Posted: June 3, 2011 in Uncategorized

Sources are stating that Dom Betro, running for City Council, does not reside at his Riverside Ward 1 home, in order to be elgible as a candidate.  That would be a violation of the 1974 Political Reform Act.  Back in june 2007 Dom Betro was the part of a Grand Jury investigation of selling public land cheaply.  His term was inundated by merchants vs. parking meters, camera tickets, the issue of eminent domain and favoritism with developers, alleged FBI Investigation, alleged improprieties with a campaign manager, a question of his residence and even a documented altercation with protesters outside the Fox Theatre. Not to  mention the actions against Riversiders for Property Rights and Ken Stansbury, in which hundreds of  thousands of taxpayer dollars were spent to extinguish the right of the community to be heard against, what many in the community are stating “a rogue government”.   This was done of course, with the best of the best, Best, Best & Krieger Attorneys, but not in your interest, but theirs. Quite shameful of Betro.  The new mailer toward Mike Gardner by Betro  states don’t be fooled again, but if anybody experienced the wrath of Betro, don’t be fooled twice.

  1. kaptalizm says:

    Oh this old chestnut. You know, this rumor about Betro not living in Ward 1 first surfaced back in 2003, and in 8 years nobody has provided any evidence that he lives anywhere else but Ward 1.

    Whisper campaigns violate the City’s code of ethics during elections. These rumors are the kind of thing that come very close to violating the code. Show the evidence if you’ve got it. In other words, after 8 years, put up or shut up on this issue.

    With respect to Stansbury’s lawsuit, I hope you have taken the time to read the court’s dismissal. The decision is full of sarcasm and contempt for Stansbury’s waste of the court’s time. It’s the closest thing to being laughed out of court. Mr. Stansbury has been remarkably quiet since the City gave him $$ to paint the rather mediocre murals downtown. Sounds like hush money to me.

    Yes, Betro made mistakes when he was councilman, and his actions with respect to the protestors in front of the Fox were deplorable. He was, and is, his own worst enemy.

    But the case for Gardner must be incredibly weak if all you have to support him is a recount of things that happened 4 years ago under Betro. Parking meters are still downtown under Gardner. The right to pull items off the consent calendar is nonexistent still under Gardner. The city overpaid for the land for the new parking garage by the Fox theater, which was owned by a Gardner supporter. He supported the Star Trek exhibit, that drained the museum of its endowment, and he supports the backroom deal to give the historic Marcy library to some burger joint. He did not do one thing he campaigned on 4 years ago. In fact, he reversed himself on most of them.

    Overall I enjoy reading your blog and agree with a lot of it, but this particular post was not one of your better efforts.

    • thirtymiles says:

      Thanks Kaptalizm for your comment, your right, the issue of residence has been the contention of many within the neighborhood. But, no evidence yet. Stansbury court case, yes embarrassing, but the city brought this on for a purpose, and I understand the issue the city brought forward. Rather sadly, it is quite difficult to fight city hall properly unless you have the resources. But regards to Gardner, I made no mention of incidences concerning him. But will continue to look into the residence issue, and update.

  2. J F. Giggins says:

    Like your website. I’m doing the same in Temecula. I will link your site to mine, and hope you will do the same. Keep up the good, lonely work. Persistence pays off!


Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s