imagesCARBGDII

UPDATE: 06.27.2013:  SEVEN COUNCIL MEMBERS, SEVEN ETHICS COMPLAINTS, BE THERE TODAY AT 3:00PM MAYOR’S CHAMBERS.. THIS IN REGARDS TO THE COUNCIL INADVERTAINLY PASSING THE MEASURE A  INITIATIVE WHICH ACCORDING TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION IS ILLEGAL.  DID THE COUNCIL WILLFULLY MISINFORM AND MISLEAD THE VOTERS ON THE VERY NATURE OF THIS MEASURE A ISSUE!  OR DID THEY JUST PASS THIS RESOLUTION 7-0 BASED ON WHAT THEIR CITY ATTORNEY HAD TO SAY?

UPDATE:06/27/2013: SLAM DUNK FOR THE COUNCIL WHO WERE A NO SHOW BUT HAD THE REPRESENTATION OF TWO ATTORNEY’S.  CONTINUING THE LONG STREAK, THE ETHICS COMMITTEE PANEL FOUND NO ETHICS VIOLATIONS COMMITTED BY THE COUNCIL..

Clapping is our 1st Amendment justification for existing when we feel there is a need to express a sign of approval.  But will this change at City Council?  Whereby have we become forgetful that one of the most important reasons for  this country existing is our first amendment right of expression in a public forum.  Will this cease to exist?  With the Fourth of July just around the corner, will a government teacher attempt to change that?  Have we become so politically correct as a society that we become afraid that a simple clap of approval may cause a divisive action to others, result in someone’s feeling being hurt or as Rusty would say as to not allow others to be included?

Or have we just become complacent and it is easier to sit and watch the world go by?

                       imagesCAB1LI95

Or would we rather just bow our head in frustration as if we are carrying the whole financial world on are shoulders. How bout it Berny?

picture-23065

Or would it be easier to hope someone else would do the clapping for us?  Even if it can’t think for itself?

imagesCAPRMMYZ

Or would a thumbs up do the same?  I’d clap just for double dipping…isn’t that now construed as a crime?

diaz

We can certainly clap if we approve of an event which is entertaining.

imagesCAZP229T

Or could we slap our own head wishing we would have clapped?

imagesCA0JY81T

Clapping for approval is simply better than the sound of one hand clapping, or even better than receiving the clap.

one-hand-clapping

Or could we just have an Orwellian software choice on Rusty’s computer which he can control the quantity of claps, and to pick and choose when a clap is allowed?

mzl.dwlhimtc.480x480-75

But can we just simply clap behind the scenes?

imagesCAMSTY7Q

Or can we clap with complete surprise that we are clapping at all?

 imagesCAM6DFX2

clapping can be for joy, and clapping for the joy of clapping…

applause

Or clapping can be just for the hell of it, just because it appears that it is expected.

imagesCA1TX32O

Or clapping can be elusive without focus…but it certainly better to clap than getting the clap..

321362382158439961

Clapping could be for when you think you have a good thing going.

06

Or can clapping just simply get down, dirty and diabolical?

tumblr_ltsli8lFG11r5qrimo1_250

Or you can anticipate the clap? or just waited out since you are not sure when to clap.. Regardless, clapping feels good..

imagesCA3NRX4N

Or can one be to studious to clap?

imagesCAMB07NL

do we sometimes forget what we are clapping for?

Kim-Jong-un-clapping

Or could we clap in hope that two holes of a donut actually fit somewhere?

donut-cop

Even if you are an authority figure?

imagesCAGEK1XT

Clapping can be in a line..

imagesCAE8MK8X

or it can be in unison..

imagesCAAGAYVO

or clapping can certainly be overwhelmingly…

imagesCAMINQFJ

you can certainly be king and clap

imagesCAUTXDGQ

or simply a taxi driver..

taxi-drive-clap

Whatever the activity is it certainly cannot be done in Riverside.  Especially during City Council..  because again and again you will hear the following ” We don’t applaud during public comment or otherwise, so we can include others with other opinions at the dais, so no applaud at the proceedings”.

Rusty-Biker-200x121

But we could certainly clap at a bike rally, I think…I need to check..it depends on the country and the leader.

i_love_clappers_t_shirt-rb9fc68106d9440ccbcc66bec3cf2d9fd_804gy_512

Or should we attempt to meet with clappers and find out what they are really all about?

Should we’d be told we cannot do this in the arena of the peoples arena of expression and free speech?  Or should we just be happy to be just where we are?  This is definitely an item to think about..  Clapping is a universal language that reaches far beyond our perception of our humanness.   So why would we not want to do it?  Because we are told not too?

But in any event, we look toward our human nature, we look at our provocativity, we look at the future in Riverside,  has it gone bananas?   Or just simply become a Banana Republic?

LaughingMonkey1

So shouldn’t authority just try to get along with clappers?

that-clappers-a-keeper

Well, of course there are exceptions, unless your General Clapper.. (Doesn’t he look a bit like City Manager Scott Barber?)

harry-s-truman-via-abcnews-go-com

Words of Wisdom for a new Mayor,”If you can’t stand the heat stay out of the kitchen..  – Harry S. Truman, 33rd President of the United States

UPDATE: 06.26.2013: MAYOR WILLIAM RUSTY BAILEY DEFENDS ARREST OF FORMER BB&K ATTORNEY LETITIA PEPPER..

     danielwerfel                                  RUSTY

City of Riverside Mayor Rusty Bailey                         Sorry, Mayor Rusty Bailey

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.  NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA?  RATED ONE TWO ONE STAR 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, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… 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 SPELL CHECKERS!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT!   THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

9814439_ml2 copy

Hart: Why is Mayor Luv here?  Bailey: Well, he’s still running the show and has put us in alot of hot water…  Gardner: Heads up, fire in the hole again…

We are having a Weenie Roast to Roast the Weenies at the No on Measure A Election Party!  Weenies and Water are Free!  Unless there is an overnight water rate change…

8728433_s

I really need to take a vacation, I’m starting to hear voices. I’m still not sure which is the biggest weenie on the grill…this one seems to be ready, oops, no it isn’t.  Something tells me I should increase the heat… oh heck, this one broke in half..

UPDATE: 06.04.2013: RESPONSE TO MEASURE A LOSS COMING SOON!  WE THANK ALL OF RIVERSIDE FOR YOUR SUPPORT IN VOTING NO ON MEASURE A.  “In the history of mankind many republics have risen, have flourished for a lesser or greater time, and then have fallen because their citizens lost the power of governing themselves and thereby of governing their state; and in no way has this loss of power been so often and so clearly shown as in the tendency to turn the government into a government primarily for the benefit of one class, a ruling class, instead of a government for the benefit of the people as a whole.”   – Theodore Roosevelt

Vote No on Measure A

For more information on this June 4th, 2013 Measure A, contact us noonmeasureariverside@hotmail.com

WETTWOPSD233

GOVERNMENT SHOULD LIVE WITHIN THEIR MEANS, AFTERALL, WE THE TAXPAYER HAVE TO..

Stop Elder Abuse Sign

UPDATE:06.03.2013: IT WASN’T ENOUGH THAT BB&K ATTORNEY JACK CLARK ATTEMPTED TO PUSH THROUGH THE NAMING OF CITY HALL IN RECOGNITION OF RON LOVERIDGE..  NOW WE FIND JAMES ERICKSON, VICE CHANCELLOR EMERITUS, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE, ATTEMPTING TO PUSH THROUGH THE NAMING OF MAIN STREET UNDER THE NAME OF RON LOVERIDGE.  IN WHAT CAPACITY WE DO NOT KNOW.. LOVERIDGE LANE, RONNY’S STREET OR EVEN RONALD BOULEVARD.. 

Untitled-2 copy                       Untitled-3

CLICK IMAGES TO ENLARGE

STRONG-ARMING SENIORS FOR A YES VOTE:  ISN’T THAT ELDER ABUSE?

There is nothing more despicable than taking advantage and misinforming seniors.  Where is Ofelia Yeager on this issue, the Chairperson on the Yes on Measure A Campaign?  Why was she chosen to spearhead this issue?  Why was Mathew Webb of Webb Engineering, the Co-Chairperson christen to participate in this elusive endeavor?  Why would Webb Engineering have a master engineering contract with Municipal Water?  How does this affect Mathew Webb’s relationship with Councilman Chris Mac Arthur, are they cousins or just doing the Hanky Panky?    Or Mathew Webb’s association with now Mayor William “Rusty” Bailey, stating he has known him for decades.  Is this all about keeping it in the family?  Does it dispute the fact that Webb Engineering recieved 13 Checks on the same day under former City Manager Brad Hudson’s discretionary account?  Where is the Council on this one, the Mayor and especially Steve Adams who has asspirations aspirations of being a Congressman?  This is only a reflection of how our City operates.  Every month the amount transferred goes up, it was $6.1 million now it is $6.7 million, probably because they are not allowed to transfer just yet.   But, what now appears to be covered by this transfer is everything that property taxes are suppose to cover.  In City Manager Scott Barber’s analysis of possible cuts if Measure A doesn’t pass could very well be considered a scheme, artiface or fabrication since it was simply based on projections.  Was this orchestrated and designed to attempt to mislead the voters?  The projections have no basis because they never had any accounting track record of expenditures to refer to, they don’t exist.  If no prior allocation records exist how does one extrapolate a true analytical projection?  According to the City’s October General Fund Forecast, the Mayor Bailey’s Office is overbudgeted by $116,100.00.  Instead of cutting his budget, he would rather cut Police and Fire?  Further, as indicate City Manager Scott Barber used the number of the adopted budget for the Mayor’s office to apply his 3.0% cut, which comes out to $22,000.00, therefore this amount would be cost applied to the 11.5% transfer.  The funny thing is that the number cannot be legitimatel verified because no accounting records of that number exist!  Every account that Barber utilizes applies the 3.0% in the same manner.  This is an example of how they are misinforming the public.

mayorsbudget             mayors budget

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

The question to be asking the City, and many are asking the question by the way, “why do they appear to be strong arming the community into a Yes vote on Measure A?”  From candidates, community groups, community services, city employees etc.  Is it that the City is threatening funding to these programs if a Yes vote is not supported?  Money always seems to talk, especially when it is not your own money to spend.

This is a flyer that was dispersed at the Janet Goeske Center which states what will happen to senior funding if they do not vote Yes on Measure A.  Is the City of Riverside strong arming residents with an iron fist of reason?  Or is it extorsion?  Afterall isn’t the Hyatt suing the City of Riverside on this issue?  Yes they are.  Demand answers!  Demand Transperancy! Demand Leadership!  Well…at least the first two, and the only way to do this is to show up at City Council and voice your opinions.

JGFLYER

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FLYER DISPERSED AT THE JANET GOESKE CENTER

In the last two utility bills you received;  you as a taxpayer have paid for the few rogue City Officials who felt it was necessary to spend your tax money to misinform you, further, to deny your constitutional right of reaching a balanced voting decision.  City Tax money was used to favor a “Yes” vote on Measure A.  This flyer states to go to the City of Riverside’s web site for more information. If you go the City of Riverside’s web site, what we have can be construed as a Yes on Measure A bonanza!    Another FPPC (Fair Political Practices Commission) violation?

PUMEASUREAOFUTILITYBILL

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW WHAT YOU PAID FOR, EVEN IF YOU DON’T AGREE!

According to Letitia Pepper, Riverside Attorney, the City is using city funds to promote Measure A, and to promote it with lies and propaganda — propaganda is “half-truths.”  She says to look at your May Riverside Public Utility bill, on the back ( the above image).  There’s a full page promoting the passage of Measure A.  This page includes the biggest of all lies:  “By re-affirming these previous voter actions, Measure A continues this funding [allegedly and impliedly only for for clean water programs], WITHOUT RAISING TAXES.” The real reason this issue MUST be submitted to the voters is not the self-serving settlement into which the City entered with the Moreno’s that required the City to submit the issue of the excess charges to the voters. The REAL reason the City is doing this is that since 1996, it has been illegal, under Prop. 218, for cities, incuding charter cities like Riverside, to charge more for water than the actual cost of providing it. To make such chares, cities had two years after Prop. 218 passed to submit them for a vote as taxes — and the City never did that until it got caught last year.

Another aspect of this measure is that it appears to be paying for alot of services!  The amount the City has indicated has gone from $6.1 million to $6.7 million.  If you are a taxpayer as I am, this transfer appears to be doing a better job of covering all expenses of city services than our property taxes.  Potholes, Storm Drains (we doubled the tax in 2012), Police, Fire, 911 dispatch, Childrens Lunch Programs, Clean Water (Covered by your water rates), Gang Control (Covered by Federal Police Asset Forfeiture Funds), Library, Crossing Guards, Tree Triming, Disabled Services, Senior Services, SRO’s (School Resource Officers), Maintaining Fairmont Park Lake, Low Income Lunch Programs, Powerwashing Downtown Streets, Installing Curbs and Gutters, Summer Camp Programs, Dealing with Abandoned Vehicles, Using Code Enforcement if your Landscaping doesn’t conform to the Politically Correct criteria of the City, Code Enforcement citations if you Overwater your landscaping, Code Enforcement citations if you have Trash exposed, Code Enforcement citations if it appears that you have Outdoor Storage, Code Enforcement citations if it appears that your property is contributing to storm drain contaminants and it goes on and on.  The storm drain fees don’t really help Riverside residents, but it contributes to Orange County Clean Water.  Property Taxes pay for City Services, the User Utility Tax on your utility bill pays for services and Proposition 172 allocates 1/2 cent from the sales tax to city services.  Government should live within their means, afterall you and I have to.  The new advertisement on Measure A on your utility bill states cleaning storm drain catch basins and storm drains.  But what! We had an increase from $2.83 to $5.22?  Yes folks, last year we had an increase in our Storm Drain Tax ( also know as Storm Sewer System), documents as follows:

STORMDRAIN           PAGE4

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW COMPLETE DOCUMENT

Is the City contemplating a triple tax by this above action?  Is the truth of the matter that the City is in need of paying upcoming bond obligations?  Would this be the real issue?

As indicated by Dan Berstein’s of the Press Enterprise new article, is this another Sleazy Campaign Mailer?  Rather than making cuts in their own back yard, the City of Riverside would like to punish residents that already have made cuts in their household with the fear of higher taxes, as indicated a couple of weeks ago by Councilman Steve Adams where he stated, “if Measure-A doesn’t pass, we have a change in the status quo, and we will have to raise your rates (referring to water) and increase your taxes.”

flash_1886

WELL LET’S DO A DRUM ROLL TO INCREASE TAXES; SHALL WE COUNCILMAN ADAMS?

The mailers that the Yes on Measure A campaign have been distributing have been reflective of their talking points, but this new mailer just received is from the City of Riverside, and it has the City of Riverside star of approval with endorsing names such as our Chief of Police Sergio Diaz, Fire Chief Steve Earley and City Manager Scott Barber.  It cannot get any more blatant than this.  Legally the City of Riverside has had to take a position of neutrality, while over the past few months the City has stated it was on a Measure A informational tour.  This four page City mailer shows that the language can be ultimately construed as a campaign publication endorsing a Yes vote on Measure A.  This can be seen by the language and pictorial used, the tone, tenor and timing is there. Further this mailer was paid for by you and me the “Taxpayer.”  Therefore is the City of Riverside on the verge of violating FPPC (Fair Political Practices Commission) rules and regulations and misappropriation of taxpayer funds?  Elections Code § 8314(d) and Gov’t Code § 8314(d).

Gov’t Code § 8314 (a) It is unlawful for any elected state or local officer, including any state or local appointee, employee, or consultant, to use or permit others to use public resources for a campaign activity, or personal or other purposes which are not authorized by law.

Gov’t Code § 8314(d) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use of public resources for providing information to the public about the possible effects of any bond issue or other ballot measure on state activities, operations, or policies, provided that (1) the informational activities are otherwise authorized by the constitution or laws of this state, and (2) the information provided constitutes a fair and impartial presentation of relevant facts to aid the electorate in reaching an informed judgment regarding the bond issue or ballot measure.

mailer

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL MAILER

According to a new article by Dan Berstein of the Press Enterprise, the Council knew of this piece, according to Councilman Mike Gardner, but didn’t discuss the content.  So who were the individuals or individual that approved and designed this mailer?  Well it appears it was within the City Attorney’s Office.  So, who approved the $23,777.00 for the cost of printing and mailing at taxpayer expense?  You would think if there was any inkling or sugestion of misappropriation of taxpayer funds that the council would have the descency to ask those obvious tough questions. This I say in lieu of City Attorney Gregory Priamos not returning Berstein’s calls. If it was approved by Priamos, it must be legal, right Greg?

Another editorial in the Press Enterprise, “Don’t use taxpayers’ monies for election fliers.”   Is the City of Riverside really a “Muni Mafia?”  How do they compare to San Bernardino? Or Moreno Valley?

The City continues to claim that these transfer monies are used for everything under the sun, and every week we have something new that it covers.  The reality is the City has no bonafide track record of accounting of any of these fund at anytime, this we see as Bernstein undercovered in reference to “library books.”  Remember folks, only tax money can be deposited into the General Fund.

I guess in the real realm of things why won’t District Attorney Paul Zellerbach act on this? Possibly, because of this rhetorical question: “Is it illegal or just bad business?”  Possibly all the above, but we won’t expect this office to react in reference to the oath of office you sworn to uphold….regardless, your track record indicates clearly, your answers and responses to local community inquiries.  What kind of message does this send to the community when the City itself doesn’t follow the letter of the law?  Our we a Banana Republic or an American City based on constitutional rights?

zellerbach

SO WHAT IS A D.A. TO DO?

As of May 28, 2013 as indicated in the Press Enterprise, the “Yes on Measure A” campaign has contribution commitments which are in the neigborhood of $46,000.00, and the “No on Measure A” campaign has continues to maintain steady monetary commitments of $0.00

Vote No on Measure A,  www.noonmeasureariverside.com

For more information on this June 4th, 2013 Measure A, contact us noonmeasureariverside@hotmail.com

WETTWOPSD233

GOVERNMENT SHOULD LIVE WITHIN THEIR MEANS, AFTERALL, WE THE TAXPAYER HAVE TO..

JUST FOR LAUGHS…

539110_506054042765037_303798518_n

COUNCILMAN ADAMS BRINGS HIS CITY VEHICLE IN FOR THE USUAL REPAIRS…

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.  NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA?  RATED ONE TWO ONE STAR 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, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… 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 SPELL CHECKERS!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT!   THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

Remembrance-Wall2 copy

Traditional observance of Memorial day has diminished over the years. Many Americans nowadays have forgotten the meaning and traditions of Memorial Day. At many cemeteries, the graves of the fallen are increasingly ignored, neglected. Most people no longer remember the proper flag etiquette for the day. While there are towns and cities that still hold Memorial Day parades, many have not held a parade in decades. Some people think the day is for honoring any and all dead, and not just those fallen in service to our country.

Around 1915, Moina Michael first conceived of an idea to wear red poppies on Memorial day in honor of those who died serving the nation during war.  She was the first to wear one, and sold poppies to her friends and co-workers with the money going to benefit servicemen in need.  Inspired by a poem “In Flanders Fields”, she wrote the following poem.

We cherish too, the Poppy red
That grows on fields where valor led,
It seems to signal to the skies
That blood of heroes never dies.

Later a Madam Guerin from France was visiting the United States and learned of this new custom started by Ms. Michael and when she returned to France, made artificial red poppies to raise money for war orphaned children and widowed women. This tradition spread to other countries. In 1921, the Franco-American Children’s League sold poppies nationally to benefit war orphans of France and Belgium. The League disbanded a year later and Madam Guerin approached the VFW for help. Shortly before Memorial Day in 1922 the VFW became the first veterans’ organization to nationally sell poppies. Two years later their “Buddy” Poppy program was selling artificial poppies made by disabled veterans. In 1948 the US Post Office honored Ms Michael for her role in founding the National Poppy movement by issuing a red 3 cent postage stamp with her likeness on it.

A war veteran from the shores of Normandy and the Phillipines, my dad has since passed, but a Memorial Day does not go by without remembering him holding my hand as a young child and stopping before a disabled veteran at a local market, where he would donate some money in exchange for a red poppy, in remembrance of those who have fallen in the line of duty.

jerry

“OKAY, ONE MORE TIME JOHN, YOU SAID THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE DID WHAT”?

assettransmay2013

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL AUDITING REVIEW

State Controller John Chiang announced May 16, 2013 their completion of review of the assets transferred by the City of Riverside’s redevelopment agency (RDA) prior to its dissolution.  The review found that the RDA is not only in current possession of $30.45 million in real property that it no longer is legally entitled to hold, but that it inappropriately transferred another $64.25 million in real property to the City, which equals out to a mere $94.7 million.  In other words, the City of Riverside knowingly stole the properties prior to the dissolution date of June 28, 2011 for RDA, even though the State Controller John Chiang’s sent a letter with instructions.  Now in the case of the $64.25 million in properties illegally transferred, the City contends that the Title companies refuse to now change title back to the State.  Does the Title company sniff something illegal?  Well they didn’t seem to have a problem transfering the properties and giving title to the City.  But now the City contends that the problem with the transfer had something to do with title insurance.!  In case people didn’t know RDA (Redevelopment Agency) was operated and administered by the our City Council.  This is John Chiangs letter dated April 20, 2012 which describes RDA dissolution as well as what assets in regards to property need to be transfered back.

johnchiangsletter

CLICK TO VIEW JOHN CHIANGS LETTER TO ALL CITIES

The law requires that all RDA assets transferred to a city, county or other public agency after January 1, 2011, must be returned to its successor agency, unless the assets were committed to a private third party by June 28 of that year.  It certainly appears that the City of Riverside thought differently on this issue, even though local watchdogs continued to warn them, but fell on deaf ears.  Some of the players at the time were former Mayor Ron Loveridge, former City Manager Brad Hudson and Chief Financial Officer/Assistant City Manager/Treasurer Paul Sundeen (Yes, he actually had three job titles).

According to an auditing review by State Controller John Chiang’s office, they determined that the State RDA successor agency is owed $94.7 million in properties.  The City of Riverside is ordered to transfer all properties back.  Now what you may not know is that the City Council was told that when the properties were transfered from Redevelopment before it resolved, it was an illegal action.  The proof we had was as follows.

TRANS

CLICK LINK TO VIEW TRANSFERRED PROPERTY DOCUMENT

So that didn’t help so we thought that the next action would be road trip, of course, Sacramento.  Do we have another Moreno Valley occurring in Riverside, will people go to jail on this one?  Why didn’t Councilperson Nancy Hart’s Monthly, Bi-Monthly, (Not sure), Finance Committee Meeting catch this?  Afterall they had the “experts.”  But two misinformed citizen of Riverside, Dvonne Pitruzzello and Vivian Moreno found this.  They went to City Hall and told them about this, the Council did nothing.  So two took a road trip to Sacramento to meet with the State Controller Office.  It appears that all the laws were not adhered to as we were assured by the City.

I asked my electeds questions about these properties along with other nice folks  in 2011 and they assured us along with the city management that everything was  done appropriately and by the book. They kind of implied we were liars and  troublemakers too but what was the truth? Why does the State Comptroller now  agree that the properties were inappropriately handled by the city and its RDA?  Are they liars and trouble makers too?  – Mary Shelton, Commenter on the P.E.

Riverside blew an elaborate shell game. Someone needs to do time for this lie.   – Ernie Tyler, Commenter on the P.E.

To date, the Controller has completed 46 reviews.  According to a Press Enterprise article in a statement released by City Manager Scott Barber stated that only $64,018 remains in dispute.  Well we don’t know of the intended purpose of the letter, if it was in fact to divert attention.
sixtyfour
We certainly know that $64 thousand is different from $64 million, which was the amount in question.  Further, what the City said is that the Title companies refused to go along with the city’s attempt to transfer ownership from the former redevelopment agency to the successor agency (a new agency created in care of the State to handle the dissolution of RDA assets).
In a statement released Thursday, May 16, State Controller John Chiang stated, “After decisions by the governor and Legislature to disband redevelopment, my office is working to make sure all remaining RDA assets, including those in Riverside, are used properly to retire debt and pay for critical local public services, such as education and public safety.”  In the Riverside audit, the controller’s office found the city’s former redevelopment agency transferred $142 million worth of property after January 2011.  Of that, about $64 million is out of compliance with the June 2011 law dissolving the agencies, the controller’s office reported.  The audit also said that Riverside’s former redevelopment agency still has $30.45 million in assets which have not been transferred?
TEN THOUSAND SHORT?
When Redevelopment was dissolved, the State of California mandated the creation of Successor Agencies, which would be at the local level in care of the State of California in order to handle assets of the debunked RDA.  The City in terms of ROPS, could request payments for RDA projects which legitimately followed Redevelopment Law.  The State Controller, John Chiang, saw that the City of Riverside was not lawfully in compliance again with Redevelopment Law.  In this case a new board was created of the usual suspects, now called the Successor Agency, while, in case people didn’t know, the original RDA (Redevelopment Agency) was operated and administered by the our City Council.

WHAT DOES A FORMER FINANCE DIRECTOR FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SAY: STOP THIS RIP-OFF BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE – VOTE NO ON MEASURE A!

save-r-vote-executive-director-t-755-20071117-1

Comment written in support of No on Measure A by former Finance Director (92-94), County of Riverside, Tom Courbat :

I believe Measure A is illegal as it provides for some NON-WATER DEPARTMENT CUSTOMERS to vote on whether a portion of payments made by WATER DEPARTMENT CUSTOMERS shall be transferred from the Water Department to the General Fund of the City of Riverside. Since any city residents who do NOT receive water from the city have no vested interest (no “skin in the game” as it were), there should be no basis for allowing them to vote on whether the city should be allowed to continue the illegal practice of using excess Water Department earnings in the general fund. Proposition 218 is very clear, UTILITY FUNDS COLLECTED FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE (e.g. providing water) MAY NOT BE USED FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE. The city has been aware of this prohibition since 1996 and has blatantly continued this practice until private citizens had to sue to make them stop violating the law.

The use of scare tactics (we’ll take away your free Internet, swimming, certain police protections) is reminiscent of the roaring 30′s – you pay gangsters for “protection” and you’ll be able to continue to run your business without gangsters tearing up your place of business or scaring off your customers. The use of these Water Department funds for police, fire, parks, etc. has been illegal since 1996 – why should Water Department customers have to pay twice for the same service? They pay the same taxes as everyone else in the city for police, fire, parks, etc. and then they pay ANOTHER 11.5% when funds are transferred from the Water Department to the General Fund. Clearly the Water Department is charging more than its cost of operation (also against the law) so that an 11.5% “slush fund” is created and then slipped over to the general fund. Any legitimate audits of the Water Department should have pointed out the illegality of this practice years ago.

It’s EXACTLY like what I saw on the reality show “Kitchen Nightmares” tonight. The owner of the restaurant was paying his waiters/waitresses an hourly rate. All tips left by customers (who CLEARLY intended the tips to be for the servers) were kept by the OWNER who prohibited his staff from pocketing ANY tips left for them. When the customers were informed that the owner was pocketing the tips, they were absolutely outraged!! So should every voter in this election be outraged. Water charges are to pay for water, not police & parks. Tips are for the workers, not the owners.

STOP THIS RIP-OFF BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE – VOTE NO ON MEASURE A!

Tom Courbat Former Finance Director County of Riverside

Well stated Tom, we’ve stating this for years, but of course we are crazy or misinformed, because this is how they continue to treat and think of the community, because it is about the them not the communtiy.  The money as we’ve been stating for years has no accounting whereby the City states it is being allocated for particular services such as police and fire.  No documents responsive, so what are the taxpayers to think, except that for years this has been an 11.5% slush fund.

MEASURE-A UPDATE

The ring leader, as we feel,  could be none other than former Mayor Ron Loveridge, whom has operated this city as some underworld organization.  The community has an opportunity to begin to take back their City, and not have the follow in the footsteps of San Bernardino and Moreno Valley.  Don’t fall into their trap of scare tactics; ask them the hard questions.  Property taxes pay for City services, where is this money really going?  But why are they working so hard to pass this measure?  Even the Press Enterprise is on it.  Is it because they’ve recieved special utility rates in the past from the City?  Or is it because the City is helping them with a new location for their business?  Could it be Developer’s Mark Rubin’s Citrus Towers?  Or is it that we do not want to upset the fact that the County of Riverside is intending to purchase their building, of course they did.  What ever it is, the stress levels with City personal and staff are high.

What appears to be more outrageous is that the City seems to have plenty of money in the General Fund Reserves to subsidize the new Black Box Theatre.  This at a time when the City is claiming foul, and if Measure A doesn’t pass, the City will be on its way to doom and gloom.  The City claims that the 11.5% transfer has paid for a multitude of city services, but they are unable to produce documents revealing how it was spent.  The hypothetical question is, if the transfer money never actually paid for City services, what did it really pay for?  Well we don’t know that either. The approximately $6 million which appears to magic because it seems to fund everything under the sun that property taxes through the general fund does.  If in fact the 11.5% transferred all these programs and services, you would think that the City would immediately lease the Fox Theatre.  The Fox Theatre is currently running at a yearly deficit of approxixmately $3 million.  We just found $3 million just by leasing the Fox to the private sector.  There is no doubt in my mind that the City continues to cry wolf, and the sad ending to this is no one is listening.

While Councilman Steve Adams accuses representatives of the No on Measure A campaign of misinformation, he threatens the community by stating that if Measure A does not pass we will have to raise water rates and raise taxes.   Now this is a councilman who is rumored to have aspirations of running for Congress.  Well, Mr. Congressman raising water rates and raising taxes are not that easy, you’ll have to justify it, and so far you cannot even justify the current accounting on the transfer!  If you have to strong arm and scare the community into voting on an illegal measure, then you lack leadership abilities.

Measure A looks good to the Press Enterprise.  We at TMC question that move.  Was it because you didn’t want to upset the deal with the County of Riverside?  Was it because you receive special utility rates with the City of Riverside?  Was it because the City of Riverside is rumored to be assisting in locating an alternate location which is amicable?  Would it be with developer Mark Rubin’s Citrus Tower’s?  Contractually recieving better utility rates from the City of Riverside would this in fact effect your reporting?  I hope not, why have a paper that destroys the illusion of the Fourth Branch of Government?

resolution

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL REPORT

The people of the City of Riverside pay every month for the Fox Theatre, and the City would like the taxpayer to foot the bill for the Black Box Theatre, but most of the people footing the bill can’t afford to go to the Fox.  This at a time when the City is claiming for the first time in 16 years that the $6.1 million water transfer pays for essential services.  So how may I ask, does the City justify funding the Black Box Theatre at a cost to the taxpayer of close to $500,000.00 over 2 years, until it is able to sustain a profit and pay for itself.  If you can afford the Black Box you can afford Police and Fire.

resolution2

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

I recalled this was the same line statement made regarding the Fox Theatre and currently it is running at a yearly $3 million deficit.  So we have $3 million plus $0.5 million, what do we have, $3.5 million.  That’s $2.5 million away from what the City claims they will be losing.  Mayor Bailey went over budget in his mayor’s office by a miniscal $100,000.00.  There’s another 100K, and council just voted to hand over $750,000.00 to the Fairmont Park Golf Course.  How much are we at now?  Pretty close?  Then you have Mayor Bailey with the Streetcar Named Debacle idea?  Again, and again we the continued excessive spending and no cutbacks.  What you have here is that the City will threaten the residents to cut essential services such as Police and Fire, which by the way are already covered by property taxes, if Measure A is not passed.  This they will do before cutting non-essential services or expenses that continue to incurr as a deficit to the taxpayer.  Well, shame on them.

In the City’s desperation, they continue to stray into the gray areas of an FPPC violation, but that does not stop them.  Now there attempt to explain their slush fund over the areas has metamorphisized into some City services, to just about every service under the sun is funded by this $6 million water transfer.  Ask them specifically how they have spent this money over the last 16 years, they don’t have an answer.  The accounting stops when the monies are deposited into the General Fund, then it’s tracks are lost, not to be found.  It’s how the City wants it, it is the way it has always been since Ron Loveridge became Mayor.

mailer  mailer2  mailer3

Was Ron Loveridge a Proposition 218 proponent?  Was he a Propostion 13 proponent?  Probably not, he has done everything to change that.  In otherwords, counter to everything that is in effect, beneficial to the taxpayer. Why is that former Mayor Luv?  And why are the Police and Fire Unions spending so much money to buy your vote?  Is it really about them rather than the residents?

Another letter of support regarding the Moreno’s Water Lawsuit.  This from a former City Finance Director.

letterofsupport

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

MR. LIABILITY HEARING THE BEAT OF A DIFFERENT DRUM, OR JUST BEATING THE SAME OLE’ DRUM TO DEATH? 

drums3

Drumming up controversy, Councilman Steve Adams had alot to say regarding public speakers and disinformation.  I guess he forgot that public speakers tried to reach out years ago involving problems the City could have with issues concerning Proposition 218.  When brought to the forefront of the Council, those interest resulted in deaf ears.  The law suit filed by citizens resulted in a win for the residents of the City of Riverside.  But what will eventually happen according to Adams, is that the City will retaliate against the citizens of Riverside, this in my opinion for not voting in favor of Measure A.  If this is to occur Adams states we will have to make up this money through higher water rates and increase taxes.  Typical Adams?  But the reality of higher rates and taxes is to sustain their slush fund, and continued mismanagement of taxpayer monies. Or is it to help pay off the astronimical debt incurred to the taxpayer due to the Renaissance projects?   This is a fund which has no accounting of how tax monies were spent… and now aspirations for Congress?

adams

Councilman Adams getting cozy with Congressman Calvert, failed to respond to our inquiries regarding bond fraud in the City of Riverside, but it seems he responds better to a side of the road transaction.

Like electing Bernie Madoff as Mayor or Treasury secretary. Adams has proved he is not even qualified as councilmen. He used the illegal license plates for over a year and knew he was wrong as he was an ex police officer.  Then he cost the taxpayers 10 million in a settlement when he influenced the promotions of the police department.  Why would the city elect a proven criminal to Congress even if the Ward accepts his behavior. The DOJ has enough work with the current Congressmen who are committed crimes then to add another one.   We saw the former Police Chief embarrass the city and how well he worked with Steve Adams.  Just think how people were played for fools when a former police officer Steve Adams said he did not know the untraceable license plates only given to under cover federal officers which ever local police officer knows.  - Jackie Rawlings, Commenter on the PE.

Isn’t this the Adams when cofronted by a public speaker at City Council regarding his excessive spending on food via the taxpayer, answered back, “Well, I gotta eat!”  or who answered back, “Yes!”  when he was asked if he thought disability was funny?

HUNT, HUNTING FOR ISSUES WHICH NEED TO BE FERRETED OUT?

Tom Hunt, member of the RUSD Board of Education, calls certain people who have a personal problem with the city council because they were evicted from their city owned businesses.  It may be that he doesn’t understand that there are several degrees of “deadbeats” according to the City, the ones that the City likes and the ones they don’t, and there are those who the City supports and haven’t given them a late fee etc., and others that have and wouldn’t follow the program and you never want to do that, and there are those who just don’t follow the vision set forth by the City, and of course, there are those who have been railroaded.. We can ask former City Manager Brad Hudson about that one, but he suddenly skipped town a couple of years ago.  But don’t hold me on this, in fact don’t even put a gun to my head on this issue…

tomhunt

Making the case in favor of Measure A can’t be made, since it has been made.  Placing the issue on the ballot was not the idea or request in the Moreno’s lawsuit, but a offered by the City’s team of attorney’s.  I would imagine it this decision was made by the foremost attorney on Proposition 218 and a co-author of the Proposition 218 implementation guide, the City of Riverside’s hired attorney, Michael G. Colantuono.  We also recommend also to bring you questions on the legalities of Measure A to Attorney General, Kamal Harris at 1-800-952-5225.  The Moreno’s case fell under the realms of what is known as the Private Attorney General Act.

DISPORTIONALITY IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT WHEN IT COMES TO THE FAIRNESS OF THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER AND MEASURE A.

Approximately 3,958 Riverside Public Utility customers won’t get to vote on Measure A, that’s because they are not City residents.  But they still contribute to the 11.5% transfer which is paid through their utility bill, therefore they will not receive a benefit in terms of police, fire and library.

Approximately 8,769 customers receive their water from Western Municipal, they will get to vote on Measure A, because they are residents, but don’t receive a benefit either.  Further, since they pay more for water, the 11.5% transfer is more for them, even though there is no benefit to them.

There are other’s who are Riverside residents who received Measure A ballots but are not Public Utility customers since they are on their own well water.

But as we have been saying along, water utilities cannot be a profit making entity.  City Clerk Coleen Nicol statement regarding public utility customers outside the City of Riverside is as follows:  “they’re paying for water.  The profit that the utility realizes, the citizens of Riverside have decided that a portion of the utility’s profit will be transferred to the general fund.”  Proposition 218 voted overwhelmingly by the voters in 1996 by 85% stated otherwise.

“That’s just the way it works” stated Councilman Paul Davis.  But don’t we as constituents elect officials as Davis to fix what is wrong, rather than nonchalantly state to simply otherwise deal with it?

If Measure A doesn’t pass, some council people are crying foul.  Councilman Steve Adam’s said we need the money, we therefore have to increase water rates and taxes.  Why should the taxpayer pay for the bad decisions a Council person makes?

A PEEK AT WHAT CITY ATTORNEY GREG PRIMOS HAS COSTED THE TAXPAYER LEGAL LIABILITY

                     SETHURTBACON                                                        SETDELAROSA

THE BACON/HURT SETTLEMENT            THE CHRIS LANZILLO SETTLEMENT

The City/ Taxpayer paid out to Lt. Darryl Hurt $300,000.00 and to Lt. Tim Bacon $250,000.00.  Even Chris Lanzillo recieved compensation of $25,000.00.  This is someone according to the document had 8 workers compensation claims pending with the California Workers Compensation Appeals Board related with his employment with the City.  He then went to start his own business in Orange County, some question his claims of disability.  He later made news by inaccurately accusing a local councilman of drunk driving.  Lanzillo was the former president of the Riverside Police Union.

SCOTT SIMPSON’S “A SCHEME IS BORN” TIMELINE.  Scott Simpson’s background: Chief of Enforcement for the California EPA Dept. of Toxic Substances Control, and also worked for the Dept. of Food and Agriculture in their Environmental Hazards Assessment Program specializing in ground water contamination.  Simpson brought issues of illegalities of the water fund and citizens water rates to the Riverside Grand Jury.  The first submission was lost, the second one was incidently thrown out without an interview.  Questions regarding close ties between the City, Judges, DA and Grand Jury were brought into speculation.  As you see from Simpson’s background, this was his job to bring issues to the courts, so it is therefore quite remarkable how he was treated at our local Grand Jury level.  Simpson “A Scheme is Born” analytical timeline of the chain of events over the years regarding water rates, violations of Proposition 218 and who knew.

schemejpeg

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL TIMELINE “A SCHEME IS BORN”

The City always knew, those who were players in these criminal actions.  The City of Riverside had a deadline as all cities had, the date of November 08, 1998.  The date came and the City failed the meet the approved deadline, therefore knowlingly violating the State Constitution, since probably, who is really going to challenge them?  Well, in 2012, the Moreno’s did, and the judge agreed, and the City of Riverside’s attorney agreed, afterall, he wrote the implementation guide.

A WORD FROM FORMER MANAGING EDITOR OF THE PRESS ENTERPRISE, MEL OPOTOWSKY, ON A NO VOTE ON MEASURE A!

Untitled-1 copy

According to a PE opinion by Opotowsky, he stated that the Yes on Measure A campaign is playing on our fears.  They took us for fools when they warned in the (illegal) descriptions in city literature that the money was needed for 911 services. Does anyone really believe the City Council members would have the temerity cut the 911 operation if Measure A doesn’t pass?

They take us for fools when they warn that police patrols will be cut. Who thinks that would happen in this very pro-police city?

And the rest of the threatened cuts — programs for fire protection, seniors (not likely because they vote), the disabled, after-school programs (well, they may cut that because “those people” don’t vote).

The outlandish prevarication regarding the clean water and the 911 cutbacks brings us to the second maternal quote: What can we believe from City Hall?

Common sense tells us that in facing the loss of a mere 3 percent of the budget if A does not pass, city officials should find a way to make small reductions in the things that make them feel good — like plaques under a railroad underpass and giving up the expensive Don Quixote fight to save Redevelopment Agency projects.

Gee, they say, it’s only $6 million and we have been taking it for years and nobody said anything. They took it illegally, it turned out, and they knew it was illegal. They just figured the rubes wouldn’t be nit-picky about our government following the law. All that time they took us for fools.

Read the whole article by clicking this link..

MORENO VALLEY: KEEPING IT IN THE FAMILY: CITY MANAGER HENRY GARCIA OUT, TOM DE SANTIS IN AS NEW ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER.. What will Garcia’s long time girlfriend, City of Riverside’s Human Resources Director Rhonda Strout, A.K.A. Luxury Girl,  say about this?  Will she attempt to give Henry a job in the janitorial position in order to help clean house in the City of Riverside?  What is the rumor with Tom?  After keeping track of city business on post it notes, badges and cold plates, did he leave due to indiscretions while at the City of Riverside?  Why did he leave the County of San Bernardino?  Was it the same?

Recently, Barry Foster, head of the Economic Department also the City’s Community Development Director, left his position according to the PE.  Rumor is, was he actually fired?  Foster is also the husband of Riverside’s former Public Works Director, Siobhan Foster.  Foster abruptly left the City of Riverside, to take a position almost an hour away for the City of Pasadena, as their Public Works Director.  Pasadena’s City Manager Michael Beck was also former City of Riverside’s Assistant City Manager, during the time when cold plates and badges were in.

ELECTRICUTILITIES

In Moreno Valley Electric Utilities, The New Mission Statement include an interesting new twist. “In the future, MVU will provide more revenue for the City’s general fund, which helps pay for other important city programs.”  Was the influence De Santis?  This is what happened in the City of Riverside when De Santis was City Manager.  Increase the electric rates and take a percentage of the electric fund to transfer to the general fund.

desantis22

Thomas DeSantis

Nothing really changes but always seems to come back in full circle where we left off.  The surprising chain of events which has consumed, after the Mike Rios incident, makes for a great new story for “Mad Men.”

BLACK VOICE ARTICLE ON FORMER MORENO VALLEY COUNCILMAN BATEY

BATEY

Former Moreno Valley Councilman Bill Batey on doing the right thing and why he reported possible corruption in the City of Moreno Valley to the Riverside County Distric Attorney’s Office.

CITY OF RIVERSIDE CAMPAIGNING THE YES ON MEASURE A CAMPAIGN WITH YOUR TAX DOLLARS?

The mailers that the Yes on Measure A campaign have been distributing have been reflective of their talking points.  This new mailer just received has the City of Riverside star of approval with endorsing names such as our Chief of Police Sergio Diaz, Fire Chief Steve Earley and City Manager Scott Barber.  It cannot get any more blatant than this.  Legally the City of Riverside has had to take a position of neutrality, while over the past few months stated it was on a Measure A informational tour.  This mailer shows that that the City sent this mailer and can be ultimately construed as a campaign mailer endorsing a Yes vote on Measure A.  This can be seen just by the language and pictorial used.

mailer

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL MAILER

Further this mailer was paid for by you and me the “Taxpayer.”  Therefore is the City of Riverside on the verge of violating FPPC (Fair Political Practices Commision) rules and regulations?  Not to mention misappropriation of taxpayer funds.

DOITAGAIN

Will you do it again? or be fooled again by the Yes on Measure A Campaign?

If Measure A doesn’t pass will lose all of a sudden in excess of 80 jobs?  The majority of the campaign financing have been the Fire Unions and Police Unions.  Why are they struggling so hard to have a mere 2.8% to 3.1% of the budget not get cut?  If the City of Riverside is actually in dire straights, and using Measure A as a scapegoat, it shouldn’t be a problem to dissolve the Riverside Police Department and the Riverside Fire Department, and transfer both forces to the Riverside County Sheriff and Cal Fire.

Even the NAACP is involved with the  Yes on Measure A campaign.  What does the NAACP have to do with a water issue?  That’s a question to ask Woodie Rucker-Hughes.

naacp

Why would Ms. Rucker-Hughes and the NAACP inadvertainly appear to have some sort of obligatory agreement with the City of Riverside on this issue?  Why would she dis those she is in position to help?  Is it all about who we dance with?  I seriously don’t think the NAACP would approve.  That’s just me talking, the TMC reporter.

08TUTUS_1117_G_dwb     zellerback

The City’s hypocrisy has no end..

Vote No on Measure A,  www.noonmeasureariverside.com

For more information on this June 4th, 2013 Measure A, contact us noonmeasureariverside@hotmail.com

WETTWOPSD233

GOVERNMENT SHOULD LIVE WITHIN THEIR MEANS, AFTERALL, WE THE TAXPAYER HAVE TO..

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.  NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA?  RATED ONE TWO ONE STAR 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, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… 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 SPELL CHECKERS!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT!   THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

RESIDENTS

How much can residents take? and what must they do to protect their own monies from over taxation schemes when elected officials won’t?

Some of the misconceptions perpetrated by the City of Riverside on the Fact Information Tour regarding Measure A is that if monies from the water fund are stopped, they will have a direct impact on city services which the community relies on.  Fact, since June 2012 when the Moreno’s filed their law suit in care of the citizens of Riverside, the city responded by ceasing the transfer.  Fact, the transfer was immediately stopped because it was illegal under Proposition 218, specifically article 13 (c) and (d) under the State Constitution of the State of California.  Since then there has been no direct effect on city services.  The city explains that this is not a tax, but in one community event at the Goeske Center, Fire Chief Steve Earley admits it is a “general tax.”  Also, admits when asked, that there are no figures to show how much of the Fire budget comes from this General Fund Transfer (GFT).  Subsequent to that, City Manager Scott Barber, on the following day at Orange Terrace Community Center described it as a “tax.”  The community events whereby the Chief of Police and Fire Chief are parading the community circuit, we are finding The Raincross Group right there with them.

The City of Riverside has described that this General Fund Transfer from the Water Fund was voted on in the years of 1908, 1968 and 1977.  This all true, we make no bones about it, but one of the discrepencies the City fails to make public, is when Proposition 218 was voted on by the taxpayer in 1996 by an overwhelming 84% of Californian’s, this made the transfer illegal, even for charter cities such as Riverside.  So when our Mayor Rusty Bailey states that Proposition 218 doesn’t affect charter cities, he is not being correctly informed, or he has not read the document.  Proposition 218 described that a new General Fund Transfer (GTF) from the Water Fund must be brought to a vote to the people.  That was never done, until the Moreno’s challenged the city by filing the law suit.  Further, if this GTF is approved by the people, as in the current Measure A.  If passed, according to Proposition 218, cannot be used for City Services, but must solely be used for Water related purposes with precision accounting of the monies.  Specifically, page 50, Propostion 218 states very clearly.  But the City and others, such as the Raincross Group, a highly intellectual and distinguished group, continue to encourage residents to vote on an illegal measure.  I would imagine Tom Evans, a former City of Riverside Public Utilities Director,  would be well versed in Propostion 218.  This shocks me, but at the same time it doesn’t, especially when the city has been taking monies illegally since 1996, and with premeditaion.

Prop218page50

PAGE 50 OF PROPOSITION 218, CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

The last 16 years since the approval of Proposition 218, the City of Riverside has continued to transfer tax payer monies illegal to the General Fund.  The city claims that city services will be effected by the loss of these funds.  Granted, for the sake of argument, when city officials are asked how much of the GTF is budgeted for a particular department, no answer exist.  When asked for documents of the accounting of how these funds are used for specific city services, there are no document responsive to our request.  Granted, the City claims many services will be effected as Fire, Police, Crossing Guards, Tree Trimming, Libraries, Storm Drains, Gang Control, Disabled Services, Senior Services, Landscaping, 911 Dispatch Personal, 311 calls, Street Sweeping and on and on.  Oh and I forgot the coup d’état, the Clean Water Measure, which is already paid for.  But what resident don’t know we pay to keep are streets clean for Orange County.  That’s right!  Water from our street goes back to the Santa Ana river, percolates into the ground water down river, and Orange County pumps this water from the ground for their communities.  But in the grand scheme of things it’s doom and gloom when it comes to many cuts in staff and programs if Measure A does not pass.  Will the sky really fall?  Of course, not that only happens in movies, but this leads to our next question of how these transferred monies were actually allocated over the last 16 years since 1996 when Proposition 218 came into law.

How are these Water Fund monies used and dispersed once they are transferred to the General Fund?  Now, first the City was out on an informational tour last month to give facts on Measure A, now this informational tour has turned into Support of Measure A tour.  This of course, utilizing taxpayer resources to present their talking points.  Well, the City was asked how much these Water Fund monies were budgeted for the specific purpose or services.  None exist!  There were no documents responsive to our request.  The City states the monies are just mixed into the General Fund, no specific account, so when dispersed, we don’t really have an accountability of where those funds went or to whom.  When asked how they will be accounted for if Measure A passes, there response is that they will do the same.  So is the City’s Measure A Tour a farce?  Well the Resolution, Item 6, of March 05, 2013, passed by Council, states that water public utility money will be kept seperate and apart from all other moneys from the City by depositing them in a separate and appropriate revenue fund.  The dispersements of the water utility fund at the end of the fiscal year would be reported by and independent auditor.  What gives?

RESOLUTION6-2 copy

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

OR

VIEW COMPLETE MARCH 05, 2013 RESOLUTION, CLICK THIS LINK

When one looks at specifically page 71 of Proposition 218, it states that “ a transfer from an utility account (Water Fund) into an agencies General Fund must be accounted for with ‘precision’ and must be based upon an identifiable financial transaction.”  So are we to assume “Slush Fund?”

page71

PAGE 71 OF PROPOSITION 218, CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

The way the city has perpetrated this is simply wrong and illegal.  If the city needs more for Police and Fire, show us the budget, then raise our Property Taxes.  In addition, Proposition 172 passed by the Citizens of the State of California gave ½ cent of the sales tax to cities to pay for city services.  The Utility User’s Tax (UUT) on your utility bill is 6.5%, which goes to city services.  You were therefore paying 18% in taxes when you combine the 11.5% and 6.5% for the last 16years without a vote.  In a City Council meeting last March 2013, Chief of Police Sergio Diaz gave his report regarding the status of the Police Strategic Plan.  In his speech he maintained that the Police Account was sound, and that we could hire more police if necessary.  Would also maintain that Fire Account is the same at a $40 million yearly budget, afterall, we just bought a new fire truck this year.  But on the same token we did place about 10 of our fire departments as colateral to back some loans the City took out for some projects.  Regardless, the City maintains we have $400 million in pooled cash and investments, with additional $40 million in reserves.

“Regardless of how we got there and how we’ve been placed in this position, this is the best alternative for us.”..pfft..the best alternative is to leave money alone, if the money is for water..it’s for water..if it’s for police/fire…it’s for police fire..not for all the little pet projects you all come up with that does nothing for us but fills your pockets with ill gotten tax dollars…then to have you guys scratch your heads and ask where’d all the money go then come up with some other asinine ballot measure to cover what y’all stole.  -George Bessey, Licensed Nurse L.L.U.M.C., Commenter on the PE.

For the City to parade two of the highest most respected uniformed safety providers for the community of Riverside is quite appalling. They do this under the auspices of administering so called informational facts on Measure A, of which the City obviously supports, is just plain wrong and shows they are not looking out for the best interest of the citizens.  What is the connection, between The Raincross Group, an exclusive advocacy group whereby membership is by invite only, and the City of Riverside?

RC

Residents have been seeing some of their members, such as Gary Christmas, parading with City personal and elected officials on the city’s fact and informational tour.  Such as at Orange Terrace Community Center, advocating in favor of Measure A, then leaving with elected and city personal.  Isn’t this representative of status quo?

rg

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL DOCUMENT

Compelling to note how many of the who’s who actually benefit from the City of Riverside in contributions, contracts or other forms of municipal welfare.  How many of the Raincross Groups membership is benefiting from city taxpayer coffers?

Many of the members read as a who’s who of the pillars of the community, and appear to advocate positions of City of Riverside officials.  Is this because the City of Riverside subsidizes and/or provides beneficial contracts to loyal members?  Isn’t this again maintaining status quo?  I believe it was Rusty Bailey, here it is, yes he did, stated,  “….and, I’ll challenge the status quo to improve our quality of life.”  I don’t know what Rusty believes, but he has since gave $1,000.00 to the Yes on Measure A campaign as indicated in the document below.  Fiscal responsibility, that’s another question to ponder.

bailey             rusty

CLICK IMAGES TO ENLARGE IMAGE

When this was brought up last night at during public comment at City Council, a single clap in the back by good ol Tom Hunt, member of the RUSD Board of Education, signified a shout out in support of that action.

tomhunt

But in public comment referred to those who were not in support of Measure A Hunt stated to the Council “we shouldn’t let wrong minded nay sayers take control of our City.” Pretty tough words for a RUSD Board member, I guess those naysayers are on notice!   So who is in control of the City Tom, the Raincross Group?  The Greater Riverside Chamber?  You?   Mr. Hunt, when we found out that the City was stealing money in clear violation of the law to the extent of $80 million dollars, what were we going to do with this information?  We brought it to the Council 2 years ago, they did nothing.  We had to file a water law suit in care of the citizens to get attention.  One more thing Mr. Hunt, you kept referring to how this measure will affect schools.  Well it won’t, schools are funded by the State, sorry Mr. Hunt.  We are all part of this City together, and if concerns are taxes, we will all have to pay that together.

We must reiterate our position, if Police and Fire need more funding, the City should utilize the proper road to show the tax payer that funding in needed.  If they are needed, I have no problem and others in the community do, in voting to raise our property taxes to ensure that these safety services continue to be maintained.  The problem is how the Police and Fire Unions have completely emeshed themselves without proper research behind the measure.  The great amount of monies flowing from these two Unions is also evident.  The Police and Fire departments at the City level should always focus on what is in the best interest of the taxpayer, and the residents they serve, not to appear self serving.

At one event at the Goeske Center for Senior’s, Fire Chief Steve Earley stated that Measure A is a “general tax”; further could not account for how much of the City Fire budget comes from the 2.8% General Fund Transfer from the Water Fund.  Further, we have our Chief of Police, Sergio Diaz, attending community meeting and speaking in support of Measure A, according to the Press Enterprise.  Twice already breaking the law, a uniform city official speaking in favor of a measure, and secondly, encouraging residents to vote on a measure which according to the California State Constitution is illegal.  Not a great start up for the Chief of Police.

We also saw this in anothe example when it came to ecomments, whereby Mayor Bailey made known that a majority were in favor of passing the resolution in favor of Measure A.  Eighteen out of the 22 commenters were from the City Fire Department.  We also found from forms 476, that Mayor Bailey contributed a generous amount of $1,000.00 to the Yes on Measure A campaign.  Form 497 contributions are as follows:

webb     rusty          rpo        rflag          rflag2

CLICK IMAGES TO ENLARGE

So far as indicated in the Press Enterprise, the “Yes on Measure A” campaign has contribution commitments which are in the neigborhood of $46,000.00, and the “No on Measure A” campaign has, Ugh, are we sure about that?  We have commitments of $0.00

As most Police and Fire do, we suggest the monies contributed to your campaign should go to needy charities.  But a whopping $19,000.00 from the Riverside Firefighters Legislative Action Group, part of the California State Firefighters Association.  We also have monetary support at the local level from Firefighters Union and Police Union.  Yep the City wants the money, but are unable to produce documents which reflects how much transfered monies were allocated for a particular purpose.  Even with $40 million dollar Fire Fighters budget, Chief Earley wasn’t able to tell community residents how much is allocated to the budget.  So is Yes on Measure A really about unions and not employees and city services?

MAOrg

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

What’s also quite interesting is Matthew Webb, of Webb Engineering, which recieves a considerable of City contracts is Co-Chairperson of the Yes on Measure A Committe.  While the Chairperson of the Yes on Measure A, Ofelia Valdez-Yeager didn’t even show at this weeks city council to provide support.

Further, why are some of the executive staff and councilmembers in a tizzy as some have indicated, in trying to win over candidates to the support Yes on Measure A.  We know already it doesn’t benefit the residents, so how is it benefitting the City, especially when they cannot attest on how these monies were spent for the last 16 years?

Many of their members are involved with City officials in their support of Measure A passing.  Ofelia Yeager, is now the Chairperson for the Yes on Measure Campaign Comittee, with Mathew Webb, of Webb Engineering, as the Co-Chairperson and Richard Teaman, Treasurer, who was also treasurer for the John Tavaglione for Congress campaign.  What does it say when a grass roots group such as No on Measure A is confronted by monies in excess of $46,000.00?  Maybe the Yes on Measure A is strickenly worried?  They are continuing to strick unneccesary fear into the community with the threat of cutting services.  Services already provided by the Property Taxes. If already paid for by property taxes, where is the money?

So when does an Measure A informational tour become just bad business?  Well it appears that the PE is reporting that the Chief of Police, Sergio Diaz is out speaking to community groups is support of Measure A.  Or Councilman Mike Gardner making phone calls giving his candidate endorsement for a vote of Yes on Measure A.  We are getting more and more information of City Staff and Council pushing the Yes on Measure A theme.  A City cannot utilize taxpayer monies to support a measure, they cannot send their staff, Police Chief, Fire Chief and elected officials on the taxpayers dime in support of this measure.  They can on their own time but no in the capacity of their title and in their uniform.

DIAZ               Mike-Gardner

     Chief of Police, Sergio Diaz          Councilman Mike Gardner

Even City Manager, Scott Barber, was at it trying to convince some candidates and others for a Yes on Measure A.  The City really needs the money?

           06clapper-articleInline                                                  sb

City Manager, Scott Barber Ooops, Sorry                        City Manager, Scott Barber

Couldn’t the Yes on Measure A use a different domain name than the No on Measure A?   Let’s see: http://yesonmeasureariverside.com/   and  http://noonmeasureariverside.com/  Pretty close don’t you think?

But the City continues to print information in support of Measure A as in the Explore Riverside.

ERMeasureA

CLICK ABOVE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

And City Attorney Gregory Priamos had to get his two cents in an unprecedented attempt to mitigate and belittle the circumstances that led to the law suit.  Mr. Priamos states “some have argued?”  No Priamos, the law of the State of California in the Moreno’s water law suit argued that you were breaking the law, and in violation of the the California State Constitution.  Further, this is not a “payment”, but a “tax” according to the State of California.

CAPartAnalysis2

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

So why instead of scaring the public in the attempt to frighten them into voting Yes on Measure A, why doesn’t the City make some cuts themselves that cost the taxpayer, such as: Promote Pension Reform, Stop charging Lunches to the taxpayer, Stop charging trips to the taxpayer, close the Raincross Cafe (it’s been costing the taxpayer how much?),  Sell the Fox Theatre to Private Enterprise (Aren’t we in an negative $3 million yearly since the city took over?), Stop purchasing expensive funiture, Stop the excessive salaries and benefits (Privat sector would never get these), Check into Time Card Fraud, Cut the Mayor’s budget and Stop excessive 10% to 15% raises alson known as Pension Spiking (A favorite of Mayor Luv).  A good example was Kristin Tillquist, Mayor Luv’s Chief of Staff or the incomparable City Attorney Gregory Priamos. 

MeasAArg

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Did the “Yes on Measure A” campaign create a foa pau by inadvertently placing the City’s web site for infomation on this issue, instead of the legitimate yesonmeasureariverside.com site?  It appears they did, because they are now telling the public how to vote and the City should be impartial on this issue.

We also found it a bit intriguing that one of the Raincross Group members reached out to the No on Measure A Facebook site to provide us with a bit of advice, on the rules and regulations of Facebook.  Thanks Aarron for your concerns on our facebook site regarding our fake name and how to make more friends.

fb

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

But shouldn’t the contributor’s to the Yes on Measure A be better off giving their contributions to charity?  Mainly, unions in considerable amounts.

The position that a yes vote will not increase water rates is irrelevant to the Measure A.  Water rates can increase do the tiered water rate scheme propagated by the city to increase water revenue.  With increase water revenue, the 11.5% transferred to the General Fund is even greater..

the City claims many services will be effected as Fire (Property Taxes & Prop. 172), Police (Property Taxes & Prop. 172), Crossing Guards (Property Taxes), Tree Trimming (Property Taxes), so when was the last time anybody seen their trees cut?  Here’s an interesting comment.  The city wants you to pay to cut their own trees, even though you already pay for it in property taxes.  Other property owners having a back alley, are being mandated to abate weeds in the back alley adjacent to their property, or otherwise be fined!  What!  the property is City property!

This is such a win for the citizens of Riverside. The Measure A that they are talking about, I have my doubts. I have had the city out to my house three times to cut a tree that is their tree, and each time I have been denied with the city stating that if I want it cut I will have to pay for it. The darn thing is hanging over my house but the city worker claims it doesn’t need to be cut. I think they are just trying to get me to pay for it. I can’t see how Measure A will help get it cut down, if they already had the money and would not do it. They just want to take tax payer money and do what they will with it. Vote “NO” on Measure A.  – Sandi Garcia, Commenter on the PE

trees

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Pot holes, also paid for by Property taxes, but many are asking the question of why the street in our City are beginning to appear as a third world country?  Here a pic taken locally of a neighborhood street.  So what gives, taxes come in, but services never transpire.  Does the City need the help of the resident, maybe one day out of the month to go around patching up our streets?

IMG_0202

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

WITH INCREASING AMOUNT OF POTHOLES BECOMING PREVALENT IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, SHOULD WE GOOD CITIZENS AND DO THE WORK OURSELVES AS ONE SAN DIEGO RESIDENT DID?  Well, this is what San Diego Hillcrest resident Primo Vanicelli decided to do back in 2010 as reported by the SanDiego.Com

pothole         pothole2

Libraries (Property Tax), Storm Drains (Property Tax & additional Storm Drain Tax), Gang Control (already paid for by DOJ in Police Asset Forfeiture Funds), Disabled Services (Property Tax), Senior Services (Property Tax), Landscaping (Property Tax), Tree Trimming (Property Tax), 911 Dispatch Personal (Property Tax) and on and on.

kit

How would you vote if you recieved this swell kit from Public Utilities March 05, 2013, the day that the Measure A resolution was passed at City Council?

At City Council on Tuesday May 07, 2013, City Manager Scott Barber presented a “what if.”  What if Measure A doesn’t pass, how it will effect the City in regards to services, to the extent of 3.1% of the City’s operating budget.  Now if anyone has worked corporate, as I have, you know that if management asked you to cut 10%, you were in hog heaven.  Considering a 20% to 30% cut that’s a bit tougher, but can be done.  The City Manager is complaining of a 3.1% cut, is he kidding?  But he takes the doom and gloom approach, because it is what get’s people’s attention.  It is scaring employees and resident by perpetrating a dispiccable farce.  What is his 3.1% based on?  It certainly not based on last years spending or the spending over the last 16 years.  Why? Because there is no track record of the spending to begin with.

CITY RESPONDS IN A LETTER REGARDS THE DETAILS OF THE WATER SETTLEMENT

cityletter

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW LETTER

The City of Riverside’s states in this letter that when Proposition 218 was passed in 1996, that the impact on the City was unclear since the voters had already voted on the transfer.  The City fails to indicate that the Proposition 218 made the transfer null and void, and illegal to continue the transfer without a vote of the people.  So how much did the City of Riverside really know?  Well it appeared they knew plenty..  The City cannot claim ingnorance on this one, the Mayor Ron Loveridge was the President of the League of Cities for two terms.  The League of Cities created the implementation guide to Proposition 218, with the help of the Attorney who advised the city to settle, Michael Colantuono.  A little known fact is that the California Supreme Court mandated that  cities had till November 08, 1998 to comply and approve a tax measure to continue the General Fund Transfer as a tax on water service.  November 08, 1998 came and the City of Riverside failed to meet this tax approval deadline, and continued to illegally transfer monies to the General Fund for the next 16 years, without giving the opportunity to the residents to vote on it.

In the below agreement between the City of Riverside and the Hyatt, they admit to the transfer, but note that no court has ruled on whether a transfer like Riverside can be called a cost of providing water service.  Recently in a Press Enterprise, the Hyatt was suing the City of Riverside for “extorsion.”

HYATT43  HYATT52  HYATT53    HYATT54

CLICK DOCUMENT IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Page 52 of this agreement indicates that the City understands Article XIII C of the California State Constitution.  The City states in this agreement that Article XIII C requires that all new taxes be submitted to the electorate (this is you the voter) before they become effective.  Taxes for general government purposes (taxes that can be spent on anything) of the City require a majority vote, even if deposited into the City’s General Fund, require two-thirds vote.  The City further understands that because this “tax” requires voter approval per Proposition 218, this in turn, will reduce the City’s flexibility to raise revenues for the General Fund, and no assurance can be given that the City will be able to impose, extend or increase such taxes in the future to meet increased expenditure needs.  Though the No on Measure A campaign are stating this is not a tax, the City validates that it is in this agreement.  The City in there support of Measure A has no become instrumental in misleading the public on the legalities of this measure.  Also, in order for monies to be transferred to the City’s General Fund, the monies must be labeled as taxes.

Further, on page 52, the City indicates it’s understanding of Proposition 218 by attesting to the provisions of Article XIII D, such as item (iv) a prohibition against fees and charges which are used for general government services, including police, fire and library services.  Simply because the service is already paid for through property taxes!

A 2010 financial report, issued when the city sought to borrow money to loan to a hotel developer, cites court decisions in three utility fee lawsuits and notes that no court has ruled on whether a transfer like Riverside’s can be called a cost of providing water service.

So far, the report said, “no claim has been filed with the city regarding the legality of including the revenue transfer as a cost of providing the related services and no litigation has been threatened” – but the information was included among possible risks to investors who might lend the city money.

But down the line we also noticed that in a letter to Mark Hill, Department of Finance for the State of California, our City Manager Scott Barber brought to his attention some possible conflicts with Proposition 218.  Further example of the City of Riverside knowingly understanding the impact of a violating Proposition 218.

letterpg33 letter44  letter55 letter66

CLICK THE IMAGES TO ENLARGE SPECIFIC PAGES FOR VIEWING

OR

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW ALL PAGES OF THE THIS LETTER

The bottom line, the City knew of the impact of Proposition 218 over the years and what would happen if they were challenged in a court of law.   This stems from former Mayor Ron Loveridge, City Attorney Gregory Priamos, former City Manager Brad Hudson and current City Manager Scott Barber.  But ultimately the Council is legally responsible for the actions and decisions they have made.

SEWER BID CANCELLED?

In what appears to be a routine sewer replacement on 9th street also appears to have been cancelled.  Does the City of Riverside lack the $3,358,127.50 in the sewer funds to initiate and complete a maintenance upgrade project?

BIDCANCELLED

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

THE BILL AND MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION: WHAT DOES THE GREATER RIVERSIDE CHAMBER HAVE TO DO WITH IT?

gates

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL DOCUMENT

Questions abound as to why the Greater Riverside Chamber has received monies from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Funds, keyed in under the Mayors Community Relations.  Why are monies from this foundation finding there way to the accounts of the Greater Riverside Chamber?

WILL THE PURPLE PIPE BE BACK?

MRRATEINCREASE

The rumor around town is that Public Utilities Director Dave Wright is really looking at a water increase to refund what is now known as the recycled water program, or as many have recalled, the purple pipe program.  Though currently there are no pending rate increases in the plans.  This is all in fact if Measure A does not pass.  If Measure does not pass, water rates will not necessarily be cut, but the plan is to have the water fund pay for the recycle water program/ purple pipe.  Last time the council attempted to put this through was back in April 2012.  Questions arose if these new fees attached to our water bill are really “taxes?”  In this resolution it was also found that Wright wanted the taxpayer to also pay for $500,000.00 in new furniture.   It seems as if we are always going around in circles, once the city hits one obstacle, as it may be a tax and those darn residents have to vote on this issue, they just continue to go back to the drawing board and find another way.  Here we are again, looking at a different way of getting our money for the same issue we dealt with last year.  This time the intended rate increases will be raised to pay for the purple pipe.

NO ON MEASURE A CAMP HACKING FOR SUPPORTERS?

The new word around town is that the No on Measure A Camp is erroneously posting Yes on Measure A people as supporters.  My response on our FB site was to indicate that we initially did a email blast for support.  What we are understanding is that there may have been confusion between the terms “Yes” and “No”.  People who were “Yes” supporters or not supporters at all inadvertently confirmed the No on Measure A FB site as supporters.  Even Tom Hunt confirmed us as a friend initially, then realized it was No on Measure A and defriended us.  We understanding that defriending can be done on both sides of the spectrum.  So if there are friends on No on Measure A that don’t want to be friends, you can defriend us on your end, or contact us to defriend on our end.  We didn’t realize FB would be this complicated.  But it appears that the “Yes on Measure A” camp may be indicating to their friends, that the “No on Measure A” camp is “hacking” into FB sites to bring non-supporters to the “No on Measure A” FB site.  If someone can tell us how to erroneously post people who don’t really want to be your site, let me know.  Further, we weren’t sure how they were assessing that we knew they were “Yes” supporters to begin with.  Does anybody know why we call ourselves a camp?

VOTE NO ON MEASURE A

For more information on this June 4th, 2013 Measure A, visit are web site at:  noonmeasureariverside.com

WETTWOPSD233

GOVERNMENT SHOULD LIVE WITHIN THEIR MEANS, AFTERALL, WE THE TAXPAYER HAVE TO..

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.  NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA?  RATED ONE TWO ONE STAR 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, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… 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 SPELL CHECKERS!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT!   THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

Moreno1

You are only as powerful as people perceive you to be.  Or people allow you to be. You have no power if I don’t give you any.

DSC-3262_415_351

My open letter to Ofelia Valdez- Yeager

Dear Mrs. Ofelia Valdez-Yeager,(No relation to Yeager Construction),

I know you as a Neighbor, Community Leader and Acquaintance.  My letter is to express my concern that you are the Chairwoman in support of Yes on Measure A.  I don’t quite understand the Hypocrisy of all your civic endeavors. You belong to the Raincross Group that is an exclusive, elitist invitation only group that’s a public policy advocacy organization.  You were Chair of the Women’s Democratic Club.  You are the Chairperson of Latino Network which provides a forum to address community issues affecting and impacting the latino community.  You are the founding chair of the Cesar Chavez Memorial which is dedicated to the life of a man who’s profound statement “The love for justice that is in us is not only the best part of our being but it is also the most true to our nature.”  In other words, it is part of our nature to do the right thing, and he took this to fight for the injustices of all farm workers.

The “Walk of Peace” on Main Street Riverside includes: Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Ysmael Villegas and Dosan Ahn Chang-Ho.  Soon we will have Cesar Chavez because of your groups effort.  What these men stood for and sacrificed is in clear contradiction of the “Elite” Raincross Group.  To up hold justice and protect human rights of the Citizens less fortunate “the Least, the Lost and the last.”  As a matter of fact Gandhi protested against excessive land taxes.  I believe that all these men would be fighting against the injustice of Measure A.

On June 2013, you, The Mayor, and Council will be raising the torch on the finished Monument of Cesar Chavez.  I’m sure you will have words expressing the plight of Cesar Chavez and his passion for non violent activism.  You raised the torch for what this man stood for and at the same time you also raised the torch for the elitist group that suppresses the very thing Cesar Chavez stood for. It’s like Apples and Oranges, Oil and Vinegar, so what is it!  Your actions don’t match your words.  My Question for you is did you put your efforts in to this monument because you believe in the activism of Cesar Chavez or because you are seeking glorification?

I believe Cesar Chavez would have never belonged to an Elitist, Exclusive, Invitation Only Community Group that supports the oppression of the Citizens of Riverside. I don’t think any of the nationally recognized humanitarians on the walk of peace would participate in the Raincross Group, especially Cesar Chavez.

You are supporting a measure that is illegal and will suppress minoritys and the economically disadvantaged first. I’m sure everyone in the Raincross Group will be able to afford a higher utility bill. The hypocrisy in your actions is apparent.  Didn’t you Support John Tavaglione (REPUBLICAN) for Congress and you were the president of the Women’s Democratic Club?  You raise the flag of Cesar Chavez and you also raise the flag of the Raincross Group and Yes on Measure A. So, I’m not exactly sure what it is you stand for, or believe in. What I am sure about is that Cesar Chavez Would be Against Measure A.

As Chair Woman of “Yes” on Measure A, I would like to believe you are well versed on Prop 218 and 26 and section 13C and 13D of the Constitution of the State of Cailifornia.  I Challenge you, “Mana Y Mana” and your Committee to a debate on all the issues of Measure A.  Our No on Measure A Committee will arrange this forum and I will send you a formal invitation to your Yes on Measure A Committe. This debate will reveal what is truly in the best interest of our Community. Protecting all of our citizens, and following the law!

Vivian Moreno, No on Measure A Campaign

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.  NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA?  RATED ONE TWO ONE STAR 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, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… 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 SPELL CHECKERS!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT!   THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

irs

Investigators from Federal State and Local agencies have served a total of six search warrants within the City of Moreno Valley upon the residences of Jerome (Jerry) P. Stephens, Mayor Tom Owings, Councilmember’s Richard Stewart, Jessie Molina, Richard Stewart, Marcelo Co and Victoria Baca, developers Richard Stewart and Iddo Benzeevi and the offices of Highland Fairview and others.  For more informaton read go to MVGordie’s Blog Site.

j_molina0113 baca0213 stewart0213 m_co0113 t-owings0113

JESSIE MOLINA             VICTORIA BACA             RICHARD STEWART          MARCELO CO         MAYOR TOM OWINGS

Breaking story in the Press Enterprise whereby Federal Agencies, FBI, IRS and the US Attorney’s office,  are raiding the offices of high elected Moreno Valley officials, such as the Mayor,  and a developer, Iddo Benzeevi.  There is no doubt as in the Bell case, the council is ultimately responsible for the decisions they make, regardless of the their City Attorney or City Manager tells them, and these two know that.  The real puppeteers of the operation is the City Manager, in this case, Henry Garcia, they know exactly what is happening in the City.  Now, with former Riverside City Manager Tom De Santis, now currently director of human resources for Moreno Valley, will have to wait to see how this all plays out.

imagesdaily.2011.08-20.10066481_bp_iddo_benzeevi_400

IDO BENZEEVI

Former Moreno Valley Councilman Bill Batey went to DA Paul Zellerbach’s office to discuss concerns regarding corruption in Moreno Valley City Hall.  We are surprised Zellerbach did anything at all, maybe it’s because it is out of the the City of Riverside.  Oh I get it, no one in Moreno Valley contributed to his campaign…  The City of Riverside needs a bit of spring cleaning, will they be next?

Batey-380x475

BILL BATEY

Remember Riverside Council, it only takes one…

IRSbw

What will the IRS find in Moreno Valley?

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.  NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA?  RATED ONE TWO ONE STAR 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, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… 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 SPELL CHECKERS!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT!   THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

WETTWOPSD34 copy

THE MORENO WATER LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT

SETTELMENTa     settlement2     settement3     settelment4

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

At todays City Council, City Attorney Greg Priamos attempted to mitigate the importance of this settlement by dismissing that it had any value due to the fact that there was no court opinion, which would indicate a precedence.  Though the Moreno’s settlement was in their favor, the Moreno’s receive no monies, not one penny, as a result of this suit being a citizen private attorney general suit, the benefit is to the residents and citizens at large.  The Moreno’s have provided their own time and expenses in preparation by reviewing public records.  Private attorney general is an informal term usually used today in the United States to refer to a private party who brings a lawsuit considered to be in the public interest, i.e., benefiting the general public and not just the plaintiff.  The rationale behind this principle is to provide extra incentive to private citizens to pursue suits that may be of benefit to society at large.  In general, any person, citizen, may sue in care of the Attorney General of the State of California if they see an issue which violates the state constitution and it’s by laws.

The Press Enterprise, Dan Bernstein had much to say in his new article Payback Time: Riverside Watchdogs Force $10 Million Refund

If you are a resident of the City of Riverside, you are fighting for water. Possibly with more rights to that water than the city you live in is allowing you to think you have.  You can drink the whiskey to ease the pain of the high water bills, but you shouldn’t, since you own it..so what has happened?  Does every homeowner in Riverside have water rights?  History says you do.  Ownership of land says you do.  Have you been bamboozled by your own city council representives?

The new June 4th initiative, now known as Measure A, is actually a new tax which will be assessed on your monthly utility bill.  Your utility bill is already taxed by the Utility Users Tax imposed by the City to recover costs such as 911 emergency services, fire and police protection. (Your property tax also pays for these services.)  Is this reaffirmation of an old measure actually another tax for the same purpose? That is unconstitutional Double Taxation!

The city has been collecting unlawful taxes on your utility bill for sixteen years, since 1996 when Prop 218 was put into law.  Our city leadership did not allow you to vote on this and merely continued to unlawfully collect the taxes by GFT (General Fund Transfer) for the last 16 years (in violation of the state Constitution).  The amount to be returned from the General Fund may be $100 million.

Additionally, the City has a conflict of interest yet un-resolved.  It taxes your utility bill and sets the charges on your utility bill.  The maximum General Fund Transfer (GFT) is 11.5%.  If the City General Fund needs additional cash, they, the Council, vote to raise the Utility Water Rates thus providing more tax revenue thru taxation by GFT.  Therefore, by increasing the city’s water income per the questionable tiered system, which increases water rates atronomically, will therefore increase the amount of money in the fund, therefore increase the  11.5% transfer much more.  A little sleight of hand, the constituents are not quite privy to.  Further, as much as 75% or your water bill will be taxes.  Vote NO on the June 4th measure or initiative and demand your Refund!  Los Angeles had recently tried to sneak in a similar measure, but was voted out.  The question arising, is why are elected representatives are not representing and protecting their constitutents?

The question that the residents and businesses of Riverside our asking, “”What does my water bill have to do with City services?”  Valid question, whereby residents already pay for City services through Property Taxes and Sales Taxes etc… Why must we pay more?  You have a yearly budget, a tax is assessed on your properties, but according to the City of Riverside, it is not enough!  Chief of Police Sergio Diaz recently stated at City Council March 12th, that are funds our intact, we can hire 25 more police if we wanted to.

As a result of the water lawsuit, the transfer was ceased….fire, 911 dispatchers, police, senior and disabled services remain funded.  At City Council in February 2013 the City Manager stated we have $400 million in cash, pool and investments.  We also as indicated by some have a $40 million reserve fund.  So why the need for extra money for services already paid for?  No one from the City seems to have that answer.   Well, I do know this, residents must live within their monetary means, why shouldn’t the City?  So because we, the residents of the City of Riverside own our water rights because we own the land that we retrieve the water from, shouldn’t we have extremely low water rates?  In fact, shouldn’t we receive dividends?  This questions has been brought forward to TMC.  Bringing them to City Council is another thing.  Why these residents feel they are afraid to vent their opinions is another.  Why citizens are afraid to come forward to city council to bring their concerns, but feel they will be retaliated by either the City of Riverside’s other police force, Code Enforcement, or the utilization of RPD to go to that individual in a show of force.

Glendale also was transferring money from the water fund, but some residents raised questions about it and the city was aware of several court decisions that could leave it vulnerable, so officials addressed those by stopping the water fund transfer.  “We didn’t do it because we thought it was illegal,” Garcia said. “We just decided to avoid any issue, to avoid any risk, we would discontinue the transfer.”

What about the three tiered system? Is this system illegal? Is this another lawsuit? Another violation of Proposition 218?  Afterall, the residents own the water rights, but the City sells a percentage of that water to the Municipal Water District at a profit.  While at the same time the residents are inundated with higher rates, many residents are asking the question shouldn’t we be entitled to a didvidend?  This in whereby some citrus growers have ceased doing business or have lost their business altogether as a result of higher excessive water rates.  Now the City of Riverside has a long historical history in the the Citrus Industry, of which they are noted.  What do we have left when those in charge have failed to address our historical roots?

For 16 years, since 1996,  the City of Riverside has avoided complying with Proposition 218 and Prop 26. This non-compliance has been most egregious in terms of utility pricing within the City. The City of Riverside employs hidden taxes in the utility prices it charges citizens in order to transfer large sums of cash to the City’s general fund.  The City’s method of creating hidden taxes and collecting these monies denies the citizens their constitutional rights to vote on special taxes and property assessments.

The City of Riverside is water-independent from any other agency. It takes 100% of its water supplies from local groundwater basins and continues to annually sell 6,000-8,000 acre feet of surplus water. Also, the City of Riverside has documented that locally-available sources of water are sufficient to supply the annual needs of the city beyond the current 20-year projections in spite of the widely-declared drought in California.  So folks the truth of the matter is that the Citizens of Riverside own the water  that comes from the San Bernardino Basin .  We have so much water that if it goes beyond the 50 foot water table underground,  the City of San Bernardino would sink.  Yes we know San Bernardino is sinking in bankruptcy, but that is a different story.  But in one Press Enterprise story we found Diamond Valley Lake in Hemet, a regional reservoir for the Metropolitan Water District, well it appear they are having a sale on water!  Yep, they have a little to much and don’t know what to do with it……no conservations rules here my friends.

Recently, the City of Riverside, passed a new resolution March 5th, an amendment to the charter.  An amendment to the charter that was actually made null and void by law in 1996 via Prop 218.  The new amendment, known as Measure A, in which the language is vague and confusing sounds like the work of Riverside’s own crack pot City Attorney , Gregory Priamos.  But is Priamos actually giving the Council ‘the bum steer?”  Is his crime actually guilt of negligence due to faulty legal advice?  After all as in the Bell case, “Council did it because the City Attorney and City Manager told us it was okay.” That did not hold well with the judge.  Council makes the decisions, they should have an understanding of what they are voting for.  Council, is ultimately responsible for the decisions made in care of the constituents, regardless of what their City Attorney or City Manager has told them.

gp1                                              gp2

Riverside City Attorney Gregory Priamos without goatee   Oops Sorry, Riverside City Attorney Gregory Priamos with goatee

The law requires a public vote on most new taxes or tax increases, and it sets out rules for the creation of special taxing districts that charge property owners for benefits such as street lights. It also requires that fees charged for a service must be directly related to the cost of the service.  We don’t know what was more aggregious, the new resolution or Mayor Bailey’s ruse to promo the overwhelming support of this resolution from the ecomment section of the City website.  The problem was that 22 out of the 39 comments were city employees; 18 of the 22 were favorable comments from the fire department!  Was the Riverside Fire Fighters Union in on it?  Well according to the following document on the City’s web site we have an interesting set of proponents in favor of Measure A.  We have non other than former Mayor Ron Loveridge, we have Timothy D. Strack, President of the Riverside Fire Fighters Union, we have Brian C. Smith, President of the Riverside Police Officer’s Union and Dr. Steven Kim MD, Emergency Medical Director of Riverside Community Hospital.  Interesting we have the issue of one ambulance service through the monopoly provided by American Medical Response.  Did the City of Riverside get Dr. Kim to sign because, holy cow, was it because the Riverside City Council approved a $4.5 million, 15-year tax sharing agreement to help fund the Riverside Community Hospital project?  Further, why did the City of Riverside have the Chief of Police Sergio Diaz and Fire Chief Steve Earley parading at community meetings around town providing informational facts regarding Measure A?

ArgumentFavorJpeg                                  ArgumentFavorJpegtwo

CLICK ON DOCUMENT IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Now Mayor Bailey, did you know anything about this?  Did the Riverside City Council understand what they were voting for?  Did the City Attorney Greg Priamos advise them correctly?  The new City resolution passed 7-0 by all council members.  Did they vote on an illegal resolution, in direct violation of the the California State Constitution?  Did the Riverside City Council receive bad legal advice.  But it doesn’t matter.  According to the judge in the City of Bell case, the Council is utimately responsible regardless of the City Attorney’s advice.  The resolution is as follows:

resolutionmarch5

CLICK ON LINK TO VIEW FULL RESOLUTION

See folks what your elected officials are not telling you is that the theory behind the law is when you take money from utility customers to subsidize other services, not all of those customers will benefit from the other services – say, tree trimming or community center operations.  But isn’t tree trimming already paid for by your property taxes? of course it is, you are being illegally taxed, and double taxed, and in some cased tripled taxed, and your representatives are simply not knowledeable to make that decision?  I think we saw that with the Bell, CA council, who felt they depended on the City Attorney and the City Manager, and you see where it got them…indicted.

A recent lawsuit alleges Riverside’s transferring money from its water utility into the general fund violates Prop. 218, a state constitutional amendment passed in 1996. Here are some facts about Propositon 218:

  • Voter-approval. Except for sewer, water and refuse collection services, fees subject to the requirements of article XIIID requires a majority vote of property owners or, at the public agency’s option, a two-thirds vote of the electorate, in addition to compliance with the majority protest proceedings.
  • Fees for general governmental services prohibited. Proposition 218 fees may not fund general governmental services, including but not limited to police, fire, ambulance or library services, which are available to the public at large in substantially the same manner as they are to property owners.
  • Fee for service provided only. Revenues derived from the fee may not be used for any purpose other than that for which the fee was imposed.
  • Fee not to exceed cost of service. Revenues derived from the fee may not exceed the funds required to provide the property related service. (See note above).
  • Fee not to exceed proportional cost. The amount of the fee may not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel.
  • Fees may not be imposed to fund some future benefit.

Another aspect of this measure is that it appears to be paying for alot!  Potholes, Storm Drains (we doubled the tax in 2012), Police, Fire, 911 dispatch, Childrens Lunch Programs, Clean Water (Covered by your water rates), Gang Control (Covered by Federal Police Asset Forfeiture Funds), Library, Crossing Guards, Tree Triming, Disabled Services, Senior Services and it goes on and on.  Property Taxes pay for City Services, the User Utility Tax on your utility bill pays for services and Proposition 172 allocates 1/2 cent from the sales tax to city services.  Government should live within their means, afterall you and I have to.  But what! We had an increase from $2.83 to $5.22?  Yes folks, last year we had an increase in our Storm Drain Tax ( also know as Storm Sewer System), documents as follows:

STORMDRAIN                              PAGE4

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW COMPLETE DOCUMENT

VOTE NO on MEASURE A!

For more information go to NO ON MEASURE A

WAS FORMER RIVERSIDE MAYOR TERRY FRIZZEL DISS’D BY NEWLY ELECTED MAYOR RUSTY BAILEY?

It is rumored, that former Mayor Loveridge, AKA Mayor Luv…. Is he continuing to work behind the scenes to lovingly massage current elected and city officials towards effective goals?  The following documents show that Mayor Loveridge is at the top of the list with reference to his support of Measure A.  Unbeknownst to the public is that Mayor Ron Loveridge has had prior knowledge to the fact that the General Fund Transfer (GTF) is illegal, and has been a violation of Proposition 218 since 1996.  He was president of the National League of Cities, a lobbying group,  in 2003 and 2010.  National League of Cities have created the language of Proposition 218 as seen in this image.

prop218

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW PROPOSITION 218

In the lower right hand you can see National League of Cities.  So when former Mayor of Riverside Terry Frizzell stated that former Mayor Ron Loveridge has no purity, has no conscious, and was only there to be a big shot…  well the community is beginning to think differently.

mayor233

Former Mayor Terry Frizzel slamed Former Mayor Loveridge as driving with young students around campus..well alrighty, that must have been a disturbing seen as Mayor Frizzel has indicated, and it also appeared that former Mayor Ron Loveridge’s wife did not hold back when her husband was out and about on campus territory.

How would you have liked it when your wife went up to UCR and complained about your running around with some of the students up there.  Would you like it if the police had carried her out of there.  No you wouldn’t have! .. and I was right there and saw that you had young students in your car driving around that campus when I was first got elected here.

You have no purity, you have no conscious, you are there just to be a big shot… and that’s all you ever try to be.  You don’t care about the people of this community or you would never had said the things that  you’ve said.  I’m totally disgusted there was no reason for what you did to Karen.  I wish I would have been here, because you would have never had let you get away with this..

And you Mr. Davis, I stuck up for you when you were being put on the carpet, because you had every right to be heard and they tried to shut you up.

What’s the matter with you people, what’s the matter with you, and he (Mayor), he makes the word that you can’t be like Terry Frizzel and veto stuff.  He (Mayor)  didn’t like the manner of my operation.  But I can tell you one thing. (gasp from mayor).

Mayor, when  Ab Brown came up to this podium, you sent me notes, shut em up, shut em up.. and I would send you notes, no, he has the right to speak.

picture-31

Former Riverside Mayor, Terry Frizzel

Since this happened in a public display between former Mayor Terry Frizzel and former Mayor Ron Loveridge in a public council meeting.  Was this the reason why former Mayor Luv’s boy, now Mayor Rusty Bailey didn’t allow Frizzel to speak at one public comment because she wrote the wrong “item number” on the speaking card?  Was it because she ‘diss’d Mayor Luv in public?  During this chamber exchange of words Bailey chastised Frizzel regarding her speaking card, in what community residents have labeled ‘disrespectful’ and ‘condenscending.’  Was this payback?

Back of the slim girl in a evening dressBut again, who was that girl in red on the 7th floor in which City Manager Scott Barber allegedly stated, “They’ll never learn..”

IS THE “KEEP RIVERSIDE CLEAN AND BEAUTIFUL” A MONEY LAUDERING SCHEME?

According to this document, The Keep Riverside Clean and Beautiful programs, will be paid by our trash rates.  And this amount will be handed over to The Greater Riverside Chamber, whom Cindy Roth is the CEO.  It’s also touted by her to be a volunteer program.  But the program meets one day a month for a total of 10 months; two months out of the year the program does not meet.  The sum of $189,672.00 is given to Ms. Roth’s Chamber, at a cost to the tax payer of $18,500.00 for one day per month.  Not to shabby for a days work, especially when the Chamber touts it to be a volunteer program.  Street sweeping and shopping cart retrieval was also tied in to the refuse rates as documents show.

GRAFFITIPROGCLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL DOCUMENT

KRCAB

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW COMPLETE DOCUMENT

City council February 19, 2013

City Manager Scott Barber responded to questions members of the public had during public comment on February 12, 2013 during City Council regarding the appropriateness of charges that go into our refuse rates.  Mr. Barber responded on his blog site:

Recently during public comment, questions were raised by some members of the public regarding the appropriateness of charges that go into our refuse rates. Given these questions, I thought it might be helpful for me to address Proposition 218 in general and these charges specifically.

Proposition 218 applies to water, sewer, refuse and other property-related fees in a limited context. Prop. 218 does not require voters to specifically approve, by ballot, utility rates. Rather, Prop. 218 requires such fees to be “proportional” to the cost of service. This means that the rate may not exceed the reasonable cost to provide such service. Prop. 218 also requires the City to hold a public hearing to discuss adoption of a rate increase, provide mailed notice to all ratepayers of the hearing and if more than 50% of ratepayers object to the rate increase, the rate increase fails. The City has scheduled such a hearing for the proposed refuse rate increase for February 12, 2013, and all ratepayers have been so notified of the hearing.

A specific question was raised as to why refuse ratepayers should be charged for the following services:

- shopping cart retrieval

- street sweeping

- Keep Riverside Clean and Beautiful, which is a program administered by the local Chamber of Commerce.

Specifically, two ratepayers have asked how these services directly benefit their parcel. Here are the answers:

- Shopping Carts: The retrieval of shopping carts will not be funded by the Refuse Fund.

- Street Sweeping: The Refuse Fund funds a portion of street sweeping, because a portion of the refuse which is collected by the street sweepers is either a result of collection bins being collected curbside or is refuse that is generated by the property owner that otherwise should have been deposited in collection bins.

- Keep Riverside Clean and Beautiful (a program of the Riverside Chamber of Commerce): Keep Riverside Clean and Beautiful (KRCB) is a community based program sponsored by the Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce, the City of Riverside and other organizations and individuals to provide community clean-ups and beautification efforts to improve the quality of life for the City of Riverside. Since 1992, KRCB has provided hands-on stewardship with litter prevention year round. City of Riverside refuse funds are used to help pay for time and materials needed to implement litter removal activity. City funds have helped to pay for removal of 116,965 pounds of litter, 800 Adopt a Street clean ups for 84 Adopt a Streets, monthly clean ups, the Great American Clean-up volunteer program activities and calculation of the annual litter index. KRCB works throughout the city with local businesses and schools to provide volunteers and sponsor events to remove trash cleaning up our environment and improving the quality of life in the City of Riverside instilling a sense of pride in our residents. On November 11, 2011, KRCB won the national award for First Place from Keep America Beautiful in the category for cities with populations over 200,000. The judging was based on litter prevention efforts, recycling & waste reduction, beautification programs, community involvement and leveraging resources, media and public awareness, and recognition programs done throughout the year. Programs which promote and educate as to the proper disposal of refuse, the appropriate diversion of recyclable materials, and the proper disposal of hazardous waste benefit all refuse ratepayers by keeping the City’s costs for refuse collection low.

Hopefully, you will find this information helpful as you review these issues- thanks for reading, Riverside.

- Scott (City Manager Scott Barber)

“PERSPECTIVE”

Of course, I get it, it had to be done, but will the truth ever come out?  There is still questions concerning a person’s due process, could it ultimately be abused due to the power of the badge, for any citizen under any possible situation?  The Dorner incident, Dorner was killed…this is a grey area the community is concerned about, and can they be a victim?

The question of how apprehending criminals comes into perspective when we how this is actually done.  If you are a law enforcement agent do you have carte blanche with regard to the decision that is made with regard to a criminal.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m an just trying to understand the difference between as some have said police vigilante justice and resident vigilante justice.  Can it be construed as one in the same or are we under a different set of standards?

As one reporter stated, “If the LAPD is going to abandon its mission of public safety and function as an armed vigilante justice squad, dishing out death sentences to those it believes are guilty — without a trial or anything resembling due process — then they might as well throw away all their badges as just call themselves the LA Gang Squad. Because that’s how they’re acting.”

So let’s think about this, is this really as they say about truth, justice and the American way?  The American way is that everyone has a fair and just trial before sentencing?  If not, who are we?  Who are the perpetrators of justice who are their to protect, serve and defend us?  Where does the law come in or does it at all, or does it apply for applicable situations?  Should we as a society accept the premise that ‘law enforcement’ knows what is best for the so called residents it states that they are there to protect and serve? So what happens next?

A hypothetical, a male suspect rape’s and kills my daughter.  As a father I find the suspect and unload a glock .45 till the clip is empty, am I justified?  Or am I taken into custody for not allowing the perpetrator a fair trial.  Under the situation have we lost ‘perspective’?  so what have we become? Is this acceptable for one set of circumstances, rather than an another?  If this in fact is true how far has our perspective deviated?  Has it deviated to the point of our loss of perspective?  The loss of perspective as a result of emotion?  Emotion being the perpatrator of vigilante truth, justice and the American way?

So with this perspective what do we really have? Real justice without due process?  Can we really accept this as a society based on laws? Law that are applied to the citizens, but may in fact not apply to so called protectors of society.  So now what? Can we, as a society, who are in essence the government, supersede law enforcement agencies to enforce their own vigilante justice?  After all, we are the government, and as the government we have the last word.  Therefore have some aspects of our policing agencies gone rogue?  If in fact they don’t answer to the people that employee them?  Why do certain sectors of law enforcement feel it necessary that they feel laws don’t apply?  Law enforcement gangs? As indicated to be the enforcers of societies woes as they see it, as they see it for their ‘brothers’ woes, doe this change things? Does this change “Perspective”.  Your perspective welcomed, please respond in the comment section..

Should we pick and choose where laws should be enforced by the laws in the books or that code of vigilante justice only empowered by the few in uniform or without? as one reporter indicated.

“If the LAPD is going to abandon its mission of public safety and function as an armed vigilante justice squad, dishing out death sentences to those it believes are guilty — without a trial or anything resembling due process — then they might as well throw away all their badges as just call themselves the LA Gang Squad. Because that’s how they’re acting.”

Degressing, how does a gang within the Sheriff’s Department known as the “Jump Out Boys” allowed to occur?  These individuals have matching tattoos and pride themselves on aggressive policing.

 JUMP

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

If they can do this in this situation, what do the police do in community situations and get away with? This is what the community is concerned about and many fear in their police in which they are their to protect and serve. Or are they a completely different animal when it comes to the relationship with the community, are they to serve themselves and their associates as a cohesive self serving unit or gang. Does the community in essence have something to fear in those that a there to protect and serve?

Or do we have the Bourne Effect?  One who knows to much and extremely dangerous and must be terminated with extreme predjudice?  Yes I get it, we are now getting into conspiracy theory territory, but these are question people are asking..

So what is the truth, is he one who is truly insane, not by intention but by design?  Someone who broke the rules of the thin blue line and must now except the consequences.  We will never know, was that by design or orchestration, we will never know..

articleLarge

Former New York Police Officer Frank Serpico

So how does the community handle abuses in the policing system when the policing system cannot do it themselves?  Or in the case of New York Police Officer Serpico….one police officer against an army for doing what was the right thing to do, and yes, he paid the price.  Paid the price because the police force didn’t answer to the community, it answered to a different source.  Please comment freely with your opinions.

RPD Officer’s please set us straight and comment anonymously regarding this issue on  THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

THANKS FOR THE INFO, BUT WE WERE ONLY KIDDING!

People are not happy on how the cities which offered rewards for information leading to whereabouts of Dorner, decide to renig on the fine print and not pay up.  The City of Riverside says it will not pay up because the reward was for the ‘capture and conviction’ of Dorner.  So they are just going to take back that $100,000.00 and call it a day.  Well as TMC has said before, let’s put that $100,000.00 for the unsolved murders at a local level to pursue an expedited investigation of local residential unsolved murders of Laureanz Simmons (14) 02/23/2012, Gregory Ball (37) 01/26/2012, Arturo Reyes (55) 01/17/2013 and Ashanti Hassan (29) 06/30/2012?  The police always seem to get their man when it comes to their own, why don’t we use a little of that for our community for once.  Even Press Enterprise, Dan Berstein brought these unsolved murders to the forefront in article “Unsolved Eastside homicides haunt Riverside; someone knows who did it.”  Others in the community have stated that the murders are unsolved, because the Eastside in just not that important.  Hopefully that is not the case and the police continue to strive hard, as if it was there own, to bring the perpetrators to justice.  The residents feels the police are part of the community they live in, and would do whatever is necessary to help and ensure their safety.  Many feeled betrayed and conned, hoodwinked or bamboozled into thinking that the City of Riverside was on the up and up on their offer of $100,000.00 for information on Dorner.  As terrible as it sounds, some resident have said it begins to give Dorner a bit of legitimacy in what he says are problematic issues in the police department.

Well you know the saying, once fooled, twice shy. People will hesitate to come forward next time. And the city offers rewards to help get information in gang killings too, so will it promise a reward and then back away from it in these cases? The ideal is for people to report sightings of people wanted for crimes because it’s the right thing to do. Like the two brave men who responded when the two officers were shot by Dorner in the intersection.  The ideal is for cities to keep their promises especially when it comes to the use of public funds. At least in Riverside, it covered itself through wording in its resolution.  – Mary Shelton, Commenter on the PE.

If the original couple had not called the police Dorner would have gotten off the mountain and continued his killing, Riverside is using semantics to welch on their promise. No one knew he was in that couples car and no one would have noticed him. So the next time a cop is killed in Riverside they shouldn’t expect any help from the public. What a way to honor their lost officer.  – Harry Hill, Commenter on the PE.

Another Commentator on the PE simply wrote this letter to the council and mayor:

This is a letter I wrote to the City of Riverside (City Council and Mayor) in response to their decision to withdraw their pledge of $100,000 to the Dorner Reward fund. I urge you to copy/paste this letter and email it to the City Council (emails listed). Urge them to do the right thing.
Subject: It is a disappointing day to be a City of Riverside resident. To: mgardner@riversideca.gov; rbailey@riversideca.gov; asmelendrez@riversideca.gov; kgutierrez@riversideca.gov; pdavis@riversideca.gov; cmacarthur@riversideca.gov; nhart@riversideca.gov; sadams@riversideca.gov.
Dear Mayor Bailey and City Council Members,
I am life-long, proud resident of Riverside (Ward 1). In my entire lifetime, I have never been so disappointed with the City’s decision than I am today with the news release indicating that City of Riverside is pulling out… our $100,000 pledge to the Dorner Reward fund.With this decision, you have set a precedent to the 25+ donors of this fund that using the fine print “capture and conviction” to forego your ethical responsibility to pay out the reward is okay. Mayor Bailey and Council members, I am here to tell you this is NOT okay. I understand that as politicians who run this city, it is your responsibility to make responsible fiscal decisions. It is your job to ensure that the integrity of our Council is in tact so that our city can run effectively, efficiently, and ethically. You have been remiss in your ethical responsibility in this decision; your integrity has been compromised. This is a slap in the face and injustice to the families of Officer Crain and Officer Tachias. Not to mention equally disgraceful to the families of Deputy McKay, Ms. Quan and Mr. Lawrence – all of which Dorner was implicated in killing. Additionally, what does this say to the public when we do offer a reward (such as the two who have rightful claim to this particular reward)? That they must read the fine print? We all know that rewards are offered because sometimes it takes incentive to take the risk to offer information to locate a dangerous criminal. In this particular case, the citizens did the right thing in reporting his whereabouts and that led to the standoff that ultimately took Mr. Dorner’s life. The spirit behind the reward offer was fulfilled. The cop-killer that was Mr. Dorner is dead. Had the citizens not responded, this would not have been the case. I too, would have preferred that Mr. Dorner stand trial and conviction but he took that from all of us when he shot himself on that day. It is dishonorable and disingenuous of the City of Riverside to pull our pledge. I urge you to reconsider this decision. Show our city, our state, and our country that the City of Riverside will do the right thing, the honorable thing by pledging the $100,000 back to the reward fund.
Sincerely, Michelle Bertok

ETHICS COMPLAINTS:  JUST A FORMALITY WITH A BONAFIDE FAVORABLE OUTCOME?

2008-adams     2008-bailey          images

    Steve Adams                                 William Rusty Bailey                              Chris Mac Arthur

There has been three ethics complaints, two recent, one a couple years back, all were brought to the panel with valid questions regarding possible ethics violation by elected officials, all went through the criteria for evaluating those concerns, all came out with favorable outcomes.

Did Pete Esquevel intentionally allegedly lie to the Ethics Panel in favor of councilman Steve Adams, contrary to his signed affidavit in his suit against the city?  What would be the consequences of these actions for the former RPD Officer as well as the Councilman?

Was Pete Esquevel’s testimony in favor of Councilman Steve Adam a contradiction to his testimony on the Bacon/ Hurt case?  Therefore, was the ethics panel again given wrong and inaccurate information in which resulted in an inaccurate decision?  Should therefore Councilman Steve Adams have been found guilty? Of course according to the facts?

Mayor Bailey Ethics Complaint, did City Attorney Gregory Priamos massage the panel prior to Councilman Chris Mac Arthur’s Ethics Complaint?  In addition, is City Manager Scott Barber the responsible party for Councilman Mac Arthurs legislative aide Chuck Condor, rather than the councilman?  Again what gives?  It appears the panel was led to believe that the City Manager was in charge of the legislative aides, but at City Council, Davis pulled teeth to get an answer that revealed the Council person was in charge of the legislative aide.

Is there a pattern to all of this?  Is it known within City insiders that the City is never wrong?  Never wrong…whereby a finding should never come to this, regardless of the legal cost?  Should constituents be concerned?

ROCK AND ROLL TRASHING OF A DOCTORS OFFICE

What was not reported by mainstream media and are local Press Enterprise, was that during the Dorner episode, RPD was taking privileges with no responsibilities toward property.  What happened to Dr. Shafai’s office during the Dorner’s shooting of Officer Michael Crain and Officer….  Why was Shafai’s office busted up into pieces whereby he had to cancel his patients appointments and is now his responsibility for repairing RPD damages?  Why didn’t the PE have precedence to write the story.  Why does RPD Chief Sergio Diaz now tell him to contact his insurance agency for the RPD Damages?

So is the police force part of the community or a separate entity unto themselves?  Is it a culture unbeknownst to the community?  What gives the authority of a citizens police force to take over private property, cause damage and the property owner is responsible?  These are unpopular questions residents are asking of their police force, but unwittingly have received rational answers.  This is a community who supports their police force, but their policing leadership has not reciprocated a reasonable and rational answer to their concerns.

FORMER MAYOR LUV STILL LOVES BEING MAYOR?

Rumor mill has it that Mayor Loveridge is still working his magic from behind the scenes.  Sources have indicated to TMC that the Mayor Luv still loves being mayor, and he continued to direct and advise others within the city.  Mayor Luv was seen recently coming from the seventh floor once again.  Wasn’t he done being mayor? Some have coined him “rogue mayor”, still working his magic on city and elected officials.  Or maybe as some have coined him, Riverside’s “rogue mayor”.  Where’s mayor Bailey in all of this? Maybe doing a little biking, and leaving the real running of the city to the experts?

The following document shows the former Mayor Ron Loveridge signing at the top of the list, “The Argument in Favor of Measure A”.  Who you will incidently find, is Timothy D. Strack, President of the Riverside Fire Fighters Union and also Brian C. Smith, President of the Riverside Police Officers Union.  Oh, let’s not forget Dr. Steven Kim, M.D., Medical Director of the Emergency Department, Riverside Community Hospital.  But I guess he had to, he was obligated to, as a result of the tax deal bestowed with the City of Riverside.  Where does ethics come into the picture?  I guess it doesn’t.. Emergency Department, American Medical Response..it’s all relative folks, you are getting screwed!  Not to mention Mayor Rusty Bailey’s relationship with AMR’s Peter Hubbard.  Hubbard of course in case you didn’t know, runs AMR.  It is no uncommon to see the two of them eating ice cream at a local Dairy Queen.  Should we assume their is connection?  Should we assume that the taxpayer is truly railroaded and blindsided in paying more taxes?  We can surely assume folks, just wake up and do the math!

ArgumentFavorJpeg     ArgumentFavorJpegtwo

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW DOCUMENT

Another fact, is that “The Argument for Measure A”, is signed by former Mayor Ron Loveridge, Timothy D. Strack, President of the Riverside Fire Fighters Union and Brian C. Smith, President of the Riverside Police Officers Union.  This would stand to reason to question Chief of Police Sergio Diaz’s position on this issue, as well as Fire Chief Steve Early, whom will be present at your meeting.  Utilizing City personal to “state the facts” or give “and educational presentation”, is misleading, and may, in fact be an FPPC violation.

But let’s not stop there, TMC has been informed that the Chief of Police Sergio Diaz and Fire Chief Steve Early are being brought to neighborhood associations to provide informational services on Measure A.  We are seeing the yes on Measure A points, but not the No on Measure A.  Do we have a FPPC violation?

What the city faIled to see was that there was a heartbeat to the city of riverside and they themselves could not see it.  I saw it, and was excited about..but the City of Riverside destroyed it, thought they knew better, even hired outsiders to figure out what was wrong with the city.  Maybe because they didn’t like the pulse of what was revealing it self in the city. They themselves didn’t want to go with it, instead they hired high priced consultants beyond the 100K mark to figure it out, to design their vision rathers then the vision that was happening in the city at the time.

KAREN WRIGHT: WAS IT REALLY OVER?  – AND STILL NO CHARGES! WRIGHT ASK THE COUNCIL FOR AN APOLOGY!  AS OF 04.10.2013 WE HAVE DAY 169, AND STILL NO CHARGES!  IS THIS ILLEGAL OR JUST BAD BUSINESS BY ZELLERBACH’S DA’S OFFICE? WHAT WOULD ROD PACHECO HAVE DONE IF THIS WAS ON HIS WATCH?  OR IS IT SIMPLY JUST FUNNY BUSINESS BY THE STONE FACE RIVERSIDE CITY COUNCIL, CITY ATTORNEY GREG PRIAMOS AND THE DA PAUL ZELLERBACH?  A TRIAGE OF INFLUENCE IN THE WORST WAY?

KarenWright-380x253

What gives? Did the City of Riverside make the biggest mistake ever?  International news on the issue didn’t help our City, that’s for sure.  Karen Wright ask the City for an apology at the March 12th City Council meeting.  No answer as of yet from the Council, they continue to appear stone face on the issue, City Attorney Gregory Priamos continues delve deep in thought while on his computer, while City Manager Scott Barber texts a message under his desk at public council meetings.  The DA’s office has been able to decide murder charges in 24 hours, as in the Dorner case, but seems to have difficulty making a case against Riverside’s own citizen advocate Karen Wright.  Again, what gives?  Well it certainly appears as if the Council and the Mayor wished the whole thing would just go away.  Well it should, and in the name of transparency, those responsible should simply own up to it, a mistake was made, and believe me, the constituents would highly respect you for that, because in essence, we all make mistakes, and that my friends is a given.  Arrogance will get you no where!

HAVE GADEFLYS AND WINGNUTS GRADUATED TO WATCHDOGS? According to the Press Enterprise’s Dan Berstein, mentioned the fact that the group of naysayers, wing nuts, gadflies appeared to now have some integrity to be called ‘watchdogs’.  Thanks Dan…  We are still in the mix of integrity..

STOCKTON’S NEW CITY HALL SEIZED BY WELLS FARGO!  How can that be?  And eight story building which was to be Stockton’s new city hall was seized by Wells Fargo, after the city had defaulted on bond payment.  In addition three of Stockton’s parking garages were also repossessed as well.

imagesCABB6N5G

Can the same thing happen to the City of Riverside?  Afterall, we have place in collateral are fire stations and libraries, and have been assured by city officials that this scenario could not happen.  What? Even Riverside’s City Hall is on the collateral list in addition to a police station.  But it did happen in Stockton, CA, what makes them different?

IS IT MORE DIFFICULT TO CHALLENGE A PARKING TICKET?

Sometime back , we brought to the attention that signs placed the city were not updated or just simply discheveled.  We all know if you are homeowner in Riverside there a good opportunity that you will be cited by the City of Riverside’s Other Police Force, Code Enforcement.  But what happens when the City is wrong?  Well nothing, of course, the City will never admit that their was any wrongdoing.  They will simply attempt to correct the defect and go forward.  But if you receive a parking ticket, as in the case of Rebecca Ludwig, your in for a real ride.  The City of Riverside seemingly outsourced the complaint system regarding challenging parking tickets.  What this means, is that it becomes more difficult, let’s put it this way, simply impossible to receive a justifiable hearing.  But as others are saying, the City may have designed and orchestrated this process in their favor.  As they say in Vegas, “The House Always Wins.”  But surprisingly, in this case Rebecca Ludridge won.  But she did have to submit bank statements as well as how much income she received.  You may be asking what does this have to do with a ‘parking ticket?.

THE NEELY NAKAMURA-PETE ESQUIEVEL TRIAL: WHO IN RPD IS CALLING OUT THE ORDERS?

While former Deputy Chief Pete Esquivel is medically retired, RPD Officer Neely Nakamura’s case is on trial this week.  While the City of Riverside fought hard for Esquival not to testify on the witness stand during trial, Superior Court Judge Ronald Taylor overruled the city’s attempt, and Esquivel will be summoned to provide testimony of the detailed events.  The City also fought hard for Nakamura’s attorney not to question former Assistant City Manager Tom DeSantis and his alleged extramarital affair.

NN

Officer Neely Nakamura

According the tort claim Assuma and Capen illegally accosted and detained Nakamura.  It appears from the tort claim that Assuma and Capen also pressed for details of the Esquival and Nakamura sexual affair.  For your reading pleasure, both salacioius tort claims are here on TMC for viewing.  Will Nakamura expose the intra workings of the RPD?

pe

Former RPD Deputy Chief Pete Esquivel

A part of RPD that continues to cost the taxpayer more and more in payouts in legal settlement cost.  With this the usual suspects are named in the law such as the legendary former City Manager Brad Hudson, Assistant Manager Tom Desantis (Now working for Moreno Valley as the head of Human Resources, that’s one sensitive man that knows how to work with people), also Michael Blakely (acting as Captain and Deputy Chief), John De La Rosa (acting as Chief of Police) and Lt. Michael Cook.

Did former Assistant and acting Chief John DeLaRosa attempt to cover up the Chief Russ Leach DUI incident according to the tort claim?  Read the tort claim.

+John+De+La+Rosa+

Former acting Chief John DeLaRosa

“At the time, Nakamura and Esquivel were involved intimately in a relationship that was private and unknown to members of the department.”

mikeblakely

Deputy Chief Michael Blakely

Investigators, Cook, Capen and Blakely pressed the issue, forcing Nakamura to describe the type of sex acts that they would engage in (Nakamura and Esquivel).

Q: Yeah, well uh, you’ve already said intercourse…

A: Right

Q: …occurred, did other sex acts occur?

A: What type of sex acts?

Q: Oral copulation, uh, masturbation, anything like that uh, or was it just always intercourse?

A: All of the above.

Nakamura was allegedly kidnapped, by the very entity that is there to ‘protect and serve’ the people of the City of Riverside.

Was their cohersion and blackmail by Riverside’s finest?  What gives?  Well it certainly appears Blakely loves details… It also appeared Cook and Capen needed to press for more of the salicious details as well.  Now they can go talk about it with fellow RPD over beers.  A question that keeps popping up, “Was their a crime committed?”  Do we have another situation of rogue police utilizing and abusing the powers that they have?  Do we have another aspect of possibilities of the jump out boys?  Or do we simply have two people allegedly having sex on company time?

In the tort claim, what did former Assistant City Manager Desantis mean when he told Esquivel not to bother putting in for a promotional job and why?  Did DeSantis emphasizes that Esquivel had no chance for the job.  What was DeSantis’s involvement?  Who was DeSantis allegedly having an affair with?  Was it also off or on Taxpayer time?  Incidentley, DeSantis is now working for the City of Moreno Valley as Human Resource Director.  Incidently, Rhonda Strout, Human Resource Director for the City of Riverside is allegedly dating Moreno Valley City Manager Henry Garcia.  Former Public Works Director for the City of Riverside, Siobhan Foster, who’s husband, Barry Foster, is Director of Economic Development for Moreno Valley.  Residents of Riverside, should I say more? Have you woken up already?

NAKAMURA                                 tortesquievel

     CLICK LINK TO VIEW NAKAMURA TORT CLAIM              CLICK LINK TO VIEW THE ESQUIVAL TORT CLAIM

More to come from this weeks trial.   Will Nakamura expose a particular sect of RPD that allegedly is rogue?  A secret culture that includes the Chief of Police, City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney and even the former Mayor?  Unbelievable, but as one famous saying going, you cannot judge a book by it’s cover.  The former mayor who has appeared to have a favorable façade over the years, may only be a façade.  One of the above who was sued and who testified was also allegedly having sex in the city parking lot and caught on video tape?  No video tape exist, according to City Attorney Greg Priamos, but on the same token, in a public records request act, no contracts exist for expenditures in Primos’s office as well… Go figure.  But it stands to reason that similar behavior is occurring at City Hall on taxpayer time, but who decides to pick and choose as to who is to be thrown under the bus?

Is Superior Court Judge Ronald Taylor friends with one of the defendents who testified?  Would this be a conflict?  Do we have as we stated before, Quadrangle of Influence as TMC previously stated?  After, the jury was dismissed, Judge Ronald Taylor asked former Assistant City Manager Tom DeSantis how’s he been doing..

Good ol former Assistant Manager Tom DeSantis, testified of his concern of “time card fraud” by both Deputy Chief Pete Esqueval and Officer Neely Nakamura.  Employees tell a different story of DeSantis, a contradiction of his original concern.  Mr. DeSantis “departure” from the City of Riverside was back in 2010, but now Director of Human Resources for the City of Moreno Valley.

tom                    tom2                    desantis22

          Tom DeSantis, Oops                         Tom DeSantis, Sorry                   Here we go, Tom DeSantis

Further, according to the tort claim, Blakely and Cook were in clearly in violation of Penal Code sections 518, et seq., extortion.  Now folks, these are not how all Riverside Police think, I know some of them, but there is definitely a subculture who believe they are untouchable, regardless of the law.  I don’t know how the local Police Union feels about this, but there are questions that are in the forefront that they themselves have not brought forward.  So now, how do we handle the allegation of kidnapping, of course, by Riverside’s finest?  The same entity who is there to ‘protect and serve’ the community.  Should the community be afraid?  They are, as TMC has been told by the community as a result of their experiences with some RPD officers.  How do we as a community resolve this?  The council and mayor have not.  It is therefore pertinent, that we as a community we show are support for those in RPD who are truly orientated toward doing the right thing, and work to remove those who have tainted the integrity of our local law enforcement who is there to serve and protect our community, rather than terrorize them.  The FBI and DOJ have been placed on notice, as many residents have realized that are local entities such as the DA’s office and are local Grand Jury are unresponsive to community concerns.

According to the tort claim, Blakely reminded Esquivel that this would be very embarrassing for him and his family if these details get out.  Coercion , collusion and blackmail by RPD Deputy Chief Blakely? I can do the math, you do the math, the numbers can’t be changed on this one folks.  Dirty? How dirty? Is this the typical dirty cop?  Well how dirty is it today under Chief Nacho Cheese’s watch?  We are not sure.  But anonymous sources continue to state that RPD are being used as ‘enforcers’ for certain city personal.  Post your comments and continue to contact us anonymously at THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

UPDATE: 04.11.2013: CITY SAVED BY THE JUDGE?  NEELY NAKAMURA CASE THROWN OUT!  What happened during the two hour lunch break, if at all, changed the mind of the Honorable Judge Taylor to simply throw out the Nakamura case?  Will we ever know?  What kind of message does this send to female police officers?  Questions continue to be brought out to the forefront.  Judges know other judges, judges know public employees, judges know elected officials, did this judge know Mayor Bailey’s father, Judge William R. Bailey II?  He certainly appeared to know many in the city.

judge

Why did Nakamura’s attorney attempt to remove Judge Taylor as the acting judge?  In this pic we see Bailey’s father, Judge William R. Bailey II, with now Mayor William “Rusty” Bailey (middle) , and Judge John Gabbert.  Judge Gabbert has a history going back to the 40′s which answers the question of why the City of Riverside uses Best, Best and Krieger so much..

hist_gabbert

Judge John Gabbert, in younger days, a Quandrangle of Influence within the City of Riverside?  What is the connection between Best, Best & Krieger and the City of Riverside?

Inconsistencies in the Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation Funds regarding Cindy Roth’s Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce?  Coming soon..

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.  NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA?  RATED ONE TWO ONE STAR 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, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… 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 SPELL CHECKERS!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT!   THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

TRASH2

TRASH RATES FOR RESIDENTS GOING UP? YES IT IS, COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY PASSES THE VOTE BECAUSE MOST OF RIVERSIDE WAS SLEEPING.. THE SAME TIME WE ARE RAISING THE TRASH RATES, MAYOR RUSTY BAILEY IS RAISING HIS MAYOR’S BUDGET…DIRECTLY IN CONTRADICTION TO HIS CAMPAIGN PROMISE.

What appeared to be snuck in and sent to residents over this past holiday weekend, this mailer sent by the City of Riverside Public Works detailing their intent to raise your trash rates.  Simply saying that the rate for 2013 to 2014 will be raised $0.16 + CPI ( Consumer Price Index).  Will the CPI charge be $1.00 or $10.00?  Currently the rates for curbside pick up is $21.77.

PUPublicNotice022013            quest

     CLICK LINK TO VIEW FULLMAILER                     CLICK LINK TO SEE PDF VERSION OF Q&A

All rate increases by law, require rate studies, which appears not to have been done according to TMC.  The CPI or Consumer Price Index is an indicator that measures the change in the cost of fixed basket or collection of products or services, including housing, electricity, food and transportation.   The CPI is published monthly and is also known as the Cost-of-Living Index.  So if the CPI goes down would you think that the City of Riverside would pass that reduction over to the resident?  Probably not.  The City also refers to Article XIII (d) of the California State Constitution for the increase.  If there is any time to get mad, this is the time.  Off your knees Riversidian’s, stand tall and let your voices be heard at City Council.  If you don’t intervene, as is your duty, your representatives will continue to vote through initiatives which really don’t benefit you.  Again, please be on heightened alert and be aware…

cpi2012one

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

The adjusted percent change from December 2011 through December 2012 we then get the 2.9 value.  Which can then be applied to an annual rate increase using the current rates.

Even though a CPI increase is proposed, we believe Proposition 218 ensures that what is collected does not exceed the cost of the service.  Therefore, prior to imposing CPI, staff will need to ensure that the additional funding will be needed for the service.  If the additional funding collected exceeds the cost of the service, this would be considered a special tax, which requires a 2/3 voter approval.  Otherwise can trigger a violation of Prop 218 and lawsuits in favor of the taxpayers.

THE RIVERSIDE COALITION FOR POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY: BILL HOWE AWARD PRESENTATION.

rcpa

RCPA each years chooses two participants for the award that have made a meaningful impact on their community in regards to the relationship between RPD and the community.  One participant is chosen from the Riverside Police Department the other from the community.  This year RPD Officer, Lt. Valmont Graham and Community Activist, Mary Shelton recieved the award. TMC Congratulates both Lt. Valmont Graham and Mary Shelton for a job representative of the community well done..

WILL THE OSHA FINDINGS HAVE A PROPENSITY TO DERAIL THE FAÇADE OF CITY HALL? After OSHA was told an alleged knife wielding incident never occurred by the City Manager Scott Barber, between Councilman Chris MacArthur’s legislative aid, Chuck Conder, and Mayor Rusty Bailey’s former legislative aide, Mark Earley, OSHA reivestigated.  What impact will the findings have to those who may have diverted the truth, if the allegations are founded?  Individual fines are possibilities by OSHA to those involved as TMC understands.

OVER BUDGET DURING TRYING TIMES?

Our General Fund Revenue as of December 31, 2012, according to the City’s document if you look at all in red, appears to show that the City is actually in total $1,700,738.00 short, in those specific categories.  There is a $894,481.00 short fall in the category of ‘taxes’ and $806,257.00 shortfall in the category of ‘other revenues’ which totals out to the $1,700,738.00 

GENREVFORCAST122012

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

If you look at the General Fund Expenditures ending December 31, 2012 we have an over budget of two priority city services, ‘the fire department’ at $1,378,000.00 and ‘the police department’ at $1,242,000.00, and what! Let’s not forget Rusty’s Mayor’s Office which is overbudget by $74,000.00, for a total of $2,694,000.00.

genfundexpen2012

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Why would our ‘independent voice’ stick the taxpayer with an overbudget in the Mayor’s office of over $74 thousand?  This wasn’t what he appeared to be campaigning for when he stated that “I’ll demand fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets.”

OUTSTANDINGDEBT

CLICK TO ENLARGE

The City of Riverside’s total outstanding debt is $1,799,957,896.00, in case you haven’t notice it is over $1.7 Billion.

AS OF FRIDAY  02.22.2013 DAY 122 STILL NO CHARGES FILED AGAINST PUBLIC SPEAKER KAREN WRIGHT! DA’S CASE DOA? OR POLITICAL HOT POTATO? SHOULD CITY COUNCIL DROP THE CHARGES?

KarenWright-380x253

At City Council Februrary 5, 2013, Deputy Superintendent of Schools Mike Fine BLOWS through the 3 minute up to and past the 16 second mark at public comment and no arrest made.  What would RPD Officer Sahagun have to say about this?  What does Mr. Fine have that Karen Wright doesn’t?  Is is it something possibly called ‘access’.  Incidently, Mayor Rusty Bailey is a teacher for the school district, and Mr. Fine was a supporter of the Team Bailey for Mayor Campaign.

MIKEFINE

NEW LA TIMES ARTICLE, THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE USE OF THE INCENDIARY DEVICE CALLED “BURNERS’, USED TO BURN THE CABIN DORNER WAS BARRICADED IN.

la-1358826-me-0214-dorner-3-25-brv.jpg-20130214  Unit drills with gas mask

IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE BURNED CABIN, CHARRED BODY IDENTIFIED AS CHRISTOPHER DORNER THROUGH DENTAL RECORDS. 

NAME RELEASED OF RIVERSIDE POLICE OFFICER WHO SURVIVED THE DORNER SHOOTING IN WHICH OFFICER MICHAEL CRAIN WAS KILLED.  OFFICER ANDREW TACHIAS,27, IS EXPECTED TO RECOVER FROM THE SHOOTING INJURIES.

AT

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DETECTIVE JEREMIAH MACKAY,35, WAS KILLED IN THE GUN BATTLE THAT ENSUED IN THE SAN BERNARDINO MOUNTAINS.

628x471

SHERIFF’S DEPUTY ALEX COLLINS WAS WOUNDED IN THE SAME EXCHANGE WITH DORNER, AND EXPECTED TO SURVIVE HIS INJURIES.

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.  NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA?  RATED ONE TWO ONE STAR 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, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… 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 SPELL CHECKERS!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT!   THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM