I believe that today I can speak for most of the free world in saying that we are all French. The reality of this terrible terrorist attack is that we witnessed something that can hit home if we ignore the geopolitical problems the world currently faces in the Middle East.
I certainly do not know where this is going, and we do have a different playing field than we had 40, 60, or even 100 years ago. But then again I must consider that “history repeats itself,” in some form or another, and we must act to resolve this problem before it destroys us.
We need to have the stomach to separate the world we want to live in from the world we actually live in, and band together as a country, as well as a global community, in opposition to those who oppose freedom. We must make the sacrifices needed to protect our way of life … otherwise our situation as I see it, won’t improve. We cannot accept this as the new norm. We must make changes such as discarding extreme political correctness as an acceptable view, in order to survive. We must do that which is necessary to keep us safe and functioning as a thriving cultural and economic society.
This country, and indeed this world, at this moment cannot possibly be what our forefathers intended. I encourage everyone to comment..
SHOULD A PUBLICLY OWNED UTILITY BE ABLE TO MAKE A PROFIT ON A COMMODITY SUCH AS WATER, AND KEEP IT? OR SHOULD IT GO BACK TO THE OWNERS THE RATEPAYERS?
Ownership of a fixed quantity of acre feet of Bunker Hill water per year is vested to the City of Riverside. Ownership of a fixed quantity of Bunker Hill water per year is vested to the Gage Canal. Gage Canal has transferred their Bunker Hill water rights to the City of Riverside.
The City of Riverside owns Riverside Public Utilities (RPU) and assigns them the task of delivering water to water meters throughout the City. RPU is assigned the service of delivery, billing, and maintaining the delivery system throughout the City. The revenue generated by that billing is retained, with the exception of Prop 218 and Measure A monies, by RPU to provide those services. In essence, RPU is a delivery system with no true ownership rights. All of their assets are owned by the City. That applies to everything in their possession from aardvarks to zebras. RPU possesses no water rights of water, they are merely the conduit for water that, by law, belongs to the City of Riverside.
The City of Riverside, through the RPU conduit has used 5,000 less acre feet of water in 2015 than they have protected rights to. The 5,000 acre feet belongs to the City of Riverside to do with as they please. On November 3, 2015, the Riverside City Council directed RPU to deliver the excess 5,000 acre feet to Western Municipal Water District (WMWD), a member agency of Metropolitan Water District (MWD), for the sum of $1.6 million. RPU state during the Public Hearing of the agenda item providing that direction, that the cost to RPU of moving that water to WMWD would be $0.3 million, thereby leaving an excess of $1.3 million that is the City’s revenue on the sale of that water. RPU’s mandate is to pay for their cost of operation through revenue generating billing. The cost of moving that water is, by their own statements is $0.3 million. Being that the water is owned by the City of Riverside, not RPU, any monies above the cost of delivery should go to the City’s General Fund to be allocated by direction of the Riverside City Council. In fact, the City is essentially acting as a customer in assigning the delivery of the 5,000 acre feet to WMWD to RPU. As the revenue from the transferred water is for an item possessed by the City itself, the City is allotting $0.3 million to RPU to cover their cost and maintenance.
The monies going into the General Fund from this sale are found and unanticipated funds that are not allocated to any particular use. The City Council is free to disburse this money however they see fit, from returning it to ratepayers as a reward for their water frugality, or burning it, with proper permits of course, in front of the fountain at City Hall. I would strongly recommend they choose the former, rather than the latter.
Art Cassel
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S REGIONAL COUNTIES MOST, “NEGATIVE,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “FILTHY,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” 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 THE ACLU. RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVLY EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE (WE BELIEVE THIS WILL END SOON, SINCE THE FOCUS IS NOW ON THE IMPROPRIETIES OF MR. “Z”. WE TRIED TO TELL YOU, BUT NOBODY LISTENED), AND DON’T FORGET WE ARE PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… A STRATEGIC LEGAL MANEUVER THAT CAN BE DONE ONLY IN RIVERSIDE WITHOUT A CONTRACT… AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!
LOST IN CITY BOOKS: THE SMALL PIECE OF CITY PROPERTY ABOVE HAD A BASKETBALL COURT AND TENNIS COURT BUILT ON IT, WITH NO KNOWN CITY RECORD OF WHO BUILT IT.
Date: November 10, 2015 at 4:36:11 PM PST
To: asmelendrez@riversideca.gov, mgardner@riversideca.gov, cmacarthur@riversideca.gov, rbailey@riversideca.gov, azelinka@riversideca.gov, jrusso@riversideca.gov, jburnard@riversideca.gov, CNicol@riversideca.gov
Cc: arobinson@pe.com, cmacduff@pe.com
November 10, 2015
Item 14 on CC agenda
Sale agreement for Tennis and Basket ball court on Pearblossom Drive.
Dear Council members,
I oppose this item.
It’s been three years since this issue first came to the council’s attention.
For the sake of the newest council members, let me recap some background not included in staff report.
As I recall from research three years ago, this property was set aside as park space by the builder of the housing development, down the cul de sac, and across the street back in the 60’s. At some point, apartments were built on both sides of the subject property by a different builder. At some point a single tennis court and basket ball court was built.
It appears the apartment property was sold in 06′, the new owner wanted to refinance in 12′ and discovered they really didn’t own the separate lot containing the tennis/basket ball court. They then approached city staff about obtaining title to this property and staff placed an agenda item before the CC to quit claim title for zero compensation to the city.
Here are some thoughts about this property:
-The tennis court is posted as being only available to residents of the apartment complex and not open to public use. The apartment owner advertises the tennis court and basket ball court as amenities to the tenants.
-As the property is owned by the city of Riverside it is doubtful that property taxes have ever been paid on this property by the apartment owners who are claiming to own it.
– The current and previous owners of the apartment owners have received the benefit of the use of this property for years without legal title or payment of taxes. Local city residents have been denied the use of this property for which the original developer of their tract had dedicated this property to the city for their recreational use.
-If there was a misrepresentation or fraud concerning the ownership of this property, the current owner needs to seek a remedy with the seller of the apartment property, the agents of the seller, and possibly with the title insurance policy every prudent purchaser of real property would obtain. If the current owner failed to do due diligence or purchase title insurance, it is not the responsibility of the city to make them whole.
-City staff appears to have not calculated the loss of property tax of which the city should seek to recapture.
-City staff has not estimated the damages to the city for loss of use.
-It is outrageous that it has ever been considered to gift this property to this private, for profit, investment group, who basically has stolen park land from the city.
-While the current proposal is to sell the property for $5K, it is still insulting. The apartment owners want to claim they made $35k in improvements to the property, but they have had all the tax free benefits of the use of that property for years.
-It’s upsetting that the city, upon discovering this ownership problem three years ago, didn’t attempt to compel the apartment owners into a month to month rental agreement, so as to reassert the city’s ownership and gain compensation for use of public property.
-There is a shortage of public tennis courts and parkland in the city of Riverside. Certainly, the city should be trying to recover enough funds from the sale of this property to replicate the resource to the benefit of the community it was originally intended, in a different location.
-If this property is to be disposed, it should be offered as a open bid. I belong to a public non-profit who would be willing to bid on this property. Perhaps that would be a fair way of establishing market value.
Site photos below.
Respectfully,
Kevin Dawson
ward two
Riverside CA
CLICK ON PHOTOS TO ENLARGE
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S REGIONAL COUNTIES MOST, “NEGATIVE,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “FILTHY,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” 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 THE ACLU. RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVLY EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE (WE BELIEVE THIS WILL END SOON, SINCE THE FOCUS IS NOW ON THE IMPROPRIETIES OF MR. “Z”. WE TRIED TO TELL YOU, BUT NOBODY LISTENED), AND DON’T FORGET WE ARE PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… A STRATEGIC LEGAL MANEUVER THAT CAN BE DONE ONLY IN RIVERSIDE WITHOUT A CONTRACT… AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!
THE GRESHAM SAVAGE DEAL: A WIN, WIN FOR GRESHAM SAVAGE, AGAIN AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE!
The taxpayers just bought a $40 million dollar building, how do we help maintain it? Sublease some space from a partner in crime know as the legal outfit of Gresham Savage? With that in mind, the City Attorneys office who gets paid by the taxpayer will be paying rent in their new taxpayer paid building.
So how does all this benefit the taxpayer? It won’t, the fact of the matter is that it will cost an additional $411.035.00 from the taxpayer! Currently, the City Attorneys occupation of the 5th Floor of City Hall has a yearly cost of $208,039.00. The total annual cost in rent the City would pay to Grease-Them-Savagley would be $548,046.00. Bad deal at a cost to the taxpayer. Of course the other side are emphasizing that we need the space! We are hiring more attorneys and the cubicles at City Hall do not allow for privacy for sensitive legal issues. But why is the City Attorney’s Office anticipating hiring more lawyers? The City of Riverside already has approximately about 13 (not sure)? But we want to hire more, not to include all the other outside legal firms we may have contracted and on retainer. City of Moreno Valley with a population of 200K has two attorney’s. The City of Murreta with a population of 100K has one. The question, is how many laws suits against the City are we receiving? If that is what is happening, why is it happening? Why is the City receiving so much liability?
This completely smells of Deja Vu with the bad deal made with Developer Mark Rubin’s building Citrus Towers. We initially assumed Best, Best & Krieger’s lease so that they could move to his new building. RPU taking over this lease to move into this gold plated building, cost the taxpayers a pretty penny which shouldn’t have happened, because we had plenty of taxpayer properties that could have been occupied at low expense. But is this culture of elitism whereby the real interest of the taxpayers doesn’t really matter? What happened to public service and public servants?
At this time the City Attorney’s Office, along with Riverside Public Utilities will now reside in the $40 million dollar Wells Fargo building. With that in mind, the best part is that the City, in the best of interest of the taxpayer was able to negotiate a rate of $2.50 per rentable square foot to $2.25 per square foot. Along with this there will also be a one time cost of a $125, 000.00 to cover the cost of moving, new furniture, fixtures and equipment. This at a time when City Manager John Russo is going around town to public meetings stating that we don’t have money and need tighten our belts.
According to local residents, the City refuses to give a tour to them on this Gold Plated building. You paid for a $40 million dollar building, but you can’t see what you bought! Is the America you want to live in? One was told that City Manager John Russo and even Councilman Mike Gardner said “no!” As a result, following records request was sent by Attorney Raychele Sterling.
In light of the Public Utilities Director’s and Councilman Mike Gardner’s (with the alleged concurrence of the City Manager) refusal to permit a tour of the recently remodeled PU facility located on University Avenue by members of the community who are critical of PU’s extravagant expenditures (while allowing other non-critical members of the public to observe the facility), please make the following available for my review:
1) Entire project file for the PU Board Room/Multi Purpose Room remodel (including all photographs).
2) All Purchase Orders and Purchase Requisitions for the past 5 years for the procurement of any furniture (module or stationary), electronics (excluding PCs, Printers, Photocopiers), art, photography or sculptures, appliances (including refrigerators, dishwashers, microwaves etc.) flooring, tile and carpet for Riverside Public Utilities.
3) A list of all participants (including the Chamber of Commerce members) in ANY tour of ANY City Facility and all accompanying releases of liability for the past 5 years. I personally have observed and participated in tours of the Sewer Treatment Plant, RERC, Orange Square and Utilities Plaza, as well as witnessed the execution of releases of liability by members of the public for such tours.
4) Any current policies and procedures regarding touring of City facilities by members of the public. 5) All releases for PU’s “Bring Your Daughter to Work Day”, as well as a list of the facilities where these individuals were permitted to be for the past five years.
6) All releases for any “Bring your Child to Work Day”, “Shadow the Mayor Day” or “Shadow a Council Member Day”, Grade School tours, or the like, and a list of any and all facilities these individuals were permitted to be in for the past five years.
7) List of any currently scheduled or proposed tours of ANY City Facility by any individuals or group. Please identify the facilities intended to be toured.
8) A List of all PU facilities (please identify specific rooms as well) that were open to the public to attend City and/or Utility meetings within the past 5 years.
9) A list of all City employees who have provided tours of ANY City facility to members of the public.
Upon review, I will determine what documents I would like to duplicated. Thank you
Raychele Sterling, Esq.
WHAT IS THE STORY ON THIS SMALL PIECE OF CITY LAND THAT A BASKETBALL COURT AND TENNIS COURT WERE BUILT ON?
No one seems to know how a Tennis Court and Basketball Court was built on City Land! Even Development Director Emilio Ramirez didn’t have an answer for Council. The issue (Item #14) was removed from the Consent Calender by Council. According to Ramirez, City documents could not be found which showed a timeline of permits for building etc.
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S REGIONAL COUNTIES MOST, “NEGATIVE,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “FILTHY,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” 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 THE ACLU. RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVLY EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE (WE BELIEVE THIS WILL END SOON, SINCE THE FOCUS IS NOW ON THE IMPROPRIETIES OF MR. “Z”. WE TRIED TO TELL YOU, BUT NOBODY LISTENED), AND DON’T FORGET WE ARE PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… A STRATEGIC LEGAL MANEUVER THAT CAN BE DONE ONLY IN RIVERSIDE WITHOUT A CONTRACT… AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!
HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF:WWII: WHAT THE EXPERIENCE OF WAR DOES TO THE HUMAN SPIRIT, WHAT’S NECESSARY TO PROTECT OUR FREEDOMS, WHAT NECESSARY AND EXPECTED OF OUR TROOPS, IS WHY WE RESPECT AND HONOR THESE SOLDIERS FOR THE SACRIFICES THEY MADE, FOR THE FREEDOMS WE HAVE.
MARIANAS ISLANDS – JULY 15: Grizzled & weary US soldier smoking a cigarette during the final days of fighting to gain control of the island of Saipan from occupying Japanese forces during WWII. (Photo by W. Eugene Smith/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images) I had an uncle, who sinced passed, was in Saipan, lost both his arms, when he came back with difficulty, was able to type on typewriter with his new prosthetic arms.
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S REGIONAL COUNTIES MOST, “NEGATIVE,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “FILTHY,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” 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 THE ACLU. RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVLY EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE (WE BELIEVE THIS WILL END SOON, SINCE THE FOCUS IS NOW ON THE IMPROPRIETIES OF MR. “Z”. WE TRIED TO TELL YOU, BUT NOBODY LISTENED), AND DON’T FORGET WE ARE PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… A STRATEGIC LEGAL MANEUVER THAT CAN BE DONE ONLY IN RIVERSIDE WITHOUT A CONTRACT… AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!
Local Riverside Community Advocate Kevin Dawson wrote the following email to the Riverside City Council with reference to a presentation by Chief Sergio Diaz on the Threat Assessment Team. Dawson felt the presentation was somehow distorted by Diaz in order to reach a favorable result. Dawson states, “I believe the Chief misused this video in a calculated effort to shock the Committee members into supporting his Assessment Team.” Dawson has also been involved with bringing the issue of former City Attorney Gregory Priamos contracting outside legal services without contracts to the tune of $19.4 million.
This last week, I attended the meeting of the Public Safety Committee and watched a presentation given by Police Chief Diaz on RPD’s Threat Assessment Team.
First, let me say there was no staff report attached to this item on the agenda. While this is not an uncommon practice, it can be a technique by staff to discourage thoughtful analysis by elected officials and the public. Decision makers can only make decisions based on information presented to them. Let me give another example that no report or incomplete report can cause. Last year, Parks placed an item to replace flooring in a community center. In the item staff report, there was no discussion on total square foot needed, cost per square foot being proposed, projected life expectancy of material being selected, or possible alternative choices. The report was incomplete and should have been sent back to staff for revision. We have professional staff, who are paid good money, and council/decision makers shouldn’t accept incomplete reports upon which council is suppose to make decisions.
At the Safety committee, the Chief made a presentation, during which he included a short video of an actual first shooter event at a school board meeting in Florida a few years ago. It was a very dramatic video which showed a disgruntled husband of a laid off school employee, pull out a hand gun, order everyone out except except the board. After a rambling discussion, during which the superintendent tried to reason with the gun man (by saying “if you are going to shoot anyone, shoot me, but let everyone else go”, a bad strategy as the gun man at that point level his gun at the man and fired). The gun man, then fired at several of the board members, before someone from the left started shooting the gun man until he dropped to the ground, and the video ended.
It was a horrific video that left the committee members and audience with the impression that we had all just witnessed a horrific mass murder. And this is a problem.
I looked this event up and found that the only person shot and the only person to die that day, was the gun man himself. As dramatic as the video seemed, with the superintendent falling over with the first shot, the gun man missed with every shot fired. While gun man was shot several times by a security guard, the gun man died from a final self inflicted wound.
I believe the Chief misused this video in a calculated effort to shock the Committee members into supporting his Assessment Team.
Living in Southern California and with modern media who live by the motto, “if it bleeds, it leads”, it’s easily for us to believe first shooter events are common and that we need to empower our local law agencies to take extraordinary measures to anticipate and prevent such incidents. Certainly, at the Federal level, we have seen the creation of the NSA and the possible abuse of personal privacies. But what are the actual statistics on first shooter events? What are the actual risks and what are reasonable precautions?
It turns out the FBI prepared a recent study addressing those exact questions and I think the results are worth consideration.
A quick view of the study, seems to indicate, shootings at non-military, governmental settings, for the entire U.S., between 2000-2013, was about 1.5 per year. (I could be wrong, as I was looking at it late at night, half a sleep). Of the shootings covered, they broke down the reasons and situations, and such. Bottom line, I don’t think the risks warrant approving our local police to engage NSA tactics against city employees or citizens.
It was bothersome, that the Chief’s presentation didn’t discuss stats on actual risks. He mentioned the City Hall shooting from several years ago and the Dorman shooting. Both those incidents were horrific, but statistically, they are anomalies. They are not examples of everyday threats.
Should we prepare? Yes. We should do training and have policies in place. But should we green light some sort of surveillance program by our law enforcement agency, without safeguards and supervision by civilian side of government? I think this would be dangerous and open to abuse.
I think the Chief was being manipulative and should be called out for what he did. We have a Chief who is known for his strong personality, and it is important for our council and City Manager to be be cognizant of this fact and to provide provide appropriate oversight and counterbalance.
I am concerned this Threat Assessment Team, under the right conditions, be abused to spy on and harass city employees and citizen critics of the city. We have seen evidence of spying and surveillance on recent past years by the City Manager. Hudson admitted in a PE article, that he was reading council emails with a deputy city attorney (emails between his bosses and their legal counsel, an extraordinary admission). I implore you to put in place safe guards.
Respectfully,
Kevin Dawson
Ward 2
Again Chief Diaz seems to miss the point, again leaving question of his hiring under former City Manager Brad Hudson who had a criminal background in reference to credit card fraud as a teen.
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S REGIONAL COUNTIES MOST, “NEGATIVE,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “FILTHY,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” 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 THE ACLU. RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVLY EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE (WE BELIEVE THIS WILL END SOON, SINCE THE FOCUS IS NOW ON THE IMPROPRIETIES OF MR. “Z”. WE TRIED TO TELL YOU, BUT NOBODY LISTENED), AND DON’T FORGET WE ARE PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… A STRATEGIC LEGAL MANEUVER THAT CAN BE DONE ONLY IN RIVERSIDE WITHOUT A CONTRACT… AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!
SHOULDN’T RPD CHIEF SERGIO DIAZ HAVE BEEN SHOWN THE DOOR AGES AGO?
Should Diaz have been fired years ago? Many say yes, and are calling Diaz a “mental basket case.” The fact of the matter is that many in the community are afraid to even approach him. He is in a position of leadership, has a badge, gun and an explosive threatening behavior. The people didn’t give that power, a former City Manager (Brad Hudson) did with (we assume) the blessing of the former City Council. Why won’t they (Council) express their concerns to our new City Manager John Russo? Council is given the power by the people to hire and fire all employees under his side of the house at City Hall. What are they afraid of? Retribution? Maybe.
CHIEF SERGIO DIAZ
We saw that side of him (Diaz) during the Councilman Soubirous investigation debacle. Diaz and former City Manager Scott Barber filed a bogus third party hearsay complaint, with the help of former City Attorney Greg Priamos, against Councilman Soubirous in an attempt to politically damage him. These men used public monies and resources to execute Soubirous politically.
When the first article was released regarding the high percentage of unmarked versus marked patrol vehicles, Chief Diaz made a statement to defend his use of so many unmarked cars. His defensive posture told us something was rotten in Denmark. There are a 114 marked patrol vehicles as opposed to 169 unmarked patrol vehicles. So why the disproportionate number? Good question, one which many in the community are asking at this moment.
What we have as in the above photos is your clearly marked police vehicle (left) as opposed to the unmarked undercover take home vehicle (right). In this scene it appears they are all going to a relaxing day at Riverside’s Fairmount Park in their unmarked take home vehicle. This of course would be off the time card, but TMC has heard otherwise, that we cannot confirm. But according to the IRS there is a cost to that. The use of the vehicle for extracurricular activities can be considered income, and taxable at best.
Why was Diaz deflecting from the real truth of the matter that marked vehicles are a deterrent? Ask anyone. They think marked units deter crime! The crooks do! So, are all 169 unmarked vehicles doing police work all at one time? I don’t think so. That’s part of the what is rotten in Riverside. Diaz seems to be attempting to legitimize the use of unmarked vehicles for personal use. Is he kissing up to his troops in order to buy loyalty? If this is true, Diaz is wrong. So is he attempting to cover the backs of the police union, RPOA, and continue to allow an abuse of taxpayer property? By asking these tough questions, is Soubirous really just getting to the meat of the matter of an out-of-control police culture in the City of Riverside? A culture that legitimizes the use of “unmarked vehicles” for their personal and private use without direct benefit to the public? If this is true, the taxpayers need to be reimbursed for the unmarked vehicle use for personal use. Many residents see this as simply an unauthorized use of public property or a “gift of public funds.” To many taxpayers in Riverside, this is simply “Fraud!” So where is a cop when you need them? The “Big Kahuna” Diaz has a lot of “splainin to do!”
Riverside City Councilman Mike Soubirous is asking whether repainting some of the city’s unmarked cars would help make our city’s police force more visible and help deter crime. Diaz counters this with a 50 year old “study” that seems to back Diaz assertion. We have looked on the internet and found dozens (and fairly recent) of articles that back Soubirous claims.
And by the way, when will that question ever come to the committee? Soubirous is no longer chair of that committee, so is it a dead issue? Will Councilmember Jim Perry, now Chair of the Public Safety Committee, and highly supported by RPOA, do all he can to put this off till we all get old and forget? When was this referred to committee? In putting this forward, Soubirous received back-lash from Diaz, and I’m sure from President Brian Smith of the Police Union (RPOA).
This is the same union that seems to have a problem with keeping their money. money, About $300K of union funds were embezzlement right under their noses by one of their trusted clerks. If they cannot keep track of a simple bank account how can we trust their judgment? How can they protect us when they can’t even protect themselves? One of those tasked with keeping an eye on the RPOA funds was Detective Aurelio Melendrez, Vice President of RPOA, and incidentally one time treasurer and son of current City of Riverside Councilman Andy Melendrez. What kind of police associate political operation do we really have? RPOA reflects a leadership problem which we will discuss in an another upcoming article on TMC.
Getting back to that 50 year old “study” quoted by Diaz as the benchmark for having more unmarked cars than marked was an experimental study by the Kansas City, Missouri, Police Department in the early 1970s This study concluded that “routine preventive patrol in marked police cars has little value in preventing crime or making citizens feel safe.” But what it also said, and what Diaz conveniently left out was as follows:
“The officers felt that clearly marked police vehicles helped in the prevention of automobile accidents and tended to enhance citizen feelings of security. But on the other hand, many of the officers felt that marked cars militated against the apprehension of criminals by again affording instant recognition.The general consensus among those interviewed was that officers should be allowed to drive not only departmental unmarked cars (with spotlights and two-way radio antennas) but also their own personal vehicles or cars similar to those driven by civilians.” (page 39).
So what we are saying is that if there are 169 unmarked vehicles, according to the sturdy, all 169 unmarked vehicles should be on full time patrol around our city!
We have a highly paid Chief of Police who continues to harass and badger prominent community members as well as political figures, yet he still remains the Chief of Police. Is the City Manager afraid of him? Is the council afraid of him? Over the past three years Diaz has initiated a number of “foundations” that raise funds and “donate” to youth and other social causes. Does Diaz do this to solidify his standing with the public officials and prominent residents? We think so!
He has admitted that he uses on-duty officers to “assist” with these fundraising efforts – all designed by Diaz to make him look good to the public.
We say it’s time for him to go back to Los Angeles – Adios!
THE KANSAS CITY PREVENTATIVE PATROL EXPERIMENT:
CLICK THE ABOVE PAGES TO VIEW SPECIFIC CITATIONS OF THE STUDY.
What was said was as follows: Because the primary goal of the preventive patrol experiment was to measure the effectiveness of routine patrol as a crime deterrent strategy, the experiment opened to question a traditionally held theory of policing. Like other departments across the country, the Kansas City Police Department strives to attain its objectives (reduction and prevention of crime, provision of services requested by the public, maintenance of citizen feelings of security, etc.), in large part through patrol activities, including heavy reliance on routine preventive patrol. Many of the officers involved in the initial stages of the preventive patrol experiment reacted predictably to reduction in routine patrol, warning that the reduction would be quickly followed by increases in crime and citizen fear. Reaction from other officers outside the experimental area was similar. (page 37).
Unmarked cars are helpful when detectives go out to interview a sexual assault victim or burglary suspect, for example, Diaz said. That’s fine Diaz, but again that is not what the study stated. Diaz also disputed Soubirous’ suggestion that more marked cars would discourage criminal activity, and some much-cited studies seem to back Diaz.
When the second article was released, actually written by Soubirous, some individuals were stating that Councilman Mike Soubirous was only bringing this up because the Police Unions didn’t support him and he was vindictive. What we do know from City employees and observation is that Diaz does not handle criticism well, may be the reason why he was not promoted to the next level at LAPD. But maybe Diaz was a bit to close to RPOA. Specifically with RPOA President Brian Smith. We saw this dance take place whereby the two including former City Manager Scott Barber attempted to railroad Soubirous on trumped up charges. In reality, what we saw was a coups d’état, with law enforcement creating a false scenario in order to remove power from one individual, Soubirous, because their candidate, undersheriff Valerie Hill didn’t win. Extremely dangerous in a Democracy, but is the City of Riverside just seen by insiders as a “Banana Republic?” Easily taken over at a whim, because no one is watching? We also know that RPOA donated a heap of money to the Hill campaign, of course less than what was embezzled. What Diaz didn’t mention but Soubirous did was the following. Last year, the Riverside City Council, at the urging of our police chief, traded personal use of manager take-home cars for a pay increase. Prior to the change, managers, by negotiated labor contract, were entitled to use the city’s car as their own personal vehicle off-duty. Family and friends could ride along on trips or simply go wherever the employee wished. There was no limit to this benefit, which was fully funded by the public. Was this perk justifiable? I don’t think so, again if this is not reported to the IRS, there is “fraud” involved, and Diaz should know everything about the term “fraud.”
What seems to be the problem is that we have a culture of public servants who feel this is okay, that they deserve it, they are entitled and the taxpayer should pay for this. Problem is that this attitude is wrong, deceptive and actually theft of public property.
Getting back to unmarked vehicles…on the other hand, if an officer is attempting to enforce the law in an unmarked vehicle, that of course, brings to light another set of problems.
Gavin Seim pulled over a police officer in Grant County, Washington, and demanded to see his I.D. According to Huffington Post, Seim wanted to know if the officer — who was in an unmarked vehicle — had been pulling people over.
Abuse of the use of unmarked vehicles? Two sets of rules, one which states that law enforcement is entitled to perks such as running red lights in unmarked vehicles…because they can. This is only a reflection of leadership, and RPD lacks that, ever since Diaz was hired. Two years to late with the Police Strategic Plan, council did not call him on that.
What about accountability and safety issues when you don’t see officers around our city because their cars are not recognizable? Are traffic stops attempted using these unmarked cars? If not, do the officers simply look the other way? Stopping an errant driver can be difficult if the vehicle is not properly equipped and easily recognizable by the public.
Last year, the Riverside City Council, at the urging of our police chief Diaz, traded personal use of manager take-home cars for a pay increase. Prior to the change, managers, by negotiated labor contract, were entitled to use the city’s car as their own personal vehicle off-duty. Family and friends could ride along on trips or simply go wherever the employee wished. There was no limit to this benefit, which was fully funded by the public. Was this perk justifiable?
I believe what Riverside Police Officers should be worried about..are they complying with IRS laws for the use of public property? Further, are they paying their fair share of IRS taxes? This in itself should be reported to the IRS as well as the DOJ (Department Of Justice) for a determination.
The second set of comments, which include TMC were as follows:
CLICK TO ENLARGE
RPOA President/ RPD Sergent Brian Smith pay according to Transparent California is as follows:
Smith receives a total benefit package of $221.506.83. He receives overtime pay of $16,905.86, which I can assure would not happen in the private sector because I was a Pharmacy Department Manager for the Von’s Corporation. I would absolutely question that absurd number. It would absolutely be unsustainable for a corporation to continue in this manner and continue to expect a profit. Further, he receive “Other Pay” to the sum of $39,689.33 which no one really know what that is. I can tell you that section does not exist in the private sector, or would be acceptable! Then he receives a benefit package of $62,479.70 which I’m sure includes his Medical etc., but again does not exist in the private sector. His total package is $221,506.83! Ridiculous! That is why cities have no services. Fire and Police are raping cities at an astronomical rate. Many cities have no other choice but to pay the ransom rates or go bankrupt. Legislative bodies have made decisions which were not in the best interest of the taxpayer..further they were not economically sustainable in the long run.
Both, Smith and Diaz, were implicated in filing false complaints against Soubirous – and following the footsteps of former RPOA President Chris Lanzillo, who it was discovered had a “playbook” on how to intimidate and bring POA fear to Councilmembers – he did this in LA, Orange and Riverside County. Taxpayers are asking both Diaz and Smith to reimburse them for cost of their own fabricated with hunt! 200K will be a good start and show a good faith effort to make amends with your employer, the taxpayer, that sweats to pay your salary.
Shouldn’t this be the right thing to do Sergio? After all you have benefited from the the residents of Riverside for how long? You have conspired to take down our City by fabricating a talking point which was deceptive. You are the Chief of Police of the City of Riverside and you did not protect us or serve us in the capacity that your oath was taken! We asked that you give it back, we know you have the money! So “Show Us The Money Diaz!”
BRING IT ALL BACK BABY, TO THE TAXPAYERS!
COMMENTER ON THE PRESS ENTERPRISE BELOW WITH REFERENCE TO FAKE RPOA PRESIDENT BRIAN SMITH FACEBOOK SITE:
Albert Lessa •
Berkeley College
I’m not sure which is more amazing. An elected official, Ward 3 Councilman Mike Soubirous, actually campaigning against wasteful government spending in the City, or comments by the mysterious “John Smith” slamming him for it. When I read Mr. Smiths comments, it was obvious that he was an RPD insider. The “Smith” name also rang a bell. A search of the PE archives concerning John Smith yielded an RCC basketball coach. A highly unlikely candidate to be the writer. Searching for Soubirous, turned up the logical explanation. When Soubirous was under attack by the City Manager and Police Chief, the Chief’s complaint against the Councilman was based on a statement allegedly made to a Sgt. Brian Smith, head of the Riverside Police Union. The Chief never actually heard the statement himself, but hearsay was adequate for him. After being called on the carpet by Soubirous and Ward 4 Councilman Davis, the rest of the City Council decided it was best to walk away from the allegations. Union President Smith stated that Soubirous tried to “big league” him. “John Smith’s” Facebook page shows a picture of Babe Ruth! Tie that to the threat “Mike is taking another shot at the cops because they did not and will not support him in elections.” Hello! You supported him when he ran for County Supervisor. That threat of “union power” leads to only one plausible deductive conclusion. John Smith IS Brian Smith.Brian Smith was either President or Vice-President of the union while over $300k of union members money was embezzled by a civilian employee of the union. How embarrassing! That’s like having to call up and report your police car got stolen. Brian’s predecessor and mentor to the union Presidency position got into all kinds of hot water in LA and Orange County by trying to bully elected officials. Looks like Brian has learned his daddy’s lessons well. Now he’s trying to bully electeds.I don’t know when the unions contract is up for renewal, but I’d be willing to bet that they try to get this $5M perk tied into it. I’m sure that Riverside residents will be more than happy to provide this “free” transportation to their already highly paid officers on the working and taxpaying public’s dime (dripping sarcasm). It would probably be a smart idea for the union members to give some serious thought to a new leader.
Like • Reply • 6 hrs
Diaz and Smith seemingly act as schoolyard bullies who like to bring fear and intimidation to anyone who would dare question how they spend the taxpayer monies that benefits them greatly. Diaz with his $249K a year LAPD pension and total Riverside pay and benefit package of $377K simply want to take, take and take. They don’t want anybody asking questions or suggesting they serve the people more efficiently.
JUST FOR LAUGHS: POLICING FOR PROFIT! A BIT OF JON OLIVER ON LOCAL POLICE CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE, SOMETHING EVEN CHIEF DIAZ CANNOT EFFICIENTLY EXPLAIN TO THE TAXPAYERS…
PHOTOGRAPH OF LAWN BOWLS AT FAIRMOUNT PARK RIVERSIDE CALIFORNIA (UNDATED)
IS RPD HOLDING ON TIGHTLY? DO THE TROOPS WANT DIAZ TO GO?
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S REGIONAL COUNTIES MOST, “NEGATIVE,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “FILTHY,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” 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 THE ACLU. RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVLY EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE (WE BELIEVE THIS WILL END SOON, SINCE THE FOCUS IS NOW ON THE IMPROPRIETIES OF MR. “Z”. WE TRIED TO TELL YOU, BUT NOBODY LISTENED), AND DON’T FORGET WE ARE PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… A STRATEGIC LEGAL MANEUVER THAT CAN BE DONE ONLY IN RIVERSIDE WITHOUT A CONTRACT… AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!
Las Vegas Developer Terry Manley may be behind another challenge of Measure L…. Is Councilmember John Burnard and his long time friend Laura Densmore waiting on the sidelines wanting Campaign contributions and equestrian trails at the expense of the public? Will John sell out the taxpaying public and his constituents for Horse Trails?
I see this as political suicide for council member John Burnard. He has only been a council member for a short period of time and has made some critical mistakes. Common sense “dumb” mistakes , for example, asking the city Manager’s office to lift the stop work order on Ag park so Cox Construction can put the Jurupa road through. Did Burnard realize that the land is so toxic it could or has made people very sick and any one working on the property could possibly DIE! Also Supporting his long time friend former Council member Laura Densmore and local Attorney Virginia Blumenthal on the re- hashing of old wounds , another proposed development on the Protected Lands of La Sierra Hills. I personally cannot believe Virginia is supporting this issue or even involved in this fiasco. Going down this rocky road will be a fiasco and I’m sure will turn out vile. There has got to be some reason she is involved? IT makes NO sense…. The public and many of John’s supporters are definitely turning on him, feeling the pain of that rusty knife in their back.
On Wednesday, November 4th Council member Burnard conducted a meeting in Ward 7 concerning the La Sierra River Ranch and Hills. The majority of Riverside citizens have been fighting to protect this land for 38 years. The land protecting initiatives were known as Measure C and Proposition R, and now Measure L will challenge it. The fight for this land has been on the ballot at least 8 times since 1977. Last night’s meeting was to introduce a new development plan and attempt to get the public behind it by the guise of public input. There were approximately 100 people there. Any time 100 people show up to a community meeting, the issue is HOT…… It was a barn burner of an event.
The Passion or should I say distain for this new plan was indisputable. The distrust still remains high for the Las Vegas developer, the wounds are still fresh from the last recent fight at the ballot box with Measure L. The meeting started out with Laura, Ken and Virginia trying to convince the audience that they reached out to the developer to down size the project from 1900 homes to 725 homes and to include the equestrian trails John Burnard and Laura Densmore so desperately want. Virginia stated that she campaigned hard against Measure L and she knew the issue would keep coming up. Virginia stated she believed it would be better if the public, or her little group of 3 community folks, had control over the project. She also stated there was no monetary gain for her support of this new plan.
The public then gets to weigh in, a woman from Norco expresses concern about the traffic. Other’s asked why does the city feel the need to develop every inch of the green belt. We are sick of the deceit. One said, “City should buy the land.” One asked, “Where’s the developer ? “SAVE THE HILLS?” He (developer) lied and misrepresented Measure L. This Man cannot be trusted, it’s a matter of principal.” Another, “Where are you going to build the post office, fire and police station, and grocery store?” Another, “No walking trails, no commercial area. Aren’t we in a drought, where’s the extra water coming from?” Former Interim Councilman and Riverside Planning Director, Ken Gutierrez attempted to answer most of the questions, but the mumbo jumbo that came from his mouth was enough for most to see the deception. It was a “Cluster Fox Trot!”
CLICK ON IMAGES TO ENLARGE
There was only one supporter in the audience, can you guess who that was. Frank Coral AKA Union. “Change is hard but change is good.” “We don’t go to Murrieta and tell them how to run their city”. “Norco shouldn’t tell us how to run ours.” Maybe Frank didn’t get the memo from City manager, John Russo’s office stating we need to be a regional city and we should be respectful to our neighbors. As a matter of fact I was at Murrieta’s City council meeting Tuesday night changing their public decorum policy.
The most shocking moment of the evening came when someone from the audience stated. “ Why wasn’t Sharon Mateja invited to be on the new committee.” INTERESTING……
Who is Sharon? Sharon has made a commitment and investment to her community and our city, she spends countless hours preparing information and getting speakers for the Residents for Responsible Representation (RRR) community group. When The La Sierra Hills lands were being challenged last year she was opposed and worked tirelesssly along with Laura Densmore and John Burnard to defeat Measure L . Sharon and others believed the lands would be challenged again and they wanted to be prepared. Sharon reached out to Laura to get a new committee started, Laura told Sharon she wasn’t ready to start a new committee yet. Sharon reached out a second time to Laura, Laura told Sharon she had already started a new committee. Sharon asked to be on the new committee and Laura told her NO! “NO we don’t want you on the new Committee.” They also left Mary Humboldt and Bob Buster out.
You have to ask yourself why this little self appointed group of 3 Ken, Laura and Virginia didn’t want Sharon to be on this new committee? How did they decide that they would take the reins and negotiate in favor of the community with the developer? ARE THESE 3 PEOPLE KIDDING? Now they have created distrust, suspicion and contempt, not only for the new proposed project but for the new little committee. Developers need to be lobbied in order to come to invest in ones City. A self appointed community group, who strategically left those out that were not supportive, bring the issue of development to the community they claim to represent. See the picture folks. Also showing their faces was Councilman Jim Perry and Assistant City Manager Alex Nguyen, both who simply observed and said nothing.
The fact that last night’s meeting was “hosted” by Council member Burnard to help the developer, Terry Manley, “work” with “the community” was of concern to those of us who’ve been through these kinds of battles between residents and their so-called “representatives.” Even more notable was that only political insiders — like Laura Pearson Densmore, Virginia Blumenthal and Ken Gutierrez — were on the self-appointed ad hoc committee to “negotiate” with the developer. Then the bombshell of the evening came when it was revealed that Ms. Pearson Densmore had intentionally and studiously avoided including other members of the NO on L committee as former County Supervisor Bob Buster, Mary Humboldt and Dr. Sharon Mateja D.D.S, in the new committee working with the developer. – Letitia Pepper, commenter on the PE.
MEASURE C AND MEASURE/PROPOSITION R:
CLICK ON IMAGE TO VIEW MEASURE C
CLICK IMAGE TO VIEW MEASURE/PROPOSITION R
BLAST FROM THE PAST, EVEN IF IT WAS LAST YEAR:
If you recall, the last time this issue came to the forefront, Las Vegas developer Terry Manley was involved, but so was local favorite, Chuck Cox and billionaire associate from Santa Barbara Bill Davis under the auspices of the New West Company.
Also, former Councilwoman Nancy Hart, former Mayor Ron Loveridge and BB&K attorney George Reyes was involved. This whole arrangement was closely connected with the City of Riverside.
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S REGIONAL COUNTIES MOST, “NEGATIVE,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “FILTHY,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” 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 THE ACLU. RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVLY EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE (WE BELIEVE THIS WILL END SOON, SINCE THE FOCUS IS NOW ON THE IMPROPRIETIES OF MR. “Z”. WE TRIED TO TELL YOU, BUT NOBODY LISTENED), AND DON’T FORGET WE ARE PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… A STRATEGIC LEGAL MANEUVER THAT CAN BE DONE ONLY IN RIVERSIDE WITHOUT A CONTRACT… AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!
For the record, Vivian Moreno did all her work without access to the Moreno Valley computer system, she was forbidden to use one. Vivian didn’t care, she knew what was going on. Moreno had seen all these games before. With this in mind, how senseless was it of City Manager Michelle Dawson; instead of supporting the Mayor’s direction to bring in help he so desperately needed, she created chaos and instability in her organization. Then you need to ask yourself why did the Mayor need help? Because the City Manager didn’t do her job! Maybe Michelle Dawson didn’t get the memo from Tom De Santis : DO NOT try to take on Vivian Moreno, you will lose!
Since August 2015 the Press Enterprise has written 7 stories, and 1 editorial in the time that Vivian was Assistant to the Mayor. The PE articles written reflect the positive changes that have occurred in the Mayor’s office.
What did Michelle Dawson do in the time Vivian Moreno was cleaning up the city, that she (Dawson) should have been protecting? Dawson was creating chaos, deflection and distraction. What a waste of time and taxpayer money. Maybe she (Dawson) was more focused on the finance director? Just asking…
Since the Mayor (Molina) has been in office it has been a struggle for him and many of his colleagues to get information such as public documents needed to do their job. I think what the Council, Mayor and Public need to ask themselves…….. “Does Michelle Dawson have the leadership skills necessary to take the City of Moreno Valley to the 21st Century?”
This article should be titled: Michelle Dawson vs. Vivian Moreno. In order to understand the junction of the dysfunction or malfunction you need to understand the players:
City Manager: Michelle Dawson
Assistant City Manager: Tom De Santis
Sustainability & Intergovernmental Programs Manager: or AKA bull shit position for a friend: Julie Reyes
Management Analyst: AKA MVMA President: Felicia London
Julie Reyes was the Number “3” in the leadership position in Moreno Valley. I did say “WAS”…..As of Friday, October 30, 2015 she was nowhere to be found. Did she resign? What happened? No one seems to know at this junction. In order to weed out the dysfunction, malfunction, and or corruption, all you needed to do was to shine the light on it, and expose it for what it was! Julie is GONE!
As Vivian Moreno became more comfortable in her position as the assistant to the Mayor, she was able to have a front row seat at what really goes on in City Hall. The petty distractions created by Vivian Moreno’s mere presence were on going and brought on by management. Michelle Dawson and others thought they could take Vivian on in the work place, but it was Vivian that would have none of it. Vivian was there to help out her friend, by redirecting and refocusing the Mayor’s office.
Here is a list of accomplishments that Mayor Jesse Molina and his assistant Vivian Moreno completed in 2 months and 3 weeks. The positive changes in his office and the city were a direct result because the Mayor now had the help he desperately needed.
1. The Mayor procured, achieved and accomplished through the World Logistics Hearings successfully.
2. The Mayor was prepared and delivered a successful State of the City Address written by Vivian Moreno.
3. The Mayor is more organized and now runs, successful, peaceful, and public centered, Council meetings.
4. The Mayor successfully rescued the city council meeting involving the Crossing Guard issue that had turned into a fiasco. When it seemed like all hell was going to break loose. It was Vivian Moreno that contacted Menifee Mayor Scott Mann to get an emergency meeting between the Mayor and Superintendent Dr. Judy White so they could get a dialog started and solve this problem together..
5. It was the direction of the Mayor to bring transparency and ethics to the city of Moreno Valley and with the help of Vivian who researched the information for the Sunshine Ordinance and compiled the Ethics information. They were able to start the process of an open the government for the people of Moreno Valley.
6. The Mayor is dedicated in bringing unity back to the council so they can all work to create a stronger city for the citizens of Moreno Valley.
7. Above all the chaos that has plagued the Council Chambers at City hall for years is now positive and up lifting.
The positive successful changes in the Mayor’s office have been a direct result of his decision to bring Vivian Moreno in as his assistant. There is only one more pressing issue the Mayor needs to take on to put the city of Moreno Valley in the good hand to direct it into the 21st century. The Mayor now has the support of many civic and regional leaders throughout Riverside County, the staff, and his peers. We all believe Mayor Jesse Molina will be in a great position to be the first elected Mayor of the City.
The leadership, direction, and transparency, is finally on its way to the city of Moreno Valley thanks to the Mayor, Jesse Molina and his assistant and good friend Vivian Moreno….. The staff of the city has now reached out to the Mayor and thirtymilesofcorruption.com by emailing inconsistencies within city government.
NOW AN UPDATE ON THE CEA LETTER SENT TO MO VAL MAYOR AND COUNCIL TO REMOVE MORENO:
CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE TO VIEW MVMA MEMBER EMAIL
Just received, it appears that the Moreno Valley Management Association (MVMA) under the auspices of their representative Union, the City Employees Association (CEA), actually never notified their members that a letter would be sent to the Mayor and Council regarding the Molina’s Volunteer Legislative Aide, Vivian Moreno. This means, according to the above email all 72 members were never briefed or notified of the intent to send a letter to Moreno Valley City Council and the Mayor. According to the MVMA member, the MVMA Board also never included their 72 members in vote with reference to the removal of Moreno. Therefore, in consort with this members account, it leads to the inference that the MVMA’s hierarchy may be in disaray, therefore leads to the person in charge, MVMA President Felicia London. Who has unfortunately declined to comment on the letter when contacted by the PE. Did London contact the CEA for Julie Reyes, to initiate the letter for the removal of Moreno? That is the question, because as you see below she is up for promotion. We made mention if the City Manager, Assistant City Manager and Administrative Director could have been involved? We asked the question, “Where was Administrative Director Chris Paxton in all this?” If there was a personal problem, did London contact Paxton first, as is policy in most cities, before going to the Union?
What is now quite remarkable is that MVMA Board President Felicia London is up for promotion, 30 days later according to the following documents drawn up and prepared by Chris Paxton, Administrative Director (AKA Human Resources). This was also approved or signed off to go forward for approval by the Budget Officer, City Manager Michelle Dawson and City Attorney. Her new position will be Senior Accountant, from Management Analyst.
CLICK ON IMAGES TO ENLARGE
The bottom line, it leads us to believe that the one person involved would be MVMA President Felicia London. Remarkably, this is the one who person who was elected by MVMA to represent the 72 mid level managers, but did not give her members notification or allowed them to vote on Moreno issue. Why?
Time and time again when there is problems with city finances, it is always about the City Manager who controls the purse. In the Beaumont case, as in every city, we see how this has been problematic. Problematic in the sense that there was a failure to communicate, or a failure to purposely not communicate. Therefore, the answer is for the Council to make the “mind right” for the benefit of the taxpayers, the Council and Mayor.
So if we have a “failure to communicate,” with the aspect that “some men/women just can’t be reached,” who do we have as an entity that is a cheerleader for the community/taxpayer? Therefore, do these individuals need to be dealt with “in a proper manner”?
What we find is that the problem in most Cities, is the City Manager, and how they utilize their “power” over their staff. Do they actually utilize their “power” politically to help the “elected?”
And for the record, “I don’t like it,” but the focus should be on the “taxpayer,” and the benefit to “them.” Possibly, Councilman Jeff Gibba and George Price may not like the “truth,” but they took an “oath” to uphold and protect the taxpayer! We hope they do….
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S REGIONAL COUNTIES MOST, “NEGATIVE,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “FILTHY,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” 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 THE ACLU. RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVLY EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE (WE BELIEVE THIS WILL END SOON, SINCE THE FOCUS IS NOW ON THE IMPROPRIETIES OF MR. “Z”. WE TRIED TO TELL YOU, BUT NOBODY LISTENED), AND DON’T FORGET WE ARE PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… A STRATEGIC LEGAL MANEUVER THAT CAN BE DONE ONLY IN RIVERSIDE WITHOUT A CONTRACT… AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!
The second paragraph contradicts itself. Hackert states that it is not a conflict of interest for Riverside County Counsel to represent county employees in a civil grand jury proceeding. He states that it does not violate Penal Code section 934. But if you read the code it states that the grand jury may, at all times, request the advice of the court, or the judge thereof, the district attorney, the county counsel, or the Attorney General. Unless advice is requested, the judge of the court, or county counsel as to civil matters, shall not be present during the sessions of the grand jury. It states nothing about representing employees as counsel to a grand jury proceeding! Therefore it appears what Priamos was advocating was to give advice to employees, but at the same time if asked, give advice to the grand jury. In this role is classic Priamos, as what was done in the City of Riverside during Ethics Committee hearings, a complete ‘conflict of interest.”
Hackert states that it is not misconduct for Mr. Priamos to ask County employees to advise his office of contacts from the grand jury, since they may be entitled to legal representation under Penal Code section 939.22. Penal Code section 939.22 states that any witness called to give testimony under oath before a civil grand jury may have counsel present on his or her behalf while he or she is testifying. The difference, is that Priamos was demanding that employees contact him if called by the grand jury. Thus violating penal code section 939.22 by not allowing an employee to choose their own attorney. But again, it’s evident by their response, that the State Bar isn’t there to protect the consumer or taxpayers, but to protect themselves. We see this time and time again. The State Bar is not there to protect the public, since their primary activity lobbying, and have already paid dearly in campaign contributions to protect their own, before they protect the public.
CITY ATTORNEY GREG PRIAMOS OFFICE WAS KNOWN TO UTILIZE CODE ENFORCEMENT IN ORDER TO ATTAIN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES: In one instance, code enforcement came so often to this one resident that they were even captured on the Google Cam!
CLICK IMAGES TO ENLARGE
As a result, this person, Louis G. Fazzi, Esq, in law suit against the City of Riverside, states that the City was directly to blame for the death of his wife as a result of a stroke, due to a letter Fazzi’s wife read that the property was to go into receivership. She died the next day. Does Priamos have blood on his hands? The following is a book written about the Priamos family. In the book it states, “Priamos men are known for strong minds and weak hearts.”
CLICK IMAGES TO ENLARGE
A BOOK BY GREG’S COUSIN PAULA PRIAMOS, DESCRIBES THE PRIAMOS FAMILY. THE BOOK IS CALLED “THE SHYSTER’S DAUGHTER.” When contacted, she stated she didn’t want anything to do with her cousin Greg Priamos.
On the third page, prior to the prologue, she states this haunting statement…
Shyster (U.S. slang.)
A lawyer who practices in an unprofessional or tricky manner; especially. one who haunts the prisons and lower courts to prey on petty criminals.
– Oxford English Dictionary
Excerpts:
“Your lucky he didn’t kill you,” I say. If death didn’t get him in the form of an actual bullet, it could’ve gotten him from shock. Priamos men are known for strong minds and weak hearts.
“I see my father’s body doubled over the wheel. I see his chest and arms spilling out of the car, his head dangling, blood seeping out of the wet hole in his scalp.”
“This malaka in a ski mask tried to carjack me. He had a gun to the window and told me to get out of my own goddamn car.” My father slows down, hanging on to the moment as if speaking to a jury. “But I gave him the finger and backed the hell out of there.” (page xiii).
Now he carries ones and fives to slip under the g-strings of his favorite girls at the Kat Nip. (page xiii). Sounds like an excerpt from Goodfellas!
Having his tougher brother in the house balances my father my father in a way I haven’t been able to. Unlike Psycho Gil, who needs full armor and artillery, Uncle Dimitri has no understanding of physical weakness and actually tried to walk off his heart attack while it was happening. (page 138).
‘He slapped me. She kicked me in the balls.’ God knows how many times the cops came out to find one of them saying it was just a disagreement that got out of hand. From what he tells me, she’s no innocent. Those two were into some kinky shit.” (page 140).
My great grandfather died of suicide, which like other dark secrets in the Priamos family, got buried. I didn’t learn of it until well after I’d begun writing this story. (page 250).
This guy (Priamos) continues to get a paycheck, representatives of the people continue to seemingly condone employees such as he, without ever doing a proper background check.
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST, “NEGATIVE,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “FILTHY,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” 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 THE ACLU. RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVLY EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE (WE BELIEVE THIS WILL END SOON, SINCE THE FOCUS IS NOW ON THE IMPROPRIETIES OF MR. “Z”. WE TRIED TO TELL YOU, BUT NOBODY LISTENED), AND DON’T FORGET WE ARE PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… A STRATEGIC LEGAL MANEUVER THAT CAN BE DONE ONLY IN RIVERSIDE WITHOUT A CONTRACT… AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!
IG
Javier Moreno
TMC: Thirty Miles of Corruption 