According to the latest report released by the Grand Jury on July 2, 2015, they believe they were retaliated against by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, when on April 8, 2014, the 2013-2014 Riverside County Grand Jury made public a report entitled, “Political Reform and the Riverside County Board of Supervisors”. This report focused on the use of Community Improvement Designation (CID) Funds and was critical of the way some of the funds were utilized.
Fifty-eight days later, they state, a new County of Riverside County Counsel with a “controversial reputation, a known history of Grand Jury interference, and over the objections of many concerned citizens, was unanimously appointed by the Board of Supervisors.” According to the Grand Jury the following report is what started it all … or, in other words, HOW DARE THEY QUESTION OUR USE OF PUBLIC MONEY TO BOLSTER OUR CAMPAIGNS!?
Three main points were made in this newest release by the Riverside County Grand Jury with reference to County Counsel Gregory Priamos.
The first focused on the bid process. An anonymous Supervisor’s Chief of Staff, during testimony, was asked how extensive the geographic area was when the ‘Supes recruited for the position of County Counsel. His reply? “Three blocks.” Although not required, the Board of Supervisors chose not to use competitive procedures, and instead handed a $250,000/year position with lavish benefits over to a buddy of theirs. Was this was not Supervisor Marion Ashley’s Chief of Staff, Jaime Hurtado, whom we hear is being groomed to take over Ashley’s position?
Second, the Grand Jury had issues with Priamos’ “interference,” in their investigation. Priamos in an email, asked that all County Departments and Special Districts contact his office (specifically, Anita Willis and Jeb Brown – his main squeeze at the City of Riverside) immediately if contacted by the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury wants transparency and the truth when they interview people. The Grand Jury believes this message was sent to control County employees out of fear of retaliation should they not be able to speak privately with them. Nothing new to us hear at Thirty Miles: just Gregory attempting to have control of the message as he did in the City of Riverside.
Third, Priamos’s contract with the County should immediately be “nullified!” This means that the Grand Jury feels that the County Board of Supervisors did not execute best practices for the hiring of a qualified (cough, cough…ethical) County Counsel. Therefore, the Grand Jury is requesting the Board of Supervisors to conduct an actual, advertised recruitment for the position of County Counsel so that the best candidate can be appointed as County Counsel to serve the people of the Inland Empire. Opps..sorry Greg! That means somebody who is “not you.”
Since in his letter to county employee, Priamos references the County Executive Officer, Jay Orr, as his co-conspirator, perhaps the Grand Jury ought to investigate that angle as well, and whether Orr needs to be replaced…
County of Riverside, Executive Fool Officer, Jay Orr
County Sups, Just a Chain of Fools?
RIVERSIDE PUBLIC UTILITIES SAYS, “WE ARE IN THIS TOGETHER…”
What is not covered in the above memo is that if the State of California was really serious about the drought, they would place on moratorium on new development … of course that’s about as likely as the Gov Moonbeam’s bullet train coming in under budget.
So many issues with the current policies, we hardly know where to begin. While some are tearing out their front yards, if you have a pool, that’s exempt! What if you have a share of the Gage Canal water, which many homeowners do? …exempt!
In the City of Riverside, Brown is not only Sexy, it’s beautiful! Our front lawns may be brown but are back yard pools are bright blue full of water! Why is that folks? It could be that the City of Riverside has a Contractual Obligation to Riverside Property Owners to Provide Water! The City of Riverside has Pre-1914 Water Rights to Ground Water from the Bunker Hill Basin. Which means that we are not in control of the California State Water Resources Control Board, Why? Because we have our own Board, Why? Because we as a City own Our Water Rights! The Leadership of the City of Riverside misguided you, the taxpayer, to believe otherwise. Causing by their incompetence, that they, the Council, would like you to pay more to cover their illegitimate transgressions. Not to mention the illegitimate transgressions of your Pretty Boy Mayor, William Rusty Bailey. Vote No on Measure-Z 2016! Again those you have placed in leadership positions have deceived you! You will be paying more for the Heroes you thought were Heroes..Fire and Police. They are not are Heroes when it comes to scamming the taxpayer for perceived increases in pension and salary increases.
Riverside is unique in that we own our water. Twenty percent is sold to outside locals. So why are we conserving, while the city is mandated by law to harvest “x’ amount of water from the Bunker Hill Basin or lose those rights! New City Attorney Gary Geuss file a lawsuit on behalf of the public asking the State to reverse their requirements since we own our own water. What he forgot to tell the State is that the City has a “contractual” association with the homeowners that requires them to provide water. What this means is that it trumps the State Water Drought Declaration. More on this to come. What’s more egregious is that the city of Riverside is asking their residents to be “snitches” on their neighbors concerning the new restriction, which will of course cause further undo tension and discourse in the community…for absolutely no good reason.
BREAKING STORIES FROM THE PRESS ENTERPRISE REFERENCING RIVERSIDE PUBLIC UTILITIES.
JULY 04, 2015: CITY FIELDS QUESTION ON UTILITY RESERVES The question arises from community activists, based upon and city of Riverside public utility documents, whether its ratepayers, that’s you and me for the uninitiated, have over-charged for services over the past decade. The reserves have grown beyond what City official policies state, thereby violating those rules. The the city was caught with their pants down, so they’re crafting language for new policy, and spinning the criticism. We ask why is RPU General Manager, Girish Balanchandran, rewriting policy, if it wasn’t followed to begin with? Seems to us like a waste of time if the City’s just going to do whatever the heck it wants anyway.
There is no question in our minds that the new policy will be written specifically to bring into conformance the existing policy violations, so that no one ever has to take any accountability….same ‘ole, same ‘ole. The right thing to do would be to return the excess funds back to the ratepayers. But that will be a challenge: your public utilities (“We Own It!”) currently does not work in your best interests. What the City has done to the ratepayers over the years is just plain wrong.
JULY 02, 2015: RIVERSIDE: RESIDENTS WANT TO AX UTILITY TAX A common theme: residents are fed up with all the taxation. TMC is asking for your support to be part of a Ratepayer Advocacy Group that would serve as a watchdog on utility practices, and hopefully prevent some of the abuses we’ve suffered under the Loveridge/Hudson/Priamos (and their cronies) years. The Board of Public Utilities does not advocate for the taxpayer, but for the city.
Finance Director Brent Mason stated that the utility user tax brings in $30 million a year to the general fund to pay for police, fire, parks and other services …. we thought that was what the General Fund Transfer was for!? Seems to us like double taxation.
The utility users tax is not a sales tax (the State administers those); it’s an excise tax. Riverside residents pay the City for the “luxury” of gas, water, electric, and phone service. I don’t know about you, but those don’t seem like luxuries to me. They should all be repealed. The City needs to stop abusing its residents through excessive taxation in the form of fees like the Utility Users Tax and General Fund Transfer at its public (aka, monopoly) utility or risk losing them both…and maybe even its entire utility…in the process. My belief is that the City is breaking the social compact to provide these services at “cost plus” and will pay a steep price if it doesn’t come to the table soon with those that want reform at RPU. Just my two cents. – Jason Hunter, commentor to the Press Enterprise
THANK YOU CITY OF RIVERSIDE AND SUPPORTERS OF TMC FOR REACHING 200,000 HITS!
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST, “DISGUSTING,” “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,” “ABOMINABLE,” “APPALLING,” “DETESTABLE,” “SLEAZY,” “SLANDEROUS,” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! YES WE ARE ALL OF THIS, WE ADMIT IT, SO PLEASE…DO NOT READ IF OFFENDED! 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
On November 19, 2013, Vivian Moreno was at home reviewing the City Council video when Item #21 caught her curiosity. The question arose. Was Councilman Steve Adams telling the Riverside citizens in an open forum that one or all of his council members are corrupt? Yes he did!
His Video Statement: “We’ve seen it happen in Moreno Valley, we’ve seen it happen in San Bernardino, I’ve seen similar issues here. They can lobby us, they can talk to us, there is absolutely nothing we can do legally. In my ten years, have I seen council members try to influence things? ABSOLUTELY! I think it is inappropriate.”
Steve Adams, you talk about the perception of collusion and how we need to be more transparent. At the Governmental Affairs Meeting in October 2013 he stated, “I can’t count how many times this has happened here (Riverside).” We now need to take a look at how the action of lobbying effect are politics, in my estimation lobbying entails influence and money, as City Attorney Greg Priamos would say without coming out to say anything, this could give the “perception.” In my eyes, this certainly can give the perception of bribery. Bribery and lobbying seem to comingle, just like a bad monthly finance statement. But is bribery what is really occurring? Incidently Dvonne Pitruzzello had asked Congressman Ken Calvert if their office would look into the allegations of Sewer Bond Fraud, but was responded with deaf ears. As we know Congressman Ken Calvert has had his issue in the past, but you as constituents continue to vote for him. Who’s fault is it for faulty representation? Look in the mirror folks.
COUNCILMAN STEVE ADAM’S ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL? EVEN AT COUNCILMAN’S MIKE SOUBIROU’S WARD 3 INAUGURATION AT CITY COUNCIL?
Councilman Steve Adams spoke of corruption in the City of Riverside at a November 2013 City Council Meeting. Some of the key pieces are as follows:
“We’ve seen it happen in Moreno Valley, we’ve seen it happen in San Bernardino, I’ve seen similar issues here. They can lobby us, they can talk to us, there is absolutely nothing we can do legally.”
“In my ten years, have I seen council members try to influence things? ABSOLUTELY! I think it is inappropriate.”
In another completely different scenerio, Councilman Steve Adams at an October 2013 Governmental Affairs Committee Meeting stated the following:
“In my ten years…I’ve seen…I can’t count how many…I won’t even attempt to. The number of times that a council member injected themselves in this process…tried to influence the process. I think this is innaproppriate.”
“I think this staff is a good staff to eliminate that, because they may be personal friends, people that they’ve done business with. Whatever the situation is, this eliminates the possibility of, or impropriety of happening.”
“Because I’ve seen it to many times. You can’t say it doesn’t happen…it does. And if it is eliminated from being possible, the repercussions, your eliminating the process of events…incentive enough not to violate this process.”
“Because the pressure of the public already is that everything we do is corrupt, no matter what it is. So I think it just gives us that buffer,of, that there is no chance of impropriety..because have there been…they would’ve been removed. So nobody is getting special treatment.”
“But I can say that I have on one or more occasion seen some of my colleagues inject themselves into this process to try to influence the process. I think it is inappropriate.”
The ethics complaint again Councilman Steve Adams is as follows. It indicates that he, as a sworn elected official, had a duty to the taxpayer to reveal any wrong doing that would not be in the best interest of the taxpayer.
“If something is wrong, it needs to be fixed, and I don’t care which party or which people are to blame.” “I will always take the stand for what is right.”
“When you stand up to the status quo, you’re always going to be attacked. And folks, I was born to ready to take on those attacks.”
Adams makes two important points, one, he will all stand for what is right, and two, he will stand up to the status quo. We believe at TMC, that leaders, those representative of the people, should not allow others or themselves to circumvent the law, no matter what it is, a parking ticket, DUI, political corruption etc…
AGAIN, RIVERSIDIAN’S ARE ASKING THE QUESTION, OF CONGRESSMAN CANDIDATE STEVE ADAMS….WHY DIDN’T HE STAND UP FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH FOR PUBLIC SPEAKERS KAREN WRIGHT AND ATTORNEY LETITIA PEPPER?
UPDATE: ATTORNEY LETITIA PEPPER WON’T BE CHARGED DO TO INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE!
According to the “Citizen’s Arrest” document signed by Mayor Rusty Bailey, a line was place over the following statement: “that at the time of the arrest I informed the said defendent of his/her arrest, and my authority to make it.” This whole thing stinks to high Bailey heaven… Again this is proof that RPD is unresponsive to Letitia Pepper, and DA Zellerbach does not find this a situation to express a legal opinion. Many citizens are asking the question, is Zellerbach owned by the City of Riverside?
Attorney Letitia Pepper’s citizen arrest form was of course refused by the attending Riverside Police Officer based on his assertion that there was no real evidence to sustain an arrest against the Mayor William ‘Rusty’ Bailey. Evidently by Sgt. Patrick McCarthy stated Leticia had no evidence to sustain an arrest against Mayor Bailey.
Sgt. Patrick McCarthy, Riverside Police Department
But in true accord with the first citizen arrest against Letitia Pepper, the RPD officer failed to realize that there was evidence to sustain an arrest against the Mayor. But RPD officers arrested Ms. Pepper as we all know it, with “insufficient evidence” as stated by the D.A.’s office. So, is this really about right and wrong, or just not liking what someone says in Mayor Bailey’s classroom? Or simply of an attempt to show who’s the boss by a mediocre endeavor by the new Mayor to display power?
City of Riverside Mayor Rusty Bailey Sorry, Mayor William Rusty Bailey
Why did the attending officer refuse? Was it because of the presence in the city of Riverside that Mayor Bailey’s father hold? Mayor Bailey’s father is non other than Judge Bailey. Judge William R. Bailey II is connected to a close associate, friend and founding father of the infamous Riverside Best, Best & Krieger law firm, Judge John Gabbert. Does anybody see the light on this one? Are we actually coming to answers of why the City of Riverside is the way that it is politically?
First, there was a Citizen’s arrest form signed by Bailey himself, accusing Pepper of violating PC 403, and the City’s own video tape was evidence to the reveal that Ms. Pepper did not disrupt the public meeting and therefore did not violate PC 403. We often said, as many have said who live in this great city we call Riverside, we have a culture and practice of status quo. To many, it’s simply known as corruption. Many in the community are afraid to state this publicly. Why is it? Is it not public servants work in the employment and service of the taxpaying constituents?
I had the citizen’s arrest form signed by Bailey accusing me of violating PC 403, and the City’s own video tape that showed I did not disrupt the public meeting and therefore did not violate PC 403, Ms. Pepper stated.
The question many Riversidian’s are having these days, is what would happen if Mayor Rusty Bailey attempted to tell either of these two folks to stop clapping?
A WORD TO THE WISE AND FOR FUTURE REFERENCE: UNLESS CHARGES ARE ACTUALLY FILED, NO NEED TO SHOW UP IN COURT!
According to the reporter, the DA’s Office said it had been decided in December not to charge me, but it also decided not to bother to TELL me that. That was inconsiderate enough, but what the DA’s Office did to Karen Wright was terrible. It sent her a letter saying it was not going to charge her, but that she was probably guilty! Since when does the prosecutor get to take the place of a jury of 12 people? -Commenters on the PE, Letitia Pepper
The DA has 1 year to file charges on a misdemeanor citation. If he doesn’t file charges, the case doesn’t get put on calendar, so there’s no reason to go to court. THAT’S why I never appeared in court:: there was no court case. Karen Wright actually showed up in court on the day on her citation, and nothing happened because no charges had been filed; so she’d been worried and inconvenienced and appeared in court for no reason; I wasn’t going to show up unless charges were actually filed. – Commenter on the PE, Letitia Pepper
With the Karen Wright case being dropped by the DA, now again insufficient evidence on part of Mayor Bailey’s citizen arrest and Letitia Pepper’s case dropped. It would stand to reason to question anything those in an elected position would do. Riverside residents continue to live in city which has two sets of rules. But on a brighter note, it appears Ms. Pepper may have recourse against Mayor Bailey on possible grounds of a false arrest. Hope she will keep the fire burning on this one. – Commenter on the PE, Bret Hudson
Mayor Bailey can rule the city as a Dictator but citizens have Constitutional rights. The DA is in the pocket of the crooks in office and did as he was told. Both women should file Federal charges. Just think a citizens spoke out when a US President was speaking and he said she had rights. But Bailey wants puppets and yes sir people. The tape spoke to the truth and the Mayor lied and the DA knows it. –Commenter on the PE, Jackalyn Rawlings
Rusty is trying hide what is happening in this city by trying to control citizens free speech. You cannot pick and choose who may speak and who may clap. Wait till everyone’s sewer bill doubles. Let’s see him keep the citizens quiet. – Commenter on the PE, Dvonne M. Pitruzzello
The Mayor was out of line in having the police remove Pepper for clapping. He looked petty and overbearing. The council chambers are not his classroom. It is not his dad’s courtroom. And it is not a military setting. He was not elected to rule over us. – Commenter on the PE, Opaque
A retired DA told me WHY the DA’s Office sends people those letters saying the DA is not going to charge you even though you’re guilty. It’s because arrests go on your permanent record with the Department of Justice (or INjustice), and, if the DA sends you that kind of letter, they STAY on your record. So, you are denied the right to a jury trial, and have to hire an attorney to go to court and put on a case to have a judge make a finding of factual innocence to get the arrest expunged. – Commenter on the PE, Attorney Letiticia Pepper
The Mayor was out of line in having the police remove Pepper for clapping. He looked petty and overbearing. The council chambers are not his classroom. It is not his dad’s courtroom. And it is not a military setting. He was not elected to rule over us.
THE CONNIE LEACH TAXPAYER PAID EXPENSES…YOU ASKED FOR! The following are just a smidgen of some of the receipts turned in by Connie Leach for reimbursement, starting with a camera purchased in care of the taxapayer.
Connie Leach, the wife of Chief of Police Russ Leach and hired by the City of Riverside as an independent contractor to oversee the Multicultural Youth Organization, which was a youth program initiated by former Mayor Loveridge. She was hired by contract to run this project, she also had an extravigant expense account that was paid for by the taxpayer. Most organizations have donations pay for expenses. Here are some of the receipts we found.
When the Grand Jury was doing it’s investigation into the Connie Leach case, both Mary Figueroa and Dvonne Pitruzzello had been interviewed. Pitruzzello told the Grand Jury that the person you want to talk to is Vivian Moreno, this was beacause she did the majority of the investigative research and was fully knowledgeable of the events that occured. Moreno was next in line to be interviewed and the Grand Jury had just submitted a multitude of document request from the City of Riverside. The investigation was suddenly squashed a couple of weeks later by a letter sent to Figueroa stating the investigation was unfounded. Though to this day, their has not been a formal investigation of the findings and a conclusion submitted online. Why hasn’t this occurred? Was there a cover up or a failure of the current DA to take on what could possibly be an embarrassing event in his own back yard? The following is the original complaint submitted to the Riverside Grand Jury back in March 2011.
The rumor mill states that then Mayor Ron Loveridge may have had something to do with this in conjuction with DA Paul Zellerbach, in order to stop the proceedings. We now ask the question, if this is true, wouldn’t that be jury tampering?
STREET SWEEPING..SHOULD IT BE SWEPT UNDER THE RUG?
Incidently, Measure A was also indicated to pay for street sweeping in the form of keeping are streets clean as in this ad in favor of Measure A paid by the taxpayer. A bit of a conflict I would say.
In the City of Riverside the resident continue to double and triple pay for services they should receive through their property taxes. This is only one example, but we not only see it in street sweeping, but in tree maintenance, parking, utility rates etc.
According to Dan Berstein, Press Enterprise, many of the no parking signs do not mention “street sweepint.” TMC contributors have also noticed that certain areas of the city including commerical areas, no citations are given to illegally parked vehicles during street sweeping day. Another double standard of punishment to the tax payer. It appears that tickets are focused on property owners. Maybe for alterion motives, if a ticket is not paid will place it on a lien against your property, or simply make it difficult to pay your next car registration.
CITY WI-FI TO BE ELIMINATED, BUT WASN’T MEASURE A TO PREVENT THAT?
PENSION BACKDRAFT: IS FIRE CHIEF STEVE EARLEY FEELING THE HEAT OF FIRE AT HIS FEET?
Back in October 2002, Steve Earley submitted this paper to FEMA regarding the defeciencies within the Riverside Fire Department. Primarily focusing on the preparing personnel for management positions. Earley became Fire Chief in 2009; the contradiction is that currently he decided to retire as Riverside’s Fire Chief at 55 years of age, and take on a new position with the City of Riverside as Fire Administrator. In doing so, no valid successor as Fire Chief could be found. Three possibilities will be rotated, and in doing so, will also be each elgible for a 5% raise, and it was left as that. Was this another scheme by the City Manager Scott Barber to spike the pensions of these three Fire Chief candidates? Why would a Fire Chief with intellectual knowledge, not act or have a plan for his replacement? Why must the taxpayer be responsible for Chief Earley’s irresponsbilities? He stated the deficiencies in the Riverside Fire Department, and as acting Fire Chief never acted or implemented guidelines or criteria to reach these goals?
What did Earley do to protect the taxpayers against the misinformation of losing 12 Firefighters if Measure A did not pass? Support it? As in this taxpayer paid mailer shows below, and taxpayers thought they had a choice when it comes to voting…Not in Riverside:
Some say he worked hard for his money and the city, he deserves it. I know a lot of people who work hard for their money, but will never get the compensation such as is seen in the government public sector. It used to be that the big homes were owned by entrepreneurs and business people, now they are owned by government employees.
Scott Simpson was former Chief of Enforcement for the California EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control, and also worked for the Department of Food and Agriculture in their Environmental Hazards Assessment Program specializing in ground water contamination:
Yesterday, the governor declared a statewide water emergency. It will allow the city to raise water rates without a hearing per Prop. 218. However, we are water dependent. This means we do not purchase imported (expensive) water. Remember, we sell water to Colton, Rialto, Fontana, High Grove, Home Gardens, Corona, Rubidoux and the WMWD. We own court adjudicated water rights to annually harvest more water than the city uses. Approximately 20% of our water is sold outside the city. Most if not all of our water rights are a type that requires the city to pump and use it or loose it forever. Our rights to the water can be taken away by anyone should we stop harvesting all of the water.
So where does water conservation fit in? The Governors Emergency? Once again we will be urged to conserve and leave the water in the ground?! Not hardly, this is why we sell water outside the city–we have to in order to maintain the legal protections for our water rights. So we will told to use less water, pay more for less water, and the city will sell your water to others and continue to approve new developments (future water customers) in spite of state law specifying that during a declaration of emergency “no new connections to the city water system can be approved.” Riverside the city of Honesty, Clarity, Transparency and Measure A.
You may remember, TMC wrote about this in a past posting, whereby former Utilities Manager Dave Wright asked council for their blessing. If people are to be confronted with a new charge, which is really a tax, the city should justify the direct benefit to the property owners. It appeared the city could not.
On the other hand, regarding Electricity, if the people of Riverside would see the invoices on the wholesale purchases of electric credits for the City, they would be surprised. The purchase rates are hardly nothing, the gouging of the citizens is. The city even has electric credits that have not even been used. We should also ask the city about their off book accounts in the Power Department. Another L.A. DWP fiasco?
Here’s a response to the water hikes From the Desk of Scott Simpson:
There is according to some sources, over a million acre feet of water in the Bunker Hill Basin (San Berdo). This is the source of our water (we use about 80K acre/ft. and sell to other water agencies about 25K acre/ft. We pump and use all we can for fear of loosing it in a legal challenge to our right to harves water. Use it or lose it is how our water law works. So we a lot of excess water pumping every year to protect the legal right to harvest all that we own. It is so much more than we use each year that we sell it far under wholesale market value. We take a loss on these sales in order to secure long term selling contracts for disposal of our annual excess harvest.
Conservation in Riverside means we sell more of our water outside the city in $ losing contracts! It means nothing to us as far as protecting our annual supply. We are annually ordered by a Court appointed water master to pump all of our water and more, or lose the future rights to pump it forever. So our City Water Conservation ordinance is a fraud. State policy to conserve water is VOLUNTARY, because some areas in the state are under Court order to pump and use according to prior adjudication of a regions wate rights. It is history and law that goes back to the beginning of California in 1849.
The purple pipe is another project for future development/population increase. State Law specifies that new infrastructure to serve new development (or our downtown redevelopment of high occupancy buildings) is required to recover the infrastructure cost via property assessments to the parcels that receive the benefit.
State Water policy conflicts with our constitution and law if you apply it in an area like Riverside as our city is doing. Instead, our city wants to put the cost on our water bill under the guise of following state water conservation policy. This increases the cash flow of water sales and Measure A sweeps more money into the general fund every month. Increases in utility rates, fees and charges will always send more cash to the general fund. This is why we, the current residential utility customers of Riverside are subsidizing the infrastructure investment to prepare the city for future growth. We are being scamed.
-Scott Simpson, (former Chief of Enforcement for the California EPA Department of Toxic Control Substances, specializing in ground water contamination.)
TO RENEW OR NOT TO RENEW A WATER CONSERVATION SURCHARGE? CITY OF RIVERSIDE RESIDENTS QUESTION THIS NEW TAX.
The following came in the mail of City of Riverside residents the first week of February 2014, that Riverside Public Utilities is proposing to renew the 1.5% Water Conservation Surcharge. Well it’s being called a Surcharge, but that is code word of Tax, and all Taxes by law must be brought to a Vote of the residents.
According to the mailing insert, the surcharge will expire May 31, 2014. Therefore, there will be a hearing March 21, 2014 at 8:30 am at the Public Utilities Boardroom, located at 3901 Orange Street, Riverside. At this time, the board will consider all public protest and objections. Usually what we find is that hardly any of the public ever show up, or can show up for that matter due to the time element, most people work and cannot participate in this democratic process. The board may just find that no showed and push through the renewal of this surcharge. But again, this surcharge should be challenged, because what it is in essence, is a TAX.
We have since found that the Tokyo based 7-Eleven’s have been trying to force out many older store owners on bogus grounds in order to get the stores for free and then to re-sell them as part of 7-Eleven’s new expansion plans. In another words, it appears that the Tokyo based 7-Elevens are attempting to attain profitable stores by any means possible only to flip them at exorbitant profits! The Patel’s 7-Eleven Store is on Jurupa and Magnolia in Riverside.
RIVERSIDE DISTRICT ATTORNEY PAUL ZELLERBACH BANNED FROM SPEAKING AT LOCAL MIDDLE SCHOOL? DAM IT ALL ANY HOO..
What the #$%*!, Opps, I did it again… Ah *!#&%..
According to the Press Enterprise, DA Paul Zellerbach in an election year, won’t be invited back to talk to school children at Gage Middle School, as a result of his use of a profane word, “dam.” But it seemed uplifting to know, that the PE states he hasn’t been “blacklisted”, which sounds more devasting than just being banned from one school. But it also seems that the PE didn’t get it all correct when it came to the profane termology use at the school. According to KESQ News out in Palm Springs, he also used “ass” and “bullshit” as well. According to commenter Bill Wallace on the PE, Zellerbach was only trying to “keep it real.” Others have told TMC that the middle school should not have been offended, since these kids usually hear or use far worse profane terms on the school yard…
What does Vivian Moreno’s best friend, Riverside School Board Member Tom Hunt have to say about all this?
Anyway, TMC came up with some possible alternatives swear terms that good ol DA may consider to use in place of the offensive ones and help prevent him from becoming black listed, and best of all, still keep it real!
Here you Go: Fudge!, Fiddle Sticks!, Jiminy Crickets!, Schucks!, Dagnabbit!, Gee Whiz!, Fish Sticks!, Holy Cow!, Sufferin Succotash!, Geez Loise!, Golly Gee!, Drat!, Oh My Goodness!, Leapin Lizzards!, Sam Hill!, Bummer!, Balderdash!, Crabcakes!, Doggone!, Heck!, Goodness!, Good Grief!, Gadzooks!, My Word!, Gobbledygook!, Hogwash!, Holy Frijoles!, Hockey Puck!, Kawabunga!, Mother of Pearl!, etc. etc. So much for “sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”
Maybe Middle Schools should consider a sign for the adults, not sure if this would apply to the children…that’s left to be seen. But many are asking the question if this was politically motivated. Was this actually about the middle school kids or the teacher’s unions?
SHOULD WE WORRY ABOUT POLICE OFFICER’S IN RIVERSIDE GIVING TICKETS TO BICYLCIST FOR UNSAFE DRIVING? This was a TMC submission which shows an occurence between a Venice Beach bicyclist and an L.A. Police Officer on patrol with his motorcycle on a beach bike lane (is that even legal). This was not meant to give the City of Riverside any ideas.
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA? RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM
State Controller John Chiang announced May 16, 2013 their completion of review of the assets transferred by the City of Riverside’s redevelopment agency (RDA) prior to its dissolution. The review found that the RDA is not only in current possession of $30.45 million in real property that it no longer is legally entitled to hold, but that it inappropriately transferred another $64.25 million in real property to the City, which equals out to a mere $94.7 million. In other words, the City of Riverside knowingly stole the properties prior to the dissolution date of June 28, 2011 for RDA, even though the State Controller John Chiang’s sent a letter with instructions. Now in the case of the $64.25 million in properties illegally transferred, the City contends that the Title companies refuse to now change title back to the State. Does the Title company sniff something illegal? Well they didn’t seem to have a problem transfering the properties and giving title to the City. But now the City contends that the problem with the transfer had something to do with title insurance.! In case people didn’t know RDA (Redevelopment Agency) was operated and administered by the our City Council. This is John Chiangs letter dated April 20, 2012 which describes RDA dissolution as well as what assets in regards to property need to be transfered back.
The law requires that all RDA assets transferred to a city, county or other public agency after January 1, 2011, must be returned to its successor agency, unless the assets were committed to a private third party by June 28 of that year. It certainly appears that the City of Riverside thought differently on this issue, even though local watchdogs continued to warn them, but fell on deaf ears. Some of the players at the time were former Mayor Ron Loveridge, former City Manager Brad Hudson and Chief Financial Officer/Assistant City Manager/Treasurer Paul Sundeen (Yes, he actually had three job titles).
According to an auditing review by State Controller John Chiang’s office, they determined that the State RDA successor agency is owed $94.7 million in properties. The City of Riverside is ordered to transfer all properties back. Now what you may not know is that the City Council was told that when the properties were transfered from Redevelopment before it resolved, it was an illegal action. The proof we had was as follows.
So that didn’t help so we thought that the next action would be road trip, of course, Sacramento. Do we have another Moreno Valley occurring in Riverside, will people go to jail on this one? Why didn’t Councilperson Nancy Hart’s Monthly, Bi-Monthly, (Not sure), Finance Committee Meeting catch this? Afterall they had the “experts.” But two misinformed citizen of Riverside, Dvonne Pitruzzello and Vivian Moreno found this. They went to City Hall and told them about this, the Council did nothing. So two took a road trip to Sacramento to meet with the State Controller Office. It appears that all the laws were not adhered to as we were assured by the City.
I asked my electeds questions about these properties along with other nice folks in 2011 and they assured us along with the city management that everything was done appropriately and by the book. They kind of implied we were liars and troublemakers too but what was the truth? Why does the State Comptroller now agree that the properties were inappropriately handled by the city and its RDA? Are they liars and trouble makers too? – Mary Shelton, Commenter on the P.E.
Riverside blew an elaborate shell game. Someone needs to do time for this lie. – Ernie Tyler, Commenter on the P.E.
We certainly know that $64 thousand is different from $64 million, which was the amount in question. Further, what the City said is that the Title companies refused to go along with the city’s attempt to transfer ownership from the former redevelopment agency to the successor agency (a new agency created in care of the State to handle the dissolution of RDA assets).
In a statement released Thursday, May 16, State Controller John Chiang stated, “After decisions by the governor and Legislature to disband redevelopment, my office is working to make sure all remaining RDA assets, including those in Riverside, are used properly to retire debt and pay for critical local public services, such as education and public safety.” In the Riverside audit, the controller’s office found the city’s former redevelopment agency transferred $142 million worth of property after January 2011. Of that, about $64 million is out of compliance with the June 2011 law dissolving the agencies, the controller’s office reported. The audit also said that Riverside’s former redevelopment agency still has $30.45 million in assets which have not been transferred?
TEN THOUSAND SHORT?
When Redevelopment was dissolved, the State of California mandated the creation of Successor Agencies, which would be at the local level in care of the State of California in order to handle assets of the debunked RDA. The City in terms of ROPS, could request payments for RDA projects which legitimately followed Redevelopment Law. The State Controller, John Chiang, saw that the City of Riverside was not lawfully in compliance again with Redevelopment Law. In this case a new board was created of the usual suspects, now called the Successor Agency, while, in case people didn’t know, the original RDA (Redevelopment Agency) was operated and administered by the our City Council.
WHAT DOES A FORMER FINANCE DIRECTOR FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SAY: STOP THIS RIP-OFF BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE – VOTE NO ON MEASURE A!
Comment written in support of No on Measure A by former Finance Director (92-94), County of Riverside, Tom Courbat :
I believe Measure A is illegal as it provides for some NON-WATER DEPARTMENT CUSTOMERS to vote on whether a portion of payments made by WATER DEPARTMENT CUSTOMERS shall be transferred from the Water Department to the General Fund of the City of Riverside. Since any city residents who do NOT receive water from the city have no vested interest (no “skin in the game” as it were), there should be no basis for allowing them to vote on whether the city should be allowed to continue the illegal practice of using excess Water Department earnings in the general fund. Proposition 218 is very clear, UTILITY FUNDS COLLECTED FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE (e.g. providing water) MAY NOT BE USED FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE. The city has been aware of this prohibition since 1996 and has blatantly continued this practice until private citizens had to sue to make them stop violating the law.
The use of scare tactics (we’ll take away your free Internet, swimming, certain police protections) is reminiscent of the roaring 30′s – you pay gangsters for “protection” and you’ll be able to continue to run your business without gangsters tearing up your place of business or scaring off your customers. The use of these Water Department funds for police, fire, parks, etc. has been illegal since 1996 – why should Water Department customers have to pay twice for the same service? They pay the same taxes as everyone else in the city for police, fire, parks, etc. and then they pay ANOTHER 11.5% when funds are transferred from the Water Department to the General Fund. Clearly the Water Department is charging more than its cost of operation (also against the law) so that an 11.5% “slush fund” is created and then slipped over to the general fund. Any legitimate audits of the Water Department should have pointed out the illegality of this practice years ago.
It’s EXACTLY like what I saw on the reality show “Kitchen Nightmares” tonight. The owner of the restaurant was paying his waiters/waitresses an hourly rate. All tips left by customers (who CLEARLY intended the tips to be for the servers) were kept by the OWNER who prohibited his staff from pocketing ANY tips left for them. When the customers were informed that the owner was pocketing the tips, they were absolutely outraged!! So should every voter in this election be outraged. Water charges are to pay for water, not police & parks. Tips are for the workers, not the owners.
STOP THIS RIP-OFF BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE – VOTE NO ON MEASURE A!
Tom Courbat Former Finance Director County of Riverside
Well stated Tom, we’ve stating this for years, but of course we are crazy or misinformed, because this is how they continue to treat and think of the community, because it is about the them not the communtiy. The money as we’ve been stating for years has no accounting whereby the City states it is being allocated for particular services such as police and fire. No documents responsive, so what are the taxpayers to think, except that for years this has been an 11.5% slush fund.
MEASURE-A UPDATE
The ring leader, as we feel, could be none other than former Mayor Ron Loveridge, whom has operated this city as some underworld organization. The community has an opportunity to begin to take back their City, and not have the follow in the footsteps of San Bernardino and Moreno Valley. Don’t fall into their trap of scare tactics; ask them the hard questions. Property taxes pay for City services, where is this money really going? But why are they working so hard to pass this measure? Even the Press Enterprise is on it. Is it because they’ve recieved special utility rates in the past from the City? Or is it because the City is helping them with a new location for their business? Could it be Developer’s Mark Rubin’s Citrus Towers? Or is it that we do not want to upset the fact that the County of Riverside is intending to purchase their building, of course they did. What ever it is, the stress levels with City personal and staff are high.
What appears to be more outrageous is that the City seems to have plenty of money in the General Fund Reserves to subsidize the new Black Box Theatre. This at a time when the City is claiming foul, and if Measure A doesn’t pass, the City will be on its way to doom and gloom. The City claims that the 11.5% transfer has paid for a multitude of city services, but they are unable to produce documents revealing how it was spent. The hypothetical question is, if the transfer money never actually paid for City services, what did it really pay for? Well we don’t know that either. The approximately $6 million which appears to magic because it seems to fund everything under the sun that property taxes through the general fund does. If in fact the 11.5% transferred all these programs and services, you would think that the City would immediately lease the Fox Theatre. The Fox Theatre is currently running at a yearly deficit of approxixmately $3 million. We just found $3 million just by leasing the Fox to the private sector. There is no doubt in my mind that the City continues to cry wolf, and the sad ending to this is no one is listening.
While Councilman Steve Adams accuses representatives of the No on Measure A campaign of misinformation, he threatens the community by stating that if Measure A does not pass we will have to raise water rates and raise taxes. Now this is a councilman who is rumored to have aspirations of running for Congress. Well, Mr. Congressman raising water rates and raising taxes are not that easy, you’ll have to justify it, and so far you cannot even justify the current accounting on the transfer! If you have to strong arm and scare the community into voting on an illegal measure, then you lack leadership abilities.
Measure A looks good to the Press Enterprise. We at TMC question that move. Was it because you didn’t want to upset the deal with the County of Riverside? Was it because you receive special utility rates with the City of Riverside? Was it because the City of Riverside is rumored to be assisting in locating an alternate location which is amicable? Would it be with developer Mark Rubin’s Citrus Tower’s? Contractually recieving better utility rates from the City of Riverside would this in fact effect your reporting? I hope not, why have a paper that destroys the illusion of the Fourth Branch of Government?
The people of the City of Riverside pay every month for the Fox Theatre, and the City would like the taxpayer to foot the bill for the Black Box Theatre, but most of the people footing the bill can’t afford to go to the Fox. This at a time when the City is claiming for the first time in 16 years that the $6.1 million water transfer pays for essential services. So how may I ask, does the City justify funding the Black Box Theatre at a cost to the taxpayer of close to $500,000.00 over 2 years, until it is able to sustain a profit and pay for itself. If you can afford the Black Box you can afford Police and Fire.
CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE
I recalled this was the same line statement made regarding the Fox Theatre and currently it is running at a yearly $3 million deficit. So we have $3 million plus $0.5 million, what do we have, $3.5 million. That’s $2.5 million away from what the City claims they will be losing. Mayor Bailey went over budget in his mayor’s office by a miniscal $100,000.00. There’s another 100K, and council just voted to hand over $750,000.00 to the Fairmont Park Golf Course. How much are we at now? Pretty close? Then you have Mayor Bailey with the Streetcar Named Debacle idea? Again, and again we the continued excessive spending and no cutbacks. What you have here is that the City will threaten the residents to cut essential services such as Police and Fire, which by the way are already covered by property taxes, if Measure A is not passed. This they will do before cutting non-essential services or expenses that continue to incurr as a deficit to the taxpayer. Well, shame on them.
In the City’s desperation, they continue to stray into the gray areas of an FPPC violation, but that does not stop them. Now there attempt to explain their slush fund over the areas has metamorphisized into some City services, to just about every service under the sun is funded by this $6 million water transfer. Ask them specifically how they have spent this money over the last 16 years, they don’t have an answer. The accounting stops when the monies are deposited into the General Fund, then it’s tracks are lost, not to be found. It’s how the City wants it, it is the way it has always been since Ron Loveridge became Mayor.
Was Ron Loveridge a Proposition 218 proponent? Was he a Propostion 13 proponent? Probably not, he has done everything to change that. In otherwords, counter to everything that is in effect, beneficial to the taxpayer. Why is that former Mayor Luv? And why are the Police and Fire Unions spending so much money to buy your vote? Is it really about them rather than the residents?
Another letter of support regarding the Moreno’s Water Lawsuit. This from a former City Finance Director.
CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE
MR. LIABILITY HEARING THE BEAT OF A DIFFERENT DRUM, OR JUST BEATING THE SAME OLE’ DRUM TO DEATH?
Drumming up controversy, Councilman Steve Adams had alot to say regarding public speakers and disinformation. I guess he forgot that public speakers tried to reach out years ago involving problems the City could have with issues concerning Proposition 218. When brought to the forefront of the Council, those interest resulted in deaf ears. The law suit filed by citizens resulted in a win for the residents of the City of Riverside. But what will eventually happen according to Adams, is that the City will retaliate against the citizens of Riverside, this in my opinion for not voting in favor of Measure A. If this is to occur Adams states we will have to make up this money through higher water rates and increase taxes. Typical Adams? But the reality of higher rates and taxes is to sustain their slush fund, and continued mismanagement of taxpayer monies. Or is it to help pay off the astronimical debt incurred to the taxpayer due to the Renaissance projects? This is a fund which has no accounting of how tax monies were spent… and now aspirations for Congress?
Councilman Adams getting cozy with Congressman Calvert, failed to respond to our inquiries regarding bond fraud in the City of Riverside, but it seems he responds better to a side of the road transaction.
Like electing Bernie Madoff as Mayor or Treasury secretary. Adams has proved he is not even qualified as councilmen. He used the illegal license plates for over a year and knew he was wrong as he was an ex police officer. Then he cost the taxpayers 10 million in a settlement when he influenced the promotions of the police department. Why would the city elect a proven criminal to Congress even if the Ward accepts his behavior. The DOJ has enough work with the current Congressmen who are committed crimes then to add another one. We saw the former Police Chief embarrass the city and how well he worked with Steve Adams. Just think how people were played for fools when a former police officer Steve Adams said he did not know the untraceable license plates only given to under cover federal officers which ever local police officer knows. – Jackie Rawlings, Commenter on the PE.
Isn’t this the Adams when cofronted by a public speaker at City Council regarding his excessive spending on food via the taxpayer, answered back, “Well, I gotta eat!” or who answered back, “Yes!” when he was asked if he thought disability was funny?
HUNT, HUNTING FOR ISSUES WHICH NEED TO BE FERRETED OUT?
Tom Hunt, member of the RUSD Board of Education, calls certain people who have a personal problem with the city council because they were evicted from their city owned businesses. It may be that he doesn’t understand that there are several degrees of “deadbeats” according to the City, the ones that the City likes and the ones they don’t, and there are those who the City supports and haven’t given them a late fee etc., and others that have and wouldn’t follow the program and you never want to do that, and there are those who just don’t follow the vision set forth by the City, and of course, there are those who have been railroaded.. We can ask former City Manager Brad Hudson about that one, but he suddenly skipped town a couple of years ago. But don’t hold me on this, in fact don’t even put a gun to my head on this issue…
Making the case in favor of Measure A can’t be made, since it has been made. Placing the issue on the ballot was not the idea or request in the Moreno’s lawsuit, but a offered by the City’s team of attorney’s. I would imagine it this decision was made by the foremost attorney on Proposition 218 and a co-author of the Proposition 218 implementation guide, the City of Riverside’s hired attorney, Michael G. Colantuono. We also recommend also to bring you questions on the legalities of Measure A to Attorney General, Kamal Harris at 1-800-952-5225. The Moreno’s case fell under the realms of what is known as the Private Attorney General Act.
DISPORTIONALITY IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT WHEN IT COMES TO THE FAIRNESS OF THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER AND MEASURE A.
There are other’s who are Riverside residents who received Measure A ballots but are not Public Utility customers since they are on their own well water.
But as we have been saying along, water utilities cannot be a profit making entity. City Clerk Coleen Nicol statement regarding public utility customers outside the City of Riverside is as follows: “they’re paying for water. The profit that the utility realizes, the citizens of Riverside have decided that a portion of the utility’s profit will be transferred to the general fund.” Proposition 218 voted overwhelmingly by the voters in 1996 by 85% stated otherwise.
“That’s just the way it works” stated Councilman Paul Davis. But don’t we as constituents elect officials as Davis to fix what is wrong, rather than nonchalantly state to simply otherwise deal with it?
If Measure A doesn’t pass, some council people are crying foul. Councilman Steve Adam’s said we need the money, we therefore have to increase water rates and taxes. Why should the taxpayer pay for the bad decisions a Council person makes?
A PEEK AT WHAT CITY ATTORNEY GREG PRIMOS HAS COSTED THE TAXPAYER LEGAL LIABILITY
The City/ Taxpayer paid out to Lt. Darryl Hurt $300,000.00 and to Lt. Tim Bacon $250,000.00. Even Chris Lanzillo recieved compensation of $25,000.00. This is someone according to the document had 8 workers compensation claims pending with the California Workers Compensation Appeals Board related with his employment with the City. He then went to start his own business in Orange County, some question his claims of disability. He later made news by inaccurately accusing a local councilman of drunk driving. Lanzillo was the former president of the Riverside Police Union.
SCOTT SIMPSON’S “A SCHEME IS BORN” TIMELINE. Scott Simpson’s background: Chief of Enforcement for the California EPA Dept. of Toxic Substances Control, and also worked for the Dept. of Food and Agriculture in their Environmental Hazards Assessment Program specializing in ground water contamination. Simpson brought issues of illegalities of the water fund and citizens water rates to the Riverside Grand Jury. The first submission was lost, the second one was incidently thrown out without an interview. Questions regarding close ties between the City, Judges, DA and Grand Jury were brought into speculation. As you see from Simpson’s background, this was his job to bring issues to the courts, so it is therefore quite remarkable how he was treated at our local Grand Jury level. Simpson “A Scheme is Born” analytical timeline of the chain of events over the years regarding water rates, violations of Proposition 218 and who knew.
The City always knew, those who were players in these criminal actions. The City of Riverside had a deadline as all cities had, the date of November 08, 1998. The date came and the City failed the meet the approved deadline, therefore knowlingly violating the State Constitution, since probably, who is really going to challenge them? Well, in 2012, the Moreno’s did, and the judge agreed, and the City of Riverside’s attorney agreed, afterall, he wrote the implementation guide.
According to a PE opinion by Opotowsky, he stated that the Yes on Measure A campaign is playing on our fears. They took us for fools when they warned in the (illegal) descriptions in city literature that the money was needed for 911 services. Does anyone really believe the City Council members would have the temerity cut the 911 operation if Measure A doesn’t pass?
They take us for fools when they warn that police patrols will be cut. Who thinks that would happen in this very pro-police city?
And the rest of the threatened cuts — programs for fire protection, seniors (not likely because they vote), the disabled, after-school programs (well, they may cut that because “those people” don’t vote).
The outlandish prevarication regarding the clean water and the 911 cutbacks brings us to the second maternal quote: What can we believe from City Hall?
Common sense tells us that in facing the loss of a mere 3 percent of the budget if A does not pass, city officials should find a way to make small reductions in the things that make them feel good — like plaques under a railroad underpass and giving up the expensive Don Quixote fight to save Redevelopment Agency projects.
Gee, they say, it’s only $6 million and we have been taking it for years and nobody said anything. They took it illegally, it turned out, and they knew it was illegal. They just figured the rubes wouldn’t be nit-picky about our government following the law. All that time they took us for fools.
MORENO VALLEY: KEEPING IT IN THE FAMILY: CITY MANAGER HENRY GARCIA OUT, TOM DE SANTIS IN AS NEW ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER.. What will Garcia’s long time girlfriend, City of Riverside’s Human Resources Director Rhonda Strout, A.K.A. Luxury Girl, say about this? Will she attempt to give Henry a job in the janitorial position in order to help clean house in the City of Riverside? Whatis the rumor with Tom? After keeping track of city business on post it notes, badges and cold plates, did he leave due to indiscretions while at the City of Riverside? Why did he leave the County of San Bernardino? Was it the same?
Recently, Barry Foster, head of the Economic Department also the City’s Community Development Director, left his position according to the PE. Rumor is, was he actually fired? Foster is also the husband of Riverside’s former Public Works Director, Siobhan Foster. Foster abruptly left the City of Riverside, to take a position almost an hour away for the City of Pasadena, as their Public Works Director. Pasadena’s City Manager Michael Beck was also former City of Riverside’s Assistant City Manager, during the time when cold plates and badges were in.
In Moreno Valley Electric Utilities, The New Mission Statement include an interesting new twist. “In the future, MVU will provide more revenue for the City’s general fund, which helps pay for other important city programs.” Was the influence De Santis? This is what happened in the City of Riverside when De Santis was City Manager. Increase the electric rates and take a percentage of the electric fund to transfer to the general fund.
Thomas DeSantis
Nothing really changes but always seems to come back in full circle where we left off. The surprising chain of events which has consumed, after the Mike Rios incident, makes for a great new story for “Mad Men.”
BLACK VOICE ARTICLE ON FORMER MORENO VALLEY COUNCILMAN BATEY
CITY OF RIVERSIDE CAMPAIGNING THE YES ON MEASURE A CAMPAIGN WITH YOUR TAX DOLLARS?
The mailers that the Yes on Measure A campaign have been distributing have been reflective of their talking points. This new mailer just received has the City of Riverside star of approval with endorsing names such as our Chief of Police Sergio Diaz, Fire Chief Steve Earley and City Manager Scott Barber. It cannot get any more blatant than this. Legally the City of Riverside has had to take a position of neutrality, while over the past few months stated it was on a Measure A informational tour. This mailer shows that that the City sent this mailer and can be ultimately construed as a campaign mailer endorsing a Yes vote on Measure A. This can be seen just by the language and pictorial used.
Will you do it again? or be fooled again by the Yes on Measure A Campaign?
If Measure A doesn’t pass will lose all of a sudden in excess of 80 jobs? The majority of the campaign financing have been the Fire Unions and Police Unions. Why are they struggling so hard to have a mere 2.8% to 3.1% of the budget not get cut? If the City of Riverside is actually in dire straights, and using Measure A as a scapegoat, it shouldn’t be a problem to dissolve the Riverside Police Department and the Riverside Fire Department, and transfer both forces to the Riverside County Sheriff and Cal Fire.
Even the NAACP is involved with the Yes on Measure A campaign. What does the NAACP have to do with a water issue? That’s a question to ask Woodie Rucker-Hughes.
Why would Ms. Rucker-Hughes and the NAACP inadvertainly appear to have some sort of obligatory agreement with the City of Riverside on this issue? Why would she dis those she is in position to help? Is it all about who we dance with? I seriously don’t think the NAACP would approve. That’s just me talking, the TMC reporter.
GOVERNMENT SHOULD LIVE WITHIN THEIR MEANS, AFTERALL, WE THE TAXPAYER HAVE TO..
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA? RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM
What the Press Enterprise has not reported, is that these rate hikes were brought to the attention of the City Council and the Mayor many many times over by Self Proclaimed City Auditor Vivian Moreno. With denials and dismissive responses from Councilmembers such as Mike Gardner and Andy Melendrez, both incidently candidates for mayor. We are not critics as the PE would like to state, but responsible and educated citizens reading the city’s own public records, and asking the questions which the constituents really want to know. Many times the answers are dismissive and contradictory to the public records at hand. How should we as citizens respond if not to continue to ask the questions, until they can finally admit the truth. If public records state their will be an increase from 2012 to 2013 their will be an increase, if not, correct the records. But now, it appears that the city has been compelled to admit the truth. We warned of the purple pipe reclamation program, with an increase of $2.00. A program that does not benefit the citizens in Riverside, especially when the City of Riverside is one of the few cities which owns their own water rights. We are only at forty percent capacity the rest we sell to other municipalities at a profit. If the water table was to exceed the fifty foot mark from the surface, this would endager building and infrastructure foundations. Therefore the water table must be monitored closely and harvested accordingly. Accordingly, sewer rates from July 1, 2009 to July 1, 2013 for a Basic Multi-Family Dwelling have increase from $14.94 to $25.77, this is an increase of 42%. Currently $21.26 as of July 1, 2011 to $23.97 July 1, 2012, and increase of 13%. Sewer rates going up, $2.00 in July 2012, up to $3.00 in 2013.
The tiered water and electrical rate hikes, by manipulation of the number scales. A new charge for mosquito abatement for some household at $8.00 per household. I just found out that back alley I must clear of weeds every summer is the city’s property. In addition this is under duress of a $1,000 fine for not clearing the city’s property. Mad yet? In addition, no one resident receives credit for cost and time of cleaning the city’s property. Even the fire department is beginning to charge fees for services. You would think that our tax money would suffice. But it appears that these may have been implemented to sustain the unsustainable, especially the pensions. These were labor negotiations by city leadership that were not in the best interest of the citizens. Storm drain maintenance hikes from $2.83 to $5.82, to sustain storm drain maintenance, street sweeping and of course which leads to a reason to cite constituents with parking tickets to sustain new parking projects etc. Trash rates will go up $0.46 per month beginning in July 2012. All constituents were denied a real say in the matter or were misinformed. We can say ‘fiduciary negligence.’ But it won’t stop there, there are the bonds which are coming due as a result of the Renaissance debacle. The city will be blaming Governor Brown and the state for banning redevelopment, for the money they say will sustain the payment on those bonds. But that’s not how it works. The State of California stopped Redevelopment because of the abuse. They will blame the state, while the city will not take responsibility, because that will mean they are now apt at making good decisions. But what you find that does not change in the long run. Because in the long run it is you who will have to pay for it in increase property taxes.
“When I see a spade I call it a spade…” – Oscar Wilde
It is no wonder that city residents feel they are habitually terrorized by the city and code enforcement agents who slowly drive by residents home to see what kind of violations they can find. Yes many have quietly said it could be Cuba or even the Third Reich, but I have to continue to remind them we live in a city called Riverside, also know as “The All American City”.
Is Redevelopment really over? The State of California says it is, but will municipalities create something different? Originally, Redevelopment was created to combat blight. Areas of cities that didn’t contribute to the overall tax structure. As Redevelopmentevolved it tended to benefit friends and others close to the Mayor, City Council and Management, rather than the overall community. Established businesses which were contributing to the economy were then hit with another tool, ‘eminent domain.’ But the irony is, that the visionaries of government who saw an illusionary and unattainable conception created in essence blight. Currently what we have downtown that is blighted and created by the Renaissance program under the supervision of the Mayor and City Council at a cost of close to 2 billion dollars to the taxpayer. In addition, does not make a penny for the community as it was intended. They can blame it on the loss of redevelopment, but it couldn’t logically work with it. Another improvisational plan appears to be in the works. Infrastructure Finance Districts, originally created and intended to work one way, just as redevelopment, will they be strategically morphed again as redevelopment was, to the benefit of a few? While on one hand, the taxpayer are just feeling protected by the end of redevelopment, others are recreating an alternative gravy train. Let’s make no bones about it, Pavlovian would be jealous of how much salivation exudes in the mouths of politicians on this thought. Yes you may say it is a dogs world, but here’s how infrastructure finance districts work: a group of property owners (or residents if there are more than a dozen) in the specified area vote to allow a portion of property taxes that would ordinarily go to the general fund to be diverted to pay for construction and improvements to public property — things like libraries, parks and recreational facilities. But ordinarily, property owners such as resident are not likely to go to the city and ask for them to place it on a ballot initiative. So what may happen, would be the city goes to the people with a ballot initiative that the city would benefit the property owners. This is quite slick… this is what would happen, financially speaking, property taxes would not go up, but the general fund doesn’t get as much money. The City would go along with the decreased amount in the general fund because, in theory, these public enhancements cause nearby property values to rise, ultimately putting more property taxes into the general fund in the future. But currently the City’s has been spending more than they are taking in. So again, will this new concept debacle cause additional increases in property taxes at some point? Probably so.. therefore people need to think before they vote, those who don’t vote, need to vote. If you don’t vote, you are allowing your representatives to be truly unattended. It is your duty to be part of the checks and balance system which protects our community. Without it, we will continue to be afraid of government, whereby government should be afraid of the people. We therefore hae to ask ourselves, does government fear us? Or do we fear the government? Thomas Jefferson said it best, “When governments fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny”. Government is our servant, not our master!” When the people fear the government, as with code enforcement abuse, tax abuse, service fees abuse, hidden tax abuse, a tiered utility rate abuse and the feeling that nothing can be done…you have allowed government to have victory.
It is now time time to ask the Public Works Director the question the constituents have been waiting to ask, with regards to bids, contracts, change orders and accountability of which he has taken part of .
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. RATED ONE TWO STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM
BUT HOW MUCH DEBT SERVICE ANNUALLY IS THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE PAYING ON RENAISSANCE PROJECTS? IF $1.58 BILLION IS THE TOTAL FOR DOING ALL RENAISSANCE PROJECTS, WHAT’S THE TOTAL COST WITH INTEREST OVER THE LIFE OF ALL THE BORROWED MONEY? IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN IT’S ALL PAID OFF, WHAT WILL THE TOTAL COST BE? THIS WOULD THEREFORE BE A PROJECTION, BECAUSE BONDS COULD BE REFINANCED OR PAID OFF EARLY DEPENDING ON THE ECONOMY ETC. WE MUST ALSO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT THE LONGEST TERM OF BORROWING FOR THE RENAISSANCE PROJECTS, SUCH AS 30 YEARS ETC.
SO, TOTAL NEW MONEY BONDS ISSUED DURING THE PERIOD AMOUNT TO $1,084,051,402, INCLUDING NON-CONSTRUCTION PROCEEDS, AS INDICATED IN TABLE 1. THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF OTHER FUNDING SOURCES IN THE RENAISSANCE:
1. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES.
2.USER FEES.
3. STATE, FEDERAL AND REGIONAL GRANTS.
4. LAND SALE PROCEEDS.
5. PRIVATE FUNDING- SUCH AS RAILROADS, DONATIONS ETC.
6. GENERAL FUND CASH.
7. RDA TAX INCREMENT.
8. CERTAIN OLDER RDA BOND PROCEEDS ALLOCATED TO RENAISSANCE.
9. CERTAIN MEASURE-G PROCEEDS ALLOCATED TO RENNAISSANCE.
10. FUTURE PLANNED RIVERSIDE CONVENTION CENTER BOND ISSUE.
THE ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE AMOUNT VARIES BUT TYPICALLY IS IN THE MID $60 MILLLION RANGE FOR 2012 AND EVEN 2013, AS INDICATED IN THIS TABLE 2. IN YEAR 2014 THERE IS A BALLOON PAYMENT THAT WILL LIKELY BE REFINANCED. IT IS WORTH MENTIONING THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE DEBT IS UTILITY DEBT, WHICH THEY ROUTINELY CARRY AND WOULD HAVE REGARDLESS OF THE RENAISSANCE. THE ACTUAL APPROXIMATE COST OVER THE LIFE OF DEBT WOULD HIT THE $2.0 BILLION MARK. THEREFORE, BASED ON THE APPROXIMATE POPULATION COUNT IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN THE CITY WILL BE LEFT TO PAY FOR THE RIVERSIDE RENAISSANCE IN INCREASED SEWER, WATER, ELECTRIC, PARKING AND GENERAL FUND REPLACEMENT. THE $2.0 BILLION BREAKDOWN IS AS FOLLOWS: THE PRINICIPAL IS $1,084,051,402 AND THE INTEREST IS $979,022,581. TODAY, THE COST TO EACH INDIVIDUAL WILL BE APPROXIMATELY $6,660.00, OR A FAMILY OF FOUR WILL HAVE TO PAY OUT $26,400.00.
JOHN CHIANG, WHERE ART THOU? YOU CERTAINLY ARE NOT IN RIVERSIDE….
UPDATE:08/28/2011: OF COURSE, THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, A TAXPAYER LOBBYING GROUP, WON’T TAKE NO FOR AN ANSWER ON THE SUPREME COURTS RULING OF PLACING A STAY ON ALL REDEVELOPMENT. MOST HAVE SAID SINCE IT WAS LEGISLATED IN, IT CAN BE LEGISLATED OUT. BUT THE CRA, WHO SUED THE STATE ON THE CITY’S BEHALF DID NOT LIKE THE RULING. THE CRYSTAL CLEAR RULING PLACES A STAY ON ALL REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY UNTIL THE ISSUE CAN BE RESOLVED IN JANUARY 2012, THIS IS TO PREVENT FURTHER QUESTIONS OF FINANCIAL MOVEMENT. BUT THE CRA HAS NOW ASKED THE SUPREME COURT FOR A CLARIFYING ORDER WHICH WOULD ALLOW LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES WHICH HAVE ADOPTED ORDINANCES TO THE NEW VOLUTARY STATE RULES, PAY THE ENFORCEMENT OBLIGATION PAYMENTS AND CONTINUE TO DO LOCAL RDA BUSINESS AS USUAL. BUT WHAT IS QUITE IRONIC IS THAT THE CRA AND THE CITY DID NOT LIKE THE VOLUNTEER PROGRAM TO BEGIN WITH, THAT’S WHY THEY ARE SUING. SINCE SUING THE STATE PLACED A STAY ON ALL ACTIVITY, THE CRA AND THE CITY NOW WANT THE STATE TO NOW HONOR THE VOLUNTEER PROGRAM IN THE INTERIUM, THAT THEY ORIGINALLY SUED AGAINST. GO FIGURE?
KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” BLOG SITE! NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE…
IG
Javier Moreno
TMC: Thirty Miles of Corruption 