-
Website
http://thedistrictweekly.com/ -
Original page
http://thedistrictweekly.com/2009/daily/writing-shotgun/the-legend-of-belmont-shore-bar-problems-grows/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Most weeknights are pretty quiet; weekends are a different story. I can't tell you all the fights and dangerous-looking situations I've seen. I go back 40 years on 2nd Street, and believe me I know when I say it's become a very dangerous place late at night.
In my day there were cops around...remember the "trap", where the 7-11 is now, by the pier? Leave there at 2am and you'd probably get pulled over for a visual/sniff test.
Turn the damn million dollars back to the city for more policing, especially during the "fright nights"; it's the right thing to do. The bar owners need to tone down the "midnight shots" specials and take some pride in running a clean safe business, as much as possible. We all know where alcohol is involved shit happens.
We also need our 500k back from rotondo and his investor group. Amortize the loan and secure it with a lien on legends and the ai.
YIKES!
Channel 4 May 28 Here is the link: http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Long-Be...
Hopefully he is finally waking up to understand that a few of his Business at any and all costs 'buddies' have played him like a violin and will toss him into the woodpile of political obscurity a soon as he can no longer help them make money. Thus, siding with the average resident, and voter, has it's merit?
Politically he stands to upset both sides here, but this self imposed box is due to years of neglect for 'buddies', say many. When residents pick up their pitchforks and head towards City Hall, and the Media, we have a problem.
As for whether or not he is being honest, well, we shall see. His career may be on the line this time.
Mr DeLong needs to better investigate this matter, nightly, to better understand as a practical matter, that the curfew is better suited to the most problematic vendors. He did not grow up around here an does not know how much nicer the area used to be. Significantly restricting these problem businesses has widespread community support and is viewed as the pendulum finally swinging back in the direction of the resident's expectations.
The paperwork is under preparation and review. This matter has issues tracing back around 3 years, all voice viable Causes of Action/ Grounds. Several have waited, to aggregate claims in order to wield a bigger blow.
We have stated some of the legal grounds in prior posts, as part of a collective effort to plead the emerging, paramount, easily assertable, reasonable residents rights position, and cause.
A liquor license is a Privilege, subject to conditions, not a Fundamental set of Rights, like a residents right to the Quiet Enjoyment of his land, or the laws and range of protections which provide that residents be allowed to live unmolested by unreasonable Nuisances, Lawlessness, Unsafe conditions or in fear. The residents rights of Defense of their Person, Property, are inalienable, a bar's right to operate rests on a liquor license bubble, that bursts quickly, when they piss of enough residents, and create enough havoc.
The competing interests should be balanced equitably. The adjacent homeowners rights are overwhelmingly paramount. The bars serve at the pleasure of the community,and are subject to their reasonable imposition of conditions.
Here, the expansion of Liquor sales has grown too far,too fast. The failure to conduct the operations reasonably has created a critical mass situation where the result of so many licenses emerges collectively. The gross sales needs to be significantly reduced.
The bar owners inequitably seek to shift the burden of their business onto the residents, then the Police, then the City, thus the Taxpayer.
This is inequitable, fundamentally unfair, and Negligent. This is inappropriate to the average resident as well.
In most Jurisdictions, the 4 most offending bars would have had their license restricted, or suspended a long time ago. Clearly, they have overstepped the reasonable community standards which normally condition such uses.
There are numerous similarly situated Plaintiff's, demonstrable diminished value to the adjacent Landowners, exigent circumstances demonstrated by the increase in crime and attendant property damage, and continuing harm to a broad class of people, with easily plead and proved Damages.
The causal factor is unquestionable, too many bars pouring too much booze, too late, and an abject failure to self regulate by providing adequate security, or limiting or cutting off patrons once the show signs of becoming visably intoxicated.
A preliminary survey, based upon resident lists, shows over 80% of the respondents in support of significant, and reasonable restrictions upon this out of control situation. Restricting the operating hours has many benefits to the average resident, costs the City little, and is a reasonable mitigation to address widespread damage, to many Taxpayers and Landowners.
Most resisdents would not mind seeing the main problem bars go away, or relocate, entirely. The area would 'heal' in the direction of a much nicer Seal, or Sunset Beach atmosphere.
Expecting significantly more Police, which would require many dedicated Officers, serves only the bars bottom line, and at tremendous cost to the City. Why further subsidize unlawful conduct and ever increasing ,wanton, reckless neighborhood chaos?
Many have asked, ''Is the goal merely to keep a few greedy old men happy?'', or, should the policy directive be demonstrably improving the average residents quality of life, standard of living, property value and level of safety?
Dreaming about scores of new Officers is a pipe dream, we are broke as a Municipality?. Our poor Police are stretched to the breaking point anyway. Of course there could be productivity enhancements many opine.
Apply reasonable Time, Place and Manner restrictions upon the 4 high volume Booze Vendors and watch the growing problem fade significantly. What's the down side? Trimming a few bars net receipts 10% ? Too bad, live with it.
The Residents are fed up with the 'Bars Gone Wild' atmosphere created by issuing too many liquor licenses. To long term residents, and business owners, it seems like 'Cinco De Mayo' or 'St patricks Day' all of the time down in the Shore nowday.
The Party has raged long enough. Time to take away the Punch Bowl.
Less Tequila = More Tranquility. Hopefully a few of the Bar Owners can learn to be much better neighbors, and a lot less greedy.
Nobody needs to move, the residents rights are paramount, and the bars merely hold conditional use permits. The average resident seems to agree that a few party zones have finally gone too far this time. Plaintiff's can move to the Nuisance and sue, all day long.
This should have a positive affect upon the other businesses which focus upon resident friendly retail and food sales as well. And property values will soar.
Curfew time. Neighborhoods First!! And let's hope that Mr DeLong and Mr Foster have the courage, fortitude and temerity to finally stand up to a few well connected Special Interests, for the average residents sake. It is long, long overdue.
Lights out at midnight fella's. We want to get some rest. We can't sleep until noon like a few of you !!
You are too cool. Yes, we observed Mr DeLong quickly adopt our position that a Midnight Curfew, based upon exigent circumstances, seemd popular with most residents, and, that the root cause was, quoting us, ''They are pouring too much booze''.
He is on the record, wearing his best suit, on National news. Try to wiggle out of that and get re-elected.
Yes he hedged, by trying to place the curfew on new permits, a baby step to please friends. The curfew needs to apply to the 4 worst offenders, for 6 months, with 6 to follow. Observe the peace return, poll the residents, and place it on the Ballot for April 2010.
Keeping a few Bar Owners and their LandLords happy is not the popular desire of the average District 3 Resident, who is fed up with this 3 year Council Experiment in our area, which resulted in CHAOS. Revenue at all costs has too high a price for the Homewowners and does not justify the Police expense, dimished property value, or expense to the residents..
District 3 is screaming for CHANGE. Change is good.
Less Tequila = More Tranquility
Also, why would Councilman DeLong limit future bars from being open past midnight rather than dealing with the existing problem bars? The reason is because his personal friends Gene Rotondo and his partner Gary Roth own the biggest problem bars in Belmont Shore; Legends, Acapulco Inn and Belmont Station. These are the same guys who are boardmembers on the Business Association with Mr. Rotondo being the President. With Councilman DeLong, these are the same guys who tried last September to take over the Residents Association to stifle any resistance to their attempts to turn Belmont Shore into an entertainment zone.
Furthermore, Councilman DeLong seeks to handicap any increased competition to his bar owner buddies. Why do you think he was all over Cabo Cantina and Panama Joes when they changed ownership? Yet Councilman DeLong sponsored Gene Rotondo’s $500,000 loan of taxpayer’s dollars from City Hall supposedly to rebuild legends (see below links), only to have Mr. Rotondo buy Acapulco Inn bar across the street with taxpayer’s money.
http://longbeach.legistar.com/LegislationDetail...
http://clblegistar.longbeach.gov/attachments/46...
In addition, Councilman DeLong approved a FOREVER entertainment license for Belmont Station despite complaints from nearly 50 nearby residents who met with him at the Belmont Shore Firehouse. Councilman DeLong told angry residents he wanted to grant a 1-year pilot entertainment license because Belmont Station owners needed the money to remodel Belmont Station into a fine Steak and Seafood restaurant. Then Councilman Delong again lied to the public. Despite the police department recommendation of no more than a 1-year temporary entertainment license, and despite the concerns of nearby residents, Councilman DeLong made a last minute change at City Council to approve a FOREVER entertainment license for his bar buddies (see below link). Furthermore, where is that fine steak and seafood restaurant Councilman DeLong promised? The Belmont Station is the same dump it has always been.
http://longbeach.legistar.com/LegislationDetail...
Moreover, Councilman DeLong used his political influence to allow Legends to be rebuilt after the fire with a 2nd floor that did not exist prior to its fire. City planning steadfastly refused to approve Mr. Rotondo’s proposed 2nd story and were not involved in the approval process. According to staff, they did not see the plans until it had already been approved by the 14th floor of city hall. In other words, Councilman DeLong’s office.
Councilman DeLong is bad news for resident voters concerned about preserving their quality of life. All he cares about is helping out his wealthy commercial property and developer friends, who don’t live in our community, but who contributed so heavily to his campaign.
As for politics, ''Borat'' would have served our District better in the last 3 years, and there are several far more resident centered individuals lurking in the forrest, of discontent.
Could you get elected Dog Catcher, in Hemet? Blithe?
1) Extend the hours of the parking meters to 10pm or later. At the same time, lower the rates.
2) Permit street parking north and south of 2nd St beyond a certain point, say 1000 meters.
What this will do is 1) force patrons to park in the public parking areas, which will lessen the noise issues down the residential streets. Lowered rates will be more than made up by extended hours. 2) the current 2 hr max on the meter means that people will have to leave the bar to refill the meter, helping control the time spent drinking 3) limiting the number of cars in the area will lead to more carpooling or public transportation, meaning customers from out of the area will be forced to meet up elsewhere (at home?) and be better for the environment. It also serves as a limit to the number of potential customers from out of the area, but would raise the number of locals going out (because they won't have to fear safety issues). Parking permits are always a pain in the butt but also effective. Most big cities have them for that reason.
3) with the increased parking revenue, and the $100,000 "disposable" income reported by the Parking Commission, purchase (maybe through a loan from the BSPC?) the ID photo machines that are in some bars.
I've seen them at multiple Yard House. When they check your ID, they take a digital scan of the card. This confirms where a patron has or has not been drinking. It covers the liability of the bars that someone like this 25 yo suspect didn't visit, and puts the onus on the bar(s) that the did visit. As a Business Association, I'd like to think that protecting current and future customers is important. This would be a great, BSBA-driven function to allow for self-administered regulation. It would provide information useful for LBPD and for residents associations (gasp!) who want to see something be done.
4) Enforce the current ABC licensing rules. If that means additional security, cameras, etc then call for inspections.
5) If nothing changes, boycott businesses that don't have open communications with residents. Conversely, support businesses that do.
That's what I have so far. What else?
Hence the problem with drunks in the neighborhood.
1000 meters isn't far at all to walk. Try making all of the shore permit parking for 2 hours or less.
So if you are on 2nd St at midnight on a Wednesday - what exactly are you doing if not drinking? Nothing else is open but bars at that time of the night.
And I am glad that Gene made it clear to all of us that this nice young gentleman punching windows and fighting with his girlfriend and the LBPD was not drunk.
Gene must really think the residents are that dumb.....
Do these guys take PR lessons from the phoniest of phony's randy gordon?(You know, let's not reduce port pollution cheaply and easily, pollution that sickens our schoolchildren, but let's get rid of one guy on the schoolboard (who is politically impotent anyways) because I care about our schoolchildren). Like the prick says..."and that's strictly business".
I really do think this is easily solvable. Put some police in the area from 12 to 3. That is it. The area is very quiet outside of this one timeframe. And you don't even need tons of police. It's not that big of an area we're talking about.
From the other postings it appears Delong is going to finally adress this issue. I hope there is a shift in police presence and we can finally put this issue to rest and get back to complaining about potholes.
As an aside, I know someone from HB and this is the exact problem that Huntington Beach has faced. Out of town folks were getting in fights, etc and the police supposedly cracked down on it. It seems to have improved over the last few months.
I would suggest that whenever a conditional use permit is considered for alcohol or entertainment the police consider their capacity to enforce and resolve nuisance and safety concerns, that the nearby residents all allowed to participate in the final conditions of approval, that the parking & noise situation is seriously reviewed ...and the businesses meet with the residents association and nearby neighbors prior to liscensing and whenever problems occur.
What has happened in the past is that planning and the city council rubberstamp the permit ignoring all of these issues and then fail to act when there is a problem.
West, the City Council & The Mayor need to remember that the primary job of government is to provide for planning and public safety. Given the sorry state of LB they need to get back to ethical basics rather than pretend they are land developers or try to prop up the budget with misconceived pro-business at all crony economics.
What is Citizen Journalism?
“The idea behind citizen journalism is that people without professional journalism training can use the tools of modern technology and the global distribution of the Internet to create, augment or fact-check media on their own or in collaboration with others. For example, you might write about a city council meeting on your blog or in an online forum. Or you could fact-check a newspaper article from the mainstream media and point out factual errors or bias on your blog. Or you might snap a digital photo of a newsworthy event happening in your town and post it online. Or you might videotape a similar event and post it on a site such as YouTube.
“All these might be considered acts of journalism, even if they don't go beyond simple observation at the scene of an important event. Because of the wide dispersion of so many excellent tools for capturing live events -- from tiny digital cameras to videophones -- the average citizen can now make news and distribute it globally, an act that was once the province of established journalists and media companies.
“There is some controversy over the term “citizen journalism,” because many professional journalists believe that only a trained journalist can understand the rigors and ethics involved in reporting the news. And conversely, there are many trained journalists who practice what might be considered citizen journalism by writing their own blogs or commentary online outside of the traditional journalism hierarchy.
“One of the main concepts behind citizen journalism is that mainstream media reporters and producers are not the exclusive center of knowledge on a subject -- the audience knows more collectively than the reporter alone. Now, many of these Big Media outlets are trying to harness the knowledge of their audience either through comments at the end of stories they post online or by creating citizen journalist databases of contributors or sources for stories.”
(Source: What is Citizen Journalism? -- Dan Gillmor, author of “We the Media” a book on the subject of grassroots media.}
If I have a party at my house and the police come, they will tell me to break it up. If they have to come back a second time, they can and will charge me for the staff and resources that it took to respond to my house a second time. Do they do the same thing for businesses? I'd be curious to know...
Write the State ABC a simple concern letter and request an Investigation due to local failure to adequately police and oversee the alcohol sales. It takes 10 minutes. You can also call ABC, simple.
Less than 2% of the businesses (bars) on 2nd street attract a clientele that causes problems for the community. The other 98% of 2nd street businesses operate in a manner respectful and welcomed by the community. Unfortunately, the owners of those 2% problem bars are also in control of the Businesses Association which gets its authority from Councilman Delong and most of its money from City Hall. Ask most business owners on 2nd street, and they will tell you (off the record for fear of retaliation) they dislike and want nothing to do with Gene Rotondo’s Business Association. The problems Mr. Rotondo's bars cause the community are an embarrassment to the other fine and respected businesses.
A decent Councilperson would not stand for 2% of the businesses causing this crap in Belmont Shore. However, Councilman DeLong has proven himself to be anything but decent. It is not coincidental the majority of problem bar owners are Councilman DeLong’s personal friends. Like Councilman DeLong’s wetlands and Home Depot deal for his developer friend Tom Dean, Councilman DeLong uses his influence to reward his personal and business friends and only cares for the communities when embarrassed politically. Speaking before city council, filing complaints with agencies outside Long Beach or involving the media has been the only effective way to get Councilman DeLong to consider and respond to resident concerns. Councilman DeLong is a scourge to District 3 and needs to be voted out in April’s election. The new Councilperson will put a stop to this crap.
Does the fact that the fed up community might finally take a kick at the golden chair out from under a few bloated 'fat cats' worry you? Just kidding, but we can see your pathetic colors from Catalina ..chief!! LOL
District 3 is not 'all about business' first. It is all about nice people trying to live a peaceful, safe, responsible, hard working, law abiding life, while raising their children, doing their work, caring for their elderly, grandkids , their neighbors, and their community.
Mr DeLong did not grow up around here, he does not have roots in our schools, or our homes. He does not have old family friends tracing back one or two generations that he cares deeply about, and he never seemed to care about the average 'Joe or Jane'.
Just look at his record? It was all about making money for, or pitching outrageously profitable schemes for his handlers and committee to elect. The residents are tired of this 'Let them eat cake' mentality akin to being second class serfs, or being left to feel largely irrelevant as if we are indentured servants to his select ''business at all costs'' buddies?
This 'A" list versus the 'Shit list' stuff has to end. Do you know how many HomeOwners Associations have never even seen him attend once since he campaigned? Well, it is too late now.
But he finds plenty of time to attend all of the 'Garden Club' events in Naples...Funny how many kind people there seem to see through him a bit better now too.
Mr SoLong had his chance, but he just never ''got it'' . Sage civic minds tend to agree that he is far better suited to a Corporate Board room, then Community service. Let him be somebody else's ''Business only Liaison'' or numbers man.
He has missed more hours at Council then anyone anybody can remeber. He doesn't want to be there, listening, or caring, he just wants the juice and the perks. It gives him something to do besides manage his inheritances and golf.
Our people need a' people person' once again, not a fixture at the Virginia Country Club, where the guy lives with his 'click' demeaning actual Civic Leaders who speak for the people and their common concerns.
Let's at least take a step up and write in Borat in 2010 !! At least he ''Loves this Country''...came from modest means....and had a heart. LOL
Let's run Dave Wielenga ?? Seriously. Dave, we are buying you some suits and getting you a makeover. You can regrow the hair after getting elected.
Also... Are we done with Colonna? Drummond? Legeman? Loftin??
Rae Gabelich owns a home in the 3rd? How about Carol Martin ? Pat Towner ? Surfing Legend Jericho Poplar ?
Was this directed at my comment(s)?
"The only thing running is your moronic mouth to veinly attempt to 'spin' for a few well connected 'special interests', who have greedily slipped the noose around their own necks this time? LOL Please, go change you tidey whitey's, you are stinking up the place. "
If so ... geez ... I wasn't expecting such a warm welcome!
"When exercising leadership, you risk getting marginalized, diverted, attacked, or seduced. Regardless of the form, however, the point is the same. When people resist adaptive work (i.e. resolving social problems without technical solutions, Sunshine's comment), their goal is to shut down those who exercise leadership in order to preserve what they have." Leadership on the Line, Heifetz Linsy 2002
Like everyone else, Mr. Ruehle can still learn a few things about people, about life and about the way our City is designed to work. The problem is, he doesn't appear to recognize or to accept that fact.
Mr. Ruehle's approach often seems to have the effect of turning potential allies into certain enemies and causing those who might otherwise be inclined to be - if not entirely sympathetic to his causes - at least empathetic to his desires and those of his constituents to, instead, beome frustrated, annoyed and disinterested in assisting.
I believe Mr. Ruehle to be a good person with a sincere desire to help make his community a better place. Unfortunately the methods he sometimes employs to try to get there are not serving his cause very well at all.
This is unfortunate, because he, intentionally or otherwise, creates resistance, avoidance and disinclination which, in turn, harm more than help his goals.
No one is perfect...least of all me. But Mr. Ruehle's behavior toward me, and some others, has only accomplished the alienation of those who might otherwise have proved a very strong advocate and ally for his cause.
This is my personal opinion and I feel certain I'll be attacked for voicing it. So be it.
I ignore nothing, least of all Mr. Ruehle's twice-elected position in the BSRA, of which he has every right to be proud. But it might be interesting to learn how many Shore residents are BSRA members and, of those, how many voted for their current Board and, of those, how many voted for Mr. Ruehle. Was Mr. Ruehle's election truly reflective of "the will of the people" or just "the will of the majority of the people who participated in that election"?
I hope you can appreciate the distinction.
Regardless, as twice duly elected BSRA President it would seem that Mr. Ruehle may be proving unequal to the task of finding common ground with others that represent other, equally important, stakeholders in his neighborhood. I trust that you will agree that without common ground and good communication and cooperation, very little of any constructive value can ever truly be accomplished.
Based upon many of his own comments Mr. Ruehle seems unable to achieve any appreciable level of cooperation or constructive communication either from or with his counterparts in either the BSBA, the Parking Commission, the Police Department, the District Council Office, the Council or the Mayor's office.
Mr. Ruehle's own comments seem to indicate that none of those other stakeholders appear willing to work with him to resolve challenges in his neighborhood. If he does *not* feel that way, one certainly couldn't tell from his comments.
A reasonable person must ask why.
Are each and every one of these other stakeholder representatives to bear the sole blame for this cooperation, communication and constructive solution gridlock? Mr. Ruehle's comments tend to indicate that he feels that they should.
All of these other groups seem to get along just fine with one another, yet, if his comments are any indication, no one gets along with Mr. Ruehle and he gets along with none of them.
Again, a reasonable person must ask why.
Good cooperation and communication in public policy is a constant balancing act...solutions arrived at between various and often competing interests must necessarily involve compromise. A person who demonstrates truly effective leadership, then, is one who can work well with these various and often competing interests -despite the many difficulties of doing so- to craft cooperative solutions to neighborhood challenges that all can, if not be fully happy with, at least be able to live with.
Mr Ruehle's own comments seem to indicate that, despite his twice elected position, he has not been able to accomplish this. Mr. Ruehle does not write of communication accomplished and cooperation achieved and acceptable solutions discovered and enacted. If he has I have not read such comments from him. Instead he routinely speaks of all that has not been accomplished and consistently lays the blame for this at everyone else's feet but his own.
Is Mr. Ruehle entirely to blame? Of course not. This would not be a reasonable assertion. Any more than it is reasonable for *him* to assert that it is entirely the blame of others.
A "leader", sunshine? Of course Mr. Ruehle is a "leader"...but exactly in which direction is he "leading", I wonder?
Time, I suppose, will tell.
good post greet.
You can't win every battle and sometimes you have to meet your enemies half way to find a common ground. I have never been a fan of DeLong's politics, but since he is the 3rd's elected leader, he is the one that residents and resident groups have to work with, like it or not.
If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Kudos to all of the reidents representatives in Long Beach doing the very time consuming and difficult job of trying to stand up for their people.
Banning anybody from a Public Forum is an Un Constitutional Prior Restraint upon Speech, an afront to the First Amendment, and a Denial of Substantive and Procedural Due Process.
We might as well be in Cuba when it come to level of fairness demonstrated by certain elected or appointed officials in Wrong Beach who build walls between business and the residents or attempt to silence, and censor protected speech!
Ever heard of a 'Prior Restraint' ? That means unlawfully limiting Free Speech to the point of attempting to kill the message, and the messenger? The Nazi's were good at that ?
You whine like a child deprived of a teething ring...sport.
What's wrong...somebody getting to you where it hurts? The wallet possibly ?
If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Kudos to all of the reidents representatives in Long Beach doing the very time consuming and difficult job of trying to stand up for their people.
Banning anybody from a Public Forum is an Un Constitutional Prior Restraint upon Speech, an afront to the First Amendment, and a Denial of Substantive and Procedural Due Process.
We might as well be in Cuba when it come to level of fairness demonstrated by certain elected or appointed officials in Wrong Beach who build walls between business and the residents or attempt to silence, and censor protected speech!
Ever heard of a 'Prior Restraint' ? That means unlawfully limiting Free Speech to the point of attempting to kill the message, and the messenger? The Nazi's were good at that ?
In current usage, the perception of the term has been extended beyond second identities of people who already post in a forum to include other uses of misleading online identities. For example, a NY Times article claims that "sock-puppeting" is defined as "the act of creating a fake online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one’s self, allies or company."[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet
Generally speaking...officers are authorized to use that force that is reasonable and necessary to overcome resistance. There is no single correct response to any given situation and the totality of the circumstances must be closely scrutinized and carefully evaluated.
Tasers are, indeed, part of an officer's "toolbox" but they are not always the ideal tool to employ against a person in possession of, and possibly wielding, an impact weapon such as a police baton. Again the totality of the circumstances must and will be considered.
Deadly Force policies are still more restrictive and rightly so. Deploying deadly force is about the most serious action any police officer can take and no officer takes resorting to such an action lightly. Any such incident can and will be dissected sometimes in terms of tenths of seconds and physical movements so minute as to be nearly undetectable.
The officer involved has a very tough time ahead and I hope readers will remain, if not fully supportive, at least understanding and patient as those charged with investigating this incident and evaluating the officer's actions proceed with their own very difficult jobs.
Nice post, John (finally).
Great work all-around!
I don't get it.
Wow.
He was not acting decently. He was breaking the law, and then proceeded to then not cooperate, take a weapon from an officer...He got exactly what he should've realized the cops could and would do.
My advice to anyone who finds themselves suddenly accosted by a police officer is to cooperate! Lay down with your hands on your head and STFU! Only move or talk if the police tell you to. Then you may be lucky to get up and walk away with a warning. The guy who got shot was obviously a dumbf**K and got what he deserved. Next time, he can just spend his evening being law abiding and the cops *won't* shoot him! Oh, and anyone else who wants to go to the Shore now knows the cops may shoot you, so commit your crimes at home in Anaslime!
WAY TO GO LBPD YOU ARE FINALLY DOING YOUR JOB IN BELMONT SHORE!
I can not and WILL not congratulate the cop for pumping three into this guy until I know more.
I also count many LBPD among my frineds and know they don't resort to fireing their guns without provocation. Give me a choice between siding with a ganster and a policeman, and hands down the police win.
and you know as well I do this guy is gonna turn out to be a gangster. If he was an "honor student" the press would already be all over it.
We do all make mistakes, a broken window is not that big a deal, so why resist the officer?
I guess I've just lived in a "marginal" neighborhood for a long time. I have very little tolerance for this sort of behavior. Oh, and I guess I'm becoming more grateful that my neighborhood seems to have more potheads than drunks. ;-)
One thing for sure, the vandal was either drunk or really, REALLY deranged in some other way . . . .
How do we voice our concern?
And, despite the outcome, at least an officer responded.
Who were the citizens who held the young man? What storefront did he break?
was he drunk at the time?
if so
which bar overserved him?
http://www.youtube.com/user/BSResident2009
Besides maybe this shooting saved several lives that would've been this guy's victims? How do you know?
I think until more facts come out: especially regarding who "detained" the suspect; whether his state of inebriation (if any) had an effect on his actions, and, if so, who overserved him; how the altercation with the (single) police officer took place (e.g. how long the verbal exchanges took place, what the citizens were doing at the time, what the suspect said and did); the intent behind the purported vandalism [to steal some sweet, sweet cinnamon rolls, an act of anger, or clumsiness (as in my case)]... there are no conclusions to draw yet.
And denigrating Anaheim or any other city isn't necessary or helpful in any way. Would it really make a difference if the suspect was from LBC or Compton or Corona?
The reason that this is such a big deal is precisely because this is relatively unusual for the shore. Mike R. and others want to nip this thing in the bud if possible before it gets REALLY out of control
I wouldn't suggest going out alone on 2nd Street after midnight, but honestly, I don't know if I'd suggest doing that anywhere in Long Beach, or even most part of the OC.
So if you are on 2nd St at midnight on a Wednesday - what exactly are you doing if not drinking? Nothing else is open but bars at that time of the night.
And I am glad that Gene made it clear to all of us that this nice young gentleman punching windows and fighting with his girlfriend and the LBPD was not drunk.
Gene must really think the residents are that dumb.....
Don’t you consider it somewhat hypocritical to use the anonymous name “ruehlesatool” while claiming “Ruehle just looks for fights, will not work with anyone and distorts information?” Is that how you “forge relationships" by calling people names and insulting them? I think everyone sees through your distortions.
Furthermore, I have attempted several times to establish a relationship, strained as it may be, with Councilman DeLong and Business Association President Gene Rotondo. EACH TIME, after reaching what I thought was an understanding between us, I was stabbed in the back by both. I have found them to be untrustworthy and pathologically untruthful.
Finally, it’s cowardly to smear people while using an anonymous name. I use my real name. How about you? If you honestly believe what your accusations are true, prove it by using your real name rather than being a coward like Councilman DeLong who goes by the anonymous names of Kathi4LB and PatBryant.
but what you seem to be doing is trying to attack and marginalize Mr. Ruehle rather than address problems, look for solutions and adapt to the power structure/policy changes that are about to occur in Belmont Shore and LB.
We are all human and personalities/viewpoints affect our ability to communicate with each other. But why name yourself "Ruehlesatool", if Mr. Ruehle is a TOOL, COOL or a FOOL or whatever why does he mean so much to you? I am no expert in all things political, but please help us come reach some sort of common ground and improve our neighborhood.
How many residents do you think like the brawls, the noise, the danger, the shooting, the stabbing, the money handout to wealthy people? Who want's to feel threatened in their million-dollar home neighborhood?
Keep it up, you arrogant few, you're now helping Mr. Ruehle and the residents more than they can themselves.
Typically there is only one late night police officer in all of beat 10, which is a huge area encompassing 30 bars from Seal Beach through Marina Pacifica all of the way past Belmont Shore to Bluff Park. Last November, Councilman DeLong told us an additional officer would be assigned to late night in Belmont Shore. It turned out to only be half true. According to Officer Hunt, his hours were from 3:00 pm to midnight. He typically was off-duty when all of the bars closed and their over served customers looking for a fight were pushed out of the bars into our neighborhoods.
I’ve recently been informed Officer Hunt’s hours will be changed. He now will be working until 3:00 am to address some of the problems experienced by residents. Both of these changes were EXACTLY what residents asked for during the May 14, 2009 resident’s association meeting. We were told by the police during the meeting “YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GET IT.” When asked whether we could quote him on that. He responded, “sure, go ahead” and then repeated it again that we wouldn’t get additional police support. We were told by the police, “BARS WILL BE BARS.” Furthermore Belmont Shore residents were told to go to North Long Beach to see “real crime.” Isn’t it sad that it took a shooting in order for the police and our Councilman to finally pay attention to residents concerns? Or is it they now need to cover their collective butts to make sure no more incidents occur in an election year?
It’s only conjecture, but it makes one wonder whether the Thursday morning shooting near Legends bar might never have happened if more late night police would have been added a year ago when first asked for by residents. Troublemakers are drawn to places where there are no police. If there had been more late night police in Belmont Shore in the past, many of the troublemakers may have avoided Belmont Shore. The shooting and the late night videos might never have occurred. Like I said, its only conjecture. However, I do know for sure 2nd street is a whole lot quieter tonight with the increased police presence. Too bad it took a shooting to accomplish it.
"I’ve recently been informed Officer Hunt’s hours will be changed. He now will be working until 3:00 am to address some of the problems experienced by residents. Both of these changes were EXACTLY what residents asked for during the May 14, 2009 resident’s association meeting. We were told by the police during the meeting “YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GET IT.” When asked whether we could quote him on that. He responded, “sure, go ahead” and then repeated it again that we wouldn’t get additional police support. We were told by the police, “BARS WILL BE BARS.” Furthermore Belmont Shore residents were told to go to North Long Beach to see “real crime.” "
Hee Hee Hee spoke too soon didn't you officer greet junior?
It's gauranteed you'll change your tune and find yourself one day campaigning for Mike Ruehle for the 3rd District council seat.
Seemingly innocuous quality of life challenges, if not addressed, can lead to other, far more serious crime problems and an overall degradation of public peace and the rule of law.
For more on this phenomenon I would encourage you to review an excellent article by George L. Kelling and James Q. Wilson entitled "Broken Windows" originally published in the March 1982 issue of Atlantic Magazine:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/198203/broken-wi...
I am also told Police Officers have been advised by their supervisors to keep their mouths shut and not release any information to the public. Apparently, there are concerns of a large law suit because the officer was armed with pepper spray and a Taser, but failed to deploy those non lethal weapons before pulling and shooting his gun.