-
Website
http://thedistrictweekly.com/ -
Original page
http://thedistrictweekly.com/daily/writing-shotgun/the-seven-nasty-things-commissioner-schneiter-said-about-a-community-activist/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I have tried several times without success to set up a meeting to discuss issues with both my Councilman and the Mayor. I suppose it is easy for Mr. Economides to set up a meeting. So far, I have had no such luck. It appears their strategy is to ignore me in hopes that I will go away. I suspect this has happened to Mr. Economides in his career. When people didn't talk to him, I don’t think that prevented him from continuing to pursue the issue and write an article about it.
If Mr. Economides thinks I am seeking publicity, he is absolutely right. Drawing attention to this issue is the only way left to me to make positive change for my community. I refuse to sit back and be quiet when Parking Commissioners make decisions in their self interest for their 2nd street commercial properties which may negatively impact our community. Furthermore, I don’t believe that residents should quietly swallow insults and inaccuracies directed at them by City Commissioners during Parking Commission meetings? I wrote the email because residents are not allowed to speak during Parking Commission meetings. How else can the record be set straight?
Mr. Economides may write an article on an issue. I’m left to sending emails and making phone calls. I will honor Mr. Economides request. And I will continue to read his fine newspaper.
One thought that occurs to me is that city officials need to remember who their constituents are. It appears to be a LB-government-wide policy to blow off anyone who questions any policy or decision made by a city representative.
It is unfortunate, but the only recourse an individual has is to go public, and/or cc the city council with your concerns.
Saddest of all is the fact that instead of being ignored by one or two city officials, now Mike R will be ignored by 25 city officials.
Don't give in Mike, keep fighting.
Sheesh, move to Signal Hill.
The following web address is a DW article that speaks volumes about randy "hypocrite" gordon, the "unofficial" "self-appointed mayor". Read the comments for even more pertinent information.
http://thedistrictweekly.com/daily/writing-shot...
foster seem to be displaying o'neill-like behaviour. Is there something in the water at city hall? Or maybe since it is directly downwind from the ports and all the diesel particulate pollution, which possibly interferes with the thinking process. randy might want to abandon his beloved long beach schoolchildren and start worrying about our leaders being polluted?
Louis Armstrong
Contrary to the unknown contributions of Mr. Ruehle, it is known that Mr. Schneiter has contributed both his time and money to the betterment of Long Beach. But this may not be known by most residents as he does not seek publicity for his donations and improvement projects.
Perhaps Mr. Schneiter's comments were out of line given his role as commissioner but this was also in an email between two adults. It was not said during a commission meeting. And although I am not a commissioner, I am an involved person in the community and wish to not have Mr. Ruehle run a campaign against me as well.
By the way, does anyone know how this all got started?
Louis Armstrong
I think we should suggest this compromise to the Mayor and Council.
Mr. Schneiter may well do great things for the city, but there is NO excuse for acting in thes manner. I think it's a really bad idea for the mayor to reappoint him--there has to be someone else who can represent the Belmont Shore business interests on the commission who is NOT a rude S.O.B.!!!!
I didn't know that having noisy late-night bars and restaurants down the block from my house would improve my neighborhood and make it more sought-after. Sounds like ruehle is as ignorant as I am.
He and I should be punished by having to listen to unionboss randy while he speaks to his members at one of his union meetings. Maybe then we will understand the truth!
The City drained Public Work's budget for years to balance their "structural deficit" (Pot Hole pensions).
Bankrupt the City so you can justify even more poorly planned high-density development, which will require taxpayer bonds to fix the infrastructure. Promise sales tax revenues, which never materialize. Then hand out sales tax subsidies for SE LB businesses.
The City's redevelopment districts (RDA) money siphon all the property tax increases for decades into their own developer's fund and they are rolling in $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
The airport controls all revenue at the airport.
Tidelands.
2nd street gets 100% of the parking meter money. The public pays this money for parking yet it goes to benefit private businesses. 2nd street rents are some of the highest in coastal CA-yet these subsidies are paying for sidewalk seating(which is rented out), proposed alley repairs which should be paid for by the property owners, proposed purchase of Colonna's $1.5 million parking lot (been there for 50 years) , etc. Why pay for this stuff yourself when you can get the public to pay? Subsidies do not help the business owners when the property owners just keep raising the rents. The assessments for the business district are not tied to inflation so the public's contribution just keeps increasing.
How come so many "no bid" City contracts? Wonder why?
Get the picture. The next time I hear the City Manager or any elected official talk about "transparency" in government or "business friendly" I am going to puke.
Let us face it this City is up for sale to the lowest bidder with connections. Notice how they go after anyone who questions the status quo? These same people are using taxpayer money/power and public commissions to bully citizens.
It is about time the City acknowlege and respect community homeowner groups issues.
We have enough redistribution of tax dollars from the people who pay it (mostly eastside residents) to the people who don't pay it. As mentioned above, much of it ends up in the redevelopment zone which is total disconnect from those funding the projects.
It does seem that he is a bit of a publicity hound.
I had never really thought of it before but he does look like Fred Flintstone.. only without the sense of humor.
I only have one bit of advise for Mr. Schneiter. Don't get into a mud slinging contest with swine. They are already covered in crap so they enjoy it.
On the parking meter issue. I think the revenues should be spent where they are generated. 2nd Street generates plenty in sales tax revenue that is enjoyed by the entire city. Not to mention the jobs it has fostered.
It would seem that Mr. Ruehle is rather short sighted. Does he not remember what 2nd Street used to be like? Who made it what it is today? It was not a residence association. It was business owners and land owners that had the vision to invest in this area. Make it better than it ever was.
When Harold Hoffman opened his "bigger" Hof's Hut ,locals cried "there will be no parking for our (huge ) cars"!
Parking and other, issues have been around while and many local inhabitants never lack for an opinion.
In 2001,I noticed the sidewalk trees along second street not growing.
I organized tree feeding parties for almost 6 years.The BSBA gave us $10 to start. My fotos show a canopy 30-40% larger than 2001.The many volunteers were locals / homeowner/families and business leaders.
They are people who cared.Many still do .
Along the way ,I learned about detractors( aka "local activists".) of one local businessman,Kurt Schneiter.
I know that these activists never showed up once over 57 months of tree feeding.
Later,I learned about the Parking Commission and it's duties.
As a commission attendee, I am able to speak freely at the monthly meetings.
The commissions work is important to maintain the quality of Belmont and its environs.
It is my opinion that these activists are basically negative people who have personal agendas and issues.
What motivates them to call or visit Legends to do body counts..then call the Fire Department?They enjoy blocking and opposing lots of things like when a nice lady business owner wanted to put a bottle of wine in a gift basket.
What is the harm of an ATM machine?
I overheard one of these activists say that they were "happy "about the Legends "event"
I know that one of these activists ( initials MC) was part of the City of LB -Planning Department's General Plan update/ Committee /Cluster area 4.
I attended ALL meetings and did 100% of the homework.
I saw that she did not do her homework and missed several meetings,yet does editorial suggesting she is some local expert about those items discussed at meetings she did not attend. How does that happen?
People like these negative activists do not enhance my quality of life.
They "run off" certain business that I liked (Belmonte)
I know that many city and business leaders are doing a good job in enhancing the Belmont area.Kurt Schneiter is one of those persons.
My quality of life and that of many others ,is influenced by 2nd Street .
I believe that house value is enhanced by the vibrancy of the area and I believe that proximity to Second Street is a factor in demand /value
bottom line: There are so many other tasks the activists could be doing rather than waging personal vendettas against persons who may communicate in a manner that offends them.
How about a Graffitti task force or lobbying for a police foot patrol officer to catch some of the real "evil-doers".
These emails should have been between adults and not aired as public dirty laundry."Shame on you"Mike and "dumb you" Kurt
A dumb move should not dilute the good that Kurt Scheiter does for the community
Mike and his ilk are misguided and should use their effort and "talent" doing something more positive
My wife is a New Orleans native and they believe in letting the good times roll and do not make such a big deal out of so many things.
I say "lazzsier le bon Temps roule" and lighten up everybody
The District is a xlnt news/magazine -Keep up the good work
Subsidizing property improvements for already wealthy property owners does not help 2nd street business owners-the rents keep on increasing. Who heads the commission? Two landlords.
What about resident's property values? 2nd street should use all of this money to mitigate business traffic/parking impacts on residents. Years ago, that was the original purpose of the fund. Instead, they continued to get parking variances for developments and schedule special events, which worsens traffic & parking problems.
We pay taxes and our residential streets and sidewalks are falling apart. Heck we also volunteer for non-profits, donate, and support 2nd street business with our hard-earned money.
Burning your best customers with rude ungrateful behavior does not seem to me a smart business move. How about the commission's recent actions-approving a gigantic 39 foot illuminated commercial advertising sign in a residential neighborhood with no concern for the people who live there, approving motorcycle parking mere feet from residential homes, and their aborted plan to take the Tot Lot and turn it into a business parking lot.
Maybe we can have the City auditor look at the Parking Commission and the Belmont Shore Business improvements area books. Let 2nd street prove that all this money pouring into their pockets is in the public's best interest... lets see the financials and the actual sales tax gains.
It is no wonder that the commission will not allow the public to talk or ask questions during their meetings, or listen to resident's concerns. No, it is in their best interest to keep everyone in the dark and to attack anyone who disagrees with their actions. Greed abides.
If you want your streets fixed tell your council to stop spending money on daycare, health services, and affordable housing. This isn't Europe. I agree let's fix our infrastructure.
re:above quote "It is no wonder that the commission will not allow the public to talk or ask questions during their meetings, or listen to resident’s concerns"
to wit
that incorrect post sounds like Mr Cotton... J= Jeff?
We both know that the Belmont Parking commission allows public participation.
You negative nellies continue to fan flames of ill will ..
Bad Karma there Jeffrey boy
When my father built all the oil refineries and Edison tank farms way back when..he used to get Union cooperation by using the philosophy :
"lure more bears with honey"
Try something positive for a change
First, though the City does allow the Commission to recommend how to spend approximately $500K in parking meter revenue, the funds must be spent in Belmont Shore and are limited to specific public works projects. A few examples include: the sidewalk widening and tree planting project (1992), installation of traffic signals (most recently at Argonne and Covina), acquisition and development of the Santa Ana public parking lot (18 spaces), repair of aging public electrical facilities, and installation of various roadway and parking lot signage. Currently the Commission is working on a project to repair and repave all of the commercial alleys (east-west) and adjacent public parking lots and to acquire the Park Avenue parking lot to preserve over 25 public parking spaces. The commission is also considering undergrounding of utillities. If the Commission was not allowed to use parking meter revenue to pay for these improvements - many of them would be either not be completed or paid for from the general fund.
In return for allowing "local control" of the parking meter revenue, the City receives well over $1 million in sales taxes and other assessments from the BS business community. Because of the strong and vibrant business climate in Belmont Shore, created in part by spending parking meter revenue locally, the City's general fund receives an every increasing sales tax figure (currently about $900K) from Belmont Shore businesses. These funds help support a wide variety of City services - including police and fire protection. However, the "quid pro quo" for allowing local control of the parking meter revenue is the other special assessments. More than $200K in additional public funds are raised through voluntary assessments paid by business owners and commercial property owners. Again, these additional funds are spent locally to maintain and improve the 2nd Street corridor for the benefit of the entire community - and help contribute to the City's windfall sales tax figures.
Second, Mr. Ruehle has a history of "scathing" comments and editorials - upon which he appears to take significant pride. This might be appropriate if his comments were truthful and unbiased; however, that is not the case. He often makes knowingly false statements or misrepresentations - to support his agenda - or makes intentionally inflammatory comments to demean or disparage his detractors. For example, Mr. Ruehle claims the public is not allowed to speak at Commission meetings or at least before the Commission takes action - this is not true! At the Commission meeting last Thursday (6/19), approximately ten (10) members of the audience, including Mr. Ruehle, spoke to various items before the Commission (both during the public participation item and regular agenda items). In fact, as the City Clerks record will show, Mr. Ruehle actually spoke during several agenda items (2. Public Participation, 4.G "Quiet Zone" Signs, and 4.I Recycling Program). Nevertheless, two days after the meeting, in the very e-mail that The District's article references, Mr. Ruehle states "Moreover, members of the public are not allowed to comment or rebut inaccuracies because, unlike the city council meeting, the public is not allowed to speak during the Parking Commission meeting." He clearly knows this is not true and that he is allowed to speak during the Commission meetings, yet he is continuing to claim otherwise as it furthers his anti-business community agenda. On Wednesday of this week, in an e-mail to Belmont Shore Residents, Mr. Ruehle wrote "The public is not allowed to speak during the Parking Commission meeting." In an effort to enlisted anti-Commission sentiments, Mr. Ruehle wrote in another e-mail earlier this week ". . changed the meeting format to no longer allow audience participation during the meeting. Residents are now only allowed to speak for 3-minutes at the beginning of the meeting before agenda items are discussed" - yet during the last meeting Mr. Ruehle spoke at the beginning of the meeting and to two agenda items while they were being considered by the Commission and before any action was taken. You can't have your cake and eat it too!
Last, while I can not condone Mr. Schneiter's comments and think it would have been best for him to ignore the "mudslingers" - I can understand how frustrating it must be to have the president of the BSRA so openly misrepresent and manipulate the truth. I can also understand the difficulties of trying to work with a tiny group of "negative nellies" who constantly oppose and criticize - and never offer any positive comments or solutions. We are all painfully aware of the tensions that have developed between Mr. Ruehle's BSRA and the business community. Unfortuantely, the situation will not improve until both sides are willing to be honest and respectful - regardless of their personal agendas.
The Belmont Shore parking commission only allows public participation before the meetings not during. Look at the agenda. Watch the City Council meetings and you would have seen numerous citizens bring up this issue. The BS Parking meter money is public money and the last time I checked this is a democracy.
Better stop now before your Dogma runs over your Karma.
What residents have asked for is community involvement in a public commission's plans/issues/developments that affect them, such as
expansion of the business district, the building of a huge illuminated commerical advertising sign in a residential neighborhood, and the proposal to turn a kid's playground into a business parking lot. Note that all 3 of these plans were clearly outside of the commision's authority and on residential streets.
"Flintstone?"...Show some respect- your manners are no better than Schneiter's. Mr. Ruehle is the elected President of the BSRA. What Mr. Ruehle is trying to do is represent resident's interests and raise awareness of issues-That's his job. Yet you say he's a "publicity hound"? Who are you to say that "he is no friend to Belmont Shore"?
The BS Parking meter money are public funds... not a piggy bank for private business use. The City's financial situation is dire and everything in the budget should be inspected and the public benefit weighed and discussed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are some people that if they don’t know, you can’t tell them.
Louis Armstrong
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This anonymous group spins another scare story that I wish to take money generated in Belmont Shore and give it to the city. Show me where I have said anything of that sort. I firmly believe that meter revenue generated in Belmont Shore should be used for projects to benefit the entire Belmont Shore community. It should not be used only for projects that help improve the property values of commercial property owners, who, in most cases don’t live in Belmont Shore.
Residents are not allowed to participate during Parking Commission meetings. A change was made last year to only allow residents to speak for 3-minutes at the beginning of the meeting before agenda items are discussed. In most cases, public opinion can not be rendered on an agenda item because the description of the agenda item and the proposed action will not be revealed until after the opportunity for public comment is over. According to the Commission Chairman, this change was made for the following reasons:
1. Commissioners are volunteers and their time is limited.
2. It takes too much time to allow public comment on each agenda item.
3. There won’t be time after public comment for the Commissioners to vote on actions.
During last weeks’ meeting, under pressure from the city, the Commission Chairman selected 3 agenda (non-contentious) items out of 9 that he allowed public participation. The public was allowed to speak to such issues as median landscaping and recycleables. However, the public was not allowed to comment on the expanded Parking Commission boundaries, installation of their 40-foot high gateway signs in the residential area or the Commissions decision to install motorcycle parking on residential streets connected to 2nd street.
Mr. Schnieter’s recent email is only one example of his questionable conduct. Another example occurred during the March 13th BSRA meeting when Commissioner Schnieter took over the BSRA meeting and loudly threatened to sue every member of the BSRA board. Another example occurred while walking down 2nd street to the April 24th Parking Commission meeting at the Belmont Shore Library. Parking Commissioner Schnieter waited for me and then walked behind me for a block, uttering insults at me the entire time. When we got to the Library, Commissioner Schnieter went ahead of me and blocked me from entering the Library by standing in the doorway. He then turned and told me to "f___ off" before going into the meeting. My only comment to him was, “you make a fine Commissioner.”
Is this the conduct that one expects from a City Commissioner? I think we deserve better. I have asked Mayor Foster to reject Commissioner Schnieter’s July 1st reappointment to the Commission. I hope there are other residents of Long Beach who encourage our Mayor to do likewise.
To avoid any misunderstanding, when I chose to write a letter, I acknowledge that I wrote it by including my name.
As a Long Beach native, I love this city and I love living here, but one must realize that Long Beach is like a Mayberry RFD. We have always been infested with the likes of gordon, prevratil, taboada, the press-telegram, the queen mary etc etc etc.
foster kneeling to the trucking special interests, by destroying the LB clean truck program, instead of teaming up with the big city next door and their sustainable plan, is a prime example of what takes place here. Guess what bob, we're still getting sued, and you made sure the LB plan is a failure! I wouldn't expect him to dump schneiter, there's probably something in play. It's very tragic (comedy), unfortunately.
The only way to get by is to focus on the positives, but it's so damn hard to ignore all the negatives, and the news keeps getting worse. It must kill the cheerleaders at the press-telegram to have to report all the negative $tuff-and there sure is alot!
————————————————————————————————–
There are some people that if they don’t know, you can’t tell them.
Louis Armstrong
————————————————————————————————–
BTW - when did it become so evil to be a successful business person or to try to improve your livelihood or lifestyle - isn't that the American way!!!!
You are correct! Mr. Ruehle knows the PC never intended to put parking meters on either Bayshore or Livingston, but he and his malcontents falsely claimed that is what would happen in an effort to gain support for opposing the boundary extension. It was simply "fear mongering!" Once again, does anyone really wonder why the tensions are so high?
1. What was the purpose of the proposed expansion onto Livingston?
2. Does the Parking Commission now have any public parking spaces on
city streets within their boundries that are NOT metered?
My biggest beef with the Parking Commission isn't the boudry expansion or the Library parking or even the way they run their meetings. For me it's the arrogance of thinking that those BUTT UGLY monstrous SIGNS they are proposing will be accepted by the public. I mean, have you people SEEN what they are trying to ram through?
"BTW - when did it become so evil to be a successful business person or to try to improve your livelihood or lifestyle - isn’t that the American way!!!!"
I would imagine that many in the Belmont Shore business community are members of and pay dues to the long beach chamber of commerce union for businesses. The chamber unionboss is a hypocrite well known for speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
He put together a ballot proposition then berated the city paying its' subsequent cost (Unfortunately our "mayor" bent over for him and gave in).
He beat his chest with concern for long beach schoolchildren when the Ellis/schoolboard issue filled his pac's coffers and also met his political agenda , but fought reasonable port anti-pollution legislation that will not only benefit Long Beach schoolchildren, but ALL area residents tremendously by SAVING LIVES!
I believe the above fits the description of evil, which could help certain people understand why residents are sick of the "business at any cost" mentality. I can't understand why the members of his union march in lockstep with him. Don't they realize what he's doing to them?
And what is with everyone saying "bent over and took it" If someone is a crook, say they are a crook. I would recommend you have some kind of proof other than slanderous accusations. Put your big boy pants on and elevate your concern to the proper authorities.
There is a segment in our society that likes to punish success. Perhaps, it is because they have had little success in there business life and/or lives, or are just envious of those who are more successful. Regardless, as a person who has had to hire and fire many a person in business. When I hire, I hire those with a track record of success. Not someone who talks about how their way is better even if it proven by history to fail.
Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.
I can not tell you how many times I have come into an underperforming department and there are those who seem to have a black cloud over there head. They are like a cancer that sucks the life out of positive work environment. Some people just like to complain and like it said in the naughty e-mail (stir poop).
I know that I would prefer to have successful business people running things like this. They know how to make things run efficiently and correctly. Give the reins to someone such as Mr. Ruehle and it will go where most things go when run by them. In the toilet.
Just look at what he has done for the BSRA credibility in the community.
I also want to comment on Mr. Ruehles "story" about Mr. Schneiter scaring him so much outside the library. I find it very hard to believe Mr. Schneiter did almost anything he claims short of telling him to F@#$-off. I think a lot of people have either done the same thing or at the very least had the desire to.
The main problem with Ruehle I think is he takes himself far more serious then anyone else does. “Flintstone”
If he only had something meaningful to contribute perhaps his dream of recognition and acceptance would come true. (don’t hold your breath waiting)
"You gotta have faith, faith faith!"
"You're just jealous becuase I'm rich."
Pathetic, even with the Santayana quote (not credited I might add) referenced so inapropriately.
What a buch of whiney-ass titty-babies . . .
How about answering my questions up in #39?
Sorry about not crediting the quote. But I look at this situation as one that I have seen and I am certain many others have seen before. (History) get it.
Sticks and stones etc. etc.. (don't know who came up with that one) my apologies.
I don't think I should be the one answering the questions on #39 as I am not on the commission. It would be better answered at the parking commission meeting when you invest in your community by showing up at the meeting to get your 3 minutes.
By the way. I think your quote-whiney-assed tittie babies might be from someone as well.. Was it Mr. Schneiter to Mike (I want to) Ruhle..
Maybe you should look it up and let us know... Thanks
Nice Boston Globe quote, but I haven't heard any specifics about "the powerful" not willing to disclose anything. What is it you would like disclosed and by whom? He said, she said will not work, it gets tiresome and some might say childish.
Not sure I can completely answer both of your questions (post #39), but I will try my best.
1. What was the purpose of the proposed expansion onto Livingston?
I understand the boundary extensions were for the PC's spending authority (i.e., the area where the PC is authorized to spend public funds). I believe the change to the eastern boundary was so the PC could install parking meters in the alley on the west side of the library building - to help support the library. I believe the western boundary extension was so the PC could spend money to investigate the feasibility of the Gateway Sign (which I understand you oppose). I believe the PC intends to survey the sign sites and start the permitting process (which will give you an opportunity to express your thoughts at a public meeting - other than the PC's meetings).
2. Does the Parking Commission now have any public parking spaces on
city streets within their boundries that are NOT metered?
Yes, on virtually every side street in Belmont Shore! I believe the PC can install meters anywhere within their spending authority, provided the City Council consents. I understand the PC's spending boundary (both former and newly extended) extends to the third residential lot north of the commercial alley (behind commercial buildings and parallel 2nd Street) on the north side of 2nd Street and south of the commercial alley on the south side of 2nd Street (i.e., approximately 100' north and south of the commercial alleys). So I believe the PC could install approximately 4 or 5 parking meters north or south of the alleys on each of the residential side streets. Nevertheless, the PC has appropriately chosen not to do this and to keep their parking meters between the alleys! Given the PC's prior decisions, I do not believe the PC ever had any intent to install parking meters on Bayshore or Livingston Drive. As I said before, claims to the contrary are simply "fear mongering!"
Last, I'm sorry you do not like the design or concept of the Gateway Banner Pole Signs - which I believe is a much needed improvement to our greater east side community. Most of our surrounding communities have entryway signs and many use banner pole signs to help promote various community events (e.g., Naples, the Peninsula, Seal Beach, Cypress, Stanton, Westminster, etc.). In Naples, the Naples Improvement Association hangs banners announcing their events from two traffic light poles along 2nd Street at the entrance to Naples Plaza. Thought this is effective, I fell it looks rather tacky and would not be appropriate for Belmont Shore. They do a similar thing in Seal Beach - along Main Street at Pacific Coast Highway. However, I think we can do better - and I hope the pending public review process will help the PC develop a design that most of us will find pleasing and suitable for Belmont Shore.
I am not opposed to a gateway sign for Belmont Shore. I think the proposed sign is HIDEOUS in every way--too tall, ungainly, illuminated and designed primarily as a big pole from which to hang temporary billboards.
In keeping with the character of the Shore, I think a beautiful arching iron (probably aluminum these days) gateway would be terrific. We certainly don't need more UGLY banners in this town--they're on just about every lightpole in the city and they are nothing but visual pollution. How about we try to build something beautiful that will last generations and will look as good in 2060 as it does the day it's erected? The proposed sign is CHEAP looking and TACKY--certainly not the image local businesses want for the Shore!
While I respect your opinion of the Gateway Banner Pole Sign design - and your right to have and express a different opinion - I respectfully disagree with you. First, I must admit that I am not an architect and probably one of the last person who should be commenting on design work. If it were up to me, I too would probably select an arched sign - fortunately it is not up to me.
I understand the architects who developed the Gateway Banner Pole Sign design decided that an arched sign tied to one of the existing architectural styles in Belmont Shore (i.e., Art Deco, Spanish, Modern, etc., etc.) would inevitably offend the remaining unselected styles. Since the BSBA's existing structures - median signs, flagpoles, etc., all have a nautical theme - they decided on a nautical style that specifically matched these existing public improvements. All of the architectural features of the sign, including but not limited to: color, shape, materials, base shape and materials, lettering, and sign details (anchors, balls, etc.), were selected to match the existing improvements. The architects believe that this nautical style, as opposed to a style that matches an existing building architectural style, will look better today and in the future (including 2060).
I'm sorry you do not like the small and colorful banners seen throughout town on our street light poles - I don't consider them so offensive (i.e., "visual pollution"). I also understand that you are opposed to the use of banners to promote the numerous community events held in Belmont Shore. Promotion of these events is the primary goal or purpose of constructing the Gateway Banner Pole Signs. In fact, initially all the business community asked for were two sets of banner poles to hang announcements for upcoming events - like is done in Naples or Seal Beach. Fortunately, more creative minds prevailed and the design was improved to include the fixed "Belmont Shore" entryway signs. However, if the signs are not designed in a manner that allows temporary promotional banners, the business community will likely not support the project and without their support the project will not succeed. So the current design includes something for everyone - a new gateway sign for the larger community and banner poles to promote events for the business community.
While I doubt this explanation significantly changes your opinion of the sign design or promotional banners, I hope that it at least tempers your displeasure enough to gain your support or lessen your opposition. Understanding you can't please everyone all the time, I truly believe the PC is trying to create a sign design that the majority of the community can support. Not an easy thing to do with some of the rather passionate and differing opinions in this community.
And you are about as sharp as edith bunker! I said foster "bent over" for the "self-appointed" mayor; I didn't say anything about him picking anything up. I don't believe he is a crook, just incredibly clueless and easily manipulated. For example, it's unbelievable that he would break away from LA's Clean Trucks plan in favor of his sure to fail revision. What a moron! I regret voting for him, but feel good knowing that he's through politically after this.
As far as the "unofficial" mayor, here's a guy who trashes unions when the fact is he is a unionboss, of the worst degree. He is a flaming hypocrite who leaves a bad taste in many people's mouths. His unionmembers need to be aware of how he depicts them in the publics eyes, and consider the value of paying dues to him for his "projects".
It's very revealing that you are so one-sided and inflammatory while you accuse others of same. Clearly you are another of those "business at any cost" upstanding citizens who would fight REASONABLE anti-pollution legislation.
Don't forget that there are many many more residents than there are businesses in BS. Some are even bold enough to disagree with a self described successful businessman (how dare they?).
On April 24th, the Belmont Shore Parking Commission approved gateway sign installations near both ends of 2nd street. According to the Parking Commission, "the purpose is...for event marketing banners at the west gateway to the district." Before beginning construction, the signs must first be approved by City Council. The gateway signs will be 39 feet high and will reflect a contemporary nautical theme. The two gateway signs will be paid for primarily by Parking Commission parking meter revenue. Each sign will display a 2-foot wide "Belmont Shore" sign and a 3-foot wide banner across 2nd street advertising Belmont Shore events. The approximate location of the eastern sign is at the Belmont Grill across from the fire station. The approximate location of the western sign is 300 feet down Livingston toward the Unocal Gas Station. To see an artist's rendering of the proposed sign, click on the below link.
http://www.longbeach.gov/civica/filebank/blobdl...
The BSRA would like to understand if residents support this proposal. The survey questions are:
1. Do you support the proposed gateway signs on 2nd street (yes or no)?
2. Do you support the sign design and appearance (yes or no)?
Please respond back yes or no to the above questions before July 4th.
So far, I have received responses back from 61 people. 48% support question #1. 33% support question #2. I will publish the final results to the residents on July 5th.
In past years, the Belmont Shore Parking Commission allowed audience participation during their monthly public meetings similar to how our City Council conducts its meetings. Agenda items that impact Belmont Shore residents were discussed openly by Commissioners. Residents were allowed to voice their opinions on each item before the Commissioners voted to take actions. When the current Chairman was elected last year, he changed the meeting format to no longer allow audience participation during the meeting. Residents are now only allowed to speak for 3-minutes at the beginning of the meeting before agenda items are discussed. In most cases, public opinion can not be rendered on an agenda item because the description of the agenda item and the proposed action will not be revealed until after the opportunity for public comment is over. According to the Commission Chairman, this change was made for the following reasons:
1. Commissioners are volunteers and their time is limited.
2. It takes too much time to allow public comment on each agenda item.
3. There won’t be time after public comment for the Commissioners to vote on actions.
During the last BSRA meeting, Assistant City Attorney Heather Mahood advised the audience that City Council can direct the Parking Commission to return to their previous format allowing public input during the meeting after each agenda item has been discussed.
The BSRA is interested in hearing from residents which format the Parking Commission should use. Please email back to me by July 7th either option A or option B below.
OPTION A: Allow public comment for 3-minutes only at the start of the Parking Commission meeting. No public comment is allowed when agenda items are later discussed and actions voted upon by Commissioners.
OPTION B: Allow public comment during the Parking Commission meeting after each agenda item is discussed, but before Parking Commissioners vote on actions.
So far, I have received responses back from 52 people. 50 (96%) of the residents support OPTION B. One person abstained. I will publish the final results to the residents on July 8th.
Another of Commissioner Schnieder’s complaint was that he had evidence that the BSRA was intentionally excluding him from their surveys and newsletters. I emailed askin him to show me his proof. He again called me names. I provided Commissioner Schnieder with an email he did not respond to in September when I asked him if he wished to be on the BSRA distribution. He again responded by calling me names. Meanwhile, three other Parking Commissioners who responded to the same September email are on the BSRA distribution.
Tonight, the Mayor is going to recommend to City Council that Mr. Schnieter be reappointed to the Parking Commission. Why? There are numerous open positions on other commissions. Why can’t this position be left open until a community friendly Commissioner is found?
Mr. Ruehls, other than bitching about it, have you come up with a better design to propose? Do you have a better idea how to promote events in the shore?
Do you have a single original positive or constructive thought bouncing around in the bean of yours?
You are playing in the deep end of the pool without your water wings.
Just a quick comment regarding your criticism of the Gateway Sign: you think it is too tall? Ever think it might need to be that height in order to allow trucks to pass under?
Also regarding question #2 in your comment 39...Where in the expansion of the boundaries to include Livingston Ave. do you think metered parking spaces could be installed? The boundaries only include the two lanes for traffic. There is no parking there anyway. Do you think they would close one lane for parking? Seriously.
Edith Bunker… You can do better than that can’t ya John.
While I believe everyone wants clean air and water. What you call REASONABLE anti pollution standards are debatable. While "green vehicles" are nice, the pollution created to make such vehicles tends to outweighs the benefit according to many researchers.
Business at any cost is not the philosophy I prescribe to.
But. Unlike others I am very PRO Business.
I have seen first hand what over regulation causes. Loss of jobs as factories move to friendlier environments such as Mexico, South America, India, Korea, and of course China. You may have noticed one or two container ships coming in to port from China.
1st thing that happens is loss of jobs. Then property taxes shoot up because the income from the businesses and tax revenue from the workers dries up and government does not know how to trim the fat and get smaller. It is a nasty cycle.
About the only thing left is tourism.. "Oops" we lose them as well because it costs too much to travel. Business is the community’s lifeblood. Not socialist programs.
Breathing clean air is important. Not starving is a little more important.
Long Beach is fortunate to have so many Good Corporate Citizens, and if you can't count Mr. Schneiter as one of them than you are worse than a fool.
BTW John, saying someone is flaming and leaving a bad taste in many peoples mouths might be a little outside the P.C. thing.. unless of course you know from 1st hand experience. :)
But, while surveys are nice. Leaders make decisions, not get permission.
If there is a better idea for the gateway sign, lets see it. have a contest.
Winner gets something tastey from Sweet Jill's. whatever.
It is not like we are going to build the Arc de Triomphe.
The surveys are a tool for resident feedback to the Belmont Shore Resident Association. Combined with resident input during our monthly meetings, we learn how residents want the BSRA Board Members to represent them.
I have never said that the BSRA surveys accurately represent all residents in Belmont Shore. Is the data a significant sampling? No. Is it accurate? Maybe, maybe not. Keep in mind that nationally broadcast gallop poll results represent the opinion of less than 0.01% of the population.
Seriously, I would be MUCH happier with two simple poles that would from time to time announce events a la the signs in Seal Beach. I am afraid that THIS monstrosity will be flying one banner or another 24-7. An occaisional banner announcing something really special would be fine, but I know from living here in Long Beach that those with the opportunity to fly ugly banners will do so wherever and whenever possible.
If the trucks can clear the HORRIBLE illuminated "Belmont Shore" sign, then anything higher than THAT is "by design" an NOT for truck clearance. 39 feet tall--have you taken the time to VISUALISE this? How about a drawing with the sign in perspective to the surrounding bulidings--having a little figure of man is one thing, but if you showed people what this will look like IN PLACE I am sure they would be VERY much opposed to it.
You use many of the idential wordings, phrases and descriptions that Parking Commissioner Schnieter uses in the insulting emails he sends to me. That must be because Commissioner Schnieter copies you on the emails he sends to me.
1) For those who want to know what BShore would look like without a healthy, active and fiscally sound business environment (inclusive of parking meter revenue) take a look at North Long Beach, Wrigley or the Westside.
2) John is very much anti-business and everything business related for him points back to Randy Gordon and The Chamber. It appears every business is somehow responsible for the port pollution because they belong to The Chamber. My assumption is that he does not draw a paycheck from a Long Beach business as his comments--throughout TDW--are almost always the same comment; any business in Long Beach must support The Chamber therefore the business is bad. A healthy business environment is healthy and necessary for the success and survival of a community. Gordon in his tenure at the Chamber has done more for creating jobs and a healthy environment than any person in this city. To attack him for the one issue on port pollution in every single comment makes it easy to dismiss your comments as emotional and myopic.
3) High Hat is not a fan of the entry way sign, I had to guess at this but it seems he is leaning that way. Art is a matter of taste, as is design. "I don't know what good art is but I know bad art when I see it."
4) If you are quoting someone you better credit the proper person or somehow your other comments may be discredited. As for my quote in #3, I have no idea, some one Google it.
5) The divide between Ruehle and Schneiter appears very personal--at least from Ruehle's side as he is the only one to comment--and therefore probably irreconcilable. If that is the case then moving forward it will be very difficult for a successful partnership between the two groups. All issues should be decided on the facts and how they fit into the mission of the organization(s), not on personal emotions and feelings. Given the tone and tenor of Ruehle's comments and actions I would have a difficult time if I were a BShore resident of accepting his objectivity in representing the group when dealing with the Parking Commission and Schneiter. Were I a member of the BSRA I would request another officer of the organization step in to interact with the Parking Commission; this would serve the organization and residents best in assuring no personal animosities to cloud the issues.
6) I wish there was as much passion and activity in Bixby and NLB regarding the business districts; as well that our part of town had the problem of $500k and where to spend it!
7) Too bad so many people use these comment sections to take pot shots and ad hominem attacks at others with whom they do not agree; it really lowers the level of discourse and ability to rationally discuss issues.
8) Some of the comments seem to infer that the BShore residents feed the meters therefore they should have more say in how it is spent. I would venture to say that the vast majority of the money in the meters are from out-of-Shorers, like my wife and I when we come to the Shore for dinner or whatever.
Thank you all for the lessons.
Perhaps another organization or person could bring together a group of residents truly interested in helping get residents involved in neighborhood and business issues to better the area for businesses and residents alike. The examples of people seeking to make a positive difference in the City without reward or recognition is long, but it is not clear the BSRA would make that list.
And, the Commission could be more a part of the solution too. The commission, the businesses and the residents would benefit from a more personally generous, honest and open approach to public input on the part of the Commission. In the current adversarial climate, however, that seems very unlikely to happen. Given the potential damage to Belmont Shore.... it would be nice to see some people (either of the current crew or new participants) step forward to find some common ground.
I actually do go by Jack. I would include my last name but I do not want to be the target of any made up or artistically enhanced stories by you.
It is possible that I have used some similar wording as Mr. Schneiter.
The truth tends to not vary significantly in vocabulary. Although, I will take it as a compliment that I have the same eloquence as Mr. Schneiter. I have noticed in his writing that he spells and punctuated better than you or I. I am more of a math guy.
Having spoken with a respected lady resident of the shore who was walking with Kurt into the library the day that you claimed he blocked your way and scared and emotionally scarred you. The stories don’t match up.
I would ask for a refund from that creative writing course you must have taken.
Just out of curiosity, if he was blocking your way, why would he have his back to you?
Considering the relationship, I can’t imagine anyone blocking someone like you by facing away from them…
If Mr. Schneiter is (Curt) with you, it is because he doesn’t suffer fools well.
While it may be a political deficiency, it is understandable in your regard.
I just received an email that defended you. He stated that he did not think you were acted like Fred Flintstone. He said that he thought you were more like Eric Cartman from Southpark. Regardless of the aesthetic similarities to Fred.
I must admit, I can imagine you standing on your little soapbox shouting at the top of your lungs : Respect my Authoritiii
You have hit the nail on the head. You did it without telling a made up story and added a positive tack. Thank you.
I will try and raise the level of discourse on my end.
I guess I just don't like it when people attack someone that is doing good.
Taking some of my own advise, I will stop getting into a mud slinging contests with swine. (had to send one last one). :)
Parking Commissioner Schnieter must have read your post number 69. A lot of similarities. Like you, he also described himself as “a math guy” to the Mayor tonight at the City Council meeting. The story about Jeanette Gavin being with you, though untrue, was also told by Commissioner Schnieter to the City Council. You guys are so much on the same wavelength; it’s uncanny how you two talk so much alike. Same disrepectful insults. Hopefully, after the tongue lashing Commissioner Schnieter received from the Mayor tonight, we can start to have a more respectful discourse.
Funny how two people can listen to the same thing and have completely different perspectives. I thought you looked like someone wanting attention and respect and all you got was the mayor and councilman ignoring your stories. Didn't they vote unanimously in favor of this guy? It's getting tiring to hear you wine about how this guy threatened you and told you to f....off. Time to grow a sack and get past these issues. Schneider sounded like he was willing to work with you. Be the bigger man and stop the wining and try to make our area better. Wishing you the best.
I know you were there tonight. Are you on prozac?, or perhaps you should be.
Even this math guy came add up the obvious. What was the vote Mike?
You have little to no respect at City Hall. If you ask me, they regard you to as a pest with a little title and no Authoritiiii.
Get off your soapbox and go back to doing whatever it was you did before you started bothering people that actually what to improve the community.
If you only had a clue about the people you were addressing those remarks.
I know several who are self made successful businessmen including Mr. Schneiter. I will go one further, for the ones that did have a leg up on the rest of us, I will not hold that against them as you do. Envy is an ugly thing John.
You should focus all that energy you have hating people in a higher income bracket just because they have more and use it to become a success yourself.
Or would you fall into a state of self hate??/ or is that the original issue??
Regardless, a good therapist may be able to help. Good luck and get well!
I think Mr. Schneiter did keep his head out of the ruckus after the e-mail issue.
In fact, he man-upped at the council meeting and apologized for the distraction.
He realized he had gotten into a mud slinging contest with swine. That is above him and I know he realizes that now. Getting into these petty arguments with someone that has no concept of vision or intelligent positive growth just will not do anyone any good and I am sure he will not again. As I am going to let this waste anymore of my time. Mike (i want to) Ruehle is not worth the time or energy.
With the meeting he was clearly sent a signal by the city that He and his opinions do not matter. I am certain the next election for Belmont Shore Residents Association will remove that little title he currently holds leaving him with only his soapbox and still no Authoritiiii. (Thank God)
Bon Voyage
Schnieter is self-made? It's been alleged that his mommy set him up in real estate. Was it his business acumen or was it just owning property at the right time that made him so feel so important that he thinks and acts like he's mayor of 2nd Street?
Jeez just what the city needs another "self-appointed" mayor!
Obviously you are not aware of the monthly newsletters that Mr. Highroad Ruehle writes with dripping venom. Let us end the name calling and move on to better issues, like how to improve our neighborhood. Your energy is better spent on working with these groups and trying to find common ground. I wish you the best.
If the District is willing to print an article denoting item by item Mike Ruehle's (statements vs facts) mistatements and give Mike a chance to comment. I will be happy to put the details together. Also, I am not Jack and prefer to go by my name when I write letters. In addition, no it is not true that my mommy / daddy have ever provided me with any financial assistance since I was 16.
I was on vacation during the majority of this bickering and have better things to do with my time. Let's try to work together and move on to a better working relationship. If Mike is unwilling, the community will take note and do the appropriate things to fix a broken system. I for one, promise to work with the community.
Per your challenge to me, when are you going to meet with Dave W. to review the evidence? You constantly expound on how you always keep your word. Don’t disappoint everyone again.
I wish. He has more money and a reallllly hot girlfriend.
For the record, I am not Commissioner Schneiter.
If required, I would be happy to meet with His Honor the Mayor to prove my identity. (I'll bring the beer Mr. Mayor). I would ask for a Commissioner job as well if not for the fact, I suffer fools with less ease than Commissioner Schneiter. So that wouldn’t work.
John: Alleged is the key word. You guys keep slandering and defaming this guy. I have a feeling you don't even know him. And I don't believe Mike (I want to) Ruelhe has taken the high road once. I can’t wait for September. Going Down Cartman, Going Down.
Also, as far as your re-naming of me; John, you are childish. It is obvious that you have the intellectual depth and clarity of a puddle of mud. So here is something you may be able to grasp: it bounces off of me and sticks to you.
BTW: I don’t think he looks like the guy from WHAM. He looks more like Tom Cruise and I’ve heard a rumor, Commissioner Schneiter is jumping up and down on a couch somewhere this very minute celebrating the Council vote.
Now if you don't mind, I need to get back to work and try to make enough money to be confused with Commissioner Schneiter again.
From: Kurt Schneiter
To: Mike Ruehle;Gary DeLong;William Lorbeer;Dollfrog@aol.com;LegendsSB@aol.com
Sent: 7/3/2008 10:15:09 AM
Subject: today's e-mail to our coucilpeople and Mayor
Mike:
Today you have posted / mailed another falsehood. Please retract your statement that I am Jack. First of all, you never asked me if I was this e-mailer. Second, this blogging isn’t worth any of our time. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. . I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack. I am not Jack.
Sincerely,
Kurt Schneiter
P.S. You don’t know Jack
Kurt Schneiter
Maverick Investments
3633 E. Broadway, Suite 100
Long Beach, CA 90803
562.856.9300 x25
562.987.1145
www.maverickinvestments.com
I believe you have Kurt confused with a previous 3rd District Council Member who did inherit real estate from his mommy. (Re. comment #80)
I thought it was funny. He does have a better sense of humor than you do.
Do you sit in a room covered in tinfoil scared that the bad people are reading your thoughts??
As far as finding out about the email.. Are you disappointed that people send me information faster than they send you information??
Really Mike, this envy thing has to stop. Some people are just not blessed with certain tools and abilities. Your fixation on Commissioner Schneiter is concerning to say the least. Are there repressed deep feeling you need to discuss with a clinical professional? Good mental health is important.
I am surprised you didn't post your email to the council on this blog. Why is that?
How about all the other emails and letters you have written?
Are you concerned they would form a disturbing pattern?
BTW- I didn't receive the “I am not Jack” email. Thanks. It gave me a chuckle.
He is correct though.. You don't know Jack.
Your motives are transparent.
"You have been weighed in the scales and found wanting"
Quote from the Book of Daniel.. (for those that want credit given.)
One bit of good news for you though.
I am done wasting my time on the likes of you.
I have to borrow from J's post (14) earlier as now is a more fitting time for its use.
There are some people that if they don’t know, you can’t tell them.
Louis Armstrong
Good bye and looking forward to September.
Here before the first mall of the downtown. Let's compare the last iteration to a project done in a similar time period: Bella Terra in Huntington Beach. There is absolutely no comparison.
Here before the "overhaul" of the sidewalks, etc., of Belmont Shore. Let's compare that to State Street in Santa Barbara. There is absolutely no comparison.
We have terrific shoreline, we're in a great spot in Los Angeles County and yet continue to be a poorly run city. Remember how hard Gary Burroughs fought for his long-time position as City Auditor, and finally someone is exposing some of the crap that has been shoved under the rug for years and years and years.
Been down to the Village at the Queen Mary lately? Now the Queen's Marketplace. I guess it's a marketplace if you're in the market for a broken set of stairs to the second story (don't worry, they've got yellow police-style tape roping it off so you don't make the mistake of using them), broken benches, empty shops. Oh, I guess there is one shop with some nautical themed merchandise, a liquor store-style shop, perhaps one food joint, and the Queen Mary employment office (which I believe is now part of the Ghosts & Legends Tour!!!) Truly beyond pathetic. If I were in pest control, and specifically performed termite repair work, I would be salivating all over that place, but only if I got paid in advance and the checks cashed!
So what are we left with? Belmont Shore went corporatist, the landlords went money-grubbing. Expect more store closures.
BTW, the proposed Belmont Shore signs look stupid.
"The parking commission sounds like a rubber-stamp fifedom to me. I am all for disbanding the commission and having the parking meter funds go into the general fund–the city’s infrastucture is crumbling around us and 500K could really make a difference. I know Belmont Shore business success is also important to the city. Why not SPLIT the money? 250K for Belmont Shore and 250K earmarked for repairs to our city that’s falling apart around us. Sure, it’s easy to say that 250K is a drop in the bucket, but it’s 250K we don’t have now.
I think we should suggest this compromise to the Mayor and Council.
Mr. Schneiter may well do great things for the city, but there is NO excuse for acting in thes manner. I think it’s a really bad idea for the mayor to reappoint him–there has to be someone else who can represent the Belmont Shore business interests on the commission who is NOT a rude S.O.B.!!!! "
I would say it's amazing to me that this guy was re-appointed, but this IS long beach after all. gordon, prevratil, burroughs, hankla, o'neill, taboada, ellis, richardson, baker. What a place!
LBC (no) thanks for your depressing comments, especially about the queen. You deserve a big fat cigar like the kind john mansell used to enjoy, especially when he waxed eloquently about the rosy future of the queen, for that one.
Look at the whole City Hall complex (what problem with the library roof?) Since the city leaders feel so strongly that the downtown needs further redeveloping, let's sell that land and have the City Hall complex moved to where it should be: the absolutely scariest neighborhood in Long Beach. The neighborhood the mayor wouldn't be caught alive at night. We need change, desperately. We're not getting any as long as we don't have any "adults in charge". I don't know Mr. Schneiter personally, but it's hard to believe that anyone older than a 3rd grader would've written that email.
On that basis alone, his inability to communicate in an adult fashion, he should resign immediately. No citizen should be subjected to that level of immaturity in a leadership capacity. Has Bob Foster seen that email, or is he too busy starting his own gubanatorial campaign to give a whit?
Did the commish follow through on his offer?
I guess if he changes his mind and is unwilling, then the community will take note and do the appropriate things to fix a broken system.
By the way, what is a "cartman"?
emails to Mike nor suggestion to Kurt of an anger management class.
Besides the emails, Kurt has been guilty of intruding on a BSRA meeting, (uninvited as a speaker) and holding court for 25 minutes, yelling and threatening to sue the board even though he was told by both the board and the alarmed residents to take a seat -that he was out of order. He didn't care-
he's a Parking Commissioner.This too was brought up at Council on July 1 and
ignored by the Mayor. If the Mayor, who gave a lukewarm promise of having the city audit one of the parking Commission meeting, is serious, he will not send a city employee who can be reconized by the Commissioners...DUH!
The perfect example of his cluelessness is when he ruined the ports clean truck plan, in an okie-doke to the trucking special interests, because he said he wanted to avoid litigation. Well the national trucking special interest group says they will be filing suit mid-month. This dummy couldn't have gone along with the big-boys (Los Angeles), no he has to prove that LB is mayberry rfd. Now the plan, even if lb prevails in the litigation, is doomed to failure. Another museum of art, aquarium, queen mary debacle on a fuse.
On July 1st I bet foster was thinking to himself, "This Ruehle guy is sure a C.A.V.E.". Good luck Mike-you'll need it!
Very interesting.... Those statements certainly seemed like he had some factual evidence to back up his written statements and lord knows what he has verbally stated about the man.
Half heartedly retracted if you ask me. Either you were spreading falsehoods about the man or you were not. Which is it?
Why not list them here on the post for all to see?
John- your a bitter little man aren't you.
Laura- I have a friend tha was at that meeting.
As it was told to me by a very reliable source. It was before the meeting started and only lasted 3 to 5 minutes. I have heard what he had to say. Why not write down what it was if you were there. (please try and be accurate).
From what I have heard he didn't say anything that was incorrect.
Thanks.
I wonder what Freud would say about that???
Bitter is a nice way of descibing him Pete.
I just wanted to be post # 100
Probably the most this site has seen before..
I think you have misinterpreted my post 97. I retract nothing that I have stated on this site.
Commissioner Schneiter has been critical of me in his disrespectful emails to me. He has accused me of various things, claiming to have evidence to back it up. I disputed his accusations and asked him to provide me with his evidence. He responded by calling me names. I explained that I would immediately appologize if he could prove his inaccurate statements to be true. I asked Commissioner Schneiter if he would do likewise if he was unable to prove his accusations. He refused to respond to my question and again called me names. I have never seen Commissioner Schneiter's proof he claims to have. I stand by what I said, that I will appologize if proven wrong.
What's up? Speaking with forked tongue (again)? Comment #88 said we were rid of you two.
Oh how about this, it's so brilliant I must do it too. I am not bitter. I am not bitter. I am not bitter. I am not bitter. I am not bitter.
Whew, that's all I can handle. Like you guys, I am a math guy too.
Sooooo, are you going to just keep hacking away at Mike Ruehle or will you submit proof of your accusations?
kurt said in comment #82: "Let’s try to work together and move on to a better working relationship". Time to man-up.
Currently, every commercial property owner has one vote, no matter how many properties they own. The three commercial property owners on the Parking Commission currently control 5% of the vote because they are each one of 63 owners. Agenda item 19 will change the voting to reflect how much tax is paid by each commercial property owner. Commercial property owners who own multiple properties will have more votes than those that only own one property. The result is that the three commercial property owners (including Commissioner Schneiter) on the Parking Commission will now control 16% of the votes rather than 5%. How is this not Commissioner Schneiter again acting in his own self interest?
If agenda item 19 is approved by City Council, it means we are no longer in a Democratic society where everyone is created equal. Agenda item 19 says that the importance of a person’s vote is determined by how much taxes that person pays. Majority owners will control how all others are taxed. I believe this will establish an appalling precedent. Keep in mind that 10% of the people in this country pay 90% of the taxes. What if presidential and City Council election voting was changed in this manner where the wealthiest people in the country had more voting power than everyone else?
Even more appalling is that the city is proposing to make this change without even notifying the other 41 commercial property owners who are having their voting rights diminished. They don’t know this is happening next Tuesday and therefore won’t have an opportunity to object. Wouldn’t the right thing be to hold an election among the current property owners to see if they approve this change? Commissioner Schneiter and the Parking Commission will again sneak in substantial changes to the Parking Commission charter without anyone knowing about it. Shameful.
and wow #84...that is one wacked email. If Shneiter really wrote that, he may need mental health assistance. Seriously.
Commissioner Schneiter did indeed write post #84. He has not denied it, and I can forward the email to you as I have to all of the City Council members.
The difficulty with canvassing the businesses is that in most cases, the business owners are lessees and not the property owner. Most of the commercial property owners live outside the area or outside the state. They have no idea that this is going on and that their voting rights will be diminished without their knowledge.
Now they want to change the voting rules to ensure that they control both the Parking Commission and the BSBIA. Why pay for repair of your property and parking when you can get the public to pay for it?
Take a closer look the prop. 13 tax assessments. Square Foot votes do not make any sense because landowners are all paying different amounts depending on when they purchased their property.
1 vote 1 property makes more sense.
Reminds me of what Mark Sandoval Marine Bureau did last Thursday at the Planning Commission. The City sent out a survey to residents asking their opinion about the Marine Stadium fence.
The survey did not come out in support of the fence removal so Sandoval changed the vote, 1 pt if you lived adjacent to Marine Stadium, 1/2 pt if you lived on the other side of Appian. That's Democracy in LB.
According to the July 22nd City Council Agenda Item 19, “various property owners in the proposed CFD have requested that the City Council now take action” to change the way votes are counted. Why didn’t they just say that those “various property owners” were Commissioner Schneiter and the other commercial property owner Parking Commissioners? Why do these “various property owners” continue to get Councilman DeLong’s support over and over again, with no public notice, on issues that impact the community? Why doesn’t Councilman DeLong measure the wishes of all 63 commercial property owners rather than just Commissioner Schneiter’s Parking Commission before sponsoring a voting change that affects them all? Why is Agenda Item 19 so benign and not more descriptive of what actually will be done? Shameful.
Your comments make Commissioner Schneiter sound like a pretty bad person.
Are your certain everything you have written about him is factual?
I have read the entirety of the posts and it would appear that there is bad blood between the two of you.
I just don't know if what you are stating is factual, or if you are just trying to make the commissioner look bad.
All too often, I have seen self described activists not held to factual standards that the establishment is held to.
I did find it hard to believe that the person you have been talking about has that much power and bad intentions.
So, I asked a girlfriend of mine who he was. She told me he was a very nice man who has done much for the community. I asked what.
The one thing that stood out in her mind was how he took time and his money to help raise more money for her daughter’s school science program.
Doesn't sound like an arch villain to me.
I asked her who you were. She did not know who you were other than being part of the BSRA.
Who are you Mr. Ruehle, and what have you done for the community?
Actions speak louder than words in my world.
Just a Shore residents thoughts.
My name is Mike Ruehle. I am president of the Belmont Shore Residents Association (BSRA). No matter where you live, you are invited to the BSRA meetings on the Second Thursday of every month at the Bay Shore Library at 6:00 pm. If you wish to phone or email me, I can provide you with evidence I have backing up my statements about Commissioner Schneiter's unprofessional conduct. You may want to pass this on to your friend also. It sounds like she may be surprised at the emails that Commissioner Schneiter does not deny sending.
As a volenteer, my contributions to the community are somewhat limited by my time. Below are some of the BSRA's accomplishments over the past year:
1. Increased BSRA membership - doubled since July 2007
2. Increased BSRA meeting attendance - average of 50, up from 28
3. Timely and relevant BSRA meeting speakers including:
Angela Reynolds, Long Beach Planning SEADIP zoning
Gary DeLong, Third District Councilman Livingston Parking Lot
Dennis Eschen, Long Beach Planning beach development
Mark Sandoval, Long Beach Marine Bureau beach development
Long Beach Unified School District candidates election campaign
Gordana Kajer, Surfrider Foundation water quality
Laurie Semon, Olives Gourmet Deli business introduction
Jeff Benedict, Long Beach Bureau of Health restaurant inspections
Heather Mahood, Long Beach City Attorney nuisance issues
Carl Kemp, Malmuth and Ratkovitch developers Seaport Marina plans
Rudy Komisza, Cynthia Renaud, LBPD alcohol issues
Derek Burnham, Long Beach Planning zoning changes
4. Increased community awareness of issues
5. Increased community participation
6. Supported naming and signage of Lois Lane
7. BSRA "Spotlight awards" for community service given to Joy Starr, Station 8 (Belmont Shore) firefighters, Bay Shore Library staff, Kate Karp
8. Increased opportunity for resident input including resident surveys of timely issues and extended meetings by thirty minutes
9. Publish a monthly email newsletter communication to members and others
10. Oversight of development issues including; building variance concerns, Cabo Cantina, Belmont Shore Gateway Sign, beach development projects, beach "Green Bin" trash cans, motorcycle parking
11. Belmont Shore zoning changes including; two story limit, improved signage and notification
Per your challenge to me, when are you going to meet with Dave W. to review the evidence? You constantly expound on how you always keep your word. Don’t disappoint everyone again.
While the general public is not allowed to comment, the Parking Commissioners and Travis Brooks, their city liaison, again today openly discussed agenda items with Commission advocates in the crowd. However, anyone who may have questions about the Parking Commission decisions is not allowed to speak.
For example, residents were not allowed today to ask questions about the proposed gateway sign that will be installed in the residential area on Livingston nor the survey that will be conducted to select its design. It was approved by the Commissioners without allowing comments or questions from the public.
The Parking Commission meeting lasted an entire 32 minutes. Apparently there wasn’t enough time for public comment.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Ruehle
To: Mayor Foster;district1@longbeach.gov;Suja Lowenthal;Gary DeLong;Patrick O'Donnell;Gerrie_Schipske;Tonia Reyes Uranga;Dee Andrews;Gerrie Schipske;Rae Gabelich;Val Lerch
Cc: City Attorney; Michael Mais; DDemerjian@da.lacounty.gov
Sent: 6/7/2009 11:15:10 PM
Subject: Parking Commission Unprofessionalism
Hello Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers,
Below is an email I received from Belmont Shore Parking Commission Chairman Kurt Schneiter after it was discovered that he AGAIN attempted to influence the outcome of our Belmont Shore Residents Association (BSRA) survey on valet parking. Besides it being a conflict of interest for him to participate in anything related to the valet parking due to his personal business interests, I would AGAIN like to point out the low level of professionalism Commissioner Schneiter demonstrates in communication with me as the BSRA President. Below, I have listed eight insults he recently hurled at me in one single paragraph of his below email.
1. You are obviously fixated
2. You really creep me out
3. A man who visits the bars as much as you
4. You are training to be an undercover reporter drinking to the bottom of a big story
5. You have embarrassed yourself
6. Been proven to be a lowly criminal
7. A criminal like you
8. Get help for your drinking
This correspondence is similar to many many emails I have received from Commissioner Schneiter. In particular, I forwarded an email I received from Commissioner Schneiter to the Mayor and City Council less than one year ago resulting in an article published by the District Weekly per the below link. If anything, Commissioner Schneiter's professionalism continues to get worse.
http://thedistrictweekly.com/2008/daily/writing...
I AGAIN question whether the language used by Commissioner Schneiter is appropriate for a City Commissioner and AGAIN request intervention on the part of the city to prevent continued insults of this manner.
Mike Ruehle
BSRA President
----- Original Message -----
From: Kurt Schneiter
To: rekim@earthlink.net;John Schneiter
Sent: 6/5/2009 10:22:11 PM
Subject: FW: Valet Parking vote--Tow Votes
Mr. Ruehle:
My brother has an interest in 229 Covina; it's owned by a family trust. As you have been informed on two other occasions, John is part of the family trust that owns 229 Covina. The trustee provided a lease since it is legal for the trust to rent to John and yes he has stayed at this property. It shouldnt be relevant how often John stays at this property, but weather he qualifies under the bylaws. He qualifies and appears to have a larger equity position in Belmont Shore than you. Also, I didnt falsely sign a lease. I had legal right and correctly signed it. You are obviously fixated on my family and to be frank, you really creep me out. It truly is odd that a man who visits the bars as much as you is so against the activities that comes out of them. Maybe you are training to be an undercover reporter drinking to the bottom of a big story. You have embarrassed yourself with your unfounded accusations and now have been proven to be a lowly criminal. I detest drunk drivers for obvious reasons, but more so because a criminal like you murdered my sister. Speeding down a freeway a drunk killed my sister and her friends on the way to her birthday party. That same horrific murder could have happened when you were barreling down 2nd Street at 65 mph. I hope you take the time to realize the game you are playing and help make our neighborhood a safer place by working with the police dept, BSBA and all other stake holders and to get help for your drinking. If you need a sponsor I know several wonderful people.
Kurt Schneiter
Furthermore, if Commissioner Schneiter is sooooo concerned and detests drunk drivers, why does he own his own alcohol license (below link) on 2nd street? Is he not concerned about his patrons “barreling down 2nd Street at 65 mph?” Also, why does he attempt every year to extend the hours on this alcohol license from midnight until 2:00 am? Does he actually believe drinking later into the night will reduce the risk of drunk driving?
http://www.abc.ca.gov/datport/LQSdata.asp?ID=20...
Moreover, if Commissioner Schneiter detests drunk drivers, why is he attempting to implement a valet parking service in front of his restaurants and bars to make it that much easier for his over served bar patrons to get in their cars and “barrel down 2nd street at 65 mph?” Parking Commissioner Schneiter is quick to point his finger at other people’s shortcomings. Maybe he should take a look in the mirror once in a while to see if the “L” that normally resides on his forehead has changed to a flashing “H.”
I informed Council that Commissioner Schneiter had failed to disclose all of his 2nd street financial interests on his California Form 700 as required by state law under criminal penalty. Commissioner Schneiter’s form 700 failed to disclose 3 of his 5 2nd street real property holdings near where he plans to implement the valet parking at Bono’s. Furthermore, Commissioner Schneiter did not declare on the 700 form his ownership of his alcohol license for Bono’s restaurant per the below link.
http://www.abc.ca.gov/datport/LQSdata.asp?ID=20...
Moreover, Parking Commissioner Schneiter was supposedly told by City Attorney Shannon’s office to refrain from attempting to influence residents to support his valet parking. Meanwhile, emails indicate Commissioner Schneiter has ignored the City Attorney’s instruction and he continues to do so.
There were numerous residents who testified last year against Commissioner Schneiter’s appointment to the Parking Commission. Mayor Foster and Councilman DeLong ignored our concerns. Now, Mayor Foster has failed to remove a Commissioner who has blatantly ignored conflict of interest and disclosure laws, yet Mayor Foster removes Jack Smith, a Commissioner who allegedly (Jack Smith denies it) said something about Mayor Foster’s relationship with developer Tom Dean.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Kurt-Schneiter/1...