NO PROPERTY SHOULD BENEFIT, AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS..

Last weeks lively debate in one instant went as follows.

I believe that’s the way it needs to be handled again, Councilman Melendrez said.  It should be referred to Governmental Affairs, that three council members should participate plus the community.  Gardner is not part of the Governmental Affairs but I would invite him to participate.. and be an active participant.

After Melendrez stated his position he received a standing ovation…TMC believes that if Counilman Melendrez had shown this type of leadership before, he could have been in the Mayor’s runoff, now the constituents have no choice.

OTHER COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS…

Mayor Ron: I must repeat that the need for Conflict resolution is best done as a committee as a whole.

Councilman Melendrez:  Mayor, it didn’t work the last time, that’s why I am here.

Councilman Davis:  I have to openly admit that it was a mistake!   It’s about process, and the process was not followed properly.  This is not about businesses but about residential desires. You look at the business desires compared to the residential desires. It’s hard to weigh.  In this case it’s about the residential desires.  I would like to make a motion, I respectfully disagree with you Mayor.  Things are not done the same way they were 20 to 30 years ago (making these comment toward the mayor) things are done differently, we are wired in a wireless world and we need to respect that…that we move forward, rather than do things the old way, because a lot of the times they just don’t work anymore.  If the Governmental Committee would allow a substitution of Councilman Gardner.  That would be my motion that we take no action and postpone 60 days..and I hoping to see a second ( a motion which Melendrez solidifies later, but the Mayor thinks it already happened).

It should be vetted between Gardner (Ward 1) and Melendrez (Ward 2).  The rest of us five have no dog in the show here.  This is about ward 1 and ward 2 they should get together.  In other words  it’s about Melendrez and Gardner.

Davis offered stepping down from his Governmental Affairs position and allowing Ward 1 Mike Gardner to take his position in order that he can work with Melendrez at that level.  We need to see what the residents would like to see, and taking into consideration the businesses as well.  Taking the item 20 to the full council for a vote.  Basically the two can come back with their findings and bring them to council so that council can make a better decision.

Councilman Gardner: This has been a much bigger issue than I thought it was. And for that I apologize..  There were things here that I did not see.  I thought this would be relatively simple ( the issue of redistricting) and relatively not controversial.   There were things here that I did not see, but incidently agrees with the mayor about dealing it as a whole…and…and…and..(continues to ramble).. an interruption by Councilman Melendrez while Gardner speaks and Melendrez says,  I will second Pauls motion..Mayor replies..I thought you did, but Melendrez actually did not.

Gardner says he wouldn’t offer a second but proposes to put this off for 60days..council to hold more meetings to talk…I think the community has spoken in more than one way.

Councilman Melendrez: Remember I’m a member of the Downtown Partnership, a committee member, the downtown partnership said they had it in the works since 2002, They didn’t invite the councilman member until 2010.. I’m also a member of the Chamber Commerce, and get along with both the downtown partnership and the chamber, and supportive of the chamber,  except when I think they are inaccurate.  I think redistricting is here about community, not business.   I strongly believe that.  And when I look at what we as council, here to propose.   We have ten items listed,  I’m going to read four of them.  We have ten items listed, I’m going to read four.  Maintain Continutiy of existing wards to the extent possible, draw wards that are compact and continuous , use natural geographical boundaries to the extent possible, maintain cohesive neighborhood and community interest to the extent possible.   I went through all ten and it said nothing about business.  There is nothing here that says listen to what businesses have to say and route business around them.. So TMC ask,  how does Cindy Roth by pass these guidelines and convince the Council to break them?

TMC’s research came up with a interesting article on redistricting and a little know term called “gerrymandering”.  The article is called, Redistricting Now, Analysis of Ways to Prevent Gerrymandering.  But a question to ponder, is ‘gerrymandering’ actually occurring in the City Riverside?  Gerrymandering is a process and practice that attempts to establish a poltical advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating geographic boundries to create partisan or incumbent protected districts.  Another reference point would be Article 21 of the California State Constitution regarding Redistricting.

Also the following talks about the masterplan for the Riverside Market Place, never mentions the East Side, talks about the area as being the Downtown Market Place.

It’s always good to hear from Councilman Adams. When he talks to the people..I want to thank everybody here to night, it’s a great demonstration of democracy.   I work for the people of ward 7, and looking toward the crowd..says ”you are our bosses”.   he went on to say…and this is why Riverside is the greatest city in the state.  Finally and emphatically said..  I started to think, is this one of those “say what you mean and mean what you say moment”?

Brian Hawley, Vice Chair of the Greater Riverside Chamber.  The chamber represents the interest of its members, this includes of several members in the Market Place who pay dues as if they already were. We believe a unified downtown benefits the entire city.

Self Appointed Citizen Auditor, Vivian Moreno:  As I looked at redistricting, I went and read the information on your web site and the first thing that popped out to me was ‘equalizing the population count for each ward’.  How do you get into a controversy over a business division line out of that statement? What a waste of time.  I stand before some intelligent people, I’m sure, and I  don’t understand the difference between population and business?  This vote should have been a “slam dunk”, and for what purpose are we here?  Synergy for business?  Thats what you all said last week.  What happens to synergy for the people?  That’s your argument

Just because the chamber queen comes before you with her letter in hand, and her lovely little speech, you change the direction and the ultimate purpose of redistricting.  Really? Let’s just change ward one into Cindy Land.  Andy Melendrez made a good argument that the Arlington Business District is in two wards.  So your argument about making it one program, doesn’t fly.   The actual natural boundaries is the freeway (91 freeway) , not the railroad tracks Councilman Gardner… Just because the Downtown area is not very successful and their business district is (Market Place), you want to take it over.  Insignificant?  Well if it is so insignificant, than why are we doing it?

David Mudge said we market our offices and area as if it is Downtown.  Leasing office space in Downtown is doing extremely well for us.  If I marketed office space to someone in Orange County, as it was not Downtown, it wouldn’t get much attraction. One of the big attractions is feeling that they are downtown.

Tom Schultz said, one of Webster’s definitions of ‘rape’ is an outrageous violation.  I consider this a rape of the East Side by the Chamber of Commerce.

Item #7:  In 2003 the City issues a series of COP’s (Certificates Of Participation) bonds to fund a succession of municipal projects.  In doing so the central piece of city government was placed as collateral, City Hall, along with the new Lincoln Avenue Police Station, The Airport Fire station, Parking Garages 1,2 and 3 and some land known as The Corporation Yard.

         

It also appears that The Convention Center, The Downtown Library and some land called The Airport Clear Zone were also released from the 2003 COP’s when financing was being assembled for the new Convention Center.

         

In the new transaction, the financing involved will still require the property known as Riverside City Hall and the new Lincoln Avenue Police Station to remain as collateral.  As TMC understands public buildings used as collateral, the structure is not what is considered, it is the value of the land.  This is item #7 being brought to City Council this Tuesday July 24, 2012, Be There!  Don’t forget to comment on our blog site.

    

Item #13, another $100,000.00 to Entrepreneurial Hospitality Corporation (EHC) to include a New Riverside Sport Commission for Public Relations and Advertising within the Riverside Convention and Visitors Bureau?  And who are they?  Opps, related to The Mission Inn’s only Duane Roberts?  In these trying economic times, do we really need to spend money we don’t have?  What about our City bill board which struts above the 91 freeway?  Have we forgotten to be innovative and frugal?

    

 What am hearing about the Mission Inn Museum?  How about being taxpayer paid rent to Mr. Robert’s, or is it Mrs. Robert’s these days?  The Redevelopment Agency of The City Of Riverside entered into lease agreement with Duane Roberts Historic Mission Inn for a pre-paid amount of $1,255,873.00 to December 23,2022.  The Redevelopment Agency of The City Of Riverside also has the optional subleasing right, which it used to sublease to the Mission Inn Foundation, a non-profit organization, initiated by the City of Riverside.

                                                   

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL FIRST CONTRACT     CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL SECOND CONTRACT

In this sublease, the Mission Inn Foundation pays no rent to the Redevelopment Agency of The City of Riverside.  The argument in the lease is that it has already been paid for by The Redevelopment Agency. Is this a gift of public funds to the ‘burrito king’ Duane Roberts?  Well the 100K voted through by City Council.  Mayor Pre-Temp William “Rusty” Bailey even appeared to be giddy on the dais.  Was he feeling the illusional power of the Mayor?

Item #23, Marcy Library now considered surplus property and to be sold as such?  Fair market value in these times would be considered close to a ‘fire sale’, a few years back.  But not long ago it was in negotiations to be transformed into the new “Lucky Geek Greek Restaurant”.  TMC artist rendering of what could have been…you can just smell the burgers cooking in the new kitchen situated in what was the government section of the library.

Item#12 July 10, 2012 city council approves what I call a tax by voter neglect without voter approval. The City of Riverside will assess a levy on property owners for Landscaping and Maintenance for Riverswalk in the La Sierra area.  Each property owner will have to pay $225.73 in the 2012/2013 year.

         

By the way, the cities favorite son Albert A. Webb and Associates were appointed to assess the district, of course.

UPDATE: 08/01/2012: SAN BERNARDINO, CA FILES FOR BANKRUPTCY WITH OVER $1 BILLION IN DEBT.  THIS IS A CITY OF 210,000 OWING A $1 BILLION, THAT’S APPROXIMATELY $4,761.91 PER PERSON.  WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE TOTAL AGGREGATE DEBT $4.4 BILLION AND A CITY OF 300,000 THAT’S APPROXIAMATELY $14,677.00 PER INDIVIDUAL.  ANOTHER ARTICLE STATES THE THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO WAS PUSHED INTO AN EARLY BANKRUPTCY DUE TO THE NON PAYMENT OF THREE SEPARATE JUDGEMENTS AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS.

UPDATE: 08/06/2012:  WHAT IS IT WITH THE CITY’S NEW BUZZ WORD “THE FAB FIVE” THAT HAS LABELED A PARTICULAR GROUP OF PUBLIC SPEAKERS AT WEEKLY CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS?  MORE TO COME..

UPDATE: 08/09/2012: REUTERS SAYS SAN BERNARDINO’S BANKRUPTCY MAY START A TREND FOR CALIFORNIA CITIES.  THE UPSWING IN BANKRUPTCY FILINGS COULD SIGNIFY A LACK OF ABILITY, BUT A LACK OF WILLINGNESS TO PAY DEBT SERVICE AT THE EXPENSE OF OF OTHER FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS.  YES, “YOU HAVE TO PAY THE RENT”! AS ONE COUNCILMAN RUSTY BAILEY TOLD ONE DOWNTOWN MERCHANT.  YES INDEED…OTHERS ARE BLAMING UNSUSTAINABLE PENSIONS.  AS MANY FEEL THESE UNION PENSION CONTRACTS WERE NEGOTIATED NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE TAXPAYER.  THEREFORE A BREACH OF TRUST AND CONSEQUENTLY SHOULD LEGALLY BE DEEMED NULL AND VOID.  ONE INTERESTING CONCEPT.. 

WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE 1977 ALL AMERICAN CITY RECIPIENT KNOWN AS THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO? WHO’S NEXT? RUMOUR IS THE CITY OF COMPTON CALIFORNIA.  BUT JUST AS BELL, MONTEBELLO, HERCULES, STOCKTON AND CITY OF RIVERSIDE…

THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ALSO WAS THE RECEPIENT OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING IN 2010 BY THE GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSICIATION.  I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, DO THESE AWARDS ACTUALLY MEAN ANYTHING?  WE RECENTLY AS A CITY WERE AWARDED MOST “INTELLIGENT COMMUNITY OF THE YEAR 2012″, BY AN ORGANIZATION THAT CALLS THEMSELVES THE INTELLIGENT COMMUNITY FORUM.  I WONDER WHAT WAS THE DECIDING POINT WAS?  RUMOR IS WE HAD THEM WITH RESIDENTS EATING CHEETOS IN THEIR UNDERWEAR..

UPDATE: 08/10/2012: COUNCILMAN/MAYORAL CANDIDATE RUSTY BAILEY, COUNCILMAN STEVE ADAMS, FORMER ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER TOM DESANTIS AND FORMER CITY MANAGER BRAD HUDSON INTERFERED WITH THE POLICE PROMOTION PROCESS?  ACCORDING TO THE PE, “BAILEY WAS FURIOUS”!  WAS RUSTY BAILEY IN ANY WAY INSTRUMENTAL IN INTERFERING WITH THE PROMOTION PROCESS OF LT. VALMONT GRAHAM?  HOW LONG CAN COUNCILMAN STEVE ADAMS DEFLECT THE INEVITABLE?

UPDATE:08/15/2012: OUR SOURCES HAVE STATED THAT COUNCILMAN ANDY MELENDREZ HAS EXPERIENCED A HEART ATTACK, AND IS IN INTENSIVE CARE.  TO WHAT SEVERITY, WE DO NOT KNOW. 

WHATEVER THE CONDITION, WE WISH COUNCILMAN ANDY MELENDREZ A SPEEDY RECOVERY.

JUST FOR LAUGHS…

RIVERSIDE FORGOTTEN..MAGNOLIA AVENUE, RIVERSIDE, CA (CIRCA 1903)

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!  TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED.  I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU.  PROUDLY RATED ONE STAR (POSSIBLY DOWN TO ZERO FROM OUR LAST ACCOUNTS) OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS..  TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR GOOD REASON, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST, FOR GOOD REASON… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!   COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPHALL SPELL CHECKERS!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR CONTACT US BY THE FOLLOWING EMAIL ADDRESS! CONTRIBUTORS WILL ALWAYS BE PROTECTED… YES, WE EXPECT THE JAIL TIME FOR THAT ONE…  THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM 

Comments
  1. kaptalizm says:

    Ugh. Read the backup about the Riverwalk assessment. It’s an assessment district that was VOTED ON IN 2002 BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF THAT DISTRICT. Yes, sometimes people vote to add a tax onto their bills because they want to pay for a particular improvement that benefits their area. Not everyone expects something for nothing, as you apparently do.

    Tiered rates are not taxes either. Get a clue.

    • thirtymiles says:

      Kaptalizm, your right about this, and I’m glad you are here to correct me. Marve Owens said it best at City Council, July 24, 2012, only 25.57% came out to vote this last election, therefore approximately 72% declined to vote. That’s a big difference…The point is that many don’t vote because of the frustation level that there vote doesn’t matter. Many in the La Sierra didn’t even know about this increase. Technically, it appears that the voters voted for the increase, but many disagreed with the increase. But what can I say when 72% of the voters technically don’t vote, and are unaware of the issues at hand. What passes is 26%; but not technically truly representative of the constituents views as a whole. This must be considered. By the way, I’ve never said I expect something for nothing; there is no free lunch in this life, and anything technically dispersed, must come from someone’s pockets. Tiered rates, should technically not occurr. It should be a flat rate according to Prop 218 as the cost to get the product (water) to your household..$225.73 is an enormous amount, I would imagine you would agree, to be added on to your yearly property taxes. Again, thanks for the clue..and thanks for commenting.

  2. Inland Empress says:

    Also they may have voted for the first increase but not subsequent increases. Sneaky the way the city piggybacks new taxes on the old when no one is looking.

  3. Inland Empress says:

    By the way tiered rates are a tax when you have never done rate studies. Check out your info.

  4. What a page full of details, facts? Take money out of the picture =’s righteousness.

  5. Florida says:

    I have read a few good stuff here. Definitely price bookmarking for revisiting.
    I wonder how so much attempt you place to make any such wonderful informative
    site.

  6. Tandy says:

    Hi! I’ve been reading your web site for a while now and finally got the bravery to go ahead and
    give you a shout out from Humble Tx! Just wanted
    to mention keep up the excellent job!

  7. Hey There. I found your blog using msn. That is a very neatly written article.
    I will make sure to bookmark it and return to read more of your useful info.
    Thanks for the post. I will definitely return.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s