Posts Tagged ‘vivian moreno’

Stop Elder Abuse Sign

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

Untitled-2 copy                       Untitled-3

CLICK IMAGES TO ENLARGE

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

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

mayorsbudget             mayors budget

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

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

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

JGFLYER

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

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

PUMEASUREAOFUTILITYBILL

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

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

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

STORMDRAIN           PAGE4

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW COMPLETE DOCUMENT

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

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

flash_1886

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

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

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

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

mailer

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL MAILER

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

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

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

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

zellerbach

SO WHAT IS A D.A. TO DO?

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

Vote No on Measure A,  www.noonmeasureariverside.com

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

WETTWOPSD233

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

JUST FOR LAUGHS…

539110_506054042765037_303798518_n

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

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!  TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED.  I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU.  NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA?  RATED ONE TWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS..  TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!   COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT!   THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

At the June 26th, 2012 City Council Meeting City Manager Scott Barber responded to the new passing of the ‘Trailer Bill” or as it is known AB 1484, enacted as a result to clarify and define language of Redevelopments inter-agency transfers and possibly padding the ROPS (Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule).   Barber inititated his comment by stating, ” I was going to say that I thought ‘The Trailer Bill’ was the good, bad and the ugly, you may have remembered that western movie, but spending more time reading through it,  I just think it’s all ugly.”  The California League of cities have come out with opposition for a less amended bill, that is there recommendation..  There are some concerns we should have in the budget trailer bill, one of them is a threat to local finances.  Now our understanding in first reading the bill made us think perhaps there would be some good for us with regards to our outstanding inter-agency loans, the ones that had been reconfirmed by our oversight board and sent to the Department of Finance.   It did appear that there would language in here for repayment of these loans.  However, the conditions which appear in the current version of the trailer bill, although they say ‘repayment’, the conditions that they create make ‘repayment’ very unlikely without exhausting other debts and then growth in tax increment to other taxing entities.  That does not look very favorable.  The trailer bill as it is written really takes the away the power and authority from the oversight board and really make their actions really meaniless.  It transfer a great deal of authority to the State Department of Finance.  It changes the department of finance role to where they have a huge amount of authority over county and cities regarding our finances. They have the ability to impose fines for what they consider non compliance on ROPS, and they have the ability to transfer sales tax and property taxes where they don’t believe successor agencies or oversite board have not acted appropriately.  I think in general we our better off right now, than we would be with the trailer bill as drafted, if it was adopted.

Greg fires back and states that the State Department of Finance is getting to much power, and will even get $22 million for legal council to take on the cities and the redevelopment agencies , which I would say is close to the amount he pays out to BB&K for overpriced legal advice?  Wouldn’t you say?  Under this trailer bill we will never receive a 100% repayment for ROPS.  Well maybe the City was not doing things right to begin with, as was padding the ROPS along with other cities.  Of course you’re not going to receive 100% repayment.  But didn’t we start out with $259 million in the original ROPS submission, but $21 million remaining in ROPS limbo.  The trailer bill was meant to stop these padded submission and bring in some surgical clarity and prevent city attorney’s from taking up the state’s time while arguing their case.  Priamos than referred to a legsislative analyist from where their response to the Trailer Bill was a word of caution as opposed to an endorsement. Greg in his convoluted way continued to make no sense at council and spinned in a draconian way every response made.  Primos’s take on the $10,000 per day fine for not turning your ROPS on time, was draconian… well, now the city knows how the constituents have felt with ‘draconian’ code enforcement fines that Priamos’s city attorney’s office have been enforcing toward the constituents of the the City of Riverside, as well as the ‘draconian’ ticket violation for street sweeping when the constituent already  pay for it.  Those Council people whe represent those wards such as Councilman Mike Gardner have addressed these issues as well in a ‘draconian way’.   We must then consider Priamo’s refusal to respond to public records request regarding his departments expenses when directed toward Best, Best & Krieger…’draconian’.  Why is he protecting Best, Best & Krieger?   According to Priamos, the overall evaluation of the Trailer Bill, it’s ‘draconian’!

Councilman Andy Melendrez asked the question if cities can actually file for bankruptcy?  Priamos stated, “yes, cities can file for bankrupticies”.  That was largely done to address the concerns of the unions (possibly for unsustainable union contracts which were not negotiated in the best interest of the ‘people’ as TMC understands).   Barber even said that we spoke with our lobbyist (I’m assuming the League of California Cities), to this passing of this legislation, and said, don’t expect changes.  Incidently, can the city afford to continue to hire a lobbyist?   Davis says “it is unfortunate, not a great way to run a business”?  Did he misspoke? Barber states that we spoke to our lobbyist this afternoon, don’t expect changes of this thing (the legislation) it is  going to be past.  Councilman and Mayor Pro Tempt, Paul Davis responded to this passing of the this trailer bill legislation, “It’s really unfortunate, it’s a great way to run a business”?   Really Paul..remember this is all about Redevelopment abuse and all need to take responsibility for it, but that never happen with our city or other cities at the local level.  Unfortunately , the State saw it differently with respect that local municipalities abused their power, and in response, have intervened with an ‘iron fist’ of authority, for even at local level, local arrogance and displays of entitlements has shown the need for the State’s drastic actions and as labeled by some city execs, ‘draconian ’.

The Trailor bill validates every thing that Vivian Moreno, Dvonne Pitruzzello and Raychelle Sterling has been saying for 2 years.  They were 100% right.  So I guess that makes them really smart!  TMC would imagine that this would conincide with the cities new award, of the ‘The Most Intelligent City”.  Again, City management will try to portray them as if they had no idea what they were talking about.

RIVERSIDE FORGOTTEN…CHINA TOWN FROM MT. RUBIDOUX.  BROCKTON AVENUE RUNS LEFT TO RIGHT, WHERE IT INTERSECTS WITH TEQUESQUITE AVENUE. (CIRCA 1912)

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 

 MR. CHIANG,…MR. CHIANG!  OK, SLOWLY TELL HIM AGAIN ABOUT THE FIRE STATIONS, JUST LEAVE OUT THE MONEY PART..

Don’t miss next weeks City Council Tuesday, April 3, 2012.  Let the fireworks begin, don’t forget to bring your popcorn and peanuts…

THE BIG ISSUE LAST WEEK WAS THE ISSUANCE OF A $4 MILLION DOLLAR FROM PINNACLE FINANCING, AND USING SIX FIRE STATIONS FOR COLATERAL.  THERE ASSESSED VALUE ACCORDING TO THE CITY IS $4MILLION DOLLARS.  ONE OF THE FIRE STATIONS, THE CAYNON CREST FIRE STATION #14 ALONE WAS VALUED AND COSTED THE TAXPAYER $4,812,684.00 ACCORDING TO CITY RECORDS.  THE DETAILS CAN BE SEEN IN LAST WEEKS BLOG POSTING BELOW. WELL IT APPEARS THAT IT ‘S ONLY BEGINNING.  LAST WEEK, STATE CONTROLLER JOHN CHIANG’S OFFICE SAYS THAT THE CITY IMPROPERLY CLAIMED ANIMAL SERVICES REIMBURSEMENTS THEREFORE OWING THE STATE THE SUM OF $500,239.00 

CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY IS HERE,  CLICK ON THIS LINK FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THE CURRENT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS.  

Afternoon session, Item #2 Seizing Our Destiny/ Economic Development Plan with regards to an overview of foreclosure conditions and programs to address the foreclosure crisis.  It’s great to see the city finally addressing the problem that they have been in denial about.

Closed session, Item #6 Existing Litigation of the Bonaminio Family against the City of Riverside.

Closed session, Item #7 Conference with Labor Negotiators representing City Employees.

Evening session, Item # 14 Mayor Loveridge’s Campaign to promote, attract and retain individuals and families to live in Riverside.  I’m glad they are acknowledging this, this is multi concern issue with regarding many residents leaving the city.

Evening session, Item #26 City of Riveriside takes control of Municipal Parking Facilities.  The city now has the right to control rules, conditions and rates to parking.

Evening session, Item #27 Adoption of the draft recognized obligation payment schedule for the fomer redevelopment agency.  Funding for the obligations will come from bond funds, cash on hand and from the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTF).

Evening session, Item #38 the City Council as Successor Agency to the former defunct Redeveloment Agency, the City of Riverside is now responsible for winding down the affairs of the Agency which includes disposition of assets and properties.

WEEKLY UPDATE:

LAST WEEK, SELF APPOINTED CITIZEN AUDITOR VIVIAN MORENO GIVES CITY COUNCIL A MATH LESSON IN MUNICIPAL FINANCING 101, AT EVENING COUNCIL SESSION.

 THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE IS OVER $35 MILLION IN RED CURRENT YEAR TO DATE IN THE GENERAL FUND.  IN THE ENTERPRISE FUND (UTILITIES) CURRENT YEAR TO DATE WE ARE OVER $15 MILLION IN THE RED.  THE CITIES EXPENSES ARE MORE THAN THE REVENUE’S BROUGHT IN. SHE REFERRED TO TWO CURRENT DOCUMENTS ONE FROM THE GENERAL FUND AND THE OTHE FROM THE ENTERPRISE FUND.

  

At times these wars have led to acrimonious exchanges between the two sides; at other times the exchanges have been more genteel. There have even been recent attempts at truces and fudges. But an end to the Math Wars is not in sight nor, I believe, should it be because the essential issues are too important and the essential positions of the two sides are so far from each other that what is needed is victory for one side, not a pale compromise that, in the long run, would not be good for anyone.   – Anthony Ralston

AFTERNOON COUNCIL SESSION:

THE ISSUE OF PINNACLE FINANCING:

Regarding the $4 million loan for Tequesquite Park, Councilman Mike Gardner ask City Attorney Gregory Priamos if he needs to recuse himself since his fathers property is across the street from the planned Tequesquite Park.  If this is true, would Councilman Gardner have had to recuse himself from other issues of Tequesquite Park of which he voted on?

Self Appointed Citizen Auditor Vivian Moreno question the documentation for Tequesquite Park which states that the six fire stations are equal to the $4 million.  “That can’t possibly be right, these six stations have to be worth over $50 million”!  “If you divide $4 million by the 6 fire stations you get $666,666.66.  Your telling me that a fire station is only worth $666,666.66″?   She went on to inform the council that first payment of $233,557.52 is due March 15, 2012 and second one of $233,557.52 is due September 15.  She mentioned that last year in March 2011 the city of riverside accidently comingled the general fund with money from Redevelopment, and actually believed the city did this because there was no money in the general fund.   If there is absolutely no money in March in the general fund, how can we pay $233,557.52   She said that in September 2011 we only had $9 million dollars in the general fund.  It takes 13 to 16 million a month to run this city and we are already negative $4 million.  My concern is when we get this park funded, it will also cost $400,000.00 to cut the grass ( the yearly cost to maintain the park), and if we have to lay off 12 police officers to fund this I think this would be a disgrace to Officer Ryan Bonaminio’s name.

DOCUMENT REFLECTING COMINGLING OF STATE REDEVELOPMENT FUNDS WITH THE CITY’S GENERAL FUND.

City of Riverside Mayoral Candidate, Dvonne Pitruzzello said, “There is something very wrong here.  I’m not sure if you see it,  at least Pinnacle relalized the risk of loaning $4million.  Of course they wanted to have properties of exceptionality.  At least Pinnacle could see the risk with the city by requesting six fire stations for a 4million loan. Why can’t we do a $15 million dollar loan as we do with our developer, Mark Rubin.  We are $4.4 billion in debt over 30 years, all you have to do is read the CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report) Ms. Graham, you will see it, add up all the bonds and add up all the debt.  You can see we cannot afford this.  By doing this we will risk our police officers.  Because of the lack of revenue, she said that Councilman Adams stated a couple of weeks ago, that if we were to call for a police officer, if we needed one, they won’t be available”.

CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S TOTAL AGGREGATE DEBT WHICH TOTALS TO $4.4 BILLION

Just as the previous speakers, I’m concerned we putting to much collateral for $4 million.  You are placing six firestations at risk because of our financial status.

You have grossly undervalued those firestations.  You have $4 billion in debt, but you vote yes when you don’t know what your voting on because you don’t read the back up for these issues.

After the vote 7-0 Andy Melendrez asked Assisstant Finance Director Bret Mason about the $4 billion dollars in debt mentioned by public comment speakers, and asked for an explanation from assistant finance director Scott Bret.  Does the council continue to be oblivious to these figures whereby citizens are aware those figures from public records?  Mr. Mason answers Councilman question of the specifics of that $4 billion dollar number by stating,’ it’s  the number that is touted’.  The 4 billion debt number is a number that is the sum total of all payments due over 30 years from Redevelopment and the General Fund, I can’t confirm the number, but it is a ‘high number like that”, referring to the $4.4 million debt.  The city has never defaulted on a payment, and the city has a good credit rating.

According Assistant Finance Director Scott Catlett, it appears that public property such as fire stations are not worth as much to banks when used as collateral. It looks as if they look at the ‘insured value”.   It would therefore appear to be bad deal, because banks view the properties as a ‘re-use value’ based on a third party appraisal, which answers the question of why the assessed value of the six stations came to only $4 million.  It would appear to be a bad deal all around, why would the city get into a bad deal and risk our fire stations?  Maybe the answer is they voted first and asked the questions later.

If we don’t pass for the $4 million loan, we will have to use our General Fund, this is because of the Redevelopment, we therefore now are utilizing the General Funds for such items as code etc.

PUBLIC SPEAKING:

“Oh, Seriously”!  Rebecca Ludwig almost receives a police escort for going over the 3 minute mark.. Ms. Ludwig also uses a walker.. The last time a public speaker was physically removed was back in 2005 when Marjorie Van Pole when she complained on the reduction in public comment time from 5 minutes to 3 minutes.

              

TMC would like to recommend to City Attorney Gregory Priamos a trap door scenerio to be installed in front of the podium.  If public comment speakers know ahead of time that the bottom will fall out from them 5 seconds after the 3 minute mark, we believe there would be full compliance with the rule.  The trap door can be connected to a timer, therefore an unruly public speaker that does fall cannot blame anybody up on the dais for pressing the button.

“First of all, I have brought my timer, because I have no intention in seeing our police officers used for any other purpose than public safety, I will not allow them to resort to being ‘bouncers” if I exceed the time”.. I think that the two officers are to professional to be use in this manner.

I will like to help Bret Mason know what that really big number, if you don’t actually know what that number is,  it is in the CAFR.  If you don’t know what it is, I can help.  Bret Mason if you need help looking at the CAFR, I would be more than happy to sit down and help you.  By the way Councilman Chris Mac Arthur, your aid called us ‘idiots’, and by far we are not ‘idiots’, we are helping you.

EVENING COUNCIL SESSION:

Former Deputy City of Riverside Attorney Raychele Sterling commented on the Human Resource Department.  I’m going to be an advocate for those employees because of the horrible work environment they are working in, this department is completely out of control.  I don’t know if the council is aware, that Former City Manager Brad Hudson hired a private detective to follow me.  He used the tax dollars your hard working constituents to follow the mommy in the minivan, spy on my 8 year old daughter, spy on my 4 year autistic daughter while I took her to the doctor,  just to placate his complete paranoia.  This is what your constituents payed thousand of dollars for, and this continues to go on.  Unfortunatley for the detective that was tailing me, I probably was pretty boring, and not nearly as exciting as Brad and his buddy’s would be, because I don’t go to strip clubs, I don’t go to bars, and get so drunk that I crash city vehicles and step out of vehicle wetting my pants.  Councilman Bailey, how would you feel as a father if some creep was following you, or following Judy and your beautiful girls.. This goes on and it continues to go on.  Your Human Resource Department is non existent.  You are waisting your constituents money, because you have paranoid people in management.  They are a liability to you. You have employees right now that continue to experience discrimination and retaliation  Mr. Barber is aware of this, I know he’s been advised.   Mr. Barber used to be a good man, I used to have alot of respect for him, because he once told me that he would never ever mistreat his staff, the way that Brad Hudson mistreated the employees of this city, I don’t know where that man went, but in my book I call that a hypocrite.  You need to spend your money on other things rather than tailing mommy’s in minivans.

Truth Publication Editor, Salvador Santana spoke regarding an un named group of people who have been in violation of public comment speaking rules.  He made mention that this group is consistently showing a great lack of respect for the dais and other speakers, and to him it looks like a conspiracy.  He stated that this group is provokingly go over the 3 minute rule.  Having disrespect for the mayor and the chief of police.  Stated that, “it is interesting to observe that those rule breakers have an anti-establishment agenda attacking the government and the police department no matter what”.   Quoted Councilman Paul Davis, and state he declared to the Truth Publication On line, “I do agree, some of the speakers at City Council are getting out of control, I believe in freedom of speech, but when the disrespect the rules of decorum they are going to far”.  Lets speak about the good side once in a while.

TICKETING BUSINESS’S ON STREET SWEEPING WEDNESDAY:

Last Wednesday was infamous street sweeping day in our local neighborhood.  A landscaper had just finished his work and was loading up his truck, then I saw the parking nazi park behind him.  They continued to pack up there truck not paying any real attention, I believe since they were doing nothing wrong.  In the vehicle the parking nazi had already began to write them a ticket.  She came out of the car and handed it to one of the two landscapers.  No warning, she clearly saw they were a business, but still gave them a ticket.  Did not want to get to close to this activity, did not want to chance getting a ticket for ‘loitering’.  This is a true indication that Riverside continues not to be business friendly.  I would have to warn business’s such as FedEx, UPS, Sears Repair Service, Plumbers probably the US Postal truck to be aware that you will receive a ticket even if you are in our neigborhood for delivery or called upon legitimately by a resident for services.  The PE reports of residents trying to move their vehicles from the street before the street sweeper arrived, don’t bother you’ll get one anyway.  In Dan Bersteins article the street sweeper runs a stop sign, in our neighborhood the street sweeper followed the law and stopped before going ahead.  I also noticed the street sweeper now going slower.  In our neighborhood the street sweeper with the parking nazi in tow is more of a bi-monthly annoyance, than a service benefit.

   

Ahh, A welcome sign to the city of Riverside…

UPDATE ON STREETSWEEPING:04/04/2012: I’m embarrassed to say that this time the landscaper made arrangements with the homeowner to park his vehicle in the driveway so he wouldn’t be ticketed again.  I’ve also made mention to FedEx, UPS, Pool Cleaners, Sears and other landscapers etc. that they will be ticketed on certain street sweeping days.  This day the street sweeper went down our street three times, once on our side, and twice on the opposite side, with the parking nazi trailing closely behind.

UPDATE ON STREETSWEEPING:04/19/2012: The same landscaper decided that is was just to much trouble to come into the area on Wednesday’s taking another chance of being ticketed, he made arrangements with the owner to come on Thursday’s.  Good job City of Riverside, was is worth the $41 dollars for bad publicity?

JUST FOR LAUGHS!!!!!!!!!!

CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: 8:30 PM:

CITY COUNCIL DISTURBANCE: ALTERCATION BETWEEN A CAMERMAN AND TRUTH PUBLICATION EDITOR SALVADOR SANTANA ENDING WITH THE TWO PHYSICALLY ESCORTED OUT OF COUNCIL CHAMBER, TO BE INTERVIEWED BY RIVERSIDE POLICE OFFICERS.   INITIALLY THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO REACH TOWARD THE PHOTOGRAPHER, THE PHOTOGRAPHER RETRIEVED BACK.  THER WAS SECOND ATTEMPT BY SANTANA TO GRAB THE CAMERA FROM THE CAMERAMAN, WHAT ENSUED THEN WAS A STRUGGLE.  WITNESSES STATE SEEING SANTANA MAKING A REMARK TOWARD THE CAMERAMAN AFTER HIS PUBLIC SPEAKING.  NO MISDEMEANOR ASSAULT CHARGES WERE FILED BY THE CAMERAMAN OR THE RIVERSIDE POLICE DEPARTMENT AGAINST SANTANA.   EARLIER SANTANA SPOKE AT THE PODIUM REGARDING HIS CONCERN OF CITY FINANCES, EVEN GOING TO THE HOME OF ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR BRET MASON AT 3:00 IN THE MORNING JUST TO DISCUSS THS ISSUE.  I CAN’T SEE THAT HAPPENING AT 3:00 IN THE MORNING, THIS IS A BIT DISTURBING TO ME, BUT THAT’S WHAT HE SAID.  NO COMMENT HAS YET BEEN ATTAINED FROM MASON REGARDING THIS EARLY MORNING VISIT.  DURING THE COOL DOWN PERIOD, SANTANA WAS SEEN SPEAKING TO COUNCILMAN GARDNER, THEN SEEN SPEAKING WITH COUNCILMAN ANDY MELENDREZ FOR A SUSTAINABLE TIME IN THE ENCLOSED CITY HALL AREA.  ONE POLICE OFFICER WAS SEEN SPEAKING AT LENGTH TO SOME ONE IN CHARGE REGARDING THIS ISSUE FROM A CELL PHONE.  SOURCES STATE SANTANA HAS A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH CHIEF OF POLICE SERGIO DIAZ.  TWO WEEKS AGO, COUNCIL CHAMBERS ALSO SAW THE OUTBURST OF BEHAVIOR BY THE CHIEF OF POLICE SERGIO DIAZ TOWARD SOME PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS, CALLING THEM EPITAPHS SUCH AS “HORRIBLE”, “DISRESPECTFUL”, “YOU HATE THE POLICE” AND “I DON’T LIKE YOU.”  ACCORDING TO HIS BLOG SIT, THE TRUTH PUBLICATION, SANTANA CLAIMS BEING ESCORTED BY POLICE OFFICERS TO HIS HOME ON ACCOUNT OF BEING HARASSED.  MOST OF THE TIME SANTANA WAS WITH AN OFFICER, OR TALKING WITH ONE OF THE COUNCILMEN; DURING THIS TIME NO INDICATION OF HARASSMENT OR SHOUTING BY ANY INDIVIDUALS WERE OBSERVED.

 

FORMER CITY OF RIVERSIDE DEPUTY ATTORNEY RAYCHELE STERLING THROUGH PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST ACT FINDS CITY OF RIVERSIDE SPENT $88,000.00 FOR A PRIVATE DETECTIVE TO TAIL HER AND HER CHILDREN.  IN ADDITION TO THE $150,000.00 SPENT BY FORMER CITY MANAGER BRAD HUDSON TO A LAW FIRM TO INVESTIGATE HIMSELF, FOR A TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF $230,000.00   STERLING REFERS TO THOSE IN CHARGE, COUNCIL AND MAYOR,  AS THE “BOBBLE HEAD BRIGADE”.

COUNCILMAN AND MAYORAL CANDIDATE ANDY MELENDEZ’S MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE SERAF PAYMENT OF $3.4 MILLION REMOVAL FROM THE LOW INCOME HOUSING FUND BECOMES EVIDENT.  A FINDING WAS MADE, BUT NO REPORTABLE DOCUMENTATION OF A JUSTIFICATION WAS EVIDENT FOR THE APPROVED TRANSFER.

MAYORAL CANDIDATE TO REQUEST PUBLIC RECORDS IN CONNECTION TO THE OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY EXPENDITURES.  ALLEGATIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED OF NEGLIGENT SPENDING AND BEHAVIOR, SUCH AS PRIAMOS USING HIS SECRETORY TO DECORATE HIS HOME, PLAYING GOLF WITH HIS SUPERVISORS AND FORMER POLICE CHIEF RUSSELL LEACH AND FORMER EMPLOYEE KATHY GONZALEZ.  QUESTIONS REGARDING HER POSITION AS ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY AT THE TIME OF HER DEATH, BUT RECEIVING THE MAXIMUM ON THE PAYSCALE OF $120,000.00 ASSOCIATED WITH THE TITLE OF DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY.  THE QUESTION POSED TOWARD CITY ATTORNEY GREGORY PRIAMOS WAS DOES HE KNOW THE MEANING OF THE TERM, ‘INSURANCE FRAUD’?

TMC WELCOMES NEWEST BLOGGER TO THE COMMUNITY, CITY MANAGER SCOTT BARBER.  BARBER RECOMMENDS TO THE COUNCIL TO PLACE A BLOG FOR THE COMMUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS.  QUESTIONS ABOUND OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF INTEROFFICE DATING AS RUMORED OF BARBER WITHOUT A LOVE CONTRACT.

NO SIGHT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PAUL SUNDEEN THIS WEEK.

THE CASE OF SGT. VALMONT GRAHAM HAS BEEN RUMORED TO HAVE BEEN SETTLED OUT OF COURT.  CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE RICHARD ROTH, ALSO HIRED TO REPRESENT THE CITY AGAINST GRAHAM’S ALLEGATIONS OF RACISM WITH THE RIVERSIDE POLICE DEPARTMENT.  INCIDENTLY ENDORSED BY MAYOR LOVERIDGE.   CINDY ROTH, PRESIDENT/CEO OF THE GREATER RIVERSIDE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IS ALSO INCIDENTLY SUPPORTED WITH FINANCIAL DONATIONS BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE.

LA ENDS RED LIGHT CAMERA’S! CBS INVESTIGATION FOUND ACCIDENTS WENT UP.  COUNCILMAN STATES FINES WERE EXCESSIVE.  THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE CONTINUES TO ENDORSE AND SUPPORT A RED LIGHT PROGRAM IN LIEU OF THE EXPENSE AND STUDIES OF NO BENEFIT.

TMC ENDORSES DVONNE PITRUZZELLO FOR CITY OF RIVERSIDE MAYOR

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… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY 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!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT!   THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM 

TWO UPCOMING STORY!  THE $5.4 MILLION OVERSIGHT AND THE COMINGLING OF REDEVELOPMENT AND GENERAL FUND MONIES. 

HOW MANY INSTANCES OF OVERSIGHT DOES IT TAKE TO MAKE A FRAUD?

” I AM NOT ASKING ANYONE TO DEFEND ME, I AM ASKING YOU TO JOIN ME AND STAND UP FOR WHAT IS RIGHT, WHAT IS JUST.” -CITIZEN ACTIVIST CHAZ STEVENS

CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, PAUL SUNDEEN, STATES THERE IS A POTENTIAL  5 MILLION DOLLAR BUDGET GAP HEADING INTO 2012-2013 FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2012. CITY MANAGER SCOTT BARBER, STATES IT IS MANAGEABLE, WHILE RESIDENTS REMAIN CRITICAL OF THE CITY’S FISCAL MANAGEMENT.   

Barber and Sundeen have no concerns about how the City will make payments on debt because : a) they are part of the team that created the enormous mountain of debt, and b) the payments on the debt are the responsibility of City taxpayers/ratepayers. Success has many fathers. Failure is an orphan.  -whosincharg, commenter on the PE

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!

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!