Posts Tagged ‘kevin dawson’

 

Two weeks ago, we released our story of the Drug Dealers Next Door: Part I.  The following is the second part of Author David Silva’s response to the City of Riverside, approximately one year later, which was posted in the Inland Empire Weekly on September 24, 2008.  Nothing had been done by the City of Riverside to resolve the drug issue in his neighborhood, which leaves us pondering the question, “Did they really want to?” or “Did they really care?”

In this second Silva article, the author displayed his continued frustration with local law enforcement and local elected representatives.  Like the case of David Silva, no one within the City has contacted or given us any direction as to what to do about our problem neighbors.  At least you can rely on something in life – government inaction!

On September 19, 2017, Wood Streets resident and former Mayoral Candidate Vivian Moreno went to the City Council meeting to bring the lingering and current neighborhood issue of the Drug Dealer Next Door…with an added twist, prostitution!  Yep, the other night the Wood Street residents had the pleasure of hearing the annoyance of the Wood Streets King Pimp not being paid correctly by one of his employed working girls. Yep, right in the front yard without any fear of anyone knowing what they were talking about.

Keep in mind this issue had been brewing in our neighborhood for approximately 5 years and gets worse by the day, so I guess it was the natural progression we should’ve expected…and accepted?

Moreno came to Council to declare that she is required to have business license in order to do business in the City of Riverside, but a drug dealer or prostitution ring does not.  So why should she?  If the City allows an illegal business to operate, why should she continue to comply legally with a City that cannot protect legal businesses from the illegal ones?  She tore up her business license in front of them.  Much like Silva, it was an attempt to call attention to an unresolved issue by petitioning her government.

However, we conclude David Silva must be right: if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.  Besides having unsafe neighborhoods for our children, our seniors, our taxpayers, we still cannot get our trees appropriately cut, our pot holes filled.  It has been clearly evident for many years now that the City of Riverside cannot provide even the most basic services to our community, who are now paying through the roof (Utility Users Tax, General Fund Transfer, Measure Z, etc., etc.), and for what?  Certainly not safety.  Our neighborhoods continue to be put at risk by the inertness of our law enforcement and leadership.  It happened ten years ago; and it’s  happening now with no remedy in sight.  The same fools sit on the dais within the Art Pick Chambers; and Chief Sergio Diaz’s highly-paid, crack narcotic squad has done what? [crickets]

THE DRUG DEALERS NEXT DOOR: PART II: BY AUTHOR DAVID SILVA:

INLAND EMPIRE WEEKLY SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 

It’s been nearly a year since I wrote about the drug dealers operating next door to my house [vol. 2, issue 25 cover], and if you’re wondering how the guys are doing, let me assure you they’re doing just fine. 

Franco (not his real name, but drug dealing is illegal, you know) recently installed a carport awning to protect his trade in bad weather. Brother Mario (another pseudonym) is on what appears to be his fourth new car since Christmas. Say what you want about these guys (and lord knows I’ve said a lot—to the Riverside police chief, the mayor, the city’s crack narcotics unit and the Weekly’s readers), they’re single-handedly keeping the local auto industry afloat. 

Yes, these boys have struck gold, and the rest of us are green with envy. While no less than seven “for sale” signs can be seen on front lawns up and down the block, the dealers next door are in home-improvement mode.  While the rest of us sleep in shifts in case some addled tweaker tries sneaking through the bathroom window, the dealers sleep the untroubled sleep of the dead, their persons and their stashes safe behind wrought-iron doors and the sign on the front that reads (I kid you not) “Do not ring after 10PM.” 

Of course, there’s always the remote possibility that the dealers really should be more worried that, at any minute, Riverside’s crack narcotics unit will come crashing through those reinforced doors. But who are we kidding? If the police were going to put a stop to all that illicit activity next door, they would have done so by now.  

As I wrote back in October, my non-dealing neighbors and I tried repeatedly to draw the city’s attention to the situation next door, going so far as to arrange a neighborhood meeting with one of Mayor Ron Loveridge’s deputies. The deputy listened wide-eyed to our story and jotted down notes into a little black notepad, which he then tossed into a briefcase where, I imagine, it remains gathering dust to this very day.  Nothing was done.   

By the time my column appeared, I had called the Riverside PD three separate times to complain about the dealing next door (not counting follow-up calls to check on the status of the complaints). Since October, I’ve called the police and City Hall three more times, each time being told that the department had no record of any previous complaints, and each time being assured that the department was now right on it. One of those calls resulted in a callback from Riverside Councilman Frank Schiavone, with Police Chief Russ Leach sitting by his side. Both Schiavone and Leach assured me that the city took such complaints seriously, and that they were right on it.  

Nothing happened.  

This has been going on for three years now, during which I often wondered why the Riverside PD would put up with an open-air drug bazaar operating in a residential neighborhood just three blocks from three public schools. Drug busts are great PR for the police, and right here was a major bust just begging for the cops to walk up and slap the cuffs on it. So why didn’t they?  

Early last month, I finally learned the answer to this nagging question: It wasn’t that the police didn’t want to bust up the drug house next door. They just couldn’t find it.   

“According to my computer,” said the officer who took my sixth (and, I swear to God, last) complaint, “the street address you gave me doesn’t exist in Riverside.” 

“Well, that’s odd,” I said. “I’m looking right out my front window and there it is.” 

“Are you sure?” 

“Oh yeah, it’s right there. Maybe you should check again.” 

He did, and again declared the address didn’t exist. Back and forth we went, with me insisting the street address of the drug house next door to me existed, and the officer insisting that it didn’t. Finally: 

“Found it!” he said, sounding well pleased. “OK, we’re on it. The Police Department takes these calls very seriously.” 

After three years, six complaints, a meeting with the mayor’s aide and a conference call with a councilman and the city’s top cop, the Riverside Police Department’s crack narcotics unit finally located my neighbor’s house on a map.  

More than a month later, the dealing next door has continued unabated, and if there are any cops snooping around, they’re wearing invisibility cloaks. The only thing that’s changed around here is my attitude toward the neighbors. 

“How’s it going, Franco?” I shout when I go out for the mail. “Yo Mario! Nice new Prius, buddy!”  

If this is how the city of Riverside wants to wage its war on drugs, I might as well be on friendly terms with the winning side.  

–David Silva, Author

FROM THE DESK OF LOCAL RIVERSIDE RESIDENT, ACTIVIST & COUNCIL CANDIDATE, KEVIN DAWSON, REGARDING NEW LIBRARY DESIGN:

“UGLY” THE COMMON TERM TO DESCRIBE THE MONSTROSITY TO BE KNOWN AS THE NEW RIVERSIDE DOWNTOWN LIBRARY.

The $10 million over run is to elevate the building so people from the Fox will hopefully walk under it to get to the Culinary Institute. That’s $10 million for a walk way! Why don’t we just use $1 million to buy coupons to the Culinary, that we could hand out as incentives to Fox patrons to walk around a less exspensive library building on the ground? Of course I’m just joking. This is a ugly, over priced building, loaded with gimmicks that will become dated looking like the horse collar grill on a Ford Edsel. Unlike a car, we won’t be able to trade this lemon in a couple years after we realize we made a mistake. Also, the city has been cutting the library budget for years. They’ve let go all the professional staff that had library of science degrees and cut way back on programming. The current main library is denuded of books. The city is not going to restore funding with this new building. This project is based on lies and manipulations. The head librarian gave as reasons for needing a new building, that the current building was too big and that the pillars ruined the sight lines. They said it would cost almost as much to remodel the current building as building a new one, so why not build a new one. But then when they proposed the Discovery Cube would go in the old building, the remodel cost dropped to $10 million. When the Discovery Cube dropped out and the Cheech Art museum was proposed, they now say it will only cost $5 million to remodel the building. I say we should remodel the current building for the $5 million, and keep it as our main library, saving us $35 million! Measure Z was sold to the public as being needed for “needs” like public safety, and not wants like a new library. I want to support the library but not like this. If they have an idea for a great, inspiring new building, put it before the voters, and ask us to support the project based on its merits. Ask us to prove our support by our willingness to pay for it through a special acessment tax. That way, a crappy design will die the death it deserves, but an inspiring design will prevail and be supported by a proven majority. The people in San Francisco were so inspired by the Palace of Fine Arts, which had been built to only last a couple of years for the 1915 Panama exposition, that they voted to tear it down and rebuild it as a permanent structure. The Palace of Fine Arts is great example of inspirational artitecture and something that would compliment the mix of classic historic structures we have downtown, but an example of how to be bold, without being offensive to the surrounding neighborhoods. Our city is on the road to making a mistake but it’s not too late to change directions. We should not move forward with this design because people are tired, and just want to “get it done”. We should not move forward, just because we’ve already spent money on this design. Ugly needs to be called out for what it is, and this is an ugly building.

Let me also comment on councilman Gardner’s motion to approve, where he said he was making the motion to approve because he thought “the people of Riverside were ready, evidenced by the number of speakers who came to speak.” Really? The room was almost empty and hardly anyone was there to speak, unlike the night the council voted to move the library, and the room was packed. That night there were 80 speakers and a petition signed by almost 800 people saying don’t move the library. That meeting went until 1AM, but in the end, the council ignored the public, and approved an expensive project, without ANY discussion of how to pay for it. It was only later, they presented Measure Z. And while Measure Z was generously passed by voters, our city is still not out of financial danger. I believe our financial problems are what is driving the proposed utility rate increases. Our city has a electric and water fund transfer of 11.5%, that gets transferred straight into the city general fund, where it can be spent on anything. So, if the City Manager says the rate increase is not about more money for the General Fund, ask him if he would agree to not take a transfer from the rate increases, and see what he says.  – Kevin Dawson

NEW RIVERSIDE DOWNTOWN LIBRARY (CLICK TO ENLARGE)

With $60 million in unfunded future pension liabilities, Council, with the help of City Manager John Russo, overrode the community dissent that night, over-allocating funds for a new library.  Proving the establishment elite have an agenda, and your dissent for the project in public comment was only a legal formality they had to bear before moving on to a pre-determined decision.

REMEMBERING TOM PETTY: “DOG ON THE RUN”: 1977:

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S REGIONAL COUNTIES MOST, “NEGATIVE,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “REPREHENSIBLE,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “FILTHY,” “VILE,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “DEFAMATORY,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “OBNOXIOUS,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!  YES WE ADMIT WE OUR ALL OF THAT AND MORE, WHICH IN CURRENT TERMS IS KNOWN AS “UNPOLITICALLY CORRECT.”  TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED.  I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO THE ACLU.  RATED ONE TWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS..  … AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!  CONTACT US:  thirtymilescorruption@hotmail.com

 12510496_10207741708877187_9215059899072541863_n

CITY MANAGER RUSSO IS IN THE DRIVERS SEAT….HOW SAFE DO YOU FEEL?

jones_RUSSO-copy-620x465

Our Fugacious, City Manager Mr. Russo and Assistant City Manager Marianna wrote an editorial about the current state of  “Fiscal Reckoning”, in the City of Riverside. He was trying to defuse the message that the city is going down the path of bankruptcy.  I think Mr. Russo needs to leave the messaging to the professionals. His office is only making it worse and more obvious. You can read the full article on the Press Enterprise.

Who are the Perennial Critics or should I say who are the Truth Tellers. Me Vivian Moreno, Dvonne Pitruzzello, Raychelle Sterling, Jason Hunter, Kevin Dawson, Karen Wright, Marilyn Whitney, Aurora Chavez, Scott Simpson and my man Javier Moreno, we all work really hard and our motivation is to protect the underserved, disabled, elderly, and the  taxpayer/ ratepayer from bad decision making at city hall that will ultimately raise taxes and our utility bills.

Because I was referred to in this article I needed to answer or clarify the statements that were made. We took out all the fat or unnecessary verbiage and just left in the substance.

The city of Riverside has enjoyed financial success in the past decade, most notably through the on-time and on-budget delivery of the nearly $2 billion Riverside Renaissance capital improvement program. The city rode out the Great Recession with grace. By Borrowing or Stealing (depending who you ask) from Riverside Public Utilities, Water fund, Sewer fund, Electric fund, Workmans comp.fund, and the Rate Payer. Now, the city is in a “Fiscal Reckoning of this magnitude”, those are your words Mr. Russo not ours.

That success, however, was partially due to budgeting practices that are no longer sustainable. Whether it was borrowing from other funds to prop up the city’s General Fund. Why would the General fund have to be propped up? Our General fund cannot function without the propping up by Riverside Public Utilities…..REALLY BIG MISTAKE!

There is nothing ethically wrong with these practices, NO… IT”S JUST PLAIN STUPID, and they are certainly not illegal.  Depending on who you ask.  Indeed, many cities employ some variation of such budgeting practices, and Riverside could have continued doing so for many years without encountering serious financial difficulties.  Just like the city of Bell.

However, reliance on such practices is not sustainable over the long term, and goes against the principles of prudence and conservatism in municipal budgeting.  First you say we could have continued down this path for many years and now you say it’s unsustainable, WHAT? You sound like a crooked politician, maybe you should elaborate on (long term) and (many years).

The city’s new administration has spent several months working to institute the kind of fiscal discipline required to generate healthy and sustainable budgets well into the future.  This process has been difficult at times for everyone involved.  A $1 million surplus projected for fiscal year 2015-16 – built on the type of budgeting we should no longer allow – has morphed into a shortfall of about $8 million. This shortfall, if not corrected with sustainable ongoing measures, will result in a $10-12 million budget hole in fiscal year 2016-17.

While the projected deficit numbers may seem scary, they are not surprising – the city has had an expenditure problem for years. The very smart Perennial Critics recognized a expenditure problem years ago. The Council, over the last 10 years voted yes to all the expenditures. No one was listening to the very smart citizens who saw the writing on the wall. BUMMER!

All city departments will recommend cuts to the council, and, while it is management’s intent to minimize service reductions, those impacts are probably unavoidable in the face of a fiscal reckoning of this magnitude. Why? Because the only effective budgeting tool available to the council is service cuts; in California, most revenue increases require voter approval.  Are you going to cut the contracts for Government Entertainment? I can answer that NO! So let’s get this perfectly clear the Citizens have their services cut but we the citizens continue to pay for Government Entertainment. Most of the citizens of Riverside will never have the opportunity to afford to go to the Fox Theatre but they will still have to pay for it! We lose Police and Fire but we keep Rusty’s buddy.. Live Nation….REALLY! Is this because your band, Mr. Russo will be the ongoing featured act headlining at the FOX..It usually is self serving isn’t it!

Moreover, Riverside will now pass its budget within the context of a five-year financial plan.

This approach to municipal budgeting is bound to find more potential issues that demand attention.

As we hold ourselves to a higher budgetary standard, The real challenge John and Marianna is to wean the general fund off the RPU gravy train.

Unfortunately, some perennial critics of the city have confused the cure (early diagnosis of future budget challenges) with the disease (a negative imbalance between ongoing expenses and ongoing revenue). These folks have been frightening some Riversiders by proclaiming loudly that the city faces imminent bankruptcy. It’s amazing to me that we are labeled critics when all we ask for is the truth. When you make truthful statement like “Fiscal Reckoning, and while the projected deficit numbers may seem scary, they are not surprising,” these statements scare the folks. Even though you are in the driver seat Mr. Russo we will still demand the truth.

Let us state unequivocally that the city of Riverside is not going bankrupt; in fact, the city could have continued on its prior path for many years without suffering financial doom. But we believe that our standard should be higher than the very “low bar” of “just don’t go bankrupt.” We are committed to a rational budget in which ongoing revenue meets ongoing expenses, and long-term capital needs, like road repair and tree trimming, are properly covered.  Mr. Russo you cannot unequivocally state that the city is not going bankrupt. When you say the city need to be propped up. That sounds as dumb as Mike Gardner saying there were pots of gold.  We could not exist without the propping up of public utilities.

pot-of-gold

You also state very clearly in this editorial that, budgeting practices are no longer sustainable, We are experiencing a Fiscal Reckoning of this magnitude, projected deficit numbers may seem scary, and Residents and business owners may hear things that make them uncomfortable, and perhaps even a bit nervous about Riverside’s financial health. You can lay it out any way you like but what the critics are absolutely sure about 100% is that the life line to the General Fund is Public Utilities. The General Fund needs to be propped up. This is a scary situation to be in. We are one legal challenge away from a disaster….. BANKRUPT! That’s the truth.

As Riverside moves through weeks of introducing, refining and, ultimately, approving a budget for fiscal years 2016-17 and 2017-18, there will be some bumps in the road. Residents and business owners may hear things that make them uncomfortable, and perhaps even a bit nervous about Riverside’s financial health.  Mr. Russo you can make your case to the public any way you like, but there will be no new rate increases or new taxes. I can assure you of that. BRING IT ON!

We encourage everyone in Riverside to attend the council’s budget hearings or go to EngageRiverside.com to let us know what you think and be a part of that solution. Together, we will ensure that our city’s great past will be honored by an even greater future built upon sound and secure finances. What a joke! sound and secure finances were built on the backs of the RATE payers, overcharging and bilking Riverside Public Utilities has been going on for over a decade. The City Council is responsible for this entire fiasco. THEY OWN IT! The Perennial Critics encourage everyone to attend.

John A. Russo is Riverside city manager; Marianna Marysheva-Martinez is assistant city manager.

NOW FOR A LITTLE MUSIC TO SOOTHE THE SAVAGE BEAST…

VOTE VIVIAN MORENO MAYOR 2016, DON’T FORGET THE DEBATE TOMORROW NIGHT APRIL 28TH AT THE STRATTON CENTER (7:00PM TO 8:30PM), BORDWELL PARK, 2008 MARTIN LUTHER KING BLVD., RIVERSIDE.

According to RivPublic, anonymous contributor to Thirty Miles of Corruption, “And about Russo, the man rocks! Can play the electric guitar and keyboard (and kinda sing??). Maybe he could pull a rabbit out of his hat and find some $$$$ too!”

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S REGIONAL COUNTIES MOST, “NEGATIVE,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “FILTHY,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “DEFAMATORY,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “OBNOXIOUS,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!  YES WE ADMIT WE OUR ALL OF THAT AND MORE, WHICH IN CURRENT TERMS IS KNOWN AS “UNPOLITICALLY CORRECT.”  TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED.  I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO THE ACLU.  RATED ONE TWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS..  … AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!  CONTACT US:  thirtymilescorruption@hotmail.com

pic

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

Subject: Comments to item 14, Oppose

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

IMG_3312     IMG_3314     IMG_3317

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 ONE TWO 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.
Date: June 9, 2015 at 11:16:42 AM PDT
To: Andy Melendrez <asmelendrez@riversideca.gov.>, Mike Gardner <mgardner@riversideca.gov.>, Paul Davis Davis <pauldavisward4@aol.com>, Mike Soubirous <msoubirous@mac.com>, Jim Perry <jperry@riversideca.gov>, Chris Mac Arthur <cmacarthur@riversideca.gov.>, Rusty Bailey <rbailey@riversideca.gov.>, sadam@riversideca.gov, “John A. Russo” <jrusso@riversideca.gov>
Cc: Alicia Robinson <arobinson@pe.com>, Cassie MacDuff <cmacduff@pe.com>
Subject: Regarding RPD presentation on Threat Assessment Team

Dear Council,

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.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Panama_City_school_board_shootings

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.

dojta

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL STUDY OF ACTIVE SHOOTER INCIDENTS IN THE US BETWEEN 2000 AND 2013 BY DOJ

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 ONE TWO 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!