-
Website
http://thedistrictweekly.com/ -
Original page
http://thedistrictweekly.com/2009/daily/staff-infection/oooof-belmont-shore-fight-captured-on-youtube/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Oh and by the way, Officer Covarubias did report that four 2nd street businesses had been burglarized in the past couple weeks. Gene Rotono's Legends bar was one of the burglaries. This could be a positive. Maybe Belmont Shore can get more police at night now that Councilman DeLong's 2nd street business buddies are feeling the impact of having no police at night.
Videotaping will also have the awesome side effect of documenting what LBPD does in response when citizens report a crime!
In addition I think as many obvious personal identifying features of the individuals involved should be posted online to some kind of blog.
http://www.youtube.com/user/BSResident2009
Why must residents and their families be subjected to fights, vandalism, public urination, etc. in front of their homes and in their front yards? Councilman DeLong allows his 2nd street commercial property owner and Business Association buddies that don't live in our neighborhood do anything they want. Councilman DeLong has met with residents in the area and gives nothing but lip service. Meanwhile Councilman DeLong has sponsored and approved loans of public money, alcohol licenses, variances without public hearings and entertainment licenses for the biggest problem bars in Belmont Shore. Councilman DeLong is the problem. At any time he could ask the police to clamp down on his friends who are a scourge to our community. Yet, he chooses not to.
http://www.lbreport.com/news/may09/belcarj.htm
The crooks, fighters and vandals go where the cops aren’t. That’s in Belmont Shore. I wonder if a police report was filled out? After all, there was no crime unless a report was completed. Failing to fill out the crime report is the easiest way to keep the cities crime statistics low.
http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_12439480
Wait, let me take that back. Did you even read the article? It just sounds like you read the headline and jumpped to your own conclusions, as always.
I would also like to know how you plan on blaming Legends and the other bar owners for this one. Are you going to tell us that the bar owners hired the suspect to rob this woman just to take attention away from them. Come on Mike, think of something creative.
Oh wait, are you going to start up with your police corruption tirade again and your belief that Mr. Rotondo and Mr. DeLong are behind the whole thing.
Hey Mike, maybe the reason that the cops were not there to stop this crime is because they were busy giving someone a ticket for picking through your trash... again.
How would I know a police report was made? If detectives are investigating the crime, that is great. However, I can give you several DR#s provided by cops responding to crime in my neighborhood that were never reported by the police. I met with and gave six unreported DR#s to Commander Quach and told him the same thing. He promised to get back with me and didn’t despite numerous email inquiries. Why should I believe this one is being treated any different?
I wasn’t aware Councilman DeLong, Business Association President Rotondo or his Legends bar had anything to do with this kidnapping and attempted robbery. Can you provide information on their involvement?
You amaze me.
Now as far as your claims about Commander Quach not getting back to you, I would like to point out that Commander Quach has not been assigned to the East Division since November 2005. That was almost 4 years ago... So you might want to bring up something a bit more timely.
And just to let you know, if you are not an involved party to a crime (victim or suspect) law enforcement DOES NOT HAVE TO tell you or anyone else anything. There is a little thing called right to know and need to know. Just because you are nosey does not give you the right to know or the need to know anything.
A DR is a documented crime report, Mike. This means that the incident was "reported to the police". So to say that you can give us "several DR#s provided by cops responding to crime in my neighborhood that were never reported by the police" is to be factually inaccurate. Likewise it's not possible for you to give "gave six unreported DR#s to Commander Quach". As mentioned, DR's ARE reports.
Also, is it truly necessary to change a person's chosen pseudonym into an epithet for nor purpose other than to offer personal insult? What constructive purpose does that serve? Are you incapable of remaining civil and respectful in your discourse?
You are full of it. I have several DR#s where I was the victim and there was no police report filed. In fact, I have the report forms the cops gave me with their names on it. Three were by the same cop. I gave copies of those 6 DR#s to Commander Quach and never heard back from him.
In each case, I called in weeks after the DR# was given to me to find out the progress on the investigation. In EACH case, I was told the police had no record of the DR# I provided which was given to me by the police. You can talk all you want about how it should be. However, that is not what really happens in Long Beach.
DR# 010081169, Officer M. Gjersvold
DR# 04-40586, Officer S. Miller
DR# 050040468, Officer T. Cummings
DR# 07-88314, Oficer E. Fernandez
First: Whether or not Commander Quach got back to you on this has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the reports were filed. Commanders are busy people and they usually have staff to delegate such requests to.
Second: I don't know what "police person" you spoke with but if it wasn't someone in Records, you may well have been wasting your time.
Third: Despite that you have been little more than caustic and insulting with me throughout this discussion I'm going to try to assist you because that's my job and if you have filed DR's with LBPD you have a right to know they have been completed and what action, if any, has been taken on them.
So I want you to provide me with *every single DR* you have filed with us but have not been able to receive an answer about. List all of them here so that you can have proof that you have provided them to me. I'll let you know, also here, that I have seen the numbers and noted them for my research on your behalf.
When I get back from vacation (I'm out of State currently) I'm going to *personally* inquire about each of the listed DR's for you. When I have an answer on each I will likewise report it here...so that others will be aware that you have received your response.
Fourth: In the future...rather than bad mouthing individuals and groups over perceived slights and lack of response, try a little harder to keep a civil tongue and a constructive and respectful demeanor and simply asking another (like me) for assitance.
If you would but try this approach from time to time you might actually make some progress and receive the sort of service all residents have a right to expect and so well deserve.
I'll be waiting for your complete list of DR's.
You hold yourself out as being this all wise, all-knowing objective person. Yet in many cases, your opinions are self serving and hypocritical. As an example, I remind you of your recent argument that police union members should have the right to ratify a pay rate contract negotiated by your duly elected negotiating committee. However, the public should not have the same right to vote its approval on the same contract negotiated by our corrupt elected officials. Your argument is not objective. It is clearly self serving.
When you earn my respect, I will gladly accept your advice. Until then, I suggest you waste your energy granting advice on someone else. You’ve got the first four DR#s. I’ll dig up the other three.
That's fine. I'll allow your behavior and the manner in which you choose to deal with me to speak for itself and I can only hope that mine will do so also.
Others can draw their own conclusions accordingly.
Since you've been so very courteous and cooperative with me I've decided to put myself on the clock temporarily to assist you with your request. It concerned me greatly to learn that a member of our community was alleging that the reports related to several DR numbers issued some time ago may not have ever been filed and, as a supervisor, I felt it my duty to investigate this allegation and have now done so.
I contacted an LBPD Records Supervisor, by phone, in the course and scope of my employment, and asked for assistance in researching the DR's in question. The results are as follows:
01-81169, a report from 10-7-01, **was filed** and the documents exist in our Records system.
04-40586, a report from 5-18-04, **was filed** and the documents exist in our Records system.
05-40468, a report from 5-17-05, **was filed** and the documents exist in our Records system.
07-88314, a report from 11-8-07, **was filed** and the documents exist in our Records system.
All of this information is public record and public access and I confirmed it while on duty and in the course and scope of my employment to assist a resident of the City of Long Beach with a records confirmation challenge they were experiencing.
Nothing I have disclosed is in any way confidential or restricted information and my sole purpose and intent is to determine whether or not this persons allegation had any foundation in fact. My finding is that it did not.
Now, Mr. Ruehle, in the future, I would respectfully request that you avoid making unfounded allegations of this sort and that if you seek Records-related answers that you *start* by contacting the Department's Records and Technology Division and that if you do not receive the assistance you seek from the line employee, that you courteously ask to speak with a Records Supervisor who should be able to assist you far better than most anyone else in the Department on challenges of this sort.
I hope I have been able to assist you sufficiently with this matter.
It is my great hope that in the future you might avoid making allegations of this sort without sufficient facts to support them and likewise avoid your apparent habit of misinformation and erroneous assumptions.
As for me, on a personal level I'm now thoroughly and completely *done* with you.
Thank you for looking into each of these. Now I need to request the reports to find out if the city pursued prosecution. I doubt it since I was the victim and was not contacted by the City Prosecutor or District Attorney to be a witness. That’s what happened with vandalism, terrorist threats and battery that occurred four years ago with DR# 05-39115 and DR#05-40468. I was initially contacted by the city prosecutor but then never heard another word from the city.
DR#07-67718 was a burglary I witnessed. I again contacted the police on this matter a week afterwards and was told there was no record of that DR#. You have your inside contacts to check into things unavailable to us schlubs who only do what they are told by the police. It wasn’t only until afterwards when I complained to a friend who contacted a FBI buddy, did I get a call from a Long Beach Detective wanting to hear about the burglary I witnessed. If you don’t believe me, I suggest you talk to the Detective assigned the case. Its been almost two years since the police caught the burglars and released them without filling out a report. According to the Detective, the driver of the get-away van admitted to the crime. Yet, the city chose to not prosecute the burglars because of their huge backlog. That is what I was told a year ago.
The best part about it is that City Prosecutor Reeves had been a guest speaker at the resident’s association meeting that month where he urged residents to get involved with helping the cops keep the community free of crime. So what do I do? I interrupt a burglary in process, chase down the license of the van, and participate in a line up where four tatted-out gang members know who I am and where I live. Retaliation is a distinct possibility. What do I get out of being an involved citizen assisting the police? Nothing. No prosecution of the bad guys. All I did was put myself in harms way for no reason. Thanks for the wonderful advice Mr. Reeves.
Have faith Mike, it took a lowly Orange County alternative weekly (years)to bring down a corrupt elected official who was more powerful than anyone wrong beach has to offer up.
WARNING: This time it was an officer involved shooting, I have watched countless fights and will bet my house that the next one won't involve the police.
Should the residents who pay the most taxes recieve the least services? Apparently!
My second solution is that we, as residents, pull public records for bar owner residences and collectively vomit on their porches and the when we return to the Shore we pee inside their establishments. Occasionally when we see them during DAYLIGHT hours at their bars we yell at them as loud as we can and then just for fun we threaten them with physical violence.
Don't BS the BS residents. I love the comments from everyone not directly affected who have never been awakened by screaming/puking/pissing/fighting bar patrons.
Yes, we were aware that we bought homes near bars but in no way does that entitle patrons to disrespect our property and threaten our peace.
Every situation has a tipping point, where loading those last few not so heavy items on the pack mules' back, brings the mule to his knees. The residents have been the overburdened 'Pack Mule' too long. They also deserve better, they pay for the City Hall, Police and Fire party with their taxes, and a select few Bars presently appear to be reaping an unjust reward.
Savvy insiders state that this is all because the Councilman has chosen to look the other way for certain friends. Sadly. The onus is upon him, to prove otherwise. Do not hold your breath given the distain for certain Resident Associations.
Legal review shows a long history of Dram Shop rules, or an area of Law well designed to tame the Party a bit when it comes to ''Bars Gone Wild'' !!!
These last 6 licenses are a symptom of a longstanding, festering problem mixed with a 'all business is good' City and Councilman mindset recently. This problem has been demonstrably amplified by allowing the large bars to basically run themselves, ie, way beyond reasonableness?
A resident message needs to be sent and these video's are alarming to those who know this area well, over many decades.. In the 70s,80s and 90s, the Police were an ever present part of the 2nd Street Party. Nowadays, you rarely see them on Patrol, conducting field sobriety tests, walking a beat when actually needed, or cruising with their Probable Cause meters on.
We love the Police, but many observe far too many Police Cars at or around the East Division sub station. We are quoting a retired Commander, and a retired Asst Chief on this aspect. Of course they are not all in service, but it can look bad to some, especially when we recall a time when there was no sub station, and many of those patrol cars were rolling all of the time, everywhere.
A simple suggestion includes, Draft and circulate a simple Petition, among residents, to demand that City Staff draft and pass a 1 year curfew , at midnight, on a test basis. Shoot for 1000 signatures at first. This might take a mere 2 or 3 weeks of tabling at Community gatherings, in front of markets, at the Farmers Market, Churchs and at the Summer Concerts? The result will be a finding of fact for the policy makers. Do a for or against pole as you ask for the signatures too.
Stop playing Defense, continue to seize the march, and moves on Offense.
The Legal grounds arguably appear to be exigent circumstances which include Failure of the Bar Owners to conduct their business in a manner which is reasonable, or responsible to the adajacent community, failure to provide adequate perimeter security, creating an unsafe condition, and continued Nuisance, creating fear in the average resident, lack of Police manpower needed to adequately patrol the area in a manner proportionate to the level of civil disturbance, or to the reasonable expectaction of the residents right to the quiet enjoyment of their land or leasehold, failure to hear and respond to their resident representatives legitimate concerns, failure of City or Council Staff to adequately mitgate a range of continuing Nuisances and Negative impacts that result from their approvals to date, or the resultant Civil Disturbances occasioned by the cumulative, or aggregate affect of the permits which have issued, failure of the BSBA to adequately allow resident representation and concerns to be included in their meetings and policy making decisions, thus the Breach of Civil and Criminal Statutes, and Negligence with respect to the conduct of their affairs in view of the rights, obligations to, and duties required ,of/to and for the safety and well being of non bar residents and guests in this area..
There are many other reasons to initiate Civil actions with, plenty of prospective Plaintiff's, but these arguments, and continued Evidence collection, documentation, can lay the foundation for a much better situation for the average, law abiding aggrieved residents ..
Start by simply having Residents request a Midnight curfew. This will send a loud and clear message. Apparently, a preliminary survey, shows that about 9 out of 10 Homeowners love the idea. The rationale is as simple as, let us go to bed at a reasonable hour, and start your party earlier boys and girls. Let's simply start the Party earlier, and end it earlier. On a test basis.
The entire area is also pretty tired of being awakened by Motorcycles with no muffler awaking them between 230 and 3 AM, and the Civil disturbances have really gotten out of hand. For example, Police were famous for issuing No Muffler, no registration, no license, no insurance, no headlight, rabbit start, swerving, failure to yield to pedestrian, public intoxication, drunk and disorderly citations/arrests, and many other actions in the shore during the 60s,70s and 80s. Not really the case any more? Respect for every law needs to be re-prioritized as was the case under prior Councilpersons. It sets a tone, and sends a message.
Jan Hall, Doug Drummond and Frank Coronia would not tolerate this lawless, wild West atmosphere for a minute. Residents demand at least some bang for their buck, District 3 pays about 87% of this entire City's taxes, in the aggregate, business interests included. We also have heard enough excuses, unacceptable explanations and illogical , strained justifications. Bar Owners who routinely emptied scores of rowdy drunks onto the streets at 2AM, were dealt with at risk of their license.
Many recall how a squad car would be waiting for you after bar close, and everybody got 'checked out'.
The average resident need not be held hostage by a few Club Owners trying to squeeze every possible buck out of wreckless kids who do not have to work, or set the alarm clock to feed their kids or pay the mortgage.
There is a lot of precedent in other, more civilized, resident friendly towns to reign such messes in..
All these restrictions have to be is 'Reasonable'. Such license restrictions, are quite reasonable, and in the Public Interest.
Next, since our Police have manpower and staffing restrictions. They always claim that they are overstretched. Fine, we'll stpiulate to that. Stay deployed elsewhere. Since we cannot afford more Officers, and the level of Patrol has shrunken year by year, fine, the residents want to make your job a lot easier. We can reduce the cause for far too many crimes and calls for service with a simple Midnight Curfew Ordinace consisting of a few paragraphs and 5 votes.. The PD can help sponsor it citing economic necessity, lack of Officers, the need to respond elsewhere?.
Politically, ''Domestic tranquility ''and proper Law Enforcement should be the Councilman's first concern, if not, hold him Politically accountable. Add this refusal to listen, to the recall reasoning and discussions/planning
Also, the residents can study a request for Sheriff presence in the area by way of Open Letter to , say, Chief Baca? He taught LBPD an interesting lesson back in the 80's. He saved us a lot of money by taking over a nice piece of LBPD's jurisdiction. People are asking, what piece may be next?
Request an evaluation, and Study as to the cause and effect here. Request a cost estimate for the additional police presence required on a temporary basis? Propose it on a contract basis, and propose the bill the Club Owners or the City?.
Also, some disaffected neighborhoods can easily form a simple Citizen Patrol, which carries Radios, pepper spray/maze, baton's, and plastic handcuffs. This is an extension of the Neighborhood Watch program.
They wear helmets sometimes, have face shields, vests, etc. and they hire additional private security for back up during a study period. They call for service and then affect a Citizens Arrest on video tape, and also have their Attorney's press for the appropriate prosecution when needed..
The Media is kept in the loop all of the way along. It is known as the ''Guardian Angel's' approach. The citizen patrol gets to ID the people, write a report, gather Witness statements and use the information to press or assist in Civil Complaints too. ( Tresspass to land, Tresspass to property, larceny,negligence, violation of statute, failure to prosecute, Negligence in the enforcement of laws,etc.)
The effects of these Citizen Patrols, including answered and not answered calls for service, expediency to, or refusal to prosecute, and the reduction in crimes and torts are documented and compared for future reference. The crime rate always plummets, then the bargaining begins with City Hall, and the PD. The average business, and resident adores such do gooders, generally speaking, because it often helps them..-
The numbers also often form the basis of the Civil Action that usually ends up with Bar Owners agreeing to a range of concessions, and significant cash expenditures, and additional conditions upon their Licenses.
Assembling 5 or 6 fed up residents to begin the patrols, and investigations is fun, and easy.
And finally, maybe a few of the dozens of Police Cars stored or often parked in between deployments, at the East Division sub station, can park at the 2nd Street Fire Station, and have a few of the patrolmen hover around there during 2nd and 3rd shift? They can respond just fine from there? Try it on a test basis and give them a temporary, small, home base to try out. Let them do a little more foot patrol and a little more Probable Cause observation and ticketing?
The District 3 Field Office is empty at night, put 2 or 3 Cop Cars in front of it, Thursday through Sunday , let 3 or 4 Officers operate out of it, and deploy some men more often, after 9PM, simply to cruise, write fix it tickets, walk around the bars, cruise the alleys, etc.?
We ate dinner down in the Shore recently, and observed 10 citable offenses in about 15 minutes? Something is broken, and we need to think outside the box, and seek productivity solutions too.
Reporting the crimes and torts should not be deemed the problem, and many excuses or justifications are wearing painfully thin to the average, law abiding taxpayer, or visitor. We have drifted too far in the wrong direction. .
Deploying more desk cops, even if just for a few hours, might help. Tell them to write everything that they see, or hear about for a while, and bring a little law back into Dodge...please?.
Too many people simply do not feel safe down there anymore. What a shame.
This level of disquiet is unknown in neighboring Seal Beach, Los Alamitos, Sunset Beach, Bolsa Chica and Huntington Beach night spots? is it any wonder that we send our business there, as those few getting rich by appealing to the hard drinking, drug inclined lowest common demoninator overtax our Police, and Residents?
Legend's, a former Jock Bar, is now a defacto Biker Bar?
All of the above is what we are hearing a lot of these days?
Insiders know, that The Mayor, The Councilman and the PD could straighten this all out in a week. Sure a few Bar Owners would whine and moan, but they would get over it. Will they? Ask them.
Attempting to hang this solely on the laudable efforts of the Mike Ruehle's of this World, is pure spin and a convenient , unjustified, sophomoric, and arguably unlawful distraction from the facts, issues and Law which obtains.. The Residents clearly have paramount rights here too, and must continue to assert them.
You state: "We love the Police, but many observe far too many Police Cars at or around the East Division sub station. We are quoting a retired Commander, and a retired Asst Chief on this aspect. Of course they are not all in service, but it can look bad to some, especially when we recall a time when there was no sub station, and many of those patrol cars were rolling all of the time, everywhere."
I'm not sure who you're quoting but those active and retired personnel who are truly familiar with the East Police Station and the logistics of operating it will tell you that not "many" but "most" of the police cars parked at or around that facility are, in fact, not in service. Those that are, are most often present while their drivers are filing reports. Doing so there keeps them in the East Division, rather than downtown, at the Public Safety Building. This, I think, is preferable. It may "look bad to some" but there simply is no place else for these cars to be parked since their facility is far too small too properly accommodate all of the vehicles assigned to it. If you recall a time before an East Division, then you should also recall a time when those cars were simply parked downtown...rather than out east...and, so, no more were "rolling all the time" then than they are now.
Curfews are all well and good...for children and during declared states of emergency. But if you impose operating conditions upon bars on 2nd Street that are different from those elsewhere in the city, then you will quite likely kill those businesses on 2nd Street that are being impacted by such (they are certain to argue) blatantly discriminatory practices, because patrons will most likely provide their custom elsewhere, rather than have to "end their party earlier" or agree to start on 2nd Street and then re-locate later. Perhaps in the minds of area residents this would not necessarily be a bad thing. But it is discriminatory nonetheless and the City would likely see many lawsuits of a different sort, as business owners decided to seek civil remedy for being treated differently from those in all other areas of the city.
If you want "respect for law re-prioritized" then you should start by re-prioritizing law enforcement and those charged with that duty. This requires a re-prioritizing of budgeting to finance the hiring of additional cops. Divisional staffing levels are set according to many factors and given the finite (and, I might add, already below average number of cops overall), hard choices must, and are, made about where to deploy them. *Each* Division is short on cops and none can be spared from any of the other Divisions to permanently re-assign them to East. Temporary task forces of extra cops borrowed from other duties can be mounted and this might be one reasonable, albeit temporary, solution to get more cops to 2nd Street for time.
You seem to feel that police personnel should be assigned according to who pays the highest percentage of taxes. This smacks of elitism and aristocracy. By your standard and according to your (uncorroborated) tax figures, East Division should be assigned about 870 of our 1000 cops and the rest of the City should have to make do with the remaining 130. This cannot truly sound realistic to you...can it? Quality of Life issues like those along 2nd Street are extremely important, granted, but so are the those same issues elsewhere throughout the City...not to mention all of the other issues that 2nd Street does not see or does not see at nearly the level of other areas throughout the City. I get that loud mufflers and drunken fights are intolerable for you. But so are the rapes and murders, the gang shootings and robberies and shootings and child abuse and domestic violence that are being experienced elsewhere in the City every single night.
Sheriff Baca was not in office when LBPD became so short staffed, through mismanagement and natural attrition, that it could not possibly continue to handle all of the City and, so, the City resorted to contracting with LASO temporarily. Thus, Sheriff Baca didn't save the City any money. Nor did Sheriff Block and the eventual decision to end the temporary contract with LASO and return policing the entire city to its own Police Department was the correct and most fiscally sound one.
The Guardian Angels have proved to be a huge success over many years and in many countries and Founder Curtis Sliwa is to be commended for birthing the concept and seeing it through. But the City can neither endorse nor assist such volunteer "citizen patrol programs" because the moment it does it assumes responsibility for them and would quickly be added to each and every lawsuit (and they would be manifold) filed against such volunteer patrols...still more money that the City does not have, paid out in damages.
If the BSBA and BSRA could better work and play well together they might consider cooperating on a project like that successfully modeled by another city neighborhood organization, the Magnolia Industrial Group, which was the first such private coalition to be permitted to tax itself and then use those subsidies to finance, among other things, Private Security Patrols within it's area of influence. This model, founded in 1993, proved hugely successful but it can only work when the stakeholders involved can cooperate well with one another...an ability not currently demonstrated by either the BSRA or BSBA.
A Police Storefront facility is a fine idea, but it should not be co-located at a Fire Station (which hardly has room for its own operations) or in a Council Field Office. Storefronts in challenged communities have proved to be fine methods for staging services and personnel into a specific area. Unfortunately LBPD has had to close those few it once had due to budget constraints. Perhaps the BSBA and BSRA could join together and make a donation to the Long Beach Police Foundation of a storefront on 2nd Street for this purpose as well as the total costs to operate, operate from and staff such a facility? How about it folks...care to cooperate for a change for the benefit of all concerned? How’s that for "think(ing) outside the box, and seek(ing) productivity solutions too."?
Those very few desk positions in LBPD that used to exist have long since been either eliminated or civilianized, again as a cost-saving measure. Occasionally a sworn officer will be assigned to a desk while recovering from an injury, but such officers could not be placed in the field (otherwise that's where'd they'd already be) and so cannot assist us here.
"Insiders"...those with half a clue anyway...understand that unless and until the entire community re-assesses its own priorities as regards to public safety and then makes those priorities sufficiently clear to our elected officials, if not through unequivocal communication then, just as effectively, at the ballot box, our elected officials will not change the manner in which they currently legislate and budget.
In a Constitutional Republic, all *rights* are important and all *concerns* are valid. But as long as our budget is finite...and it always will be so...we *must* prioritize how we apply our limited funds and other resources to the myriad challenges throughout our community, including those along 2nd Street.
If you want a greater police presence along 2nd Street, you can either authorize the hiring of more cops or you can re-assign the ones we have. If they're to be re-assigned, be sure you let the Mayor, Council, City Manager and Chief of Police know precisely which neighborhoods elsewhere in the City you feel those funds and those cops should be removed from.
Surely those other neighborhoods will understand...
I worked my way through school at a restaurant 40 years ago on 2nd Street; the kind of garbage that goes on today would never fly back then. In fact, when we used to go to "Big Johns" (now yankee doodles) to shoot pool, they even had a huge off-duty LB cop ("Big Bob") working Friday/Saturday nights to ensure the peace. You didn't mess around because there were police watching. Now I would feel more safe on the 710 freeway than 2nd St.after 9 pm.
Sounds like you feel BS residents have no need or right to timely police patrols. Are you speaking for the chief when you casually dismiss such a serious situation? If the chief approves all these licenses shouldn't he at least monitor the situation? Or is their no opportunity for a photo-op at 2:30 am on a Saturday/Sunday morning?
Patrol Officers are assigned to Beats (geographic sectors) and there is, contrary to your assertion, at least one such Beat officer assigned to THAT Beat after 2am. Could more be assigned...perhaps...but sincer the number of available patrol officers is finite...to assign additional officers to THAT Beat means to take them from another or others. Are you prepared to select which Beats are to be left empty of ANY cops so that yours can have more?
I apologize for no one but myself. But before criticizing Chief Batts for the manner in which he runs his Department, I would strongly encourage you to learn just a little bit more about the challenges, difficulties and limitations of providing police service to almost half a million residents and many thousands of businesses and visitors across 50 square miles, 24/7 before you presume to know how it might be done better.
"Big Bob" was, as you say...off duty while working at "Big John's". Big John's hired him part time. He was not working as a cop but as a bouncer for a business. I'm sure there are many cops that wouldn't mind working off duty for any of the bars along 2nd Street were it not prohibited for them to do so. The potential conflict of interest in such an arrangement is huge, as you can imagine, and so it would be a rare cop indeed that would ever receive approval for such part time work. This does not, however, preclude these bars from hiring additional (non-cop) bouncers of their own or pooling their resources and hiring a Private Security Company and that might very well be a good answer to this on-going challenge.
BS residents have a right to expect the same excellent service that every other neighborhood in our community has a right to expect. I speak for no one but myself and I have made that clear many times now. The Chief did not "approve" these licenses. He monitors what he can, as well as he can, with the resoures he is given.
If you want more police...provide the additional funds to the Police Department that are neceesary to hire train and deploy more cops.
#2 - The situation on Pine Street is a bit different as the overtime is paid through the DLBA and other funding sources. It does not come out of the general fund.
I love the way that you blame the police overtime on the downtown bars and not on the shootings and homicides that happened throughout the city in non-alcohol business related areas.
You stated that you cannot count the number of high speed DUI car wrecks that have damaged your neighbors parked cars... why not? Come on, give us a number... oh that is right, just like Mr. Ruehle you do not want to speak in specifics because if you do you may be proven wrong.
I would like you to share with everyone where you get the information that police overtime from alcohol related crime enforcement is in the millions. DUI checkpoints are usually conducted on grant funds and once again do not come out of the general fund. If you believe that alcohol is the root of all evil, then move to Utah... or better yet, just move away from the Shore... You had to have known that there were bars in the area when you moved in.
residential streets. Your comment "You had to have known that there were bars in the area when you moved in." is false logic....Gee see how you whine that we will not accept this behavior on our front yard? Bar owners will not accept peeing,vomitting, fighting in their establishments,but its OK on our public streets and private lawns?
#1 Shoremeup it you who have got the facts wrong, again.
What I said was that the cty council votes to issue alcohol and entertainment permits based on recommendations by the police department. The police department heavily influences the decisions of both the city council and the ABC. Despite the fact that there were already at least 50
alcohol permits(much more than recommended by guidelines), high crime, no parking and close proximity to homes, the Long Beach police recommended the issuance of 6 more alcoholpermits plus entertainment, extended hours
uses in Belmont Shore in 3 years.
If alcohol is such a none issue, why is the substance regulated by the Feds, State, City?
For an example of the police departments influence:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS 3229 E. Anaheim St. Case No. 0804-25 June 5, 2008 Pursuant to Section 21.25.206 of the Long Beach Municipal Code, a Conditional Use Permit can be granted only when positive findings are made consistent with the following criteria set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. ...consistent with all zoning regulations of the CCA district, as the on-site sale of alcoholic beverages is allowed through the Conditional Use Permit process in this district. 2. THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY INCLUDING PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, GENERAL WELFARE, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OR QUALITY OF LIFE; AND The proposed use will not be detrimental to the surrounding community. The restaurant on the site has an existing Type 47 license from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). ABC has reported to City Staff that the site has no current disciplinary action, no history of disciplinary action, and no holds. The Long Beach Police Department also has reported no history of specific alcohol-related nuisances at this location. The restaurant is located on a major commercial corridor and is nearly 300 feet from the nearest residential zone, which is south of the lots on the opposite side of Anaheim Street. Furthermore, due to the small size of the proposed bar (plans indicate only 6 bar stools), Staff does not foresee the potential for this bar to become a nuisance to the surrounding area.
THE APPROVAL IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR THE USE ENUMERATED IN CHAPTER 21.52. Section 21.52.210 states that the following conditions shall apply to all alcoholic beverage sales uses requiring a conditional use permit: A. The operator of the use shall provide parking for the use equivalent to the parking required for new construction regardless of the status of the previous use as to legal nonconforming rights; The site has 33 parking spaces. A restaurant requires 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet of dining area, and a bar requires 20 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area. Staff calculated parking requirements using the most conservative measurement of floor area possible: approximately 1,847 square feet of dining area and 285 square feet of bar area. This gives a parking requirement of 25 spaces. Since the site provides 33 spaces, the existing onsite parking is more than sufficient for this project. B. The operator of the use shall provide night lighting and other security measures to the satisfaction of the chief of police; The application has been reviewed by the Long Beach Police Department, and the Police Department has made no specific recommendations for this site. Conditions of Approval #25 and 29 will require the operator to provide any necessary security measures to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police and the Director of Development Services. C. The operator of the use shall prevent loitering or other activity in the parking lot that would be a nuisance to adjacent uses and/or residential neighborhoods; Condition of Approval #25 will require the operator to prevent loitering and other related nuisances. D. The use shall not be in a reporting district with more than the recommended maximum concentration of the applicable on or off premises sales use, as recommended by the state of California alcoholic beverage control board, nor with a high crime rate as reported by the Long Beach police department, except (1) locations in the greater downtown area; or (2) stores of more than twenty thousand (20,000) square feet 'floor area, and also providing fresh fruit, vegetables and meat, in addition to canned goods; and Staff consulted with the Vice Investigations Section of the Long Beach Police Department to obtain this information. The site is not in a reporting district
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4
Conditional Use Permit Findings Exhibit C Case No. 0804-25 June 5,2008 Page 3 of 3 with more than the recommended concentration for on-site alcohol sales. In this district, 5 licenses are allowed, and 3 (including the license the restaurant currently possesses) are active. However, this site is in a district with a high crime rate. The site is located in reporting district 512, which has a crime average of 202, which is over the citywide high crime average of 198. The high crime average is calculated by dividing the total number of crimes and arrests citywide by the number of crime reporting districts, and multiplying by 120 percent. Staff asks the Planning Commission to waive the section of this finding pertaining to the high crime rate because Staff does not believe that approval of this CUP has the potential to be detrimental to the surrounding area or the City as a whole. The restaurant already has a Type 47 license for on-site sales of beer, wine, and distilled spirits obtained through a Conditional Use Permit Exemption (CUPEx 05-70). The Type 47 license would remain valid at the restaurant regardless of the approval or denial of this subject permit. The applicant has operated the restaurant without generating a nuisance to the surrounding area, and has no history of alcohol-related problems at this site. E. The use shall not be located within 'five hundred feet (500 ') of a public school, or public park, except (1) locations in the greater downtown area; or (2) stores of more than twenty thousand (20,000) square feet of floor area, and also providing fresh fruit, vegetables and meat in addition to canned goods. The restaurant on the subject site is not located within 500 feet of a public school or public park.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 5
Exhibit 0 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 3229 E. Anaheim St. Case No. 0804-25 June 5, 2008 1. The use permitted on the subject site, in addition to the other uses permitted in the CCA zoning district, shall be a full bar with on-site sales of beer, wine, and distilled spirits at an existing restaurant. 2. This permit and all development rights hereunder shall terminate one year from the effective date of this permit unless construction is commenced or a time extension is granted, based on a written and approved request submitted prior to the expiration of the one year period as provided in Section 21.21.406 of the Long Beach Municipal Code. 3. This permit shall be invalid if the owner(s) and/or applicant(s) have failed to return written acknowledgment of their acceptance of the conditions of approval on the Conditions of Approval Acknowledgment Form supplied by the Planning Bureau. This acknowledgment must be submitted within 30 days from the effective date of approval (final action date or, if in the appealable area of the Coastal Zone, 21 days after the local final action date). Special Conditions: 4. A minimum of 25 parking spaces shall be maintained on the site solely for restaurant parking. 5. The garbage and refuse area behind the restaurant building shall be kept closed at all times except as needed for trash disposal. The trash receptacle shall be kept within this enclosure at all times. The enclosure shall be locked if necessary to prevent dumping or vandalism. 6. The applicant shall install illuminated address numbers on the Anaheim Street frontage of the building. The numbers shall be a minimum of 1 foot tall, and shall be internally illuminated or halo-lit. Floodlight or spotlight illumination of address numbers shall be prohibited. 7. The applicant shall paint the building address number in 4' strokes on the building rooftop for police air support identification. 8. The exterior windows into the restaurant shall be maintained in a clear and transparent state, with notint, no signage in excess of 10% of each window area, or posters, boxes or other materials.
#2 "Paid throught the DLBA and other funding source" is that the $1.3 million dollars gotten from the parking meter money (which used to go to public works to repair roadways), or advertising, endorsements, or special event business fees. Noticed that the DLBA voted again not to increase their contribution(right after all the parking meter money was taken out of the general fund for their use). How about all the low interest business loans given to DLBA members which are never paid back (forgiven by the City).
I never mentioned any City of DUI checkpoints just drunks broadsiding our cars. (the cops refuse to come out or file police reports unless someone is injured)
The recommendation to approve (which is all LBPD can do is recommend) the lawful sale of alcoholic beverages in no way encourages or condones unlawful conduct or behavior. By the way, it's not unlawful to be drunk...at least not yet...it is only unlawful to be drunk in a public place or in public view.
Thus your condemnation of LBPD for recommending the initial approval of a lawful business is missplaced. Your ire should be directed at those who violate applicable local and State laws. When such establishments themselves become nuisances or consistently operate in violation of these laws, then LBPD is right there with everyone else in supporting efforts to have abused licenses pulled and offending businesses closed. LBPD has been engaged in many such actions over the years and will no doubt continue to be so in the future.
LBPD does not control the number of public parking spaces available in the City. That is the purview of the City Traffic Engineer.
LBPD does not control the amount of overtime that is available to them. That Department, like all others in the City, has a budget established by the City Manager and approved by the Council and if you have an issue with the City's budget you should take that up with the people responsible for writing and approving it.
The Police Department is charged with enforcing the laws and maintaining the public peace and does not create or help to create public safety challenges so that it can then receive additional funds to combat them. This belief is nonsense of the highest order. LBPD does the very best it can with the resources, personnel and funds made available to it.
I never said that only residents should shoulder the burden of the costs for policing. Taxpayers should so so...which includes taxpaying *businesses*. If not taxpaying residents and businesses, then who? Government, of which law enforcement is rightly a part, is rightly funded by those within that governments jurisdiction. This is accomplished through taxes and fees.
Do you have a better way?
The City, Mayor, Councilman and Police Department ignored the concerns of residents approved the permits and continue to refuse to acknowledge the problem or provide increase policing.
Your comment that "When such establishments themselves become nuisances or consistently operate in violation of these laws, then LBPD is right there with everyone else in supporting efforts to have abused licenses pulled and offending businesses closed.", are you suggesting that Legends, Belmont Station, AI, and Shannon's be closed? I am sure that residents can draft a petition which will help Long Beach Police will shut these drunken dives down.
Why don't you do something to improve the problem ? Greet step up and help us residents instead of writing long windy posts on how government should operate. You seem to think you have a lot of expertise in police matters, or are you too busy writing PR for Bates or the Chamber of Commerce.
Contrary to popular belief LBPD has no crystal ball and can only operate upon the information it is provided at any given time. We don't have a Future Crimes Unit that can take enforcement action against individuals or entities, or refuse to approve licenses or conditions, based upon crimes or nuisances that have not yet occurred.
Every time a call for service on 2nd Street results in a response from Units from other assigned Beats or Areas, the Shore gets increased policing. Every time a Transit Enforcement Unit, MET Team Unit, Marine Bike Patrol Unit, Detective Unit, Traffic or Parking Enforcement Unit, Supervisor or any other specialized Unit drives along 2nd Street, the Shore gets increased policing.
I suggest that no lawful business be closed (on 2nd Street or otherwise) unless and until a complete nuisance abatement project is conducted and concluded and until the consensus among all Departments and other stakeholders involved in the investigation is that such a business in fact be closed. I've seen many such closures in my career but I'm not aware of any nuisance abatement actions in progress against any of the businesses you have mentioned.
Every single day that I report to work I try to "do something to improve the problem"...many problems...more problems than only those reported in the Shore or along 2nd Street. Long Beach is a very large place with many problems, large and small, and my responsibilities have a bit larger scope than just one area of one neighborhood.
This is not to say that the issues expressed here are not valid or important...they are both...and I am doing what I can to assist...but there are other problems too, sunshine, and they deserve at least equal time.
I have a lot of *experience* in police matters. I'll leave an assessment of my *expertise*, or lack thereof, for others far more qualified than myself to consider.
I've offered some suggestions to mitigate this challenge that I feel to be at once reasonable and valid. There may be others and I hope that some or all of them are attempted.
I believe that the best answer will be one that is multi-facted, multi-disciplinary and highly cooperative. No one City Department can solve it just as no single residents or business organization can do so. The best answer will involve everyone in partnership.
I will hope it can be so.
Belmont Shore residents want the city to take action to prevent 2am pissing, fighting, loud obnoxious drunks vomiting up in our neighborhood. We are requesting that the Police Department proceed with a "nuisance abatement action" to correction the situation. "Hoping it can be so" from a cop is pathetic.
The Mayor, Councilman, City Manager, Police Department have REFUSED to help the Belmont Shore Residents Association resolve the problem.
The Belmont Shore Business Association (run by a bar owner) has refused to work with the residents and misuses the Belmont Shore Parking Commission for its own profit.
The Long Beach Police Department has recommended an unlimited number of alcohol permits and 2 am operating hours next to Belmont Shore residential homes then refuses to take responsibility or protect us from the nuisance created and reduction in our quality of life.
Home videos of fighting, peeing, guns, etc. are instead discounted by the police as false requests for service. Is your department going to claim next that concerned residents hired actors to fake the Belmont Shore drunken fights in the videos.
Greet your comment "I believe that the best answer will be one that is multi-facted, multi-disciplinary and highly cooperative. No one City Department can solve it just as no single residents or business organization can do so. The best answer will involve everyone in partnership." is a total COP OUT given the lack of support from either the business community or the city.
Have you ever thought about running for City Council?
"You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest.
"Instead," President Obama said, "I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism."
I agree that Greet has every right to use the American Eagle as his avatar and I have every right to question his motives using this symbol. What is important it that we all are speaking out and discussing important Long Beach issues.
Sorry officer hunt, you're never going to get it. greet, well that goes without saying, you shameless apologistic panting puppy dog.
PS: just what we need -- The Acapulco Inn has installed a garage door that opens a whole wall of the place to the street, so its noise, brawls and drunks can spill out into the neighborhood with even with more ease. Thanks. Wondering where the owners live, would like to go puke on *their* lawn.
This DISTURBING audio/video is what residents who live behind 2nd street bars frequently put up with. A total of over 10 minutes was recorded of this 30 minute fight that occurred at 2:00 – 2:30 am on April 17, 2009. This bar fight between 12 – 15 people carried over to the front yard of a family with two small children living behind Legends Bar. At one point, three people were fighting over a gun. If the video appears dark, it is because it was recorded at night from behind the terrified family’s security door.
No less than six phone calls were made to the police department. Not one police car showed up during the entire duration of the fight. Furthermore, the Mayor was too busy the following week to view the video. His office gave the same old "we have limited resources" argument.
Residents living behind Legends Bar are particularly frustrated with the lack of city support for their problem. They have met with Legends Bar Owner and Business Association President Gene Rotondo to no avail. They also have met with Commander Renaud and Councilman DeLong. However, little has changed. Based upon the emails I receive as President of the Residents Association, if anything, the problem is getting worse.
According to the police department’s report to the Business Association meeting, and contrary to what Ms. Griley says, almost all of the public disturbances are being caused by people who don’t live in the area. Ironically, this report was made during the Business Association meeting in Legends and counters Mr. Rotondo’s similar claim that the problems stem from residents. This groups wasn’t residents. They were thugs from somewhere else.
Imagine how you would feel if you had small children in your house and there were intoxicated bar patrons fighting over a gun in your front yard. It is probably a matter of time before a shooting or murder takes place. Hopefully, it won’t be an innocent bystander or someone’s child sleeping in their bedroom.
Let's be real here. I was on the street for this fight. There was no gun. Stop scaring people with bullshit.
If you listen carefully to the beginning of the video, you will hear people in the fight yell "gun." What is the family in the house whose yard you were fighting in supposed to think when they hear 12 - 16 people fighting in their yard all of a sudden start screaming about a gun? What was the lady supposed to tell her two small children?
Based upon this type of law enforcement performance, I’m going to have a hard time supporting the current police lawsuit against the city to be paid for money they are owed for the time it takes to put on their uniforms. Is it possible they didn’t show up because they were busy stretching out the time it takes to put on their uniforms? Maybe the LA County Sheriff’s Department would show up in such a situation.
I agree with you. The city does not assess bars and restaurants enough in business license taxes to pay for all of the police services they require to protect the community from their intoxicated patrons. It sounds like a novel idea to create a policing assessment tax to make sure there are enough cops to address situations like we have in Belmont Shore.
Why do residents have to come up with ideas and not the police. Isn't that their job?
Some things never change in wrong beach.
To add insult to injury, saltzgiver broke his arm patting himself on his back for beating the rag on a story. The grunion gazette, p.r.light! What a joke.
Without exception, every time I have called the police in LB I have had a response time of less than five minutes! I support LBPD and would never welcome the Sherrifs to LB instead.
Do you not know that City staff reports to the City Manager, not elected officials? Neither the Mayor nor Councilpeople can direct the Police or Fire or Public Works, etc., to DO anything. They have to work thru the City Manager.
If you are upset with anyone, it should be Chief Batts or City Manager West.
A Councilman with integrity could put a stop to the nonsense in Belmont Shore in a heartbeat. The key characters (me included) should all be called into one meeting chaired by the Councilman to discuss and agree on the rules going forward. That has not occurred to date. What has occurred is Councilman DeLong’s repeated attempts to shut down my newsletter from reporting to residents the craziness going on in our neighborhood. Rather than fix the problems, Councilman DeLong wishes for me to stop talking about the problems. That only makes it worse. A Councilman with integrity would choose to address the problems rather than punish the people impacted by the problems.
In a situation like this, I feel like we should absolutely let our Mayor and our council representatives know how we feel about things like late-night fights on Second Street. They may not do anything; they may not be able to--but we need to get this stuff on the record, as they say in court. Otherwise, no one even knows that we care.
I agree with you that these type of problems, and others, should be brought to the attention of our elected officials. However, it is likely that DeLong has requested a beat cop from Chief Batts and has been told "no funding available", which is what he passes on to the residents. My point was that no Councilperson can direct the Chief to add 1 (or 2 or 3 or ???) more police officers to a specific area.
Also, although I agree that more police presence should be provided in the Shore, the Chief may be thinking "do I take officers away from the west side where people are being murdered to spend more time in the Shore".
There must be an answer, but it isn't an easy one.
But you're right, this stuff should be on the record. The more calls for service, the more likely additional law enforcement will be provided.
Does anyone seriously think that residents wait at home until the late night happy hour starts so they can go get totally trashed and start fights? This is a scary element from outside our area. To get a feel for it, just walk down 2nd street at 11:00 on any Friday or Saturday night. That will give you a good feel for the type of clientele that the bars are going after.
The dispatch center's calls that night should be reviewed publicly.
There always has been a chronic problem with the dispatch center.
There are to many that are not properly trained.
Set up a routine with a set procedure.
When call is placed another person will scoot down to Bob Foster's home in Naples.
if LBPD has not arrived by the time the designated person has arrived at Foster's
home;knock at his door;hand him the cell phone let him talk to the dispatcher.
Also anytime the phone is answered when you have called in such cases;if the
person that you are talking with has not confirmed the car is on the way in 10 seconds.
ask to be connected to their supervisor.If the person can not grasp the details within
10 seconds-you are talking with the wrong person.
In to many cases many of the people think they are writing a novel and would
spend three minuets getting useless information.What you need is the car to roll.
We should also consider,given the frequency of the problems.of perhaps bringing
the Fire Department in with water cannons.Posting notices in all the bars that the
unruly can expect to be hosed down in such situations-no questions asked.
This incident also raises the specter of dispatchers erasing or not recording calls for service from residents. I know I’ve had that problem several times in the past, especially if there is some other serious incident going on somewhere else. Several times I have called in to dispatch and then called in again an hour later and the dispatcher claims to have no record of my first call. Funny how that works.
What I tell people who call for police service is to note the date and time and ASK THE DISPATCHER FOR THE “CALL NUMBER.” That seems to work out much better to make sure police actually get dispatched.
James supported Foster..though most of the professionals in LBPD supported Drummond.
As to term limits;the flip side is a lifetime Uranaga or Lowenthall!!!
I don't want a lifetime of anybody for fear of that old adadge about absolute power corrupting absolutely. My suggestion for discussion purposes would be to allow 2(?) consecutive terms follwed by 1(?) term off. This would help to balance things at least a little. No third consecutive terms would be allowed, PERIOD! If we find that we have replaced a good councilperson/mayor with a turd, we could put the good one back in office after a one term absence. If the "replacement" is good, then he/she would likely be elected to a second term after which the "original" can run again (for 1 or 2 terms). Of course anybody from that district could challenge at every election.
I find it abhorant that our current term limits is a LIFETIME PROHIBITION from ever being able to run for council again as named candidate on a ballot. It doesn't if you have been off the council for 20 years, you still have to run as a write-in. It doesn't matter if you have been off the council for 4 or more years and now live in another district and you want to run in your new district, you still have to run as a write-in. "We" have deprived ourselves of a lot of sharp, dedicated talent. Gullible sheep, that's what "we" are.
That is how we came to have term limits as they now exist and that is how the Utility Users Tax was reduced.
I'm not "married" to the parameters that I threw out; I do believe they are a good starting point for an open and honest discussion. Other points of are welcome, even those of that brilliant legal scholar, Mr. Goodhue.
There is total agreement relative to the character and integrity of Tom Clark.
If we had Clark,Drummond and the "Duck" back on the Council we would not
be in the mess we are in now.
Point in fact:once the De Long recall engine moves into first gear with the
numbers sufficient for recall;the plan would be to use that as a base to re-call
the equally dis connected Foster.
Slowly,but surely the public has come to realize the downside of electing to
office those whose only connection to a community is their checkbook--
especially those who have never served in public office.Clearly those two
are the poster boys for what not to elect.
In terms of replacement for Foster:in my view-the"Duck" would be a
natural for the job;he has the business savvy,appreciation for and understanding of the institutional history of the City;the right DNA;
he is clearly a leader.(Full disclosure:the only thing he did-which-in my
view was out of character(and we have all been there at one time or
another is some manner or form)was his manifest objection to re-appointing
the good Mr. Murchison Sr. to the Harbor Commission;who had served the
Commission and Community with distinction.That what clearly not a shinning
moment.)
is getting there.
Note LB Report posted today.
Residents are now collecting their own videos of the BS that goes on. When (not if) someone gets seriously hurt, I hope these videos are used to sue the crap out of the city for allowing this situation to occur and their negligence in not supplying police support in an increasingly dangerous neighborhood.
Sounds like a great idea.
Tonight’s answers to resident’s questions surrounding the police non-response on the night of April 17th should prove interesting. Even more so since I am now being told by residents that a police car did briefly arrive on the scene that night. However, upon viewing the on-going fight, the police car backed up and drove away without doing anything.
But I chose to live here expecting this.
When did Lucille's, Panama Joe's, Legends, Belmont Station and Shannon's (and Ripples and Yankee Doodle's) get their full liquor licenses?
How about Acapulco Inn, Taco Surf, Super Mex, Riley's, Japengo, George's, Open Sesame, Open Sesame, Sushisaurus, Phuket, the Indian place, Sunnin, Magic Lamp, Zen, Creperie, Bono's, Dominico's, Rubio's, Z Pizza, Upper Crust Pizza, (just off the top of my head)... when did all these and more get their beer/wine/sake licenses?
If a business on the street is not ice cream/yogurt or coffee they serve alcohol. In a half mile I count 25+ businesses to get drunk. I'm not indicting all these restaurants as causing or adding to the problems, but point out that, unless otherwise noted, as far as I can tell
***they were here before you***
You chose to move nearby a strip of bars and restaurants. Just like the people who chose to move next to my old college, then complained about noise from the students.
There is a reasonable expectation of some noise, traffic, non-local people, crowds, etc on 2nd St because people want to be there, just as you do. To qualify that its "those type of people" who were causing the problem, not locals is backwards. No one would come if not for the abundance of choices of alcohol, clothes, coffee and frozen dairy desserts.
I do agree 100% that its gotten asinine on 2nd St. Liquor licenses should be revoked by the State if LB or BSBA can't get this under control.
go get drunk. just don't be an a-hole.
Every time you turn around, Councilman DeLong is approving another alcohol license in his attempt to turn Belmont Shore into an entertainment district similar to Pine Avenue. If he had his way, all Belmont Shore homes would be converted to parking lots for his 2nd street commercial property owner friends and campaign contributors.
Besides his developers and commercial property owner buddies, Councilman DeLong also cares about sales tax revenue. He knows the city gets more sales tax revenue from bars and restaurants than retail stores. So he supports his commercial property owner buddies who also get more rent from their bar and restaurant tenants than retail store tenants.
However, they don’t factor in the increased cost of police support when they convert all of these retail stores to bars and restaurants. Pine Avenue is a prime example. Now that Pine Avenue is officially an entertainment district, look at how much they are spending downtown on police services. The police are everywhere downtown. I question whether the increased police expense is offset by the increased sales tax generated. If not, then all they are doing is destroying our city for the benefit of people who may not live in Long Beach.
6 - Original new alcohol licenses
5 – Alcohol license transfers.
2 – Entertainment licenses.
Also, weren't the Entertainment licenses transfers? There haven't been any new licenses . . .
Or should I say HELLO COUNCILMAN DELONG.
Last month I asked frequent blogger and DeLong defender PatBryant what his relationship was with Councilman DeLong because it was uncanny how they used the same phrases and terminology all the time and knew things only Tom Dean could have told him. Almost sounded like the same person. Then POOF. No more PatBryant. Not a single blog in weeks.
Now coincidentally, we have Jacki4LB who just surfaced and again uses the same phrases and terminology in his blogs as Councilman DeLong. Again, how uncanny that Jacki4LB and Councilman DeLong sound so much alike. Maybe its time for another POOF disappearing act?
Aroma di Roma (beer & wine)
Lucilles (hard alcohol)
Belmont Brewery (hard alcohol)
Majic Lamp (beer & wine)
Olives (beer & wine)
Open Sesame (beer & wine)
Don't believe me, check the ABC license origination dates.
Maybe there's a generational gap at work here. You may well be enough younger than I so that there is no "right" or "wrong" in your world; everything is just some hazy "relative" shade of gray in value. What a sad commentary on life in America.
I have some faith left that history will repeat itself and that when the Bandini really hits the Air Circulating Device, the owners of the worst offending establishments will either "shape up" or be put out of business. Let's hope it doesn't take a loss of life to get there. A SAFE STREETS NOW action should be a good start.
This is purely a failing of the Council Office and the Police and the Bar operators.
The 2 previous Councilmen, and councilwoman would have never allowed this growing problem to reach this point. They always keep a comfortable lid on this situation? There was always a Police presence too as the bars emptied or as the crowds grew. This has vanished during recent years and this is not a funding issue..
We have had nearly 3 years of the Councilman looking the other way for key business buddies in this area, while ignoring the residents paramount right to the Quiet Enjoyment of their land.
Also, a 'Hands Off' atmosphere has been fostered by City Hall and Police who have had little or no direction from the Councilman here. He could stop this growing problem easily, but he would never be perceived as even slightly anti business amongst his 'deregulate business' , 'business at all costs' friends?
This pattern is outrageous and is yet another reason to find a better Councilperson who values resident concerns first, and who cares even remotely about the District at large. Business should serve at the pleasure of the residents, not to the growing detriment?
Also, the Bar Owners are Negligent in failing to provide adequate security to the adjacent area. Recall how cameras were supposed to mitigate the growth there? Uh huh. A nice juicy Civil Suit may be needed to get them to act moe responsibly, and for the City Staff and Police to apply and enforce the Law.
Putting 6,700 signatures on a recall petition would be easier, many increasingly wager?
Sure the Shore has bars, but they used to be far better regulated, policed, monitored and restrained. It is becoming a dangerous zoo at times and one need only talk to the long term residents who have seen the problems get worse and worse over the recent years. It used to be nice to take a stroll after a late dinner. Now it seems risky.
Many believe that if you went door to door with a petition, residents and lessors would have absolutely no problem at all passing a measure to stop all Alcohol sales at 11 or 12 PM, like many nicer, safer, resident friendly communities have done in other Jurisdictions? Let them dance off the booze after 11 or 12, eat some food and sober up before they leave ? This might return the former 'Class' to the area. It would prop up home values most certainly?
It is also tragic to learn how many patrons die on the road after leaving the clubs in this area drunk as a skunk due to these greedy clubowners over pouring the patrons and never ever cutting a drunk off.. Several a year if you look into it. 2 in one week a while back. Tragic.
Picketing the Politicians can be very effective too. Let us know when. We will send people, Attorneys, security and Film crews. We have the addresses and can provide maps?
Some of the players and politicians, or appointee's here, are basically terrible neighbors and shoddy, less than responsible businessmen. It is no wonder that the Councilman has a well know reputation in City Hall for upsetting far too many people and for being very disconnected, deaf towards the residents, and laughingly ineffective.
He belongs back in the sheltered business world, sequestered in a Board Room away from ordinary folks and back living the easy life at the Country Clubs where he grew up . If you call it that. He is clearly not a people person and never learned how to balance the competing interests by being fair to the residents at all times. He ignores them. He leaves council early all of the time. He is heard complaining to Staff about having to listen to the people at Council as well.
Lay this at the foot of a Politician looking out almost exclusively for his campaign supporters and business 'buddies' almost exclusively once again.
District 3, please find a better Rep?
And if your' business'' devalues 100 homes by 50,000 each, but generates any sale tax, that will be deemed acceptable. Sounds like a not so fair Long Beach bargain to several of us !! Residents always get the short end with DeLong and his 'buddies' yet City Hall never has enough money to squander.
Bet if you get the meet and greet gig, Mr Ruehle, the food would be better? The last meal we had at ''Legend's In Gene's Own Mind'' tasted like petrified dog logs, braised in moose bile.
Also, a nice demonstation at 2 or 3 households would be quite newsworthy ? Large UNFAIR TO RESIDENTS signs? BOYCOTT BIGOTRY? BAD NEIGHBOR ! How about a big blow up picture of Mike Ruehle smiling real wide with block letters stating '' I LIKE MIKE ?'' RECALL DeLONG !! DeLONG IS WRONG.
Boy that would get them talking ! LOL
Maybe a bunch of mufflerless Harleys rolling over to this or that guys house at 2 am on a Thursday might help make a point or two? We could do our own little political 'Sturgess' run for residents rights, justice and fairness ? We'll call it the ''Residents Run for fun''.
It may be time to help MR Ruehle draft a nice Pleading, join some similarly situated Plaintiffs, pay a filing fee and let the headlines fly? These BSBA cavemen have a few skilled Attorneys in their area pretty pissed off, along with many affluent homeowners and many fine activists of every ilk?
The residents need to remember to document all of the events, keep their phone records when they call for Police service, write letters to the Bar Owners and the City, retain copies, take pictures, and methodically build a nice long file. We can also proceed against their liquor licenses?
Apparently this has been quietly going on for some time so Nuisance Vendors beware?
How about the no more booze after midnight initiative? And the disband or de-fund the BSBA initiative? Doesn't the General Fund or our roads and curbs need this 'slush fund' money much worse nowadays? Lately these funds seem to be applied in a very anti resident manner?
What a bunch of greedy, selfish, pricks a few of these guys have panned out to be?
Now for the latest rumor, apparently that Kurt SCHNITHEAD BSBA guy who kept picking on Ruehle got booted out of a bar recently for trying to gang up on Ruehle 5 on 1 like a HUGE wuss. The funny thing is, the bar owner and his huge bouncer, and others, almost fed Kurt his teeth we heard? He and his band of clowns got booted for trying play tough guys with Mike, 5 on 1, but everybody knows that if Kurt tried to fight Mike, 1 on 1, Kurt would get his ass handed to him in 2 well broken pieces, and he would quite likely wake up in the hospitall with his big mouth wired shut? LOL Mike has arms bigger than Schnit Heads legs we hear? How funny !!
Now we would pay to see that Schniit Head guy get a well deserved thumping from Mike, and Mike, if they ever jump you, and they get knocked out by you, and you get cuffed, several of us will defend you for free, cover all of your Legal Expenses, sue them Civally and laugh for a decade.
How about a WWF Style 'Smack down'? The wager is, Mike wins, the BSBA is disbanded and the bars close at Midnight. BSRA gets the slush fund for resident improvements. Kurt wins, Mike ....uh.....let's DeRong Edit his newsletter? And waxes Foster's Corvette?
Kidding aside, a few of these BSBA guys need to quit pretending to be wanna be Mafia Don's and insensitive business bullies with shrunken minds and testes. And that Kurt moron needs to quit dressing like an 80s, MTV, wanna be roadie for Hall and Oates or Wham . Rather than those dated bun huggers and skin tights showing zero muscle, and undersized plumbing, he would actually look much nicer in a full Boy George costume? That would be a nice new look for him.
Or a hospital smock might have a similarly flowing, loose line if he ever grows the grapes to actually, physically mess with Mike absent 4 helpers...LOL What a doofus. Gotta rib the adulterous, lying weasel a bit more.
As for the 3rd District Councilman, the average homeowner would be better served by BORAT !!.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPHGcoiJrXM
Right now it looks like there is only a dozen or so of us and all we are doing is venting.
I doubt the people who view it through this article are included in the hit count. I suspect the number reflects different IP addresses that access the website individually.
I published a description of events and the web site link in the Belmont Shore Residents Association newsletter last Wednesday. Many of the viewings probably came from the newsletter. When I did so, there were 2 viewings. Today there are 302. That number probably doesn’t count the people who viewed it through this article.
None the less, the idea of the fight going down is pretty disturbing.
I think the idea of the fight going on *and people doing nothing but standing around watching it and videoing it* is even more disturbing! I mean, come on people--call 911 and then do something!!!!!!!!!!!!! My god, would everyone just stand there and watch woman be raped, and video it?????????
If twenty people were watching how come not one or two--maybe five together?--didn't step in and really do something to stop it? Why are we demanding that we all wait till the cops get there? Isn't this the mentality that allowed the 911 hijackers to succeed, everyone standing around sheep like letting a crime go down?
Serously, sometimes you gotta take action into your own hands.
You are being pretty chicken-shit to drag 9/11/01 into this; the hijackers didn't truly succeed. Todd Beamer,et al, did take action into their own hands but they already knew they were going to die.
"LET'S ROLL!"
so there isnt a giant hole in manhattan where the twin towers were?
I prefer to believe that, had the passengers on the rest of the planes crashed that day become aware of what was really going to happen to them, they too would have risen up and overpowered the hijackers. They would still have perished, but the hole you refer to might not be there.
**************************"LET'S ROLL!****************************
and BTW you might be surprised by how much I support the second amendment!
That thread needs to come to a dead stop.!!! Now.
Get back on point.
Since he is a hyper Conservative Republican, who has embarrassed the heck out of his moderate friends, and since the outgoing Republicans enjoyed 'Waterboarding', might we offer an Agenda item to support 'Waterboarding' the architect of a very dirty deal to learn where all of the deleted Wetlands Buddy Bailout Evidence went?
The level of crime and rowdiness in the shore is at an all time high under DeLong, and Legends has shifted from a Sports Bar to a Biker Bar, and an attractive nuisance has thrived elsewhere due to a consatnt Mardi Gras, Girls and Boys Gone Wild atmosphere. This is all ploitical, and this drift in the wrong direction has thrived due to derilict Council oversight, and police distraction. This is purely a 'buddy' letting business 'buddies' maximize their receipts without consequence or concern for the rights of others. Simple. SUE THEM and keep putting together the Safe Streets Actions.
Frank Colonna said it well as he left office; '' We are going to have nothing but trouble with DeLong ''. '' He simply does not get it because he did not grow up around here'' '' He is not one of us''
PUB OWNERS ARE HANDING OUT LOLLYPOS FOR DEPARTING LATE
NIGHT CUSTOMERS TO KEEP THEM FORM TALKING.....
IF THAT DOES NOT WORK;I HAVE AN IDEA WHERE THE LOLLY POPS
GET BE INSERTED!!!!
What can the Electorate do to resolve this? We have been stuck with 3 years of this in-attention to residents rights, and a year more of suffering under a ''business knows best ''regime. Also, if you do not think that this is largely Political, wake up. The only way this could be happening is due to a ''hands off '' policy.
The Police policy needs to change immediately. They need to stop making excuses, and start doing their job much more effectively . Many argue that many older officers need to be let go or waste less time blogging, 'investigating' , or riding the desk , or hanging around the sub station. Hire more young bucks and keep them deployed. You hear this from the hardworking cops who want to see many more desk officers deployed and a lot less management.
Look at the recent spike in Murders? How many murders do the police actually stop now days? And how many have they solved recently?
As for Drummond, he filed a Complaint against Steve James that launched an internal investigation because he felt that he had been threatened and abused during the Mayor Campaign. Clearly ego's were involved but many officers still hate him for allowing the LA Sheriff's to take over in Lakewood and a little piece of East LB in order to save money. Guess what? It worked and those areas are just fine. Recall that the PD and Fire did not endorse him during the 2006 Mayor's race.
His honestly about the Pension Pothole problem made sense, and it still does. Upper management is too large, and overpaid. The pensoins are way too big too. The average worker deserves better conditions, the have a fair deal.
Police and Fire takes WAY too much of our budget, charges way too much overtime, should be back on a 5 day work week, and they retire too early at too high of a percentage. Few dispute this.
Foster needs to finally get tough here, and get out that'clean sheet' of paper that he promised, and trim everbody 5%, and 20% off anybody making more than 100,000$. 30% contribution to the pension? And if you don't like it, find work elsewhere.
.
Also, many recall that Drummond cracked some dumb, nasty Homo Phobic jokes that caused him to be the only sitting Councilman to ever get formally censured by all of his colleagues. Funny, this was at a BSBA event? How much did they help him? They let him twist in the wind but laughed privately at the jokes, many recall.
He recovered, made his apologies, rode in the Gay Parade smiling and waving, and he got ''roasted'' quite thoroughly at Ripples , as an act of contrition.
Had Long Beach wanted more of him he would have been elected Mayor. He came in 3rd but was considered a good Councilman He was far more adept at listening to the residents and balancing the competing concerns. Our Mayor helped appoint him to the Prison Board of Appeals where he deals with prisoners serving Life Sentences we hear.
So Mr Greet, tell us how to get the cops to arrest drunks, stop lewd conduct, public urination, drunk and disorderly conduct, multiple breaches of peace, drunk driving, assault, battery, public intoxication, drug sales and use, theft,larceny and all of the rest in the Shore? We call the cops, the Councilman., nothing happens? It gets worse and worse? And those making money off of this conduct actually get financial incentives from our tax dollars to create this mess?
I didn't always agree with Doug Drummond, but I always respected him greatly. I miss him terribly; he should still be "behind the rail".
Or how about Legends must have security or a bouncer as part of their liquor license?
Does the DW have a policy regarding this?
Can city hall apply pressure and get comments removed?
Here are some things that I have seen help.
Sprinklers put them on a timer if automatic for 2:00 a.m. for 20 or 30 minutes no one wants to get wet. If you don't have a system set up a hose and a sprinkle a cheap one so if they take it you won't be out any money and turn it on yourself before the bars close so they won't bother you.
If that does not work put nails in tires they won't go flat in front of your house but much later.
Go out at about 12:00 or so and write down licence plate numbers of the cars if they wake you up fighting when you call the cops give them the licence number and tell them to look for them drinking and driving.
Pay some teens to hide with paint ball guns and blast them when fighting and messing around in your neighborhood.
Go out early if they are not parked right call the cops and have there cars towed away.
Get a can of mace and spray there car doors or make something up with hot stuff and put it on the car doors.
Go to a army surplus and buy one of the big cans of mace or the pepper spray pellet gun and if they are in your yard go out and tell them to leave and stand in the door and if they come close spray them and close the door.
Make them say I am not parking over there again not all is legal but you do what you have to do to keep you home safe and call the cops and tell them some one is drunk in your yard before the fight and then they will come and have to deal with the problem.
Why would anybody act surprised or upset?
With the sad state of citizen involvement in city affairs, who would even replace him if he were to go? whoredon-lorbeer-rotundo? What a joke!
Through the entire story this poor woman told, Councilman DeLong and Councilwoman Lowenthal were joking about something on Councilman DeLong’s computer screen. They were openly laughing and touching each other while this poor woman was crying while telling her story. I was utterly disgusted with the disrespect these two Councilmembers showed someone asking for their help. The poor woman was obviously nervous and scared.
Councilmembers DeLong and Lowenthal don’t deserve their positions. They are too busy chatting on Facebook to give a dang for the people who voted for them.
that said, delong like ALL of the council has their mind made up well before public testimony. if you think that isnt true you're kidding yourself. delong just doesn't play the games the others do and pretend he's be influenced by some last minute testimony. the council gets a lot of input before the meeting and that is what drives their decisons for the most part.
minds pretty well made up on an issue-prior to the start of a meeting.Yes,
we have had in the past,and certainly do now, those that show up sans doing
their sums-but most do.
With that in mind,what we might want to consider is a change in procedure.
TO WIT:
After an item is read:Each Council person can make a brief statement of
position along the lines of:
.."Having read all the material and studied the item,my inclination is to vote
in support of (or not) of the item for the following reasons.....
If there reasons I should vote other wise please tell me why.
Then open the item up for discussion from both sides of the rail.
in most hearings,testimony presented is given,under oath,pursuant to the laws of
perjury all of which is subject to review by a trier of fact.
The public has a right to know who is testifying;to know what is or has been
said.Perhaps we should have one giant screen on which the stream of e-mails is
displayed for all to see like a wall street ticker.Why not sandwich boards?Why
not allow people walking back and forth in the well in front of the podium with a
picket sign?
Clearly De Long makes a mockery of the office and process.Clearly he should do
what Dan Baker did.He should read the handwriting on the wall.or his screen,and step down-holding the door for Foster as they both just disappear from an arena
they are ill prepared and unsuited for.
Somebody recently reminded us about Doug Drummond having been censured by his colleagues (over a joke that wasn't even told in the council chambers). If this current council has one iota of the class that the one that censured Drummond had, they will vote to censure this current joke of a councilman.
I'm sorry. I mean hey Councilman DeLong. If you "like the fact that councilpeople are connecting with constituents during council meetings," how come you weren't doing it again tonight? I couldn't help but notice it was the first time in all of the council meetings I've gone to where you actually ACTED like you were paying attention to what people were saying.
The fact I like is that you respond back as an anonymous person in support of your own BS. I guess that's one way to make sure someone agrees with you. Say hi to PatBryant, the other anonymous name you frequently use.
But I had it wrong. At least with regard to my immediate neighborhood. The overwhelming majority of residents are quiet, respectful, surprisingly friendly and modest folks. Occasionally we do get some tenants in the area -- I'm a renter myself, just a little place over a garage -- who seem to have been drawn in by what they presume was a party culture. They soon find out that boorish behavior and lack of respect for one's neighbors is no more tolerated here than in any other neighborhood where folks aren't afraid to call the police. They move in. They move out.
Last night, the Belmont Shore Mobile Estates had a nice banquet which included Ms Stephanie Loftin who chose to announce that she is a candidate for District 3 City Council.
She was very well received and she said a lot of important things. She asked whether or not they wanted the Council Office returned to the control of the common resident, and the average citizen. The answer was a resounding YES.
They were asked if they were happy with their present Councilman, they yelled..NO !!
They were asked, Do you want 12 stories next to 8 stories on the intersection of 2nd and PCH ?? NO !!
Do you want all of the Wetlands restored by paying a fair price, and with an open, transparent, fair deal? YES !!
Representatives from several area organizations were there to show support...and nobody was distracted...ignoring them...playing around on Facebook...having long ago SOLD their vote...acting like a spoiled ''frat boy''... instead of doing their job.
What a Breach of Fiduciary Duty and trust , what Negligence, what Deriliction of Duty.
item,at every, council meeting)could have asked the same questions and evoked
the same responses,so disgusted are they with De Long---and rightly so.
While Loftin might be good for an opening act at the Comedy Club she is unelectable
in the Third District.Indeed,her only chance of being elected to a council seat would
have been in the squirrelly district-and she lost when she ran there.
After De Long it should be clearly apparent to most that the only individuals that
could be elected are those who spent their formative years in the City and or
District and had children go through,or, are going through school system---and have been in the trenches as it were.Those people are out there.
De Long has put the noose around his neck himself.It is getting tighter at almost
every juncture.It might be that he kicked the stool out from under him-himself
last Tuesday.That remains to be seen.Let us see what the Courts may say to
any appellants which raise the issue.It is not difficult to imagine a finding that
would mirror the under pinnings of the Superior Court finding in the Home Depot
case.
Absent such--they would not have the requisite connection to the pulse of the
community,district and the City and be void of an awareness,appreciation or under
standing of the institutional history of each.
And Larry, you need to get to know Ms Loftin, she has a heart of gold and is a very competent, fair and wise professional. Many perceive what you say as kind of kidding too. So to be fair, judge her on her record, not a first impression from a long time ago. She would do a much better job looking out for the average citizen than 'His Majesty' because she worked very hard for what she has and has the perspective of having taken her lumps without anyones help. She is a people person and was not a coddled, rich elitest born and bred of privilege, special interests, favoritism and exclusion.
Why don't you pull papers Mr Goodhue? The debates would be well worth attending if you were there attempting to 'Tea Bag' everybody ? And we are sure that you could help frame the debate quite cleverly ?
Finally, Ms Loftin had over 4,000 residents support her last time, with very little funding but a lot of friends. She has many more friends now. And rumor is that she has a better war chest this time, more experience, and a horrible , detached, disinterested, lazy, buddies first, inside dealing, waste of public assets, bumbling, impotent, incendiary, often quite clueless track record to pound her opponent with?
She could be the next Jan Hall and she did a fine job for the average resident.
Here is an interesting issue for our Democratic Mayor. Will he again refuse to endorse Loftin and give his implied or tacit approval to a neo con again? If Mr Foster fails to help his Democratic brethren this time, expect interesting consequences from the Party faithful.
It was funny last time Ms Loftin ran, Senator Lowenthal and many other prominent individuals endorsed her, but Mr Foster 'couldn't'. There were 3 Republicans running against a Democrat, but he could not show support?Interesting rationale and implications this time around.
Now Sir Laurance, a related question? If you were King, and that would be a blast, how might we mete out punishment to our present Representative? A recall? A Lawsuit? Waterboarding? Lie Detecter test? Picket the Casa Del Rong? The rack? Walk the plank? Thumbscrews? The Iron Maiden?(primative torture device used to garner tainted confessions)
Also, are we writing letters to encourage the prohibition of laptops while Council is in Deliberation? And similarly serious distractions such as yo yo's, monopoly games, and video games, Malibu Barbi Play Houses, Betcy Wetzy Dolls and maybe play paddles and teething rings?
Ever see Shannon, Mais, MaHood, Herrera, Schipske, Gabelich, Vice Mayor McCheese, Andrews or Uranga playing around, fully distracted, wholly indifferent towards, and affirmatively tuning out, or ignoring the residents? Heck no ! They are there to do their job professionally and appear to value actual WORK in exchange for wages, power and privilege? Talk about Negligence? Being asleep at the switch?
''Councilman Facebook'' farts around.....unbelievable. The fundamental mistake was sending a BOY to do a MAN"S , or Ladies job. What an embarrassment ! Do the work or go home and let somebody come to play in earnest. This is a classic situation where the 'BOYS" have screwed things up and we need a smart woman to come in and FIX things.
Finally, why the pin drop silence from greet? He must be fishing at a very convenient time? Or scared to finally, and appropriately step on a few toes for the taxpayers? He means well, happy fishing ?? When you get back, would you help ''the electorate' build a fire under a few behinds for our residents sake?
post:
l.In my view,all other things being equal,the one with the deepest roots
in the City and or District as earlier described would STILL trump.
2.A Lowenthal endorsement would be the last thing any Third District
canidate would want. A canidate seeking or accepting such signals.
3.My sense is Foster was fully aware of #2---which,as it turns out is
about the only thing he was aware of!!!
they are out of touch with the District.
4.As for how best to deal with De Long.As stated earlier.The noose
is tightening.Alas,he will end up probably kick the stool out from
underneath-own his own.But,in case not..there is the back up plan.
That is what is needed.People that do their sums!!!!
That is what wins the day-and the race.
That will be the well spring for Foster's recall as well.
TECH NOTE:...in the REPLY post three items..the last sentence for#2
some how scooted down as the last sentence for #3.!!!???
When asked whether he had viewed the video, Officer Hunt said he had NOT. However, he claimed he was TOLD by Officer Cloughesy the video was dark and only 2 minutes long. Officer Hunt then told us the police received their first call about a fight at 2:32 am. A call about a gun was received at 2:34 am. The police dispatched officers to the scene at 2:36 am. The officer reported being on the scene at 2:40 am. By 2:45 am, five officers had responded to the scene and an all-clear was called in.
One of the residents involved explained to Officer Hunt that the youtube video was only 2 minutes of an eleven minute recording of the fight. Also, the fight had been going on for several minutes before the resident had even thought to find their recorder at 2:00 am and begin recording the fight. The resident then asked Officer Hunt whether it was possible a fight had indeed occurred at 2:00 am and that the fight had broken up before the police arrived at 2:40 am. Officer Hunt responded that it was possible.
When asked why there were no police in Belmont Shore when the bars closed at 2:00 am every night, Officer Hunt told residents his work hours are 3:00 pm to 1:00 am. Furthermore, he explained that after 1:00 am there is only one police officer for all of beat 10 which extends from Bluff Park to Seal Beach and includes Seaport Marina, Marina Pacifica, Naples, the Peninsula, Belmont Shore, and literally 30 different bars spread out over several miles.
When asked why he only worked until 1:00 am and wasn’t around when many problems occurred when the bars closed at 2:00 am, Officer Hunt said that is what he had arranged. When asked whether it was possible to change his hours to include the bar closing times, Officer Hunt said that was something RESIDENTS would have to take up with his commander.
One resident then explained to Officer Hunt that residents were only asking the police for their help and for him to take feedback back to his superiors that residents would like to have more of a late night police presence in Belmont Shore. Officer Hunt responded by saying “YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GET IT.” When asked by another resident whether they could quote him on that, Officer Hunt responded, “sure, go ahead,” and then repeated it again.
LBPD should regularly publish their database of alcohol related calls, DUIs and complaints. I have seen other cities publish this information every month in local news. Instead of downplaying the problem the LBPD should be encouraging the bar owners (who tell patrons to take their fights outside and onto residential streets) to be part of the solution not the problem.
I believe that many of the questions that have been asked here have been answered, and inaccurately, by some who do not have all of the facts and who seem…predisposed…let's say, toward being hyper-critical of the City, the Department and the East Patrol Division.
Without agreeing, to any degree, with the manner in which Officer Hunt’s or Officer Cloughesy’s comments have been characterized here, and without disclosing information that must necessarily remain confidential at the request of the callers to LBPD on that morning (April 18th, by the way, Mr. Ruehle, not the 17th as you erroneously described) I can tell you the following concerning my research of the call in question:
LBPD received the first of four (4) documented calls concerning the incident at 2:33am (Call #0201 from 4/18/09).
The call concerning the unsubstantiated “gun” was received two (2) minutes later, at 2:35am.
The first of four (4) Units was dispatched to the call at 2:36am (Three {3} minutes after LBPD received the initial call).
The first Unit arrived in the area and reported being unable to locate any fight at 2:39am (Six {6} minutes after LBPD received the initial call). A minute later a Unit confirmed finding no fight after having checked the front and the rear of the location (Seven {7} minutes after LBPD received the initial call).
The call was closed out at 2:45am after a Unit confirmed that no fight could be located and four (4) Units, including the on-duty Watch Commander, returned to their patrols and answering other calls for service.
Now, some may be unhappy with the manner in which this call was handled but I must ask:
Can LBPD respond to a call for service that they have not yet received?
Does three (3) minutes seem unreasonable between call receipt and initial dispatch?
Does three (3) minutes seem unreasonable between initial dispatch and initial arrival?
Does it seem unreasonable that more wasn’t done on this call given that: No fight was located after the officers arrived; each person that called about the fight *refused* to be contacted by a Unit; and *no one*, victim, suspect, witness or reporting party, stepped forward to speak to an officer once they began to arrive on the scene?
Despite what some would lead some others to believe, I do not believe that anything is a higher professional priority for anyone that works in public safety in Long Beach than the public safety of Long Beach.
No one deletes calls for service that are received…these calls are documented by computer and archived for decades.
No one working in the field avoids responding to a call for service of any kind. They respond to every call they are dispatched to, as quickly as they safely can and they do the best they can with the factual information they either receive on the way or can develop once they arrive.
If you want quicker responses, try to call them sooner. If you have information that can help them to help you, ask to be contacted by the officers when they arrive. If you specify that you desire to be contacted by an officer, an officer MUST, by policy, personally contact you. On the other hand, if you specify that you do not desire to be contacted (as each of the documented callers on this morning did) then they CANNOT, by policy, contact you except in the case of an extreme emergency.
The entire mission of every LBPD officer in the field is to provide efficient, professional and excellent law enforcement service to every single neighborhood in this community. Every single cop that I know, works in the field because they very much love the work…all of the work…and they do not avoid ANY call for service or drag their heels in getting there when called.
I know Commander Renaud to be a highly-educated and exceptionally intelligent and efficient law enforcement professional. She sets a high standard for herself and expects nothing less from the sworn and civilian employees assigned to her Division.
I would encourage you, Mr. Ruehle, to invite *HER* to the next BSRA meeting that she can attend and allow her to speak for herself concerning the level of service she expects of the many public safety employees assigned to her.
If ignorance is bliss, you must be one ecstatic fellow!
This is unfortunate, since an informed and knowledgeable debate can benefit many, while an argument based upon conjecture and ignorance benefits none.
Commander Renaud has spoke at several of the BSRA meetings and usually attends a couple times a year or after a big event. The last one she attended was January 8, 2009, immediately following the murder at Belmont Shore’s Yankee Doodles bar. Commander Renaud is always invited to BSRA meetings. She is also included on the distribution of each BSRA newsletter published as a reminder three days before the next BSRA meeting.
While not debating the accuracy of your description of Commander Renaud, I will say Commander Renaud has not been always been entirely supportive of resident issues in Belmont Shore. I can provide numerous examples if you want. However, I’m willing to bet that Commander Renaud would ask you to drop the subject without me going into detail.
However, I will say that last year, with Councilman DeLong’s support, Commander Renaud announced during a BSRA meeting the police would no longer be attending BSRA meetings for 30 minutes to give their crime update to residents due to budget issues. Meanwhile the Business Association continued to have at least two police officers attend their meetings for over an hours and frequently had three police and a fireman. Councilman DeLong’s and Commander Renaud’s decision was reversed 6-months later by Chief Batts following a meeting set up in City Manager Pat West’s office. After that, BSRA meetings started to have police representation again.
While you may indeed be correct about the times and date the calls were made, that is not what was reported at the BSRA meeting by Officer Hunt. More than myself wrote down exactly what he told us. We even asked him if he could be quoted and he said yes. So who are we to believe, you or Officer Hunt?
It is misleading when you say phone calls are documented by computer and archived for decades. First, until recently, you know perfectly well all cell phone calls went to the Highway Patrol, who documented the call and dispatched it to LBPD. Can you say with certainty that all calls were routed from the Highway Patrol to LBPD and repeated calls weren’t deleted? Second, while you may be correct that all calls received may be archived, I have had more than one experience where phone calls to the police for service were later claimed to never have occurred. Ask Commander Quash about the incident a few years back when he made a similar claim about calls for service and numerous residents in my neighborhood later produced their phone records to prove the police had indeed been called for assistance despite their claims to the contrary. Third, on more than one instance I have made a call to the police department for service and the dispatcher hung up on me before I could ask for a call number. When I called back for the call number, I was told by dispatch there was no record of a call being placed from my address that I had previously given.
I do not presume to speak for anyone else in my department other than myself. Where I assert my beliefs concerning other Department employees I am doing simply that, asserting my personal beliefs which are based upon direct and personal knowledge of the person(s) in question.
When/if my comments on an incident differ from those of another Department employee that is all they do...they differ. This difference is not intended to, nor do I believe that it has the effect of, "undercutting" anyone else.
I do not access confidential databases for my personal use. The information I have shared related to this discussion is either public knowledge or public access. I do not participate on sites such as these while on duty. I neither have the time nor the inclination to do so when I'm at work.
As a resident, taxpayer and cop, I do everything I can to serve my community as best as I am able. If I can offer factual and non-confidential information on a matter under discussion or even just the personal perspective of a sworn officer in Long Beach, I will gladly contribute both to the discourse.
If this proves unwelcome, however, I can certainly refrain in the future.
My personal opinions, however, remain entirely my own and since I express them on my own time, I have every right to do so.
Anything else, Mr. x?
I would argue that no City official, Police Commander or otherwise is likely to be “entirely supportive of resident issues in Belmont Shore”, at least not as you seem to define “entirely supportive”.
While they are, of course, important members of the Shore community, residents are not the *only* members of that community. There exist other stakeholders whose “issues” can be seen to be equally important and, thus, worthy of due consideration and support where possible. Due to your position as BSRA President, it’s understandable that your advocacy occurs on a somewhat smaller, less-inclusive scale…that your perspective is necessarily more limited and tightly focused upon the needs, desires and preferences of your particular constituency.
City officials must necessarily take a larger view…to consider the needs and desires of *all* stakeholders in a community…and try to balance them as best they can.
I will not comment upon the past history of LBPD attendance at BSRA meetings accept to say that there are always at least two sides to such stories and I think it would be very nice to have a better understanding of *all* sides of that one.
As amended, the times I quoted are fully accurate. Like me, Officer Hunt may have initially misread some of the information or he may have been trying to speak from memory. Since the times he offered and those I offered differ only by a few seconds, I really don’t see this difference as much of an issue. You are free to believe whichever of us you care to. I feel strongly that Officer Hunt, like most all LBPD officers, does the very best he can in any task he is assigned.
I would encourage you to review my actual comments on a given topic before alleging that any of them are to any degree misleading. Having reviewed them I would encourage you to seek to understand them better. But when you misstate a comment I have made (intentionally or otherwise) and then attempt to argue from that flawed premise, I submit that it is you, sir, who are being misleading.
By the way, it’s Cmdr. “Quach” not “Quash”.
I have personally met with and spoke with Commander Renaud and several of her Lieutenants in person and one-on-on numerous times about issues in my neighborhood. These included several CPCC complaints and other discussions about police officers who didn’t fill out police reports on Peeping Toms and burglaries reported by residents. I’ve also met with the Commander to discuss why a police officer shoved an 87 year old woman who was questioning why police were on her property.
I also met with Lieutenant Ledesma who thought he was only meeting with the President of the Resident’s Association to give me an update on the police’s progress on crimes in our neighborhood and why the police had not filed police reports on the crimes. Lt. Ledesma started out by telling me he had completed an investigation of a burglary the police initially chose not to report and concluded the witness was not credible. Imagine his shock and embarrassment when I told him I was the witness he claimed was not credible. Furthermore, I asked him how he had reached that conclusion since neither he nor any police officer had spoken with me since the day of the burglary. He had no answer. He also could not explain why the arresting officers who caught the burglars let them go without filing a police report. I had DR# 07-67718 but no police report had been filed a week later.
Lt. Ledesma then changed the subject to a residents’ report of a contractor painting a nearby house who was peeping through her window when she was showering. Officer Covarubias had originally arrived on the scene and briefly detained, but did not arrested the contractor. When the victim followed up later with the police, it turned out Officer Covarubias had not filed a report on the incident. When I emailed Commander Renaud about this, she sent two police officers the next day to AGAIN take the victim’s statement and this time complete a police report. However, during my meeting with Lt. Ledesma, he again implied that he had spoken with the victim and concluded from his investigation the victim was not a credible witness. I asked him how that was possible because I had just spoken with the victim before our meeting to ask her whether she wished to attend and she had not spoken to any police officer since providing information for the second police report. He then claimed to have misspoke and said he was going to talk with the victim after our meeting.
After this meeting, I requested to meet with Commander Renaud to discuss my concern about the police not filing police reports and that it was being justified by investigations that took place without talking to the victims. I walked with her to the scene of the burglary, the battery on an 87 year old woman and the peeping Tom. I asked her why, actionable or not, her officers had not filled out police reports on these serious incidents. Whereas an apology would have sufficed, she was defensive and tried to justify her officer’s conduct. The result was two complaints being filed with internal affairs and the CPCC. None of the victims received an apology. None of the bad guys were arrested or prosecuted.
By the way, I had earlier met with Commander Quach (sorry about the misspelling) for lunch and gave him five DR#s from previous incidents where the police had also not filed a police report. He told me he was going to look into them and get back with me with an explanation. Though I sent several email reminders, I did not hear back from Commander Quach.
Policies and procedures exist for LBPD as they do for all law enforcement organizations. When a person feels that these policies or procedures have been violated they have several means through which to file a formal complaint.
If the formal complaints you mentioned have been filed I would be very interested to know what the dispositions (findings) of those complaints proved to be. Can you provide those as well?
If you are displeased with a response (or lack of one) from any given LBPD official you should then appeal to that persons’ supervisor. ALL LBPD employees have a supervisor, Mike, even Chief Batts. Work your way up the chain until you receive what you feel to be a fair hearing.
I specify a fair hearing, rather than a satisfactory resolution, because you may well define "satisfactory" differently from others. "Satisfactory" to you may well mean that a person agrees with you and/or finds in your favor. This is clearly not always going to be the case.
I'd still very much like your answers to the questions I posited in my initial post regarding the reasonableness of the time factors documented in the fight call as well as the manner in which the call was handled under the circumstances.
Am I not allowed to have opinions now? Or are they only acceptable when they correspond with your own?
Mr. Ruehle's "side" is indeed just one among several and he is quite adept at communicating it. Because of this I believe I understand it very well. Despite this fact I have not asked him to stop offering his "side". In fact I have invited him to feel free to continue to do so.
You, on the other hand, offer comments such as: "im not really interested in what you think youre doing or not doing."
Which of the two of us seems the more open and inclusive I wonder?
Mine is more along the lines of encouraging others to speak their minds openly and honestly so that I might learn something worthwile thereby.
I would like to say that I have found both of your comments enlightening at times...lighten up on each other!
I am convinced that something "peculiar" happened on the night that the (first) YouTube video was recorded. The audio is terrible and the video is even worse, but I don't believe that somebody created the "incident" from whole cloth.
I certainly have no direct knowledge whether a gun was or was not present in the altercation. But with that allegation having been made, is it not possibe (even logical) for officers to be at least a little reluctant to exit their unit cars (especially one person cars) to look for the "participants" on foot? How many of the responding officers did, in fact, exit their units with flashlights in hand to truly "hunt" for those involved? It is astounding what can be missed if one only cruises by in a car.
LBPD response times are stellar!
You state the policies about officer contact correctly, but I have seen those policies fail in both directions. The failures are the exception, not the rule, but they do happen. We should BOTH encourage callers to request officer contact whenever practical even if it means talking to the cops in your pajamas at 2AM or later. It is almost impossible to solve a problem that is not adequately defined.
Can we expect the additional info requested? THANKS!
As to how officers may or may not have performed at the scene, I was not there and can only discuss non-confidential information that was entered into the call...i.e. call times, etc.
People, even those calling the police, have a right to remain relatively anonymous if that's what they desire. Many callers (like each of those who are documented to have called about this fight) specifically ask to not be contacted in person, often because they fear retaliation should someone see them speaking with the police. This is a very real concern for some and we therefore try our best to honor it.
Does anyone besides me think it is a little weird for a Councilman to create anonymous names to voice support and help promote his sordid actions as a councilperson? I can't wait to see what anonymous name he uses next.
If Ruehle's a tool, what is your claim to fame? A Special Interests... tool box?
The police have explained several times that the shore is just one portion of their patrol area. The East patrol area is almost half of the city... It is not just the shore.
With your way of thinking each neighborhood should have thier own olice officer assigned to them? Do you really think that the city can afford that?
Maybe you should take a poll of the residents and ask them how many would be willing to donate money to pay for an additional officer or two? And please do not give me the song and dance that you pay taxes... everyone pays taxes and regardless of where you live you should receive the same service.
Mid to high end residential neighborhoods should not receive special treatment due to the income level of their residents.
The police officers have a very difficult job to do and their resources are being cut annually.
I think you may have a good idea. Since late night requirements for police service is almost entirely related to bars open after 10:00 pm, why doesn’t the city increase the business license tax by $10,000 per year on those 2nd street establishments wishing to serve alcohol past 10:00 pm in order to finance the additional police support needed? I wish to expound upon your suggestion and add that we we poll residents to see whether they prefer taxing themselves as you suggest or those businesses that are the root of the problem.
Do people normally plot against people they like?
resident's association who elected-and-re elected him.
Though not a resident of the Shore,the Breakwater presentation by the eminent
Dr. Bud Johnson drew me to the meeting.
My take on the well run meeting was that Mike and the entire board were;appreciative,
of the time the officer took to discuss the issues with them.It was clear that they were
disappointed,yet polite, in expressing their views that the responses were not in concert
with what they had dared to hope for-and were given little hope that there would be
improvement in the issues--which have been brought into sharp focus by the U Tube
videos.
It should be noted:
l.Certainly the response time to the first call was impressive.
2.There was not enough detail from either side presented to evaluate what took
place moments after the first responder arrived on scene.Obviously
though, there are a myriad of factors that could,did,or would come into play
which would have a critical and direct bearing on what they officer(s) might have
done-or might not have done.
What is obvious however is that poster"ruehestaool "brings nothing of value to the
discussion and should report back to De Long that he follow Dan Baker's lead-and step
down.(It should be clear that is my take on the meeting and in no way is to suggest it represents the view of any others that were in attendance at the meeting)
Hopefully De Long understands.."PEOPLE ARE MAD AS HELL" not just with the instant
issue;but with the full range of issues De Long has bungled which, compounded
by the problems the City and State are having----not even getting into the national
scene-means THROW THE BUMS OUT WILL BE THE ORDER OF THE DAY....thus he
should step aside now- from a job for which he lacks the requisite DNA.-a lacking even
his strongest supporters recognize.(Finally,if my memory is correct,Mike did make one
very serious error.HE VOTED FOR DE LONG!!!!
Officer Hunt claimed a second call for service stated a gun was involved; he said he "assumed" the reference to a gun was bogus and was made "to get a faster response". Officer Hunt described the installation of a roll-up door at Acapulco Inn as a "good idea" because it "improves visibility of the premises from the street". When questioned about the lack of police presence when disturbances occur late at night by bar patrons, Officer Hunt responded, "They are bars; that's what happens". Officer Hunt was asked to convey the request for more late-night policing to his commander and he responded, "You're not going to get it". When it was suggested that maybe his schedule could be changed to provide police coverage later at night, he replied "I have already adjusted my hours." (His shift ends at 1 am; the bars close at 2 am and many problems occur after that time.) In response to a comment that bar owners should provide adequate security, Officer Hunt said, "You can't change Second Street." He added that only one police officer is assigned to the late-night shift for the entire area of Beat Ten, a large area which includes Belmont Shore. The discussion ended with considerable frustration expressed about the increasing number of disturbances from bars and the lack of police or security to prevent them.
Mr. Ruehle states the following: "... I will say that last year, with Councilman DeLong’s support, Commander Renaud announced during a BSRA meeting the police would no longer be attending BSRA meetings for 30 minutes to give their crime update to residents due to budget issues. Meanwhile the Business Association continued to have at least two police officers attend their meetings for over an hours and frequently had three police and a fireman. Councilman DeLong’s and Commander Renaud’s decision was reversed 6-months later by Chief Batts following a meeting set up in City Manager Pat West’s office. After that, BSRA meetings started to have police representation again."
I decided to look into this, as I know that the police department has been at almost all of the meetings. I found that they had been at 20 of the 25 meetings that were held from May 2007 to May 2009.
They did not attend June 2007, July 2007, October 2008, November 2008 and February 2009.
I would like Mr. Ruehle to show where the 6 months of the police department non-attendance occurred, as I am just not seeing it.
Once again, it appears that Mr. Ruehle may be incorrect.
how do you know that?
Maybe Mr. Ruehle needs to reveiw his own BSRA documents before he comments on the lack of police presence.
http://shoreresidents.com/meetings.htm
Next, try to find the meeting minutes from any Business Association meetings that is led by Legends Owner and Business Association President Gene Rotondo.
http://www.belmontshore.org/
Good luck. It doesn't exist. They would prefer to keep any conversations about these issues away from the public. The good news is the Business Association website no longer advertises the late night happy hours like they were last month. I guess those poor residents will no longer be able to check the Business Association website late at night to find out where they can take their family to get trashed on half priced shots.
For just once, just try and stay on topic.
Below are three emails supporting what I’ve said. Councilman DeLong himself chose to not respond to the email as usual with most emails I’ve sent him concerning community matters. I’m sure there must have been a facebook dinner reservation to take care of.
From: Mike Ruehle
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 17:01
To: Gary DeLong
Cc: Amber Lee; Amber Lee; Jeff Miller; Jim Lazarus; John Forstrom; Laura Spence; Mark Robinson; Merodie Gentile; Ron Banner
Subject: Police Representation at BSRA
Hello Councilman DeLong,
At our last monthly BSRA meeting, Police Information Officer, Kymberly Cloughesy informed the audience of 100 people that the police department would no longer be sending a sworn police officer to future BSRA meetings. Kymberly informed us that this was a cost cutting measure and that she would be attending every other meeting. However, I believe Kymberly is not a sworn police officer and is not involved closely with crime and arrests in our area.
In all of the time that I have attended BSRA meetings, a sworn police officer has attended the meetings to answer resident's questions. The police report is the first item on the BSRA meeting agenda and consistently occupies the most time. However it seldom lasts more than 20 minutes.
Can you tell me whether you support the residents having a sworn police officer attend our BSRA meeting once per month for 30 minutes?
Mike Ruehle
BSRA President
----- Original Message -----
From: Julie Maleki
To: rekim@earthlink.net
Cc: Amber Lee; Amber Lee; Jeff Miller; Jim Lazarus; John Forstrom; Laura Spence; Mark Robinson; Merodie Gentile; Ron Banner; Gary DeLong
Sent: 1/31/2008 9:17:30 AM
Subject: Police Representation at BSRA
Hi Mike,
Councilmember DeLong is out of the office until next Tuesday so he asked me to respond to your email regarding Police representation at BSRA meetings.
The City Council has requested the Police Department to make expense reductions wherever possible. The Chief has significantly reduced overtime, reduced helicopter usage, and is seeking efficiencies across the board.
After Councilmember DeLong inquired as to the feasibility of an LBPD officer continuing to attend each of the BSRA monthly meetings, he was told that the BSRA is the only neighborhood association in the 3rd District that has been attended by a sworn officer on a regular basis. Accordingly, it is not feasible to insist upon a monthly attendance, particularly when City management has been asking PD to more closely manage their expenses.
The Council office interacts often with Ms. Cloughesy and find her to be very familiar with east-side police activities. If a specific event occurs that requires additional police resources to address, I am sure the Councilmember and the Commander will be supportive.
Thank you,
Julie Maleki
Office of Councilmember Gary DeLong
(562) 570-8756
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Ruehle
To: Julie Maleki
Cc: Amber Lee; Amber Lee; Jeff Miller; Jim Lazarus; John Forstrom; Laura Spence; Mark Robinson; Merodie Gentile; Ron Banner; Gary DeLong
Sent: 1/31/2008 3:39:00 PM
Subject: RE: Police Representation at BSRA
Hi Julie.
Thanks for responding. What you are saying doesn't make a lot of sense to me. A police officer who attends a BSRA meeting is already being paid for being on his normal shift. If his beat is quiet, it doesn't cost any more money to attend the BSRA meeting for a 1/2 hour and give an update. He is already being paid for his time. If the policeman is busy dealing with a crime, it is totally understandable why he might not attend. That has always been our understanding when an officer failed to attend the BSRA meeting. Now, that priviledge is being taken away. I don't see how that saves any money.
It's your call. However, I question whether it is a good decision to disconnect the police department from the community organizations immediately after our police chief has given a speech indicating that crime is on the increase. With crime increasing, people are going to want to have more information about what is being done. I don't understand why our Councilman is resistant to supplying this type of information to the public and providing an opportunity for comment. Maybe you can elaborate on economics of this decision.
Regards,
Mike Ruehle
BSRA President
Maybe I am wrong, but don't they have bigger things to deal with than who from a city department is going to attend the BSRA meeting? Do you realize that this is the sixth largest city in the state of California? That there are things going on outside of Belmont Shore that our civic leaders need to focus on?
Please Mike, as a resident of this community, will you please look beyond yourself.... Please.
Please show me where I said the police did not attend BSRA meetings for 6 months. If you reread what I said, I believe you will find I said the decision to not supply police officers to the BSRA meeting was reversed 6 months later. Though the decision was made to stop supplying sworn officers to the BSRA meetings, that did not stop me from creating a stir about it, resulting in police representation. My point was that Commander Renaud and Councilman DeLong made a decision to stop communication between residents and patrol officers in our community.
Furthermore, in the dates you provided, you are counting police representative Kymberly Cloughesy as a police officer. She is not a sworn police officer. She professes little knowledge of past crime or recent arrests in the Belmont Shore area and is unable to answer many of the questions posed to her by residents. Furthermore, she is not the patrol officer enforcing the law in our community. Why would the police department NOT want their community patrol officers to communicate with community residents to hear about their concerns? That doesn’t even make sense.
I was wondering whether my identifying Councilman DeLong as Kathi4LB and PatBryant would flush some of Councilman DeLong’s buddies out from somewhere.
It’s easy for cowards to say things anonymously.
"Councilman DeLong’s and Commander Renaud’s decision was reversed 6-months later by Chief Batts following a meeting set up in City Manager Pat West’s office. After that, BSRA meetings started to have police representation again."
Mr. Ruehle - your exact words were "started to have police representation AGAIN" This implies that there was no police representation for a period of time and it can be safely assumed that the time period that you are referring to was from January 2008 to June 2008 -
So when exactly were the police not attending the BSRA meetings, as they seem to continue to send representatives.
I would like to know who was actually was in this meeting and the reason this meeting was called. Was this meeting called just so you could discuss this issue and if so, what a waste of my tax dollars. I would think that the Chief of Police would have more important things to work on than to figure out how to staff a monthly community meeting.
By the way, I heard that you are really proud about the number of calls you make to the police to report trash pickers. Why don't you just secure your trash cans behind your fence or in your garage?
Also, ''Shore My Cup'', placing trash cans in your garage is a great way to bring rats, mice, insects and roaches into your home? And smell? Have any more bright solutions? Do use your curling iron in the bathtub for us.
This inattention sure seems like Council Retirbution to many residents who have needs that can be ignored for the wrong reasons. Our Lawyers were also at key meetings, watching a few friends 6 O'clock (back), and we differ with your posture here.
It is petty, childish and wrong to try to impotently single out Mr Ruehle who, on behalf on many residents, is merely asking people to do their job, or their duty, by asking legitimate questions, as best he can, as a duly elected Civic Leader ? It is going to continue whether you like it or not, so why not become part of any solution?
If you think that you are going to shut Mr Ruehle up, or take away his zeal or passion for fairness, can we sell you the Davies Bridge?.
As for what you 'heard', that's inadmissable Hearsay. What we have heard, is an almost 'Cinco De Mayo' or 'St Patricks Day' level of chaos, many nights a week nowadays in a once far more livable area. Most want the pendulum to begin swinging back the other way again. Clearly the residents are beginning to take matters into their own hands. So be it.
Ruehle is just part of the checks and balances, as are many. So is it that you have a problem with free and fair debate? Procedural and Substantive Due Process? Equal Protection of the Laws? Civil Liberties? The First Amendment? Fine, write your Congressman, or better yet, come to a meeting and state your grievance like man?
And in fairness, what have you done, for free, to better our standard of living around here? Better yet, would you prefer that things continue to get worse? Or better ? The latter is Mr Ruehle's goal, and he is far from alone.
If Mr DeLong does not mend a fence with the BSRA, and look beyond the petty personality issues, he will continue to suffer in the court of public opinion. Many residents will lose in the short run, but he will pay the Political price in about a year, if not much sooner.
This posture is a senseless self inflicted wound born of sheer political ineptitude.
We have a group that is out in the District several times a day, or has a range of sources. We correspond daily.
This Councilman is very unpopular with many many areas who have been let down by him time after time. The scandelous emails , the buddy bailout and the Wetlands Bulldozing, now the High Schoolesque FaceBook foolishness, really pushed a lot of people away it seems, and you know what, it is going to get a lot worse.
Unquenchable greed can cause sad consequences and far too much collateral damage.
Stay tuned for the next episode of ELB ''Beavis and Butthead? ''
A vein attempt to double team Mr Ruehle anonymously is pretty thin too. But typically weak.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ICX28cVaG4
This weekends’ most recent video of bar patron behavior in our family neighborhood. How would you like this to constantly go on in front of your house? Isn’t this a wonderful thing for kids to have to see? A girls’ big white butt as she squats to piss in the middle of the street. Just precious.
the video taping is working.
It is what it is. I don’t believe problems go away by ignoring them. Is that your philosophy?
1.It would appear that the young lady--no scratch that--the BIMBO is doing to the
street what De Long is doing to an increasing number of residential communities.
2Listen carefully to the last 20 seconds are so.It sounds like,perhaps the driver of
the car,opened the door,few seconds latter said something like..:"unhumm a
ticket".If that is the case-is that traceable.
3.Putting the conduct in perspective;It should be noted at that hour there were
plenty of establishments open where one could have used a restroom.Is it politically
correct to say low life?
There are lights strung on the outside that were on last night. And the door was propped open, with lights on in the kitchen.
Are they opening for summer? Anyone know?
Another bar on 2nd St. I'm excited!
I'm not sure what difference it makes. Many of the 54 alcohol licenses in Belmont Shore have food ratio contitions. However, I haven't heard of an audit on any alcohol licenses during the 20 months that I have been the Belmont Shore Residents Association president. If an audit has been done, I would be interested in finding out who did it (ABC or LB), when it occurred and what the results were.
I didn't know if they were keeping the Cabo Cantina name as the van that's parked behind it still bears the moniker and is moved every once in awhile.
Is Mr Randel the current owner of Belmont Grill, cuz I like those guys who work there. I'll be sad if they leave.
And I am serious... another bar/restuarant is great by me. If they are sufficiently warned against overserving and we have police (or heaven forbid, private security) in place to keep the peace.
LBresident... you seem to know more about licensing issues than I do. Did you learn this from experience or from the ABC website or somewhere? I'll have to do more research.
The new owners of AI proposed opening up the front and adding patio seating that currently does not exist. Currently, it is under construction to do so. Nearby residents concerned about the late night noise another Legends bar would create have steadfastly been assured by the City’s Department of Development Services Department (DDS) that an interior sound wall would be installed just inside the patio area to baffle interior noise from being emitted to the public areas. However that is not what is being built at AI.
When I visited DDS today to review the plans, I found out a couple of interesting things. First, the city has recently changed its policy and no longer keeps a set of plans approved for construction. This was the explanation provided for the city not having a copy of AI’s plans approved for construction. This also means the city’s building inspectors have no idea of what has been approved and what needs to be enforced. How can they? There are no city plans to base their enforcement upon.
Second, the plans (different than approved for construction) submitted by AI’s architect to the city indicate AI is supposed to have 2 garage type roll up doors with a wall and an entrance door between the roll up doors. However, AI has instead installed 3 garage roll up doors with no wall or entrance door. Furthermore, the city’s plan for AI indicates an interior sound wall just inside the roll-up garage doors built the entire width of AI with a 4 foot wide door in the middle to allow patrons to pass between the bar area and the patio area. This design is similar to what residents were initially told by DDS. Despite what the working plans indicate, AI has instead widened the 4 foot wide passage door to 10 feet wide, thus opening the bar interior noise to the surrounding neighborhoods.
Though AI is still under construction, it is highly unlikely city hall will make AI tear down one of the garage doors and install the interior sound wall as indicated on the city’s plans and as promised by DDS to nearby residents. This is similar to how Legends was able to get a variance to build a 2nd story without having a public hearing. Councilman DeLong’s 2nd street friends get whatever they want, no matter whether it violates codes or construction drawings. The 14th floor of city hall is above the law. They make up codes and laws as they go.
Mike Ruehle--Have you initiated any contact with the DA's office?
They have a unit devoted to investigating corruption at all levels of government within LA County. It was (and maybe stiil is) headed by a fellow by the name of Dave Demerjian. If you have any trouble finding your way to him by phone, I suggest you call Supervisor Knabe's local field office to see if they can provide you the phone number and/or website.
sent to the office of Chief Justice of the California Supreme
Court.
Councilman DeLong told City Council at approximately 7:30 pm that evening he had talked with Development Services Director Craig Beck earlier that day and had been assured DDS had Acapulco Inn’s drawings that were approved for construction. City Manager West then told council that he would make sure I was contacted to arrange a time to see the drawings.
I emailed Mr. Beck at 9:56 pm last night to let him know what Councilman DeLong had told the city council about DDS having the drawings. I asked him to please contact me so I could review the plan checked drawings. I copied Councilman DeLong and City Manager West on the email.
It is after 5:00 pm the next day and I have received no response from City Hall on this matter despite repeated emails. Could it be that Councilman DeLong was again untruthful about the city having the drawings? After all, how is it that Councilman DeLong talked with DDS Director Beck about those particular drawings only hours after I was told the drawings were not available? If DDS had the drawings as claimed by Councilman DeLong, how come they were not made available to me?
Could all of this BS be because Acapulco Inn is owned by Legends bar owner Gene Rotondo and Belmont Station owner Gary Roth who are friends of Councilman DeLong? After all, the Legends plans were also mysteriously misplaced when questions were posed about Legends unpermitted ATM and a city hall approved variance for a 2nd floor that was granted without a public hearing. Despite protests from residents, Councilman DeLong also approved Gary Roth’s entertainment license for Belmont Station because he claimed Mr. Roth needed the entertainment license to generate money to turn Belmont Station into a fine steak & seafood restaurant. Yeah right. It’s been two years. Take a look at that dump owned by the Lorbeer family. Instead, Mr. Roth used the proceeds from his entertainment license to purchase Acapulco Inn with his partner Mr. Rotondo to turn it into another Legends.
Meanwhile, the owners of Cabo Cantina bar on 2nd street have been stymied every step of the way and made to repeatedly tear down what they have built at the prior Mykonos restaurant. Cabo has been shut down for over 2-years. Is that because Cabo’s owners are opening a bar that is competition with Councilman DeLong’s friends? Watch and see what happens with Acapulco Inn. Don’t be surprised when Councilman DeLong again uses his influence to allow Acapulco Inn to leave what has been erected in violation of city hall’s agreement with residents on noise containment.
----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Beck
To: rekim@earthlink.net
Cc: Gary DeLong; Patrick West; Derek Burnham
Sent: 5/20/2009 4:42:12 PM
Subject: Re: Acapulco Inn Plans
Mike,
Inspector's were on site today and reviewed the construction compared to approved plans. The construction does not match the approved set. We are working through that issue now. A stamped set is here in our offices, if you want to see what is approved please contact Derek and arrange an appointment.
Craig A. Beck
Director
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Ruehle
To: Craig Beck
Cc: Gary DeLong; Patrick West; Derek Burnham
Sent: 5/20/2009 5:40:57 PM
Subject: Re: Acapulco Inn Plans
Thank you Mr. Beck,
I will indeed contact Derek to review the plans. The following are two questions that I have:
1. Why did I make a wasted trip to city hall yesterday if the city had these plans all along and failed to show them to me?
2. Will AI's contractor be forced to tear down construction that does not match the approved drawings and build it to match the approved drawings?
Respectfully,
Mike Ruehle
BSRA President
Making such a change to Belmont Station could well be a violation of city parking codes because the parking requirement for bars is twice the parking requirement for restaurant seating. Converting 200 square feet from restaurant to bar space should have required the addition of two additional parking spaces that were not added.
Furthermore, this additional bar area can then be used in any future Belmont Station bar expansion into the retail store next door which Mr. Roth attempted but failed to do once before without offsetting the parking requirements. If allowed this bar expansion, Mr. Roth will argue in the future that he should be allowed to return some of this bar space to restaurant space in the store he intends to expand into. Once he is approved to add the store next door, he will slowly convert the entire place over to a bar like he just did 2-weeks ago to Belmont Station.
This is a game Belmont Shore bar owners play in with Councilman DeLong’s influence and assistance. They slowly and illegally convert restaurant seating to stand-up bar space and then ask for expansion approvals if they convert the stand-up bar space back to restaurant space.
Business Association Director Brooke Kennard was originally the fourth speaker on the meeting agenda. She asked and was allowed to speak first in order to attend another commitment. However she didn’t leave after giving her presentation. Councilman DeLong and her sat next to one another and whispered during the presentations by the next two speakers. The fourth speaker was Commander Renaud. When Commander Renaud called on my raised hand, I tried to give my explanation. However Ms. Kennard interrupted and spoke loudly over the top of me, neither allowing me to finish my explanation nor ask a question. When I loudly stated, “I’m not through speaking,” Commander Renaud ignored me and took a question from another person.
I did learn one more interesting fact though. Originally, the police claimed to have not received a call from residents about the fight. Then Officer Hunt said the police received two calls for service. However, Commander Renaud claimed the police had indeed received three calls for service on the fight. The story keeps changing. Given another week, the official police number may grow to the six calls for service the residents claim to have made.
you should consider starting a youtube channel where your constituents can upload their videos and you can provide some written background. having them all in one place with the story behind them might be an effective way to draw attention to the problem. you could easily provide a link to them that way as well rather than having them scattered all over youtube.
Can you specify when, precisely, "Officer Hunt said the police received two calls for service"? Do you perceive there to be a difference between the statements: “…received two calls…” and “…received only two calls…”?
Is it possible that you may have misunderstood either person? Is it possible that, if information concerning the number of calls did, indeed, change, that it changed as better and more factual information was developed later on? Is it possible that a resident could claim to have made a call but to not have actually done so? Is it possible that they claimed something quite different but that you misunderstood them?
http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_12424279
I think you need to take a ride-along with the LBPD in either the North or West Division on a Friday or Saturday night and see what goes on in the rest of the world.
If the worst you have in the shore is a loud arguement and a skank peeing in the street you should be thankful.
People are being killed in other parts of this city and you seem to only be focused on your belly button. You act like the Shore is the only game in town.
Do you have any idea how many hours city staff spend dealing with you and your issues when they have much bigger things to focus on. What are you going to do with yourself when City Hall is closed for its furlough day? What are you going to do when the city cuts staff and they are no longer at your beckon call?
You need a hobby that does not put a burden on our tax dollars.
In Belmont Shore you can commit all of those crimes in a single night and there is virtually zero chance you are going to jail.
However, those aforementioned cities are mostly much smaller than Long Beach and they don't have drives bys for the most part...valid point. So if you would like to claim that belmont shore should be policed differently than just about any other beach community in southern california with a large mix of residential and alcohol serving properties because we are a smalll part of a big city... then ok...you are entitled to your opinion.
But if you are trying to convince anyone that this is a "police resource" issue then your argument is just not viable. What we have in the shore is a police allocation issue.
Today in Belmont Shore we have a dedicated J-walking police officer on 2ndSt who oddly enough only works until 1am (just when the trouble starts). We have 2 bicycle officers in the shore who cruise our streets and ride on the peninsula boardwalk on Wednesdays at 1:30pm.
We don't need more police - we simply need those 3 officers to be on duty when all the problems occur - 1am to 3am thurs, fri and sat. They could be on duty 3 nights a month at those times and the neighborhood would be thrilled. But following complaint after complaint, community meetings with the ELB commander and councilman and now the videos - the LBPD just won't do anything different.
It really makes a person wonder what is keeping them from responding....
Ajay’s, another bar in long beach had its business license pulled during last Tuesday’s city council meeting. Chief Batts testified about the huge number of calls, murders and public disturbances caused by Ajays. So how many calls, murders and public disturbances are going to have to occur in Belmont Shore before the city reacts? If someone is seriously hurt, it will have been at the hands of Mr. Rotondo and Councilman DeLong. It is they who are responsible for jeopardizing the safety of residents in our community and devaluing our property values.
The city spend many years trying to gain compliance from the owner to fix the problems at the bar. There had been numerous gang shootings and gang fights... We are talking about rival gangs armed with weapons, not drunk people peeing in the streets.
Mr. Ruehle, maybe you need to go take a walk on Andy Street on a Friday or Saturday night, how about PCH and MLK, how about 16th and Sherman Place or the Parwoods or Poly Apartments. Oh wait, you probably don't even know where those places are because you never go north of 4th Street. You need a reality check and need to leave your blessed Shore.
The world does not revolve around you.
And on a side note... once again you are using hearsay to share stories about what the "police officer" said. Just like you telling the world that there was "three people fighting over a gun" - you didn't see it, you were not there. Remember, you live a block away.
A letter requesting Mayor Foster and City Council remove Commissioner Gavin from the Parking Commission was submitted to the city on May 12, 2009. When Parking Commission Chairman Schneiter announced Commissioner Gavin’s resignation during yesterday’s Parking Commission meeting, he asked if anyone from the audience would like to share their appreciation for Commissioner Gavin’s efforts. It was telling that only Business Association President Gene Rotondo and Business Association Executive Director Brook Kennard thanked Commissioner Gavin for her service. Neither are residents of Belmont Shore.
Mayor Foster must now appoint a new RESIDENT REPRESENTATIVE Parking Commissioner. The city’s ordinance indicates this person must be a member of the Belmont Shore Residents Association (BSRA) and should be recommended by the BSRA. Previously, Ms. Gavin was recommended by Councilman DeLong and appointed by Mayor Foster in October 2007 without involving the BSRA in the decision. This came soon after Ms. Gavin had been voted off of the BSRA Board of Directors.
Providing the BSRA is allowed this time to participate in the appointment of the new RESIDENT REPRESENTATIVE Commissioner as spelled out in the city’s ordinance, this could result in significant improvements in communication between residents and the Parking Commission. Residents may finally find out ahead of time about Parking Commission plans and decisions to turn 2nd street into an entertainment district for the benefit of the commercial property owners.
But I still believe the best long term solution is to equally balance the Parking Commission: 3 residents, 3 businesses, and 1 that qualifies as both and that is approved by both the BSRA and the BSBA.
If you like the idea, do what's necessary to take it to the ballot box. In the mean time, work to replace Mr. Delong and Mayor Foster if you truly believe them to be impediments to fairness in this area.
Is there some reason you can't pursue both simultaneously?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPgaj2KrV6M
This is what resident living 100 feet away have to put up with nightly. Isn't this a wonderful clientele being attracted to our community? Isn't it wonderful that children in our neighborhood see this type of activity nightly?
The police department's argument that they do not have staffing does not make sense because they are the ones recommending the new alcohol permits. Hold the PD accountable for what is happening on 2nd street.
Safety tips for wrong beach: stay away from 2nd. St. after 9:00 pm. By the way whoremeup, I wonder how many bar patrons leaving BS after 9:00 pm are legally DUI? And just because it's been going on forever doesn't make it right.
What now Mr. greet, aside from videotaping and citizen patrols? Should those who walk 2nd St after 9pm apply for CCW permits? Should we buy pitbulls to take with us on our walks? How about the LBPD handing out free pepper spray to BS residents?
Say what you will about the Sheriffs, but they would never allow this activity to take place; if nothing else but as a matter of pride they'd be down there swiftly and forcefully taking care of business. Bewilderingly, you seem to think it's no big deal that lawbreakers take over an upscale neighborhood.
Was the LBPD your second try after the Sheriff's blew you out?
Purposely misrepresenting my comments and casting personal aspersions does nothing constructive to solve the challenge at issue.
Drunks & quality of life appear to have a very low priority. In 30 days I could not find one drunk, drugs, or disorder crime report for the entire City of Long Beach amazing!
If you notice, the crimes that are listed are auto burglaries, residential burglaries, physical assaults and homicides.
It should also be noted that this system does not show "calls for service" where a DR or Police Report was not taken. Police Reports are taken when crimes occur.
Chief Batts discussed the information about this website back in January at his annual meeting.
Police reports do not necessarily occur when crimes occur. In many cases, the police do not fill out a report unless they witness the crime their self.
Although in the bigger picture I believe it's always better to fully document a crime than to not (crime trend identification, statistical analysis etc), accept in some specific instances (domestic violence, child or sexual abuse, other major crimes or collisions, etc) if the victim does not desire a report, a report may not be taken.
But if a crime has in fact occurred and the victim desires a report, then a report should *always* be taken. If the officer refuses or appears reluctant, then politely ask for a supervisor.
If an officer's demeanor appears to be unprofessional or inappropriate (whether a report is taken or not) I encourage the person witnessing this to request a supervisor...and to do it right then and there, at the scene. The person being contacted may have to wait a little longer for the supervisor to arrive but I've found it best for all concerned to clear such issues up before anyone leaves the scene.
Cops are human, Ms. LB, and we sometimes grow fatigued and have bad days and foul moods just like everyone else. But we, to a person, have committed to serving the public and to do so with courtesy, professionalism and respect.
So our community has every right to expect, and to receive, that sort of service from us.