The VIC awards are given to those “Very Important Citizens” that demonstrate outstanding involvement in the political process for all who live in the City of Riverside. These are citizens that are willing to take on the political process for the betterment of us all and dedicated to making the City of Riverside a quality city for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
These are the people fighting the causes that are changing the process, future, and structure at City Hall. Through the selfless effort of many, these people have made significant change in the fabric we all call home. These are the people who make the effort to attend city council meetings on Tuesday and are not afraid to speak up. They do it without a retirement package, paycheck, or a car allowance.
This year the award goes to Marilyn Whitney, for being one of the most influential citizens who has made change for the betterment of her community. In lieu of being called crazy and misinformed she kept the fight and shined the light on a housing development that would have been built on improperly cleaned, contaminated land. This development is called AG Park.
Marilyn has been instrumental in bringing the AG Park issue to City Council. Also, getting the media source KTLA involved and interested in the issues of AG Park. Marilyn last year was new to council meetings but has brought a lot to the table since then. She made sure that thee AG Park issue didn’t go away, in doing so, she changed helped change how the City of Riverside has done business with developer buddies such as Chuck Cox. During this year, Marilyn received a letter from Developer Chuck Cox’s lawyers to “Cease and Desist,” as to stop her first amendment right of free speech with reference to public comment at City Council. This was a back fireing blow to developer Mr. Cox., because later in the year the light of exposure brought to the forefront the true reality of this cover up. Thsi was a someone has done someone wrong type scenario, and it came to light.
She created the AG Park Family, and exposed the misdoings of the Department of Toxic Substance Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), developer Chuck Cox and former scumbag Ward 7 Councilman Steve Adams. With her efforts, the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (CCAEJ) Director Penny Newman took notice, then the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took notice, now there are investigations being forwarded on the Congressional level. The community of Riverside expects accountability for those individuals and entities involved, and we believe we will see it 2016. From all of us at the TMC Family, we Congratulate and Thank-you, and simply say Well Done….
Reading between the lines of the Sac Bee article what we have another scenario that we had in the City of Riverside, but no one admitted to it, “Leave or be Fired.” First, he still had 8 months remaining on his contract and the rumors that were circulating was that his contract would not be renewed. Multiple closed door meetings to discuss his performance evaluation during this year possible didn’t turn out well. Hudson, in his dramatic style as to “control the message,’ also appeared to intentionally keep one of the Supervisors, Phil Serna, from commenting on the Press Release. While only one Supervisor, Susan Peters, was allowed to comment on the great work Hudson was doing…
VIVIAN MORENO’S COMMENTS TO SACRAMENTO BEE ARTICLE:
We tried to warn all of you about him but you wouldn’t listen. He has a way of communicating what you want to hear. This is his style of departure. I’m sure Supervisor Susan peters believed his BS. She probably collaborated very closely with him! The saying in Riverside under the Brad Hudson Reign was SLEEP WITH YOU BOSS GET A PROMOTION. It never was about the citizens of Riverside or the Citizens of the County of Sacramento it was always about BRAD and the perception of the office of City Manager or CEO. He always had to have the best regardless of the state of affairs of the city or county of which he worked. He saw the writing on the wall the County of Sacramento is probably in deep financial trouble and doesn’t want his name associated with it. It wouldn’t look good on his resume.
He was the driving force behind the Renaissance program in Riverside, that we cannot pay for. Brad Hudson put The City of Riverside in an enormous amount of debt that we will NEVER be able to recover from. He was reckless and arrogant and had to gold plat his office here as well. One of the most incredible moments of his departure from Riverside was when our current Mayor Rusty Bailey stated Brad Hudson was his MORAL COMPASS. That speaks volumes as to the government style of our Mayor.
Let’s look at the bright side now the staff no longer has to deal with him any more they are all probably jumping for joy. Except the ones that he fired for not doing his dirty work. He used the intimidation-retaliation form of governing. Be glad he’s gone! To bad for the new employees in Orange County maybe they will read this article or thirty miles of corruption and start looking for another job.
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!
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!
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!
Council represents the people’s will and voice and provides legislative oversight. Council is also the City’s chief policy maker and is therefore responsible to the people.
Government’s duty is to serve the public, reaching its decision in full view of the public. Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of a City or County exist to conduct the people’s business…….AKA Sunshine Ordinance.
Riverside California is the latest City to join a very exclusive group of cities to adopt an open Government policy. Last Tuesday the City Council voted 6 to 1 to Codify the Sunshine Ordinance. The ordinance is meant to foster transparency in city government.
o CA Sunshine Ordinances: Contra Costa County
o CA Sunshine Ordinances: Berkeley
o CA Sunshine Ordinance: Milpitas
o CA Sunshine Ordinance: Oakland
o CA Sunshine Ordinances: Alameda
o CA Sunshine Ordinances: San Francisco
o CA Sunshine Ordinances: Riverside
o CA Sunshine Ordinances: Vallejo
o CA Sunshine Ordinances: Gilroy
The first city in California to adopt this ordinance was San Francisco, it took effect in 1994. The premise was that it is a way to hold city officials accountable. They also have a Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. The Task force had problems along the way. An 11-member volunteer citizen panel, appointed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, enforces the ordinance. Since it took effect, 27 instances of serious violations requiring disciplinary action have been cited, according to the citizen panel, the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. But those cases have been dismissed or moved into bureaucratic oblivion by the Ethics Commission, which is responsible for punishing sunshine violators.“The Ethics Commission doesn’t do anything,” said Allyson Washburn, a member of the task force. “They don’t enforce our orders of determination.” Without consequences for violations, Ms. Washburn said, the ordinance lacks teeth. Richard Knee, chairman of the task force, said the Ethics Commission was adversarial. As a result, the task force is trying to change the ordinance to limit the commission’s role and impose fines of up to $5,000 against city workers for violations, money that would be paid out of their own pockets. The change would require voter approval.
So the question is will the city of Riverside have a Sunshine Ordinance Task force? Will the City of Riverside REALLY hold anyone accountable and will we impose fines on the people who violate our new ordinance? Only time will tell.
Most of the Sunshine jurisdictions are located in the greater Bay Area. They all grant quicker, cheaper and simpler access to public records than would otherwise be made available. The Cities that have adopted the open Government policy have taken years to draft, formulate, and implement the ordinance. Some cities took the policy to the vote of the people. The city of Berkley took 10 years and 24 drafts. San Jose took 4 years.
The City of Riverside hires a new city manager and we have a policy in less than 2 months, drafted by the new city attorney with no public involvement. This policy was rushed through faster than a speeding bullet. When this very important policy came before council only one council member had concerns about its content, Mike Soubirous. He was the only council member to insist there be an exemption (with certain conditions) for council. He said it was in case council or a member needed to question or discuss policy/procedure BEFORE addressing an important issue. In other words, he was concerned about the people’s voice being confined or stifled. The Sunshine Ordinance was really designed to bring light to staff’s many proposals and approval requests – not hinder the people’s right to question things in a timely manner. No one else on the council had anything intelligent to say about passing it. The rest of the council blindly accepted what City Manager John Russo had to offer. No questions, no concerns, nothing! To think that a person appointed by the Council (City Manager) could propose a plan to his bosses (City Council) and that they (council) would blindly support a process that holds them to the very same rules he imposes on his staff is nothing short of amazing. No questions, no concern – except one lone councilman. One would think that those we elect would fight to keep the power entrusted to them by the people in order to better represent them. Nope! No fight among 6 of 7. John Russo learned that night that he owns at least five – maybe six of the council members. He learned that he can, and probably without any fight, get them to buy anything he sells them…
Thirty Miles of Corruption is all in favor of an Open Government policy, this policy is a way for citizens to have some accountability at city hall. We are just saying maybe the content should have been vetted in the public a little better, and maybe there should have been some public participation. We are not too concerned the policy can be amended. We found this great amendment to the Oakland California. Sunshine Ordinance, Mayor, now Governor Jerry Brown wasn’t too keen on following policy!
“Government operates best when Government operates in the open”, New City Manager John Russo is the GODFATHER of the Sunshine Ordinance. That’s how he rolls. He could probably put this ordinance together in his sleep. After doing extensive research on our new “TO GOOD TO BE TRUE” city manager, Thirty Miles of Corruption believes he has been a long time advocate for open government. Is Mr. Russo really a champion for the public? As the public gets to know him they like him. He’s a like able guy. The public really liked City Manager George Carvalho and we all know what happened there, the council fired him, remember?…. The question is will Russo hold anyone in his office or the Council and Mayor accountable for violations of our new Sunshine Ordinance? Will our New Sunshine Ordinance have teeth or is it just lip service! My hope for the City of Riverside and new City Manager John Russo is that we can overcome and fix all the MISTAKES that happened in the last 8 years and be an example and good neighbors to all the citizens living in Riverside County..
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST, “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!
A News Released disclosed publicly today July 27th by the City of Riverside that a meeting took place on Friday July 24th with City Manager John Russo and Barbara A. Lee, Director of the Department of Toxic Substance Control for the State of California (DTSC). The DTSC outlined its intent to work with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on a concurrent review of the site and to identify any appropriate confirmation sampling at the site, which could include sampling of the soil as well as the groundwater. The letter which requested the EPA to step in was sent on July 23rd and is as follows:
The above document indicates that the reason DTSC was requesting EPA’s assistance was a result of a letter received by the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (CCAEJ) March 5, 2015. In this letter CCAEJ alleged that serious problems occurred before and during cleanup activities on the site, and that nearby residents were potentially exposed to toxic substances. CCAEJ requested that DTSC and other environmental agencies, EPA, review the adequacy of the clean-up activities of the site. The main issues the DTSC was asking EPA to review as a result of the CCAEJ allegations were as follows: 1.) Whether any additional soil sampling was necessary onsite and offsite. 2.) Whether any additional ground water monitoring is necessary onsite and offsite. 3.) Whether EPA could provide any assistance to the DTSC in assessing the health related concerns reported by some members of the community around the site. The letter sent to the DTSC by CCAEJ on March 5th is as follows:
The letter from the CCAEJ written to the DTSC stated that the Voluntary Clean Up did not address the following:
1.) AG Park was formerly Camp Anza, a US Army Defense Site, which has potential explosives and chemical warfare material contamination. This presents a grave threat to the residents living on the three sides of this property and to the construction crews who are presently digging trenches for sewer pipes.
2.) The groundwater is contaminated with PCB’s, perchlorate, lead, thallium, dioxin and furans. It should be noted that the ground water flows directly into the Santa Ana River which is a primary source of drinking water for Orange County, therefore poses a real threat to that community as a result of potential substandard water quality.
3.) Sampling of the property was not done according to Federal EPA protocol. It appears that there was “selective sampling” of the property as a result of not following Federal EPA protocol. Therefore, when samples were taken they were not tested for the full range of contaminants such as metals, explosives, perchlorate, dioxin and furans; which are some of the most toxic chemicals known to science.
4.) A survey of the residents surrounding the AG Park indicate an elevated number of cancers which could indicate a cancer cluster.
5.) Dust monitoring logs indicate a high Part Per Million and particles exceeding the 10 micrometers in diameter in July 2013, this exceeds the maximum health level set by the Air Quality Management District (AQMD), thus causing the contamination of adjoining residential properties and injuring the lungs of residents. It also appears that the consultants for the City misinformed the DTSC of the true aspects of the site, rather than indicating it was a sewer site whereby toxins were dumped, they indicated the property as a Riverside City Disposal Site for excavated sidewalks and roadways. Ouch..not cool! Who were the consultants, were they Adkin Engineering? The consultants accordingly did not follow AQMD rule 1150, therefore did not send a report that the levels of PCB contaminants exceeded acceptable levels. Exceeding potential acceptable levels would indicate elevated levels of PCB’s in the air, thus contaminating residential properties and exposing residents to PCB’s.
6.) The City of Riverside identified ROHR as the source of the PCB’s and identified them the responsible party under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), but did not inform Riverside County or DTSC of this fact. There was also improper disposal of the main sewer, with the main pipeline to ROHR still remains intact and underground.
AG PARK: FOLLOWING EXPLOSIVE LETTER REVEALS WRONGDOING BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE BY CITY EMPLOYEE! “THERE WAS NO BLACK AND WHITE, ONLY SHADES OF GREY..”
Cathleen R. Baswell, Administrative Analyst for the City of Riverside, wrote the above letter and filed it with the City Clerk on July 7, 2015. According to the letter, allegations were made that the City of Riverside had no policy or protocol at the time. The protocol was assembled at the last minute and possibly used against the 15 workers, that they were at fault, and didn’t follow protocol. The question is, “Was this assembled protocol used by former City Attorney Greg Priamos when fighting against their workman compensation claims?”
She states in the letter that Brian Nakamura was Public Works Director, while Siobhan Foster was Deputy Director at the time of the 2003 Toxic Sewage Spill. It appears according to the letter that Foster was the “good soldier,” dependable and loyal, and carried out her superiors orders. With that, we now have a prominent UCR Toxicologist, Bob Krieger who lied, and threw what was left of integrity out the door.
TMC thanks Ms. Baswell in bringing this story to the forefront and helping City of Riverside employees and the taxpayers. This places a new light on a culture of cover ups of those in charge who not only endangered employee lives, taxpayer live but created liability for the taxpayers.
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST, “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” 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! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! WE JUST CAN’T SPELL! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT BY CONTACTING US AT: THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM
IG
Javier Moreno
TMC: Thirty Miles of Corruption 