DESPITE DENIALS, DELONG PUSHING ABC TO RESTRICT 2ND STREET BARS
By Dave Wielenga
GreaterLongBeach.com has obtained a copy of a March 18 letter from Long Beach City Councilmember Gary DeLong to the top local official of the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) that seems to run contrary to his repeated assertions that he has not used his office to pressure the ABC to be tougher on Belmont Shore bars.
DeLong’s three-page letter to ABC District Administrator Vincent E. Cravens is written on City of Long Beach stationery—bearing the city seal and identifying DeLong as “Councilmember, Third District”–which emphasizes his elected office and adds the aura of an official position to what are merely his personal opinions.
DeLong couches those opinions in incomplete and misleading information which he first uses to badmouth a yet-to-open Belmont Shore bar and grill and then uses as the basis for his request that Cravens push the ABC to restrict the establishment’s alcohol license with 15 conditions. Finally, just before painstakingly laying out the specifics of those 15 conditions, DeLong expresses his hope that his council office and Craven’s state department “can work together.”
The letter seems to correspond with what until now seemed like a conspiracy theory by Belmont Shore business leader and bar owner Gene Rotondo, whose two months of loud and relentless accusations charge that DeLong is inappropriately using the influence of his public office—on city departments and commissions, as well as outside entities like the ABC—to abet a personal vendetta that targets five Belmont Shore bars.
DeLong has flatly denied each of Rotondo’s sometimes-histrionic attacks—which have come in newspapers, via mass e-mail and in City Council chambers—and over time his calm-but-firm manner was becoming increasingly convincing. But the discovery of the March 18 letter to the ABC—which DeLong never mentioned in any of his denials—may change that.
GreaterLongBeach.com acquired a copy of DeLong’s letter to the ABC as part of a file of public documents requested while investigating the dramatic and so-far-unexplained collapse of a significant pillar in the 3rd District power structure—an alliance among DeLong, a few major Belmont Shore land owners and a handful of bar proprietors who tend to have a huge influence on decision-making by the Belmont Shore Business Association.
The explosiveness of the breakup is epitomized by a series of accusations and denials and counterattacks between DeLong and Rotondo, the 14-year president of the Belmont Shore Business Association and longtime proprietor of Legends.
Press Telegram columnist Doug Krikorian was the first to report on the controversy. The second, too, as a matter of fact. Just a couple of samples from Krikorian’s two columns on the subject pretty well establish the dueling tones and perspectives in this showdown.
From Rotondo on May 9: “If Gary had his way, he would like to see my place [Legends], as well as Shannon’s, the Acapulco Inn, Panama Joe’s and Dogz all stop serving alcohol at midnight. He has his sights on implementing more restrictions and control over our operations.”
From DeLong on May 9, when asked if he were seeking to stop liquor sales at midnight: “Absolutely not. If that comes about, that means we all would have failed in our quest to solve the problems we have in Belmont Shore.”
From Rotondo on June 6: “To have power and not use it is wrong. To have power and misuse it is a sin. And this is what Gary DeLong has done. He’s misused his power. And I’ve had enough.”
From DeLong on June 6: “I wish I had the authority Gene thinks I have. Yes, I’ve brought up my concerns to the city manager (Pat West) about complaints I’ve received from some citizens who live in Belmont Shore about late-night rowdiness. At the end of the day, I’ve been trying to do what I was elected to do … I don’t have the power to tell the police department or the ABC what to do. That kind of power doesn’t come out of the council office.”
Nonetheless, one of the five bars that Rotondo includes among DeLong’s targets is Dogz Bar and Grill—the place DeLong badmouthed in his letter to the ABC district administrator.
The eat-and-drinkery is located at 5300 East Second Street, a building previously inhabited briefly by Club EVO, and known for nearly 30 years before that as Belmont Station. It’s a piece of longtime Belmont Shore Parking Commissioner Bill Lorbeer’s sizeable Second Street holdings.
The new proprietor is Norm Turley, who recently retired after 33 years on the Long Beach Police Department. When contacted by GreaterLongBeach.com, Turley declined to be quoted for this story. He would only confirm that Dogz Bar and Grill opened for business on April 12.
Although DeLong sent his March 18 letter to the ABC three weeks before that April 12 opening, the councilmember nonetheless wrote that “this establishment has been a nuisance to the surrounding neighborhood for years.”
DeLong was almost certainly referring to complaints about previous establishments at that address—EVO and Belmont Station—but he didn’t make that clear to the ABC … and the validity of those complaints is not proven, anyway.
In the next paragraph, DeLong plays even more loosely with the facts. He tells Cravens, “The location has had many problems, with the revocation of its entertainment license being the result.”
But Linda Guthmann Krieger, who presided over the hearing on what was then EVO’s entertainment permit, emphasized in her report—-which was among the public records obtained by GreaterLongBeach.com—that nuisance charges were not proven. Krieger revoked the entertainment license on Oct. 29, 2010, because of clerical errors that then-owner Gary Roth made while filling out paperwork.
Wrote Krieger:
“First, the City did not show information that, if known, would have warranted the denial of the issuance of the permit at the time the application was made. The most the testimony showed was that certain things could have affected the approval of the permit. Second … a nuisance has not been demonstrated. Third, while there are errors, it is not clear that Gary Roth knowingly made false statements in the permit or business license applications. Finally, other than updating the City regarding changes, it has not been shown that the permittee failed to comply with conditions imposed regarding the issuance of the permit.”
However incomplete and misleading, the information in DeLong’s letter to Cravens is clearly the basis of his request that the ABC impose a list of conditions on Dogz’ license to serve alcohol.
“ABC has been provided with the historical evidence,” DeLong writes,” and I am hoping that we can work together to ensure that Dogz Bar and Grill will be a good neighbor.”
DeLong’s list of conditions would define, restrict or eliminate a wide range of customer activities and business procedures at Dogz Bar and Grill. Examples: only one television would be allowed in the entire restaurant, while pool tables and video games would be completely banned. Live entertainment and dancing would be prohibited. The proprietor would be required to install a video surveillance system to the as-yet-undefined specifications of the Long Beach Police Chief (as well as the directors of two other city departments), and the information on that system would have to be Internet-accessible to the Long Beach Police Department (LBPD) on demand. Alcohol could only be sold between 11 a.m. and midnight, and the dollar-amount of food sales would always have to surpass sales of alcoholic drinks.
And then there is the condition, No. 4 on the list, which would seem to demand that Dogz violate some law of science. It reads: “Sound shall not be audible within fifty feet from the exterior of the premises in any direction.”
That’s right, DeLong wrote “within fifty feet.” Looks like a clerical error—a stupid mistake, but certainly forgivable … unless somebody happens to commit it on an entertainment permit.
UNEDITED TEXT OF DELONG’S LETTER AND REQUESTED CONDITIONS
March 18, 2011
Dear Mr. Cravens,
I am writing in regard to the establishment located at 5300 East Second Street. The permittee is known as Dogz Bar and Grill, previously Club EVO, and before that, Belmont Station. This establishment has been a nuisance to the surrounding neighborhood for several years.
The current ABC license has no attached conditions, which has led to negative impacts on its neighbors. The location has had many problems, with the revocation of its entertainment license being the result. ABC has been provided with the historical evidence and I am hoping that we can work together to ensure that Dogz Bar and Grill will be a good neighbor.
Accordingly, I am requesting that the following set of conditions be placed on Dogz Bar and Grill.
1. The petitioner(s) shall be responsible for maintaining free of litter the area adjacent to the premises over which they have control.
2. The permittee shall not allow employees to discard trash or bottles into the outside dumpsters between the hours of 10 p.m. and 8 a.m.
3, There shall be no exterior advertising promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages.
4. Sound shall not be audible within 50 feet (50’) from the exterior of the premises in any direction.
5. Petitioner shall police the area under control to prohibit and prevent the loitering of persons immediately outside the establishment at all times.
6. Sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted only between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight, seven days a week.
7. The quarterly gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed the gross sales of food during the same period. The licensee shall at all times maintain records which reflect separately the gross sales of food and the gross sales of alcoholic beverages of the licensed business. Said records shall be kept no less frequently than on a quarterly basis and shall be made available to the Department on demand.
8. The sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises is strictly prohibited.
9. No “happy hour” type of reduced price alcoholic beverage promotion shall be allowed.
10. There shall be no pool or billiard tables, amusement machines or video game devices and a limit of one (1) television in the premises at any time.
11. No live entertainment or dancing, no disc jockey and no amplified music or stereo systems shall be permitted on the premises at any time.
12. The permittee shall install and maintain a video surveillance system that monitors no less than the front and rear of the business with full view of the public right-of-ways and any parking lot under the control of the permittee. The video system must be capable of delineating on playback the activity and physical features of a persona and areas within the premises. Recordings shall be retained for a minimum of 30 days and be accessible via the internet by the Long Beach police Department. A Public Internet Protocol (IP) address and user name/password is also required to allow the Long Beach Police Department to view live and recorded video from these cameras over the internet. All video security cameras shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police, Director of Technology Services, and Director of Development Services. At the discretion of the Chief of Police, the permittee may be required to add additional video cameras.
13. During the hours of operations, the rear door(s) of the establishment shall remain closed at all times except to accept deliveries and in cases of emergency. The rear door(s) shall be constructed of a solid material to help reduce noise pollution and shall not consist solely of a screen or ventilated security door. All doors at secondary and emergency entrances and exits not oriented toward 2nd Street shall be closed by 10:00PM except during bona fide emergencies.
14. Security personnel shall be provided at the main entrances and exits after 10:00 PM to one hour after closing.
15. The permittee shall ensure that a security guard monitor and check the property adjacent to, and the parking lots south of 2nd Street between Glendora and Pomona Avenues on an hourly basis after 8:00 p.m. each night of the week. Security shall maintain order and prevent the unlawful consumption of alcohol. Security shall prevent any activity that would interfere with the quiet enjoyment of any nearby residential property. Security guards must be identifiable as establishment employees.
27 Comments
Councilman DeLong not telling the truth. How is that a surprise?
DeLong claiming to want to “work together,” while at the same time demanding things be done his way. How is that a surprise?
I can’t remember the number of times I experienced these same counter productive and relationship shredding actions by DeLong while I was the Belmont Shore Residents Association President and was asking for his help dealing with the problem bars.
So ironic how things have turned around from DeLong’s blind support of these problem bars. All because Rotundo and the Lorbeer family got too big for their britches and thought they could tell DeLong what to do. Karma.
Maybe DeLong has a right to be concerned about Norm Turley, the new business owner of Dogz (formerly Belmont Station). According to the below link to a 2009 court case, Turley appears to have been a Long Beach Police Officer who FALSIFIED EVIDENCE in a rape case leading to a wrongful conviction of Leonard McSherry. (Leonard McSherry v. City of Long Beach. Case Number: 06-55837 (see below link)). After 14 years in prison, McSherry was exonerated by DNA evidence and a confession by the actual perpetrator.
http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?d=39505&n=06-55837&s=CA
The judge granted Turley immunity from prosecution and civil penalties because he was a cop. Meanwhile, the city of Long Beach agreed to pay McSherry $6 million. Afterwards, the police department continued to employ Turley even though he was found in court to have lied and wrongfully sent a person to prison. Turley retired from LBPD in 2010 with a full disabilty pension.
Prior to that, it appears Turley was sued by the Franchise State Tax Board in 1992 for falsifying tax returns.
http://www.boe.ca.gov/meetings/pdf/hearingsummaries/Item_B_Turley_Norman_C_358653_sum.pdf
It appears Turley was also sued in 1999 by Farmers & Merchants Bank for defaulting on a business loan.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1069013.html
To top it off, Turley’s Long Beach (not Belmont Shore) home went into foreclosure in 2009. Turley received a “Notice of Default” on October 7, 2009. The total loan balance of $647,196 became due (also to Farmers & Merchants Bank). Turley then received two auction “Notice of Trustee Sales” dates, one on June 4, 2010 and the other on August 17, 2010. The house was never auctioned off because a “Notice of Rescission” was filed on 12/22/10 that cancelled the foreclosure, just about the time he bought the Belmont Station business.
It appears Mr. Turley fits the mold the Lorbeer family seeks when leasing their Belmont Station business.
Prior to their opening on April 12th, Dogz advertised their business as a “family oriented restaurant.” That seems almost comical after reading following email sent 2-weeks after their opening.
—–Forwarded Message—–
From: XXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Apr 26, 2011 6:24 PM
To: “Gary.DeLong@longbeach.gov DeLong”
Cc: John Forstrom , Julie Maleki , Erik Sund , Joseph Toney , xxxxx@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Dogz Bar and Grill
Gary,
Our new neighbors, Dogz, had three lovely ladies standing in front of their establishment this evening between 5:30 and 6:00, clad in black tank tops, fishnet stockings, black knee-high leather boots and short-shorts, pitching $3.50 Jaggermeister shots. Apparently one man’s version of a family restaurant is another man’s bar. So was this what you had in mind when you and the Loebers “hand-picked” this business for 2nd Street?
XXXXXXXX
DeLong is certainly justified in his recent actions, no matter how late and negligent they may be.
Take for instance Ernest Raymond Rodriguez, who was shot three times by Long Beach Police Officer Jon Steinhauser in front of Legends Bar for RESISTING ARREST. Bar owner Gene Rotundo backed the police claims they were justified in shooting Rodriguez because he had taken Officer Steinhauser’s (School Superintendent Chris Steinhauser’s nephew) police baton away and was threatening his life. However, after interviewing witnesses, the LA County DA didn’t see it that way and only filed resisting arrest charges.
I’m also told witnesses have testified Rodriguez had been drinking and was possibly overserved in Legends bar prior to being shot. Legends owner Rotundo claimed in his Press Telegram interview that Rodriguez had not been in his bar.
Imagine how lucky other people on the crowded sidewalk were to not have been shot by Officer Steinhauser. Meanwhile, Rodriguez is suing the City of Long Beach for more of our taxpayer’s dollars. Guess how many $millions that will cost?
Why should us taxpayers have to pay for this? Why shouldn’t the bar that overserved Mr. Rodriguez have to pay? Why wasn’t Officer Steinhauser fired for nearly killing Rodriguez and passerbyers on the sidewalk?
While president of the Belmont Shore Residents Association from 2007 to 2009, I received the following number of email complaints from residents about 2nd street bars, most of which I forwarded to Councilman DeLong and Police Commander Renaud.
Legends Bar – 159
Belmont Station – 98
Panama Joes – 62
Alcapulco Inn – 51
Bayshore Saloon – 7
I still have those email complaints in case DeLong forgot about them or erased them as he so frequently did back in those days when he was blindly supporting his bar owner buddies.
Mr. W, would you be willing to link to a .pdf copy of the DeLong letter so we can all read it, in its entirety, for ourselves?
“DeLong is inappropriately using the influence of his public office—on city departments and commissions, as well as outside entities like the ABC”
which rotundo had no problem with when it benefited him.
Mr. G. Just updated the story to include complete, unedited text of letter and conditions.
Thank you, sir!
Delongs comment about changing district lines.
Councilman DeLong: “Unfortunate…appears based on input of special interest groups. If we wanted gerrymandered districts, we could have stayed with the previous method of having politicians draw the boundaries.”
So you don’t like the restrictive changes that some group demands because it would effect your ‘bottom line’ (voters)?
Hey Doug, now you know how Gene feels .
Was your primary goal here simply to stick it to Delong? Not that I am opposed to you doing that – but you are way off base on this issue Dave.
1) Krieger revoked the entertainment license on Oct. 29, 2010
- Incorrect. She recommended revocation. The city council – after reviewing the report and hearing testimony from residents – was the entity that voted to revoke the license.
2) Krieger revoked the entertainment license on Oct. 29, 2010 because of clerical errors that then-owner Gary Roth made while filling out paperwork.
- Incorrect. According to the hearing officers report – “It is hereby recommended that the current entertainment permit of CNR Holdings be
revoked due to changes in the operation, which exceed the conditions of the approved permit.
Other findings cited in her report, but not mentioned in your story;
*On April 3, 2007, when City Council granted the herein permit, it was not advised of a large fight which occurred at CNR on February 17, 2007, and resulted in multiple arrests, injury to Mr. Roth, and a victim lying unconscious in a pool of blood.
• Since April 3, 2007, CNR incidents requiring police services included a violent fight involving a CNR security guard who was arrested and convicted of felony assault, drunken patrons, public urination, fights, loitering, and after hour entertainment.
• Due to increased calls for service, the Police Department elevated patrol.
Delong’s letter to Mr. Cravens was an attempt to cut off the potential for similar problems occurring again at this location. Now that the entertainment permit has been revoked – there are (0) operating conditions in place for Dogz due to a grandfathered conditional use permit (CUP). The norm in most cities conditions is to attach conditions to a CUP to ensure there is a way to address a bad operator. The problem is that there is no process to attach conditions to an existing CUP in Long Beach – even if the business changes owners.
Delong, at the request of a significant number of residents, asked the ABC to add conditions to their alcohol license…which was the only means he had to protect the residents from future problems at this location.
You are looking in the wrong direction Dave – Delong is not operating in a vacuum here. He has this one right.
PS. Here’s a fun fact regarding the hearing officer Ms. Krieger’s work ethic. She fell asleep 3 times during the first afternoon of the revocation hearing. Anne Cramer from Councilman Delong’s office took a picture of her sleeping with her cell phone during testimony.
What’s the big deal? DeLong is ONLY requesting conditions of approval based on input from community. The Planning Commission was recently directed by the Council to provide their own recommendations.
Long Beach is behind the curve on this. There is a growing list of cities that have recently added these type of restrictions to bar and restaurants with entertainment to deal with alcohol related violence, DUIs, noise problems, and nuisances. Alcohol is a restricted product Federal, State, and Local.
Rotondo’s solution that Legends… “We kick out people who have drank too much.” after he makes money over-serving alcohol pretty much says it all about the bar owner’s denial that they are the problem . http://www.presstelegram.com/ci_18217918?IADID=Search-www.presstelegram.com-www.presstelegram.com
Another alternate solution is to bill the bars every time the police are called when ever there is a noise, violence, or alcohol service violation. And a large fee could be added to their permits to pay for the extra police, DUI inspection and lawsuits resulting from dealing with the drunks. The ports charge a per truck fee how about a per drink drunk mitigation fee.
If you bothered to listen to the Council discussion on bar conditions of approval, according to the Police Chief’s statistics Legends and their customers are the worst offenders in Belmont Shore. Here is a YouTube video of a female bar patron peeing on local streets http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ICX28cVaG4&feature=related
What made this newsworthy are the council member’s mischaracterizations of 1) his positions on Belmont Shore bars; 2) his interactions with other city departments and the ABC regarding Belmont Shore bars; and 3) the reason the location lost its entertainment license (as communicated to the ABC).
What I find interesting (maybe not newsworthy) is how the Lorbeer family eludes all scrutiny when the businesses they lease to – Legends and Evo – cause a significant resource drain on the police and problems for the residents.
How are they not held responsible for the tenants they bring in?
After the Evo debacle Bill Lorbeer was pitching the Dogz concept as a family style restaurant that would close at midnight.
What they opened was a bar, closing at 2am with an owner who openly tells people he will be re-applying for the entertainment permit in 1 yr.
Gary Delong is just another in a long line of people who have stopped believing the lies spread by the Lorbeer family and Gene Rotundo.
Like Mike R. said – Delong’s late to the party, but now he’s getting it right.
Club Evo got it’s lifetime entertainment license yanked in part because per his permit he was supposed to be operating as a restaurant. At the hearing Roth was able to produce only one food service invoice to suggest that he was a restaurant not a bar. The guy got this permit by stating that he was going to open a high end steak restaurant. Instead he closed the kitchen after 9 pm and operated as a bar in violation of this permit.
Roth’s own attorney did not show up at the hearing…was this to avoid hearing the guy perjure himself? In fact the hearing the city attorney called his office to make sure he was aware that his client was not represented and the guy hung up on her. During his testimony Roth denied any wrongdoings, including failing to get construction permits for expanding the bar and adding seating around the dance floor (which blocked the kitchen), operating as bar not a restaurant. Roth spent most of his time saying that their was no alcohol problem and blamed DeLong (who supported his business with the original entertainment permit).
The hearing kept getting delayed because the owners were suing each other and their own lawsuits and accusations towards each other were submitted into testimony.
What got Club Evo’s lifetime entertainment license revoked was Gary’s Roth’s (Club Evo’s business owner) spit and argue column 18 months ago in the Grunion Gazette that called Councilman DeLong a liar.
During DeLong’s re-election campaign, DeLong was repeatedly asked what happened to the “fine steak and seafood restaruant” he had promised at the Belmont Station location. DeLong had made this promise to get Belmont Station its entertainment license when Gary Roth bought into the business. DeLong’s repeated response to this pointed question was “the bar owners lied to me.”
Even though it was true, apparently DeLong’s statement upset Gary Roth enough to write that column in the Gazette, challenging DeLong’s integrity, just before the election which resulted in Roth not only shooting his own foot, but also the feet of his landlord Bill Lorbeer and his business partner Gene Rotundo.
If one thing can be said for DeLong, he is retaliatory, especially if his judgement is questioned in public like what Roth did with Lorbeer’s and Rotundo’s support.
The bar owners had DeLong’s blind support until then. However, the tides changed soon after DeLong’s re-election. As a result, Roth is now bar manager at Don in the Beachcomber in Sunset Beach and Rotund is soon to be gone to Vegas.
City Council may have stripped Club Evo of its entertainment permit. However, that decision would never have gone before City Council if not for DeLong’s decision to inflict pain upon the bar owners for embarrassing him during his election campaign.
Very good discussion here, Mr. W! Nicely done, sir.
De Long is notoriously two faced. What he says in public and what he says in private are often completely different. He is in bed with big money people who’s agenda becomes his agenda.
Why not install breathalyzers in each bar. After midnight, if you want a drink, you have to prove you are not over the limit? If the problem is (mainly) that folks drink too much and get loud and sick in the neighborhood, prevent them from drinking too much. It might also have the benefit of preventing some folks from driving around drunk.
Now I know some will say this is overreaching and will drive away business. I say, try it and see, you can always reverse the process if business goes elsewhere.
If you aren’t drunk, no problem. If you are, you shouldn’t be allowed to drink any more.
I suggest we re-district Mr. Delong into the “10th” district.
Citizen Journalist Quote of the Day – What Is Citizen Journalism?
“The idea behind citizen journalism is that people without professional journalism training can use the tools of modern technology and the global distribution of the Internet to create, augment or fact-check media on their own or in collaboration with others.
“There is some controversy over the term citizen journalism, because many professional journalists believe that only a trained journalist can understand the rigors and ethics involved in reporting the news. And conversely, there are many trained journalists who practice what might be considered citizen journalism by writing their own blogs or commentary online outside of the traditional journalism hierarchy.
“One of the main concepts behind citizen journalism is that mainstream media reporters and producers are not the exclusive center of knowledge on a subject — the audience knows more collectively than the reporter alone.”
(Source: “MediaShift –- Your Guide to Citizen Journalism” by Mark Glaser, September, 2006)
(Note: In his book “We the Media,” Dan Gillmor traces the roots of citizen journalism to the founding of the United States in the 18th century, when pamphleteers such as Thomas Paine and the anonymous authors of the Federalist Papers gained prominence by printing their own publications.)
Hey Big Mike,
How does it feel to have someone else be THE asshole of Belmont Shore? Are you missing the attention? What a place…only in wrong beach!
It’s a tough title to hold on to in Belmont Shore. However, there are many, many contenders.
Well, my vote for THE BS ASSHOLE goes to dewrong, with rotund not too far behind. Sorry Mike.
oops hold on, where does the greet live?
Ah yes…the eternal tone of incivility, insult, and discourtesy from the more liberal among us. Nicely done, Mr. wrong, you do your political philosophy proud!
Isn’t it coincidental how DeLong has SUDDENLY become responsive to the public and residents. Where was this behavior his first term as Councilman? How much does this have to do with his recently announced election run for Congress?
DeLong is the same guy who typically is nowhere to be found during public comment periods at the beginning of each Council meeting. DeLong is the same guy who facebooks while the public is commenting on agenda items in City Council meetings. DeLong is the same guy who walks out of Council meetings when the final public comment period occurs at the end. So why the sudden change?
DeLong’s new-found involvement in residents issues with problem bars and city staff communications is only occurring because residents provide the votes he will need to be elected to Congress. The problem bar owners can’t vote for him because they don’t live in Long Beach. Otherwise, DeLong would still be ignoring resident issues like he did his entire first term as Councilman.
Mr. DeLong and his staff have always been responsive, just not always particularly effective at dealing with the bar-related challenges on 2nd Street.
Nor are Councilmembers omnipotent. There are statutory limits on the authority we grant them, and rightly so.
Unless I am mistaken, Mr. DeLong has publicly expressed his regret that he has not been as effective as he would have liked in dealing with the challenges along 2nd Street. As far as I am concerned, better late than never. Whatever he and his staff do accomplish during the balance of his Council tenure will serve as a foundation of balanced efforts upon which his successor will be able to build.
Going forward, I think this can only be a good thing for all concerned.