Not verbatim Candace, but close. I was actually making a snarky comparison to something my son would have tried to hand in as an assignment. There was a clear lack of attention to specifics. Very ambiguous.

luvsmy2boys wrote:
I went and checked out the website for specific answers to my questions. The information was too vague. It was written like one of my son's English papers.

I support x charity. It is really important and they need help. I help them because they need it, and it is a good cause. It is a good cause and I support the cause, and I think it is important to help them.


Redundant and lacks specific details.

Are you kidding?!? Does it really say that? Somewhere there's a parent regretting the money wasted at DeVry University.

I went and checked out the website for specific answers to my questions. The information was too vague. It was written like one of my son's English papers.

I support x charity. It is really important and they need help. I help them because they need it, and it is a good cause. It is a good cause and I support the cause, and I think it is important to help them.


Redundant and lacks specific details.

@ Candace....

@ GhettoJoe... Thanks for the info

luvsmy2boys wrote:

1. What is Michelle's non-profit status?
2. What percentage of profit is actually given to charity?
3. What charitable cause does the TOL benefit?

You can find answers(at least partial) to two of your questions on Event Complete's website under the About Us category.

www.eventcomplete.com/

luvsmy2boys wrote:
In watching the video, it was not hard for me to understand what was being stated about the liability issue. That's like my neighbor wanting to host a big party on my property, serve alcohol and food,with a big band and charge admission. If someone gets hurt, then they sue my homeowners insurance, not my neighbors. I personally would not want to absorb that liability. Why is it so hard for Dan and Michelle to get? I think they see it more of a pain to go find a new location, moreso, than it is a "wonderful" event for LR. I think I heard the faint sound of their bank accounts saying "Oh Crap", as I am sure they pull in a ton of money from the event.

I actually like TOL, but let's be honest. It is a drunk fest, and there are tons of drunk people barely able to walk. If they were to get rid of the alcohol, then I would think that their attendance would drop significantly, which in turn, hurts the pocketbook. I do have a few questions though.

1. What is Michelle's non-profit status?
2. What percentage of profit is actually given to charity?
3. What charitable cause does the TOL benefit?



THANK You!!! (You'll NEVER get an honest answer, but your questions and comments are no less valuable). By the way, you cracked me up...again.

In watching the video, it was not hard for me to understand what was being stated about the liability issue. That's like my neighbor wanting to host a big party on my property, serve alcohol and food,with a big band and charge admission. If someone gets hurt, then they sue my homeowners insurance, not my neighbors. I personally would not want to absorb that liability. Why is it so hard for Dan and Michelle to get? I think they see it more of a pain to go find a new location, moreso, than it is a "wonderful" event for LR. I think I heard the faint sound of their bank accounts saying "Oh Crap", as I am sure they pull in a ton of money from the event.

I actually like TOL, but let's be honest. It is a drunk fest, and there are tons of drunk people barely able to walk. If they were to get rid of the alcohol, then I would think that their attendance would drop significantly, which in turn, hurts the pocketbook. I do have a few questions though.

1. What is Michelle's non-profit status?
2. What percentage of profit is actually given to charity?
3. What charitable cause does the TOL benefit?

Ghettojoe said: I also loved the guy off camera saying we showed up drunk.

That was best line by far in this video montage, "We showed up drunk and continued to drink."

Now I remember why I stopped attending the 4th of July event...

second best line (by the off camera event planner): "This has brought me to my knees"

You're not curing cancer here. You do know that, right?

Third best line: "I'll hold the event at my house if I have to."
When? Where? I can't wait to attend.

RT4J wrote:
The women in the video mention complaints about drinking and public urination (not just at the ToL) while the man off camera admits that he went to the 4th of July DRUNK! If you really want to limit liability, why not eliminate the alcohol? Why is beer and wine ok?Why do people feel that they need to drink to have fun at a community event? Have your event, prevent intoxicated people from entering (like the man off camera) and prohibit all alcohol at family targeted events - this should be the standard for all LARCS "family" events and if LARCS has to approve a private event on LARMAC Property, that policy should be enforced as well.

The "man" is "Dan Lauriano, owner of
The Derby Deli and Riptide
Teppan Sushi restaurants...primary sponsor of the event,
was also at the meeting." How is a Mission Viejo restaurant part of Ladera Ranch (as in "Taste of Ladera")?

If getting "drunk" is the ultimate goal of an event, perhaps taking those pastimes to an alternate venue (oh, say...a restaurant bar) would be more appropriate. Hmmmm, I'm starting to smell a solution.

goldeneyes wrote:
[quote]LARCS needs to handle their organization like a business – hire a great event planner, as I doubt these volunteers have a lot of time to devote to it; throw well received events year round; and profit from it (as much as a non-profit can profit). Then parlay the money into better events for the HOA members. The HOA members should collectively be the ones that benefit from the profits made on HOA property. Heck, I know we're on the hook if the opposite happenes.
quote]

That is an excellent idea. Let residents vote on which charities they would like to see supported and use the rest of the funds for something constructive and benefitting ALL of Ladera Ranch.

The women in the video mention complaints about drinking and public urination (not just at the ToL) while the man off camera admits that he went to the 4th of July DRUNK! If you really want to limit liability, why not eliminate the alcohol? Why is beer and wine ok?Why do people feel that they need to drink to have fun at a community event? Have your event, prevent intoxicated people from entering (like the man off camera) and prohibit all alcohol at family targeted events - this should be the standard for all LARCS "family" events and if LARCS has to approve a private event on LARMAC Property, that policy should be enforced as well.

LARCS needs to handle their organization like a business – hire a great event planner, as I doubt these volunteers have a lot of time to devote to it; throw well received events year round; and profit from it (as much as a non-profit can profit). Then parlay the money into better events for the HOA members. The HOA members should collectively be the ones that benefit from the profits made on HOA property. Heck, I know we're on the hook if the opposite happens.

If LARCS has decided to take full control of the events, which I support, then I hope something good comes out of it. It would be a waste of resources if the LARCS status quo continues.

Iceman wrote:
Some random thoughts:

1. Judging by the body language of the 2 ladies, the truth about why Taste of Ladera is being cancelled was not given. (what was up with the gum chewer?)

Seriously! These videos are pure comedy. I mean, between the head nodding, gum chewing, boob adjusting, facial expressions and twitches to name a few... you could make a reality show.

2. My take is that LARCS probably got a lot of complaints about Taste of Ladera. After all, not everyone is interested in getting hammered and scamming on their neighbor's wife. (Isn't that the main reason people go to this event?), and the event was not in keeping with LARCS' "wholesome family fun" mission.

Do you think? I would have added the child neglect for the parents driving their kids around in golf carts on the streets and sidewalks too. Also, the fact that Michelle Patterson even states in the video she likes the location because she is concerned about people drinking sure doesn't help her case. I also loved the guy off camera saying we showed up drunk. Classic!

3. Also, LARCS is probably getting one request after the other to use Founders for events such as the very interesting and exciting Shakespeare in the Park series, in the name of charity, of course.
(I'd have a lot more respect for the event organizers if they just came out and said the event is for a financial gain.)


Agreed.


4. So, how do you solve the problem - LARCS shuts it all down and use an ambiguous reason like "insurance". After all who really understands insurance and terms such as the "indemnity clause".
Clearly, these people are confused by it.

Can you say Ownership Rights. Its my understanding that Michelle Patterson,as Founder and Promoter, owns The Taste of Ladera. An event she founded when she was volunteering for the community. She has turned it into a personal gain/ profit center(more power to her). But, now the powers that be want the rights, or at least a cut, to this supposed community event.

Just my 2 cents.

Some random thoughts:

1. Judging by the body language of the 2 ladies, the truth about why Taste of Ladera is being cancelled was not given. (what was up with the gum chewer?)

2. My take is that LARCS probably got a lot of complaints about Taste of Ladera. After all, not everyone is interested in getting hammered and scamming on their neighbor's wife. (Isn't that the main reason people go to this event?), and the event was not in keeping with LARCS' "wholesome family fun" mission.

3. Also, LARCS is probably getting one request after the other to use Founders for events such as the very interesting and exciting Shakespeare in the Park series, in the name of charity, of course.
(I'd have a lot more respect for the event organizers if they just came out and said the event is for a financial gain.)

4. So, how do you solve the problem - LARCS shuts it all down and use an ambiguous reason like "insurance". After all who really understands insurance and terms such as the "indemnity clause".
Clearly, these people are confused by it.

When did Taste "apply" to have the event this year? Is the application on file? Was the application disapproved? Why are other suggested venues for Taste being dismissed outright? Why isn't LARCS hosting a "Food and Wine Event" instead, that will actually put money into Ladera Ranch coffers instead of those of a single individual? Why aren't those monies being distributed amongst community needs (community center, etc.) and charities not affiliated with the planner?

I guess my only comment is WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?

See the LARCS meeting on YouTube: