laws that are no longer reflective of our society's values and principles.
I readily acknowledge my bias and fully accept that my approach may not be the best one. I think it might be wise for you to demonstrate just enough humility to at least try to admit the same.
I'll keep focusing upon working for constructive change in our society and in our community while respecting, as far as possible, the rule of law.
Descarte's a nice reference. You might consider that he also said: "It is not enough to have a good mind. The main thing is to use it well."
These guys can't win. People want to shut them down because they are unlicensed businesses yet,when they get a business licenses to try to be legal, they are shut down because they have the wrong business license, even though the RIGHT BUSINESS LICENSE is not offered.
It's really quite simple: If you are required to obtain a legally-issued business license in Long Beach, but you have not done so, you must not operate your business. If you do, you are in violation of the law and are subject to closure and prosecution.
To argue that the City declined to issue you a license, so you opened a business anyway is *no different* from saying that the State declined to issue you a driver license so you chose to drive on public streets regardless.
These guys can most certainly win. They can do so by not operating their business unlawfully. They can do so by voluntarily closing their business until such time as they can apply for and obtain a lawful business license from the City. They can do so by not making a bad problem worse and by being a part of the solution, rather than failing to respect our community's duly enacted laws.
Your solution to shut down all med-pot dispensaries is idiotic. First of all, there are no laws against operating these businesses or they would be shut down. Second, City Council never would have addressed this issue if not for the fact that some of these businesses started up. If nothing else, its good these businesses started up in order to force City Council to address the situation.
By the way, I don't hear you saying the 100+ check cashing businesses operating without a license should be shut down. So what's your hang-up with pot?
I don't smoke pot, but I'm surprised at the number of people who are off the deep end on this issue. It reminds me of peoples reaction to AIDs when it was first publicized. I know people who have cancer and if it wasn't for pot, they would probably not be around today. These med-pot businesses do provide benefits to society. It's up to our elected officials to put rules in place to make sure some of these businesses do not operate in a manner detrimental to society.
There are, indeed, many laws on the books that prohibit marijuana dispensaries as Mr. Reeves defines them. But the one that matters most to this particular discussion is our local law requiring business licenses. No medpot dispensary, co-op or collective has been issued a legitimate business license in Long Beach. Any that are operating are therefore operating unlawfully. I disagree that the City would never have addressed this issue had illegal operations not opened for business. I think that the existence of the CUA, MMPA and People v. Mentch combined with dozens and dozens of legitimate business license applications would have quickly combined to show the Council that there was a true need in our community for this particular service, and they would have eventually met that need in a fair and lawful manner.
As to check cashing businesses, I offered this comment to DWR earlier this evening:
"It's my personal hope that all businesses, regardless of genre, that operate fraudulently or without a license be fully investigated, promptly closed and their operators prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It's my personal preference that no one (including LBP) accept a single advertising dollar from *any* business, regardless of genre, that operates fraudulently or without a license. All I advocate is that our laws apply equally to all and that they be fully, fairly and comprehensively enforced."
Perhaps this might make my position sufficiently clear to you?
I would say that *some* of these businesses do provide benefits to society, while others are simply dealing drugs. I'd also say that it is up to our elected officials to put rules in place to make sure that *all* of these businesses, and not just "some", do not operate in a manner detrimental to society.
This is precisely why none should have been allowed to open until those rules you mention were put in place and why any that did open should have been shut down long ago.
There's a right way to do this and a wrong way. So far the City and existing medpot operations have been engaging in the wrong way. But the City, at least, is trying to correct this.
And for that I give them a lot of credit.
As with any drug epecially one that is smoked there are serious side affects and second hand smoke issues. I am sure Michael Jackson pop star would of agreed with you LB City Girl-"Me and my friends won't vote for any politician who stands in the way of a person's right to choose the kind of medication they feel is most effective."
(Ord. C-7955 § 1, 2004)
I would argue that med-pot dispensaries, when operated as intended, provide more benefit to society than alcohol licenses.
If you have children, do you keep your OTC and RX meds securely locked out of their reach and curiosity? And will you continue to do that through their experimental teenage years?
When I say I'd guide my children away from vices like tobacco, alcohol and pot until they were of age to make their own choices, why would you "guess" many parents feel differently when that is something universally expected of responsible parenthood?
If you're paranoid about "added influence", then don't let your kids ever see a medpot dispensary because you are ultimately responsible to what they are exposed. That also means covering their eyes whenever you pass-by liquor stores and bars, people smoking in public, and don't ever let them see an adult crack open a beer at a summer barbecue because all those exposures to adult vices is "added influence".
what are you basing that on? somehow i doubt its personal experience. word to the wise, anyone who wants pot can get pot without going to a pot clinic. when your kids try pot it wont be from a clinic it will come from one of their friends. good luck keeping them away from it, you'll need it.
also, i realize my kids can get pot anywhere. that isn't a reason to have clinic by my house.
it really is amazing the difference in perspective of people who have children and those who don't.
how far "down the street"?
how much time do you spend observing the place and its patrons? it must be a substantial amount for you to know that "idiots" are trying to get pot there. i wonder if you could ever really know that without spending some time inside the place.
Some are motivated to offer true assistance to legitimate medpot patients but they've simply chosen to violate our local business licensing laws to do so. This doesn't make them 'evil', merely misguided, and the very best thing they can do at this point is to close shop and await the City's pending guidelines on obtaining a legitimate business license so that they may then continue to help legitimate patients in a lawful manner.
Some, on the other hand, are motivated purely by profit and don't really concern themselves overmuch with who they sell their product to. This doesn't necessarily make *them* 'evil' either, merely criminal and, therefore, well-deserving of prosecution.
So I ask you, how is their particular approach to operating in Long Beach working out for them now? How has their alleged deceit better served any true patients in need now that this business has seen fit to close its doors?
There is another dispensary down the street on the 1600 block of Broadway that also makes no secret of their mission as solely a medpot dispensary. Will they be next to be targeted for shut-down?
It's my personal preference that no one (including LBP) accept a single advertising dollar from *any* business, regardless of genre, that operates fraudulently or without a license.
All I advocate is that our laws apply equally to all and that they be fully, fairly and comprehensively enforced.
I don't think anyone should fault operators of any industry sanctioned by state law for trying - in good faith - to comply with local ordinance when there exists no mechanism in place for compliance. During the civil rights movement some municipalities followed the guidelines of higher statutes in regards to free speech, assembly, voting rights, etc. and others did not. And unsurprisingly (and certainly thankfully) the civil rights movement didn't wait for those municipalities to act on their own in order to get the laws to change. In other words, Rosa Parks should not have continued to sit in the back of the bus and waited for the municipal government in Montgomery, Alabama to catch up with the rest of the country. She had the right to sit in the front according to higher statute, and purposely challenged local law. By your argument she should have followed local law as it was defined despite that it didn't comply with higher statute, and if not faced prosecution.
I went to see Prosecutor Reeves at B&P last Tuesday and felt he had a very straightforward position - that the City should follow and enforce state law; as long as the dispensaries were in full compliance then he does not oppose them. The key was simply assessing the parameters of full compliance under state law. The dispensaries not only want to be licensed under the guidelines of state law, but are open to both business taxes and perhaps even a "fee" (as is happening in Oakland). I can't think of another industry that is advocating for more taxes on the sale of its goods.
I read Mr. Ruehle's and DWR's comments differently than you do. I think they're merely pointing out that these businesses are trying to comply with local ordinance by having a business license - any type of business license - but shouldn't be penalized because the City hasn't gotten it's act together on this matter so far. Since the City is now addressing it, and soliciting public input as well as recommendation from Mr. Reeves, our City Atty, and others, the timing of this crackdown seems incongruent with the current efforts our our policymakers.
What I predict will happen is that the City will come up with guidelines that follow state law and consider local needs/input, and following those guidelines will be the path to municipal licensing specifically for this business. Some of the existing operators will meet those guidelines and be able to operate. Others will likely not, and at that point those not in compliance will need to be shut down.
I'm grateful for your (and Mr. Ruehle's and DWR's) commitment to a better Long Beach by commenting on this and look forward to reading more of your thoughts on the matter.
To your comments here: Please understand that when I comment here it is as a private citizen and voter in the 3rd Council District, not as a police officer. I do not represent either my City or my Department when I express my views on these matters. Nor have titles ever been particularly important to me.
Few things are "black and white" and it is not my intent to assert that they are, merely that they sometimes should be. I find that many argue far more strongly for their limitations than for their capabilities and that if they would simply shift their focus more toward the *possible* and less toward the *miserable*, so much more of a constructive nature could be accomplished in our community!
Like you, I understand and respect that some dispensaries (I'm not prepared to accept 'for the most part' yet) are trying to follow State law. I simply want them to demonstrate the self-same respect for, and efforts toward, following local law.
As you've no doubt read, my personal bias is toward the rule of law. Thus, if it is unlawful to operate a business in Long Beach without a legitimate business license, these dispensaries should never have opened and in doing so they should have understood that the City could, and quite likely would, seek to close them down.
I don't think any business that is operating in direct and blatant violation of our local business licensing laws can reasonably be considered to be acting "in good faith". Local ordinance does not currently accomodate dispensaries and those who would operate dispensaries, if they are truly acting "in good faith" should fully and completely respect that.
But those that have opened anyway have *not* done so, knowing full well that they were violating our local laws in doing so. In effect, what they have done, then, is to prioritize *their* needs and desires over those of our *community*, as properly represented by our duly-elected City Council. This, sir, can hardly be considered to be "good faith".
Good faith is an important consideration, but your argument along these lines, here, reminds me of that of many who feel that the ends should justify the means. They state, in effect, "So what if they are violating the law? They are doing so out of compassion so it's ok" -and- "It matters not that they have violated our laws, people have a right to their medicine so dispensaries should be left alone to provide it" -and- "They would have gotten a license from the City, they even asked for one, but the City wouldn't give them one, so they opened anyway and they should now be allowed to remain open because we happen to think they are providing a much-needed service."
Mr. Lowenthal, if, as you state here, "there exists no mechanism in place for compliance" then, guess what? These dispensaries should not have opened in the first place nor until such time as such mechanisms were put in place. We must, wherever possible, operate according to the rule of law. If the law doesn't yet permit certain operations, then such operations shouldn't exist in our city until such time that it does.
Should the efforts to craft these regulations have commenced sooner? Certainly! Should people be annoyed that our Council seems so far behind the curve on this challenge? Definitely! But the proper response to that is to await those duly enacted mechanisms, sir, not to do whatever we want in the meantime because the Council's timetable happens to prove inconvenient for us.
To compare medpot dispensaries with Civil Rights champions is, to say the very least, a stretch. I think it's no less disingenuous than Greggory referring to contraband as "medicine" and offered for the same reason; to lend sympathy to the cause of legitimizing businesses that are currently operating unlawfully in our City. These dispensaries are not challenging what they believe to be an unjust law to achieve a greater good. They're not organized (as was Rosa Parks and the remainder of her NAACP colleages) to avail themselves of their right to participate in civil disobedience to effect change. I believe these dispensaries are simply doing what they *want* to do, and often motivated purely by profit, despite what our duly-enacted laws mandate that they *must* do.
This is not civil disobedience on their part in furtherence of a Civil Rights movement, sir. It's simple illegality. Following our local laws in this case would not deprive anyone of any rights, for legitimate patients can go to almost any neighboring city and purchase their medicine there if they so choose. All that delaying the opening of a dispensary in Long Beach would cost an operator is money and for many (if not most) of them, I believe money, and not altruism, is the prime motivator.
I'm so pleased to see that you don't assume the same motives of Mr. Reeves that Greggory seems to. Mr. Reeves did, indeed, say what you ascribe to him and, like you, I take him at his word.
I fully understand Mr. Ruehle's and DWR's comments but I'm not as ready to let dispensary operators off the hook in this case as you and they seem to be. When a law forbids a thing -such as opening a business without a legitimate license- it's actually much easier to comply with that law than some are alleging. **You simply don't open your business until you have received a legitimate license.** You don't falsify the application and claim to be something that you're not. You don't open anyway and make as much money as you can until the City shuts you down again. You simply do not open your business.
I realize that this approach seems inconvenient to some. Following the law has always seemed inconvenient to some, but that's why we have laws, sir, to be better able to live together in a well-ordered and civil society. The day we begin to pick and choose from among our duly-enacted laws is the day that our laws have a little less meaning, and then a little less, and then a little less, until eventually we have devolved into anarchy.
If some take exception with our Council's timing (as I have), then express that clearly and unequivocally, to the Council (as I have), and not by ignoring laws that we, as a community, have so far seen as fit and proper to enact. To be effective, our laws must be seen to apply fairly to all. You have no idea how many times I've heard from business owners and operators in our community that they feel they should stop paying their own business licenses and related fees. "Why should I keep paying?" they ask, "when the City is allowing dozens and dozens of other businesses to continue to operate without requiring that they pay those same fees?" How is this fair? How is this just? The answer, of course, is as simple as it is self-evident: "This approach is neither fair nor just".
Like you, I believe our City will eventually craft medpot regulations that best suit our needs as a community and that are otherwise in compliance with other stautory and case law. Like you I hope that legitimate medpot patients, co-ops and collectives in Long Beach can finally feel confident that they are operating in full compliance with all of our laws.
But let's be completely honest here. These dispensaries have made a *conscious decision* to violate our local laws as they currently exist. No one made them do so. It's not the City's fault. It's not Mr.Reeves' fault. It's not the Court's fault. It's not the community's fault. When confronted with the facts of our local laws, these dispensaries willfully and deliberately chose to violate, rather than to comply, with those laws. And to date there has been precious little consequence for this. This fact is also neither fair nor just.
Some are truly desirous of assisting legitimate patients. More, however, in my opinion, are quite clearly not. They are simply taking full advantage of what I will call an "absence of public policy leadership" to make as much money as they possibly can before they are shut down and/or prosecuted.
I want to sincerely thank you for elevating the dialog on this very challenging topic, Mr. Lowenthal!
I'm supportive of cannabis dispensaries for legitimate medicinal purposes so long as they are properly licensed, tightly regulated and held to the highest professional, ethical standards (whatever they may be).
You and I are in complete agreement then.
As to how dispensaries managed to proliferate and thrive without being legally licensed; my personal opinion is as I have stated: the City suffered from a lack of public policy leadership in this area from the very beginning.
Had better leadership been demonstrated sooner, I personally believe we would now have 1-3, thoroughly inspected and well-regulated medpot operations in each Council District, each doing business in our City with valid licenses and providing legitimate patients with the medicine they require. Just as Prop 215 intended.
This, in my opinion, would have been a far more compassionate approach than that which we eventually took, because those that legitimately need this assistance would have received it without being made to feel like criminals for seeking it out and those who were (are) simply trying capitalize on Prop 215 for purely selfish and illicit purposes would have been more likely to have been identified and better prevented from doing so, at least in *our* City.
The rule of law, when fairly and properly applied, can be a far better expression of true "compassion" than many other approaches that in theory loudly proclaim to be compassionate but, in practice, often have quite the opposite effect.
oh, and though it's completely irrelevant--I have kids.
Evil truly does exist in our community and I have personally dealt with a good deal of that. These medpot operations are not, de facto, evil. Some are simply currently operating outside of local law and others are simply currently operating outside of State and federal law as well.
This does not make them "evil", simply unlawful.
I would also urge you to avoid judging others on moral grounds. There is, unltimately, only one true Judge on such issues, and we all will have to answer to Him one day, rather than to one another.
on top of that they only had a few strains of crappy cannabis.
the business license they had was posted prominently in the lobby and when i read it, i knew they would be getting shut down. i think the one on 2nd street has the same type of license.
Goddamn it, I'm just going to read the tele-rag and the grunt-ion.
I don't know how much more I can take.
Thanks for your assertion concerning moratoriums. It didn't occur to me that there was any effective difference, but there you go.
It is not my intent that you serve as a resource library, for me or anyone else, only that you support some of your comments with factual information. For example; if, as you claim "Its illegal for the City to refuse to grant business permits to a whole class prospective LEGAL businesses." Then I must assume that you can support that claim by citing the statutory or case law where that has been established.
My only intent, here, is to argue that in a well-ordered, civil and free society, we must agree to abide by our duly constituted laws and it is my desire to encourage those who would violate the law to seek a better solution.
If that "tone" is somehow objectionable to you, then so be it.
You guess incorrectly, sir. People have an affirmative duty to know, understand and abide by the law, it is true, but when the City chooses to make an allegation that a law has been violated, that's all it is, an allegation, and must still be proved before a competent court.
In the experience you described, the City sent you a bill and a citation. Rather than make the choice you did (to receive statements outside of the city) why didn't you simply avail yourself of your right to fight the City's contention in court?
The City had one point of view, you had another. You claim the City "granted (you) no leniency or reasonableness", but if you felt the city was wrong, why didn't you go to court and prove that? Why give the City a pass that way?
For all you know your case could have been the one that required the City to change their approach to organizations like yours. Don't you feel it was your responsibility as a good citizen to see that occurred?
Rather than whine about how the City "granted (you) no leniency or reasonableness" why not have the court require that the City do so? You have a constitutional right to a redress of your grievance.
Why would anyone voluntarily give up such a precious and indispensable right?
You now try to make this an argument challenging why I "voluntarily gave up such a precious and indispensible right" to spend thousands of dollars in court costs to not have to be forced to pay a business license tax when I could easily avoid such a tax at no cost to me.
The issue was your cop statement that businesses exhibit fraudulent activity if they open without a business license. Does this now mean you believe all resident associations in the city must get a business license? Are those resident committing fraud who are members of these resident associations? Shouldn't the city of Long Beach go after these fraudsters as vigorously as any other crime. C'mon, you are the cop. Give us all your cop version of how these thousands of resident association members should all be charged with a crime.
But "prosecution" is not "conviction". The City must still prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Green Nurse operators *could* have chosen to fight the closure notice in court and made the City prove it's case but, instead, it chose to close voluntarily. The City could still pursue a prosecution, I suppose, but I don't think it will.
Likewise YOU could have chosen to refuse to pay the bill and forced the City to take you to Court to press your own case but, like the Green Nurse, you chose another way.
*What I believe* is that we must, whenever possible, respect and abide by the rule of law. The City must and so must we. If the City errs in it's enforcement actions then that can and SHOULD be proved in Court, so that the City can be put on judicial notice that it's practices in that area are, themselves, unlawful or, at least, improper.
This is precisely how the rule of law is intended to work for all of us...not just the City and not just you or me.
Ignoring a law we do not like is just that, ignorance.
Declining or refusing to press our rightful case in Court solves no purpose other than to allow an agency or a jurisdiction to continue to impropoerly enforce its laws or to leave bad laws on the books if that is truly the case.
Nothing gets resolved and people like you keep whining.
Yip, thats constructive!
I've answered your question in several ways and many times. The City should actively enforce all of it's business licensing laws, regardless of the type of business. Is a resident association even considered a business? I really have no idea. Do you?
If our laws prove inapplicable to resident associations then that should be properly asserted in Court so that the City can be put on judicial notice of that fact and leave them be.
That is the answer I have given previously and that is the answer that you continue to ignore.
We're arguing on two completely different levels. You're entirely in the weeds and I'm looking at both the bigger picture (the rule of law) as well as how it applies, or should apply, in specific cases (like medpot operations).
I happen to think that we, as good citizens, should challenge government (including the City) often. It's supposed to be representing all of us as far as possible after all. But I think there are ways of challenging that are more effective and others that are less so.
So when you allege that the City has treated you unfairly or unjustly, a reasonable person must ask why you declined to avail yourself of your right to challenge that treatment on an official level. That you chose to not do so was just that, your choice. It doesn't make you a "bad guy", it just makes you, in my opinion, an ineffective whiner.
I think I should be a very great fool indeed to continue to attempt to debate this issue with you in any rational manner.
On this topic at least, it's long past time for me to leave you alone with your foolishness.
Good day, sir!