Posts Tagged ‘city of riverside’

Folks, within a the week, we’ve had a slew of media platforms censoring alternative medical points of view regarding Covid-19.  Dr. Simone Gold, M.D., came into the limelight, as a result was fired for embarrassing her place of practice, was what she said.  Well, if this is the standard, to censor on a whim, have we actually progressed as a critical thinking society?  We haven’t.  The question is, does America want to live in a ‘Fascist Thinking Country’ or a ‘Free Thinking Country?’  We have to now look at our educational institutions of learning.  What I call, ‘taxpayer paid indoctrinating mills.’   When these students graduate do they have an understanding to clearly discern the difference from truth and deceptiveness, through the use of critical thinking?  Regardless, I present the two videos for your viewing pleasure that drove the media sites insane.

Unfortunately know one listens to real Doctors.  The government narrative appears good enough.  Myself included, I have a Doctorate Degree in Clinical Pharmacy from USC, and an extensive background. What I have been telling my community for years, has been discounted.  So why is that?  It is completely political folks, I’m sorry to say.  Unions taking political positions with our state and local governments which negatively impact our communities.  Union backed schools in California have almost 50% of students who can’t read, write, comprehend, or do basic math.  Many cannot even do a simple term paper.  Why is that?  I’m not trying to downgrade, but it is fact.

So what happens to this information, which was submitted to TMC.  Three individuals, one associated high up within Riverside County District Attorney’s Office.  All three went to be tested, completed the paper work, decided they were not comfortable with an extensive q-tip inserted into their nose.  The three decided to leave the testing facility.  This is fact.  What happened next is remarkable.  All three receive letters in the mail that they were Covid-19.  Why is this happening?  I don’t know.  But I’m receiving emails all over the country that this is common.  I believe, this has been sent for an FBI investigation.

I’m tired of people in the media telling me that I don’t know what I’m talking about, especially from Face Book.  One of my post was blocked and censored, by, get this folks, the Face Book’s Entertainment Writer!  Someone who has no medical background, telling me with a medical background, that I’m wrong?  As they say, “Go Figure!”  I really don’t give a crap that my Twitter account has be dismantled, but people should have the truth.

In one of the following studies it stated:

Chloroquine, a relatively safe, effective and cheap drug used for treating many human diseases including malaria, amoebiosis and human immunodeficiency virus is effective in inhibiting the infection and spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. The fact that the drug has significant inhibitory antiviral effect when the susceptible cells were treated either prior to or after infection suggests a possible prophylactic and therapeutic use for Corona Virus.  This is going back to 2005!

Of course, Dr. Anthony Fauci would know about this, was he playing politics over the welfare, safety and health of our U.S. Citizens?  Fauci has served American public health in various capacities for over 50 years, we know that as fact.  But has he simply become a political pulpit for the elite status quo in Washington D.C.?  You have to wonder why are government, media and public servant doctors say hydroxychloroguine is can be dangerous, simply because, there is no double blind studies with the current Covid-19.  Dr. Fauci hasn’t treated patients for many years, but those physicians on the front line state hydroxychloroquine works.  This is a drug that wasn’t released yesterday, it has a medical track record of over 50 years.

Two of the studies on chloroquine are as follows, and yes, Fauci is obviously aware, that is his job:

                  

     Virology Journal 2005                                American Soc for Microbiology 2009

The concerned take away from this, is that hydroxychloroquine works!  Question is, “Why is media and government politicians with the support of certain medical doctors creating new rules on a 60 year old drug with an excellent track record in safety and results?”

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE REGIONAL COUNTIES MOST EVERYTHING, A.K.A “THIRTY MILES OF CR-P,” “LATINO WHITE SUPREMACIST,’ “SITE IS A JOKE,” “RACIST,” “SCANDALOUS,” “NEGATIVE,” “WARPED,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “REPREHENSIBLE,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “INDECENT,” “REPUGNANT,””IMMORAL,” “FILTHY,” “VILE,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “DEFAMATORY,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “OBNOXIOUS,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORRIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! YES WE ADMIT WE OUR ALL OF THAT AND MORE, WHICH IN CURRENT TERMS IS KNOWN AS “UNPOLITICALLY CORRECT.” 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 ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. … AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! CONTACT US: thirtymilescorruption@hotmail.com

Get out and vote folks?  We are very lucky to live in a great country as ours, the one thing that embraces all of us is our right to vote.  You may not feel that your vote counts, but it does!  You have been given the right to set the stage and direction in which our country and local cities should follow.  You have a republic if you can keep it, and it all depends on you.  Voting in the USA is the greatest of rights given to the citizens to express their views, needs and expressions of democracy.  Let’s get out and do it people!

ELECTION RESULTS CITY OF RIVERSIDE MAYORAL RACE 2020

Franklin D. Roosevelt   “Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.”  ― Franklin D. Roosevelt

Abraham Lincoln  “Elections belong to the people. It’s their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters.”  ― Abraham Lincoln

Lyndon B. Johnson  “A man without a vote is a man without protection.” ― Lyndon B. Johnson

Theodore Roosevelt  “A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.” ― Theodore Roosevelt

E.A. Bucchianeri  “…they say if you don’t vote, you get the government you deserve, and if you do, you never get the results you expected.” ― E.A. Bucchianeri, Brushstrokes of a Gadfly,

Onyinye Ough  “Our votes are our power, they are not for sale.” ― Onyinye Ough, Halima’s Vote: A modern parable about the impact of vote buying in Nigeria.

Nanette L. Avery  “Talk is cheap, voting is free; take it to the polls…” ― Nanette L. Avery

Barack Obama  “There’s no such thing as a vote that doesn’t matter.” ― Barack Obama

Aldous Huxley  “I mean what does a democracy depend on? A democracy depends on the individual voter making an intelligent and rational choice for what he regards as his enlightened self-interest, in any given circumstance.”  ― Aldous Huxley

Charbel Tadros  “The good thing about democracy is that every vote counts. The problem with democracy is that every vote counts.” ― Charbel Tadros

Thomas Paine  “The right of voting for persons charged with the execution of the laws that govern society is inherent in the word liberty, and constitutes the equality of personal rights.”  ― Thomas Paine

John Quincy Adams  “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”  ― John Quincy Adams

Mark Twain  “If voting made any difference they wouldn’t let us do it.”  ― Mark Twain

IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO VOTE, EVEN ONE OF OUR MOST STANDOUT CITIZEN BIG BIRD IS GIVEN DIRECTION ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF VOTING AND HOW TO VOTE!

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE REGIONAL COUNTIES MOST EVERYTHING, A.K.A “THIRTY MILES OF CR-P,” “SITE IS A JOKE,” “SCANDALOUS,” “NEGATIVE,” “WARPED,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “REPREHENSIBLE,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “INDECENT,” “REPUGNANT,””IMMORAL,” “FILTHY,” “VILE,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “DEFAMATORY,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “OBNOXIOUS,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! YES WE ADMIT WE OUR ALL OF THAT AND MORE, WHICH IN CURRENT TERMS IS KNOWN AS “UNPOLITICALLY CORRECT.” 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 ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. … AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! CONTACT US: thirtymilescorruption@hotmail.com

THE STORY OF COUNCILMAN ANDY MELENDREZ’S SOCCER FIELD:

The dialog starts in 2010 around a bustling city water cooler one day with the talk that we need a soccer stadium, and it should be in the Northside, and of course, the City just happens to have the “perfect” piece of property.  Or should I say, a goulash of several properties, one of them was the former Riverside Golf Course.

Backtracking in time, about 2005 the City needed money and property to get into the full swing of Redevelopment and they had their eyes set on the Northside of Ward 1.  This was easy pickings: apathetic Northside residents, surplus utility property, out sized utility reserves, and a staff all-too-ready to violate the law and City policy in the name of advancing their careers.  The end game was simple: special interests and the City wins and the average taxpayer and ratepayer would be left looking for the license plate of the vehicle that hit them.

Forward, Council Member Andy Melendrez started selling Riverside Soccer Complex idea to the community.  Then, we get a new Community Development Director (CDD), Al Zelinka, who starts planning for a beautiful new soccer stadium with all the bells and whistles.  The CDD spends about a year and a half putting this project together. Hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, goes into planning, designing and developing this stadium.

The City then selected two main development teams to bid for this project. The Council is ready to hear the proposals from both teams.  The Council Chamber is full that afternoon with developers, architects, contractors, money men, and probably a couple of other scoundrels.  Every one of them is dressed in their Sunday Best.  The “Big” names of Riverside elitist were sitting there: Yeager, Tavaglione, Rubin, Singletary, Hunt… all ready, willing, and able to cash in on the tax payer, as in this PE Article on the Soccer Complex back in September 2012.

We had repeatedly advised the Council and the City that this deal could not and should not go forward.  But nobody wanted to listen as our elects were salivating over each other and their proposed plans for futbol-for-all was within arms reach. THEN……… EVERYTHING FELL APART RIGHT BEFORE THEIR EYES.  WE WERE RIGHT, THEY WERE WRONG!  The charade was turning into a legal liability nightmare for the City, the integrity of Al Zelinka was in question, and the Council looked foolish.  In the end, nothing was ever done with the property UNTIL….2013-2014.

There was the unforeseeable problem for the City regarding these Northside properties, again we tried to tell them.  Problem was that the Northside properties didn’t belong to or were owned by the City.  Those properties were once owned by our Water Fund; that were sold to the Redevelopment Agency, General Fund and Electric Funds; a portion of which were subsequently given to the General Fund; all financed by the Sewer and Electric Funds; and with one property sold back to the Water Fund.  Did you get all that?  We may have missed a transaction or two, but what Council and the City failed to understand was that the properties were all tied up in the dissolution of Redevelopment!

Everyone was upset. The selected teams of developers had huge money invested in drawings and plans for the development to present to the Council.  The soccer stadium died a slow, painful, very public death that day. . . and the City’s response due to their embarrassment was to initiate another audit.  Yep, let’s get to the bottom of this, with another audit, to attempt to appease the angry natives.

City hires Baker Tilly to do the audit on the Northside.  An audit within an audit — that is what the accountants call it.  Mr. Hissom from Baker Tilley starts his comments by saying this site has already been audited by many financial firms and they had been done appropriately by some very highly quality firms.  BUT… They were more than happy to take this task on again and perform another audit.  Hey, if you could get a paycheck for work already done, would you turn it down?

So, what did this audit accomplish? NOTHING!! After all the hoopla, this property at the time, was remained in the hands of RDA (Redevelopment Agency) or the Department of Finance for the State of California.

HERE’S OUR ORIGINAL TMC STORY: 02.9.2016: CITY OF RIVERSIDE: AUDITING FIRM, BAKER TILLY, GIVES RIVERSIDE A C- ON NORTHSIDE PROPERTIES TRANSACTIONS

COUNCILMAN ANDY MELENDREZ’S SANCTUARY CITY DEBACLE:

Councilman Andy Melendrez’s attempt to re-brand the City of Riverside as a “Sanctuary City” appeared to be part of his hidden agenda according to many in the community and not brought forward prominently as part of a City Council discussion way back on August 26, 2014.  As a result, a formal Code of Ethics and Conduct complaint was filed by Fontana Council candidate Tressy Capps, specifically against Melendrez’s assertion that their would be no “fiscal impact” in the adoption of this resolution, as stated in the City Council Memorandum.  The following is the filed complaint by Tressy Capps.

complaintone

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL ETHICS COMPLAINT FILED BY CAPPS

The following is the City Council Memorandum stating that there would be no “fiscal impact” with the adoption of this humanitarian resolution.  Really now Andy!  TMC knows that the policy gets set first: then the “ask” (cha-ching) comes later.

memorandum

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM

What was more concerning was that this item/resolution was placed on the Consent Calendar, in what could be seen as a way to sneak a real issue of community concern by the public, by not bringing it allowing discussion from differing viewpoints.  Instead, it was removed from the consent calendar for discussion and eventually shot down after a huge waste of time that only divided the community.  This kind of pandering political play makes Andy untrustworthy to many in his own Ward.  The resolution provides no clarity towards whether the term “immigrants,” applies to those here legally or illegally, and we would guess that’s intentional.  Because if they were in the country legally, we surmise there would be reason to have a resolution to protect immigrants.  Problem: Melendrez said one thing at the forefront, but stated another in the fine print as seen in the resolution.  We provide the resolution below:

resolutionone

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW THE MELENDREZ HUMANITARIAN RESOLUTION

Capps states that this resolution directly violates specifically page 4, item #6 of the Code of Ethics and Conduct for Elected Officials.  She cited the item, “they will seek to insure that information provided by the city government to the public is accurate and clear.”  Where is former City Attorney Greg Priamos when we need him to pick the nits?  Oh Hell, he would just make matters worse.

CofEone        Cofetwo

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL CODE OF ETHICS AND CONDUCT (CLICK IMAGES ABOVE TO ENLARGE)

Many in the community feel this resolution advocates breaking Federal law.  It appears that Melendez in that case would not only be advocating violating the law, he is also offering that it would be ok for the City of Riverside to accept those who have entered the country illegally.  TMC feels this would be done without consideration of those in his community who are legal, and need help, such as are veterans, homeless, residents struggling financially to make ends meet, etc.  On the other hand, proponents state that we need to ensure that the security, protection and needs of illegal or undocumented children are addressed on a humanitarian level, which appears we would agree with…from a Federal level.  Many cities have adopted similar resolutions, even some states, but we at TMC ask what the fallout will be when you’re in conflict Federal laws.  Our guess is, watching what is transpiring in DC at the moments, the consequences will affect the general public of these “sanctuaries” negatively.

Illegal immigration cost the American taxpayer $84 billion a year. $2,724.00 per household in California alone. To say that there is no fiscal impact, I don’t know how you can justify that?

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE REGIONAL COUNTIES MOST EVERYTHING, A.K.A “THIRTY MILES OF CR-P,” “SITE IS A JOKE,” “SCANDALOUS,” “NEGATIVE,” “WARPED,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “REPREHENSIBLE,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “INDECENT,” “REPUGNANT,””IMMORAL,” “FILTHY,” “VILE,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “DEFAMATORY,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “OBNOXIOUS,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! YES WE ADMIT WE OUR ALL OF THAT AND MORE, WHICH IN CURRENT TERMS IS KNOWN AS “UNPOLITICALLY CORRECT.” 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 ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. … AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! CONTACT US: thirtymilescorruption@hotmail.com

With the community inundated with flyers from the City of Riverside Mayors Race 2020, we thought we’d look at one in particular from candidate Patricia Lock Dawson, who takes the award for “Best Photoshop of the Decade” (the decade being 60 days old).  If you used our products Patti, you’d actually still look like this!

Will the real Patricia Lock Dawson please stand up?

  

THE COMPLETE CHARTER INTERVIEW WITH BRAD POMERANCE AND RUSD TRUSTEE PATRICIA LOCK-DAWSON FROM 2016:

THE SCORES FROM RIVERSIDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT:

   

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE REGIONAL COUNTIES MOST EVERYTHING, A.K.A “THIRTY MILES OF CR-P,” “SITE IS A JOKE,” “SCANDALOUS,” “NEGATIVE,” “WARPED,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “REPREHENSIBLE,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “INDECENT,” “REPUGNANT,””IMMORAL,” “FILTHY,” “VILE,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “DEFAMATORY,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “OBNOXIOUS,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! YES WE ADMIT WE OUR ALL OF THAT AND MORE, WHICH IN CURRENT TERMS IS KNOWN AS “UNPOLITICALLY CORRECT.” 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 ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. … AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! CONTACT US: thirtymilescorruption@hotmail.com

 

The Truth About Measure O: What you didn’t vote for, The Measure that will hit you in the face as a taxpayer with a ton of bricks in the coming years!

While the taxpayers are being brought forward with another educational bond with reference to Measure A, the College Repair Bond, we’d like to inform residents about a less debated measure that was on the ballot in 2016 that you passed: Measure O, a $392 million school facilities bond for our local K-12, Riverside Unified School District.  Measure O was to “upgrade and repair aging Riverside schools” according to RUSD’s own propaganda as stated in their flyers (below):

      

  click on image to view flyer                click on image to view RUSD Resolution

This resolution known as Measure O when placed before voters explained it was to upgrade, repair, expand, improve, and better equip classrooms, school buildings, and infrastructure. (image of resolution above).

click to enlarge and read Superintendent’s letter

Incredibly, the Superintendent’s letter to Measure O supporters immediately after its passage read, “Riverside residents are ready to invest in safer, modernized, and updated schools.”  Trustee Tom Hunt would say, “we know the priorities have to be the temporary classrooms have to be replaced with permanent classrooms,”

In an October 22, 2016 article in the Press Enterprise, RUSD Board President Tom Hunt stated, “In placing Measure O on the ballot, school district trustees decided not to provide a detailed list of proposed improvements at each school.  Officials didn’t want to make promises they may have to break later if work becomes more expensive or for other reasons.

District voters last passed a bond in 2001. The $175 million from Measure B funded nine new schools and nearly 40 major improvement projects. The money has run out, though property owners in the district are still paying off the bonds.

One thing was abundantly clear, Measure O was about fixing the problems at Riverside’s existing schools.  Flash forward to 2020: 4 news schools (STEM High School at UCR, $65 million; 3 neighborhood school estimated at $100 million total; and a new $5 million parking lot at King H.S.) are now on an expedited “expanded project list”.  Only one of these projects was listed in Measure O’s list of projects shown to the voters (2016 Long Range Master Facilities Plan, and that was for a STEM high school to be located on the grounds of the existing STEM Academy on Mt. Vernon Ave, NOT on the UCR campus).

The other projects were introduced in the Summer of 2018 (you will find no mention of them in RUSD’s report to its Independent Citizens Bond Oversight Committee as late as April 2018). That’s right: $170 million (of the $392 million guaranteed by local taxpayers through property assessments) is currently being prioritized and directed to school’s, etc. that you never voted for.

In a September 2, 2019 Press Enterprise article, Community Tax Advocate Jason Hunter voiced his concerns to the press, as a member of the Independent Citizens Bond Oversight Committee, in letters to the District, and at Board meetings themselves from the podium. The District’s response? To hide behind two shaky legal opinions they bought and hope the community isn’t paying attention until it’s too late. This was a classic bait & switch, and after exposed, your elected Trustees and their henchmen are in full cover-up mode. They will spend your money on four new schools in a period where they have lost 1,700 students in the past 5 years, and 1,000 in the past 2.

Below is the Citizens Bond Oversight Committee meeting that was held on September 9, 2019.  Why would Committee Member Tina Grande-Field berate committee members as if they don’t know what they are doing?  The original RUSD Measure O Resolution No. 2015.16-56 regarding spending calls for specifics on spending, but when confronted with those facts, she responds as such, and even threatens to leave so as to end the meeting for a lack of quorum!  Was she placed there for a nefarious purpose?  Taxpayers who are afraid to be named for whatever reason, who have contacted me through are email system, are asking if the “fix is in”.  Is this business as usual for RUSD?  Are these “independent citizens’ oversight” meetings being stacked with members favorable to those on the RSUD Board, who have a set agenda to divert funds to pet projects for political gain?  Folks, make no mistake what you see here, is what you will see if you vote for Measure A: no accountability.  The deck is stacked against you by the very elitist status quo who wish to feed on the taxpayer gravy train.

So who is Tina Grand-Field who vehemently attempted to shut down the debate?  The gal who doesn’t like to be looked at according to the video.  For one, she is Assistant Director of Purchasing for the County of Riverside.  Others in our community who pay taxes wonder if she needs a mental evaluation?  According to transparent California she makes $156, 977.14 a year, taking your money.  Her husband Rob Field, also works for the County of Riverside.  His brother John is former Chief of Staff for Supervisor John Tavaglione.  Currently he is the Director of Land Acquisition for the County of Riverside.  Now that we’ve heard her in this video in action, we have to ask the question if she is spending our monies right, or do elitist public workers answer to a higher source?

Down the road, they will spend your money on a high school for the elite in the community, instead of putting STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) in every high school.  Did you know the District plans on giving 130 slots at STEM Academy/High School to children of UCR faculty who may not even live in the District and pay the accompanying property taxes? 

click on image to enlarge

They will build 3 neighborhood schools, including one that’s a subsidy for a developer, Spring Mountain Ranch, this while many of our kids sit in portables they promised you they’d replace. Incidentally, up in Spring Mountain Ranch, the developer get to advertise low taxes, because RUSD agreed to shift the cost of a new elementary for the housing development, over to all the taxpayers in the district.  Yep that was what they did!

click image to enlarge

Most likely dozens of existing schools will see their funding almost completely cut to make way for the Board’s new priorities.  Thought you were getting technology or security upgrades or a repaired roof at your child’s school? Probably not. And of course all of these new schools will need new teachers, administrators, and annual maintenance. And how will that get paid for? By poaching from surrounding areas through a scheme called District-of-Choice. That’s right! your property taxes will be going to construct new schools for kids of parents who DO NOT PAY these property taxes.  To boot, RUSD will be leasing the property from UCR

In fact, last year on May 7, 2019, the District paid a consulting firm a crushing $400,000 to market RUSD to neighboring regions, money that could’ve been spent on our kids.  Further, why would they feel the need to advertise, especially after asking for the Measure O Bond?

What’s going on at RUSD is a disgrace. What will you do? The trustees are Kathy Allavie, Tom Hunt, Brent Lee (our rep in the Wood Streets), Patricia Locke-Dawson (who’s running for Mayor), and Angelov Farooq. Their contact info is: 951-788-7135, ext. 80417 kallavie@riversideunified.orgthunt@riversideunified.orgblee@riversideunified.orgpdawson@riversideunified.org afarooq@riversideunified.org  Tell them to fix the problems at our existing schools first, and stop spending money on vanity and pet projects, developer giveaways, and high-priced consultants. These people work for us and sometimes need to be reminded of that fact.  Let’s not forget, since they are so bad at efficiently spending money, they will come back to the tax  payer table and ask them for more!

If you would like to hear more of Tax Advocate Jason Hunter on the Issue of the misuse of Measure O Funds, hit this link. The title is Measure O Bond spending being done correctly?  Does anyone even care?

To boot, don’t get the boot with higher property taxes!  VOTE NO ON MEASURE A!

If you have to live within your means, so shouldn’t they? Thank you for visiting our site!

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE REGIONAL COUNTIES MOST EVERYTHING, A.K.A “THIRTY MILES OF CR-P,” “SITE IS A JOKE,” “SCANDALOUS,” “NEGATIVE,” “WARPED,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “REPREHENSIBLE,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “INDECENT,” “REPUGNANT,””IMMORAL,” “FILTHY,” “VILE,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “DEFAMATORY,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “OBNOXIOUS,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! YES WE ADMIT WE OUR ALL OF THAT AND MORE, WHICH IN CURRENT TERMS IS KNOWN AS “UNPOLITICALLY CORRECT.” 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 ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. … AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! CONTACT US: thirtymilescorruption@hotmail.com

January 13, 2020: RRR Meeting (Residents for Responsible Representation) Topic: Riverside Community College District School Bond Measure A, scheduled for a public vote on March 3, 2020.

Remember School Repair Bond Measure O.  That passed, and now assesses approximately $50 per $100K assessed value of your home.  If your home is valued at $400K, you will have an additional $200 added to your annual property taxes.  With Measure O there was a clear and concise spending plan for badly needed school repairs.  Instead, the Trustees are directing the monies to build new schools.  The clincher is that the new schools are being built during a time when schools are experiencing a decrease in enrollment.

If Measure A passes it will do the same: increase your property tax.  If your home is valued at $250K it will be an additional $50;  If your home is valued at $400, you will have an additional $80 added to your property taxes.  We are looking at 2 cents per every $100 of the assessed value of your home.  In addition, with Measure A there is no clear cut spending plan.  On the other hand, Measure O monies are now being illegally diverted to build new schools. which is not what the campaign actually told the taxpayers om 2016.  Who’s in the middle of this?  RUSD School Board Trustee Patricia Lock Dawson, who is also running for Mayor of Riverside, and here are the rest, Trustee’s Kathy Allavie, Tom Hunt, Brent Lee (our representative in the Wood Streets) and Angelov Farooq.

CORRECTION: 02.27.2020: This video, which you can still see by hitting this link, was taken down because we were informed by RUSD School Board Trustee Tom Hunt that at the time this video was taken, the property of former Hawthorne School was sold to a developer.  Under this developer it was allowed to deteriorate and taken over by homeless.  As a result of vandalism and several fires, it was demolished, therefore we stand corrected.  Property was sold by RUSD due to issues regarding toxins, pollution, noise level and asbestos.  It deemed unsafe for children.  Thank you Mr. Hunt for the correction!

Here is the the City of Riverside Mayors Debate held on February 20, 2020 by Inland Congregations United For Change (ICUC).  Riverside Unified School District board member Patricia Lock Dawson, retired taxi driver Phi Long Tran “JD” Denilofs, retired union steward Rich Gardner, taxi driver Guy A. Harrell, City Councilman Andy Melendrez and personal assistant Acea Stapler attended and answered questioned regarding community issues.

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE REGIONAL COUNTIES MOST EVERYTHING, A.K.A “THIRTY MILES OF CR-P,” “SITE IS A JOKE,” “SCANDALOUS,” “NEGATIVE,” “WARPED,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “REPREHENSIBLE,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “INDECENT,” “REPUGNANT,””IMMORAL,” “FILTHY,” “VILE,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “DEFAMATORY,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “OBNOXIOUS,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! YES WE ADMIT WE OUR ALL OF THAT AND MORE, WHICH IN CURRENT TERMS IS KNOWN AS “UNPOLITICALLY CORRECT.” 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 ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. … AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! CONTACT US: thirtymilescorruption@hotmail.com

When looking at the City budget, one can see that the primary expense to the taxpayer is public worker salaries.  Again, considering you have public unions deeply involved with the campaign process while negotiation their member’s contracts, who actually comes out to bat for us, the taxpayer? We all need to ask the question: have cities now become government entities that benefit their workers’ quality of life as opposed to the quality of life of their employers (the taxpayers/constituents)?  Does government exist solely for the purpose of benefiting those directly and indirectly employed by it?

BUDGET 101 FOR THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE

Commentor Karen Renfro made the following opinionated insight based upon on her analytical perspective of the relationship between the City of Riverside government and public employees on the Nextdoor website.  Many in the community who are voiceless feel the same way, despite propaganda spewed by the City.

(click image to enlarge)

Back on February 22, 2018, the Budget Engagement Commission members were perplexed by the need for almost 50% of Measure-Z Sales Tax Money going to help a shortfall im pension obligations.

From Measure Z, $13 million was to be transferred to the General Fund: the Chief Financial Officer and City Manager are asking for $5 million of that $13 million to cover anticipated shortfalls due to unfunded unsustainable pension liabilities.

We also refer to an opinion piece in the Daily Bulletin by Sal Rodriquez.  The following are excerpts, you can read the whole article by hitting this hyperlink.  There is simply no question in my mind that local government has been hijacked and those responsible have created a financial abyss for the taxpayers.  It’s a scheme that benefits no one but themselves and with the illusion that it directly benefits their members and taxpayers.  Onward with Sal Rodriquez’s excerpts:

“Public employee unions exist to advocate for their members, often campaigning for policies at odds with the best interests of the general public. The so-called public safety unions are in a unique position.  Representing some of the most esteemed and highest paid of government employees, they have lots of money to dole out and are more than comfortable exaggerating threats to public safety if it helps their cause.”

“Cases in point: ballot initiatives in Hemet, Riverside and San Bernardino tainted by undue influence from public safety unions.”

“In Riverside, the city, which last year was boasting about a $1 million surplus and felt so good it decided to give police officers a $4 million raise the city hadn’t actually budgeted for, has put on the November ballot a one-percent sales tax. Expected to raise about $50 million a year, Measure Z is touted as necessary for the future of Riverside.”

“With a name like “City of Riverside Public Safety and Vital City Services Measure,” it certainly sounds important. Of course, if passed Measure Z revenues can be spent however the council likes and there are no guarantees about how the money will be spent, with one notable exception.  On Tuesday, the City Council approved a contract with the city’s police union which, among other things, will give police officers a bigger raise if voters approve a tax increase. It’s quite the incentive.”

“According to recent filings, the police union has already contributed $12,500 to the Measure Z campaign. Firefighters union president Tim Strack told The Press-Enterprise that he already had $100,000 in commitments for the campaign. Behind any talk of the need for more money for “public safety,” is really just a desire for bigger raises and budgets.”

Even, President Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) had something to say about the conflict of public worker unions and doing the work of the people in this in a letter:

“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.”

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE REGIONAL COUNTIES MOST, “SCANDALOUS,” “NEGATIVE,” “WARPED,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “REPREHENSIBLE,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “INDECENT,” “REPUGNANT,””IMMORAL,” “FILTHY,” “VILE,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “DEFAMATORY,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “OBNOXIOUS,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! YES WE ADMIT WE OUR ALL OF THAT AND MORE, WHICH IN CURRENT TERMS IS KNOWN AS “UNPOLITICALLY CORRECT.” 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 ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. … AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! CONTACT US: thirtymilescorruption@hotmail.com

COOKIE MONSTER: “Let me get this straight, you had the opportunity to vote on lower trash rates, but instead voted for higher rates; and now you are hiding, wondering why the ratepayers are out with their pitchforks and torches?”

Yep folks, Cookie Monster couldn’t have said it better.  Back at a City Council Meeting on January 14, 2020, Taxpayers were presented a Consulting Report which suggested that outsourcing may actually lower cost to the ratepayers and should be considered.  What was also said during the meeting was that any displaced city employees as a result of any transitional changes would be guaranteed employment!

UPDATE BY ANONYMOUS COMMENTER REGARDING THE TRASH ISSUE: CAN ANYONE CONFIRM THE TRUTH OF THIS STATEMENT?  SIDOTI IF YOU OUR ARE OUT THEIR THERE CAN YOU COMMENT ON THIS?

“One of the problems with the solid waste department is that they are on a incentive program. If they get done with there route early they get to go home! Meanwhile trash cans are laying all over the street and extra trash not being picked up. They run there routes differently each time to finish quickly and go home early and get paid for a full days work. Instead of them going back out there and help on other routes and pick up the palm branches that are littered throughout the city. Going back to helping out how is it that I’ve seen trucks out late while the team leaders that are making 5% more than a regular driver, isn’t out there helping to finish the route? That’s a total waste of taxpayers money. Solid waste management should be held accountable. There’s no reason why this departments over time is through the roof. You should look into the dump feed to they’ve gone up and the recycling is joke there’s no one being held accountable why is it that 40% of the recycling goes to the trash increasing the city’s dumping fees.”

While the taxpayer is asking for a logical and reasonable answer from their newly elected council for their vote of no consideration, instead it appears they listened to their handlers, possibly the unions, and of course, made an unsustainable economic decision, which will in essence cost the taxpayers more!

With the City of Riverside facing ‘insolvency’ in the next couple of years, a term that may not be familiar to the new Democratically owned local council if you look at their 460’s.  But seriously folks, we are serious.  We at TMC have been talking about this since 2012.

While this nonsense was going on, Councilman Chuck Condor gave credence to the position that the City of Riverside, in fact, can save money by outsourcing to privately controlled companies.  Again folks, this isn’t personal, it is just plain business!  But others may think differently.

As with former Councilman Chris MacArthur who literally stated how to vote on an important financial issue.  You need to think of issues that concern the city ’emotionally’ as opposed to ‘logically!’  This in regarding to solving City issues, go figure!  But thanks to Councilman Chuck Condor, who brought logic to the forefront to tell us simply, this was a bad deal for the taxpayer!  I guess this leaves former Councilman Chris MacArthur possibly eating his words?

Incredibly, a union leader that represents the trash collectors pleaded to the council, that their employees live here and spend money within the city, as if the same employees hired by a private sector company would not?  So Private Sector Employed don’t care about their families as much as Union Sector Employed?

Michael Sidoti, Senior Solid Waste Operator for the City of Riverside, states an Public Comment, “Privatization is not the answer!”  Again his salary is paid by the taxpayers, but his loyalties appear otherwise.  The City of Riverside is on that very same road as the City of San Bernardino.  What will become of his salary when the City reaches insolvency?  He states, “we have always had a constant battle with competitors,” I’m assuming those in the private sector are seemingly a problem?  I believe it is known in economics as “competition” in a free market.

(click image above to enlarge the three weeks worth of garbage on Magnolia next to RCC)

Ward 1 Resident Response: “Right here on Magnolia the street sweepers came again for the third time and the leaves just get shoved up on my curb and the branches scattered. There is a huge gully of water and leaves that stink terribly.  Nobody has picked up all the palm branches on this end of Magnolia.  I do not want to get hit by a car by going out and getting all of this picked up. Who do I call?  Frustrated.”

Well, some in the community are wondering where are you Mr. Sidoti when it comes to your back yard?  Mr. Sidoti, what you preached at public comment that day, is not accurate.  I went to check on this issue, the problem still remains after three weeks!  I don’t get it, I’ve seen the City of Riverside Code Enforcement viciously cite tax paying residents for ridiculous property violations, but they allow homeless to go wild on Massachusetts Avenue within the City of Riverside.  What gives?

But what should we consider, a partisan Democratic Huddled Of Four That Stick Together?  Do they commune for a common agenda?  I believe they should all have the opportunity to explain their current positions.  If the constituents were misinformed, those elects, should tell the constituents their true affiliation, their party agenda and their true positions on current issues.  We have the right to know!  Because many in our community didn’t know this.  TMC attempts to be balanced, but we must bring out the facts which are brought forward to us.  We always welcome counter responses and comments. But the following doesn’t optically look good when you view the following.

(click image above to enlarge)

These are the New Faces of the Highly Campaigned Riverside City Council, which were financed heavily by the Democratic Party and Union Representatives.  Was this a false representation of the what are non-partisan representative government was to embody? Regardless, did the Fav Four vote in unison?  Without the actual real money cost to the taxpayer in mind?  Further, this included Veteran Councilman Jim Perry, who failed to investigate the trash financials.  Maybe if looked into, their could have been cost overruns within refuse that could have been directly dealt with.

Currently, what we do know is that 60% of residential trash collection is conducted in-house by the City’s Public Works Department.  The remaining 40% of residential trash collection is privately outsourced.  Of commercial or business trash collection, 100% is currently privately outsourced.

In 2019, the City realized that to continue their standard trash collection operations, a large capital investment would soon be needed.  Subsequently, Council hired this Consultant Group to study the pros and cons for the City and its residents/ businesses, if trash service was to be privately out-sourced completely.  The following is the full City Council Meeting on this Trash Issue.

On Tuesday, January 14, 2020, that Consultant Report came before Council (below).  Although the report recommended issuing a non-binding RFP (Request For Proposal) to determine whether the private market would be a better alternative to consider going forward, the Council decided (5-2 Conder and Melendrez dissenting) to instead study the cost of bringing all trash service in-house.  Meaning, the City of Riverside will be responsible for all trash pick up within the City.  With insolvency around the corner, this means the City or ratepayers must now pick up the tab for 20 new trash trucks, 20 new drivers, cost of maintaining those trucks, proper maintenance of a dumping ground, new responsibility for employee pensions etc.  This is a new cost the City cannot afford.  Even the City of San Bernardino was smart enough to consider privately sourced trash pick up.

R3 Study PDF Format

Just recap, rates were last raised by 9.5% for residential curb-side pick up back in January 2019.  The consultant made a point to note that another 20% rate increase would be needed soon, if additional out-sourcing was not considered.  It was not considered.  During Council discussion on this issue, various Council members made comment that the primary consideration should be City Union jobs, the rate increases were secondary.  If not inconsequential to the discussion, despite oral commitments from the private haulers to offer jobs to all displaced City workers.

This current increase would mean an additional $3.12 to $5.37 to each household on a monthly basis.  This is what your Democratic Pro-Union Council voted on.  Local government was never meant to be partisan, it hurts the tax payer.  There votes will always have the Party and the Union in mind.  What we have is a Union and DNC bought for council, who will give the illusion that they represent the greater good of the community, but in essence, represent the greater good of those who financially supported them.

TMC has known since 2012 according to City documents, that the City of Riverside would be staring into the abyss of a massive budget deficit in 2016, the City ignored us.  In the next five months we will begin to see this shortfall come to fruition.  While council is obsessed with union bugs and removing campaign opponents, their focus should by on escalating debt which will very well lead our City to insolvency in the coming years.  Question is do our newly elected council have the skills necessary and understanding of municipal economics in order resolve complicated financial issues?  For example, the consultant noted that Riverside’s refuse rates are not high enough to meet expenses.  Councilman Ronaldo Fierro stated if they are not high enough, then we need to charge more, that will take care of the deficit.  That’s the ticket, charge more!  Fierro didn’t even conceive of why trash refuse rates were escalating to begin with, go figure.

The same is true for our gargantuan unfunded pension liability. We have no financial leeway because the previous City Council maxed out our credit cards (debt) during the Great Recession and made no attempt to pay any of it back. It is becoming clearer by the week that the Council as a body nor the Mayor have no appetite to take on the most powerful special interest in town, who just happens to be their largest campaign contributors, our public employees and their unions. These are the same people who already have put 40% of Measure Z in their pockets. If the trend continues to play out as this example of increased trash rates, expect higher fees and rates with perhaps another tax (or even the sale of our publicly owned utility) on the ballot in the near future, while receiving fewer and degrading City services.  Expect inappropriate development and City takeover of other non-traditional industries (Fox Theater, Food Lab, fiber optics, etc.) to satisfy a never-ending thirst for more dollars.

Expect exotic financial instruments like pension obligation bonds to steal from Riverside’s future in order to guarantee benefits to our employees that there is simply no comparison for in the private sector. While many of us were asleep, the City turned into an employment agency in lieu of a service agency, with this vote. If you don’t like what you’re reading, I urge you to call your elected representative to let your positions known!

The City of Riverside is now headed down the path of Detroit and San Bernardino, bankruptcy!

The relationship between politicians and unions helps explain why nearly every city and county in California faces daunting unfunded pension obligations.  According to Roger Ruvolo of the Press Enterprise, “At the moment, that obligation in Riverside comes to well more than $500 million. And it’s growing. (Riverside also has run up well more than $1 billion in bonded indebtedness to finance the Renaissance projects of a decade ago.)

Even after insolvency, San Bernardino outsourced their refuse collection to save money.  There’s no doubt that Trash is Cash, but asking the Taxpayer to pay more Cash for their Trash is evidently questionable!

VOTE NO ON MEASURE A: NEW COMMUNITY COLLEGE BOND SCAM: WILL INCREASE YOUR TAXES APPROXIMATELY $50.00 PER 100K OF YOUR HOME VALUE!  If your home has a value of $400K, you will have an additional property tax of $200.00 on your tax bill!  Of course, the “YES ON MEASURE A” crowd would be embarrassed to tell you this.  Remember the other school bond scam Measure O?  It was all about needed school repairs.  Now they diverted funds by a so called stacked community oversight committee to build new schools.  Again, here is another propaganda message fitted to hit your emotions.  Again fake and misleading information.  Prior propaganda messages was about educating the children, well they are college adults! Now it’s about Vets!  What will they think of next?  Little do they know that Vet’s are already covered by the GI Bill!

      

(CLICK TO ENLARGE THE MEASURE A PROPAGANDA!)

BACK IN FEBRUARY OF 2013, WE DID A SIMILAR “MORE CASH FOR TRASH” STORY, EXCEPT RUSTY BAILEY WAS IN THE TRASH CAN!

PUBLIC SECTOR EXCESSES CONTRIBUTING TO WASTEFUL AND EXCESSIVE SALARIES BAND INSANE PENSION PAYOUTS?

Let’s take a look at City salary abuses, which would never occur in the Private Sector, because it is there money.  But if it is not your money, well that may be a different story as in the case of Police Lieutenant Gary Leach who receives a total pay and benefits package of $450,895.70, in the real world this is unsustainable, good reason why the City of Riverside is heading toward insolvency.  Lt. Leach base pay is $142, 031.10, how does it escalate to almost a half a million dollars?  Folks, just to let you know this is not an isolated incident!  He received $6,946.70 in Over Time (Just for the record, my Private Sector Boss would kill me if he saw this), he then receives $224, 467.70 in Other Pay?  What the hell is this? Then an insane Benefit Package of $76, 895.30.  Food for thought.  I simply don’t know anyone who gets this amount in the private sector, without at least bringing double the cost savings in that salary to the company. Is Lt. Leach bring the taxpayer close to a half a million dollars in saving to the taxpayer?  I don’t think so.

(click image above to enlarge)

The people of Riverside have the right to go to sleep at night, knowing their representatives have their best interest at heart, not of those who may have supported them financially with special interest at heart.

THE LAST TIME WE HAD THE TRASH ISSUE COME FORWARD, WITH FORMER CITY MANAGER BRAD HUDSON CONTROLLING OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT VIA THE COUNCIL AND STAFF BACK IN 2014!

(click image above to enlarge)

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE REGIONAL COUNTIES MOST, “SCANDALOUS,” “NEGATIVE,” “WARPED,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “REPREHENSIBLE,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “INDECENT,” “REPUGNANT,””IMMORAL,” “FILTHY,” “VILE,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “DEFAMATORY,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “OBNOXIOUS,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! YES WE ADMIT WE OUR ALL OF THAT AND MORE, WHICH IN CURRENT TERMS IS KNOWN AS “UNPOLITICALLY CORRECT.” 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 ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. … AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! CONTACT US: thirtymilescorruption@hotmail.com

   

We just received our flyers from Patricia Dawson.  Did anyone receive the same?  Her flier is on the left.  The next one over is our translation.  Since this the City of Arts and Innovation, TMC thought we’d produce some artwork of our own.

Back in 2016, in an interview with Brad Pomerance, Riverside USD Trustee Patricia Lock Dawson squirms to explain her district’s low scores regarding reading, writing and math.  Pomerance pummels Dawson on the new statistics from the newly released California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress Test.  As I understand, the new test was under the newly implemented Common Core, which replaced the CST (California Standards Test).  Ouchie! Not so good for her district then, and even now the numbers are still below average!  So folks, would you consider her a viable candidate for Mayor, running a City with a population of over 325,000?  TMC shakes their head a definitive, “no.”

 

FLASHBACK TO OCTOBER OF 2012: BACK WHEN COUNCILMAN RUSTY BAILEY WAS RUNNING FOR MAYOR AGAINST FORMER COUNCILMAN ED ADKISON!  Rusty’s campaign actually stole one of TMC’s photos for a campaign ad against former City Councilmember Adkison!  Miserly Rusty still hasn’t paid our requested royalty bill of $2,013.00!  Eight years later, with interest, it may be a little more.  Sorry Not sorry about that Mayor Bailey!  Maybe you will be able to afford to pay your bills now that you’ve helped create a Homeless Industrial Complex – that you will be the beneficiary of – right here in Riverside.

Rusty’s Flyer sent out to residents (left), our flyer redo (right).

We’re not sure who was first? Ed or TMC…But TMC would also like to place it’s entry in asking for an apology from Councilman and Mayoral Candidate William “Rusty” Bailey for approving a campaign mailer that went out last weekend which contained photographs taken by TMC’s crack photographer without permission.  Now above, TMC’s crack senior minimum wage photoshop designer created a comparison photo montage of Bailey’s mailer and TMC’s….absolutely uncanny, the photo that is.  The question is, what was Bailey’s intentions in inadvertently using TMC’s photo’s to begin with?  Was TMC’s photographs just exceptional?  Should TMC recieve a “royalty” for this display of “stolen” property?  Or are we to accept, as it is in Riverside, this is business as usual.  Of course, “business as usual,” usually means the taxpayer is usually being taken..  That may be because no community members care.  The taxpayer, needs to rise from their knees and let their representatives know that this is unacceptable.

THIS IS THE ORIGINAL TMC PIC TAKEN AT THE TIME ED ADKISON WAS CAMPAIGNING AGAINST THEN COUNCILMAN WILLIAM RUSTY BAILEY FOR CITY OF RIVERSIDE MAYOR.

 

WHAT’S THIS? A NEW FLYER ON THE NEW COLLEGE BOND MEASURE A? WOW! THE ‘YES ON MEASURE A CAMPAIGN’ ARE TELLING THE TAX PAYING RESIDENTS THAT “OUR” COMMUNITY ACTUALLY ENDORSES AN INCREASES IN PROPERTY TAXES!  THIS COMMUNITY (OR “OUR” COMMUNITY) ON THEIR FLYER CONSISTS MOSTLY OF ORGANIZATIONS DOING OR HOPING TO DO BUSINESS WITH RCCD, UNIONS HOPING FOR PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS, BOOT-LICKING ELECTED OFFICIALS AND GREASED COMMUNITY LEADERS!  I DON’T SEE ANY HARD WORKING PEOPLE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD ON THIS LIST.  WHAT GIVES?

click on the image to enlarge

Take a look at these elitist, ‘Yes on Measure A endorsers,’ and you will find that they do not fit the mold of the common taxpayer.  But yet they state that the whole community agrees with them!  Are these people truly representative of our community at large?  No, of course not.  These are people who misrepresent themselves, are not the real community of Riverside, but who have no qualms of doing so for their intended political gain.  Again, does ‘the end justifies the means?’  In my opinion that is not what America is all about!  It appears that this group of so -called “community” message is more likely a means towards financial self gratification!  Remember TMC will always sticks it neck out for the taxpayer, no matter how hard the City of Riverside retaliates against us (for example, see: Code Enforcement).  Lord have mercy, bottom line, we do it for you!  Regardless, here is the rest of the flyer. 

       

ON FREE SPEECH: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMMERCIAL SPEECH AND POLITICAL SPEECH:

The purpose for the speech is perhaps the key difference between political and commercial speech. Political speech focuses on the public good, but commercial speech only benefits a single private entity — the seller of the product or service advertised. While commercial speech aims at your wallet, political speech aims at your mind. Because functional democracy depends on the ability of the people to openly debate public issues and criticize government officials without fear, free political speech is judged to be more important than free commercial speech.

The First Amendment broadly prohibits the government from making laws that restrict freedom of speech. Political speech includes not just speech by the government or candidates for office, but also any discussion of social issues. Commercial speech, on the other hand, advertises a product or service for sale. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution as providing stronger protection to political speakers than to advertisers.

Since political speech is more important than commercial speech, it stands to reason it would be entitled to the strongest protection the First Amendment can provide. Discussion and debate of issues of public concern can be restricted only in the rarest of circumstances, and the government must have a strong, compelling interest for doing so.

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE REGIONAL COUNTIES MOST EVERYTHING, A.K.A “THIRTY MILES OF CR-P,” “SITE IS A JOKE,” “SCANDALOUS,” “NEGATIVE,” “WARPED,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “REPREHENSIBLE,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “INDECENT,” “REPUGNANT,””IMMORAL,” “FILTHY,” “VILE,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “DEFAMATORY,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “OBNOXIOUS,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! YES WE ADMIT WE OUR ALL OF THAT AND MORE, WHICH IN CURRENT TERMS IS KNOWN AS “UNPOLITICALLY CORRECT.” 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 ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. … AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! CONTACT US: thirtymilescorruption@hotmail.com

Whoever would’ve thought it was a bad thing to ask our City to be fiscally responsible?  Whoever would’ve thought your local government would label as “bad people” those who were curious as to where taxpayer monies were going – spread it around town through a whisper campaign design to destroy you?  Our first lesson in rejection, we figure was about 2011, when we asked then-Councilman Paul Davis to look at some documents we assembled regarding city loans.  He looked at the information our group brought forward and became very quiet.  He said nothing and left without telling us whether he would or would not support our claims.  He make no constructive criticism whatsoever.  We had no idea what to make of it all.

We would learn soon enough about a different perspective on local “leadership;” how far folks would go to make a wrong a right; to justify what could simply be called “bad behavior”.  Turns out there were more layers to this onion than we could even imagine back then.  In the subsequent months we would also figure out that hoping the City would come to its senses and do the right thing just wasn’t going to happen.  Not when there was an agenda that had to be fulfilled and pockets lined.  We knew we had to change our strategy and attempt to become more effective.

We met weekly for two years in Fullerton at the Office of former California State Assemblyman Chris Norby starting in 2011.  Norby was prominent at the time for his views on the abuses of Redevelopment, with emphasis on eminent domain.  Our mentor, who taught us how to look at government documents was the CFO of one of the cities within his district, whom we would only know until recently as “Mr. Smith”.  We’ll continue with the TMC backstory at a later date….but not before reminiscing about a trophy we collected along this journey:

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: JUNE 14, 2011: CITY MANAGER BRAD HUDSON! IN 2016, COUNCILMAN PAUL DAVIS STATES, HE WAS ‘GET RID OF.’  TMC AGAIN HAD IT RIGHT, ‘HE WAS FIRED!’

AND NOW ONTO CURRENT EVENTS…

RIVERSIDE STRONG: HOMELESSNESS ISSUE WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY: CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 17, 2019: MAYOR RUSTY BAILEY’S INSULTING RESPONSE TO DENIGRATE A LOCAL TAXPAYING COMMUNITY GROUP:  This is a good example what happened to us, when we began to bring issues to City Council.  We were insulted and belittled by both elected officials and their executive staff in an attempt to publicly embarrass us so perhaps we would never come back.  In our case, it went to the level of slander…behind our backs of course.  The whisper campaign spread steadily throughout our community, and the message was clear: if ever you may want to make a play for public office, do business with any government agency, or have public issues that you wish support/defeat, you better not to talk to the Moreno’s.  Our words of wisdom to Riverside Strong: keep at it, you are onto something, and getting underneath their nerves.

ROY BLECKERT FROM THE IE NEWSWIRE INTERVIEWS LOCAL TAX ADVOCATE JASON HUNTER REGARDING TWO NEW BONDS: PROPOSITION 13 AND MEASURE A: “IT’S ALL ABOUT THE CHILDREN…” YEH RIGHT, HEARD THAT ONE TOO MANY TIMES SINCE THE CALIFORNIA STATE LOTTERY PROPOSITION 37 IN 1984, which was sold on the backs of solving all the issues with our underperfoming schools.  2.13.2020: Roy Bleckert from the IE Newswire and 1490AM interviews local taxpayer advocate and Riverside resident Jason Hunter regarding the two new bond issuances up for vote on March 3, 2020. The proceeds of these are guaranteed to be abused (as usual), and Hunter explains the why and how.  The first is Measure A, Riverside Community College District’s $715 Million blank check.  The second is Proposition 13: an attempt to reverse the brakes put on ever-escalating property taxes by the beloved Prop 13 passed in 1978.

ACCORDING TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR’S FISCAL HEALTH OF THE STATES OVER 470’S CITIES: THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE IS IN THE TOP 5TH PERCENTILE OF FISCALLY CHALLENGED CITIES:  Residents should absolutely be concerned.  The purpose of this online dashboard by the State of California is part of their high-risk local government agency audit program to identify cities that could be facing fiscal challenges by assessing their levels of risk using various financial indicators. Through this transparent interface, California residents, state and local policymakers, and interested parties will have a data driven view of each city’s risk assessment.  Riverside is the 19th worst in the State…think about that the next time you get one of 14-year Councilman Andy Melendrez’s propaganda pieces for Mayor touting what a great job he’s done.  Phooey!

At the State of the City, Mayor Rusty Bailey commented that the ‘State Of Our City Is Strong!”

OPEB Funding: This indicator measures the extent to which a city has set aside assets to pay for the other post-employment benefits (OPEB), such as health and dental benefits, earned by its employees.  Debt Burden: This indicator measures the extent to which a city is burdened by debt by comparing its long term obligations (excluding retirement obligations) to the revenues the city collects. High amounts of debt can strain a city’s ability to provide essential services to its residents, especially if its revenues decline.  Future Pension Costs: This indicator measures the future financial burden of a city’s pension costs by comparing its projected annual required contributions to its pension plan(s) to its present level of annual revenue.

JUST FOR LAUGHS THE INCOMPARABLE RODNEY DANGERFIELD:

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE REGIONAL COUNTIES MOST EVERYTHING, A.K.A “THIRTY MILES OF CR-P,” “SITE IS A JOKE,” “CAN’T SPELL,””SCANDALOUS,” “NEGATIVE,” “WARPED,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “REPREHENSIBLE,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “INDECENT,” “REPUGNANT,””IMMORAL,” “FILTHY,” “VILE,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “DEFAMATORY,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “BAD GRAMMAR,””DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “OBNOXIOUS,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! YES WE ADMIT WE OUR ALL OF THAT AND MORE, WHICH IN CURRENT TERMS IS KNOWN AS “UNPOLITICALLY CORRECT.” 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 ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. … AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! CONTACT US: thirtymilescorruption@hotmail.com