Why don't you do a story on how 80% or so of the general fund goes to city salaries and pensions and that city employees only contribute something like 2% to their fund while tax payers pick up the rest. Or how about a story on the mis-alignment of city employees and tax paying residents because most city employees don't live in LB. Or how about a story on how much money could be spent on infrastructure and beach/water quality issues if we didn't spend money on staff or direct funds for social services. Include the opportunity cost of missed grants, etc. for infrastructure. How about a story on the negative effects of low income housing in the 1st and 7th districts and how it actually hurts the poor living in that district more than the rest of the city. How about a story on the worst council person ever Tonia Uranga and how she is so completely owned by unions that she votes against the benefit of her district yet complains that the city can't afford to fix a sewer line in her district.
You guys are always looking for a controversey. And that is good. The PT sure doesn't keep anyone in check. I just wish even though you're all liberal socialists you would throw a bone to some of us moderate, tax paying, homeowners who care about the quality of life in this community. At some point you're going to be cnn and the moderate will stop paying attention to you. Maybe that's what you want. I get you have a bias, that's why I read your site. I like to hear the other side. But c'mon...
Cue the attacks ...
howardx
· 8 months ago
great post lbresident!
lbresident
· 8 months ago
I appreciate the sarcasm.
Guest
· 8 months ago
John_B
· 8 months ago
Venus: I realize that I risk offending you (once again) by responding directly to your comments, but since you saw fit to name me, personally, I figure you’ve opened that door.
If offering what I believe to be pertinent, reasoned, reasonable and, by the way *factual*, information concerning the City or its Police Department, or by simply asking pertinent questions concerning topics that relate to either, makes me an “unofficial PR Department” so be it. But if you were familiar with more of my comments, here and elsewhere, you would also see that I am quite critical of the City and all of its Departments when such critique is warranted. Here, though, I don’t believe that it is.
I would respectfully caution you against believing everything that you read here, or anywhere else, to be irrefutable truth. Your comments on this topic seem to indicate that you believe what you have read here to be truth, rather than the rumor Dave has reported it to be.
You assert that “the annual arrival of the Long Beach Grand Prix triggers a roundup and relocation of the downtown homeless by the Long Beach Police Department”. I believe that assertion to be false. The LBPD PIO Office issued a statement to Dave denying this rumor, twice, and I don’t feel that anything anyone else has said on the matter has sufficiently refuted this denial.
The quotes from Dave’s article that you highlight in your comments have not been corroborated. Dave never corroborated them, personally, during his research and no one he spoke with seemed willing or able to do so either or, if they attempted to, they were not willing to go on the record as having done so.
This is unfortunate because to be credible, refutation must be based in fact, rather than rumor, and such facts must be attributed. If this situation is truly a problem, then it should be addressed…immediately…but we can’t reasonably demand action on it without facts.
Do you have any? Maybe we should uncover some before writing to the Mayor and Police Chief with nothing more than rumor and non-corroborated allegations from some who, in some cases, feel themselves to be “victims” of a City that in fact spends millions and millions of taxpayer dollars each and every year to provide programs and services for them.
Your assertion that “LBPD Officers Joe Seminara and Merle McGee who comprise the Quality of Life unit that patrols the homeless population based at Lincoln Park only round up everyone with warrants and sends them to jail once a year during Toyota Grand Prix race” is false and unless you have definitive and attributable proof that this is the case, you really should avoid lodging such false allegations of either our Police Department or any of those who serve our community within it.
I feel you would be better served to seek out the *facts* on the matter and, if they prove to support the rumors Dave has reported, here, then disclose those facts to others and then ask them to communicate with City officials and demand action. Demanding public policy action based upon rumor is counter-productive and, in fact, does far more harm than good to the concept of good and responsive City government.
Do the taxpayers of Long Beach help to fund lawsuit settlements involving LBPD? Of course, but in settling lawsuits we rarely acknowledge culpability; we simply decide that it’s cheaper to settle than to litigate. This is often a decision those directly involved do not agree with, because in many cases they know they did nothing wrong and they would like a duly-constituted court to take judicial notice of that. But such decisions deprive then their day in court.
This is a circumstance that I would think anyone who purports to be “a civil libertarian who is actively concerned with the protection of civil liberties” would take *great* exception to. But, strangely, we don’t hear much from them when public employees are thus victimized.
I wonder why that is?
Mike Ruehle
· 8 months ago
Hello John,
Why is it the information YOU “believe to be pertinent, reasoned, reasonable and, by the way factual”, are only the facts you choose NOT to ignore. I guess you missed the part of Dave’s story that said the “story came to me from representatives of homeless aid agencies, and they told it adamantly, in detail.” How about the part where Dave writes, “Hell, Officer McGee already told us—the Grand Prix is coming in, and everyone with a dollar warrant is going to jail,” says a man named Jay. He told me to tell all my friends. In actuality, somebody got taken to jail yesterday.” These are people who have actually witnessed and felt the police action. Apparently, their experiences do not qualify as facts to you because they haven’t been corroborated by you, a Long Beach Police Officer, apparently intent upon protecting your own.
You appear quick to discredit a person’s opinion about eyewitness reports as being “false and unless you have definitive and attributable proof that this is the case.” A fact does not require a person to fill out a police report and risk retaliation as mentioned in Dave’s article. As you well know, tons of crimes go unreported in Long Beach. Calls for police service are many more times the number of crimes reported. Are you asserting that a crime not reported “on the record” never occurred? Must it be on a police report to be a fact? Does not reporting in the news media constitute going “on the record?”
Furthermore, you claim “the LBPD PIO Office issued a statement to Dave DENYING this rumor” of police actions to move the homeless. That is untrue. If you read the PIO’s response, it DOES NOT say the police do not move the homeless during Grand Prix week. It says, “It is not our PRACTICE to move the homeless.” According to Webster’s Dictionary definition, PRACTICE means it is not customary. That wording by the PIO does not rule out the possibility of its occurrence. Moreover, the PIO statement did not specify when their PRACTICE applied or if it applied to the week of Grand Prix. The PIO statement would still be true if the police rounded up the homeless the week of Grand Prix but not the other 51 weeks of the year. If the police HAVE NOT and DO NOT move the homeless at certain times, WHY DIDN’T THE PIO SAY EXACTLY THAT? Moreover, why do you twist the PIO statement into a flat denial? It’s a FACT that they did not “deny” (declare untrue) the rumor as YOU say.
I wonder why that is? Oh, I forgot. There is a code among fellow police officers.
John_B
· 8 months ago
Mike Ruehle: Thanks for the feedback.
Because a person or organization makes a claim, does not make that claim true. I feel that factual corroboration is necessary if we are to condemn others (cop or not) and still remain intellectually honest. Comments from “representatives of homeless aid agencies” might, indeed, be seen as corroborative if only they would be willing to go on the record, which they were not willing to do. Perhaps in your haste to condemn me “you missed that part” of my comments.
I was in no way “attempting to protect one of (my) own” primarily because no one has made any statements against them that they needed to be protected *from*. Please note this excerpt from my earlier comments: “…. If this situation is truly a problem, then it should be addressed…immediately…but we can’t reasonably demand action on it without facts.” Perhaps in your haste to condemn me “you missed that part” of my comments as well.
I “discredit (no) person’s opinion”. People; Venus, you and me included, have every right to entertain any opinion they like. But when a person forms an opinion about a rumor, as Venus and now you appear to have done in this case, and assert it as fact, without offering corroborating facts to support those rumors; then you fail the test of intellectual honesty. I do not discount, out of hand, what any of these folks claim, I simply ask for proof. Seeing none offered I then rightly question their stories.
Dave is the professional journalist in the room so I’ll defer to him to define “on the record” for us. My only comments along these lines were these: “If someone wants to lodge an allegation of misconduct against any City Department or employee, shouldn’t they be willing, in fact, eager, to put their name to their story? Even if their story is true and they honestly fear some sort of official retaliation, don’t you feel that remaining anonymous lends a flavor of disingenuousness to the allegation?”
Of course I’m not “asserting that a crime not reported ‘on the record’ never occurred.” Of course, a crime must not be “on a police report to be a fact”. But if one is to allege misconduct on the part of the City or any of its Departments or employees -which is what I was talking about- one must be willing to be attributed so that their claim can be properly investigated and, if possible, corroborated. Is that really so hard to understand?
Your interpretation of the official PIO statement that Dave received is just that; your interpretation, and mine is another. Our interpretations differ. So be it.
My interpretation is based upon several things: 1. The context in which the response was offered…that context being the question that was asked: “Can you confirm this rumor”, the comments I read were, indeed, responsive and denied the rumor. 2. My personal knowledge of the Officers in question both of whom are extremely professional, dedicated and compassionate. They *volunteered* to work the Quality of Life Unit (which does far more than “(patrol) the homeless population based at Lincoln Park”, by the way) because they desire to *assist* our city’s homeless as best as they are able, not to marginalize or victimize them and 3. My over 24 years of personal experience with Department policy and procedure concerning the homeless…policy and procedure that has *never*, to my knowledge, been as those in the story describe. That’s what I base *my* interpretation on, Mike. You, on the other hand, appear to be basing yours upon unsubstantiated information and uncorroborated rumor.
I may very well be proven wrong in my position, Mike. And if I am I am ready to fully acknowledge my error and apologize for it.
Are you prepared to do the same?
If not, which of us will prove to be the more reasonable and intellectually honest, I wonder?
Mike Ruehle
· 8 months ago
John, I don't have a position on this matter one way or the other. I am questioning the honesty of your analysis and the verbose way you twist an argument around. If Webster's definition of the word PRACTICE is not a reliable source, please provide another definition that you can hang your hat on.
The point I was trying to make is the police did not deny gathering up and moving homeless people had not occurred as you REPEATEDLY said. You have a tendency to take people to task for miniscule interpretation of wordings. I thought I'd throw it back at you to see how you liked it.
PatBryant
· 8 months ago
John's response makes sense to me. He has a position (rightly or wrongly), until proven otherwise. He's looking for more "facts" before he is willing to change his position.
John_B
· 8 months ago
Mike: The sum of your comments tends to indicate that you do, indeed, have a position on this matter. But I readily admit that I may have misunderstood them in that regard if I did misunderstand, I apologize.
I like words, Mike, and I believe that they have meaning and that meaning can change depending upon the manner in which words are used. This is why I try to take great care to be as precise as possible with my words and why I sometimes take others to task when they do not.
I make mistakes in this are and so do others. Am I the only person to be taken to task for doing so?
I believe it has become pointless to argue further with you concerning the PIO statement. I’ve acknowledged that your interpretation is among at least two that are possible. Are you able to acknowledge the same of mine?
Fisch
· 8 months ago
lbresident:
This is nothing unique to Long Beach- pretty much all cities spend the majority of their general fund dollars on employee salaries. The 2% that the employees contribute to their retirement may sound like a pittance, but that is actually 25% of the total contribution (8%). Most cities pay the entire 7 or 8 %!
The problem with Long Beach isn't the employees, it's the unions that represent them and allow some people that wouldn't last a week in the private sector to enjoy exorbitant salaries for the work that they do (or don't do). It seems like almost everytime the City gets good, talented employees, they leave after a few years because they become frustrated with the way City Hall is run.
LBFamily
· 8 months ago
Lets apply pro-airport expansion logic to the situation, shall we? "Screw the homeless, they new there was a race track nearby when they decided to camp there."
And on a serious note, although off the subject, LBresident makes a good point in his/her rant, I would like to know how many city employees live elsewhere and "export" their incomes. Of course, I am a hypocrite because I import a government income.
See you all at the race (unless you are homeless and in jail)
lbresident
· 8 months ago
It's not just that they export the income. It's that they have no vested interest in quality of life. They don't care as long as they keep getting a paycheck. They would gladly trade fixing sidewalks, trimming trees, storm drain filters, for a 3% raise and a pension paid by yours truly.
and I do like to rant.
Dave in Alamitos Beach
· 8 months ago
I love the rant, and even though it's off-topic, I think you have a good story idea with city employees living outside of the city boundaries a la, oh I don't know, Conway was it? ;-)
Since I don't think you can legislate where you require people to live, can the city offer a 5% salary increase to those employees who live in the city? Or better yet, since no one's got any money these days, how about they won't LOSE 5% if they can prove they live in the city?
Now back to the homeless story - um, why are these people being allowed to live in the park during the other 51 weeks a year?
lbresident
· 8 months ago
they are allowed to live in the park because the police and city mgmt all live outside of long beach. it doesn't affect them. And they don't care what the public thinks because their main customers are the unions that represent the employees.
you're right, you can't legislate where people live. but it would be great if the public knew how everytime they elect a democrat/union owned council person they are choosing salaries and pensions and social services over streets, sidewalks, and clean beaches.
howardx
· 8 months ago
how would a republican councilperson be different? owned by interests you approve of rather than the nasty evil unions?
lbresident
· 8 months ago
I don't care if they are or are not republican. I just want them to prioritize infrastructure over city employee unions and social services. I've yet to see a democrat do that. Do you know of any?
howardx
· 8 months ago
so you agree that a republican councilperson wouldnt do anything differently. good to hear.
lbresident
· 8 months ago
that's not what I said. it depends on the republican. but most would put taxpayers ahead of unions and social services. the current republican on the council certainly does.
good to hear you agree there are no democrats that represent tax payers.
howardx
· 8 months ago
believe it or not i am not a democrat, havent been since 2004 so i have no trouble with what you say about them, what i do have trouble with is the notion that some how republicans would do a better job, the last 8 years belies that argument. who is the current republican on the council? delong im betting, you have been singing his praises a lot here lately. unless you are one of his big money buddies i wouldnt coubnt on him in a pinch.
lbresident
· 8 months ago
real republicans haven't been in charge the last 8 years. or at a minimum they have not behaved as such.
i have no money and delong has his faults but would take delongs votes and actions over any of the other clowns on the council.
PatBryant
· 8 months ago
DeLong voted against the recent Miscellaneous Employee contract (along with Rae Gabelich).
PatBryant
· 8 months ago
I like this "off-topic" rant. I think lbresident is on to something here. Maybe you can't "force" employees to live in Long Beach, but you sure can Directors and above. Guess who DOESN'T live in Long Beach - Pat West, Suzanne Frick, Mike Conway, Dave Ellis (Fire Chief), and most others. I know Chief Batts lives in Long Beach, and I'm not sure about Craig Beck.
It isn't THEIR city, it's just a job . . .
Dave in Alamitos Beach
· 8 months ago
I work in Century City, but live in Long Beach. Guess which city I care about? I'm not posting on any Century City websites...
income_importer
· 8 months ago
Dave in AB...I'm a bit late to this comment party, but snap snap to you! GP weekend is proof that the city can deal with its homeless problem the same way most of our neighboring cities do.
Let's chase them out of the city the rest of the year.
The Toad
· 8 months ago
You are 100% correct about the homeless being "exported" from downtown during Gran Prix season. We don't know exactly how officialdom accomplishes this but every year a huge homeless population gets "bestowed" on the Wrigley/Bixby Knolls area at precisely Gran Prix time. Obviouly City Hall doesn't want the world to see the truth about LB and it doesn't want the homeless out panhandling from out-of-towners that are here for the race events. It wouldn't be so bad if the city would round them up and return them to downtown afterward. Unfortunately, it takes the homeless many months to find their own way back to downtown and in the meantime we have to suffer with the urination, defecation, trash, theft, panhandling, etc. that seems to flow from that element of society. Is it any wonder that you can't get any official comment on this?
Dave in Alamitos Beach
· 8 months ago
If the city is going to dump them somewhere, why don't they buy a few cheap McMansions in the Inland Empire somewhere and let them live there? (I'm joking...sorta).
But really, there has to be some sort of geographic compromise where the homeless can congregate and they won't scare the tourists or the residents.
John_B
· 8 months ago
Nicely written, Dave. Downright artful in fact!
Full Disclosure for those not aware (Dave certainly is): I am both a Police Department employee and a resident of the City of Long Beach. My comments, here and elsewhere, do not represent the official positions or policies of the Long Beach Police Department, nor are they intended to.
Dave, it seems you did get a response from the Police Department as to whether these rumors could be substantiated and, although you feel that response was “not much” it did answer the question, twice, and provided additional information besides, did it not?
Your definition of “not much” is clearly different from mine.
I find it interesting that during your research for this story, many of those you spoke with in Lincoln Park are able to wonder and posit and suggest and infer that “…the annual arrival of the Long Beach Grand Prix triggers a roundup and relocation of the downtown homeless by the Long Beach Police Department”.
Although it’s difficult to tell from the article exactly when you conducted your interviews, I find it especially interesting because those people you spoke with were, you know, *in Lincoln Park* so wouldn’t their presence sort of refute the premise of the rumor?
Some others were apparently willing to confirm these rumors for you “adamantly, in detail” but only on the condition of anonymity. Doesn’t that seem a little overly convenient to you? If someone wants to lodge an allegation of misconduct against any City Department or employee, shouldn’t they be willing, in fact, eager, to put their name to their story? Even if their story is true and they honestly fear some sort of official retaliation, don’t you feel that remaining anonymous lends a flavor of disingenuousness to the allegation?
Like you, I found Mr. Strickland of particular interest. He states: “…the police have done some pretty messed-up things in this park.” Would any of those things have had anything to do with the things we pay our police officers to do…enforce the law, keep the peace, mitigate blight and address quality of life issues?
Had Officers Seminara or McGee observed the Health and Safety Code violation that you described and then arrested or issued a citation to Strickland or Isaiah for it, I wonder if Strickland would have found that to be a “pretty messed up thing” to?
More than likely.
There is no such thing as a “Crime of Homelessness”, so-called or otherwise. Homelessness is not a crime, thankfully, but it is a sad, sad thing and, when children are involved, it’s inarguably tragic.
But if a person “lays down in the park” they are not necessarily camping and will not be cited for doing so illegally, unless, of course, the person “lays down in the park” overnight, or after the park has been closed, or sets up camp for longer than a few hours. I wonder if any of those conveniently omitted additional circumstances might have been involved in Jay’s case. Did he happen to say?
Probably not.
So, Capone was “minding his own business” when he was unceremoniously “hauled off to jail”. Minding one’s own business is not a crime either. But when a person does commit a crime and they do not appear in Court or do not complete their Court-ordered requirements, then a warrant is usually issued for their arrest. This is the only lawful means that Judge’s have at their disposal to get someone into their Courtroom so that a case can be adjudicated and justice served. Did Mr. Capone happen to mention what crime he had committed that ultimately led a Judge to issue a warrant for his arrest?
I suspect he didn't.
Cowboy laments that “they’ve recently removed the port-a-potties”. I wonder if it occurs to Cowboy to wonder who provided them in the first place…or who pays to maintain them when they are there.
The absence of a port-a-potty doesn’t increase the risk of a citation for public urination…public urination increases the risk of citation for public urination. I wonder if Cowboy wonders why it is that public urination is unlawful.
I wonder if it occurs to him that if he is homeless and chooses to loiter in a public park, that it might be preferable to choose a park that has public restrooms that are not temporary and, thus, are not subject to removal at any given time.
The attention our police officers pay to our homeless population is not always unwelcome, Dave. We are also helping to keep them safe. When they are beaten or robbed or raped, we’re there to provide care and services to the victim, to investigate the crime and to arrest the suspect.
When they are de-toxing, it is we who get an ambulance to them.
When it’s too cold to be on the streets, it is we who work with our City shelters to distribute vouchers for hotel rooms and sometimes to provide transportation there.
I feel certain that Officers Seminara and McGee are not out there to abuse our homeless population, Dave, much though some prefer to believe it. They are out there to *serve* them, because no one else is.
I have spent many, many years policing this great city, Dave, including a good deal of time downtown generally and in Lincoln Park specifically. Neither I nor any cop I know has ever viewed the homeless in our city as people who needed to be “shuffled along”…at any time of the year.
Our homeless, like homeless persons everywhere, are people experiencing great challenges in their lives; many have severe emotional problems and/or psychological issues, or are substance-addicted or have been chronically abused. Some were just living paycheck-to-paycheck when the next paycheck didn’t come.
And some, believe it or not, simply choose to live that way.
But to a person they are all just that…people. And I have always done whatever I could to help them, including the purchase of more fast-food Value Meals over the years than I can possibly count.
But here’s my question to you and your many astute readers:
These sad and tragic people have all been out there all along…under our bridges, on our bus benches, huddled along our freeways and flood control channels, lined up along the walls of the Main Library and camped under the sparse trees of Lincoln Park.
They have been out there all along and out there they remain.
So why are we only asking about them now? Why are we only concerned about what the City might be doing about them now?
Today this story of yours is interesting. But will your readers be thinking about these sad and often tragic people tomorrow or next week or next month?
I can assure you that our police officers will be. And just as they have been and are doing even as I type this, our officers will be out there in the future…keeping a watchful eye on our homeless…
…while everyone else conveniently forgets.
howardx
· 8 months ago
it isnt like its completely unheard of for police to sanitize an area of its homeless population beforea big event. google "police move homeless" its seems to happen with shocking regularity actually. so if it happens in other places all the time why should we believe that we are the happy exception to the rule?
John_B
· 8 months ago
howardx: You're free to believe or disbelieve anything you like.
I've heard that the homeless do, indeed, get cleared out of areas during some high profile events, I've just never heard of it happening here in Long Beach.
I read that it happened in D.C., in preparation for President Obama's Inauguration. That was covered pretty thoroughly in various local and national media outlets as I recall.
But I only know what I know, which admittedly isn't much.
But to my knowledge we, in Long Beach, have never done such a thing.
howardx
· 8 months ago
yes i am and i choose to disbelieve.
Coastal Sympathy
· 8 months ago
LB Resident?
Do you have no sense of charity at all in that kmow it all soul of yours?
Did anyone ever teach you that parable about Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the kingdome of....???
How about ' That which you do unto the least of my children....you do unto me...??
So I suppose that your squeeze Gary should somehow revitialize the John Birch Society for you, and turn Long Beach into Idaho by the Sea ?
Don't hold your breath, better yet,,,,,,,do.......and jump off the top edge of the sewer pumping and treatment vats at Long Beach Water so that you can better understand what it is like to be up to your ears in putrid effluent?
Let doing so be a metaphor for your selfish, self serving neurosis?
You are cold dude. This kind of attitude has a way of coming back to bite you in the rump roast.....and just days after Easter?
I suppose that you would simply cast these souls to the wind???
Every time many of us see a person who is down and out...we think....There but for the grace of God......go I ?
You need to mellow out....you're going to give yourself crotch cancer....
And Mr Greet, just a friendly FYI, when you tell an award winning Journalist like Dave Wielenga, with over 23 years experience, a huge following, and the respect of his Professional peers ''Good job'..'nicely written'...it sounds more than a little heady coming from.....an aspiring anybody who still needs to go to Journalism School.? .
When you judge people's posts, it just comes off like you are a Master Journalism professor, or pulitzer prize winner, or judge in a writing contest.....or something.
Dave always does a good job, because he is a seasoned professional with a mastery of his chosen craft, and the bio and credentials to prove it. He is a wordsmith who we can all learn communication skills from, you know, how to paint a picture with words?
Appointing yourself the arbiter of who writes a post to your satisfaction simply seems like you have assumed the role of assigning merit, or style points, or a grade to the everybody else here as if you are the Instructor, Editor or some other person in a position of authority . Just a friendly FYI....to be humble in all things. You're cool, but throttle back a tad?
lbresident
· 8 months ago
I do have a sense of charity. Let me explain something to you. Charity is not to be mandated and allocated through government. This is America. Charity is a voluntary act of choice. And I bet I give a lot more than you do.
Coastal Retort
· 8 months ago
Do you actually want to quantify our dedication to the community in dollars? Family included, we have given Millions Chief....
When is the last time you took a person down on their luck into your home, to simply bath, do their laundry,rest safely, nourish themselves,adjust,center and then go out there and give it your best shot one more time?
Or allowed a shivering person to come in out of the cold?
Some of us were raised that way and have yet to develop signs of Leprosy ?
Do you know how many people end up under a bridge because they simply got nice and sick for a while, lost it all, and end up living hand to mouth like a stray dog ?
If you have charity in your heart towards all, it most certainly does not come out in your words, which lacerate one's sense of the duty to love thy neighbor ??
There but for the grace of God go I .....buddy
lbresident
· 8 months ago
Oh I get it now, you were born with wealth so you have liberal guilt. Makes perfect sense. I was not. I worked and am able to support a family with some comfort. So I still believe in choosing where and how to spend the money I worked for.
I don't need to defend my charitable givings whether it's time or money to you. Stop accusing me of things. You don't know me. You clearly believe that the gov't and you know what is best for everyone else. I believe the opposite. Go in peace socialist.
howardx
· 8 months ago
i think youre giving lbresident a bad rap coastal, he does at times say things that seem insensitive but the real argument he has is whether government should be in the business of helping the homeless at all, given that it is his tax dollars being spent its not an unreasonable position. i do not believe that he is anti "charity" he is a classic old school small government conservative who believes private organizations should be the ones providing "charity" rather than the government. i dont agree with his position in the slightest but i dont believe he deserves to be pilloried for it either.
lbresident
· 8 months ago
thank you
Dave in Alamitos Beach
· 8 months ago
Lordy, I'm a bleeding heart liberal as well, but lbresident makes some good points. Having a contest to see who is "sadder" over the homeless is pointless.
My feeling is that the current status of having homeless people live in a park and a Main Library is not beneficial to anyone. Certainly not the residents, nor even the homeless.
Didn't Ronald Reagan close the mental hospitals? I think that's a decision we can file away with Reaganomics, and the War on Drugs...
John_B
· 8 months ago
Coastal: You misunderstand me. When I comment favorably upon Dave's writings (and I can assure he has no bigger fan then me) it is for the *sole purpose* of being complimentary; civil; courteous and to express sincere admiration.
I’m fully acquainted with Dave’s credentials, experience and accomplishments and it was for that very reason that I sat literally in awe during the last 3rd District Neighborhood meeting and watched him work. I have no doubt that Dave has forgotten more about true journalism than I can ever hope to learn.
Much meaning can be lost, and even more sometimes erroneously inferred, in written communications. As a result I view your misunderstanding of my intent as my failing, and not yours. It is not my intent to “come off” as anything other than a person with questions and opinions and comments and the willingness to express them. If the manner in which I choose to write somehow offends you, I sincerely apologize, but neither am I responsible for how you feel, about me or anyone else.
We all judge people’s posts do we not? Dave’s and everyone else’s. Some like them and some don’t and all are (or should be) free to express themselves accordingly are they not? Dave doesn’t need to answer to me and I believe that Dave knows that very well. That he bothers to respond to any comments or questions of mine speaks volumes about his desire to clarify and be responsive to his readers.
Your defense of Dave in this case is neither required nor, as mentioned, warranted.
I have not “appointed” myself any role other than that of a reader who happens to have some information and insight into the topic at hand. I presume to “grade” no one, least of all an exceptional journalist like Dave. I can see why some who do not know me personally might believe that some of my comments were intended to be critical of Dave and his reporting and discussion of this rumor. That was not my intent. My intent was to offer a different perspective on some of what was addressed in the article, nothing more. I could be mistaken, but I believe Dave, at least, understands that.
Dave Wielenga
· 8 months ago
Hey John... Thanks for the post. I have some responses. First, I hope you noted that I was completely transparent in this story, from the outset making clear that I posed this question as a rumor, not a fact. That transparency included explaining how the rumor came to me and the fact that these people would not go on the record and the reason they gave for not doing so. This allows the reader to decide--as you may have--how seriously to take the allegations and the explanation for anonymity. I quoted the people I spoke with and they were all--despite the suggestion that might be given by unfortunate photos that accompanied the story--quite coherent and capable of expressing themselves. They seemed to understand why the police or the city might want them out of sight and they weren't ranting or unreasonable. As far as the police response to my inquiries, I still think it was "not much." First, despite my initial calls to the PIO, it's clear I was not going to get any response unless I went in and forced the isse. Even then, I was told that the PIO who had taken my call now had a day off and nobody else could help. It was only when I pushed again that I got a call from that PIO and then, finally, a prepared statement read to me over the phone. This gave me no opportunity to conduct an interview, no follow up questions, no real clarity. It was a take-it-or-leave-it deal. But I did not editorialize much about it, just reported it as given. I got a similar response from Councilwoman Lowenthal's office. A staffer promised to try to get the councilwoman on the phone for an interview, presumably did, but ultimate--just as I was at the end of my deadline--told me the councilwoman would not be available. No reason given. My story did not criticize the officers on the Quality of Life detail. Officer Seminara was pleasant and professional and I understand why he couldn't comment. As far as whether or not the presence of homeless in the park invalidates the point of the story...no, dont think so. I wrote it before Grand Prix week. Beyond that, all I am reporting is the oft-repeated rumor of relocation--not the fact of it. The story ends with Capone inviting people to come by during Grand Prix weekend and see if it's true. I understand your special inclination to be sure that the frequently maligned police aren't portrayed unfairly. I also agree that the police will deal with this problem---and so many others---every day, while the rest of us "conveniently" forget. But I think it should also be pointed out that that's what we pay them for.
John_B
· 8 months ago
Dave: Thanks for the feedback. I did, indeed, note that you appear to have been “completely transparent in this story, from the outset making clear that (you) posed this question as a rumor, not a fact. That transparency included explaining how the rumor came to (you) and the fact that these people would not go on the record and the reason they gave for not doing so.” I hope you’ll agree that I never alleged otherwise.
I do qualify this with “appear to have been”, however, because we cannot possibly know the answers to questions that were not asked or what comments were made by those in Lincoln Park or elsewhere that you may not have felt were relevant or workable in the story.
Some of my comments addressed just some of the (I feel very valid) questions we do not have answers to.
I fully understand your frustration concerning the official response you received and the manner in which it was ultimately provided. Please include in your consideration that recent budget cuts have decimated the Police Departments Community Relations Division (CRD) generally and the Public Information Office (PIO) of that Division specifically. They just no longer have the staffing they used to and this has necessarily impacted their ability to be as responsive to media requests as they used to be and prefer to be.
Under these difficult circumstances I feel both CRD and PIO do an amazing job, every single day. But as one of your dedicated readers I, for one, am very glad that you “pushed”. I’m only sorry that it proved necessary.
I will not presume to comment upon the manner in which the Council office may have handled your request other than to say that all of our Council offices have also recently suffered budget and personnel cuts (with more on the way) and this truth has likewise impacted their ability to be more responsive as well.
That said, I believe our elected and appointed officials should make *every* effort to be as responsive as possible to *all* members of the public at *all* times.
You are correct that your story did not criticize the Quality of Life Detail, but neither did it compliment it. Your comments were carefully (and rightly) neutral and others’ comments were critical. I simply hoped to inject a bit of “positive” into that part of the equation.
I am inclined to give credit where credit is due, to you, to our cops and, indeed, to anyone who I perceive deserves it but has not received it. We do, indeed, pay our cops to perform some, but by no means all, of the tasks I mentioned. The truth of the matter is that most of our cops go far above and beyond what is expected of them and what they are “paid for”. They do so because they are professionals and because, despite what some allege, they truly do care for the community they serve, homeless or not.
Stories like these often paint the picture (intended or otherwise) of a City and a Police Department that doesn’t care much about our homeless population when that couldn’t be farther from the truth. The existence of a Homeless Services Division within our Health and Human Services Department loudly refutes that misperception. The Homeless Services Division is responsible for coordinating homeless services and addressing the impacts of homelessness citywide. It has a staff of 29 FTE’s and an annual budget of $8.9 million.
The very existence of a Police Department Detail specifically dedicated to homeless and other related quality of life issues speaks volumes about the Police Department’s willingness to allocate ever-shrinking personnel and resources to this difficult challenge. Other Details within the Department, like the Mental Evaluation Teams (or MET) specifically service those with emotional and psychological challenges, many of whom are, indeed, homeless.
The homeless very rarely have personal transportation of the wheeled variety. As a result, many of our homeless use our public transportation systems (including Long Beach Transit busses) to move about the city over distances of more than a few blocks. Our Transit Enforcement Detail is particularly mindful of this and is partnering with the L.A. County of Department of Mental Health in a pilot program to have certified mental health clinicians riding with their officers, so that they can better serve our homeless when they encounter them.
The City generally and the Police Department specifically does a very great deal to try to provide appropriate services to our homeless population. The City’s efforts in this challenging area are considerable and ongoing.
Now that might also be a story worth telling!
Keep up the great work, Sir!
lbresident
· 8 months ago
"The Homeless Services Division is responsible for coordinating homeless services and addressing the impacts of homelessness citywide. It has a staff of 29 FTE’s and an annual budget of $8.9 million."
Can you provide more detail on what this $8.9M accomplishes? Also what is the "Transit Enforcement Detail" and how much does it cost Long Beach?
The LBPD Transit Enforcement Detail provides law enforcement services, by contract, to the Long Beach Transportation Company (Long Beach Transit), much as the LA County Sheriff's Transportation Services Bureau provides transit enforcement services to the MTA.
The Long Beach Transit contract reimburses the City's General Fund for these law enforcement services so there is no net cost to the City of Long Beach.
hope that helps!
lbresident
· 8 months ago
Doesn't the city pay for the LB Transit services?
lbresident
· 8 months ago
actually it's probably the transit fees.
Coastal Retort
· 8 months ago
No Resident,
You don't get it, but when you stick your chin out like this, you just may.?
And that is the point. Some of us have actually lived in their car at a low point in life, or fed their dog with the change that they had left,and gone to bed hungry? Or lived on a friends couch for a while during their youth due to business failure ? Life can have a lot of peaks, and valleys. And many become a much better person for having been humbled..??
And some are just given to leading a life of good works, while others seem to cling fastly and firstmost to 'what is in it for them'?
Better yet, why don't you ponder why some of the highest paid executives in this town, give their entire check to charity, year after year? A nice , fat, three figure sum, with plenty of zeros ?
Many of would rather give of themself persistantly, or do without much, always, as to be perceived as 'Charitable to a fault' for whatever reason, rather than......well......have a nice day sir.
May Peace, Happiness and good fortune be afforded to you and yours in ever increasing measure.....someday.
lbresident
· 8 months ago
I find you arrogant, intolerant, close minded, a bit slow, and possibly crazy. But we need all types in this world I guess.
lbresident
· 8 months ago
sorry. I shouldn't have resorted to name calling.
Dwight K Snider
· 8 months ago
Citizen Journalist Quote of the Day – Welfare and the Homeless
The Preamble to the United States Constitution: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
“The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the fundamental purposes and guiding principles which the Constitution is meant to serve. It expresses in general terms the intentions of its authors, is sometimes referred to by courts as reliable evidence of what the Founding Fathers thought the Constitution meant and what they hoped it would achieve…”
(Source: Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia)
Pat
· 8 months ago
I couldn't read that without hearing the School House Rocks song
Andy
· 8 months ago
You know, I used to be sympathetic to the LB homeless, but frankly, after living amongst them for 11 years and seeing the same folks day after day...not the families, not disturbed or disabled, not the "working poor"... it's enough.
Stop the feedings in Lincoln Park, stop the bus pick-ups and drop-offs, and sleeping in doorways day and night.
There's social services to assist folks once off the street, for which I'll happily pay more taxes. But letting folks camp, drink, defecate, and harass (yes, aggressive panhadling is harassment) in our public spaces should be subject to actively being evicted from the area. And if you've got an outstanding warrant, off you go.
Sorry. I've just had enough. Time for them to uphold their end. They're not all homeless veterans.
howardx
· 8 months ago
when you moved in 11 years ago, were there homeless people around? this seems a bit like moving next to the airport and then complaining about the noise.
Andy
· 8 months ago
Definitely has gotten A LOT worse. I used to be able to go to Lincoln Park and not be asked for change every 3 minutes.
Didn't have guys sleeping on the lawn on the corner of 5th and Pacific mid-day.
And didn't have toothless meth addicts sh@tting in my side yard until this past year.
Not sure I get your analogy. As if I should accept this behavior because it was pre-existing.
howardx
· 8 months ago
exactly, it was preexisting but you chose to move there anyways. in my mind that negates your right to complain about it.
Andy
· 8 months ago
OK, I did say it had gotten worse. Anyhow, if it's cool with you, I'll keep bitching about it. And as I was discussing the situation with police officers, they indicated that it was primarily due to crackdowns elsewhere.
So, I see no reason why I (or the city) should be enabling the activities outlined above. Whether they were here before or after I moved in.
howardx
· 8 months ago
by all means feel free to complain about the homeless problem which was there when you chose to buy your property in that neighborhood, im not a censor.
Dave in Alamitos Beach
· 8 months ago
So if I've got this right, if a problem existed when you moved in to a place then you have no right to complain if it gets worse over the years?
Hmmm, the kids in the apartment next door to me were sweet when I moved in, but now they're grown up and wannabe gangsters. Should I not complain when they cover our apartment building with graffiti and shoot their guns?
howardx
· 8 months ago
that comment was the personification of gentrification. thats how downtowns get ruined, yuppies buy condos and then complain, pretty soon there arent any homeless around, or nightclubs or any bars etc etc because condo owners dont like the noise, which was there when they decided to buy in that area.
Andy
· 8 months ago
OK, that stereotype ain't me and you're really showing your narrow black/white view of the world.
The great venues and cool shops are gone, but they were the reason I moved to LB in the first place. Look to the RDA and the ridiculous property value escalation that killed them.
But a-hole taggers and feckless bums that have grown faster than rust on the Queen Mary are not a side effect of gentrification, which I have yet to see any evidence of in downtown LB.
Dave in Alamitos Beach
· 8 months ago
Amen brother, I say bring on the gentrification - it's moving slower than evolution.
Fact Finder
· 8 months ago
Dave, te last quote in your story says to come by Lincoln Park during the Grand Prix to see for yourself that the homeless are gone. Well, did you? That would have made your case. But it appears you didn't want to prove your case. You must have some other motive for this story. Fact is, I did go by Lincoln Park during the Grand Prix and there were still plenty of homeless out there just like the days before the Grand Prix. There goes that "theory"...
Dwight K Snider
· 8 months ago
Citizen Journalist Quote of the Day – Anonymous Complaint
“Every citizen has the right to make a complaint against any employee of the Police Department. The complaint may be made to any supervisor or the Internal Affairs Division.
“A complaint may be made in person, by telephone, by mail, by email, or by a person not directly involved in the incident. Complaints may also be made anonymously.
“The Department will release to the complaining party a copy of his or her own signed statement when the complaint is filed in person. All others will be mailed.”
(Source: City of Long Beach Police Department Citizen Complaint Procedure)
John_B
· 8 months ago
Dwight: Thanks very much for including these quotes from LBPD policy as part of the dialogue. They are factual and pertinent.
Complaints may, indeed, be made anonymously and I never said otherwise. This is why it surprises me that the "representatives of homeless aid agencies” that Dave mentions in the story have apparently not seen fit to do so. If they are truly concerned that they “fear that complaints could cut them off from government cooperation and financial aid” then why have they not lodged an anonymous complaint?
If this situation truly exists, and they claim that it does; and if they feel this situation has been ongoing, and they apparently feel that it has; and if they fear some form of official retaliation, and they claim that they do; and if they feel this situation is wrong and should be stopped, why else report it to a member of the local Press, Then why not file an anonymous complaint with either the Police Department or the CPCC as it is their right to do?
The bottom line, here, is that Dave has done an excellent and entertaining job of reporting on a “legend” or a “rumor” (he uses both terms). I don’t believe anything in the report substantiates this rumor and, in fact, at least one reader has now reported that yes, Lincoln Park was, indeed, populated by some of our homeless population during Grand Prix weekend, this report, if true, refutes the rumor far more effectively than any of the discussion that has gone before could possibly have done.
In publishing this story, Dave generated a ton of most excellent debate and discussion and many people, pro and con, became thoroughly engaged.
So hat’s off to Dave for yet another thought-provoking story!
Is there a homeless court in Long Beach like there is in San Diego, Los Angeles, Santa Ana, Orange, and elsewhere? Where those "penny warrants" can be taken care of through service hours or reduced fines as opposed to jail time (which costs a lot more than the price of the ticket/court fees/etc that lead to the warrant?
And notice (for those worried about $$$ not going to infrastructure) that the funding for the existing services is from federal funds. Just wanted to point that out.
thanks
lbresident
· 8 months ago
Right. Because federal funds don't come from tax payers and are never used for infrastructure.
Pat
· 8 months ago
Hi lbresident. like the other week's discussion under Garcia's victory article, federal funds are coming into the city providing jobs and services. Those monies are absolutely coming from yours and my (that doesn't sound grammatically correct) pockets, but they are not part of the city budget bugaboo.
So I guess I was trying to point at that, despite any city hall issues, these services are a separate issue that won't be affected by budget cuts (or shouldn't be, unless the city were to reallocate federal funds, which I don't think they could do... now that would be a story to cover if there ever was one!)
John_B
· 8 months ago
Pat: This was an *excellent* question and I’m so glad you asked it!
Before your question I had never heard of such a thing as a “Homeless Court” before so it gave me a chance to do some research and learn something…two of my favorite things to do…thanks for that too!
To your question, according to the Administrative Office of the Los Angeles County Superior Court in Long Beach, no such program is currently in place here. In my opinion this is most unfortunate.
Based entirely upon what I have read at the above link, this program seems to be an excellent example of what are called “Collaborative Justice” or “Problem-solving” Courts, which are described as follows:
“Collaborative justice courts-also known as problem-solving courts-promote accountability by combining judicial supervision with rehabilitation services that are rigorously monitored and focused on recovery. These courts are distinguished by the following elements: a problem-solving focus, a team approach to decision making, integration of social and treatment services, judicial supervision of the treatment process, community outreach, direct interaction between defendants and judge, and a proactive role for the judge inside and outside the courtroom.”
As I mentioned before, a large percentage of our homeless population: “are people experiencing great challenges in their lives; many have severe emotional problems and/or psychological issues, or are substance-addicted or have been chronically abused”.
This Homeless Court idea seems to represent a great opportunity for us, as a community, to better serve our homeless population when they run afoul of the law and I really think L.A. Superior Court-Long Beach could greatly benefit from such a program!
Perhaps its time to write a letter to Presiding Judge Arthur Jean and make this extremely constructive suggestion!
Thanks again, Pat!
Pat
· 8 months ago
who knew San Diego would be so progressive (on one issue, at least)!
Thanks for the info John. Letter writing to Judge Jean followed by... contacting local homeless and social outreach programs to do likewise.
Shea_Shizzle
· 8 months ago
Wow... I walk by that park all the time, and I have actually had better conversations with homeless people there then I have had with City Council members! Do they fuck with the homeless in that park? Everyday... I have made note on numerous occasions of the police rolling up to that park and just hassling the nearest bum. It sucks that other people that live around that area don't say anything about it. Just cause they are homeless does not mean they deserve to be treated worse then a "tax payer". Mold was a problem until we realized penicillin helped cure disease... time to start looking at the same problems in a different way suckas!!!
All Comments
You guys are always looking for a controversey. And that is good. The PT sure doesn't keep anyone in check. I just wish even though you're all liberal socialists you would throw a bone to some of us moderate, tax paying, homeowners who care about the quality of life in this community. At some point you're going to be cnn and the moderate will stop paying attention to you. Maybe that's what you want. I get you have a bias, that's why I read your site. I like to hear the other side. But c'mon...
Cue the attacks ...
If offering what I believe to be pertinent, reasoned, reasonable and, by the way *factual*, information concerning the City or its Police Department, or by simply asking pertinent questions concerning topics that relate to either, makes me an “unofficial PR Department” so be it. But if you were familiar with more of my comments, here and elsewhere, you would also see that I am quite critical of the City and all of its Departments when such critique is warranted. Here, though, I don’t believe that it is.
I would respectfully caution you against believing everything that you read here, or anywhere else, to be irrefutable truth. Your comments on this topic seem to indicate that you believe what you have read here to be truth, rather than the rumor Dave has reported it to be.
You assert that “the annual arrival of the Long Beach Grand Prix triggers a roundup and relocation of the downtown homeless by the Long Beach Police Department”. I believe that assertion to be false. The LBPD PIO Office issued a statement to Dave denying this rumor, twice, and I don’t feel that anything anyone else has said on the matter has sufficiently refuted this denial.
The quotes from Dave’s article that you highlight in your comments have not been corroborated. Dave never corroborated them, personally, during his research and no one he spoke with seemed willing or able to do so either or, if they attempted to, they were not willing to go on the record as having done so.
This is unfortunate because to be credible, refutation must be based in fact, rather than rumor, and such facts must be attributed. If this situation is truly a problem, then it should be addressed…immediately…but we can’t reasonably demand action on it without facts.
Do you have any? Maybe we should uncover some before writing to the Mayor and Police Chief with nothing more than rumor and non-corroborated allegations from some who, in some cases, feel themselves to be “victims” of a City that in fact spends millions and millions of taxpayer dollars each and every year to provide programs and services for them.
Your assertion that “LBPD Officers Joe Seminara and Merle McGee who comprise the Quality of Life unit that patrols the homeless population based at Lincoln Park only round up everyone with warrants and sends them to jail once a year during Toyota Grand Prix race” is false and unless you have definitive and attributable proof that this is the case, you really should avoid lodging such false allegations of either our Police Department or any of those who serve our community within it.
I feel you would be better served to seek out the *facts* on the matter and, if they prove to support the rumors Dave has reported, here, then disclose those facts to others and then ask them to communicate with City officials and demand action. Demanding public policy action based upon rumor is counter-productive and, in fact, does far more harm than good to the concept of good and responsive City government.
Do the taxpayers of Long Beach help to fund lawsuit settlements involving LBPD? Of course, but in settling lawsuits we rarely acknowledge culpability; we simply decide that it’s cheaper to settle than to litigate. This is often a decision those directly involved do not agree with, because in many cases they know they did nothing wrong and they would like a duly-constituted court to take judicial notice of that. But such decisions deprive then their day in court.
This is a circumstance that I would think anyone who purports to be “a civil libertarian who is actively concerned with the protection of civil liberties” would take *great* exception to. But, strangely, we don’t hear much from them when public employees are thus victimized.
I wonder why that is?
Why is it the information YOU “believe to be pertinent, reasoned, reasonable and, by the way factual”, are only the facts you choose NOT to ignore. I guess you missed the part of Dave’s story that said the “story came to me from representatives of homeless aid agencies, and they told it adamantly, in detail.” How about the part where Dave writes, “Hell, Officer McGee already told us—the Grand Prix is coming in, and everyone with a dollar warrant is going to jail,” says a man named Jay. He told me to tell all my friends. In actuality, somebody got taken to jail yesterday.” These are people who have actually witnessed and felt the police action. Apparently, their experiences do not qualify as facts to you because they haven’t been corroborated by you, a Long Beach Police Officer, apparently intent upon protecting your own.
You appear quick to discredit a person’s opinion about eyewitness reports as being “false and unless you have definitive and attributable proof that this is the case.” A fact does not require a person to fill out a police report and risk retaliation as mentioned in Dave’s article. As you well know, tons of crimes go unreported in Long Beach. Calls for police service are many more times the number of crimes reported. Are you asserting that a crime not reported “on the record” never occurred? Must it be on a police report to be a fact? Does not reporting in the news media constitute going “on the record?”
Furthermore, you claim “the LBPD PIO Office issued a statement to Dave DENYING this rumor” of police actions to move the homeless. That is untrue. If you read the PIO’s response, it DOES NOT say the police do not move the homeless during Grand Prix week. It says, “It is not our PRACTICE to move the homeless.” According to Webster’s Dictionary definition, PRACTICE means it is not customary. That wording by the PIO does not rule out the possibility of its occurrence. Moreover, the PIO statement did not specify when their PRACTICE applied or if it applied to the week of Grand Prix. The PIO statement would still be true if the police rounded up the homeless the week of Grand Prix but not the other 51 weeks of the year. If the police HAVE NOT and DO NOT move the homeless at certain times, WHY DIDN’T THE PIO SAY EXACTLY THAT? Moreover, why do you twist the PIO statement into a flat denial? It’s a FACT that they did not “deny” (declare untrue) the rumor as YOU say.
I wonder why that is? Oh, I forgot. There is a code among fellow police officers.
Because a person or organization makes a claim, does not make that claim true. I feel that factual corroboration is necessary if we are to condemn others (cop or not) and still remain intellectually honest. Comments from “representatives of homeless aid agencies” might, indeed, be seen as corroborative if only they would be willing to go on the record, which they were not willing to do. Perhaps in your haste to condemn me “you missed that part” of my comments.
I was in no way “attempting to protect one of (my) own” primarily because no one has made any statements against them that they needed to be protected *from*. Please note this excerpt from my earlier comments: “…. If this situation is truly a problem, then it should be addressed…immediately…but we can’t reasonably demand action on it without facts.” Perhaps in your haste to condemn me “you missed that part” of my comments as well.
I “discredit (no) person’s opinion”. People; Venus, you and me included, have every right to entertain any opinion they like. But when a person forms an opinion about a rumor, as Venus and now you appear to have done in this case, and assert it as fact, without offering corroborating facts to support those rumors; then you fail the test of intellectual honesty. I do not discount, out of hand, what any of these folks claim, I simply ask for proof. Seeing none offered I then rightly question their stories.
Dave is the professional journalist in the room so I’ll defer to him to define “on the record” for us. My only comments along these lines were these: “If someone wants to lodge an allegation of misconduct against any City Department or employee, shouldn’t they be willing, in fact, eager, to put their name to their story? Even if their story is true and they honestly fear some sort of official retaliation, don’t you feel that remaining anonymous lends a flavor of disingenuousness to the allegation?”
Of course I’m not “asserting that a crime not reported ‘on the record’ never occurred.” Of course, a crime must not be “on a police report to be a fact”. But if one is to allege misconduct on the part of the City or any of its Departments or employees -which is what I was talking about- one must be willing to be attributed so that their claim can be properly investigated and, if possible, corroborated. Is that really so hard to understand?
Your interpretation of the official PIO statement that Dave received is just that; your interpretation, and mine is another. Our interpretations differ. So be it.
My interpretation is based upon several things: 1. The context in which the response was offered…that context being the question that was asked: “Can you confirm this rumor”, the comments I read were, indeed, responsive and denied the rumor. 2. My personal knowledge of the Officers in question both of whom are extremely professional, dedicated and compassionate. They *volunteered* to work the Quality of Life Unit (which does far more than “(patrol) the homeless population based at Lincoln Park”, by the way) because they desire to *assist* our city’s homeless as best as they are able, not to marginalize or victimize them and 3. My over 24 years of personal experience with Department policy and procedure concerning the homeless…policy and procedure that has *never*, to my knowledge, been as those in the story describe. That’s what I base *my* interpretation on, Mike. You, on the other hand, appear to be basing yours upon unsubstantiated information and uncorroborated rumor.
I may very well be proven wrong in my position, Mike. And if I am I am ready to fully acknowledge my error and apologize for it.
Are you prepared to do the same?
If not, which of us will prove to be the more reasonable and intellectually honest, I wonder?
The point I was trying to make is the police did not deny gathering up and moving homeless people had not occurred as you REPEATEDLY said. You have a tendency to take people to task for miniscule interpretation of wordings. I thought I'd throw it back at you to see how you liked it.
I like words, Mike, and I believe that they have meaning and that meaning can change depending upon the manner in which words are used. This is why I try to take great care to be as precise as possible with my words and why I sometimes take others to task when they do not.
I make mistakes in this are and so do others. Am I the only person to be taken to task for doing so?
I believe it has become pointless to argue further with you concerning the PIO statement. I’ve acknowledged that your interpretation is among at least two that are possible. Are you able to acknowledge the same of mine?
This is nothing unique to Long Beach- pretty much all cities spend the majority of their general fund dollars on employee salaries. The 2% that the employees contribute to their retirement may sound like a pittance, but that is actually 25% of the total contribution (8%). Most cities pay the entire 7 or 8 %!
The problem with Long Beach isn't the employees, it's the unions that represent them and allow some people that wouldn't last a week in the private sector to enjoy exorbitant salaries for the work that they do (or don't do). It seems like almost everytime the City gets good, talented employees, they leave after a few years because they become frustrated with the way City Hall is run.
"Screw the homeless, they new there was a race track nearby when they decided to camp there."
And on a serious note, although off the subject, LBresident makes a good point in his/her rant, I would like to know how many city employees live elsewhere and "export" their incomes. Of course, I am a hypocrite because I import a government income.
See you all at the race (unless you are homeless and in jail)
and I do like to rant.
Since I don't think you can legislate where you require people to live, can the city offer a 5% salary increase to those employees who live in the city? Or better yet, since no one's got any money these days, how about they won't LOSE 5% if they can prove they live in the city?
Now back to the homeless story - um, why are these people being allowed to live in the park during the other 51 weeks a year?
you're right, you can't legislate where people live. but it would be great if the public knew how everytime they elect a democrat/union owned council person they are choosing salaries and pensions and social services over streets, sidewalks, and clean beaches.
good to hear you agree there are no democrats that represent tax payers.
i have no money and delong has his faults but would take delongs votes and actions over any of the other clowns on the council.
It isn't THEIR city, it's just a job . . .
Let's chase them out of the city the rest of the year.
But really, there has to be some sort of geographic compromise where the homeless can congregate and they won't scare the tourists or the residents.
Full Disclosure for those not aware (Dave certainly is): I am both a Police Department employee and a resident of the City of Long Beach. My comments, here and elsewhere, do not represent the official positions or policies of the Long Beach Police Department, nor are they intended to.
Dave, it seems you did get a response from the Police Department as to whether these rumors could be substantiated and, although you feel that response was “not much” it did answer the question, twice, and provided additional information besides, did it not?
Your definition of “not much” is clearly different from mine.
I find it interesting that during your research for this story, many of those you spoke with in Lincoln Park are able to wonder and posit and suggest and infer that “…the annual arrival of the Long Beach Grand Prix triggers a roundup and relocation of the downtown homeless by the Long Beach Police Department”.
Although it’s difficult to tell from the article exactly when you conducted your interviews, I find it especially interesting because those people you spoke with were, you know, *in Lincoln Park* so wouldn’t their presence sort of refute the premise of the rumor?
Some others were apparently willing to confirm these rumors for you “adamantly, in detail” but only on the condition of anonymity. Doesn’t that seem a little overly convenient to you? If someone wants to lodge an allegation of misconduct against any City Department or employee, shouldn’t they be willing, in fact, eager, to put their name to their story? Even if their story is true and they honestly fear some sort of official retaliation, don’t you feel that remaining anonymous lends a flavor of disingenuousness to the allegation?
Like you, I found Mr. Strickland of particular interest. He states: “…the police have done some pretty messed-up things in this park.” Would any of those things have had anything to do with the things we pay our police officers to do…enforce the law, keep the peace, mitigate blight and address quality of life issues?
Had Officers Seminara or McGee observed the Health and Safety Code violation that you described and then arrested or issued a citation to Strickland or Isaiah for it, I wonder if Strickland would have found that to be a “pretty messed up thing” to?
More than likely.
There is no such thing as a “Crime of Homelessness”, so-called or otherwise. Homelessness is not a crime, thankfully, but it is a sad, sad thing and, when children are involved, it’s inarguably tragic.
But if a person “lays down in the park” they are not necessarily camping and will not be cited for doing so illegally, unless, of course, the person “lays down in the park” overnight, or after the park has been closed, or sets up camp for longer than a few hours. I wonder if any of those conveniently omitted additional circumstances might have been involved in Jay’s case. Did he happen to say?
Probably not.
So, Capone was “minding his own business” when he was unceremoniously “hauled off to jail”. Minding one’s own business is not a crime either. But when a person does commit a crime and they do not appear in Court or do not complete their Court-ordered requirements, then a warrant is usually issued for their arrest. This is the only lawful means that Judge’s have at their disposal to get someone into their Courtroom so that a case can be adjudicated and justice served. Did Mr. Capone happen to mention what crime he had committed that ultimately led a Judge to issue a warrant for his arrest?
I suspect he didn't.
Cowboy laments that “they’ve recently removed the port-a-potties”. I wonder if it occurs to Cowboy to wonder who provided them in the first place…or who pays to maintain them when they are there.
The absence of a port-a-potty doesn’t increase the risk of a citation for public urination…public urination increases the risk of citation for public urination. I wonder if Cowboy wonders why it is that public urination is unlawful.
I wonder if it occurs to him that if he is homeless and chooses to loiter in a public park, that it might be preferable to choose a park that has public restrooms that are not temporary and, thus, are not subject to removal at any given time.
The attention our police officers pay to our homeless population is not always unwelcome, Dave. We are also helping to keep them safe. When they are beaten or robbed or raped, we’re there to provide care and services to the victim, to investigate the crime and to arrest the suspect.
When they are de-toxing, it is we who get an ambulance to them.
When it’s too cold to be on the streets, it is we who work with our City shelters to distribute vouchers for hotel rooms and sometimes to provide transportation there.
I feel certain that Officers Seminara and McGee are not out there to abuse our homeless population, Dave, much though some prefer to believe it. They are out there to *serve* them, because no one else is.
I have spent many, many years policing this great city, Dave, including a good deal of time downtown generally and in Lincoln Park specifically. Neither I nor any cop I know has ever viewed the homeless in our city as people who needed to be “shuffled along”…at any time of the year.
Our homeless, like homeless persons everywhere, are people experiencing great challenges in their lives; many have severe emotional problems and/or psychological issues, or are substance-addicted or have been chronically abused. Some were just living paycheck-to-paycheck when the next paycheck didn’t come.
And some, believe it or not, simply choose to live that way.
But to a person they are all just that…people. And I have always done whatever I could to help them, including the purchase of more fast-food Value Meals over the years than I can possibly count.
But here’s my question to you and your many astute readers:
These sad and tragic people have all been out there all along…under our bridges, on our bus benches, huddled along our freeways and flood control channels, lined up along the walls of the Main Library and camped under the sparse trees of Lincoln Park.
They have been out there all along and out there they remain.
So why are we only asking about them now? Why are we only concerned about what the City might be doing about them now?
Today this story of yours is interesting. But will your readers be thinking about these sad and often tragic people tomorrow or next week or next month?
I can assure you that our police officers will be. And just as they have been and are doing even as I type this, our officers will be out there in the future…keeping a watchful eye on our homeless…
…while everyone else conveniently forgets.
I've heard that the homeless do, indeed, get cleared out of areas during some high profile events, I've just never heard of it happening here in Long Beach.
I read that it happened in D.C., in preparation for President Obama's Inauguration. That was covered pretty thoroughly in various local and national media outlets as I recall.
But I only know what I know, which admittedly isn't much.
But to my knowledge we, in Long Beach, have never done such a thing.
Do you have no sense of charity at all in that kmow it all soul of yours?
Did anyone ever teach you that parable about Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the kingdome of....???
How about ' That which you do unto the least of my children....you do unto me...??
So I suppose that your squeeze Gary should somehow revitialize the John Birch Society for you, and turn Long Beach into Idaho by the Sea ?
Don't hold your breath, better yet,,,,,,,do.......and jump off the top edge of the sewer pumping and treatment vats at Long Beach Water so that you can better understand what it is like to be up to your ears in putrid effluent?
Let doing so be a metaphor for your selfish, self serving neurosis?
You are cold dude. This kind of attitude has a way of coming back to bite you in the rump roast.....and just days after Easter?
I suppose that you would simply cast these souls to the wind???
Every time many of us see a person who is down and out...we think....There but for the grace of God......go I ?
You need to mellow out....you're going to give yourself crotch cancer....
And Mr Greet, just a friendly FYI, when you tell an award winning Journalist like Dave Wielenga, with over 23 years experience, a huge following, and the respect of his Professional peers ''Good job'..'nicely written'...it sounds more than a little heady coming from.....an aspiring anybody who still needs to go to Journalism School.?
.
When you judge people's posts, it just comes off like you are a Master Journalism professor, or pulitzer prize winner, or judge in a writing contest.....or something.
Dave always does a good job, because he is a seasoned professional with a mastery of his chosen craft, and the bio and credentials to prove it. He is a wordsmith who we can all learn communication skills from, you know, how to paint a picture with words?
Appointing yourself the arbiter of who writes a post to your satisfaction simply seems like you have assumed the role of assigning merit, or style points, or a grade to the everybody else here as if you are the Instructor, Editor or some other person in a position of authority . Just a friendly FYI....to be humble in all things. You're cool, but throttle back a tad?
When is the last time you took a person down on their luck into your home, to simply bath, do their laundry,rest safely, nourish themselves,adjust,center and then go out there and give it your best shot one more time?
Or allowed a shivering person to come in out of the cold?
Some of us were raised that way and have yet to develop signs of Leprosy ?
Do you know how many people end up under a bridge because they simply got nice and sick for a while, lost it all, and end up living hand to mouth like a stray dog ?
If you have charity in your heart towards all, it most certainly does not come out in your words, which lacerate one's sense of the duty to love thy neighbor ??
There but for the grace of God go I .....buddy
I don't need to defend my charitable givings whether it's time or money to you. Stop accusing me of things. You don't know me. You clearly believe that the gov't and you know what is best for everyone else. I believe the opposite. Go in peace socialist.
My feeling is that the current status of having homeless people live in a park and a Main Library is not beneficial to anyone. Certainly not the residents, nor even the homeless.
Didn't Ronald Reagan close the mental hospitals? I think that's a decision we can file away with Reaganomics, and the War on Drugs...
I’m fully acquainted with Dave’s credentials, experience and accomplishments and it was for that very reason that I sat literally in awe during the last 3rd District Neighborhood meeting and watched him work. I have no doubt that Dave has forgotten more about true journalism than I can ever hope to learn.
Much meaning can be lost, and even more sometimes erroneously inferred, in written communications. As a result I view your misunderstanding of my intent as my failing, and not yours. It is not my intent to “come off” as anything other than a person with questions and opinions and comments and the willingness to express them. If the manner in which I choose to write somehow offends you, I sincerely apologize, but neither am I responsible for how you feel, about me or anyone else.
We all judge people’s posts do we not? Dave’s and everyone else’s. Some like them and some don’t and all are (or should be) free to express themselves accordingly are they not? Dave doesn’t need to answer to me and I believe that Dave knows that very well. That he bothers to respond to any comments or questions of mine speaks volumes about his desire to clarify and be responsive to his readers.
Your defense of Dave in this case is neither required nor, as mentioned, warranted.
I have not “appointed” myself any role other than that of a reader who happens to have some information and insight into the topic at hand. I presume to “grade” no one, least of all an exceptional journalist like Dave. I can see why some who do not know me personally might believe that some of my comments were intended to be critical of Dave and his reporting and discussion of this rumor. That was not my intent. My intent was to offer a different perspective on some of what was addressed in the article, nothing more. I could be mistaken, but I believe Dave, at least, understands that.
As far as the police response to my inquiries, I still think it was "not much." First, despite my initial calls to the PIO, it's clear I was not going to get any response unless I went in and forced the isse. Even then, I was told that the PIO who had taken my call now had a day off and nobody else could help. It was only when I pushed again that I got a call from that PIO and then, finally, a prepared statement read to me over the phone. This gave me no opportunity to conduct an interview, no follow up questions, no real clarity. It was a take-it-or-leave-it deal. But I did not editorialize much about it, just reported it as given. I got a similar response from Councilwoman Lowenthal's office. A staffer promised to try to get the councilwoman on the phone for an interview, presumably did, but ultimate--just as I was at the end of my deadline--told me the councilwoman would not be available. No reason given.
My story did not criticize the officers on the Quality of Life detail. Officer Seminara was pleasant and professional and I understand why he couldn't comment.
As far as whether or not the presence of homeless in the park invalidates the point of the story...no, dont think so. I wrote it before Grand Prix week. Beyond that, all I am reporting is the oft-repeated rumor of relocation--not the fact of it. The story ends with Capone inviting people to come by during Grand Prix weekend and see if it's true.
I understand your special inclination to be sure that the frequently maligned police aren't portrayed unfairly. I also agree that the police will deal with this problem---and so many others---every day, while the rest of us "conveniently" forget.
But I think it should also be pointed out that that's what we pay them for.
I do qualify this with “appear to have been”, however, because we cannot possibly know the answers to questions that were not asked or what comments were made by those in Lincoln Park or elsewhere that you may not have felt were relevant or workable in the story.
Some of my comments addressed just some of the (I feel very valid) questions we do not have answers to.
I fully understand your frustration concerning the official response you received and the manner in which it was ultimately provided. Please include in your consideration that recent budget cuts have decimated the Police Departments Community Relations Division (CRD) generally and the Public Information Office (PIO) of that Division specifically. They just no longer have the staffing they used to and this has necessarily impacted their ability to be as responsive to media requests as they used to be and prefer to be.
Under these difficult circumstances I feel both CRD and PIO do an amazing job, every single day. But as one of your dedicated readers I, for one, am very glad that you “pushed”. I’m only sorry that it proved necessary.
I will not presume to comment upon the manner in which the Council office may have handled your request other than to say that all of our Council offices have also recently suffered budget and personnel cuts (with more on the way) and this truth has likewise impacted their ability to be more responsive as well.
That said, I believe our elected and appointed officials should make *every* effort to be as responsive as possible to *all* members of the public at *all* times.
You are correct that your story did not criticize the Quality of Life Detail, but neither did it compliment it. Your comments were carefully (and rightly) neutral and others’ comments were critical. I simply hoped to inject a bit of “positive” into that part of the equation.
I am inclined to give credit where credit is due, to you, to our cops and, indeed, to anyone who I perceive deserves it but has not received it. We do, indeed, pay our cops to perform some, but by no means all, of the tasks I mentioned. The truth of the matter is that most of our cops go far above and beyond what is expected of them and what they are “paid for”. They do so because they are professionals and because, despite what some allege, they truly do care for the community they serve, homeless or not.
Stories like these often paint the picture (intended or otherwise) of a City and a Police Department that doesn’t care much about our homeless population when that couldn’t be farther from the truth. The existence of a Homeless Services Division within our Health and Human Services Department loudly refutes that misperception. The Homeless Services Division is responsible for coordinating homeless services and addressing the impacts of homelessness citywide. It has a staff of 29 FTE’s and an annual budget of $8.9 million.
The very existence of a Police Department Detail specifically dedicated to homeless and other related quality of life issues speaks volumes about the Police Department’s willingness to allocate ever-shrinking personnel and resources to this difficult challenge. Other Details within the Department, like the Mental Evaluation Teams (or MET) specifically service those with emotional and psychological challenges, many of whom are, indeed, homeless.
The homeless very rarely have personal transportation of the wheeled variety. As a result, many of our homeless use our public transportation systems (including Long Beach Transit busses) to move about the city over distances of more than a few blocks. Our Transit Enforcement Detail is particularly mindful of this and is partnering with the L.A. County of Department of Mental Health in a pilot program to have certified mental health clinicians riding with their officers, so that they can better serve our homeless when they encounter them.
The City generally and the Police Department specifically does a very great deal to try to provide appropriate services to our homeless population. The City’s efforts in this challenging area are considerable and ongoing.
Now that might also be a story worth telling!
Keep up the great work, Sir!
Can you provide more detail on what this $8.9M accomplishes? Also what is the "Transit Enforcement Detail" and how much does it cost Long Beach?
That Division's budget can be found here (on Page 25): http://www.longbeach.gov/civica/filebank/blobdl...
The LBPD Transit Enforcement Detail provides law enforcement services, by contract, to the Long Beach Transportation Company (Long Beach Transit), much as the LA County Sheriff's Transportation Services Bureau provides transit enforcement services to the MTA.
The Long Beach Transit contract reimburses the City's General Fund for these law enforcement services so there is no net cost to the City of Long Beach.
hope that helps!
You don't get it, but when you stick your chin out like this, you just may.?
And that is the point. Some of us have actually lived in their car at a low point in life, or fed their dog with the change that they had left,and gone to bed hungry? Or lived on a friends couch for a while during their youth due to business failure ? Life can have a lot of peaks, and valleys. And many become a much better person for having been humbled..??
And some are just given to leading a life of good works, while others seem to cling fastly and firstmost to 'what is in it for them'?
Better yet, why don't you ponder why some of the highest paid executives in this town, give their entire check to charity, year after year? A nice , fat, three figure sum, with plenty of zeros ?
Many of would rather give of themself persistantly, or do without much, always, as to be perceived as 'Charitable to a fault' for whatever reason, rather than......well......have a nice day sir.
May Peace, Happiness and good fortune be afforded to you and yours in ever increasing measure.....someday.
The Preamble to the United States Constitution: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
“The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the fundamental purposes and guiding principles which the Constitution is meant to serve. It expresses in general terms the intentions of its authors, is sometimes referred to by courts as reliable evidence of what the Founding Fathers thought the Constitution meant and what they hoped it would achieve…”
(Source: Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia)
Stop the feedings in Lincoln Park, stop the bus pick-ups and drop-offs, and sleeping in doorways day and night.
There's social services to assist folks once off the street, for which I'll happily pay more taxes. But letting folks camp, drink, defecate, and harass (yes, aggressive panhadling is harassment) in our public spaces should be subject to actively being evicted from the area. And if you've got an outstanding warrant, off you go.
Sorry. I've just had enough. Time for them to uphold their end. They're not all homeless veterans.
Didn't have guys sleeping on the lawn on the corner of 5th and Pacific mid-day.
And didn't have toothless meth addicts sh@tting in my side yard until this past year.
Not sure I get your analogy. As if I should accept this behavior because it was pre-existing.
So, I see no reason why I (or the city) should be enabling the activities outlined above. Whether they were here before or after I moved in.
Hmmm, the kids in the apartment next door to me were sweet when I moved in, but now they're grown up and wannabe gangsters. Should I not complain when they cover our apartment building with graffiti and shoot their guns?
The great venues and cool shops are gone, but they were the reason I moved to LB in the first place. Look to the RDA and the ridiculous property value escalation that killed them.
But a-hole taggers and feckless bums that have grown faster than rust on the Queen Mary are not a side effect of gentrification, which I have yet to see any evidence of in downtown LB.
“Every citizen has the right to make a complaint against any employee of the Police Department. The complaint may be made to any supervisor or the Internal Affairs Division.
“A complaint may be made in person, by telephone, by mail, by email, or by a person not directly involved in the incident. Complaints may also be made anonymously.
“The Department will release to the complaining party a copy of his or her own signed statement when the complaint is filed in person. All others will be mailed.”
(Source: City of Long Beach Police Department Citizen Complaint Procedure)
Complaints may, indeed, be made anonymously and I never said otherwise. This is why it surprises me that the "representatives of homeless aid agencies” that Dave mentions in the story have apparently not seen fit to do so. If they are truly concerned that they “fear that complaints could cut them off from government cooperation and financial aid” then why have they not lodged an anonymous complaint?
If this situation truly exists, and they claim that it does; and if they feel this situation has been ongoing, and they apparently feel that it has; and if they fear some form of official retaliation, and they claim that they do; and if they feel this situation is wrong and should be stopped, why else report it to a member of the local Press, Then why not file an anonymous complaint with either the Police Department or the CPCC as it is their right to do?
The bottom line, here, is that Dave has done an excellent and entertaining job of reporting on a “legend” or a “rumor” (he uses both terms). I don’t believe anything in the report substantiates this rumor and, in fact, at least one reader has now reported that yes, Lincoln Park was, indeed, populated by some of our homeless population during Grand Prix weekend, this report, if true, refutes the rumor far more effectively than any of the discussion that has gone before could possibly have done.
In publishing this story, Dave generated a ton of most excellent debate and discussion and many people, pro and con, became thoroughly engaged.
So hat’s off to Dave for yet another thought-provoking story!
Is there a homeless court in Long Beach like there is in San Diego, Los Angeles, Santa Ana, Orange, and elsewhere? Where those "penny warrants" can be taken care of through service hours or reduced fines as opposed to jail time (which costs a lot more than the price of the ticket/court fees/etc that lead to the warrant?
And notice (for those worried about $$$ not going to infrastructure) that the funding for the existing services is from federal funds. Just wanted to point that out.
thanks
So I guess I was trying to point at that, despite any city hall issues, these services are a separate issue that won't be affected by budget cuts (or shouldn't be, unless the city were to reallocate federal funds, which I don't think they could do... now that would be a story to cover if there ever was one!)
Before your question I had never heard of such a thing as a “Homeless Court” before so it gave me a chance to do some research and learn something…two of my favorite things to do…thanks for that too!
For others as interested in this idea as I am, here’s a good overview of the concept through California Courts website: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/collab/hom...
To your question, according to the Administrative Office of the Los Angeles County Superior Court in Long Beach, no such program is currently in place here. In my opinion this is most unfortunate.
Based entirely upon what I have read at the above link, this program seems to be an excellent example of what are called “Collaborative Justice” or “Problem-solving” Courts, which are described as follows:
“Collaborative justice courts-also known as problem-solving courts-promote accountability by combining judicial supervision with rehabilitation services that are rigorously monitored and focused on recovery. These courts are distinguished by the following elements: a problem-solving focus, a team approach to decision making, integration of social and treatment services, judicial supervision of the treatment process, community outreach, direct interaction between defendants and judge, and a proactive role for the judge inside and outside the courtroom.”
As I mentioned before, a large percentage of our homeless population: “are people experiencing great challenges in their lives; many have severe emotional problems and/or psychological issues, or are substance-addicted or have been chronically abused”.
This Homeless Court idea seems to represent a great opportunity for us, as a community, to better serve our homeless population when they run afoul of the law and I really think L.A. Superior Court-Long Beach could greatly benefit from such a program!
Perhaps its time to write a letter to Presiding Judge Arthur Jean and make this extremely constructive suggestion!
Thanks again, Pat!
Thanks for the info John. Letter writing to Judge Jean followed by... contacting local homeless and social outreach programs to do likewise.