-
Website
http://thedistrictweekly.com/ -
Original page
http://thedistrictweekly.com/2009/daily/staff-infection/briefing/police-seek-suspect-in-second-street-rape/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
"Kinda scary" is how ignorant you are of bicycling safety and the California Vehicle code.
First some facts as oppose to fear mongering.
1)Bikes have the LEGAL RIGHT to ride in the road and can occupy the center of the lane when it is hazardous. (CVC 21202b)
2)Riding off to the right puts cyclists in danger of getting hit by an opening car door (as you noted in your negligent example) and encourages unsafe close passing of motor vehicles. It is safer to be in the center of the lane when the lane is narrow (i.e. 2nd Street).
"A recent Negligence case, settled for 1.3 Million, because a driver, opened his door into the path of a cyclist. There was no bicycle lane involved, and a much wider road bed, and margin of safety. Several forsee problems, let's hope not."
3)It is ILLEGAL to throw your car door open safely in traffic. It's already in the California Vehicle Code (CVC 22517), it's not the result of some crazy litigious cyclist. It's the LAW.
"The cyclists tend to veer left, to avoid the parked cars, and they are already flirting with your right front fender. Kind of scary."
That's why the sharrow is in the CENTER of the lane so there is no veering. They're just in the middle.
Now some FACTS about sharrows.
1)Sharrows do not confer any special rights to cyclists. They merely make it painfully obvious that cyclists can ride in the road and in the center if need be (CVC 21202b)
2)Sharrows are not bike lanes. They don't restrict cars from driving in the lane with the sharrow, they merely remind them that bikes will be present and if they're riding in the middle it is within their LEGAL RIGHT to do so.
3)If a cyclist is in front of you and is riding in the middle, use the adjacent lane to pass. This is just simple common sense and common courtesy.
4)A sharrow lane is not some crazy avant-garde engineering feat from outer space. It is a road marking that reminds motorists and cyclists that it is perfectly OK for a cyclist to ride in the middle of the street.
R
A Brain Surgeon friend is part of the opinion here. 98% of bicyclists admitted to ER, never recover. The helmet is not much help. Some of the Legal experts in our group, and others, see potential concerns, that's all.
A 2 ton car, versus a basically naked body, is a dangerous deal. At least you have a 600-1000 pounds of mass to compete with on a motorcycle, which is still, little defense. The 'vehicle code' does not suspend the laws of physics , or the equations regarding 3,500-4,000 pounds of metal , against 100 to 200 pounds of exposed flesh and bone.
Some people put on their trained Civil Negligence glasses, and consult the Legal team, and others, including noteworthy Engineers, and Architects, other Experts, and merely express a little concern for others. That's all. We all ride, or did.
A concern is for new or novice riders, and having plowed it recently, it seems too narrow. Too many bodies, car doors, J walkers. Especially for kids, and seniors.
We simply do not want to see anybody get hurt. There are much wider, less harried streets inland, like 1st, Broadway ? PCH ? And others. Why did we chose the very narrowest street of all, in the busiest area??
To add 'eyes' and potential foot traffic and revenue past a business district?
Personally, we have seen 3 riders get a door opened into their path, and get launched like Super Man .......up up and away .....
A Doctors wife we know, got her face torn up bad after skidding to a stop on it.
Personally, one of us nearly bought the farm due to a car clipping a yellow light, way too late, or blowing a red, twice.
It seem fair to raise a few concerns, by way of caution.
We will not dignify your pathetic name calling, other than to let it reflect upon your lack of intellectual integrity, fear of free and fair debate and less than stellar personal code of ethics.
Many of us, will continue to ride where it is smarter, and safer. That's all.
Have fun !! See you in top gear on PCH . Wear that helmet ! Ride defensively.....
Don't ride on the sidewalk like a Girl Scout !!
Signed, Tom Snodgrass
I think we are well past the days of trying to figure out if this is a legitimate issue.
Violation of a Statute, proves Duty and Breach and shifts the burden of proof onto the respondent.
The Bars have a Duty to the patrons, and the residents. The Police have a duty to uphold the Law. There have been a range of Breaches of these Duties, according to many. The harm to individuals, and their property rights, and safety, have been caused by these breaches. It seems quite arguable, that certain conduct has fallen below several applicable standards of care .
Time to allege the above, and get on to estimating, and requesting, an award of monetary Damages.
There are also many Public, and Private Nuisance issues. A temporary, or Preliminary Injunction seems possible. A Civilian can fill out a form, have a parallegal assist them, and request one from a neutral magistrate.
One way or another, something has to change for the residents sake.
And the sitting Councilman has do something meaningful, and to tell a few friends the bad news. They had a sweet deal, and they blew it.
Greed betrays you again boys.
How about the critical resources ($$$$) that have or are being diverted from policing and infrastructure into private hands; Belmont Shore Business District ($750,000 parking meter funds), Downtown Business District (over $1,000,000), RDA (over $350 million dollars in LB backed bonds and 20+ years of property tax increases for over 50% of the city) to fund private development, Art Museum loans, buddy loans such as the one to Legends owner Rotundo, Aquarium loans, $250,000 RDA money for LED lighting (City Power & Light), special event policing and fees that are forgiven through the back door never paid, building permit/zoning variance fees that are forgiven or never paid, how about the time DeLong tried to fix the parking tickets for peninsula friends, how about the phone companies failing to pay taxes to LB paid by LB citizens, how about Prevratil walking off with millions of city money, how about the Millions$$$ business tax that was supposed to pay for eastside LB public works improvements that was diverted to downtown, how many millions of dollars are spent on policing the LB Grand Prix and downtown bars which not paid for by thoses with lots of profit and stuff you probably don't even know about.
And the Lobbying remains quite questionable Ethically? As does the extent of several arguable, colorable misrepresentations?
This massive, attempted transfer of wealth, assumes an approximation of every component of Fair Market Value, and reasonable estimations of actual worth, and an objective collection of estimates, and approximations of all of the component parts.
As we continue to evaluate this attempted transfer of Municipal, and State wealth, the 'fire sale' of many of the City assets, almost given to a 'freind', at huge discounts, and the unjustifiable premium expected for the Sellers Wetlands, is truly alarming.
We are hearing that any attempt to gun this deal again, is going straight into State, and or Federal Court for an Injunction and more? Oh joy, oh rapture.
Recall further, that as soon as this Exchange slowed down, the Loynes Wetlands got destroyed? Retribution? There are filings being finalized there too. It is a wait, see a vulnerability, and file deal, rumor has it.
There is a whole lot of explaining to do yet, including many appearances of impropriety caused by a wide range of Conflicts of Interest, arguable Gifts of Public Funds, Professional Negligence on several levels, and a range of Breached Fiduciary Duties, and more.
Penning a bad deal, hands the concerned several potential Causes of Action. It fixes the potential damages too. It well may establish Fraud as well.
Until the Cost, and liability, and degree of contribution owing, for around 6 decades of Toxic Dump operation is confronted, head on, fairly, and with candor, many forsee great difficulty. A possible remediation bill of 250 to 400 Million $, cannot be ignored.
Why would any reasonable Municipality purchase, let alone accept such liability in the absence of an estimate of the expense? If this is not Negligent, what is?
Couldn't a private action be filed, after Long Beach accepts title, and cause the contamination issues to become ripe? Many believe that they can clearly prove, that the incidence of cancer, in, and around this area is much higher than normal, and that this contamination is the cause?
The Political Timing is fascinating.
If Staff was smart, they would Offer 25 Million, for all of the Wetlands, and all of the Mineral Rights. The Sellers would be lucky, to receive 28 Million in today's economy.
Certain speculators only look towards the big score. Others see spending a Million, to save the State, and the City, tens, and tens of Millions, fun.
Unless we prioritize some Soil Remediation, and much well relocation, and significant road removal, we have concerns.
Let the War rage on. There has been fair warning. May the chips fall where they may.
Back to the topic,let's catch and convict these Rapists, and clean up all of these other dirty deals, and sanction any overly influenced politicians or staff.
This is includes a arguable conspiracy to, or acts in the direction of, financial RAPE of anyone's reasonable expectation of funding a Wetlands Restoration budget.
Let's be reasonable, fair, transparent, and accountable ??
Nice inventory and analysis Advocate Sunshine.
What other than your personal pecuniary interest is at risk, rude kindof stool ?
President Ruehle has a right to his opinion, and to advocate on behalf of his members, and his residents. That is as legal as eating a Hot Dog at the ballpark.
Belmont Shore has been pouring way too much booze for the last few years, the residents are assembling their pitchforks, the atmosphere of benign neglect has resulted in demonstrable harm to the residents, their property rights, and their personal rights.
To attempt to regain some modicum of sanity to the area, the Nuisance Bars have now cost the City plenty of money for additional patrols. At some point, we will legally qualntify these expenditures, and then compare them to the revenue that a few special friends bars generate for our City.
It is clear, that the cost to the City, is greater, than the revenue obtained, net, to our General Fund. Thus, tax dollars are in essence diverted, into profits for certain franchise holders.
These Bars cannot, and will not fund their own security to an effective level. The have harmed, not helped our community, at large. Restrict their footprint, and volume, pull back their closing times, set an entirely new tone for the binge drinking crowd, make it patently clear that the Shore is once again, a good place to get arrested if you break the law.
And insodoing,let a few, greedy old men, with few scruples, little humanity towards their neighbors, and far too little respect for the adjacent home owners, or lessee's, scale back their outsized profit expectations.
And Tool Box, if you, and your click, wants to file anything against the BSRA, get out your check book, we will counterfile in earnest, and proceed with both barrels.
You have a lot of well connected, well represented, well funded people upset about all of this, and Mr Ruehle is not the problem. He and his associates, are endeavoring towards meaningful solutions.
Funny, that is supposed to be a Council responsibility.....oh right.......''hands off my buddies''. He can stand up, show community sympathy, and knock down this perception by implementing real, meaningful reform.
It may be time for him to finally confront a politically hard choice, and err on the side of the people this time. Finally.
Mr DeLong was correct, in his TV interview, to state;"They are pouring too much booze'. Now it is time to do something about this, beginning with the worst offenders. Start where the highest gross sales exist.
This entire mess, appears primarily attributable to acute Political Negligence. And cronyism.
And if you want to allege Tort's by President Ruehle, do so formally. Get out your check book, we have considerable resources, are well connected, and very well represented.
Let's dance twinkle toes. We doubt that you personally have enough 'powder' to blow your nose with, or, are so miserably cheap, that it is all about your bottom line.
The rumor is, somebody is stressing out, because they couldn't keep their gun in the holster, and are staring at handing the ex, justifiably, Millions.
Hope you had fun???
I
Looks like we'll return to "fair dealing" as a result. Very good.
signed, Tom Snodgrass
Why don't you question why only 15 members of the Belmont Shore Business Association voted to elect Rottenundo to his 11th term?
I would disagree with your characterization of “populist” where Mr. Ruehle’s concerned. In my opinion Mr. Ruehle doesn’t quite fit that definition. Where the true populist is said to be a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people, Mr. Ruehle’s beliefs appear to be somewhat more…constricted…than that. Mr. Ruehle only appears to believe in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people who AGREE with his views and personal agendas.
Those who do not agree or who even dare to *question* his assertions are attacked, vilified and excoriated ad-infinitum. Just as I will, no doubt, be for offering this factual observation.
I submit that Mr. Ruehle resembles the historical American populists of the late 19th century (whence came the term) in this aspect only: Like them, he seems to believe that the best answers to social ills are those that derive primarily from government. He sees social challenges in his neighborhood and seems to desire that the corrections come predominantly from our local government (whether it be the Council, the Mayor; the Police Department, etc). When these challenges are not addressed to Mr. Ruehle’s satisfaction, he appears to deem it a failure of government, rather than, as I believe to be the case, a failure of his own approaches and expectations.
In my view, and the view of most true conservatives, government should be as small as we can keep it and involved in our personal lives as little as humanly possible. Government should not be relied upon as the primary corrective instrument for social ills. It should be at most a facilitator and an organizer, helping to gather resources and improve coordination and communication between them.
The more we rely upon government…the more we ask or demand of it…the bigger it gets. The bigger it gets; the less effective it becomes and the more it costs us, in many ways, monetarily not the least of them.
I have questioned the leadership of many of our local elected and appointed officials and have been doing so for some time; I just don’t always do so here, because I believe there are more effective ways of voicing my views on such matters.
Voter apathy most certainly exists in Long Beach. But, unlike you, I don’t believe that it exists because of poor elected leadership…I believe poor elected leadership exists, in large part, due to voter apathy. I know it seems fairly easy and convenient to blame Mayor Foster or Council Member DeLong or any other politician du jour, but truly, at the end of the day, the responsibility for responsible self-government lies with the electorate, who creates it, and not with whatever officials temporarily hold this or that elected or appointed office.
The responsibility for good government is ours, sunshine. We reap the rewards when it exists and so we must likewise suffer and shoulder the blame when it does not.
You assert that “only” 15 BSBA members elected Mr. Rotondo to his 11th term and imply this is a comment upon his lack of effective leadership. But isn’t it true that Mr. Ruehle prevailed in his 2nd election by that very same number of votes? Do you, in turn, believe that fact to be a comment upon Mr. Ruehle’s lack of effective leadership as well?
Perhaps the numbers in both cases reflect a level of frustration among the members of both organizations. Perhaps they signal that they've had quite enough of the in-fighting between two leaders who should be cooperating with rather than constantly castigating one another.
As I understand it, the BSBA exists as a matter of contractual law. Perhaps the BSBA needs new leadership and, if so, perhaps the members will agree to make that change.
Perhaps the BSRA also needs new leadership and perhaps IT'S members will agree to make THAT change. Perhaps the BSRA, under its current leadership, has become ineffective and counter-productive as an organization. Perhaps its time for members who are disillusioned with that leadership to disband the organization altogether and create a new one under new and cooperative leadership that other stakeholders are willing and able to work with.
Time, as always, will tell.
At the last BSRA over 230 residents voted. At some residents association (I am aware of) as few as 10 people vote. The BSRA has the largest turnout of members and is growing, has started polling residents, and has the largest active membership. The BSRA has become one of the most democratic citizens group in Long Beach. All of this has happened since populist Mike Ruehle became president of the BSRA. I am suprised you do not know this, seems like you have all the facts and answers in your 720 word post?
There are many things I don't know, sunshine. But at least I'm willing to admit that.
One way to correct such a condition is to ask for information, which I have been doing on the matter of BSRA membership, now, for very nearly 3 weeks.
It seems strange to me that with all of this vast knowledge, here, about the BSRA, no one seems able or willing to answer that one simple question.
Very strange indeed.
I'm not desperate for this information to any degree. It'd just be nice to receive a factual answer from SOMEone. I think it possible that those numbers could prove very informative.
But if I don't gain access to them, I don't. As you say, and as I have confirmed on several occasions, I'm not a journalist, so I can opinionate just as effectively without those numbers if I have to. I just prefer to base my opinions on facts whenever I can.
To what rules change are you referring and how would current and factual BSRA membership numbers have any bearing upon them?
im done going around about it, if i was mike i wouldnt give you the time of day, hopefully he continues ignoring you, im sure whatever use you plan for the information for is nothing that will benefit the bsra.
OBJECTION; Irrelevant, and Immaterial.
And the advocates say..........sustained
Many of the comments here have run far afield of the original topic in many different directions and you, yourself, have offered some of them. Yet you only question the relevance and materiality of those comments you deem to be critical of Mr. Ruehle.
This is your right of course, but if your goal is truly to keep conversation "on topic", I submit that your objections should be a bit more evenly applied, don't you think?
When this story was posted 4 short days ago, Mr. Ruehle was the first to choose to comment and, not surprisingly, the first to inject the BSRA and other topics into the discussion, thus *making* himself AND his organization entirely relevant and material to the considerable discussion that has followed.
Now, “advocates” may very well say “sustained” to your objection (what else COULD an advocate for Mr. Ruehle say?) but I think a truly impartial arbiter would proclaim a loud and forceful “OVERRULLED”.
As friendly advice, you really seem to have a measurable grudge against a Residents President at times. You can come across as if President Ruehle is solely in your cross hairs at times, and this concerns some.
People are saying this...just a friendly FYI
True, he has had his criticisms towards Law Enforcement at times, but he has that right? You are Public Servants, and he represents an Association that is less than happy?
We can quibble about 'style'... or not.
But clearly, he is not the rapist. He is not running a binge bar. He did not slash a throat, nor shoot anybody, and he did not attrit the Police presence down to 1 mere Officer after 10 Pm?
This happened under this Councilman, and on certain Police Officers beats. You guys get paid to deal with this ?
Where is the Councilman's Statement?
As for the 'OBJECTIONS", that was largely in fun....but kind of fair? If we are talking about crime, and misconduct, and Nuisance Bars, how does President Ruehle's Character come into play? This was merely an 'off topic' chide.
Also, and in all fairness, you too, have your Evidentiary Objections to raise, that's fair? When you look at all of the comments, you see patterns.
Some comments tend to resonate, others attract a pack response at times?
On the BSRA vote? A 6% turnout is phenomenal in this town?
And hey...what about the infallable voice of...''The Electorate''. It spoke? Hail to the Chief?
There are sitting Councilpersons who barely attracted 1000 votes out of 55,000? 1,300 in the 9th?
So is it your belief, that the representative sampling, was too small, and thus Ruehle's Rule is suspect? Putative? Erroneous?
Fine? Walk the area with petitions for an opponent next time. You'll get seen, and teased, but hey...he won?
President Ruehle ran no campaign, sent no 'pieces', ran no ads, and did pretty well?
You might need to become a Residents Association Pres, or Vice Pres, or Director, to sense the frustration, or problems at times.
You are inside the system, and thus strained to be wholly objective. Your speech is severely restricted too. Thanks none the less for your service.
Again, why are we rehashing this?
The sickening precedent was the bars boozing up friends to attempt to storm the election, but mostly, a Councilman stooping to personal involvement, an email campaign, and actually handing out voting stickers?
How LOW....will they GO....?? Doin the limbo
Help us solve some crimes here?. Tell the residents, for example, how to detain a suspect resembling this reprehensible bastard of a RAPIST?
If you blog at work, help us play Joe Friday. We want to work as a team here, and enforce the law, more often.
(Now for a little levity)
Hypothetically, If we see a guy resembling this SOB, making a move on one of our Ladies, what force is appropriate to stop it?
Hypothetically, say for instance..
Some now carry STUN GUNS in the area. (Thanks Binge Bars.) Would 50,000 Volts applied directly to a sexual predators errant, felonious testicles be inappropriate?
Of course, to merely countermand a crime in progress. Is this a reasonable application of force?
If so, can we exhaust the batteries in the stun gun, until the perp faints...for instance?
To those of us skilled in Martial Arts, or Self Defense, can we subdue this Mother F...er with a nice, long, choke hold?
OK, once he is on the ground, assuming we are wearing our Viet Nam boots, while calling 911, how long do you suggest that we stand upon his testicles?
Sensing the outrage yet?
If several of us catch this despicable weakling, again, in the act, how many full rotations might you suggest that we twist his nut sack? 3 full revolutions? 4? Several vote for 5.
Would you suggest using latex, or nice rough leather gloves? Let's propose the latter.
Are you starting to get how pissed off a few of us are at this scumbag?
A little 17 year old girl, is taking an HIV, Hepatitus, Herpes, STD test right around now? Right? Standard procedure? Her family is waiting, and possibly hoping, and praying for clean results?
Who knows? Maybe she'll become a Mother?
But hey, some Kidding aside, help us resolve the Police, Political, and Residents issues here please?
Help the people organize more Neighborhood Watch? Urge Residents to keep their Probable Cause Meters on?
Urge your kind colleagues to watch a little closer, respond a bit quicker, deploy more assets and educate their callers, and residents repesentatives more effectively. Sooner? More widely ?
Few get the PT in the area, why doesn't the Councilman email the residents? Their Reps? Prepare and distribute Flyers?
How about the PD ?
S for BSRA politics, President Ruehle is in Office, many are certain he will get re-elected, you have to be a resident to gain a vote, let his members direct his advocacy. They are his base. He answers to them?
Sources claim, that he actually thought that you were a pretty cool guy for a while, but something has changed recently?
Let's mend a fence? Or not...
Many of us might be wise not to take blogging too very, very seriously at times as well ?
However, reducing Crime in the Shore is important. Let's all do our part? And put personality differences aside?
You have your job, Ruehle his, us ours, let's get the bars to throttle back significantly, restore a better sense of calm and quiet in the community..and catch these RAPISTS, and other criminals ?
Go get 'em Sarg !! Don't let us catch him first !! He'll be siging high soprano at his arraignment !!
As an aside..What is the latest about the Shore Shooting? Why have we heard zero official details?
Hey Mr. Ruehle, how many members are in the BSRA and why won't you answer that simple question Mr. Statistics??? I find it very interesting that you wont answer that. By last vote one would guess that its around 250-300 but that would be unfair to assume, which by the way you would have no trouble doing. Funny though a single call to BSBA and they tell you exactly right on the phone.
Who do you represent Mike?? How many?? Come on don't be afraid, it's ok.
Signed , Tom Snodgrass AKA: Ruehles A Tool. or RAT
"Thomas Henry Snodgrass had a feeling he would "be that guy" ensnared in a televised online predator sting when he left his home to meet a 13-year-old girl in Hawthorne."
http://www.dailybreeze.com/crimeandcourts/ci_10...
His last public statement at Council was that he was exceedingly pleased with the Police response in the area. Great. What about the RAPES?
Also, what affirmative steps has he made in mitigating the Bars Gone Wild syndrome plaguing the area?
Apparently he 'talked' to some residents. What has been communicated to the residents, and their organizations? Let's all ask?
The PT killed the Shooting Story. Ignored the RAPE? But did a glowing, fluff piece about Mr Hankla ? OK Starting to see the big picture here.
This encouraged me to review the police’s own crime statistics for Belmont Shore per the below link. According to the statistics, three “forced rapes” have been reported in Belmont Shore since May, 2008. The June 15th incident makes it four.
http://www.longbeach.gov/police/statistics.asp
Does anyone remember hearing about any of the three previous Belmont Shore rapes over the past year? I don’t remember any being reported in the news. If the police did not reveal the previous three rapes to the community, this causes me to sincerely doubt whether the police would have told residents about the most recent sexual assault and the fact that the rapist is still loose and a potential danger to the community.
In the absence of information on the previous three forced rapes, does this not cause you to wonder if the police caught the other rapists or whether any of these forced rapes are somehow related? Is it possible there is another Belmont Shore rapist starting up? Is this a scenario similar to the movie “Jaws” where the police suppressed information and kept the beaches open because the Mayor didn’t want the tourists to know there was a shark waiting in the water to eat them?
http://www.presstelegram.com/breakingnews/ci_12...
If President Ruehle was our Councilman, bet that he'd tell the Police...'' I want this guys balls on my desk by week end''.....or ''soon''. If not, re-assignment time.
One thing is for certain, Doug Drummond would not tolerate this BS for a New York minute under his administration. When he was the Councilman, he ran a very tight ship down there.
This benign neglect, is purely political. It is a failed experiment.
It was pretty quiet under Bulldog Drummond, and Colona, and very safe at night. You could go on a date without concern. Safety, and Law Enforcement was a high priority, as was personal concern, outreach and personal involvement.
This unfettered Capitalism mindset, along with this failed de regulate business goal, and a stiff shot of being 'business friendly' has proven it's downside. We have enough 'Entertainment Zones' in town.
Neighborhoods First ?
Your biased reporting that Mr. Ruehle is an inaffectual leader is crap. Not only has he increased membership in the BSRA by 4X but his news email list is now much much higher than the BSRA membership. Mr. Ruehle's email newletter is sent out to most of Long Beach and is considered a valuable update on what is happening in Belmont Shore and Long Beach.
Why are you so considered with the BSRA election one day before a membership vote? Snitchin again?
I'm really hoping for factual and *current* BSRA membership numbers from someone who can speak competently about them. If that's you, great, just update the numbers in current terms, if you can, and let me know how you know them?
Your opinions concerning my opinions are duly noted. Thanks.
If you meant to ask why I'm "concerned" with the upcoming BSRA vote I can assure you I'm not much concerned about it at all except, as I stated, to hope, like you, that the turnout is large. The more members who vote, and vote intelligently, the more truly representative that organization is likely to become!
Scared to death these sorry bastards!
Alerting the community is part of the 'Serve and Protect' function we expect from the mainstream media, and the PD. Maybe, somehow, somewhere, something broke down, or there is a Policy that got misconstrued?
Now for the common community lament....''Why weren't we told??''
For certain, the Councilman would have been briefed. No doubt about it. So why didn't his Office alert the Homeowners Associations? So they could alert their Neighborhood Watch?
In many other Jurisdictions, or areas, this would be on the front page, or at least in the 'A' section, every time.. It should be. The public has a right, and a need to know about such brutal crimes.
Sitting on such stories in just , plain, wrong. We are not dealing with 'Sensitive National Security'', and we need to hear a lot more about how this may have 'Compromised a pending investigation?''
As usual, excellent work LBReport, and the District.
We are going to quote one of the best Attorneys in town, with a State wide reputation, on the issue of problems in and around this town.
'' Thank God for the Long Beach Report, and the District Weekly''. Without them, who knows where we would be.
Mr Greet, in the future, would you be a bit more forthcoming as to matters of Public Safety in our area? Why was the community left in the dark as to unknowingly leave our guard down here?
What about the Public, Private partnership? If we are your eyes, and ears...as we often hear......why weren't we alerted?
Not one Neighborhood Watch member, or block Captain that we know, heard a word about this?
Who made this call, and who do we send the Letters to?
Might you please tell us the status of the prior cases? Anyone arrested? Any resolution ? Are they still all open cases?
Bless the Police for the increased presence in the area, please, keep up the good work, but remember, keep us in the loop. At least our elected Residents Rep's. We are your partners, and we want to help. Many of us, are always on a patrol of sorts, looking out for our friends.
So President Ruehle, according to your official sources, and data, is the Shore now the Highest Rape zone in town over the last year?
More half price shooters at Midnight !! Better yet, midnight curfew, and boot a few Politicians.....??
I understand that some may not always agree with these reasons, but that doesn’t make those reasons any less valid or necessary sometimes.
As to your request that I, personally, be more forthcoming, as to “matters of public safety in our area”, I can assure you that I am as forthcoming as I am permitted by policy and procedure to be. But unless I am specifically authorized to speak on behalf of the Police Department on a given matter (and, with occasional exception during my career, I have not been and am not now so authorized) all official comments must necessarily come from those, like Sgt. Zapalski, who are.
When I do comment, then, it is as a private citizen with considerable law enforcement experience and it is on law enforcement matters generally, to offer some small insight into those issues if and when I am able. I do this whenever I can because I know that many people simply don’t understand how and why some things are done in the law enforcement profession. So I try to assist and to be a resource to my community in that way whenever I can.
Some with specific political agendas like to erroneously assert that I am somehow speaking for the Police Department when I voice my personal opinions about challenges and issues in our community. This is not true, but it suits their personal agendas to claim it because they can then attack not only me, but the Department and the City (and, now LBPOST.com as well) when they disagree with I have to say. This is unfortunate because it allows them to attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that much of their arguments and assertions have little basis in fact. But when I dare to point this out to them it is somehow me who is at fault.
So be it. Our respective arguments will succeed or fail on their own merits, or lack thereof.
As to the public/private partnership you mention, I can assure you that it is alive and well and thriving, despite what some in our community would have you believe. But despite this partnership, law enforcement cannot always be as forthcoming as it might sometimes like, especially in cases (like this one) where a certain level of victim confidentiality is *mandated by law*.
But the community was, indeed, alerted, on this matter. And I don’t doubt that it happened as soon as it was reasonably possible to do so. Some protest that the City or the PD doesn’t notify them of crimes in their neighborhood. They cite publicly available crime statistics and drill down to one specific crime or another and demand to know why they were not told. Yet it apparently never occurs to them that they *are* being told, and through the very same publicly published crime statistics they are citing.
It’s my belief that these publicly published crime statistics are as current as the Department can make them and still maintain their accuracy. Accessing these statistics is as simple as going to the PD website, determining the Reporting District (RD) one is interested in, and then finding the statistics for that RD on the linked spreadsheets.
Here’s the link: http://www.longbeach.gov/police/statistics.asp. Note this quote on the webpage: “Members of the community are encouraged to continue partnering and problem-solving with the Long Beach Police Department while using CrimeReports.com data toward shared police-community goals.”
Put simply, one of those “shared police-community goals” is to catch the bad guy, after all. Does it really make sense that the PD would act in a manner counter to that goal? Some of the less circumspect among us would have you believe this, or that the PD would somehow use the community as “guinea pigs” to do so. In all of my years in law enforcement I have *never* seen a single example of any municipal law enforcement agency doing such a thing. Their mandate is to *protect* the public as best as they are able. Does it really seem reasonable that they would deliberately endanger the public in order to protect it? Quite the contrary, they endanger *themselves* to protect the public. And they do so routinely, though some seem very quick to forget that fact.
Thanks for the respectful dialog!
I don't have any personal knowledge of "who made this call". Dr. Anthony W. Batts is the Chief of Police in Long Beach. Any letters of concern, complaint or commendation can be addressed to him at 400 W. Broadway, LB, 90802.
Unfortunately I am not able to provide you with updates on prior cases, some or all of which may still be under active investigation. The best initial office to call for such an inquiry is the Department's Community Relations Division at 562-570-7215.
Hope that helps and if I overlooked anything else, please feel free to ask!
Such is understandable, we merely endeavor to advance the debate and address relevant concerns. Clearly, we enjoy great latitude here.
With respect to our Chief, there is no doubt that Tony Batts is an awesome dude. Many would love to help him become Mayor some day, or more. He is one of those men that you feel privileged to shake hands with.
And many ladies get all gaga around him ! Recall he was voted Long Beach's most sexy man !!
His plate is so very full, that we will rely upon his able men and women to handle this matter for now. He has to help work on the budget with our Mayor, we here.
Oh, if we only had a bigger piece of the Tidelands Revenue, or more of the Port Revenues, or larger allocations from the State or Federal Government?
We feel certain, that he deserves substantial praise for allocating resources to the East Division which are clearly helping return Law and Order to Belmont Shore.
Many believe that he can help usher in meaningful solutions, and reforms. For sure, he has always had respect for the Residents Associations, and their members, Neighborhoods, and the little guy or gal.
He understands advocacy, and he respects all residents rights.
We have a fine Chief and we will bet that he can help bring the Law back into Dodge City. We'll help.
Also, we have some Excellent City Attorneys, and Prosecutor's. We need to keep them informed, and engaged as well. Many live in the area, and most doubt that they want to see the area morph towards a perpetual 'Spring Break' Party either.
A simple letter, with a concise request, can do a lot. For example, how can we better enforce the existing Noise Ordinance?
How can we assemble a case for an Unlawful Private, or Public Nuisance filing?
How do we initiate, and move forward with a Safe Streets Action?
Give us acceptable guidelines for affecting a lawful Citizens Arrest?
What merit would you assign to a Midnight Curfew, on a 6 month trial basis, over all bars on 2nd?
Finally, may God rest Michael Jackson's soul. Rest in Peace King of Pop. You died way, way too young.
Same for Farah Fawcett. What a babe she was.
I understand the feeling that “law and order” is being returned to the Shore, sir. But, truly, the Shore has one of the lowest overall crime rates in the City. It doesn’t seem that way to some, I realize, but it’s true nonetheless.
The best means by which to assist in the enforcement of the noise ordinance, or any ordinance for that matter, is simply to call when it is violated; be willing to be contacted when officers arrive; to be listed as a victim in the crime report and then be willing to testify should the matter go to trial.
As to Neighborhood Nuisances: The City set a goal for 2010 to, among other things, “Encourage a team approach among residents and the City for nuisance abatement and code enforcement.” The City restored the Nuisance Abatement Officer position it had cut during a previous budget and the Code Enforcement office is a good place to start for initiating a “Public Nuisance filing” as well as a Safe Streets action. Their number is 570-2633.
Citizens Arrests are permissible under Penal Code Guidelines found in Section 837, and others, of that document. The taking of someone into physical custody is sometimes a difficult and delicate matter and it is not to be undertaken frivolously, lest the private person attempting to make the arrest expose himself to considerable civil and possibly even criminal liability.
A private person may arrest another:
1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence
2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence
3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it
If a private person is determined to make an arrest, its best that they call for police assistance first whenever possible, explain the circumstances to them, allow them to attempt to detain the person in question in a safe and reasonable manner while the investigation is conducted.
Setting earlier closing-time requirements for bars in Belmont Shore might, indeed, have merit. I’m concerned that changing the terms of existing liquor licenses may not be as simple as some believe it to be. I’m also concerned that in doing such a thing we risk throwing the baby out with the bath-water. In attempting to mitigate late-night nuisances in the area we could also have the effect of chasing other, non-nuisance related custom away from the area as well. Doing so could prove more harmful than beneficial in the grand scheme of things. But I’m for trying anything that proves reasonable and, importantly, doesn’t cost the taxpayers more than they already pay.
I hope these answers have proved of assistance.
To my knowledge the PD isn’t asserting anything other than what has been asserted in official statements and interviews.
I understand your desire for answers. I desire them also. Many do. But all of the answers we seek are not always available to us. Sometimes they may never be.
This is not conspiracy or collusion.
It's simply a fact of everyday life. Victim confidentiality is but one of the possible and very valid reasons for this. Others, equally possible and valid, also exist.
I submit that flailing randomly about in groundless accusation serves no constructive purpose and does the entire community a grave disservice.
I personally believe the Department releases what information it can, when it can. You disagree.
I've tried to offer the best avenue I know of for you and other members of the public to seek more answers if they are available.
I encourage you, with all possible courtesy, to avail yourself of it.
Our City Government can't even tell us the facts of where a significant portion of our publicly owned art collection is...pieces of fine art that were originally reported missing in *1988*...and you want them to possess ALL the facts and communicate ALL of them to us on THIS?
Please! A little dose of reality is required.
Despite that I have made several attempts to dissuade you of this misperception, you repeatedly infer that I speak for the police department on this matter and ask me specific questions as if you are asking them of the police department. I understand your desire for specificity and I have clearly described to you, and others, how you might receive it, assuming it is available. If you cannot or will not comprehend these facts then there’s nothing more I can do to assist you.
As for me, I asked for membership numbers of both the BSBA and the BSRA in an attempt to assess their levels of representation in their respective communities. Because I could not find these numbers readily available from other published sources and because I prefer to deal in factual information whenever possible, I chose to ask both organizations directly, by email.
As mentioned, the BSRA never replied to the email. Since Mr. Ruehle posts so prevalently here, I thought I’d try asking him here.
I hope this proves sufficiently responsive for you.
Thank you in advance for your following my order.
So very sorry if this inconveniences or otherwise annoys you. The best response might be to stop reading, let alone commenting on, my posts?
I typically agree with your complaints about legends and the other bars and that something needs to be done to limit the number of alcohol selling establishments, moving closing time closer to midnight, and increasing police presence. All very good objectives Mike!
But you are now acting irresponsible. Rapes happen in every single area like the shore. In a one year period there were 4 rapes according to you in the shore. In a one year period here is what the count is for "like areas" (where there is nightlife in upscale coastal areas):
Manhattan Beach - 2 rapes
Newport Beach - 4 rapes
Hermosa Beach - 12 rapes
Huntington Beach - 29 rapes
It is irresponsible to suggest that the shore is unsafe or on the onset of a serial rapist.
Yes. There are problems. Drunks are loud and inconsiderate and sometimes there are fights. You list the problems on every message board regardless of topic. I appreciate the effort you are putting toward improving 2nd Street but you lose credibility when you paint the place as a war zone full of murderers, rapists, and destruction.
Keep in mind; my comments come following Councilman DeLong’s June 18th (3 days after the rape) neighborhood association meeting at the Yacht Club where Commander Renaud’s presentation was on how well she was working with District 3 neighborhood groups. Meanwhile, numerous Belmont Shore residents have been asking for her and the polices' help to no avail for the 16 months prior to the 2nd street shooting.
As far as the disclosure of the rape, I don't have an opinion yet. Part of me agrees with you that it would be nice to know immediately. Part of me thinks that rapes are isolated incidents and it's better to wait until all the facts are in before disclosure.
and the commander does work well with every neighborhood group but yours. You are the anomoly. don't take that as I am blaming you. there is a problem with delong and your relationship. i'm not sure how to fix it. you both need to give. neither of you seem open to that.
I've already explained to you in detail how I've tried to "give" in my relationship with COUNCILMAN DELONG and immediately afterwards been stabbed in the back. There is no "give" with these guys other than in the back.
Logic will tell us that this fact does not, in and of itself, mean that Mr. DeLong does not bear some responsibility for the on-going difficulties between him and Mr. Ruehle; it takes two to tango as they say.
But the totality of the circumstances indicate, at least to me, that on the long (and daily lengthening) list of officials and representatives and organizations that Mr. Ruehle cannot seem to work or communicate effectively with, the common denominator is Mr. Ruehle.
Some here are fond of polls. It might prove instructive to poll (in a truly fair and unbiased manner) the other 24 neighborhood associations listed in the 3rd District and ask *their* representatives how *they* would rate their access to, communication with or representation by Mr. DeLong.
Perhaps the results would support your assertions, and perhaps they would not. But either way I think they would prove instructive.
The closer I get to uncovering some of these facts, the more uncomfortable and inconvenienced you and others seem to get and the more personal and dismissive your attacks upon me become.
I find that quite telling.
If they are being sincere, Mr. Ruehle and his supporters have some of the very same goals I do, among them: Improving the overall standard of living and quality of life in the Shore. Where we differ in opinion, is in how best to help make that happen.
I submit that some of Mr. Ruehle's approaches, actions, public comments and demeanor are proving counter-productive and inhibiting progress toward the stated goal.
His exclusion from various stakeholder strategy meetings and having some of his communications ignored seem proof positive of this contention.
Perhaps, instead of constantly stomping his feet and banging his fist and exclaiming "I'm right and everyone who disagrees is out to get me", Mr. Ruehle might consider modifying his approaches, actions, public comments and demeanor.
That's all I'm sayin'!
Likewise, Mr. Ruehle does *not* represent all of the residents of Belmont Shore...much though he seems to like to leave the impression that he does.
He only represents his BSRA membership and, truly, only those 136 BSRA members who actually voted for him.
This is why I think it would be instructive to know how many members his organization actually has, so that we might better assess just how many Shore residents Mr. Ruehle actually represents.
During his June 2nd Council performance, Mr. Ruehle said: "There’s 400…4,700 homes in the area that I represent". The misleading phrasing can leave an impression that he represents the residents living in 4,700 homes. But I rather doubt the BSRA has that many members although I readily admit that it's possible.
This is, once again, why I keep asking. Never fear, though, Mr. x, I haven’t only asked in an email to the BSRA or in comments here. I feel confident that someone will eventually prove willing to offer me some simple facts on the matter.
out of context quotes prove nothing other than the fact that youre willing to use less than honest methods to achieve your bosses aims.
im fully of the opinion that if there was a significant number of bsra members who had complaints about mike's leadership we would have heard about it, perhaps in your lbpost column or maybe even the p-t. after all SOMEONE leaked parts of his criminal record to the p-t, now who had motive, access and opportunity to do that officer greet? needless to say if rotundo et al could find any complainers it would have been splashed all over their tame media.
I routinely and consistently refer to Mr. Ruehle as the BSRA President. This does not mean that he necessarily represents the desires and concerns of his entire membership, any more than my current and esteemed POTUS represents my desires and concerns nor those of any true conservative.
I have a lot of bosses, it's true, but none of them reside or do or own a business on or along or near 2nd Street.
Mr. Ruehle's quote was presented entirely in context and quoted verbatim. I made sure to double check the video clip before typing it.
Because I, too, was concerned about the circumstances surrounding that PT story after it came out, I spoke with Mr. Eakins about it. Have you? Perhaps you should try to do so. You might learn an actual fact or two about it.
"He only represents his BSRA membership and, truly, only those 136 BSRA members who actually voted for him."
that is your faulty logic im referring to.
when you use a quote, without stating what came before or after it or even what it was in reference to, that is out of context.
youre only in the tar pit up to your knees now greet, theres still time to get out.
Here are the results of my poll, 18 out of 20 TDW posters are completely disgusted by your dishonest inaccurate portrayal of Mike Ruehle. Lets hope that this Saturdays BSRA election turnout is great and your alter eagle ego will eating crow.
UPE "leadership"- due to home depot. though many residents in UPE supported home depot.
Shore "leadership" - due to bar realted issues; again some residents support delong
the other problem he has is the breakwater. generally everyone in his district wants to reconfigure it except some old people on the peninsula
other than that delong gets pretty high marks from his district; my bet is he gets re-elected pretty easily unless there is a delong clone that supports reconfig of breakwater. that guy would beat him. we'll see.
It is not my intent to attack Mr. Ruehle, as a person, merely to point out the problems that I have with his leadership style, the methods he uses to attempt to persuade others and the manner in which he sometimes deals with those who dare to disagree with him.
Please be specific as to what I have said about Mr. Ruehle that you feel is either inaccurate or dishonest.
I, too, hope the turnout is large at the next BSRA election. The more members who vote, and vote intelligently, the more truly representative that organization is likely to become!
But since a large part of many of the arguments from Mr. Ruehle and his supporters seem to center around how poorly they feel Mr. DeLong represents the residents in his District, it seems reasonable to ask the question.
Since Mr Ruehle claims to speak for his neighborhood organization, it also seemed reasonable to attempt an apples-to-apples comparison...by polling all of the neighhborhood associations in the 3rd District. I think there are about 25. It shouldn't take long or be particularly difficult to reach out to them and ask some simple and non-leading questions of each.
As mentioned, I think the results of such a survey could prove instructive.
since mike ruehle talks smack about councilman delong you are going to take it upon yourself, with no renumeration, to poll all 25 neighborhood associations about their interactions with councilman delong.
do i have that right?
So if one President of one neighborhood association repeatedly casts aspersions upon Mr. DeLong's representation of the entire District (and he does), doesn't it seem fair to ask others in that President's community organization peer group how *they* feel about it?
You see Mr. Ruehle doesn't just attack Mr. DeLong for failing to represent the Shore properly; he includes the entire 3rd District in his routine attacks.
So let's ask his peer organization leaders throughout the rest of the District how *they* feel.
What could be fairer? Why the concern? I find it strange that I haven’t even written the survey yet, let alone sent any out, and you’re already attacking what you perceive will be the results.
And you question *my* capability in the arena of logic?
I prefer to await the results and then let them speak for themselves.
Are you concerned with what the results of such a survey might reveal?
If you believe, as Mr. Ruehle and his supporters seem to, that Mr. DeLong is an ineffective representative for his District, I would think you'd welcome the results of such a survey to support that belief.
Frankly I'm a little surprised that Mr. Ruehle hasn't conducted such a survey himself since he feels so very strongly on this topic.
These other neighborhood association leaders are his peers to a certain degree are they not?
if such a survey was going to be done in a truly impartial fashion it would be conducted by a survey firm using scientific principles, not a sycophant with a telephone and a grudge.
Shore/Heights - population 23,000
Hermosa Beach - population 18,000
Manhattan Beach (west of sepulvada)- population 25,000
Newport Beach (92663 ie where the bars are and where the rapes occured) - 22,000
Ultimately, 1 rape is too many. But lets focus on goals of reform on 2nd street without mischaracterizing the place as an unsafe have for violence.
There is no conspiracy here Mike. I just think you need to focus your efforts and stop trying to create the illusion that we all live in hell.
It doesn't matter. My point is that you are painting a false picture of safety in the shore. You can make your case for reforming the bars without making it seem like you take your life into your own hands if you dare visit second street at night.
Regarding rapes, I don't believe there is a material difference from year to year. I don't know this for a fact but based on the pieces of information I've read it appears to be consistent year over year and consistent other upscale areas with nightlife zones.
That leaves robbery as the variable in the spike over the period in question. Could it have anything to do with the faltering economy? That seems more likely than blaming it on Legends.
All of that said Mike, Legends is responsible for the loud drunkards, puking on lawns, etc. You don't need to go down the road you're going to make your point that we need some adjustments to 2nd street regarding certain bars. Again, you're not doing any of us a favor by falsely making the place out to be something it isn't. But you are hurting your credibility and I wish you wouldn't because I support your goals for reform.
Clearly, the pre and post Legend's re-opening statistics are telling...actually...damning. Congregating drunk and stoned people, and midnight half price shots, grossy inadequate parking to support the licenses, inadequate buffers to the homes, has a downside.
Look at the Police Expense now?
A 200% increase is founded in fact now. What a shame.
Ask anybody, the area was much nicer before the Rotundonator super sized the joint.
Maybe we need a new condition on the License there. The entire upstairs room, becomes a Police Sub Station? 1 $ Lease, free food. Comp one Beer at the end of all shifts.
Don't we have a little Police Museum next to the Fire Station? Set that up as a Mini Sub Station, booking area's an all. Drag 2 or 3 of the units from the East Division Sub Station over there, park them in the red zone, assign some aggressive Rookies, tell them write anything and everything, no special consideration, and we have a cheap, temporary fix?
How's the Midnight Curfew Petition going ?
I am not afraid of you quoting stats. But I am afraid of you painting my town unfairly. If there is a problem, fine. Let's acknoledge and fix it. But we don't need to create a perception of problem where one doesn't exist.
I think you want the bars closed earlier or maybe completely. (I actually agree with earlier closings.) But I also think you are trying create the perception that the shore is unsafe and violent and the bars are at fault to push this agenda. I don't think you need to do that. There are enough true problems like drunks pissing, puking, etc in people lawns and occasionally bar fights that spill outside. Stick to those issues and we'll ultimately get some reform. When you branch out and try to make the case that the problems are about murder and rape anyone who knows the facts knows you're wrong and it looks like you're distorting to push the agenda.
Have you seen the part in the Jurassic Park movie where they chain a goat to a post to lure in the T-Rex?
Fine detective work by the LBPD caught the guy in the act. This guy assualted a women who live 2 doors down from a friend in Belmont Heights.
http://www.lbreport.com/news/nov02/elbrape7.htm
LBPD needs a strong police presence in Belmont Shore. Ever go down to Granada Beach after 11pm? Scary. Forget the zombies on 4th head down to the beach and see all the meth-heads drinking beer.
Here is how Councilman Delong and Former Councilman Colonna responded to the 2007 crime: http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_11143493
"At this point, we'll have to wait for all the facts to come in, but it appears to be an anomaly," said 3rd District Councilman Gary DeLong, who represents the Belmont Shore area. DeLong said he had been told, but could not independently verify, that it had been at least 10 years since a crime so serious took place in the Shore.
"We've had a few assaults, car thefts, nothing of such an egregious nature," said former 3rd District Councilman Frank Colonna.
I guess rape, kidnapping, or assaults of women do not count as a serious crime in Belmont Shore.
Does a public toliet next to residential homes seem like a good idea given the frequent rapes in Belmont Shore?
During our meeting, Commissioner Lorbeer told me that Parking Commission Chairman Kurt Schnieter was the person pushing for all of the changes at the Livingston Park tot lot childrens playground. He said that was "Kurt's thing."
For those people unfamiliar with the Shore, Kurt Schneiter owns several 2nd street commercial properties and businesses near the Livingston Park children's playground. Mr. Schneiter has attempted to turn the playground into a parking lot for his businesses for several years. With the help of Councilman DeLong, he nearly did so a little over 2-years ago when Councilman DeLong appointed his secret Tot-Lot Committee to turn the playground into a parking lot with restrooms.
This line of questioning is IMMATERIAL, as it does not 'go towards the issues here', and IRRELEVANT, as it does not tend to prove, or disprove a disputed fact, issue or contention of consquence to the determination of the.....story......or matter discussed
Mike makes his disclosures lawfully. Join and help fund his BSRA, and they'll make more disclosures probably.
What about the Forced Unlawful Carnal Knowledge Sarg??
Help us capture and punish, spay and neuter this SOB ?
I wonder why that might be.
It's tragic that this rape (or any rape) occurred and many extremely competent people are working hard to solve the crime and bring the suspect to justice.
Some, however, seem to be co-opting this terrible crime to advance their own political agendas and this fact is a tragedy of another sort. A tragedy that, in my personal opinion, is as despicable as it is transparent.
If you and others would like to discuss how such tragedies might be prevented, then ask, respectfully, and I'll be happy to offer what insight I have or to direct you to other resources if you are not interested in hearing my thoughts (Mr. x).
But, yes please, let’s do stay focused on "the issues here". Doing so could better benefit all concerned.
Nor was I doing so as "the police" but, rather, as a private American citizen with just as much right to express my opinions as you are.
Right?
http://www.lbds.info/civica/filebank/blobdload....
Now that Commissioner Schneiter has eliminated parking by building 3 businesses on the former Northwoods Inn parking lot, he claims to want to “improve parking problems” further by implementing valet parking for those businesses he built on the former parking lots. There is no end to Commissioner Schneiter’s greed at the expense of nearby residents.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Kurt-Schneiter/1...
http://www.facebook.com/GaryDeLong
"Some residents accused DeLong and the committee of trying to eliminate the playground in favor of more parking for Second Street businesses. That committee included Kurt Schneiter, vice chair of the Belmont
Shore Parking and Business Advisory Commission and a commercial property owner on Second Street. Schneiter said Tuesday that even the proposal moving the playground was designed more to improve the tot lot than to create parking.
"Forget about the parking," Schneiter said. "That tot lot is a
disaster. This was designed to improve the kids' park as well.
"If they don't want it, I'm not going to put my time into it. To do a
good job to improve that park, it's going to cost $200,000. I wanted to make that park better. Now I won't put a dime into it. People just aren't open to change."
DeLong opened the May 7 meeting by passing out a survey he said he would take into account before recommending any action. By the end of the meeting, DeLong had promised to adjust the survey to include a "do nothing" option."
This is why I say give it a rest--this argument isn't making women in the Shore safer.
Too many bars and restaurants push drunk customers into our residential neighborhoods. Then the city proposes to demolish a playground/house and build 2nd story parking structures or adds motorcycle parking next to homes or late night valet parking next to homes. The point is that Kurt got special variances with no parking to build 3 restaurants, Bonos just got a conditional use permit to stay open to 2 am with a huge outdoor patio, his behavior on the corrupt parking commissions is beyond belief, first it was the tot lot to parking lot, then a public bathroom next to homes and now he is trying to misuse his position on the commission to get valet parking.
The solution is to close the bars at 12:00 am, phase out the number of alcohol permits to 1/2 of what has been permitted, eliminate the meter keys that allow people to park for 8 hours, require employee shuttles, decrease the number of special events, charter zoning restrictions, increase policing, disband the parking commission and business improvement association, topple Rontondo's 11 year reign of the business association and install someone who cares about Belmont Shore and the local retailers.
It's pretty easy to point to when Legends reopened on December 1, 2007 as a starting point when public disturbance problems started to take off. All I have to do is look at the frequency of email complaints.
No matter how little you may want to talk about it, Rotondo, Schneiter, Lorbeer and Councilman DeLong are the source of the escalating problems on 2nd street. Not talking about it is exactly what these guys want you to do.
I don't get why this is so hard for you guys to figure out.
Do you realize that statistically the Shore is not out of line with the number of rapes it witnesses? Do you know that I know a woman who was raped in broad daylight in her store located just south of LaVerne and Second--15 years ago?
Your analogy simply does not apply. For you to credit this rape to anything or anyone other than the rapist is the same thing as excusing the rapist --because it wasn't his fault he couldn't control himself.
The rapist was not some pet owned by a master who had some kind of control--he was a human being who has the moral obligation not to rape others.
All I can say is--Mike, you must not have a daughter.
His plan is to implement permit parking to keep the bar patrons causing the problems out of the residential area and build a parking structure for them to park in. Unfortunately, Belmont Shore residents overwelmingly objected in resident surveys to the parking structure. But keep an eye on Councilman DeLong. He's still pushing for it when ever he has a chance.
The community should expatriate these greedy corrupt social priahs, instead Foster sees these peple as his base and prime picks for public commissions, land swaps and low interest city loans. Democracy NOW!
Close this party scene down at Midnight, and bring Civility back to the Shore.
Could you imagine the pain for the parent's, and friends ? Family ?
How horrible ! People are outraged ! Did this happen right under the Police Patrols nose, despite the added Officer's?
Why didn't Greet utter a peep? Come to think about it, this was around the time the newsflow slowed down? And Greet, who some believe means well, took a break in his posting?
The Councilman should have alerted all of the residents, and the Homeowners Associations too ?
This type of crime makes some of us want to render certain 'broncos', a gelding. The violence, and violation of the crime of rape, of a minor, makes some of our Heads Explode !!
Dear Mike and friends on Citizen Patrol, catch this prick and we'll take care of him.
and the Press Telegram's stories on the Belmont Shore 2nd Street saga el at.
Recall there were some posts by at least one that was bragging about how he
"boned" some girl in the bushes late one night in the Shore.
Those trained in such might find some goof leads in such postings.
It is my understanding that one of the rapists that was caught and convicted
of raping a girl leaving a bar late one evening was a black man that did not
live in the area but was apparently enticed by the party hardy,inviting
atmosphere Gary De Long is so championing.
The entire Belmont Shore 2nd Street issue is now joined by the recent Dave Ashman Harry Saltzgaver,Delong plan to encourage alcohol sales on
a massive scale in our parks and on our beaches.
The lack of control over the past month has led to dozens of arrests for
apparent alcohol related violation,a near fatal shooting,a rape in an
entertainment area where the"side boards" have been removed--now they
want to mirror that on in our public parks and on our beaches.
The City's assets are nearly depleted or otherwise encumbered.Gary De Long's are surely being already targeted to cover his liability by attorney's
ready to file as soon as the first major injury or death flows from his
irresponsible lack of due diligence and depraved indifference in other matters.
Thus aside from the obvious public safety concerns;the question is who wll
pay for the damage claims? Yet another bond measure??
Is Commander Renaud so out of touch with her East Division that she didn’t know about the rape 3-days before the meeting? Is it possible she too learned about the rape in her Division by reading the LBReport.com? How else can one explain Commander Renaud not mentioning this rape during Councilman DeLong’s neighborhood association meeting, let alone not mentioning the other problems being addressed on 2nd street? I find it surprising that Commander Renaud, being a woman, would not have found rape to be a noteworthy event to mention to residents.
Commander Renaud’s presentation during the June 18, 2009 meeting was about how well her Division was working with neighborhood groups. Yeah, right. Apparently, the Belmont Shore Residents Association (BSRA) doesn’t fall into that category. The rest of Commander Renaud’s discussion focused on burglaries and talked about how dumb resident were for actually leaving something of value in view in a known crime area.
Maybe its time Chief Batts considered replacing Commander Renaud with someone more sensitive and willing to communicate with residents in the East Division. That would be a prudent and wonderful change.
One might argue there are more cops in the other Divisions because there is more crime in the other divisions. The Public Records Act data shows 32% of the city’s dispatched calls for service originate in the East Division. That means 16% of the city’s patrol officers are dedicated to addressing 32% of the calls for help from residents in the East Division.
One might argue there are more cops in the other Divisions because there is more SERIOUS crime in the other divisions. The Public Records Act data shows a similar 32% of the city’s Part 1 crimes against people and property were REPORTED in the East Division. Furthermore, 20% of violent crime (murder, manslaughter, forced rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) were REPORTED in the East Division. This means that 16% of the patrol officers REPORTED 32% of the city’s total Part 1 crimes which included 20% of the city’s total REPORTED violent crime. Imagine how many more Part 1 and violent crimes might have been reported if there were more East Division Police Officers.
The 110 total patrol officers (16% of total) assigned to the EAST DIVISION appear to be doing an excellent job REPORTING a significant portion of the city’s overall crime. Unfortunately, as the data suggests, there is not enough of them. We need more cops to address the crimes going unreported.
At one time, I questioned a Long Beach Police Commander whether their job was to "protect and serve" the public. The Commander's response was "my job is to enforce the law." I then asked the Commander whether that meant their job was NOT to "protect and serve." The Commander's response was again "my job is to enforce the law." I think this is the crux of the misunderstanding between me as Joe public and the police who don’t necessarily view protection of the public as one of their responsibilities.
It is sad that the public may ultimately be the guinea pig used by the police to catch the rapist and therefore allow them to satisfy their responsibility of enforcing the law. I bet taxpayers would be interested in changing that police policy.
"Let’s list the insults your star columnist and police officer John Greet hurls at me. Mr. Greet uses the following words to describe me; abusive, pervasive, disrespectful, condemn, bad-mouthing, vilifying, maligned, castigated, co-opted, personal agenda, feeding your own ego. Is it the standard response of Long Beach Post columnists to hurl insults at someone they disagree with? So where is your objectivity Mr. Greet? Is this the behavior desired by an advertised columnist of the Long Beach Post? Apparently people are not free to state facts and their opinions without being maligned by the Post’s own writers. That tells me a lot about this newspaper and its agenda."
Censorship, according to Wikipedia, is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor.
Your own words speak to the issue of censorship that you deny: “We have to approve comments to our site one by one and it can take time to get to all of them.”
The very act of selecting, prior to posting, which comments are approved is, according to the above definition, censorship.
Also, when they say approve, i bet they are screening for profanity, etc. not opinions.
Please don't try to confuse us with facts.
Dave, Will, Ellen, Theo stop this guy's pimping that shit-site here please!
would you agree with me that the comment below from john greet indicates that he is not an impartial party to the BS shore residents/owners dispute? perhaps spiking any further columns by greet on the subject might show a little "journalistic ethics" assuming youre interested in that sort of thing.
of whores "news scam" that I refuse to visit.
A recent Negligence case, settled for 1.3 Million, because a driver, opened his door into the path of a cyclist. There was no bicycle lane involved, and a much wider road bed, and margin of safety. Several forsee problems, let's hope not.
Your comments are WHY the sharrow markings are exactly where they are and why it is safest to ride in the center of the lane in 2nd Street.
"Personally, we have seen 3 riders get a door opened into their path, and get launched like Super Man .......up up and away ....."
I participated in the bike count on 2nd Street a few weeks ago. We counted 1200 cyclists over three days at a frequency of about one cyclist every 3 minutes.
An majority of the riders who rode on the street were riding TOO far to the right and in the door zone. This is exactly what the markings are meant to prevent. They are there to make it SAFER for cyclist that are going to choose to ride on the street.
I don't quite see how you can argue that it isn't safe when its design is intended to get cyclist away from getting doored (like the 3 you witnessed), which is one of the most dangerous kind of collisions for a cyclist.
The most RARE kind of collision statistically is getting hit from behind, which is what I suspect you are most concerned about.
I ride 8000 miles per year in traffic in Long Beach and neighboring cities and I can personally testify that kind of riding is the safest way to approach narrow streets. If you don't believe it, you can call up the League of American Bicyclists, the oldest advocacy group in the country and who has developed the national bike safety classes. Ask one of their instructors where its safest to ride.
If you still don't believe it, I invite you to come out to Polly's Coffee House on Saturday 10am and I'll ride with you on the green stripe and show you why it's safe (I'll have the big orange cargo bicycle that's hard to miss).
I'd suggest actually trying it out before you continue with your misplaced fears. I rode the sharrows today East and West several times. On one such pass from one end of 2nd Street to other I was riding a blistering 10mph. There are a large volume of cars but they move SLOW. So slow in fact, that bicycles generally have no problem keeping up with traffic. So if it's the case that over a 3 day period 1200 cyclists rode through the Shore, let's keep them safe and start training them good bicycling habits.
Russ
Have you seen the part in the Jurassic Park movie where they chain a goat to a post to lure in the T-Rex?
http://thedistrictweekly.com/2009/print/news/be...
After 16-months of residents’ bar patron complaints being ignored by Councilman DeLong and East Division Police Commander Renaud, it now appears the residents concerns may have had standing after all. A throat slashing, four rapes, a robbery and abduction, a murder, a police shooting and an increasing number of aggravated assaults have all occurred over the past year. Yet, what does Commander Renaud and Councilman DeLong do after being criticized for having turned a blind eye to the problem? They do what has become a popular trend among elected officials and senior city staff in Long Beach, they retaliate and intimidate.
Now Councilman DeLong has released his attack dog and lobbyist Police Sergeant John Greet to insult, intimidate and try to find any information he can to shut up my criticism of the way senior police officials have ignored and wronged the community I live in. Yes, RETALIATION and INTIMIDATION are alive and well in Long Beach city government.
First the city retaliates against me by sicking code enforcement on me for questioning why politically influential developers are granted building variances denied to residents. Now it’s Police Officer Greet’s turn. He is going after anything he can get on me. Insults, intimidation, retaliation didn’t shut me up. Publishing my 2-year old DUI on the front page of the Press Telegram didn’t shut me up. What’s next? Will the police mistakenly raid my house in another gang sweep and arrest, cuff and beat me into submission like they mistakenly did to someone else last week?
As far as I know, the government works FOR THE CITIZENRY and it is still my right to question my government and its actions or inactions in our democratic society, supposedly without fear of retaliation. Somehow, that has changed in LONG BEACH WHERE RETALIATION IS ALIVE AND WELL. If it isn’t our Mayor booting people off of housing boards for allegedly commenting about his relationship with developer Tom Dean (comment adamantly denied by Mr. Smith), it is Councilman DeLong banning me from attending his meetings with the public. Retaliation is our city’s own Chicago mafia style intimidation tactics used when the city’s unsavory conduct is called into question.
Forget Aquatics Capital of the World. Forget Bike Friendly Capital of the World. Long Beach has become the RETALIATION CAPITAL OF THE WORLD. Move over Chicago. Here comes Long Beach.
*********************ITISTRUE*******************
Why does the media take such a hands-off approach to anything related to the police department? Five homeless people were recently murdered along the 405 freeway and we saw each one of their pictures in the paper and read about numerous interviews with their family. Tons of media exposure. Yet, when we have a case of the police failing for a week to report a rapist may be loose in the community, or when a person is shot for allegedly attacking a police officer, there is exactly zero news afterwards. No update. Is the media afraid to mention anything related to the police. Sounds an awful like Theo's article MORE “BE CAREFUL.”
Have you ever seen the "Senior Police?" These folks VOLUNTEER their time to help police and assist seniors. You could do something similar. Instead of cursing the darkness, you could light a fire.
BTW, the correct grammar would be "Where are the cops?" not "Where is the cops?"
None the less, these drinkers shouldn't be drinking and driving--which is an activity that can occur at any hour of the day.
In fact, my kid is much more likely to be hit by a drunk driver leaving the Shore at 7:30 pm than he is at 2 am. (Because that's a lot more likely time for my family to be in the Shore) By your logic, bars simply shouldn't exist at all.
Lets see, bars make an agreement with the city and community not to be a nuisance or serve drunks to get their alcohol conditional use permit from the city. Said bars offer happy hours at 11:00 pm and proceed to serve people who are so drunk that they cannot stand up, pee, fight, destroy private property and then allow them to drive home.
My logic is that these problem bars should have their conditional use permits changed to not allow service after 12:00 am and be fined for serving drunks. I have never seen one drunk rolling around on the sidewalk on 2nd st, peeing, vomiting, breaking windows at 7:30 pm. This type of behavior occur after 12:00 am. Where did you get your "fact" that your kid is MUCH MORE likely to be hit by a drunk driver leaving the Shore at 7:30 pm than at 2 am??????
And the fact of the matter is that my kid is 12 years old, so he is never in the Shore at 2 am--thereby making it absolutely impossible for him to be hit by a drunk driver at that time.
What I am saying is that, there are happy hours that start in the shore as early as 4 pm. Don't you think that by 7:30 pm a driver leaving one of these happy hours may be a DUI?
I know people who have gotten DUI's at 2 pm in the afternoon.
I care greatly about the quality of life for everyone in the shore. But you are kidding yourself that somehow closing bars early is really protecting anyone from drunk drivers. People can be driving drunk after a three martini lunch.
Seriously, what does this have to do with the rape that this story is supposed to be about?
You and Mike are off topic posting about the bars on a story that is about a girl's rape.
Several people in Legends the night of the shooting are claiming the person shot, Ernest Raymond Rodriguez, had been in Legends and was an over-served and intoxicated patron escorted out of the building before being shot. Yet, the Press Telegram wrote an article the following day QUOTING Legends Owner Gene Rotondo as saying Mr. Rodriguez had not been in Legends bar and did not appear intoxicated.
Since the shooting, there has been zero news of the investigation. However, I am now being told police have verified Mr. Rodriguez was in Legends the night of the shooting and used his credit card there. Furthermore, I am told that Mr. Rodriquez’s blood sample taken at the hospital indicates a high level of alcohol. Both claims dispute what was printed by the Press Telegram when quoting Mr. Rotondo who has everything to gain by not being truthful. Is that why the Press Telegram May 28, 2009 article is no longer accessible on-line?
Moreover, I am also being told by friends of Legends doormen that Mr. Rotondo met with his doormen and told them to say Mr. Rodriquez had NOT been in Legends. So why isn't the Press Telegram investigating and reporting on this scandal? Surely this must rate up there with a 2-year old DUI as being front page news. We would hate to think the Press Telegram is biased.
Does anyone NOT find it peculiar that the May 28 2009 Press Telegram article QUOTING Mr. Rotondo has been pulled from the internet? I can access Press Telegram articles from over a year ago, but this article has been removed from public access. It reminds me a little bit of the Press Telegram article that Quoted Gene Rotondo blasting Sandra Bullock for failing to throw out the ceremonial first pitch at a Long Beach State Baseball game. When Mrs. Bollock’s husband, Jesse James, threatened to sue Mr. Rotondo and the Press Telegram, it was later discovered Ms. Bollock had never been contacted by Mr. Rotondo regarding the advertized promotion and that Mr. Rotondo had bad-mouthed Sandra Bullock and Jesse James for no reason. Those Press Telegram articles were likewise removed from internet access a month later without an apology to Ms. Bullock.
You can still find the Press Telegram Article about my 2-year old non-newsworthy DUI on the internet, but you can’t find the Press Telegram article about the shooting where Mr. Rotondo was quoted. I'm curious when the Press Telegram slid so low as to be the promotional rag for Gene Rotondo and his Belmont Shore bars?
I remember the good old days a couple years ago when residents did not have to worry about guns, rapes and alcohol related violence in our Belmont Shore Community.
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/417.html
Is that really such a bad thing? If so, then I offer my sincere and most humble apologies.
Another aspect of this part of the discussion may also have to do with occasional differences between law enforcement radio and CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch) codes and the various codified laws upon which many of them are based.
For instance (and this information is by no means restricted or confidential...I checked beforehand just to be sure), the LBPD radio/CAD code for a person with a gun is "417" and the radio/CAD code for a person with a knife is "417a". As you made clear, and the link I posted supports, CPC 417 et seq. actually includes several more offenses than the two communicated in the radio/CAD codes I just cited.
I mention this because it seems very easy for some to leap to erroneous conclusions based upon the (often) incomplete knowledge and/or partial information they possess and then to proceed to condemn people or businesses based upon it. For example: That a person may have been drinking at BBC at some point and was later found to be allegedly drunk in public is not clear evidence that the person had been “over-served” at BBC. It simply serves the agenda and prejudice of some to make that claim.
Another example: As far as I know, concurrent but separate LBPD and LA District Attorney’s Office investigations of the 5/28 2nd Street officer involved shooting are still in progress. To the best of my knowledge and experience it is standard policy and procedure to *never* release the conclusions of such investigations until they have, in fact, been concluded. Yet some insist upon alleging that these investigations are somehow being covered up.
Why?
Rather than make such unfounded allegations, why not simply call those organizations and ask what the status of their respective investigations actually is and when they expect to release the findings?
Perhaps some have made such calls.
But if they have, why not report *that*, and whatever answers (if any) they received instead of, once again, leaping to conclusions based upon the incomplete knowledge and/or partial information they possess and then proceeding to condemn others based upon it?
How does the latter approach further the quest for knowledge? Clearly it does not. So it is, likewise, reasonable to conclude that furthering the quest for knowledge is not the goal of those who routinely resort to such tactics.
Their true goal, at least to me, is as deplorable and self-serving as it is blatantly self-evident.
http://www.lbreport.com/news/jul09/belroy.htm
This report appears contrary to what Police Lieutenant Rosenthal told the Belmont Shore Residents Association meeting on July 9, 2009 that residents had nothing to fear from the June 15, 2009 rapist. When asked if the police had caught the rapist or knew who he was, Lt. Rosenthal said that he could not provide any facts because the June 9, 2009 rape was still under investigation, other than to say Belmont Shore residents had nothing to fear from the rapist. People walked away from the meeting feeling the police had the matter under control and the rapist was no longer a threat. This latest incident makes one wonder.
http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_12823737
According to the reporter, Police spokesperson Jackie Bezart said the police responded immediately to the first call and were patrolling the area. Yet, the ladies who called the police were told by the dispatcher to leave the house and wait outside where they didn’t see any police go by for 2-hours.
the LBPD are useless spoiled bitches.
Jackie Bezart, you are a pc f sht lr. So are most LBPD.