PRESS-TELEGRAM, GAZETTE READERS ARE IN THE DARK ABOUT WHAT GABELICH DID
By Bill Pearl
Eighth District representative Rae Gabelich did it at the Long Beach City Council meeting a week ago today (April 19)— not that anybody who relies on the city’s two most popular newspapers, the Press-Telegram and the Gazettes, would know about it. Because they didn’t report it.
Gabelich did it during a public hearing. The owners of Belmont Shore’s sometimes-a-little-too-hotspot, Panama Joe’s, were applying for a renewal and expansion of their soon-to-expire entertainment permit, this time to include dancing. A group of Belmont Shore residents were pleading that the permit be denied, alleging they are already beset by such impacts as noise, drunkenness and public urination.
As the City Council listened to public testimony and consulted city management staff (which supported granting the expanded permit for a one-year period) it appeared to be trapped in a can’t-win situation. Although everybody—most notably, Belmont Shore’s councilman Gary DeLong—seemed to agree that the residents’ plight was terrible, their interaction with city staff outlined a scenario in which denying the permit would make things worse.
In fact, that’s exactly what DeLong said beforing asked city staffer Eric Sund if denying the requested permit would prevent City Hall from enforcing 26 accompanying permit conditions. Sund said that was correct. DeLong made a motion, seconded by Vice Mayor Suja Lowenthal, to grant the permit.
Councilman (and lawyer) James Johnson took DeLong’s reasoning even further, asking Sund what choices were available to the council. Sund replied that the Council could grant the permit, deny the permit, or grant the 12-month short-term permit that city management had recommended and DeLong had moved to adopt. Johnson summarized: “So my understanding is, because they applied for an entertainment license with dancing, there’s no option to approve entertainment without dancing because that hasn’t been applied for.”
And that’s when Gabelich did it. In an exchange with Sund that consumed less than 60 seconds, she extracted his admission that denying the upgraded permit and letting Panama Joe’s current permit expire wouldn’t strangle the business—it could still operate as a restaurant and could simply apply for a new entertainment permit without dancing … exactly what it has now.
“I think that’s the thing to support,” Gabelich said. “If we’re having this conversation and you want to protect the communties, you’re turning it into a nightclub.”
Gabelich’s colleagues were not swayed. The council voted 5-2 to grant the upgraded permit (Yes: Garcia, Lowenthal, DeLong, O’Donnell, Johnson; No: Gabelich, Andrews; Absent: Schipske, Neal). All in all, it was a moment that provided significant insight into the way the Long Beach City Council and City Management often orchestrates the issues of an agenda item to justify the outcomes they want.
But anybody who only reads the Press-Telegram or the Gazettes didn’t get that insight—maybe because those papers didn’t, either. Or maybe because of something else.
Here’s the Gazettes.com’s next-day report of what happened at the April 19 council meeting in a piece titled “So Moved: Council Honors Bixby with Bike Vote” that briefly summed up several Council actions. “In other business Tuesday, the council [among bullet points]…Approved a one-year entertainment permit with dancing for Panama Joe’s in Belmont Shore after adding additional conditions. The permit was opposed by some residents.”
On Sunday April 24, PressTelegram.com carried a feature story headlined, “Panama Joe’s Controversy Symptomatic of Belmont Shore bar issues.” It cited the Council’s April 19 hearing but didn’t mention Gabelich’s exchange with city staff and the resulting admission it extracted—which would have told readers that the council arguably had an option for addressing the hearing item beyond doing what it did.
28 Comments
Panama Joes owner Ron Newman is also the owner of Sharkeez in Huntington beach which is associated with over 72 DUI arrests over the past year and a half. In response to the DUIs, Huntington Beach City council reduced Sharkeez entertainment permit hours to 11:00 pm nightly, something Long Beach’s City council did not even consider.
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2011/02/baja_sharkeez_leader_of_dui_ar.php
Ron Newman owns Sharkeez in five other Southern California locations, including Santa Barbara, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach and Newport Beach.
http://sharkeez.net/
Ron Newman, Panama Joe’s owner, is quoted in the above linked article as saying in the article at the above link there are no problems relating to high numbers of DUI arrests at the other locations bars?????? HOWEVER, according to the below article, Baja Sharkeez in Hermosa beach ALSO had 51 DUI arrests in the last two years; 31 of them were in 2010.
http://www.tbrnews.com/articles/2011/02/17/hermosa_beach_news/news02.txt
I’m wondering why Mr. Pearl considers the four “yes” votes of Councilmembers Garcia, Lowenthal, O’Donnell, and Johnson to be “self-serving?” How are these Councilmembers serving themselves by voting “yes” on a permit application from a business not even in their respective Districts?
Further, what evidence does Mr. Pearl offer that Councilmember DeLong’s “yes” vote was self-serving? Is it not possible that Mr. DeLong truly believed that through his vote he was representing a true majority of the people in his District? Mr. Pearl has not offered any evidence to the contrary.
When Mr. DeLong asked (as Mr. Pearl, himself, has stated here) “if denying the requested permit would prevent City Hall from enforcing 26 accompanying permit conditions” and when “Mr. Sund said that was correct,” how is this to any degree “disingenuous?” The question was direct and the answer was entirely responsive to the question Mr. DeLong asked. Mr. Sund’s answer also happened to be entirely *factual.*
While a 12-month temporary entertainment permit seems unreasonable to me, especially given the considerable attention that challenges at PJs have been receiving lately, perhaps a 6- or even 3-month temporary permit may have been more practical, with a requirement for a clear and comprehensive status report due to the Council at the end of each month so that the Council could monitor the success (or failure) of the permit and then re-visit their decision at the end of the trial period.
Why didn’t the city staff propose imposing a $100,000 increase in the annual business license cost for nightspots serving alcohol at late hours like what is being considered by the City of Hermosa Beach which is seeking to recover the inordinate amounts of money spent on police patrols and firefighter-paramedic services needed to support those bars.
http://www.easyreadernews.com/20738/hermosa-nightlife-taxes/
Why didn’t Long Beach City Council consider a similar action? After all, all we keep hearing about from DeLong is how the city doesn’t have enough money to provide essential services.
According to the Press Telegram article, Councilman DeLong blames the Police for letting Panama Joe’s go too far and overserving customers who impact neighborhoods.
http://www.presstelegram.com/ci_17915810?source=rv
According to Elizabeth Borsting, DeLong balmes FRANK COLONNA for the bar problems on 2nd street.
http://belmontshore.patch.com/articles/council-oks-entertainment-license-for-panama-joes
What a hypocrite. DeLong supported Panama Joes entertainment license despite resident’s concerns. Without DeLong’s support for the bar, Panama Joes would never have got their license.
What does DeLong care? He lives in quiet College Park Estates.
It’s pretty obvious the Press Telegram and the Grunion Gazette have turned into a PR rag for the City of Long Beach. What I want to know is when did the editors of the Press Telegram and the Grunion Gazette start reporting to City Manager Pat West and how much taxpayers money are they being paid?
Mike come on you haven’t just now figured THAT out have you? Could you imagine the press-telerag coming up with a City of Bell story? NEVER happen. The telerag is the laughingstock of SoCal and a joke to boot. Why would any decent journalist even work there? Reminds me of a PTA newsletter when the pta members all want their kids in the accelerated class ie hail to the principal. 90% of the politicians fit in with the gig very nicely. Very sad indeed.
Now for the gruntion…read Harry Seltzer’s articles for a couple of months (try not to hold your nose). ‘Nuff said! And a book on O’Neill to boot! LOL!
It seems strange to me that on the one hand Mr. Ruehle believes “the Press Telegram and the Grunion Gazette have turned into a PR rag for the City of Long Beach” but, on the other, he consistently cites the PT as a source to support his many biased and pre-determined conclusions.
Mr. Ruehle did both, even linking directly to a PT story, in the comment section of this very article.
Why would any reasonable person denegrate and dismiss a periodical, yet consistently cite it as a reliable source in support of his or her positions?
As is so often the case, Mr. Ruehle wants it both ways.
He wants to bash the PT when he dislikes what it says (or doesn’t say) but wants to cite it whenever he believes it supports his own biased conclusions.
Just as he wants to continue to bash LBPD and its many excellent and professional police employees -even going so far as to sometimes accuse them of lying or implying that they have committed murder, without offering even a *shred* of evidence to support such libelous accusations- but wants to continue to receive responsive, timely and excellent law enforcement services from them.
Just as he wants to continue to bad-mouth many of our duly elected and appointed city officials, yet continues to expect them to listen politely and patiently to his ongoing public tirades.
Mr. Ruehle routinely claims that he tried a more polite, courteous and respectful approach with City Hall for several years and finally gave up when he didn’t get the responses he was seeking. Yet he cannot possibly believe that his current approach of employing false and misleading statements and accusatory and insulting tones is working any better for him.
is there a bigger crybaby whiner in long beach? i doubt it.
Is there a more conspicuously sycophantic Ruehle-follower in all of Long Beach? I doubt it.
Here’s another example of how the Press Telegram (PT) newspaper covers up Long Beach dirt by failing to report it.
Long Beach Fire Department Captain John Hines was charged today by the ORANGE COUNTY District Attorney’s office with a felony DUI hit and run after mowing down a bicylest and leaving him for dead on the side of the road on April 1, 2011. The PT did not even report this incident for a week after it occurred and were only forced into doing so because the news stations and the LA times began questioning it.
Today (26 days later), the Orange County Register (OCR) and the Press Telegram (PT) both reported that Long Beach Fire Department Captain John Hines was charged by the ORANGE COUNTY District Attorney’s Office with felony DUI hit and run.
http://www.ocregister.com/news/beach-298095-hines-alcohol.html?amp
http://www.presstelegram.com/breakingnews/ci_17940123
Notice how the OCR provides information not cited in the PT. For instance:
1. The PT says nothing about WHERE Hines got drunk. The OCR indicates Hines got drunk in Long Beach at “Schooner or Later.”
2. The PT does not named the person mowed down by Hines and left to die. The OCR idicates the person’s name is Jeffrey Gordon
3. The OCR indicates Hines was originally released on a measly $50,000 bail. The PT says nothing about this.
Glad to see you read our website and paper.
Haters! Don’t hate the player, hate the game!
Once, there was the “PT forums”. Those turned into garbage. Then there were “The District” forums, all too often reeking of a Ruehle v. Greet pissing match.
Sweet. Oh how things stay the same.
Hi Josh. The moment Mr. W. or any of the publishers/editors on any of the sites on which I participate feel that my comments do not contribute in a constructive or productive way to the public discussions in progress, I hope they will remove them and/or block them entirely.
So long, however, as there are some on these sites who are able to post knowingly false, blatantly misleading and, in some caes, outright libelous material in these spaces, I hope the publishers/editors will continue to allow comments intended to refute them.
Josh,
How is it a pissing match because I state my opinion, no different than you state yours? Please find somewhere on this article comment board where I have referred to Greet, or mentioned his name.
I can’t help it if Greet considers himself to be the comment board police and feels a creepy need to counter EVERY opinion I state.
Citizen Journalist Quotes of the Day – Humble Opinions
“The foolish and the dead alone never change their opinions.” — James Russell Lowell
“New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common.” — John Locke
“As a leader… I have always endeavored to listen to what each and every person in a discussion had to say before venturing my own opinion. Oftentimes, my own opinion will simply represent a consensus of what I heard in the discussion. I always remember the axiom: a leader is like a shepherd. He stays behind the flock, letting the most nimble go out ahead, whereupon the others follow, not realizing that all along they are being directed from behind.” — Nelson Mandela
“For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise.” — Benjamin Franklin
“I have opinions of my own – strong opinions – but I don’t always agree with them.” — George Bush (41)
“I never make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” — Edward Gibbon
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed, in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a wide-spread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” — Bertrand Russell
(Source: thinkexist.com)
When Mr. Ruehle is right, he is definitely right. The OCR seems to routinely cover most news stories in greater depth and with greater specificity than does the PT.
That said, when Mr. Ruehle characterizes Hines’ $50k bail as “measly” he neglects to mention the fact that the bail granted was *fully compliant* with the current Orange County Bail Schedule for the offenses for which Hines was arrested.
Mr. Snider, I think Edward Gibbon has it correct.
Mike a horrible thought; what if a cyber-stalker is really driven by some weird sexual drive and not above-board public discussion? Too creepy, right, to even ponder!
Jeez, and what if the stalker would be dressed in only a thong before he hits the keyboard?
Be careful, LBLover, you are turning me on.
You sure are easily titillated, City Girl.
LBLover, you have it right…….what a horrible thought.
It remains a pity -though no great surprise- that those who seem most inclined to resort to false and deceptive rhetorical tactics in their comments, also respond quite typically when someone calls them on doing so.
Petty and childish offerings of insult serve no productive or constructive purpose. Then again, it does not appear to be their goal to do so.
Easily titillated… no kidding. Her flirting is telling. Mandingo… sure.
It remains a pity -though no great surprise- that those who seem most inclined to resort to false and deceptive rhetorical tactics in their comments, also respond quite typically when someone calls them on doing so.
Petty and childish offerings of insult serve no productive or constructive purpose. Then again, it does not appear to be their goal to do so.
Councilman DeLong’s cat fight with Legends Owner and Belmont Shore Business Association President Gene Rotondo was Press Telegram front page news yesterday and was listed all afternoon as the most widely read article. Today, you can’t find that article anywhere on the PT website.
http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_18026541
Could that be because the Press Telegram learned Gene Rotondo received two citations at his Legends bar on Saturday? One for sneaking minors in the bar back door and the other for overserving patrons.
Did the PT goof by writing a promo for Gene Rotondo and is now trying to cover its tracks. You certainly won’t see the PT publish an artilce about Legends getting their 2 citations from the ABC.
Mr. Ruehle said: “Could that be because the Press Telegram learned Gene Rotondo received two citations at his Legends bar on Saturday? One for sneaking minors in the bar back door and the other for overserving patrons.”
According to belmontshore.patch.com, Mr. Ruehle’s information that Legends received a citation for “sneaking minors in the bar back door” is false.
On May 10th, Mr. Ruehle posted that same false information in response to an article at belmontshore.patch.com and one day later, the 11th, he chose to repeat his false information here in this comment thread.
“The Patch” corrected this false report on May 12th, stating “Contrary to rumors, no minors were involved in the incident…”
The Patch’s “rumors” in this area came from Mr. Ruehle, who took full and sole credit for them in a comment to the 5/12 Patch article. Mr. Ruehle’s comment follows:
“Would anyone have known about Rotondo’s bar being cited for overserving people if I had not posted a comment about it? The answer is no.”
In his comment of 5/12, Mr. Ruehle chooses to omit the his false information about the minors. The reasonable presumption being that by 5/12, if not before, he knew his information was false and that The Patch had confirmed it as false.
Yet here we are, a full seven days after Mr. Ruehle initially posted his false information on The Patch, a full six days after Mr. Ruehle repeated his false information here, and a full five days after it is clear from his own comments that he knew his information was false.
Yet no attempt, either here or at The Patch, to correct the record or to retract his false statements. Not even an attempt to *acknowledge* that his information concerning the minors was, and remains, false.
This is indicative of the false, fraudulent and misleading manner in which Mr. Ruehle occasionally chooses to make his arguments. He anxiously and gleefully tosses out unfounded allegations and, later, when they are proven false, he suddenly has nothing to say on the matter. Rather than acknowledge his error, as would be the intellectually honest thing to do, he ignores it. Rather than retract the false statements he posts and attempt to correct the record, which would be the matire and responsible thing to do, he simply moves on to new topics and new false, fraudulent and misleading posts.
Mr. Ruehle alleges that posts of mine like this one indicate that I believe myself to be the “comment board police” and he finds the fact that someone has finally begun to pay very close attention to his comments to be “creepy.”
Neither is the case. I have only recently come to realize the true extent to which Mr. Ruehle likes to play fast and loose with the truth on websites like this and I have decided that someone needs to start calling him on it. So I do. And I will continue to attempt to draw attention to Mr. Ruehle’s false, fraudulent and misleading method of debate and discussion every single time I see evidence of it.
If Mr. Ruehle dislikes this level of critical scrutiny, all he need do is make better efforts to avoid posting false information on public websites such as this and make better efforts to acknowledge his errors and to correct the record whenever he makes a mistake.