The Fireworks Money Won

Imagine that! I want to thank everyone who helped out on the Yes on Measure D effort. Again it was grass roots and had no where near the money the fireworks company dumped into this. There were 19,707 total Measure D votes cast out of 41,000 registered voters. That is a 48% turnout which is quite good. In fact more people voted on the fireworks measure when compared to the other two parking measures. Yes on D also did not do that bad when compared to the loosing side on the parking measures. If you look at the $40,000 spent by the fireworks companies that is about $3.35 per yes vote. Not bad when you consider the hundreds of thousands of dollars they will reap in years to come from selling smoke and sparks.

One thing to keep in mind is that if you extrapolate these election figures out to the entire population of Lakewood that is over 32,000 residents that STILL WANT TO BAN ALL FIREWORKS. That is a large number of taxpayers.

Which brings me to my next point. Mayor Van Nostran (30 years on the council) said on the Lakewood webpage "And there will be no return to the situation in past years, when fireworks turned too many neighborhoods into virtual battlegrounds. The city council will deploy – and expand as necessary – a vigorous Sheriff-led public safety presence in the weeks before July 4, 2007."

Of course that same vigorous sheriff enforcement is what led to the Dunrobin Miller Explosion in the first place! Also missing from the Mayor's statement is just what will be cut from the city budget every year from now on to hire all the additional officers to make sure all the "safe and sane" users have a good time burning up their money while at the same time chasing the illegal users. We all know from the last 10 years before July 2006 how successful that campaign has been!

LAAG will continue to monitor the situation as it develops. And there are still many other issues in the city that need "action" and "accountability".

The parking issues appear to be on the right track for now but surely the ball will get dropped in the enforcement and in the details of the implementation. We also still have on property parking to deal with in a city chocked full of eyesores.


As of Date: 11/08/2006 Time: 04:01 Votes Percent

LAKEWOOD MEASURE

D - PROHIBITION OF FIREWORKS - YES 7,659 38.86
(MAJORITY OF VOTES CAST) - NO 12,049 61.14

F - PROHIBIT TRAILR ST PRKING - YES 13,798 70.80
(MAJORITY OF VOTES CAST) - NO 5,692 29.20

C - PROHIBIT RV STREET PRKING - YES 13,128 67.56
(MAJORITY OF VOTES CAST) - NO 6,304 32.44

TOTAL PRECINCTS 57 PRECINCTS REPORTING 57 100.00
REGISTRATION 41,000

Litigation filed against American Promotional Events, Inc (TNT fireworks in CA)

Below is a list of all civil cases filed by and against American Promotional Events, (APE) Inc. in all federal courts in the USA. APE does business in CA under the name "TNT Fireworks". It does not include state court suits or claims not yet in litigation. There may also be personal injury cases against APE in these cases below. Of particular interest are the cases by the city of Rialto and City of Colton (in bold type below). In those cases APE is being accused by the cities of contaminating the groundwater with the chemical Perchlorate, which is used in fireworks. From an 11/2/06 story in the San Bernardino County Sun, it was reported that "Perchlorate has spread from properties in north Rialto, contaminating wells in both cities. The cost of cleaning up the entire Rialto-Colton basin is expected to run into the hundreds of millions of dollars." The Colton case was dismissed due to a federal procedural issue and may be re-filed in state court. The Rialto case will move forward in Federal Court.

Vote YES on Measure D


Civil Name Search Results
22 Total Party matches for selection AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL EVENTS for ALL COURTS
Search done Fri Nov 3 13:04:27 2006

Name Court Case No. Filed NOS Closed
1 AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL EVENTS INC alndce 3:2003cv00032 01/07/2003 190 02/23/2004
American Promotional v. Eckerd Corporation

2 AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL EVENTS INC scdce 2:1999cv00171 01/20/1999 360 04/14/2000
Lennen, et al v. Dillard Department

3 AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL EVENTS INC wawdce 2:1995cv00743 05/15/1995 840 04/15/1996
Pyrodyne American, et al v. Western Fireworks

4 AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL EVENTS INC wawdce 2:1995cv00743 05/15/1995 840 04/15/1996
Pyrodyne American, et al v. Western Fireworks

5 AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL EVENTS INC alndce 3:2000cv03515 12/06/2000 442 12/11/2001
Pritchard v. American Promotional

6 AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL EVENTS INC-WEST cacdce 5:2004cv00079 01/21/2004 893
City of Rialto v. United States Department of Defense

7 AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL EVENTS INC-WEST cacdce 2:2005cv01479 02/28/2005 890
Colton City of v. American Promotional Events Inc-West

8 AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL EVENTS INC-WEST cacdce 2:2005cv01479 02/28/2005 890
Colton City of v. American Promotional Events Inc-West

9 AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL EVENTS OF ALABAMA INC wawdce 3:1999cv05338 06/25/1999 840 07/02/1999 American Promotional v. Thunder Fireworks, et al

10 AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL EVENTS OF ALABAMA INC. ohndce 4:1999cv00776 04/02/1999 840 05/18/1999 Amer Promo Events AL v. BJ Alan Company Inc.

11 AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL EVENTS OF ALABAMA INC. ohndce 4:1999cv02371 10/04/1999 840 03/02/2000 B. J. Alan Company v. Amer Promo Events AL

12 AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL EVENTS OF ALABAMA, INC. ksdce 2:1999cv02235 06/01/1999 840 06/24/1999 American Promotional v. Jakes Fireworks Inc

13 AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL EVENTS, INC tnedce 3:1997cv00709 09/22/1997 442 12/30/1997
Green v. American Promotional, et al

14 AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL EVENTS, INC tnedce 3:1997cv00710 09/22/1997 442 12/30/1997
Rogers v. American Promotional, et al

15 AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL EVENTS, INC ctdce 3:2001cv01168 06/22/2001 440 07/06/2001
American Promotional v. Spada, et al

16 AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL EVENTS, INC. nddce 4:2006cv00014 03/14/2006 840
American Promotional Events, Inc. v. Gaudreau et al
17 AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL EVENTS, INC. hidce 1:2002cv00018 01/09/2002 840 01/08/2003
American Promotional v. Asia Pacific Trading, et al

18 AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL EVENTS, INC. ncmdce 2:1995cv00535 07/21/1995 840 12/20/1996
AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL v. VICTORY FIREWORKS, et al

19 AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL EVENTS, INC. miwdce 1:2001cv00817 12/17/2001 840 12/02/2002
American Promotional Events, Inc. v. M.T. Sales, Inc. et al

20 AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL EVENTS, INC. laedce 2:1998cv01367 05/06/1998 365 07/14/1998
Malone v. Amer Promotional, et al

21 AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL EVENTS, INC. - EAST insdce 1:2003cv00117 01/27/2003 840 03/25/2004 CELEBRATION FIREWORKS II, INC. v. AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL EVENTS, INC. - EAST et al

22 AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL EVENTS, TEXAS, L.P. txwdce 7:2006cv00082 06/26/2006 440 08/18/2006 Texas Pyrotechnic Association v. Alamo Fireworks Incorporated

VOTE YES on Measure D

Lakewood fireworks debate blazes

Local: Nonprofits say Measure D would cut into their fundraising.

http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_4606155

By Karen Robes, Staff writer
11/04/2006 10:51:49 PM PST

LAKEWOOD - Debate over a ballot measure to ban fireworks here has been heating up in the weeks leading up to Tuesday's election.

In an advertisement opposing the ban, a picture of four girls dressed in the pattern of the American flag accompany the headline: "Do we look like criminals?"

On the other side, one ban supporter's Web site links to graphic pictures of bloodied limbs and faces belonging to fireworks victims.

Arguably the most contentious of the three Lakewood measures on Tuesday's ballot, Measure D aims to outlaw the sale and use of all fireworks, including Safe and Sane fireworks.

Safe and Sanes, which are sanctioned by the state fire marshal and do not explode or leave the ground, are also sold as fundraisers by more than two dozen Lakewood nonprofit organizations.

For many of these groups, the thousands of dollars garnered from fireworks sales fund programs and services and provide college scholarships. For youth sports groups, it keeps registration fees low.

"The sale of these approved fireworks by nonprofit organizations in Lakewood benefits so many community activities that residents of Lakewood and other areas enjoy," Fran Itkoff wrote to the Press-Telegram. "The one unfortunate incident in Lakewood should not jeopardize all the good that is gained in Lakewood by the sale of legal fireworks."

That incident - a March 5 house explosion involving illegal fireworks on Dunrobin Avenue - rekindled the perennial issue citywide and led city officials to place Measure D on the ballot.

Currently, the city allows only nonprofit groups to sell Safe and Sanes from July 1 to July 4. Residents can only ignite them on July 4.

Ban supporters say Measure D would cut down on noise and pollution, help authorities find illegal fireworks offenders and prevent the illegal use of Safe and Sanes.

Steven H., head of Lakewood Accountability Action Group, said there are other fundraising alternatives, including company sponsorship.

"These clubs are addicted to fireworks money. They won't give it up voluntarily," he said. "If this were an argument about clubs selling cigarettes to raise money, there wouldn't be this argument."

John Kelly, vice president of TNT Fireworks, said the measure is unfair to residents who safely celebrate Independence Day with state-approved fireworks.

"It's a tradition that's been in Lakewood for decades," he said. "Los Angeles County Fire statistics support that, in the last five years, there have been no injuries or accidents as a result of Safe and Sane fireworks."

Kelly said most of the problems come from illegal fireworks purchased outside of California or explosive material mixed by amateurs.

"This action is really a spin-off of the Dunrobin event, which in my opinion had absolutely nothing to do with the product that nonprofit organizations and myself sell each Fourth of July," he said.

LAAG said the city should impose a tax for additional law enforcement if Measure D fails at the polls.

"Lakewood should turn around and say, `Look, it's not fair to the residents of this city to tax them for increased police protection because of your fireworks that you insist on selling to raise your money,"' he said. "Because I'm not going to be spending $100,000 of taxpayer money to combat this problem every year."

Karen Robes can be reached at karen.robes@presstelegram.com or (562) 499-1303.

Top Ten Reasons to Vote YES on Measure D

This list is just a summary of all the other posts on this website.

1. Safety. No matter what the fireworks companies say NO fireworks is safer than so called "safe and sane" fireworks. And don't forget about the hundreds of millions in property damage either.

2. Pollution. Noise (for pets and humans, Smoke, Run-off into the ocean (water). Perchlorates (nasty ground water pollutant being battled all over So. Cal.; used in fireworks). Given California's recent "anti-global warming" law passed this fall it is only a matter of time before fireworks are banned.

3. Crime. Brian Miller's attorney used the "war zone" atmosphere and friendly attitude in Lakewood to excuse his obsession with illegal fireworks (which could have been compiled from legal fireworks). Don't let all the 145 others cited in July 2006 for illegal fireworks use use this as an excuse!

4. The big funding scare. 27 Clubs make about $10,000 each per year. Not all that much when you figure their labor and the fireworks company's cut. The fireworks people have spent $40,000 on this campaign against Measure D and one club $250.00. So you figure out who really wants the fireworks. See the post on the truth about funding.

5. Its the right thing to do. Most cities and All counties in So. California ban fireworks. And when you look at the list of cities that allow them its clear that the more "progressive" forward thinking, high property values cities have banned them.

6. Taxes. The city spent $100,000 of all city residents money last year. Including those who don't use or sell fireworks. Why are you "funding" the crime fighting cost if you are not creating the problems? This cost will only rise year after year just like all government "programs".

7. Law Enforcement. Clearly the Sheriff's department was incapable of doing its job and catching the Dunrobin bomber. Given their ineptitude don't you want to make it easier for them to find the illegal users? Legal fireworks are good cover for illegal fireworks and in the heat of "battle" they make it harder to see and catch illegal users.

8. Patriotism. Voting is patriotic. As is flying the flag EVERY day. Serving your country in whatever manner you can. Selling Fireworks made in Chinese sweat shops is not patriotic. (of course none of the No on D fliers ever mentioned patriotism...just money) Like every other holiday it has lost its true meaning and people focus only on the material a$pects.

9.Inefficient fundraising. If each club makes $10,000 selling fireworks and close to 4,000 in real labor costs selling them, it seems that there are much better ways to raise more money from corporate benefactors and at the same time relieve 80,000 people of the "2 days of war" in the streets. (see related article on fund raising).

10. Get ahead of the curve. Do the clubs a favor and eliminate fireworks welfare now and get them on the path to healthy and environmentally friendly fund raising. Its only a matter of time before fireworks go the way of the cigarette in California.

Vote Yes on Measure D

The Facts on Funding

For the clubs supported by TNT Fireworks the issue in this election is simply funding. Not Safety. Not noise, air or water pollution.

Their argument is typical of most campaigns. If we loose fireworks that will be the end of our club. Nonsense.

Lets look at the facts:

* The City Council was ready to ban fireworks outright in March of this year after the Dunrobin explosion. But after some quick mobilization and lobbying by TNT and its "gang of clubs", the city council backed off and let the clubs sell fireworks in July 2006, but telling them to plan for loosing the election in November and to find alternative funding sources in July 2008. So what have the clubs done in that regard? Nothing. Except for letting TNT spend 40,000 to make sure "their" fireworks get sold in 2008.

* Many of these clubs belong to large national organizations like the YMCA. Even if there was no funding assistance there, surely they could seek out funding ideas from other similarly situated clubs.

* There were over 40 clubs selling fireworks in Lakewood before the group was "selectively" whittled down to 27. So what did those clubs do? What about newly formed clubs that cannot get into the fireworks "inner circle"? Did those clubs dry up and blow away? No. The found other funding and cut out overly funded projects.

* No one has ever answered the question about how clubs raise funds in other cities that don't have firework sales. And as you can see from this website, that is the majority of cities in Southern California.

* Sports at all levels is about corporate sponsorship. Look at all the stadiums and arenas that are now named after large companies. Legitimate companies want their name lent to sports with positive images, especially youth sports. Why would you want to associate youth sports with fireworks. That is almost as bad as associating them with cigarette brands! I ran a sports team of over 100 people and raised thousands of dollars year after year based simply on relationships with the members and their employers or companies that were looking for advertising possibilities.

* Clubs argue that we cannot get by on bake sales alone! No I expect not but this just shows their mentality. Think small. Without fireworks money perhaps some real clubs leaders will evolve that know how to raise funds.

* The city is restrictive on what these clubs can do with the money raised via selling fireworks in Lakewood. It can only be used to benefit Lakewood residents. Well many of these clubs have members and activities that spill over into adjoining cities. So eliminating the fireworks money would make it much easier for clubs to spend the funds without having to do a lot of paperwork and "cut out" non Lakewood kids from recieving the benefits of the "fireworks money".

* The reason the clubs (actually TNT) are fighting so hard in this campaign is because TNT has led them to believe that fireworks is the only way to raise money. Its not. But as TNT makes huge sums off the sweat of these clubs, it is not about to loose this revenue. And TNT is putting over 40,000 into this campaign to make sure it doesn't.

* Clubs are so used to this money rolling in that they have become immune to the danger, pollution and nuisance costs of the fireworks themselves. They apparently don't even want to show the fireworks on the flyers as none of the flyers show even one firework.

* The "real" cost of the fireworks is borne by the residents of the city and the taxpayers. $100,000 was spent by residents last year just so the the clubs could "raise funds". As the clubs and TNT don't appear to be interested in paying these costs (which are being incurred due to their fireworks) they (or TNT) should be taxed for the costs of the extra law enforcement.

* I hear people complain that by preventing the sale of fireworks we are trampling their "rights". Better go back and read the Bill of Rights as I don't recall a right to fireworks in there. There is also no "right" to play baseball in a new uniform. All organized sports at all levels are a privilege that we like to grant to everyone, but it is not a right. Sports are pay to play. Always have been always will be. To the extent private organizations can make it easier on those less fortunate to play, that's great but lets not trample everyone's right to a safe, quiet pollution free environment, for the "privilege" of a few.

* Of all the clubs that sell fireworks I am sure that a large percentage of those club members buy fireworks for their own use, and likely more than 100.00 worth. Wouldn't it make more sense to take the 30% that would go to the club for the sale and just donate it directly? You could also get a tax deduction if done properly. Of course TNT would loose out on its 70%. But isn't this about the clubs funding and not TNT's?

* If there are 27 clubs making $300,000 off fireworks that is just over 11,000 per club. Now if you assume 4 days of labor to sell them at 12 hrs per day by by 10 people that is close to $4,000 in labor costs assuming 8.00 per hour. So really the clubs are netting $7,000. Also this does not include overtime pay, health benefits etc. But of course all these people "volunteer" their time. Good deal for the fireworks companies I'd say. There has to be a more efficient way to get corporate sponsorship. Also for the club workers it seems a whole lot easier to write a tax deductible check.

Vote YES on Measure D

Long Beach Report endorses "YES" on Measure D

LBReport.com


Editorial

Our Ballot Views, Your Choice

(November 5, 2006) -- Statewide and citywide ballot items provide the only real democracy in this election. They're the only items that can't be Gerrymandered. Treat your choices on these measures seriously:

[snip]

Lakewood Measure D: Yes This would bring an overdue end to the sale of so-called "safe and sane" fireworks in Lakewood. That would benefit residents and taxpayers in Lakewood AND Long Beach. As we previously reported, the campaign against this measure is primarily funded by a major fireworks distributor. Lakewood civic clubs and children's baseball teams are effectively serving as props for propaganda trying to stop Measure D. The civic groups should stop whining and start doing what clubs do in other cities; raise money without selling fireworks.

Flyer from a LAAG member delivered 10/31/06

Dear Neighbor,

The OTHER residents of Lakewood would like you to know a few things before you vote on Measure D.

First of all, please excuse our crude, inexpensive flyers. The truth is, we just don’t have the big financial backing of fireworks companies as the folks who sent you those professional and colorful mailers do.

Secondly, we promise not to appeal to you with emotionally-laden ads that try to hide the truth behind pictures of innocent children.

Ask Yourself This:

• Why can’t these community groups find other sources of fundraising that don’t trample on their neighbors’ rights? Other communities have.

• What do these community groups do on the other 363 days out of the year to raise money? (And YES, there are other ways to raise money other than “bake sales and raffles.” Just ask the hundreds of other clubs who do it.)

• Why should ALL neighbors suffer for a few who insist on taking the shortcut to fundraising? Other communities fundraise without money from big fireworks companies who really only care about their own profit.

Here Are Your Rights:

1. If you would like your right to a peaceful and safe month of July in your neighborhood, then vote YES ON MEASURE D.

2. If you would like your right to protect your property and pets during the month of July, then vote YES ON MEASURE D.

3. If you would like the City of Lakewood not to spend thousands of dollars every year on the policing of fireworks, then vote YES ON MEASURE D.

4. If you are tired of community groups who take the shortcut to fundraising at the expense of their neighbors’ right to a peaceful and safe holiday, then vote YES ON MEASURE D.

Letters to the Editor, Press Telegram 11/2/06

I don't understand the opposition to Measure D. All the supporters want is a safe Lakewood that doesn't turn into a war zone for three days. Although community groups enjoy the revenue that results from this chaos, there are better methods of fund-raising, methods that don't reflect poorly on our city.

Russ Rudman

Lakewood

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Citizens for a Safe Fourth of July's mailing lists 28 community groups that will be adversely impacted, including taking away senior meals and hospice for the elderly, by Measure D. Really? Wow, I never imagined us old folk would go hungry if not for having our neighborhoods blown up.

The $300,000 that the Safe Fourth group claims is annually raised is spread among 30-some groups. Assuming the figure is accurate, that's an average of just under 10 grand per group. Now I know that's a bit of change, but believe it or not, thousands of community groups across America raise that much money and lots more. And they do it without blowing up their neighborhoods.

So, save your campaign advertising money. Invest it in some hot coffee, brainstorm and come up with some original ideas and find other ways to support your groups. You can do it.

Ron Trimble

Lakewood

Fireworks fallout

Crime: Explosion left homes damaged and neighborhood changed.
By Karen Robes, Staff writer
Article Launched:10/28/2006 10:52:05 PM PDT

LAKEWOOD - Yvetth Parada Santos' 9-year-old son avoids the view from his window.

From the top of his bunk bed, he can see a crumbled, blackened structure and a singed flower bush near the front of the house next door.

"He doesn't like to look out that window, so the blinds on that window don't get open very much," his mother said. "I think it just brings back bad memories."

Seven months after Brian Miller's illegal fireworks stash destroyed the home he rented and damaged several nearby houses March 5, residents in the quiet Dunrobin Avenue neighborhood say they still feel the effects of the explosion.

"If I'm walking someplace and somebody's slammed on their breaks, I jump," said Jerry Hildebrant,who lives two doors down from Miller's former house.

Miller, who was sentenced in August to five years in prison, will appear at a hearing Monday to determine how much he will pay in damages to his neighbors. At the sentencing hearing, his attorney said Miller plans to pay full restitution.

The blast did more than jostle the neighborhood - the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department altered the way it polices and profiles fireworks offenders.

It also spurred a citywide debate that led officials to place a measure on the Nov. 7 ballot that would ban all fireworks from Lakewood.

For many who live on Dunrobin, resentment and frustration also linger with the debris that still litters the fireworks-scorched home. Crews last week began rebuilding the house, which has been fenced off since the blast.

Shirley Knull, who has lived here since 1971, remembered when the neighborhood consisted mainly of original homeowners.

"Up until the last few years, it was really, really great," she said. "I mean, I'm not going to knock it now, but people lived here forever. It was so cool. Neighbors would turn the lights on, feed the dog, and take care of our house as if it were their own."

When Miller moved into the neighborhood four years ago, fireworks went off almost nightly, neighbors said.

"It was like bombs going off, like a canon," Knull said. "We were having fireworks problems and it was just going on and on all the time. We were calling the police."

Moving out

Residents said they complained to the Sheriff's Department and to City Hall about Miller for years but felt their calls were not taken seriously.

A Sheriff's official has said deputies answered numerous calls to the house, questioned Miller, staked out the house and dug through his trash for evidence. Miller could not be arrested despite their efforts.

Judy O'Neil recalled her neighbors' ire after the explosion.

"There was a lot of anger, because it was uncalled for," O'Neil said. "It was a relief knowing that we didn't have to contend with all that now."

One month after the blast, she and her husband moved out of their Lakewood home of 11 years. They moved to Missouri to be closer to family, but problems in the neighborhood made their decision to leave easier.

"It was in the back of our minds," she said. "We lost weight and the whole bit, 20 pounds for each of us. The stress, oh boy, I think (moving) was one of the biggest things we did in our entire life."

Blanket on fire

After the blast made their house unlivable for five months, the Santos family moved back home in mid-August. Santos estimated the damage to be more than $50,000.

The first few nights after they returned, her sons were afraid to sleep in their beds.

When they last slept there, illegal fireworks flew into their bedroom. One son was covered in glass; another's blanket was on fire.

"They literally slept on the floor with their blankets watching TV because they didn't want to go to sleep in their beds," Santos said.

With new bunk beds and carpeting, the bedroom shows no signs of an explosion. But other parts of the house are in various stages of repair. Cracks stretch across the kitchen wall and some of the windows need to be replaced.

"It's a work in progress," she said. "We're just waiting. There's still mess. The inside is mostly complete. It's the outside that we need to focus on."

`A bad year'

Next door to Santos, Hildebrant stood in the room that once served as a bedroom for him and his wife.

They no longer sleep here, he said. The room serves as the pets' room, its broken windows covered with the sports pages of the Press-Telegram.

On the morning of the explosion, fireworks shot through their bedroom windows and glass shattered onto their bed and floor. A door was blown off its hinges.

"I knew what it was," he said. "I rolled out of bed, my wife grabs the dog and ran in the closet. My wife was frightened, and I didn't think it was bad at first so I walked down to give him a piece of my mind, 'cause Sunday morning, that's enough of that stuff.

"When I started walking over there, there was more explosions. I met him at the front of his door and I says, `Are you satisfied now, Brian?"'

The couple were not harmed, but their 10-year-old mixed chow, Ginger, died soon after from a heart attack.

"That's the hard part," Hildebrant said.

In addition to $10,000 in repairs to their home, the Hildebrants will seek restitution for $4,000 in veterinary bills.

"Been a bad year for us," he said. "I've been out of work for awhile. Been bad."

Karen Robes can be reached at karen.robes@presstelegram.com or (562) 499-1303.

Sentence reduced in fireworks explosion

Lakewood man whose cache destroyed house will serve 4 years, pay $185,000.

By Karen Robes, Staff writer, Long Beach Press Telegram
Article Launched:10/30/2006 10:55:17 PM PST

NORWALK - A Superior Court judge Monday shortened the prison time of a Lakewood man whose illegal fireworks cache damaged his neighbors' homes and ordered him to pay nearly $185,000 in restitution.

Before ruling on the amount Brian Miller would owe his former neighbors on Dunrobin Avenue, Judge Cynthia Rayvis granted a request by Miller's attorney, Scott Well, to allow his client to serve two of his more than six felony counts concurrently.

Well argued and Rayvis agreed that the two counts - possession of explosive devices and possession of the materials used to make an explosive device - are one in the same and that, according to Penal Code 654, those counts cannot be served consecutively.

For Miller, who waived his right to appear before Rayvis Monday, that means serving four years instead of five. With credits for good behavior, Miller's actual time served will be a little more than two years in prison, Well said.

When Miller is released, he will start chipping away at the $185,000 he was ordered to pay for shattered windows, lost personal belongings and the destruction of the house he rented for four years. Insurance companies paid for about $147,000 of those damages.

"He intends to work and he intends to pay," Well said, adding that Miller was sorry that the incident happened.

Among those Miller owes is Doris Bolin and her daughter, Carol Schwartz, who owned the 6178 Dunrobin Avenue home Miller rented.

The two-bedroom, one-bathroom house - which had been in the family's possession since 1945 - was sold in July to a property company, which recently began work on the house.

Schwartz said the March 5 blast destroyed several irreplaceable family belongings, including antique dolls and landscape paintings her grandmother created.

Asked about Miller's shortened sentence, Schwartz said she tries not to think about it.

"We're trying to put it behind us," she said.

Karen Robes can be reached at karen.robes@presstelegram.com or (562) 499-1303.