"So be it" John Greet . Maybe he thinks he's Moses carving tablets.
Words do not produce revolutionary culture change but original thought, passion, leadership and action do. Greet used 1303 word in his last post. Too bad he had to spend hours typing and copying out a famous quotes compendium to respond. Anyone wade through Greet's last stack of endless monotone platform parsing about intellectual honesty? I only used 104 words this post. That leaves me with with over a 1000 left to get my ideas across. Maybe less is more?

"Pardon me", but I would rather have a beer with" honest" Mike Ruhle than "suffer" with John Greet.

sunshinelb: Count and obsess about the number of words I choose to employ if you must. But I submit that if you would spend half as much effort in comprehension that you do in enumeration, you might gain a clearer understanding of my positions. You might even find that you agree with some of them.

But perhaps achieving clearer understanding and agreement is not your goal.

It is true that I am sometimes verbose. This accusation has already been offered, many times, and fully acknowledged. Can you perhaps move on from judging my communications skills now and at least make even the shallowest of attempts to discuss and either accept or refute the actual issues, principles and concepts that I have offered?

May I respectfully suggest that you attempt to deal with the merits of my arguments (or lack thereof), rather than hyper-emphasizing what you believe to be their grammatical shortcomings?

And you claim you DON'T insult people Greet. Yeah right. How do you explain your implication that sunshinelb does not comprehend your civics 101 diatribe with the statement “if you would spend half as much effort in comprehension.”

And you don’t consider your statement “at least make even the shallowest of attempts” to be insulting?

You deny and whine when others point out your self serving and hypocritical positions but then have the audacity to say, “But perhaps achieving clearer understanding and agreement is not your goal.”

Your objectivity and trustworthiness is unworthy of respect and further comment. You have achieved the pinnacle failure of being a lobbyist willing to prostitute your opinions for the right price.

"Pardon me", but I would rather have a beer with" honest" Mike Ruehle than "suffer" with John Greet.

I just want the beer.

I would rather have my 12 year old baseball team taking batting practice on the back of my legs than socialize with either of those guys.

Mr. Ruehle: I have read and understood your comments. Thank you for sharing them.

greet, I have read and unfortunately understood your comments. I'm amazed you have the audacity to post such useless nonsense.
John it's a free country, and thanks for wearing the badge and keeping it that way.
But, your posts are ridiculous.
Best regards.

Greet-Why malign Patriotic REVOLUTIONARIES like Ruhle, WrongbeachJohn or ResidentsFirst and others? I took a look a your lbpost column. In your article "Public Records, Public Trust". You seem to have no problem using their politically risky, hard work and activism as material for your column.

The very people who you discount in your windy apologist The District Weekly posts have been active in voicing their concerns about LB government transparency, accountability, buddy loans, misspending, corrupt land swaps, destruction of wetlands, campaign reform, Brown Act violations, lobbyist reform, and public records issues. Our numbers are growing and we are organizing and spreading information about the illegal and unfortunate way our government operates. Our mission is to change Long Beach government so that it benefits everyone, not just a politically connected few.

In 1776 people like Ruhle and many of us would out in the streets pushing for freedom and democracy. Someone like you Greet would be writing to maintain the status quo while protecting his British pension and salary. Greet you do not have the guts or courage to change government.

sunshine: Thank you very much for visiting my column at LBPOST.com. May you and others do so often and participate constructively there if you are so inclined. By means of advance notice: my next column will be on the current challenges we are experiencing along 2nd Street.

Concerning Maligning:

I do not malign people. I sometimes take exception to some of their behaviors, just as they sometimes take exception to mine. Why is it when others take me to task it is somehow exceptable, even commendable, but when I take others to task I am "maligning" them?

Disingenouous much?

I take exception to a refusal, on the part of some, to dispose of resorting to the juvenile hurling of insults during an argument. I take exception to a refusal, on the part of some, to maintain civility and respect in their discourse. I take exception to the habit, employed by some, of resorting to rumor, hearsay, hyperbole, false or incomplete information and unfounded conclusions to present and to support their arguments.

Concerning Patriotism, Revolution and Effective Dissent:

Merely, voicing one's concerns about government does not make one a "Patriot", sunshine. Merely organizing and spreading (sometimes) erroneous information does not a "Revolutionary" make. Unless and until such people can prove effective at encouraging and motivating constructive and positive change, all their aforementioned maligned behaviors do is make them little more than loud and foul-mouthed, untruthful and ineffective malcontents.

Simple dissent is not sufficient. Effective dissent is required if one is to be successful in changing government. To be effective, I believe dissent should be factual, reasonable, civil and intellectually honest. The dissent I read from some here is none of these.

J. William Fulbright once said: "In a democracy dissent is an act of faith. Like medicine, the test of its value is not in its taste, but in its effects.

I would argue that the dissent offered by some is failing the test of effectiveness.


"Patriotic", sunshine? "Revolutionaries"? Our definitions of both clearly differ. G.B. Shaw once opined: "Liberty means responsibility, that is why most men dread it".

I believe that a free people in a self-governed and free and civil society have certain responsibilities: to themselves, to others, to their society and to their world. One of those responsibilities is to participate in the process of government in a *constructive*, *honest* and *intelligent* manner.

I do not believe that some here participate in this manner. This I find annoying because when they do not do so their sometimes-considerable efforts become at once wasted and thoroughly counter-productive. They do their various, and often *very legitimate*, causes far more harm than good. They alienate, anger and insult some of the very people they should learn to cooperate and find some common ground with.

How incredibly wasteful!

Concerning the Status Quo:

Please do not mistake my desire for reasoned, honest and civil discourse with complete contentment with the way we sometimes do things here in Long Beach. The sum total of my comments, here and elsewhere, will prove that I take considerable issue with the occasionally slipshod, irresponsible and ineffective manner in which we govern ourselves here.

I do not advocate for the status quo in government unless (and this is admittedly proving less and less common) what we are doing *through* government is truly best serving the needs of the majority in our society as constrained by applicable law. If we are doing something right, I hope you will agree it should not be changed and, thus in those cases, the status quo should, indeed, be maintained.

But, unlike some, I lay the ultimate blame for the various symptoms of poor self-government at the feet of those who helped to create and who perpetuate them...the People...as represented by a majority of the electorate, and not those they elect to represent them.

Some say we "get" the government we deserve. As if our government is somehow handed to us from some nebulous elsewhere...as if it springs forth fully developed from some public policy vacuum...as if we have neither say in nor control of it.

I say we *create* and *maintain* the government we have, whether through our intelligent and attentive construction or through our apathy and ignorance.

I say that if we are unhappy with our local (or State or federal) government, we must first look to ourselves. In so looking we must commit to seeing clearly and evaluating honestly. Then, and only then, should we act to affect governmental change. And in acting, we should do so constructively, efficiently and effectively. I see very little evidence of any of this method in some who post here.

And so I take exception.

Concerning “Guts and Courage”:

No "guts or courage to change government", sunshine? I do not presume to judge your own such "guts or courage" in this area, why do you feel it necessary to judge mine? Do you know me? Do you have *any* idea of the efforts I engage in to correct what I perceive are errors in the manner in which we govern ourselves? I think you do not. Like some others, you appear to rely solely upon what you perceive to form your judgments...forgetting that what we, as humans, perceive cannot possibly be the sum total of what is. Because our perception is necessarily finite and incomplete and sometimes otherwise flawed; presuming to judge others based solely upon that perception is patently erroneous and unjust.

Since you do not know all that you might about me, is it truly appropriate for you to presume to judge me in the "courage and guts" area? Were I to judge you in this area, you would no doubt find this inappropriate and unacceptable. Why, then, is it appropriate and acceptable for you to so judge me? Do I truly lack “courage and guts”, sunshine? Or do you simply fail to perceive the manner in which I choose to demonstrate them? Or, if you do perceive them, do you simply disagree with the manner I have chosen? Can you not simply disagree with me or my methods without resorting to insult and assumption?

Concerning our American Revolution:

During our American Revolution we were fighting against a monarchy, against tyranny and against despotism. To attempt to draw similarities between those efforts and these is patently erroneous and, I believe, does grave insult to the *true* patriots of that day. I encourage you to either read or to re-read our Declaration of Independence and be reminded of the challenges we faced back then and why we resorted to revolution to address them.

Concerning Pension and Salary:

Do you believe that my "pension and salary" or that of my colleagues' is somehow less worthy of "protecting" than your own or anyone else's? Are our families somehow less worthy of being properly cared for and supported than yours? Are we not just as deserving of fair and proper remuneration for our labor as you or anyone else? If you do *not* believe these things, then why do you find fault with me for my attempts to protect them?

Please pardon me if I offend you or anyone else here. It is not my intent to offend; merely to observe, to comment with intellectual honesty and in a civil and intelligent manner upon my observations; and to offer what I believe to be some reasonable solutions to the challenges that are brought forth here.

Concerning Effective Expression:

I understand that some dislike the manner in which I choose to express myself. So be it.

But whose message ultimately suffers more greatly I wonder: His that is predominantly verbose but respectful, factual and civil or his that is predominantly terse, but insulting, inconsiderate and intellectually dishonest?

Reasonable readers must necessarily draw their own conclusions. And that's precisely as it should be.

We had witnesses watching this guy carry on. Several cannot remember seeing a grown man act like such a fool while in public. People commented after how ridiculous his behavior was.

What a spoiled, self centered , overly self impressed ego maniac, said one. Another commented that he was acting like a baby having his bottle taken away from him. In this case, it is around 100 proof.

The BSRA Meeting was very interesting. The bar crowd really showed their colors, and they were not pretty.

Nice job BSRA. You helped show the community how greedy some people are, and how hard they clutch to their little franchises.

It was like watching a parade of whining weasel's at times. Even a fat, lazy Landlord showed up to make a big scene, huff and puff ineffectively, and act like a soiled child who was not getting his way. It was hilarious to observe.

3 Attorneys met before and after, and are working upon some interesting, and expensive sanctions, or remedies of some related matters.

An the Councilman even had an aide their to vote in support of the Bars and against the Residents Association. Telling.

Similar to the September 11, 2008 Belmont Shore Residents Association (BSRA) election, there were numerous non-BSRA members who tried to bully their way into BSRA members-only meeting to vote on by-laws. The follow are only a few.

Parking Commission Vice Chairman Bill Lorbeer and his wife chose not to renew their $10 membership dues to remain BSRA members and then made a scene when they were not allowed entry into the meeting for BSRA members-only. This comes after 3 emails and a regular postal mail notice were sent to Mr. Lorbeer that ONLY BSRA members would be allowed to vote in the meeting. Furthermore, a separate letter was sent to Mr. Lorbeer reminding him that his membership had expired, which he chose to ignore. After being notified five times, Commissioner Lorbeer still insisted that he should be allowed to vote on the bylaws.

Parking Commission Chairman KURT SCHNEITER’S brother John Schneiter also untruthfully insisted he was a BSRA member as he did during the September 11, 2008 BSRA election, claiming that he lived in Belmont Shore at 229 Covina. I encourage everyone to walk by the vacant house at 229 Covina that is owned by Kurt Schneiter. John Schneiter was allowed to vote in the September 11, 2008 election using a lease signed the previous day by his brother Commissioner Kurt Schneiter indicating that he was now living at 229 Covina. When I emailed John Schneiter asking for proof he lived at 229 Covina Avenue, such as a copy of a utility bill or tax assessment, he refused to respond to me. When I phoned him, John Schneiter told me to never call him again and hung up on me. Hence, he was removed from the BSRA member roster only to show up again at yesterday’s members-only meeting to vote on bylaw changes.

I went into Panama Joes last night around 6pm for dinner. Talked to Fabius Rizk,Operating Partner, Panama Joes's Cantina. Enjoyed the food and beer. Place seemed very well run. Employees and Fabius spoke with earnestness about their strong commitment to worth with our community.

I believed Fabius's promise, that Panama Joes is making an effort to greatly improve the food (they have!), service, and their relationship with LB residents. (It should be noted that I have not visited PJs after 10 pm on a Friday night and do not live in Belmont Shore.) Anyone who has an issue with how this place is now run should communicate with PJ's management. Take a look at their program to improve the situation:

Here is a link (then click on Project Shush link) to their "Project Shush!, No Shouting, No Screaming, No Public Urnination, No Littering" program.
http://mysite.verizon.net/res8jzg7/kerriealey/

I had a similar experience a couple of weeks back. For some odd reason I found myself at home at 5 o'clock on a Tuesday and didn't feel like doing much of anything so I walked the block and a half to Panama Joe's to check it out. I have to say, the beer was cold, delicious and well priced and the fish tacos were terrific. The crowd was really cool and it looked like mostly locals including a couple of families with small kids. I was impressed with the operation and I will be back on a regular basis I am sure (but probably not on Friday or Saturday nights).

I've been working closely with Fab, as nearby resident, since PJ's opened and I've found him to be not only personable but attentive to the needs of the residents. The underlying theme is that they count those cash registers evry night and they realize they have a winner. They've taken an approach that was learned in other Sharkeez operations and conformed it to the Shore so that it works. For the millionth time, I applaud their efforts.

damn gene is looking OLD...wonder what he'd look like if he didn't color his hair?

fyi, prior to all this money-greed business, gene has had a life-long (native son) reputation of being a great guy.

Dear Fixated Upon Ruehle'sTool, aka;RuehleTool

What's up with the infatuation about Mr Ruehle's exposed plumbing? Some wonder...?

Are you still in Junior High School , suffering from arrested development, or profoundly immature? OK, Ruehle's a tool...a pretty effective one. Why? Because he is doing his best to advocate for a lot of concerned citizens who seek redress of a range of legitimate grievances.

So how does your First Amendment analysis rescind the well accepted body of law all accross this Nation which supports Reasonable Time Place and Manner restrictions upon a range of Speech, including a range of socially unacceptable Nuisance behaviors?

This town has a range of Noise Ordinances and Nuisance restrictions which are on the books, and need to be enforced here, and thousands of residents have paramount, vested property rights?

Any resident has standing to Sue, or seek the application of the existing codes? Any Resident can move to the Nuisance and Sue as well? Your specious time line about who bought when, who got licensed when, or where , and this priority of rights analysis, is largely irrelevant if you study the cases?

Every resident has the right to a peaceful nights sleep, protection from a range of continuing range of Civil, and Criminal wrongs? These are vested, not conditional rights?

The Nuisance Bars have Conditional Use Permits, and a range of State and Local Restrictions. Clearly a range of their Conditions have been breached, and a range of past, present and prospective Damages seem actionable. There has been a pattern of benign neglect as well.

Furthermore, this Municipality may have been Negligent in the Permitting and oversight of these questionably 'favored' entities ? This Negligence liabilty may well extend to the sitting Councilman too.

It is as if some of the proprietors image some kind of Prescriptive Easement , or acquired right through open and notorious hostile conduct putatively obtained by reoeatedly violating the law, however, such rights against the adjacent residents have absolutely no precedent.

A Crime is a Crime, a Tort is a Tort, A Violation of a Statute proves Duty, and Breach, ''Intent' is basically irrelevant, so why don't you refrain from intellectually bankrupt name calling, and propose any resolution other than ''sit down, shut up, and take it''. Why don't you collectively make an effort to mitigate the Damages here?

Oh right, it might affect your Net Receipts and the greedily clutched to pecuniary interest of three or four wreckless, but 'connected', individuals.

This '' We are bad neighbors who are entitled to break the law and diminish our neighbors property values and quality of life'' posture is a non starter, as is the Councilman's latest attempt at yet another, invitation only, cull the evidence, shape the outcome, biased, hear no evil, see no evil 'Star Chamber'. More 'bricks' in yet another naive 'Wall' erected between Residents, and Business. Yet another potential misstep.

It can be an absolute pleasure to be adverse to ''The gang that couldn't shoot straight', at times, or the ''Neighborhoods be damned'' crowd.

The original Master Plan, design, setbacks, and permitting was engineered and planned around 6 Alcohol Licenses. That was reasonable . 54 alcohol sources, and growing, is not.

You had better find a better Defense than the First Amendment this time. But please, continue to make yourselves a bigger, and bigger ...targets.

How will you guys 'spin' the fact that Mr Rotundo stated on the front page of the Press Telegram that the person who was intoxicated, was not in his Bar, however Evidence is emerging that the Defendant who had this outburst, failed to comply and was shot, was apparently drinking, and quite ossibly over served in his bar before this event?

Try to shut his Attorneys up and see how far that gets us?

Kudos to LBPD for their increased Patrols, however, the Bars had a good thing going, and a license to print money. They over stepped one too many times, poured too much booze for far too long, became the bain of their area, and now need to be significantly reigned in and sanctioned, most agree.

Trying to kill the BSRA message, and their messengers, is a fool's errand, and further provocation.

Harry Saltzgaver, the executive editor for the Grunion Gazette sent me an email indicating he was writing an editorial addressing the continued friction on Second Street. Mr. Saltzgaver is a promoter of the Business Association and frequent critic of the Belmont Shore Residents Association (BSRA). I don’t anticipate an objective editorial will be published. Therefore, I have listed below my full text answers to Mr. Saltzgaver’s questions posed to me.

Q: Did you get the DUI before or after you became president of the BSRA?

A: My one DUI court date was June 28, 2007. This occurred 2+ months before I was elected as BSRA president on September 13, 2007.

Q: Why is Second Street of citywide news interest?

A: Because there was a 2nd street shooting less than 12 hours after the District Weekly newspaper published an article about the increasing frustration of Belmont Shore residents whose neighborhoods are flooded with troublemaking bar patrons and their posting of Youtube videos of late night brawls and other public disturbances to both curb bad bar patron behaviors and also attract the attention of a previously non-responsive Long Beach government.

Q: What should people who live within a block of a major retail, dining and entertainment strip expect?

A: As taxpayers, residents who live within a block of 2nd street have the right to expect the same quality of life expected by anyone who lives in Long Beach, no matter where they live. This expectation includes quiet enjoyment of their property without exposure to fights, shooting and public disturbances. There should not be a double standard that ignores codes, city ordinances and instead favors an “entertainment strip” over the rights of nearby taxpayer residents. Everyone, businesses and residents alike, should abide by the same codes and the city should enforce those code equitably.

Furthermore, when a resident purchases their home, it should be considered their family’s personally owned business, no different than a bar on 2nd street. A significant amount of a family’s money is invested in their homes with the expectation for their property to appreciate in value. Nobody purchases a home with the expectation it will depreciate in value. Uncontrolled bar patrons should not be allowed to depreciate a family’s property value they plan to pass on to their heirs.

Moreover, the City has a vested interest in maximizing property values and the resulting property taxes they collect accordingly. There are approximately 4700 residences in the Belmont Shore area represented by the BSRA. That represents a total property value of approximately $4.0 billion with $20 -$40 million in property taxes collected annually, from which Long Beach gets $5 - $10 million per year. It makes economic sense for the city to do all it feasibly can to increase property values and the resulting property taxes that are generated to support the services expected by all taxpayers. Violence, shootings and public disturbances is a reputation that does not improve property values.

Q: How is the situation different today than it was even 10 years ago, when drinking was more accepted?

A: I agree that drinking may have been more accepted 10 years ago and even more so 22 years ago when I purchased my first house in Belmont Shore. While alcohol certainly is a contributing cause to public disturbance problems, in my opinion, the difference today is caused by a combination of bars marketing Belmont Shore as a party area and inadequate police enforcement, resulting in a late night wild, wild west atmosphere.

The bar clientele being attracted from outside the area by the late night happy hour and 2 for 1 drink specials is different than seen 10 years ago. Police Officer Klein reported to the December Business Association meeting that most of the late night public disturbance problems are being caused by people who do not live in Belmont Shore. Former Councilman Colonna echoed Officer Klein’s statement during his speech to the February Business Association meeting when he announced a $2,000 reward he was offering after his Shore business property was vandalized. Specifically, Mr. Colonna told the Business Association that the night time customer on 2nd street had changed over the past couple of years to become much younger.

In addition, there is now only one police officer assigned to all of Beat 10 at bar closing time. Beat 10 stretches from Seal Beach, through Marina Pacifica and past Belmont Shore. There is no way one police officer can successfully monitor 20+ bars pushing their over served patrons out the doors at 2:00 am and into residential areas. This is obvious to residents who have numerous times asked for more help from the police.

Q: What is the residents' association's role in this saga?

A: The Belmont Shore Residents Association’s (BSRA) role is to represent the residential community’s quality of life issues and concerns. The BSRA’s preferred route to addressing the bar patron public disturbance problems is to seek assistance from the city’s police department and the District 3 Councilmember’s office. Failing to receive this assistance, the BSRA is left with no choice but to draw attention to this unacceptable situation in hopes City Hall will reconsider and address late night public disturbance problems that threaten residents’ quality of life.

Q: What answers do you have?

A: There are 260+ businesses in Belmont Shore. 54 of those businesses have alcohol licenses. 5 of those businesses (less than 2%) serve alcohol after midnight when 90% of the public disturbances occur. It is appalling that I should have to suggest any of the following ideas to improve an unacceptable situation for the community caused by a mere 5 businesses.

• Create an ordinance eliminating alcohol sales in Belmont Shore after midnight.

• Request the ABC impose alcohol license conditions limiting alcohol sales, outside security and drink specials.

• Create a permit parking zone to prevent bar patrons from parking in the residential areas.

• Increase permanent Belmont Shore police staffing. Funding to be provided by increased business license fees for businesses serving alcohol after midnight, utilizing Parking Commission parking meter revenue and/or utilizing tax assessments provided by the city to the Business Association.

• Conduct regular sobriety check points and provide DUI teams in Belmont Shore.

• Revise the Parking Commission ordinance to increase resident representation so parking meter money is equally spent on resident issues.

Mr. Saltzgaver publisher of the Grunnion Gazette has selected and printed “letters to the editor” that are just crude personal attacks on members of the BSRA In one recent case, the Grunnion published a letter that only said “all xxxxx and her husband xxx do is complain when things do not got their way. There is a place call Utah calling their names. .” Karen Walker Belmont Shore April 8 2009

When evaluating Mr. Saltzgaver and the Grunnion it should be noted that a large percentage of their newspaper revenue is gotten by 2nd street business ads. After TDW published a negative article about the parking commission and BSBA members, I have been told that the President of the BSBA and members ordered other local businesses to stop advertising in TDW.

Is the Gazettes newspaper a member of the Belmont Shore Business Association (BSBA)? The Gazettes and Press Telegram are owned by the same company Media News. The Press Telegram printed a front page article on the Mike Ruehle President of the Belmont Shore Residents Association 2 year old DUI. Does anyone expect the Gazette to complain about its sister publication the Press Telegram reporting of “news”?

The BSBA’s Mission Statement: “The purpose of the Belmont Shore Business Association is to form a common bond among business owners located in and around the Belmont Shore area whose goals are to promote, protect, and maintain prosperity for the Belmont Shore Community. This association is for its members and the immediate community, providing a united front to express opinions, protects tranquility and promote a better understanding among merchants, institutions, professionals, as well as residents.”

Many local businesses and residents are negatively affected by crimes, noise, fighting, public peeing/vomiting, noise caused by the bar culture which the president of the BSBA (& owner of Legends and the AI) has encouraged and profited from. Many merchants close their businesses during the “family” Xmas parade and lose critical holiday sales because of the drunken behavior of many of the 2nd street bar customers. The many special events that increase bar/food sales drive away retail and service customers because attendees of these large events use all of the metered parking spots . 2nd street events also severely affect residential parking. The BSBA has refused to implement employee or visitor shuttles during special event. I have also been told that the businesses who have spoken up about the operation of BSBA have been ostracized by the BSBA.

In his article I hope that Mr. Saltzgaver assesses the BSBA’s performance to their mission statement to “form a common bond among businesses”, “protect and maintain prosperity for the Belmont Shore Community”, “protect tranquility” or “promoted a better understanding” among merchants and residents.

I noticed that the Belmont Shore Business Association's website
http://www.belmontshore.org/ states that its bylaws will be "COMING SOON".

Why is one person Gene Rontondo allowed to run the BSBA a "nonprofit" organization, which is contracted to administer the city's business improvement area's funds for over 11 years? How can this be a healty democratic community organization?

I have more respect for Belmont Shore Resident's Association which has board term limits , encourages new ideas, surveys its members with polls, has no monetary conflict of interest, and tries to improve the safety quality of life for its members, protect property rights, and make Belmont Shore better for everyone involved.

The Business Association website has listed bylaws "COMING SOON" for many years.

You may also notice the business association website does not post their meeting minutes for the public to recount what they are doing with their $324,000 budget and the money they receive from the City of Long Beach.

Only 15 of the 260+ business owners voted in the last Business Association election on October 28, 2009. The 15 business owners who voted included the incumbent 2008 board members who voted themselves back in for another year.

That was the same October Business Association meeting where Parking Commission Chairman Kurt Schneiter reported Belmont Shore generated a record $974,000 in sales tax in the previous year. I wonder how that compared to the millions of dollars of property tax revenue that was lost by the depreciation of property values from bar patron public disturbances?

How much devaluation do you think the shooting cost? How many people looking for homes last week decided to not look in Belmont Shore after reading about the problems our city leaders have previously ignored?

If only 15 of the 260 business owners voted the BSBA board elections are probably invalid due to the lack of a quorum. No wonder the Belmont Shore Business Association does not want anyone to take at look at their bylaws.

Why does the city hands over the Business Improvement Area (BIA) money to an organization that runs it’s non-profit in an legal manner?

The County District Attorney and IRS should take a close look at their books and meeting minutes. If I remember right all non-profit accounting books, bylaws and minutes are required to be made available to the public when asked.

correction : Why does the city hands over the Business Improvement Area (BIA) money to an organization that runs it’s non-profit in an ILEGAL manner?

And still there is more... Since the BSBA is contracted by the City to administer its Business Improvement Area (assessments), the BSBA has violated the Brown Act by banning Mike Ruehle from their BSBA meetings.

California case law indicates that, for example, if a city creates a special local assessment district, collects assessments from local property owners, and provides by ordinance that the programs paid for with those funds will be governed by a non-profit association, the non-profit corporation set up to govern those programs will be subject to the Brown Act. (See Epstein v. Hollywood Entertainment District II Business Improvement Dist., 87 Cal. App. 4th 862 (2001)).

When I asked this question, below is the email I received from the City Attorney’s office indicating the Business Association is allowed to ban me from their meetings. According to the city, the Business Association can do so because they are NOT a legislative body. However, it appears to me the Business Association DOES MEET the definition under C1(A) as “another entity.” The city disagrees.

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Mais
To: rekim@earthlink.net
Cc: Karen_McCormick@longbeach.gov
Sent: 3/26/2009 4:48:38 PM
Subject: Re: Public Meeting Question

Mr. Ruehle
The Brown Act only applies to "legislative bodies" as that term is defined in the state Government Code. I have provided you with a copy of that definition below. The BSBA does not meet the definition of a "legislative body", and therefore is not subject to the Brown Act. In other words, there is no legal requirement that the BSBA's meetings be open to the public. I would again suggest that you determine if there is anything in the group's bylaws that provide for open meetings. If you would like any further information, just let me know.

Cal Gov Code § 54952 (2008) § 54952. "Legislative body"

As used in this chapter, "legislative body" means:

(a) The governing body of a local agency or any other local body created by state or federal statute.

(b) A commission, committee, board, or other body of a local agency, whether permanent or temporary, decision making or advisory, created by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of a legislative body. However, advisory committees, composed solely of the members of the legislative body that are less than a quorum of the legislative body are not legislative bodies, except that standing committees of a legislative body, irrespective of their composition, which have a continuing subject matter jurisdiction, or a meeting schedule fixed by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of a legislative body are legislative bodies for purposes of this chapter.

(c)

(1) A board, commission, committee, or other multimember body that governs a private corporation, limited liability company, or other entity that either:

(A) Is created by the elected legislative body in order to exercise authority that may lawfully be delegated by the elected governing body to a private corporation, limited liability company, or other entity.

(B) Receives funds from a local agency and the membership of whose governing body includes a member of the legislative body of the local agency appointed to that governing body as a full voting member by the legislative body of the local agency.

(2) Notwithstanding subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), no board, commission, committee, or other multimember body that governs a private corporation, limited liability company, or other entity that receives funds from a local agency and, as of February 9, 1996, has a member of the legislative body of the local agency as a full voting member of the governing body of that private corporation, limited liability company, or other entity shall be relieved from the public meeting requirements of this chapter by virtue of a change in status of the full voting member to a nonvoting member.

(d) The lessee of any hospital the whole or part of which is first leased pursuant to subdivision (p) of Section 32121 of the Health and Safety Code after January 1, 1994, where the lessee exercises any material authority of a legislative body of a local agency delegated to it by that legislative body whether the lessee is organized and operated by the local agency or by a delegated authority.