Letters to the Editor: Oct. 20, 2011

A town of family members

The town of Seal Beach is not just a town of people, it’s a town of family members. We lost eight members of our family. There is no way to explain the senseless loss of life we have experienced nor is there any easy way to comfort our family members and friends who are suffering because of this tragic loss.

Right now our family is broken-hearted, but like any family, we are coming together to hold each other, comfort each other and letting the healing process begin.

The cowardly acts of a single person will not break our family, it will only bring us closer together and make us stronger.

God bless the family members we have lost and may they rest in peace. God bless the families and friends of everyone involved. May God help us in our time of need and help us repair our broken hearts. Let’s all come together and show the world what a great family we are.

Mike Haley,


Seal Beach Lion Club

Senseless loss

Our sleepy town of Seal Beach has been paralyzed by the horrific tragedy at Salon Meritage. It was a senseless, despicable loss of lives. The deceased will never be forgotten. Unfortunately, mother time stops for no one.

The close friends and families must learn to live a “new” life. They will navigate their lives with a broken heart. I hope they will seek physical, psychological, social and spiritual support. The grief highway is a never-ending road. We lost our 15-year-old son. It is excruciating pain and sadness. My heart goes out to all involved in this unspeakable tragedy.

Nancy Barras

Seal Beach

A town mourns

The city was crying the sound of sirens

People were hurt and I’m sure, they’re friends I know

The whole town was thinking the same thing that day

As more info learned, all hearts sank to a low

They were friends and neighbors we saw every day

A big part of our lives went missing that day

They were friends and neighbors and family too

We all need support and what will we do

School’s back to normal with kids acting like kids

The familiar tiki and evil it rids

Shopping brings neighbors close to talk of events

Restaurants and salons trying to make sense

They were friends and neighbors everybody knew

We are all together almost stuck with glue

They were friends and neighbors we watch out for each

Use old-fashioned values Rockwell by the beach

Chuck Stone

Seal Beach

From Patty’s Place

Patty’s Place would like to thank the community and our great and loyal customers for their generous support and contributions to the David Caouette Family. We would also like to express deep gratitude to our local police department, both for their professional and emotional support during this entire event.

We are honored to be part of this special community. A giving group of people that opens its hearts and wallets, and will not allow this moment in time to define the Seal Beach we love.

Patty and Ron Sesler

Patty’s Place

Editor’s note: The following are excerpts from some of the comments posted at sunnews.org concerning the Oct. 12 shootings. 


“I am greatly saddened by these events. My heart goes out to all the victims and their families.”

Robert Ostrow

Custody battle

A custody battle gone south and now the kid loses his mother and father. She’s dead and he’s off to jail for the rest of his life, if he doesn’t get the death penalty for special circumstances. Sad.

PTC Bernie


Very sad. My heart goes out to the entire community.

Citizen X

Park going to the dogs

Can they just call Gum Grove what it really is: a dog park.

I know there are “Keep your dog on a leash” signs posted at the entrance of the “Nature Park.” But there are only a few people who actually honor that sign.

Every time I have been to Gum Grove I have seen at least one dog off its leash.  I can’t tell you how many doggy landmines I have had to avoid.  I’m not angry at all. I really think they should turn the whole park into a “Dog Park,” or a part of it. I just think people should be aware when they are walking into an area where dogs may be off their leash.

I don’t know of any instances where someone has been bitten, but all it takes is one, and someone’s life is changed forever.

My sons have not grown up with dogs and do not know how to act around dogs off their leash.

And more than once we have been in the park and a dog has run up on my sons and they were extremely frightened. And we all know what dogs do when they smell fear. I’m glad I am aware of it. I think all who enter the park deserve to know it’s a nature/dog park.

Chani Demello

Seal Beach

Sun informs on LW

“Lawsuit filed against Leisure World Mutual 2” is the headline of a news article that appears in the Thursday, Oct. 13 issue of the SUNNewspapers.

The report by Charles M. Kelly that appears on page 3 of that week’s Sun is very informative.  Kelly’s reporting is both fair and factual, and includes citations from the complaint filed by attorney Steven P. Rice on behalf of his clients Carol Franz and Edmund Loritz, as well as quotes by Margarita Bahr, president of Mutual Corporation No. Two, the defendant in the case. As accurately reported by Kelly, Franz and Loritz want the Superior Court to determine whether or not Mutual Two is an “association” as defined by the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act that is part of the California Civil Code.

One flaw in the article is that it reports, “Bahr said that two attorneys have advised the Mutual Two board that they cannot stipulate to what Franz and Loritz want … ” without any explanation of the “stipulated judgment” that attorney Rice has diligently attempted to negotiate with Mutual Two’s legal counsel in order to achieve a quick and low-cost resolution to the civil complaint filed with the court.

The Mutual Two board certainly has the authority to resolve this lawsuit for a cost of likely significantly less than $20,000 in legal expenses by simply instructing their corporate legal counsel to seek agreement on a “stipulated judgment.”

Bahr’s statement that the Mutual’s attorneys have advised “the language in Mutual 2’s governing documents” prevents them from negotiating a stipulated judgment, fails to note it is that language that is central to the dispute between the parties.

A very expensive court trial seems inevitable if Mutual Two holds to its contention that because it was organized pursuant to the  “General Corporations Law”, it must be held to be a “for-profit” corporation.

Therefore, they reason, it would not be subject to a strictly literal interpretation of the Davis-Stirling Act’s definition of an “association” of a common interest development.

The other side of that argument is that each of the Seal Beach Mutual’s Articles of Incorporation include specific “purpose” statements that they are to operate on “a non-profit basis” and also on “a mutual benefit basis.”

Those are strange requirements for a truly “for-profit” corporation, especially one with the word “Mutual” in its official name.

Aside from the word “Mutual” being the proverbial “elephant in the room” to those advocating Mutual Two’s position, there is no declarative statement in the Davis-Stirling Act that a “for-profit” corporation CANNOT be an “association.”

The act does, however, specifically list a “stock-cooperative” as one of four types of developments in its definition of a “common interest development” to be subject to the provisions of the act.

Mutual Two’s attorneys contend that any “stock-cooperative” MUST be incorporated as a “for-profit” corporation due to the fact that it has “stock-holders” or “shareholders,” in contrast to their contention that a “non-profit” corporation CANNOT have shareholders.

If that is true, surely the California State Legislature, historically a bastion of attorneys, would have been aware of that distinction when they wrote and approved the act which includes “stock-cooperatives” in its definition of common interest developments.  So it would seem that the legislative intent is clear, and courts usually enforce what they perceive to be “legislative intent” when ruling on issues related to statutory law.

It is unfortunate that Bahr offered for quotation in the Sun her opinion that “it was unneighborly and self-serving of Franz and Loritz to file the lawsuit.”

Franz and Loritz actually have nothing to gain from this lawsuit other than the possibility of a court judgment that definitively provides them with the consumer protections of the Davis-Stirling act. It should also be noted that if Franz and Loritz prevail, the ruling of the court would not only provide the two of them with Davis-Stirling protections, but also to ALL shareholders of their mutual.

What could possibly be more neighborly than that?

David Lyon

Leisure World, Mutual 9


The Sun encourages submissions of Letters to the Editor. Letters should be no more than 300 words. Letters should be e-mailed and signed by the author and include the author’s address and phone number (the latter two are for verification, not publication).  The Sun reserves the right to accept, edit, or reject letters for any reason. All letters sent to the Sun are understood to be intended for publication. E-mail letters to: dennis@sunnews.org. Mail letters to 216 Main St., Seal Beach, CA 90740.