Posts Tagged ‘nancy hart’

April 23, 2012 I wrote this email letter to the DA’s office to Vicki Hightower, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Special Prosecution Section, addressing concerns and frustrations.

Four days later, this letter of determination along with an article by City Manager Scott Barber was posted on Scott Barber’s Blog Site.  This letter was sent to Mary Figueroa, as opposed to myself directly, and is dated March 29, 2012.

         

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL DOCUMENT IN PDF FORMAT

SCOTT BARBER’S POSTING: IT APPEARS THAT THE FOLLOWING POSTING HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM BARBER’S BLOG SITE, BUT HERE IT IS IN IT’S ENTIRETY.

Letter of determination by the District Attorney regarding allegations made by Moreno, Pitruzzello and Figueroa

By sbarber | Published April 27, 2012

DA Letter

If you have been attending or watching recent City Council meetings, then you probably have heard statements from a group of citizens alleging a variety of inappropriate actions, such as favoritism towards a local developer, unauthorized spending by our former City Manager, loans from the sewer fund to the Redevelopment Agency (I blogged about this earlier today), and funds used to demolish property for the “Raincross” development. Yesterday, the City received a copy of the determination letter from the District Attorney’s Office, along with a list of the individuals who presented the information to the DA (see the title of this blog for that list), regarding these allegations. I am pleased to share the letter with you (click on the DA Letter link to read) and to let you know that the DA concluded that no criminal acts occurred as a result of the City’s actions.

SELF APPOINTED CITIZEN AUDITOR, VIVIAN MORENO RESPONDED AS FOLLOWS:

  1. Vivian Moreno

Posted April 27, 2012 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Are you for real? it’s on. Are you guys really serious that you put this in writing? This letter will be sent to the Attorney General and the State Controller and let’s see what they have to say. the city spinners are at it again and now they have the DA in their pocket. Wait till the feds see this. Scott, the city is in big enough trouble as it is and you are going to try and challenge us. Go for it!!! If you are really transparent, post this. You might actually get someone to read your blog, because we are going to post our response. This took the DA a year to respond? Get a grip.

__________________

One can see that if citizens have concerns locally with city officials in violation of the city charter, where do they take their concerns for investigation, if not District Attorney Paul Zellerbach’s office?  Any guesses?

This is the problem and the following scenario is reflective of this, as noted in Mary Shelton’s blog five before midnight, how do you investigate an official and have him sponsor a fundraiser at the same time?  This is why investigations of politicians conduct can’t be local.

Again, the determination of our concerns was assessed by a one time meeting and never followed through appropriately with a secondary or tertiary meeting.  Or in our estimation never investigated appropriately to the satisfaction of our community and individual concerns, of which was expected by this department.

First, Vicki Hightower, had our contact information on file, it’s quite paradoxical that she asked that the letter be forwarded, since there was no contact information. She does have our email, and further, the DA’s office has been quite adept at collecting and filing our articles regarding TMC postings.  We consider the DA’s office quite resourceful at attaining this information if necessary.  So, I’d like to address this question, the primary reason are group of concerned citizens contacted and met with District Attorney Paul Zellerbach, was the issue of Connie Leach, whereby  the contracts and issues of concern will come out shortly.  The items listed in the letter coincidently received by Mr. Barber, were discussed, but not the primary reason for contacting the DA.  By the way, I’d like to take this time to thank Mr. Barber for giving me top billing in his posting title.  You may observe, the issue of Connie Leach is not mentioned in this letter.  The meeting took place in confidence, and we were unaware of the possible collaborations between city officials and the district attorney’s office thereafter the breach. But questions arose regarding the associations between the DA, the City and The Grand Jury, not only when you view campaign support, but there close association within the working environment.  What’s quite interesting was the file of TMC articles the DA’s office had in their possession and their request to know who were the writers.  The cards appeared to change before our eyes.  Were we being the ones investigated?

Who would be the the enforcement agency regards to city charter violations , if not the DA’s office?  According to the letter, in many instances they are washing their hands of any responsibility.  It is our understanding and the accepted standard in other cities that the DA’s office is responsible for enforcing any violations of the City Charter etc.

Item #1: Loans from Sewer Funds used to fund Redevelopment Agency Projects:

Response by the DA’s office regarding sewer funds:

Riverside Municipal Code is as follows:

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL SEWER CODE CHAPTER 14.04 IN PDF FORMAT

Sewer Fund Loans; not sure why the DA’s office is playing symantics with us, but the ordinance is very clear, it states exactly what these funds should be used for.  It appears that the DA’s argument remains toward the premise that ‘nothing in the ordinance specifically prohibits the specified loans’.  Bingo, that is also correct, there argument is that ‘nothing specifically states you can’t’.  A DA diversion?  But again the ordinance is very clear on what the funds should be used for.  It states that such revenue (sewer) shall not be used for the acquisition or construction of new street sewers or lateral as distinquished from the main trunk, interceptor or outfall sewers.  So therefore, why would monies from the sewer fund be transferred from a local City fund to a State Agency (RDA) in what is know as an ‘inter-agency” loan.  When RDA is reflective of an agency of new construction, and the ordinance states this money cannot be used for new construction.  The DA’s office went on to say that if there was such a provision, it still would not be a crime for the District Attorney’s office to address, because it would be a violation of the City ordinance.  So who would be the appropriate source of contact for this concern?  We have been told it is the DA’s office.  We wouldn’t think for a moment that it could be the City.  Whereby the city would investigate themselves on this violations.  So the question remains..  Again, the DA’s office did not address the concern clearly, except to say that if there was not an ordinance saying you could not make a loan from the Sewer Fund., and of course this is also correct.  There is none.  But they didn’t consider the ordinance at its’ direct face value?  In doing so, do ordinances, provisions and laws truly mean anything at all?

A loan from the Sewer fund to RDA, would be consider an ‘inter-agency’ loan.  Even then would have to serve a sewer purpose.  Again the DA diverts attention from his office to allow the City Manager Scott Barber to state no criminal actions occurred within the auspices of the DA’s office.  Though, the DA states, if there was an ordinance, which there is, it would a ‘violation of the city ordinance’.  So who enforces violations of city ordinances?  Please Mr.DA, you know exactly what the intended meaning of this charter ordinance meant?

Item #2: City Manager Discretionary Spending

Response by the DA’s office regarding former City Manager Brad Hudson’s discretionary spending.

Former City Manager Brad Hudson’s total discretionary spending as indicated below.

Brad Hudson’s discretionary spending.  City Manager Scott Barber addressed this issue in a posting.  I also responded.

Ability to  enter into contracts up to $50,000.00 is available to City Manager, not all department heads.  Contractual agreements up to $50,000.oo without council approval was entered in after the firing of former City Manager George Carvahlos.  Mr. Carvahlos was a true Riversidian and was against much of what the current council wanted.  Which included Ed Adkison, Frank Schiavone, Steve Adams and Mayor Ron Loveridge.  Hudson was brought in and the contractual agreement clause was raised from $25,000.00 to $50,000.00.  Fifty thousand is alot of money, and again their were no guidelines which encompassed the proper spending of that amount to prevent spending abuses.  One could spend $50,000.00 daily, or one could spend incremental amounts in what is known as bid splitting.  Again Mr. Zellerbach, we are talking about apples and oranges when comparing the City Manager’s discretionary spending for fiscal year 2009/2010 is $299,685.00 when compared with Parks and Recreation of $2,000,000.00.  Our public records for City Manager’s discretionary spending  for fiscal year 2009/ 2010 for contracts under $50,000.00 comes out to $29,554,005.19.  You also state that the 2009/2010 discretionary spending under $50,000.00 is $299,685.00.  You are off by $29,254,320.19… I don’t think you are seeing the complete spending picture, these are contracts under $50,000.00 approved under City Manager’s or Department Heads authority.  The City Manager is ultimately responsible for all spending even over the Department Heads authority.  Therefore, the amount in oversight by the City Manager is $29,254,320.19.

Item #3: Favoritism to Mark Rubin (developer)

Response by DA’s office regarding favoritism by the City of Riverside toward developer Mark Rubin.

Dennis Morgan (aka. Larry the Liquidator) of IPA, which is the contracted property management company for all the City of Riverside’s properties.  Why does he also manage properties of Developer Mark Rubin, to what was mentioned at a land use committee meeting of in the neighborhood of 15,000 sq. ft.  Mark Rubin is a property developer for the city, one of the properties is the vacant and unfinished Raincross Promenade project.”  They even exchanged accolades at a Land Use Committee meeting in which they acknowledge themselves as “compadres”, in my estimation, as a figure of speech in regards to their close ties.  We have several witnessed who will attest that this occurred at a land use committee meeting.  But I guess it is not pertinent enough for the DA to address this issue on a constructive basis that would allow pertinent information to evolve..

The last statement Barber makes, “the DA concluded that no criminal acts occurred as a result of the City’s actions”.  According to the DA’s office in reference to property transfers they do address the fact that the City of Riverside did violate the law, and this concern should be forwarded to the State Attorney General. What is important to notice is that there is no criminal action to warrant action by his office.  That does not mean a serious criminal violation hasn’t occurred, it only means that the DA’s office is not the appropriate entity to handle it.  For example, the City of Riverside has created a resolution which does not allow Marijuana dispensaries within the City, even though at the State level it is legal, at the Federal level it is illegal.  The city can now stop the dispensary and cite them for violations, but they cannot take their property.  The Feds can.  Therefore a different office of government and must be called by the city to do just that.  This would be the Department of Justice.  The taking of property is known as ‘asset forfeiture.’

Again the DA states if this allegation occurred in (b) it would be a violation of RDA guidelines, not the DA’s responsibility.  If it isn’t there responsibility, isn’t it there responsibility to direct us to the appropriate office that could address our concerns?

Favoritism by the City toward Mark Rubin cannot be documented, that is true.  I agree with the DA’s office, this would be a hard nut to crack without solid evidence, such as bribery. But is it plausible to connect favoritism to the definition of nepotism?  Nepotism occurs in the city, but never addressed.  We have an instance such former councilman and mayoral candidate Ed Adkison at the Friday Morning Club Janet Goeskie Senior Center on February 23, 2012 stating that the City’s relationship with Connie Leach was ‘nepotism’.  Adkison was on the council during the Connie Leach allegations.  We also had councilman Steve Adams brother reviewing red light camera tickets.

Do you think if a Councilman received a ticket violation would they fulfill their obligation to pay it?  Or would it be surprisingly cleared from the system?  According to the DA, favoritism in their office must indicate documented bribery, otherwise it is out of the DA’s scope of practice. No documentation indicates bribery between the City of Riverside and developer Mark Rubin.

Item #4: Raincross property:

Response by the DA’s office regarding the demolition of the Swiss Inn, a Raincross property.

In the DA’s response, it shows the address to be 3120 Main Street, whereby it should read 3210 Main Street.  Our records show that the developer Mark Rubin owned the property when the City paid Dakeno demolition for the work on Mark Rubin’s property.   City acquired the property initially, transferred back to Mark Rubin, then flipped it back to the city.  The city did pay for demolition by Dakeno on the Swiss Inn property owned by developer Mark Rubin.  The City of Riverside paid for demolition according to the document which stated payment from the discretionary fund account on 03/06/2007, and Mark Rubin, developer, was still in posession of the property until 05/22/2008 when it was transferred to RDA.  According to the title company, the owner, Enrique Martinez transferred title on 11/09/2006

    

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW DAKENO DEMOLITION DOCUMENT IN PDF FORMAT

The following document shows that payment of $44,770.00 as indicated in the notation in the above document from former City Manager Brad Hudson’s discretionary fund.

CLICK IMAGE TO SEE FULL DOCUMENT

The above document is on page 231 of former City Manager Brad Hudson’s discretionary sprending account for the amount $44,770.00 indicated in the above notion referring to Fund 476 University Corridor/ Sycamore Canyon Capital Project paid to Dakeno Demolition.

Click this link to view 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08 City Manager Brad Hudson Discretionary Fund

TIMELINE OF EVENTS

06/01/2005: BRAD HUDSON ENTERS INTO CITY MANAGER POSTION

06/07/2005: RDA MEMORANDUM COMMENCE NEGOTIATION W/ RAINCROSS PARTNERS 136 LP & RIVER REGIONAL

08/00/2005: CITY HOME PARTNERS AGREEMENT HAS PURCH/SELL AGREEMENT WITH MARQUEZ $1.67 MIL

-the Swiss Inn, house 42 Developmentally Disabled and 10 Live In Employees

-this purchase activates affordable housing redevelopment clause

-City Home Partners is connected to Raincross Partners 136 LP

-Raincross Partners is connected to Mark Rubin

-River Regional is connected to Mark Rubin

-An upset Marquez believes RDA is purchasing his property, and finds out later the Developer is purchasing it.

-Actual sale doesn’t record until 11/09/2006 with Mark Rubin’s name all over it.

09/13/2005: DDA RIVER REGIONAL PROPERTIES LLC- mentions affordable housing

09/19/2006: Redevelopment memorandum-item #11, Resolution of necessity to acquire 1st to 3rd   properties-approved by city council, no resolution document exists, therefore no land acquisition should have taken place or developer (Rubin) was required to put into escrow monies to acquire property, pay for demolition, clearance, and relocation fees.  5.4 million dollar sewer transfer took place to pay for relocation, clearance, and demolition fees, deposited into escrow fund.  5.4 million sewer inter-fund transfer occurs according to council report but the sewer fund is not the loan of record, the worker’s comp and the electric fund are the receivable loan until August, 09 Money is not moved from the sewer-fund until August of 2009.  Money is posted to sewer fund June 30, 2009.  Why would an employee fraudulently back-date the postings of the sewer fund?

10/04/2005: DDA RAINCROSS PARTNERS 136 LP (CHUCK,RUBIN) -included affordable housing comprehensive plan

08/06/2006: CITY SURVEYS SWISS INN PROPERTY FOR PURCHASE

08/17/2006: GRANT DEED SIGNED FROM ENRIQUE MARQUEZ TO REGIONAL PROPERTIES INC. (MARK RUBIN)

09/06/2006: MARK RUBIN-REGIONAL PROPERTIES INC. TAKE OVER ESCROW

09/19/2006: RAINCROSS PARTNERS 136 LP TERMINATES THE ENTIRE DDA WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING

09/19/2006: DDA AMENDMENT FOR RIVER REGIONAL FOR 256 UNITS.  IN A CITY EMAIL MARK RUBIN TAKES OVER ESCROW.  HE WILL CLOSE THE ESCROW AND FLIP PARCELS  TO THE AGENCY.

11/07/2006: CITY EMAIL STATES MARK RUBIN IS OKAY WITH HOLDING ON TO THE SWISS INN FOR NOW

11/09/2006: GRANT DEED RECORDED FROM ENRIQUE MARQUEZ TO REGIONAL PROPERTIES INC. (MARK RUBIN)

02/08/2007: PERMIT ISSUED: CITY DEMOS MARK RUBIN’S PROPERTY SWISS INN,   $44,700.00  as stated on permit.

03/06/2007: CITY OF RIVERSIDE PAY’S DAKENO DEMOLITION $44,700.00 VIA FUND 476 UNIVERSITY CORRIDOR/ SYCAMORE CANYON CAPITAL PROJECT.

07/16/2008: GRANT DEED TRANSFER/SELLS  (FLIPS IT) FROM REGIONAL PROPERTIES INC. (MARK RUBIN) TO RDA.

03/08/2011 – GRANT DEED TRANSFER FROM RDA (BRAD HUDSON) TO CITY OF RIVERSIDE

                                             

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW COMPLETE DOCUMENT        CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE

Item #5: Transfer of Redevelopment Agency (RDA) real property to the City.

Response by the DA’s office regarding the issue of illegally transferring Redevelopment properties back to the City.

OK Scott, did we miss the part of the transfer of 149 properties from the Redevelopment Agency back to the City before the June deadline?  We brought this to City Council a year ago, and was discounted.  Even you City Attorney must have missed this one, or even your $400 per hour Best, Best & Krieger outside legal help missed this one.  This was a violation by the city that the DA addressed, but was not addressed or mentioned on your blog appropriately in detail by you.  Knowingly that a violation had occurred, is it not in the DA’s position to forward this to be investigated by the State Attorney General?

                                                 

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW PROPERTY TRANSFERS       CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW 2ND VERSION OF PROPERTY TRANSFERS

Regarding Connie Leach, former Chief of Police Russell Leach’s wife.  TMC will post our concerns and allegations that the DA’s office and the Riverside Grand Jury to our knowledge, considered baseless, or without merit.  But questions still remain regarding the use of Police Asset Forfeiture funds in payment to Connie Leach, while her husband Police Chief Russell Leach was in charge.  Our position will posted.

What we find is that the DA’s office is not the appropriate office to address our concerns and allegations.  Though, when asked who would handle violations of charter at the City level, we were directed to the DA’s office.  But all local entities were exhausted, we went to the appropriate entities at the State and Federal levels.  Yes this is all true, Scott is right, no criminal actions at the DA level, and I’m sure no criminal actions at the City level, because as you would also find, that the City Attorney, Gregory Priamos would call this baseless.  Some may say that this is a system created by a few, to work for a few.  But I believe there continues to be something wrong with this picture. Something that reflects a triage of influence by these entities. Creating a difficult arena for local residents to address their concern without some sort of retribution, slanderously or financially, or what some in the city say, ‘client control’ tactics.  And that is my opinion. It may be right, it may be wrong but we will continue to investigate and learn the language of municipal politics..  Final word, we do appreciate City Manager Scott Barbers dialogue.

But we have to remember the DA’s office never addressed the issue of federal cold plates, illegal gun sales, illegal badges, fillegal law enforcement/emergency lights, fraudulently and illegally applying for concealed weapons permit with a false address, overlooking DUI’s and ticket fixing.  If this was anyone other than those in the office, such as the common citizen, we’d be in jail, and people have one to jail.   Of course, these violations would not be handled by the DA’s office, which is actually true…but again …who would?  And if they were responsible for oversight of these violations, would they actually mitigate them?  And would they contact or forward these issues to the proper legal authority?

Is there a triangle of influence connecting the City, DA and Grand Jury?  Is there a quadrangle of influence connecting the City, DA, Grand Jury and Judges?  Is there actually a pentagonal angle of influence which would involve the State?   Pentagonal in the sense that what do citizens do when they have utilized all resources without any reasonable response?  We have addressed this pressing issue in a TMC article.  These would include the City Attorney’s Office, the District Attorney’s Office, the Grand Jury, the Superior Court Judges, and now possibly the State?  Are only hope is those offices outside the State.  Such as the IRS, Security and Exchange Commission, the Department of Justice, the FBI etc.

What do you do as a concerned citizen when the majority of the City Council is tied in with the Distric Attorney Paul Zellerbach?

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO VIEW THE PIC.

Some public servants have said to bring such issues to the forefront is to ‘political’.  Even if the issues are right, they will not act on it, therefore leaving a conclusion that is vague and clandestine.  Therefore giving reason that the public is not important.  It then appears that one completely discounts the oath that was taken to serve, and placing their own interest as primary, superseding the public interest.  This is what most people in the community feel and are angry about.  Further, voters don’t vote because they feel it does’nt really matter..and in many ways they are right.  But they need to get involve at a different level.  I do feel at some levels that this letter was ‘orchestrated’ and ‘designed’ in many way by one or more political elements within city to divert and mitigate the actual concerns of the public as simply having no merit.  Further, to strategically label us as uninformed individuals.  This would only safeguard their political compulsory obligations to maintain their positions, supporting constituents and of course the ‘status quo atmosphere of illusionary stability’.  Another aspect to remember is that the DA’s office did not take upon themselves to even investigate our allegations.  They made their opinion simply on our one time meeting and the information we submitted that needed further investigation by his office, which was not done.  A step further, their opinion may have allegedly been made after contact with the city, further breaching our confidence as concerned citizens.  Many of these issues, according to District Attorney Paul Zellerbach’s Office, simply must be forwarded to the State Attorney’s Office, of course, we assume, the appropriate office to deal with these issues. City violations of the City Charter, as we understand, are to be directed toward the DA’s office.  But what we are told by the DA, “was it illegal or just bad business”?  Our we to accept as concerned citizens that bad business is an acceptable premise for city business?  City business that doesn’t have a public or constituent benefit?  When does bad business cross the line?  When does it cross the line into the gray line of illegal?  Our these departments of oversight really there to be good fiscal stewards of the people in which they took an oath to protect and serve?  If you view the premise of this blog article, this is more of a hit piece against Vivian Moreno, Dvonne Pritruzzello and Mary Figueroa by DA Paul Zellerbach and Riverside City Manager Scott Barber to discredit their concerns or mitigate their allegations? Can we call it collusion?  Regardless, what can I say, ‘This is Riverside’.

Again, our concerns were originally with Connie Leach, and TMC will be posting our findings in “Hush Money II” that were suddenly rejected by the Riverside Grand Jury, without fully investigating each respondent and fully evaluating the documents submitted and requested from the City of Riverside.  The Grand Jury had requested asset forefeiture records from the City of Riverside and failed to continue their interview process in order to fully complete their investigation.  Instead, decided to relieve themselves of their duty to act on citizens concerns by acting not to act.  Was the result allegedly orchestrated or meticulously created by design in order to mitigate any unintended repercussions?

Considering the DA’s TMC article file (kinda reminds me of Hoovers FBI files), considering the questions that were asked, in turn, were we actually the ones being interviewed?  Was this a last ditch effort in their process to protect the family?  Were we actually dancing around the issues?…  and a final question, what is your connection with local Attorney Virginia Blumenthal ingrained on your ribbon above the tutu?  and how many are truly ingrained within the family called ‘Riverside’?

PERDITION

UPDATE: 06/16/2012: Pravda Press Enterprise continues it’s art of molding popular public opinion?  Does our Chief Sergio Diaz have a starring role?  PE leading the way to absolutely no comments?

WHAT’S WRONG PE? CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH ABOUT OBAMA & ILLEGALS STEALING AMERICAN JOBS? WHY YOU SENSORING ALL THE COMMENTS THAT ARE TRUE. WE ARE IN AMERICA ( OR I THOUGHT ) WE HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH SO LET OUR OPINIONS BE KNOWN!!   – obama hater, commenter on the Press Enterprise possibly prior to being censored..

Once again, PE proves only certain opinions are acceptable here.  Good job, airjackie and kensew, you have achieved media sactioned thinking.  – censordefier, Commenter on the Press Enterprise

or

are commenters actually the ones censoring?

The problem with this comment section is there is no moderator. If a reader doesn’t like your comment, they report it as abuse and it’s collapsed. It’s supposed to be reviewed by a moderator but the PE has gutted it’s staff to generate profits so your comment will never be read and reinstated. In this case, it’s the illegal alien supporters collapsing the comments they oppose. Notice it’s only people who oppose the president’s stupid move that have been collapsed and the pro stupid move remain. Test it yourself. Report one of them and they’re comment will disappear as well. Terrible setup here.  – crymeariver, commenter on the PE

Other commenters make a case in point that comments with the highest approval ratings are being deleted or removed, especially when the comments don’t violate their guidelines..

UPDATE: 06/16/2012: REDLIGHT CAMERAS IN THE NEWS AGAIN:  Press Enterprise Alicia Robinson new posting on her blog regarding the issue of redlight cameras.

TMC had our own comments regarding redlight cameras as revenue enhancers over safety issues.  While Councilman Paul Davis voted against the renewal contract back in 2011, Councilman Andy Melendrez voted for it, Councilwoman Nany Hart voted for it, Chris MacArthur voted for it, Councilman Steve Adams must have voted for it to keep his keep his redlight camera reviewer brother Ron Adams working, Mayoral Candidate/ current Councilman  William “Rusty” Bailey and Independent Voice for Riverside voted for it, even “I have no such plans to run for mayor”, of course, mayoral candidate and current Councilman Mike Gardner voted for it.  And voted for it as a safety issue, as opposed to a revenue enhancer, and discounting studies countering the psuedo statistics they were provided.

But to now lose $1,154,000.00 in anticipated revenue projections according to City Manager Scott Barbers proposed budget?  The question remained that it was a bad deal last year when the proposal to renew the contract went in front of Council.  Councilman Paul Davis saw through it and didn’t vote for it, the rest did, and now how will they vote this time?  Vote for renewal, is a vote to continue hard earned taxpayer money down the toilet.

UPDATE: 06/18/2012: CITY OF RIVERSIDE TO REMOVE RED LIGHT CAMERAS!  COST CONSIDERED A FACTOR IN THE DECISION FOR THEIR REMOVAL.. 

UPDATE: 06/17/2012: ARE REDLIGHT CAMERA COMPANIES, SUCH AS AMERICAN TRAFFIC SYSTEMS BANKROLLING COUNTERSUITS AGAINST VOTER BACKED INITIATIVES TO REMOVE REDLIGHT CAMERAS?  Recently a story was leased in the Press Enterprise regarding the City of Murrieta and a voter backed initiative to remove redlight cameras.  Former council candidate and former chairman of Murrieta’s Public Safety and Traffic Commission Steve Flynn, in conjunction with the law firm Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk counter sued.  Steve Flynn skewed the issues when interviewed by KFI’s John and Ken Show.  Listen to this interview in it’s entirely by clicking this link.  At the end of the interview on this show,  John Kobylt stated toward Steve Flynn, “You have zero credibility”!  Questions arose on who is bankrolling these counter suits against citizen voter initiatives.  Mr. Flynn didn’t know who was financially backing the Murrieta suit, although his name is on it.  But appears that in other states that these counter suits are occurring, the redlight camera companies as American Traffic Systems are bankrolling them.

Steve Flynn

When Ken Champou asked Flynn asked, “Why can’t people vote to get rid of them”?  Flynn responded referring to the people, “they were misinformed”.

UPDATE: 06/17/2012: SACRAMENTO BEE: EDITORIAL: TIME FOR CALIFORNIA TO PUT AN END TO ‘DOUBLE DIPPING’?  Case in hand, editorial mentions former Riverside City Manager and current Sacramento County Executive Officer Brad Hudson.  Currently, it appears that ‘double dipping’ is a public sector phenomenon, whereby some government workers can retire as early as age 50, receive a CalPERS pension check and get another government job.  You better believe this would never occur in the private sector, because you are dealing with company money, and it is watched carefully.  In the public sector where taxpayer money funds salaries and pensions, it may appear to some government representatives guarding the till as ‘funny money’.

          

According to the editorial this type of activity show a failure, a failure to recruit and groom entry level and midlevel people to replace aging baby boomers.  Currently, if a retiree recieves a pension and a government salary, it appears that retiree no longer contributes to the pension system, therefore placing a strain on an already strained public pension system.   But if one transfers from a different local which has their own pension program, to new local with their own, this scenerio wouldn’t apply.  So it ask the question, “Should California do what New York does”?  Retired government workers under 65 who return to public employment cannot receive pension payments if eartnings reach beyond $30,000.00.  Questions arose when current Riverside Police Chief Sergio Diaz retired from the Los Angeles Police Department, as Deputy Chief at 55 years of age in March 31, 2010, to begin his new job of Riverside Police Chief July 1, 2010.  Diaz was hired by former City Manager Brad Hudson, and in unison with former Assistant City Manager Tom Desantis.

UPDATE: 06/18/2012: YELLOW BRICK ROAD TO EMERALD CITY?

 

I told you a thousand times, Chief Diaz say’s you need a permit for the costumes or the next time you’ll be arrested…

The City of Riverside has been labeled the ‘All American City’ in 1998, and christened the first ‘Emerald City’ in 2009, all we need now is the ‘Yellow Brick Road’?  The City of Redland’s has it’s ‘Orange Blossom Trail’ ( which in my opinion should have fittingly been in Riverside), the City of Indianapolis has it’s ‘Cultural Trail’, so why not?  Let’s build a yellow brick road.

                       

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW THE FULL PROPOSAL

Passed on last week’s consent calendar is the creation of the signature ‘Yellow Brick Trail’, linking UC Riverside to ‘Emerald City’, of course, to our wonderfully blighted Downtown Riverside.

 UPDATE:06/18/2012: THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR EMILIO RAMIEREZ HAS MUCH TO SAY ON THE REDEVELOPMENT BUG-A-BOO…

According to the Press Enterprise the biggest concerns are the loans the city made to the redevelopment agency.  Ramirez said they were legal when they were done, which was long before the 2011 bill that ended redevelopment existed.  State officials have cited the law’s section that says loans between the city and redevelopment agency are not “enforceable obligations.”  In other words, ‘not legal’..  Ramirez goes on to say that at the June 16 meeting what started out as $158 million in questionable Enforeable Obligations by the State, that $60 million of that was unknowingly added as a ‘book keeping line item’.  This $60 million with 2 other similar items which add up to what he is calling ‘ the $80 million mistake’, which the State says are not payable.  This would appear to mean that the taxpayer is responsible for this $80 million???  and the ‘Ramirez Spin’ continues, if it shouldn’t have been there to begin with, it was never there?

UPDATE: 06/19/2012: NOW IF ANYONE WHO LIVES IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE KNOWS, IF THEY WERE TO TURN PLANS OR ATTEMPTED TO CHANGE THEIR WOODSTREET HOME, OR JUST DO IT ANYWAY,  WOULDN’T WE HAVE THE WRATH OF CODE ENFORCEMENT ON THE RESIDENT?  THEN HAVING TO RATIONALIZE WITH COMMADANT PRIAMOS OR EXPERIENCE SEVERE FINES?  SO HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN AT ALL?  OH, THESE ARE THE NEW RENDERINGS SUBMITTED FOR THE DOWNTOWN LIBRARY, AMONG OTHERS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE.  NOT SURE AT THIS TIME, WHAT ARCHITECT SUBMITTED THEM OR HOW MUCH TAXPAYER MONEY WAS PAID, BUT CERTAINLY FLOWS WITH THE EARLY CALIFORNIA REVIVAL? AROUND DOWNTOWN? OR DOES IT?  BUT CLICK THIS LINK TO UNDERSTAND THE HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL BACKGROUND OF THE DOWNTOWN LIBRARY.

Press Enterprise Dan Berstein has their take on this Architectural (or animal ?) rendering, and Alicia Robinson talks about the new library design, please don’t throw stones..

 JUST FOR LAUGH’S

Will the remnants of the mayor continue to pull the strings?

Ugggh…Call Public Works and tell them we will need another change order!

Now, for an update of how commenters feel about the current immigration issue in the Press Enterprise…….well okay, how bout page 5? 6? 7? hmmm….well we’ll have to just check back later. 

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

While the City scrambles, TMC’s truth squad, oops, that’s the City’s tag line, has been blogging, reporting and speaking at Council Meetings as to why the Council should not have passed certain loans.  In addition, how passing these loans will come back to hurt the tax paying constituents.   The states silver bullet of termination appeared to be the only answer.  Now 10% of those Enforceable Obligations submitted to the State Finance Department were rejected for not following state guidelines.  Enforceable Obligations are legal contracts which declare that one person or agency owes another.  The question being asked is were these filing discrepancies inadvertainly overlooked by our protector of citizens, City Attorney Gregory Priamos?  And even their hired hand, Best, Best & Krieger?  Could these discrepancies possibly be considered faulty legal advice?  The City of Riverside shot back at the State Finance Department with the following letter.  According to the latest Press Enterprise the City Manager Scott Barber is defending some of the debt.

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL DOCUMENT

In the response letter sent back to the State Finance Department by City Manager Scott Barber, he then agreed with the State on the following two items which could not be considered Enforceable Obligations.  But shouldn’t the City’s legal council, Riverside City Attorney Gregory Priamos, have been able to clear this question of what is enforceable and what is not?

Page 1, Line Item 38: Grant agreement between City and Housing Authority  $60,000,000.00                                     Page 2, Line Item 13: LM LS Targets of Opportunity-La Sierra/ Arlanza            $1,085,749.17

A total of $61,085,749.17 which is due to hit our General Fund.

What is really disturbing in the letter is that Mr. Barber states there are three items of concern that can give way to a rate payer lawsuit.  This in response if the State is unable to accept the debt, it will go to Riverside residents in the form of higher utility rates.  But in doing so, these would in essence be a violation of proposition 218.  These are Page 1, Line Item 29 ($4,329,897.60), Page 1, Line Item 30 ($328,039.22) and Page1, Line Item 32 ($4,793,600.00).   Which amounts to $9,451,536.85.

Self Appointed Citizen Auditor, Vivian Moreno, emailed the following letter to Vicki Hightower of the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office indicating our frustration with the use of local resources.  The letter was also read to the Council and Mayor at the April 25, 2012 public comment section in council chambers.

CLICK LINK TO VIEW DOCUMENT

The rejections came from California State Department of Finance to the tune of nearly $159 million in projects and debts from Riverside’s former redevelopment agency, potentially leaving the city’s general fund responsible for the amount lost.  Did City management commit fraud when submitting inaccurate information to the State of California for responsibility of payment?  What role if any did the law firm Best, Best and Krieger have in this?  Or is the responsible party ultimately the decision makers, the deciders, the Council and the Mayor?

         

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW THE COMPLETE DOCUMENT.

Above is the letter sent to Vanessa Kirks, Fiscal Manager for the City of Riverside dated April 13, 2012 from Mark Hill, Program Budget Manager for the California State Finance Department detailing the states rejections.  What was also found, was that the California Department of Finance sent 55 cities this letter out of over 400 cities with one or more items rejected.

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW THE CORRESPONDING DRAFT ROPS SUBMITTED TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE FINANCE DEPARTMENT BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE.  POINTS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW ARE THE REJECTIONS DETAILED BY THE STATES LETTER.

What people need to know about the relationship between the Redevelopment Agency and the City of Riverside, is that Redevelopment Agency is a state agency.  The agency board is made up of your own city council, mayor and employees of the city’s development department. The City and Redevelopment are one in the same, they just change hats.  Ultimately, they are responsible for all actions and decisions.

The state then mandated that local oversight boards or succesor agencies be created to organize and dissolve the assets, debts and other obligations of the former Redevelopment Agency.  Loveridge stated, “The irony of this is that the state set up these local oversight boards but (the Department of Finance) is setting the rules of the game”.  True mayor, but did some of your oversight board actually know some of these loans were wrong? While others may have not?  Or were you steered inaccurate legal advice?  Also Mayor, when you met with the initial oversight board didn’t you set some rules of the game?  It appears that Mayor Ron Loveridge and County Supervisor John Tavaglione appointed each other for Chair and Vice Chair of the Board.  Conflict of interest?  Or just two peas in the pod?  Not to mention, it appears that John Tavaglione is covering all bets by endorsing three mayoral candidates, which are running against each other.  Former Councilman Ed Adkison, Councilman Mike Gardner and Councilman William “Rusty” Bailey.  But would these endorsements have have anything to do with John Tavaglione running for Congress?  Or further, even Richard Roth, Esq., oops General Richard Roth, Esq.,  who does quite a bit of legal work for the city, such as the current Sgt. Valmont Graham case regarding racial discrimmination issues and a proposed settlement offer in todays city council agenda.  Even though they are both endorsed by Mayor Ron Loveridge, is this a conflict of interest?  Or just bad, bad business?  Even Nick Tavaglione endorses General Richard Roth.  Possibly some relation to John Tavaglione?   “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive”  This is pretty bad legal situation for our city and someone needs to be disbarred, but the city which continues to exist in a clouded stupor and may not have the gumption to know the difference.  For example, there are City loans made to the redevelopment agency, if not repaid, could be a future hit to the $214 million general fund. The problem is our general fund will not be able to sustain the additional debt load, we our are currently in a deficit as it is.  Will this mean layoffs? Program cuts? Department cuts etc. etc.?  More utility hikes?

If you were to read the California Department of Finance Question & Answer, which appears our city management did not, it states what is acceptable and what is not.  The state even has Question & Answer on Enforceable Obligatons as follows:

CLICK THIS LINK TO VEW FULL VERSION.

The Oversight Board or Succesor Agency, with John Tavaglione and Mayor Ron Loveridge on the sidelines appeared to approve all the obligations for the former RDA and thought they could pull the rug over on the State Finance Department.  The City and the Oversight Board sent the state a list of obligations they said were allowed and should be paid under the 2011 law that dissolved redevelopment agencies.  The Oversight Board in itself was filled with conflicts of interest, and they obviously acted accordingly and expectably.  The state then enforced its own pre-released guidelines, and rejected particular line items accordingly.  State officials disagreed with a number of items on the list, including construction contracts for the new downtown fire station, Municipal Auditorium and Doty-Trust Park, as well as a disputed amount of loans from the city to the redevelopment agency and nearly $18 million from bonds issued in 2007 that the state says should not be spent.  The City of Riverside took offense, and threatened litigation, well Gregory did, possibly by default.

In response to the State Finance Department rejection letter, City Manager Scott Barber will now send the state a response letter early this week, while Mayor Ron Loveridge will follow up with a trip in person to Sacramento.  This will turn into a grand event by having his lobbying group, the League of Cities, behind him?

City Attorney Gregory Priamos stated, “We’re confident that by continuing to engage in a serious dialogue with the Department of Finance that we’re going to solve these issues without the need for litigation.”

But to even think that the city attorney would threaten the state with costly taxpayer litigation without considering the guidelines the state implemented,  would be considered political suicide.  Especially in a time when the city has less of a revenue stream, but not the city attorney’s office it seems.  But of course, this is an office which operates without transperancy and without the duty to divulge expenses to the public, of which the public are entitled to.  Many constituents in the City of Riverside are telling TMC that they are questioning Greg Priamos’s abilities and practices, which do not appear to be truly protective of our local constituents interest.

According to the letter sent to the City of Riverside by the State of California Finance Department the state says no to approximately 10% of the submissions, while the City of Riverside of course, as we are now aware, threatens litigation.  What the State is saying is that Enforceable Obligations (EO),  of which the State cites HSC section 34171 (d) , declares in part that Enforceable Obligations do not include any 1. Agreements, 2. Contracts or 3. Arrangements with City (that created the Redevelopment Agency), and especially the Redevelopment Agency itself.  So it appears that the City and the Redevelopment Agency entered into multiple loan agreements.  The law appears to be very clear, I’m not sure what part Gregory, our City Attorney and Best, Best & Krieger didn’t quite get?  I know that they are both sharp cookies and it would appear to me that they wouldn’t allow the city to submit erroneous paperwork purposely.  But what do I know, I’m only a common citizen..

But let’s go a little further down.  The State considers the following not EO’s.  You cannot make inter agency loans and that’s what the TMC truth team has been trying to tell the Mayor and the City Council.  Did the city’s lobbying group The League of California Cities say this was legal.? Did the Greater Riverside Chamber say it was legal?  Did our City Attorney Gregory Priamos say it was legal.  Did Best Best & Krieger, the City’s hired law firm, say it was legal?

There were loans between RDA and the City totaling $41.3 million.  There was a cooperative and an agreement between RDA and the City totaling $61.2 million.  There was a loan between RDA and the City Housing Authority totaling $1 million.  So far $103.4 million total

Then there was an unused revolving line of credit for $19.9 million.  Again it remained unused, but the City still tried to push this through for payment regardless.  The State said no, it’s not EO’s. New total is $123.3 million.

There are contracts with the city with other entities, not RDA, that the City tried to pass to the state as a Redevelopment issue for $19.9 million.  It said no, these are not EO’s. New total, $143.2 million.

There was various expenditures with no expenditure contracts, similar to how the City handles business with BB&K, with no contracts.  The state said no, this amounted to $15.4 million. New total, $158.6 million.

So for now, the City of Riverside claims victim status, blaming the state for themselves over extending the city’s finances.  We all know that the City is in denial, they will never admit fault, and will not take a bit of responsibility for their past voting record as they should.  Continuing to blame the State Finance Department for themselves incurring our $2 billion in Redevelopment debt, and of course, the constituents of this city will ultimately be responsible for the debt.  We must also not forget those who were in charge at the time of these occurrences, such as Former Chief Financial Officer/ Assistant City Manager/ Treasurer Paul Sundeen.

The truth of the matter is that the city can only ‘cry wolf’ a limited amount of times, before the residents of this community realize what they have done.  But in all fareness we must allow the city’s newly formed “truth squad” to respond to this conundrum, and we will wait to hear from them.

Interum Public Works Director, Tom Boyd is now named Public Works Director.

It is now time time to ask the Public Works Director the question the constituents have been waiting to ask, with regards to bids, contracts, change orders and accountability of which he has taken part of .

UPDATE: 06/01/2012: STATE FINANCE DEPARTMENT SEND LETTER OF APPROVAL TO CITY OF RIVERSIDE ALLOWING COVERAGE OF $26 MILLION OF THE ORIGINAL $156 MILLION ORIGINALLY REJECTED.  CURRENTLY, APPROXIMATELY $133 MILLION IS UNACCEPTABLE TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND REMAINS A DEBT OF THE CITY.

WHAT WOULD JOE ISUZU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT ALL THIS?

UPDATE:04/23/2012: CITY HALL SCUFFLE? Info has been brought to TMC that Councilman Chris Mac Arthur’s aid Chuck Condor was allegedly involved in a scuffle with another individual at City Hall.  Condor has been called on the carpet of City Hall for making derogatory remarks such as calling woman commenters “bitches” and “idiots.”  This was done in plain sight of others at city meetings.  Is Condor out of control?  Or is this an accepted part of City Hall culture?  TMC has been told Chuck Condor is now on administrative leave, ‘paid leave’?  That we do not know.  Is Chuck Condor going to lawyer up?

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.  RATED ONE TWO 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 

LATE NIGHTS (8:30pm, 2/29/2012) FOR CITY STAFF AT CITY HALL, WITH LIGHTS A BLAZING ON EVERY FLOOR..

WHILE THE CITY SCRAMBLES FOR DAMAGE CONTROL, THE CALIFORNIA STATE CONTROLLER, JOHN CHIANG, WILL BE SENDING THEIR AUDITING TEAM TO THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE TO INVESTIGATE CITY FINANCES.  THEY WILL BE ARRIVING MONDAY MARCH 5, 2012 AND STAY TILL MARCH 16, 2012 AND BE WORKING ON THE FOURTH FLOOR CITY HALL, PUBLIC WORKS, INTERUM DIRECTOR TOM BOYD’S DEPARTMENT.  PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SIOBHAN FOSTER ABRUPTLY LEFT HER DEPARTMENT JUST MONTHS AGO FOR A POSITION WITH THE CITY OF PASADENA, UNDER PASADENA CITY MANAGER MICHAEL BECK (FORMER ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER FOR THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE).

FRIDAY 2ND, IN WHAT IS AN UNUSUAL MOVE, THE WHOLE FINANCE COMMITTEE WAS PULLED FROM THEIR OFFICES TO ATTEND A CONFERENCE.  A POSSIBLE BRIEFING ON HOW TO RESPOND TO AUDITOR QUESTIONS?

ALSO, FRIDAY, A CITY EMPLOYEE RECEIVED A FAVORABLE RULING ON AN EMPLOYEMENT RELATED CASE.  THE JUDGE HAD DETERMINED THAT THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE HAD FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS.

AS SELF APPOINTED AUDITOR VIVIAN MORENO ANNOUNCED THE COMING OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE CONTROLLER, COUNCIL MEMBER STEVE ADAMS AND THE MAYOR SURROUNDED CITY MANAGER SCOTT BARBER AND CITY ATTORNEY GREG PRIAMOS AT THE END OF THE COUNCIL MEETING.  THEY APPREARED TO BE PERPLEXED.  DID THE CITY MANAGER AND STAFF FAIL TO INFORM THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL??  OR WERE THEY SURPRISED THAT TMC KNEW BEFORE THEY DID?  TMC HAS BEEN REQUESTING THE COUNCIL AND MAYOR TO BRING IN THE STATE CONTROLLER TO AUDIT THE BOOKS, WE EVEN ASKED MIKE GARDNER AND RUSTY BAILEY WHEN THEY WERE RUNNING FOR CITY COUNCIL.  NOW BOTH ARE CURRENTLY RUNNING FOR MAYOR, HOW WILL THIS EFFECT THEIR CAMPAIGN?  WILL THEY ALL BE HIDING BEHIND THE COMPUTER WHEN THE CONTROLLER COMES ASKING QUESTIONS?  NOW WHAT?  SOMETIMES CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY IS JUST TO MUCH FUN!

IN GOD WE TRUST, ALL OTHERS WE AUDIT..

STAY TUNED, MORE ON THE SPECIFICS TO COME…

THE EXAMINER’S, BILL SHEER’S LATEST ARTICLE DESCRIBES RIVERSIDE’S WOMAN ACTIVIST, SOMETIMES CALLED KOOKS OR CRAZY, BUT STAND FOR THE BASIC RIGHTS OF THE COMMUNITY, AND DEMAND ANSWERS FROM THE REPRESENTATIVES WHEN NECESSARY..

UPDATE:02/28/2012: WELL HALLELUJAH!  THE STATE CONTROLLER IS FINALLY COMMING TO OCCUPY CITY HALL MARCH 5TH.   SELF APPOINTED AUDITOR VIVIAN MORENO MADE THE ANNOUNCEMENT AT TUESDAY’S CITY COUNCIL DURING PUBLIC SPEEKING.  SHE ALSO ASKED THE QUESTION IF FORMER CITY MANAGER TOM DESANTIS WAS LET GO BY THE CITY BECAUSE OF SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED IN A CITY PARKING LOT?  ALSO MADE KNOWN, WAS DESANTIS’S EXORBITANT EXPENSES MADE TOWARD THE TAX PAYER TO THE EXTENT OF A MILLION DOLLARS OVER SEVERAL YEARS..  AND REGARDING FORMER BRAD HUDSON, ” IT TOOK SACRAMENTO APPROXIMATELY SIX MONTHS TO FIGURE HE WAS A LITTLE OVER THE TOP, AND TODAY YOU THINK HE DIDN’T OVER SPENT ANYTHING”.    IN THE FIVE YEARS THAT HUDSON WAS CITY MANAGER, WE SPENT ALMOST A MILLION DOLLARS, A MILLION DOLLARS REGARDING COUNCIL AND STAFF LUNCH EXPENSE ACCOUNTS.  SHE WENT ON TO SAY, “IF WE NEED THE MONEY FOR THE LIBRARY, STOP GOING OUT TO LUNCH”… 

THERE WAS MUCH PRESS REGARDING FORMER CITY MANAGER BRAD HUDSON LEAVING THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE.   MAYORAL CANDIDATE WILLIAM “RUSTY” BAILEY, CURRENT COUNCILMAN, MADE THE STATEMENT BEFORE HE LEFT RIVERSIDE, THAT HE, HUDSON, WAS A “MORAL COMPASS”.

THEN COUNCILWOMAN NANCY HART BLURTED OUT A POSSIBLE BOND MEASURE FOR THE DOWNTOWN LIBRARY.  CONSIDERING THE REDEVELOPMENT DEBACLE THAT THE LIBRARY WAS UNDER FOR RENOVATION.. 

SHE WAS QUICKLY SQUASHED BY MAYOR LOVERIDGE AS IF THIS WAS AN ISSUE NOT TO BE PUBLICLY EXPOSED…THE MAYOR QUITELY STATED, “THAT’S LATER IN THE YEAR”.   COUNCILWOMAN HART ALSO MENTION THAT SHE KNOWS PEOPLE ARE FLEEING FROM CALIFORNIA, BUT DOESN’T THINK THAT THERE ARE AS MANY PEOPLE LEAVING CALIFORNIA DUE TO THE ECONOMY AS WE THINK..  BUT SHE FEELS THAT IT NECESSARY TO REACH OUT AND TOUCH SOMEONE TO COME TO RIVERSIDE.. AND THAT WE HAVE A GREAT SURPLUS IN REGARDS TO CITY MONIES..  AND ONWARD TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT..

COUNCILMAN STEVE ADAMS STATES THAT THEIR ARE A FEW THINGS THAT WE NEED TO BE AWARE OF REGARDING THE RENAISSANCE. 

FIRST, JUST A BRIEF LITTLE HISTORY LESSON, THE RENAISSANCE WAS TO TAKE THIS CITY THAT WAS NOT DESIREABLE, TO MAKE IT THE MOST THE DESIRABLE CITY IN CALIFORNIA..NOT ONLY HAVE WE’VE DONE THAT, BUT WE HAVE MADE IT THE CITY THAT IS MOST CAPABLE TO BRING JOBS AND RETAIL TO THIS CITY…   “OK, WHERE IS IT”?  THIS IS WHAT MANY IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE ARE SECRETLY ASKING.. “WHERE IS IT”?  AND WHY SHOULD RESIDENTS BE AFRAID OF ASKING THESE QUESTIONS?  IS THE TRUE REALITY OF CITY COUNCIL, THE REALITY OF AN ILLUSIONARY AND DETACHED PREMISE?

 UPDATE: 03/01/2012: CITY OF STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA ON THE BRINK OF BANKRUPTCY, COULD BE LARGEST CITY TO FILE.  ACCORDING TO BLOOMBERG THE CITY CAN’T EVEN PAY THEIR BONDS.   STOCKTON’S COUNCIL WILL BE ASKED TO REDUCE THE CURRENT BUDGET BY $15 MILLION BECAUSE OF NEWLY UNCOVERED ACCOUNTING ERRORS AND MISMANAGEMENT THAT HAVE LEFT THE CITY ALMOST BROKE, ACCORDING TO CITY MANAGER BOB DEIS.

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!   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…  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 

              

OCCUPY RIVERSIDE MARCHED IN PROTEST OF POLICE BRUTALITY IN FRONT OF THE RPD ORANGE STREET STATION.  STORIES OF PHYSICAL ABUSE BEHIND THE DOORS OF THE RPD PROCESSING CENTER ARE TOLD.  ALL ELEVEN ARRESTED WERE EVALUATED FOR INJURIES AT LOCAL HOSPITALS AFTER THEIR RELEASE.  FESTIVAL OF LIGHTS PREPARATION SEEN, A WEEK AFTER CITY OF RIVERSIDE LEADERS CALL FOR REMOVAL OF OCCUPIER TENT CITY BY RPD SWAT.  IT APPEARS THAT THE CALL WAS DONE TO CLEAR MAIN STREET FOR THIS FESTIVE OCCASION, BUT WILL THEIR BE A FESTIVAL OF LIGHTS THIS NOVEMBER 25, 2011, WITH CHRISTMAS SONGS OF PEACE ON EARTH AND GOODWILL TO ALL, OR A FESTIVAL OF RIGHTS? 

AND WE CURRENTLY HAVE AN EERIE SYMBOLIC CAGE OF DANGER, DO NOT ENTER, AROUND THE STATUE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING WALKING TOWARD RIVERSIDE CITY HALL WITH A LEGENDARY QUOTE BEHIND HIM….

FREE SPEECH QUOTE FROM BEN FRANKLIN IN FRONT OF RIVERSIDE CITY HALL.  THIS SIGN WAS DONE THREE TIMES BECAUSE FORMER CITY MANAGER BRAD HUDSON DIDN’T LIKE THE SEAMS.  OF COURSE, AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE… WHAT WE NEED TO REMEMBER IS THAT WE COULD HAVE FED THOSE WHO NEEDED TO BE FED IN THE COMMUNITY FOR SIX MONTHS, AS OPPOSE TO SOMEONE’S PERSONAL VISION AT TAXPAYERS EXPENSE…

THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE LOVES IT’S RULES, WE HAVE RULES ON PARKING, RULES ON WHAT YOU CAN DO ON THE MALL, WE EVEN HAVE RULES ON WHAT CAN BE DONE ON RPD GRASS…

WITNESSED BY THOSE AROUND, THE LIGHT WAS RED, NOT SURE WHY, BUT RPD VEHICLE HITS THE GAS, WHILE OCCUPIER CROSSES THE STREET. WELCOME TO RIVERSIDE AND THE UPCOMING FESTIVAL OF RIGHTS, FESTIVAL OF LIGHTS THIS NOVEMBER 25, 2011.  THE QUESTION IS, WILL WE HAVE MORE CANDY CANES THROWN OR RPD BATONS THROWN?

I was walking down Main Street and saw the heavily closed off islands of grass with newly applied manure, a tree and a sign.  Which then reminded me  of a quote by Thomas Jefferson,  “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”  Are many of our forefathers quotes coming back to remind and warn us that we as individuals must take responsibility for the course that government has taken?

 

UPDATE:11/12/2011: FROM RIVERSIDE COP WATCH BLOG, FIVE BEFORE MIDNIGHT,  FORMER STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL LOCKYER’S ADVISERS WROTE THESIS ABOUT THE RIVERSIDE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND IT’S STIPULATED JUDGEMENT.

GOMEZ THESIS ON RIVERSIDE POLICE DEPARTMENT 2008

DAY’S REMEMBERED AND YEARS PAST…

UNKNOWINGLY PUSHING THE ENVELOPE, KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!   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…  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!   THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

Somehow the City Fathers and Mother, have done something right.  Whatever it is, we are finally seeing growing amount of visitors in Downtown Riverside.  They are shopping, eating at local restaurants etc.  Antonious Pizza owner Teresa Andrawis said protesters have given her business a little boost.  They are called Occupy Riverside.  But today,  the Lord’s Day, the City of Riverside, under the leadership of Chief Sergio Diaz decided it was a good day to end, what many consider a legal and lawful constitutional right to assemble.  TMC was also told that the Occupy Riverside’s permit is still active, but we were also told some weeks back by an Occupyer that they would be there till Saturday, November 5, 2011.   Therefore, the question remains.  Regardless, SWAT dressed up in full tactical gear, glocks locked and loaded, and onward went Emerald City’s finest to disrupt and arrest the occupying Americans participating in a legal assembly.  Why the disruption?  Is it possible the city feared the repercussions of Oakland?  Eleven arrested, tents disasembled and removed, but who’s to argue with a .45?  Riverside PE, how come your not reporting this?  Hopefully you didn’t receive that infamous lecture from the Chief on responsible reporting? OK, I was just joking..  Then there was the infamous bottle of soda that started it all, as stated by City of Riverside’s Chief Sergio Diaz himself, according to the PE.  So then there would be broken glass?  Protestors stated it wasn’t a bottle of soda, as the Chief indicates, it was a full can of soda.  LA Times reports that allegedly a full can of soda was thrown at the officers.  Another report stated a plastic bottle of water and a full can of soda was pelted.  These have now been labeled lethal weapons in Emerald City or The All American City 1998.  Many have said, “lethal weapons!”  Yes, but this is River City USA.  You haven’t seen nothing yet, just wait till the police reports come out.  But after all was said and done, the lightning and thunder then came to the City of Riverside…. and some began to ponder if this was an angry response from a higher source above, after all it was the Lord’s Day?

UPDATE: 11/07/2011: ACCORDING TO A REPORT BY CBS, THE ELEVEN PROTESTERS ARRESTED WERE CHARGED WITH ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON, ASSAULT ON A POLICE OFFICER AND RESISTING ARREST ACCORDING TO JOHN CARPENTER OF THE RIVERSIDE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

UPDATE: TMC takes that back, thanks PE,  RIVERSIDE PRESS ENTERPRISE POST STORY. , THE LOS ANGELES TIMES REPORT , STRICT RULES IMPLEMENTED BY CITY OF RIVERSIDE FOR OCCUPYERS AS REPORTED BY NBC , CHIEF SERGIO DIAZ INTERVIEW WITH NBC,  THE LOMA LINDA PATCH , CBS COVERAGE REPORT , KTLA LOS ANGELES REPORT.

YOUTUBE VIDEO LINKS OF THE SWAT RAID: VIDEO ONE , VIDEO TWO , VIDEO THREE , VIDEO FOUR , VIDEO FIVE  (TWO INCIDENCES OF RPD THROWING WOMEN TO THE GROUND, ONE THROWN WHILE HANDCUFFED HITS CONCRETE FACE FIRST), VIDEO SIX .

Occupier visually disturbed by officers hand on his shoulder, while he repeatedly ask him to remove as he does not have his permission to do so.

Occupier pleads with black police officer not hurt her friends in the chain.

Armed RPD confront two woman in the chain first…

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.  If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.  The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.                        – Thomas Jefferson [1802], 3rd President of the United States.

“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”
                      — Harry S. Truman,[August 8,1950] 33rd President of the United States.

UPDATE: SOME HAVE CONSIDER IT STRANGE THAT ON OCTOBER 11, 2011, THE RIVERSIDE CHIEF OF POLICE, SERGIO DIAZ,  WALKED MAIN STREET UNKNOWNINGLY IN A SUIT, IN COGNITO, ALLEGEDLY ACCUSING CERTAIN RIVERSIDE OCCUPIERS OF BEING DRUG DEALERS… 

UPDATE: 10/08/2011: ALLEGEDELY, DO WE NEED TO GET THE OCCUPIERS OUT BEFORE THE FESTIVAL OF LIGHTS, THE DAY AFTER THANKGIVING?  WILL WE FIND A MORE AGRESSIVE APPROACH THEN WHAT WAS SEEN SUNDAY?  THEN PLACING THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE ON THE MAP WITH GREECE, OAKLAND AND NEW YORK?

UPDATE: 11/08/2011: PROTESTER AT TODAYS RIVERSIDE CITY HALL STATES THAT RIVERSIDE POLICE FALSIFIED THE CLAIM AND CHARGE OF THE INFAMOUS BOTTLE OF WATER.  THE PROTESTOR STATED HE WAS THE ONE THAT THROUGH THE PLASTIC BOTTLE OF WATER.  HE WAS PART OF HOLDING THE LINE, DRANK FROM HIS BOTTLE OF WATER, TOSSED IT TO HIS FRIEND TO REFILL, FRIEND THROUGH BACK THE BOTTLE.  WITH ALL THE PHONE CAMERAS, CAMERAS AND VIDEO RECORDERS, NO BOTTLE USED AS A PROJECTILE WAS FILMED OR SEEN AS CLAIMED BY POLICE CHIEF SERGIO DIAZ.

ANOTHER STATED WHO WAS LOST HIS JOB TWO WEEKS AGO, “NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU ARREST, OR BEAT ME, THE PROBLEM IS JUST NOT GOING TO GO AWAY”.

ANOTHER STATED, NEWS AGENCIES  SUCH AS CNN AND THE NEW YORK TIMES WERE ASKING HER IF POLICE BRUTALITY WAS A REGULAR THING?” OCCURRENCE IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE

ANOTER STATED CHARGED WITH RESISTING ARREST, WHILE BEING PINNED UNDER A COLLAPSED CANOPY.

KAREN RENFROE GIVE THE COUNCIL A LECTURE ON FREEDOM AND LIBERTY, GETS A STANDING OVATION.

SOMEONE IN THE BACK OF THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CREATED A STIR, INTERRUPTING A SPEAKER AT THE PODIUM, AND HAD TO BE CORRECTED BY MAYOR LOVERIDGE.  IT APPEARS THAT THE MAYOR KNOWS HIM BY NAME.  HE WAS IDENTIFIED AS SALVADOR SANTANA, A LOCAL RIVERSIDE BLOGGER OF THE TRUTH PUBLICATION.  COUNCILMEN STEVE ADAMS, MIKE GARDNER AND CHRISTOPHER MACARTHUR ARE PAYING SUPPORTERS OF THIS SITE ACCORDING TO CITY 460 DOCUMENTS. 

         

THE SITE CLAIMS THAT THE LAST PAYMENT COUNCILMAN STEVE ADAMS MADE TO THIS SITE FOR CAMPAIGN ADVERTISING PURPOSES WAS IN THE AMOUNT OF $440.00, BUT NOT IN ANYWAY INDICATED ON ANY 460 DOCUMENT FORM. 

ACCORDING TO THE PUBLICATION, FORMER COUNCILMAN FRANK SCHIAVONE APPEARS TO ALSO HAVE MADE A CALL OF SUPPORT TO THIS PUBLICATION.  INTERESTING DERROGATORY COMMENTS TOWARDS WOMEN ON THIS SITE FROM SUPPORTERS.  SITE SUPPORTER COUNCILMAN MIKE GARDNER SHOWN WITH FORMER COUNCILMAN ED ADKINSON, NOW ALSO RUNNING FOR MAYOR. 

UPDATE: 11/09/2011: REPORTS OF COMPLAINTS FROM OCCUPIERS ARE COMING IN NAMING OFFICERS ANGOLA AND MUNIZ.  WHAT HAPPENED BEHIND CLOSED DOORS OF THE POLICE PROCESSING CENTER.  PROFESSIONALITY IN QUESTION AND THE TREATMENT OF THE WOMEN.   OTHER SOURCES STATING THE TWO WERE ALLEGEDLY FIRED AT ONE POINT, THEN REHIRED DUE TO ALLEGATIONS OF EVIDENCE PLANTING AND TAMPERING.  MANY ARE ASKING WHO ARE THE REAL CRIMINALS. ONE OF THE FEMALE OCCUPIERS WHO WAS NOT PART OF THE CHAIN, SAID SHE WAS PICKED OUT BY AN OFFICER FOR WHAT SHE APPARENTLY SAID TO HIM. THE OFFICER THAN TOLD HER SHE WAS BEING ARRESTED FOR ASSAULTING HIM.  WHAT HAPPENS WITHIN THE UNDERWORLD OF THE RIVERSIDE POLICE PROCESSING CENTER CANNOT BE WITNESSED BY CIVILIANS.  WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR ARE THE DECISION MAKERS OF WHAT OCCURS IN THE CITY, THEY ARE THE LEADERS, THE POLICE ARE ONLY THEIR FOOT SOLDIERS WHO FOLLOW THEIR ORDERS UNDER THE COMMAND OF CHIEF OF POLICE SERGIO DIAZ.   KEEP CONNECTED MORE TO COME.

KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!   TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,  AND PROBABLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE RIVERSIDE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR WHAT EVER REASON, AND THAT’S ALL WE’RE GOING TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S, COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT!  THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

COMINGLING CAN BE USED FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSES, BUT NOT FOR ACCOUNTING PURPOSES, TO BE USED OTHERWISE WOULD BE CONCEALMENT.

THIS WAS AN OPEN LETTER SENT TO COUNCIL WOMAN NANCY HART, FROM SELF APPOINTED CITIZEN AUDITOR VIVIAN MORENO, AFTER THIS WEEKS FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING:

Dearest  Council Woman Nancy Hart,

What a pleasure it was to attend your finance committee meeting. As I was walking out I heard you walking behind me saying something like : I am spending 100s of hours on this and I should be doing something else, And I should leave this up to the experts. ( am I correct you were speaking or referring to me) If you would like a sit down session to discuss this matter I will be happy to meet with you.  Now I need to respond.

Response: The fiscal responsibility of our city is very important to me , my family, my friends, my neighbors, the elderly and the disabled. I have a right to ask, to question, to view, every document that I have questions about.  This is called the public records Act. It was put in place just for this purpose.

Some people fish, knit, sew, I review public documents. What I choose to do with my time is my business not yours.

If the City of Riverside sets the pattern for review of Financial statements monthly and the previous year 2010 they are all accounted for and NO commingling of funds. What is a citizen to do when  in 2011 they are all over the place with statements and general -enterprise fund documents  MISSING. If they were all in their right place I wouldn’t have to bother anybody. If there is only one person, (as stated by Paul Sundeen, referring to me), in the entire city of Riverside looking at financial statements whats the big deal. All I’m saying if you have the process in place it should easily be accessible.   It was interesting to me that you yourself did not know where the financial statements were located on your website.

Your comment about “leaving it up to the experts” . Your experts  have a restaurant in City Hall that was over 3 mil and it doesn’t bring in a dollar to the city.  You have a new  library in Orange Crest  that has a closed café. You have a Fox Theatre that has a million plus  deficit each year in operating costs. You have 149 transferred   properties, “Questionable”. Your experts Commingle funds. Your experts signed an illegal contract with a restaurant (Elephant Thai) post Redevelopment stay. Above all your experts have put us in 1.7 billion dollar debt that we cannot pay and I believe you know it. So why should we listen to your experts!

As a politician you should be happy for us that we do take an interest in city politics and we want a better understanding of how our local government works.  Going thru the documents of the City of Riverside and telling the story is like reading a novel, but I know all the characters.  No worry, I do this on my free time.

By the way we  will be attending the MORR Conference next week, Municipal Officials for Redevelopment Reform, in San Francisco. We will be speaking on Commingling of Redevelopment funds, transferred properties,  inter fund and inter agency transfers, and signing contracts while a Redevelopment stay is in place .  My goal is to be an expert in Municipal Finance so where ever I choose to live I can have an impact.

Thank-you, Vivian Moreno,  Self Appointed Citizen Auditor

Nancy,

This is easy reading.  While you leave commingling up to your  experts, I have concerns. I know California Code Section 66006 has to do with impact fees, but you get the idea, I’m still learning.

CAL. GOV. CODE § 66006 : California Code – Section 66006

(a)If a local agency requires the payment of a fee specified in subdivision (c) in connection with the approval of a development project, the local agency receiving the fee shall deposit it with the other fees for the improvement in a separate capital facilities account or fund in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the local agency, except for temporary investments, and expend those fees solely for the purpose for which the fee was collected. Any interest income earned by moneys in the capital facilities account or fund shall also be deposited in that account or fund and shall be expended only for the purpose for which the fee was originally collected.

(b)(1)For each separate account or fund established pursuant to subdivision (a), the local agency shall, within 180 days after the last day of each fiscalyear, make available to the public the following information for the fiscal year:

(A)A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund.

(B)The amount of the fee.

(C)The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund.

(D)The amount of the fees collected and the interest earned.

(E)An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the total percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees.

(F)An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement, as identified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 66001, and the public improvement remains incomplete.

(G)A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including the public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be expended, and, in the case of an interfund loan, the date on which the loan will be repaid, and the rate of interest that the account or fund will receive on the loan.

(H)The amount of refunds made pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 66001 and any allocations pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 66001.

(2)The local agency shall review the information made available to the public pursuant to paragraph (1) at the next regularly scheduled public meeting not less than 15 days after this information is made available to the public, as required by this subdivision. Notice of the time and place of the meeting, including the address where this information may be reviewed, shall be mailed, at least 15 days prior to the meeting, to any interested party who files a written request with the local agency for mailed notice of the meeting. Any written request for mailed notices shall be valid for one year from the date on which it is filed unless a renewal request is filed. Renewal requests for mailed notices shall be filed on or before April 1 of each year. The legislative body may establish a reasonable annual charge for sending notices based on the estimated cost of providing the service.

(c)For purposes of this section, “fee” means any fee imposed to provide for an improvement to be constructed to serve a development project, or which is a fee for public improvements within the meaning of subdivision (b) of Section 66000, and that is imposed by the local agency as a condition of approving the development project.

(d)Any person may request an audit of any local agency fee or charge that is subject to Section 66023, including fees or charges of school districts, in accordance with that section.

(e)The Legislature finds and declares that untimely or improper allocation of development fees hinders economic growth and is, therefore, a matter of statewide interest and concern. It is, therefore, the intent of the Legislature that this section shall supersede all conflicting local laws and shall apply in charter cities.

(f)At the time the local agency imposes a fee for public improvements on a specific development project, it shall identify the public improvement that the fee will be used to finance.

COUNCIL WOMAN NANCY HART DID RESPOND, IT WAS A PERSONAL EMAIL,  HOPEFULLY SHE WILL POST IT!

KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!   TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND THAT’S ALL WE’RE GOING TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!  COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS!

CLICK ON THE PIC FOR THE HD EFFECT!

TMC staff thanks all who have supported us and quietly supported us.  In trying times we look for leadership and find none. There are new fees, fines and taxes.   We find gross fiscal mismanagement of funds.  We find government enacting new restrictions of what we can and cannot do on our own properties.  Restrictions and higher fees for violations on vehicles. All we ask, is that the government balance their check book, we have to.  TMC wants the City of Riverside dirt, if you have it, we want it, for example, mismanagement of funds, affairs, illegal property transfers etc.  Email us anonymously at thirtymilescorruption@hotmail.com with your dirt.

KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!   TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND THAT’S ALL WE’RE GOING TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!  COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS!

UPDATE: THE DIRT IS ROLLING IN, AND IT’S ALMOST TIME TO PICK-UP THE TRASH!  THANKS RIVERSIDE!

TALKING ABOUT TRASH, DAN BERSTEIN OF PE IS REPORTING FORMER CITY MANAGER BRAD HUDSON FILES A CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE ALLEGING A TRASH TRUCK BACKED UP INTO HIS 2011 DODGE.  CLAIM AGAINST TAXPAYER NEGLIGENCE: $1,075.00, BUT ACTUAL COST $1,434.00.  BUT IF YOU EVER LOOKED AT HIS DISCRETIONARY FUND AND THE CITY’S GENERAL FUND, NON OF THE NUMBERS MAKE SENSE EITHER.

Again is this another display of our culture favoritism and selective treatment within the gates of emerald city? (Item #9).  The ambulance debacle, government again interfering with the free market system to the point of allowing a monopoly?  City councilman Paul Davis was right to ask the question if it’s the cities policy to allow one ambulance company, American Medical Response, in the city.  Does this violate antitrust laws?  What’s quite interesting is that the city issues franchise agreement to control who runs non-emergency ambulance services.  Any ambulance company is allowed to apply, but the clincher is AMR is the only company to be issued one.  The city firefighters union opposes Mission Ambulance’s bid to serve Riverside.  Why would a firefighters union get involved in the business of rendering an opinion?  Questions are continually raised in regards to union influence in the city, and to the extent of special interest request.  But you have your answer as to why no other franchise agreements were ever issued over the last 50 years.  But again, the city can save money by placing more services up for bid.  (Item #9) Again, is the city and the firefighters union involved in a monopoly? And are the firefighters unions really looking toward the health and safety of the public?  In City Council session,  The Public Safety Commission will be recommending that the Council deny Mission ambulance from attaining a franchise agreement.  Get this, the Public Safety Commision is made up of the City Council, Chris Mac Arthur, Nancy Hart and Andy Melendez.  Further, Fire Chief Steve Early will actually be conducting the assessment of Mission ambulance’s application, and rendering an opinion to the Public Safety Commision.  Yes, I’m not making this up, it’s incestuous.  Can you guess what is going to be their decision?  In addition, the City pays AMR for certain training services to the Firefighters etc., in addition, AMR has had their own set of problems.  But it appears that according to the references in favor of Mission Ambulance, that the city would turn a blind eye to the health and safety of Riversidian’s in favor of alleged special interest.

UPDATE: COUNCIL VOTES TO DENY MISSION AMBULANCE A FRANCHISE, EXCEPT FOR COUNCILMAN PAUL DAVIS.  AMR HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE CAMPAIGN’S OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, INCLUDING DAVIS.  MISSION AMBULANCE CONTRIBUTED TO DAVIS ONLY.  BACK IN 2009, CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHARGES WERE FILED AGAINST AMR’S PETER HUBBARD, WHO WAS ALSO CHAIRMAN OF THE RIVERSIDE POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION.  MISSION AMBULANCE WAS CORRECT IN SAYING THAT MISINFORMATION HAS BEEN FED.  MISINFORMATION SUCH AS CHIEF STEVE EARLY STATEMENT THAT MISSION AMBULANCE MAY NOT RESPOND, IF THEY WERE CALLED, BECAUSE OF A COST FACTOR.  COUNCILMAN STEVE ADAMS ALSO STATED MISSION AMBULANCE REFUSES TO RESPOND TO PEOPLE WHO CANNOT PAY.  AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE IS CONTRACTED FOR 911 SERVICES WITH THE CITY, AND YOU ARE ONLY CALLED IF CONTRACTED FOR 911 SERVICES.  MISSION AMBULANCE WOULD LIKE TO SERVE THE RETAIL END, AND CONTRACTS INDIVIDUALLY WITH PROVIDERS, AND SHOULD AND COULD HAVE THE OPTION TO CONTRACT FOR 911 SERVICES AT THE STANDARD CONTRACTS RATES IF ALLOWED.  MISINFORMATION ON THE DAIS?  CHIEF EARLEY RECOMMENDED THE APPLICATION BE DENIED, BUT WAS AT A LOSS OF WORDS TO RATIONALLY EXPLAIN IT.  WHEN ASKED BY PAUL DAVIS AS TO THE DETAILS OF THE DENIAL, CITY ATTORNEY GREG PRIAMOS WAS THEIR TO RESCUE AND SPIN, AND REMINDING EVERYONE OF THE ISSUE AT HAND.  THIS WAS REMARKABLY DONE MORE THAN ONCE AS TO CEASE COUNCILMAN PAUL DAVIS’S QUESTIONING.  IN RELATION TO THIS PROTECTIVE BEHAVIOR, A CLOSE OUTSIDE FRIENDSHIP IS ALLEGED BETWEEN CITY ATTORNEY GREG PRIAMOS AND PETER HUBBARD WHO HAVE BEEN SEEN AT FAMILY GATHERINGS, NOW RAISING QUESTIONS AGAIN OF CONFLICT INTEREST.  FURTHER, COUNCILMAN STEVE ADAMS WAS ALLEGED SEEN HAVING DRINKS WITH PETER HUBBARD AT RIVERSIDE’S SALTED PIG RESTAURANT ON 10/11/2011.  WOULD THIS HAVE ANY EFFECT ON HIS DECISION MAKING ON THIS ITEM AS A COUNCILMAN?   HOW ABOUT THE CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COUNCILMAN AND MAYOR PRO-TEMP CHRIS MAC ARTHUR, EVEN THE MAYOR HIMSELF, RON LOVERIDGE?  AND LET’S NOT FORGET THE INFAMOUS BAD BOY’S THEMSELVES, BRAD HUDSON AND TOM DESANTIS.  WHAT ABOUT THE MILLIONAIRE’S CLUB?  WOULD MISSION AMBULANCE HAVE A LEGAL CASE AGAINST THE CITY UNDER THESE GROWING CIRCUMSTANCES?  DOES THIS NOW MEAN ONE FOR THE FIRE CHIEF, AND ONE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE INTEREST OF THE UNION BROTHERHOOD? WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE CITY’S INCESTUOUS RELATIONSHIPS EFFECTING THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE THE COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE, WITH POSSIBLE GRAND VIOLATIONS OF ANTITRUST LAWS?

Talking about firefighters their still negotiating their salaries and fringe benefits in closed sessions again under (Item #5), with you guessed it , the firefighters union etc.  Hopefully they’ll be negotiating low, because the city can’t afford to pay them more.  After all, the city will be at a standstill by next year 2012 when bonds come due. Maybe we should do as Norco did, dissolve their City Fire Department and bid out. In their case they went with Cal Fire/ Riverside County Fire Department,  or another alternative for saving money is go back to the Volunteer Fire Department. Another idea would be to dissolve RPD, and bring in the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department in order to save money.  Excessive pensions is placing a large dent in the Cities budget. It’s no secret that 70% to 80% of a cities budget goes to payroll. (Item #5, Closed sessions of course).  This is a good reason that the City Charter needs to be modified, and whereby items as this should be in open session to be scrutinized by the public, and these closed door sessions leave an open door to abuse, at taxpayer expense.  And that my friends is how the city rolls..

Parking Citations Amnesty. Parking always a problem in Riverside and excessive violation fees at $41.00 a pop is another.   Won’t work, people have no money, honest! (Item #16)  The idea proposed by Public Works Director Siobhan Foster is that the end result of the amnesty program, the city will bring in $33,925.00 in revenue.  The actual total revenue expected from the amnesty program is $125,025.00.  But this figure will be offset by the initial expense of the taxpayer have in the amount of $91,000.00 to implement the plan.  THE BOTTOM LINE, IT ORDER TO BRING IN 27% BACK IN REVENUE, IT WILL COST THE TAXPAYER BY THE OFFSET COST, 73%.  I WOULD ALSO ASSUME THAT THE PERCENTAGE IS HIGHER DUE TO THE COST AND ATTEMPT TO RECOVER PRIOR COST TO THIS PROPOSAL, THEREFORE THE REVENUE BROUGHT IN FROM THE AMNESTY PROGRAM WOULD ACTUALLY BE LESS THAN 27% AS INDICATED.  NOW WE KNOW WHY SIOBHAN FOSTER IS MOVING PLACES, AND PASADENA PICKED HER UP LIKE A BAG OF CLEAN SOCKS!

One more week to go on naming city hall!  But after the item #9 debacle, we all know how that is going to turn out as well…  Bad news for Rin Tin Tin…

UPDATE:10/18/2011: A VERY SENSITIVE AMR CANCELS LEASE AGREEMENT WITH MURRIETA OVER A COUNCILMAN’S STATEMENT.  MURRIETA URGES COMPETITIVE BIDDING ON AMBULANCE CONTRACTS.    DID THEY ALSO HAVE A PROBLEM TAKING $1.4 MILLION IN “BLOOD MONEY” TO LOWER RESPONSE TIMES AS ALLEGEDLY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE TOOK?

UPDATE:10/29/2011: WHILE COUNCILMAN STEVE ADAMS BELIEVE OUTSIDE AMBULANCE COMPANIES WOULD NOT PICK THOSE WHO CANNOT PAY WITHIN THE CTY, IT APPEARS THE COUNTY HANDS OUT A STIPEND, AN ENCENTIVE ETC. TO COVER THAT COST. 

UPDATE:12/08/2011: ACCORDING TO THE STATE AGENCY THAT OVERSEES COUNTY MEDICAL SERVICE PLANS, RIVERSIDE OFFICIALS DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO STOP QUALIFIED AMBULANCE COMPANIES FROM FROM PICKING UP PATIENTS IN THE CITY.  THE QUESTION MANY CITY RESIDENTS ARE ASKING, IS THE CITY VIOLATING ANTITRUST LAWS?

UPDATE:02/13/2012: THE STATE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AUTHORITY (EMSA) STATES THAT THE CITY AND COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE OVERSTEPPED IT’S AUTHORITY IN LIMITING AMBULANCE SERVICES.  COULD THE $1.4 MILLION AMR PROVIDES RIVERSIDE EACH YEAR FOR PARAMEDIC TRAINING AND EQUIPMENT CONTRIBUTE TO HOW THE CITY VOTES ON ISSUES THAT IMPACT AMR?  OTHERS HAVE MENTIONED THAT THE $1.4 MILLION ALLOWS AMR TWO MORE MINUTES TO THEIR MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RESPONSE TIME.  JUST LIKE HAVING A BAD BURRITO, IT JUST DOES’T SIT WELL IN THE STOMACH’S OF COMMUNITY RESIDENTS.  BRUCE BARTON, DIRECTOR OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AGENCY, ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT PREVIOUSLY WAS IN THE EMPLOYMENT OF AMR AS OF 2004.  COULD THIS CONTRIBUTE TO A CONFLICT OF INTEREST OUTCOME?

UPDATE: 05/11/2012: COMMMENTER ON THE PRESS ENTERPRISE REGARDING THE AMBULANCE MONOPOLY IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE..

No,  what’s going on, you’ve got three mayoral candidates who already know from debates and feedback this is a major campaign issue and they don’t want to have to make any decisions about it before the June election. Gardner must think that most of us just got off the turnip truck yesterday based on his comments. But you know what? People in this city are capable of independent thought without being patronized. This whole ordinance was written back in the late 1980s to protect Goodhew Ambulance which was tied in heavily through the people connected to the city council and mayor at the time. It’s a shame that nothing’s changed since even though the city’s grown both in size through annexations and through its population.  The ambulance companies should call the Office of the Inspector General and ask him or her to initiate an investigation of the Federal Anti-Kickback statute. At best, there’s potential for a huge conflict of interest including financially in this case, but looking at the lettering of the statute, it might be more than that.   Exceptions or “safe reservoirs” for this law pertain to trying to avoid monopolies in high-need areas not create one. I’m sure if the inspector general has to start an inquiry into what’s going on, the City Council will be in a rush to reschedule its workshop.   – Mary Shelton, University of California, Riverside

WHO WILL BE HIDING BEHIND THE COMPUTER NEXT WHEN THE AUDITOR COMES ASKING QUESTIONS? CHECK BACK WEEKLY…THAT IS, EVERY CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY! WE’LL EVEN PROVIDE THE DIRECT LINK SO YOU CAN CHECK THE CURRENT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. CALL YOUR LOCAL ELECTED COUNCIL PERSON AND THE MAYOR AND REQUEST THAT A FORENSIC AUDIT BE DONE BY STATE CONTROLLER JOHN CHIANG OF THE CITY HALL BOOKS.   WITH A NEW INTERIM CITY MANAGER, SCOTT BARBER, THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE NEEDS BASELINE NUMBER AS DONE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN ORDER TO ASSURE BALANCED NUMBERS AND TO CLEAR POSSIBLE DISCREPANCIES OF THE GENERAL LEDGER BOOKS. IF THERE IS NOTHING TO HIDE, THE NUMBERS WILL ALWAYS COME UP RIGHT! 

THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT, NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND THAT’S ALL TMC HAS TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE FOR NOW… THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S MOST “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE.

CLICK ON THE PICK FOR THE HD EXPERIENCE!

The story gets better all the time.  It appears as if there was a private committee headed by the ring leader, Jack Clark, a partner in litigation for BB&K, a firm which receives millions in taxpayer money for their legal advice to the city and not to forget the recently signed assumption of their lease with the city.  This self appointed private committee included recognizable names with long titles, as Ex-City of Riverside Manager Brad Hudson, Private Developer Mark Rubin, Yeager Construction Companies Jack Yeager, Senior VP of The Entrepreneurial Corporate Group which owns the Mission Inn Ted Weggeland , City of Riverside Chief of Staff Kristin Tillquist, Riverside County Fair Housing Executive Director Rose Mayes, President/CEO Riverside Chamber of Commerce Cindy Roth, Roth Carney Law Firm Partner Jane Carney, Riverside County Superior Court Judge Roger Luebs, Director of Center for Philanthropy La Sierra University Dr. Jim Erickson, Retired Superintendent Alford Unified School District Dr. Damon Castillo, RUSD School Board Kathy Allavie.  The majority of these people in one way or another have benefited from City Hall and/or have had their palms financially greased by the taxpayer.   If you look at the names they all have some connection with the mayor in terms of contracts, associations, employment by the city etc.  Councilman Paul Davis didn’t know this committee existed till just recently, and asked for an extension to hear out his constituents of which he has received 15 email concerns.  Nancy Hart also had reservations as to the appropriateness of city hall being named by the current mayor.  Usually this is an honor attributed to someone who passed on.  But more egregious, the community was not invited to be part of this process.  Again a culture of arrogance and narcissism.  Councilmen Mike Gardner and Andy Melendrez had no reservations in voting for the naming of City Hall after the mayor.  Steve Adams couldn’t contain himself, he had no problem voting for him right that instant and just push the proclamation through.  Though, he consider Councilman Paul Davis and Councilwomen Nancy Hart’s reservations on the vote and the need for 2 weeks as “confusion”.  But again felt this decision as deserving of nothing more that than a unanimous vote by the whole council when they returned back in two weeks, and this he believed the mayor wouldn’t have wanted it any other way.   Councilman Andy Melendrez Asked Councilman Paul Davis and Councilwoman Nancy Hart what exactly they would be looking at in the next two weeks from their constituents.  This struck me  as an oxymoron and quite obvious, City Hall is owned by the community of Riverside, not by the few councilpeople and a private committee. Have we all forgotten this simple premise?  Let’s not forget that BB&K receives millions of dollars from Riverside taxpayers for legal advice to the city and city attorney’s office.  Conflict of interest?  A gift back to the mayor for his BB&K support?   A private committee was formed without imput from the community at large on the issue of City Hall being named, “The Ron Loveridge Riverside City Hall.”   Or should we call it the “Best Best & Krieger Riverside City Hall”?  Since we do so much business with them, I’m surprise Council hasn’t voted to give them a floor at City Hall.   But it all appears the initiation of the naming was more than likely instigated by Councilmen Chris Mac Carthur and William “Rusty” Bailey, both of whose families have been in existence in Riverside for generations and have been part of the fabric of Riverside politics.  Speakers on this issue were vehemently concerned.  Some speakers suggested other names should be considered, names which embody Riverside, such as Eliza Tibbets, John Wesley North or even Frank Miller.  Others stated that Ron is getting paid to do the work of the people.  As our forefathers of this country stated, no one should be elevated to level of king for doing the work of the people.  Now, if Ron did the work of the people and didn’t get paid for doing it for his 30 plus years, I would have no problem voting for Ron today either. This would reflect a sacrifice and a deep passion for the community he served, and it should be that way getting paid. But people in the community also work 30 or 40 years in a job without anyone naming a building after them, and there job is just as important as the mayor’s.   Names are for extraordinary circumstances.  It appears this has all gone to the dogs, but the entity I believe embodies Riverside and the name I would use on the walls of city hall would be an icon Riverside keeps close to their heart, therefore, “The Rin Tin Tin Riverside City Hall”.

UPDATE: 10/17/2011: COUNCILMAN STEVE ADAMS CHANGING HIS TUNE? “IT’S NOT THE TIME TO CONSIDER CHANGE”.  IN REFERENCE TO THE CITY HALL BEING NAMED AFTER MAYOR RON LOVERIDGE.  ADAMS NOW BELIEVES THE NAMING OF CITY HALL NEEDS TO GO TO THE PEOPLE, AND A PRIVATE INDEPENDENT COMMITTEE DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THAT CALL.  PLAYING POLITICS DURING ELECTION TIME?

UPDATE:10/23/2011: PRESS ENTERPRISE REPORTS CITY HALL NAME CHANGE ON HOLD!

KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” BLOG SITE!   TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND THAT’S ALL WE’RE GOING TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE…  AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!

Is it true that the Redevelopment debt is increasing incrementally $100,000,000.00 per month?  According to the Enforceble Obligation Payment (EOP) in June 2011 the RDA debt was $1.5 Billion, The premliminary draft of the Enforceable Obligation Payment (IROPS-Initial Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule) as of September 27, 2011 states total RDA debt to now be $1.7 Billion.  Much of the the debt is being paid with bond proceeds as a revenue source.  How long can it sustain itself?  This would be as if one pays a debt with a credit card, then later uses another credit card to pay the first credit card.  Instead we are using bonds. Bonds are loans.  A bond is a formal contract to repay borrowed money with interest at fixed intervals.  Will this unsustained failure to deal with lead to banckruptcy?  Illegal or just Bad Business?  Where does the actions of the council breach their fiduciary duty to the taxpayer?  Is there a point whereby bad fiscal decisions just becomes illegal?

“Lying rides upon debt’s back.” -Benjamin Franklin

THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT!  KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” BLOG SITE!   TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND THAT’S ALL WE’RE GOING TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE…