Posts Tagged ‘next door’

Mike Gardner’s voting record and support of relavent issues versus his Campaign Mailer apparently appear to be a contradiction.  Whatever the reason Mike, people in our community wanted TMC to bring this issue forward.  What did you do to your constituents to make them feel this way?  By looking first at Ward 1 Councilman Mike Gardner’s flyer in his campaign for Riverside County Supervisor people who endured his reign in the City of Riverside’s Ward 1 find his positions on issues quite inconsistent, hence, his campaign mailer.  The flyer states he is a ‘fiscal conservative.’

According to Resident and Tax Advocate Jason Hunter “the words, “Mike Gardner,” and, “fiscally conservative,” don’t belong in the same sentence.  Strike that, book.  The City of Riverside has $2 billion in debt and $600 million in unfunded pension liabilities, much of which happened on Mike’s watch.  Instead of dealing with bloated personnel costs directly and cutting pet project like the new library, he instead accepts cuts to services for residents and businesses.” 

Gardner as a ‘Fiscal Conservative’ voted for an insane 55 year lease for Riverside’s Food Court.  He supported the ‘Triple Flip,’ one of Developer Mark Rubin’s projects which costed the taxpayer plenty.  Apparently he mentioned to someone who questioned his vote, “they had to do it for the benefit of the city.”  Now they have a fiscal crisis with utilities in which rates need to be increased.  This was the same situation with the Sewer Rates.  He did nothing.  A big advocate on fiscal transparency, over and over again he advocated to his fellow council, “Not to air our dirty laundry in public.”  What is really the clincher is that when City of Riverside Resident and Tax Advocate Kevin Dawson brought to the attention of the Finance Committee that there were missing contracts when the City of Riverside secured ‘outside legal.’  Councilman Mike Gardner, who was on that board, witnessed Councilwoman Nancy Hart stick her hand in front of Dawson to exclaim the meeting was adjourn.  Gardner did nothing in the name of transparency to support the public.

But on the contrary he voted for the exorbitant former City Manager John Russo contract before learning of his contract shenanigans.  He supported and voted to place Measure Z on the ballot and he just voted to raise our utility rates, of which 18% are new taxes.  The flyer states that he will hold government accountable and improve transparency.  In lieu, his Ward 1 has suffered with an influx of vagrants, crime, prostitution, drugs, mail theft, traffic from RCC, and resident services have decreased, such as tree trimming.  Raising the rates mean that 18% percent of that will go to the General Fund… yep those pesky pensions.

Mike also states on his campaign flyer that he ‘oppose efforts to increase taxes.’  Gardner just voted to increase your utility rates on a utility you publicly own.  If you are the owner of a company and you have to pay more of your money to maintain your company, someone isn’t doing your job.  Gardner retired from the utility company Edison, KNOWS AND UNDERSTANDS UTILITIES, should know better, and should be more ‘transparent and accountable.’  Oh heck, that’s on his flyer as well!

According to Tax Advocate Jason Hunter, the guy who brought the $300 million plus unrestricted reserve issue out into the public light for the Council to deal with, stated to TMC that he was ranting and raving about it while he worked at RPU…right before he was terminated without cause.  Our Councilmen are giving out bad information he stated.  Riverside Public Utilities actually has $477 million in total reserves.  Of that amount $140 million is for the things Gardner mentions; they are legally restricted from being used for anything else.  Doing the math, that leaves $337 million in a slush fund.  That slush fund stood at $296 million back in 2014, which means it’s still growing.  Now electric and water are 2 separate utilities. If you looked at them individually, you’d find reserves are actually expanding at electric ($277 million unrestricted) and contracting at water ($60 million unrestricted).  Both total amounts are mid-bogglingly high and multiples of industry standards.  What all this tells my tiny mind in that the electric rate increase is laughably unnecessary, and that the water increase should be a fraction of what’s proposed.  What’s really needed is rate restructuring, but since that doesn’t increase the tax pile proposed for the general fund nor does it automatically raise our public employees’ salaries, it’s not been considered.  Instead we getting chippy answers like Soubirous, which is really just a veiled threat over what utility service we can expect should we not give into the City’s demands.

Council voted 4-3 to increase our water and electric rates. The electric rate increase was delayed until Jan 1, 2019. Voting for: Gardner, Melendrez, MacArthur, Perry Voting against: Soubirous, Conder, Adams Not using his veto: Bailey Adams actually said from the dais that many of the numbers he’s received from RPU justifying the rate increases turned out to be misinformation once he fact-checked them. Unfortunately, only a few residents bothered to show up to voice their displeasure.  The Riverside Chamber, RPU Board and other local community groups packed the Council Chambers in their support of increasing your utility rates.  For those keeping track, since Russo came to town: first they increased your fees, then taxes, and now utility rates.

Interesting enough, Gardner touts himself as a Republican in the campaign flyer above, but the Republican Party of Riverside County calls him a Democrat in the below campaign flyer, at the bottom of the page.  They also warn Republican voters not to vote for Gardner.  They actually state that Gardner voted for Measure Z, not to mention campaigned for it, ultimately causing a $1 Billion Tax increase to the taxpayers.  I can tell you one thing, I’m feeling the pain of that increase.

 Hence, the City of Riverside now has the highest sales tax in Riverside County!  Was Mike not being truthful of his political positions as well as his political affiliations?

 

WARD 1 RESIDENTS ON NEXTDOOR ASK COUNCILMAN GARDNER THE QUESTION REGARDING UTILITY RATE INCREASES:

Kelly Webb, Wood Streets-23 May

I knew he didn’t represent my interests when speaking to him in person. People living next street over were having a party blaring loud rock music over huge speakers so loud i had to leave my home. Mr. Gardner stood in my front yard listening to the obsencely loud music told me “sounded fine to him.” Were they his friends or just example of good old boy mentality since i am a woman?

Bee Miller, Magnolia Center-23 May

Mike G told me that Riverside sells our excess water. If we have excess water why do we have to cut back? And if the city sells it excess water use that money for our utilities instead of increasing our rates!

Ron Todar, Magnolia Center-Edited 23 May

And I see that Gardner voted for the utilities rate increase even though Councilman Steve Adams pointed out that there was misinformation in the justification data.

Jay Farrand, Grand Neighborhood Alliance-23 May

Was I the only one who emailed Mike and told him I was against The Council raising water rates. Mike emailed me back and said that he was against raising e the rates and he was going to vote ‘no’. According to the PE, yep, he voted to raise to raise them. FYI, he’s running for County Stupidvisor.

Meghan Hahn, Wood Streets·25 May

I emailed and received this stock answer … “Thank you for writing. I am committed to keeping our rates as low as possible. I don’t know how I will vote until I hear the presentation and all the comments. I am afraid we may need some increase as there has been none since 2010 and the cost of everything has gone up in that time. That includes the price of producing and delivering the water and electricity we all use.”

Paula Wilson, Wood Streets·23 May

I asked Gardner the reason for his YES vote and he responded: “I voted for the increase because I have to do what is best for our utilities, which are key to Riverside’s success, 5, 10 and 20 years into the future, not what is politically expedient today. I have an election in less than 2 weeks and I know my vote will hurt me with some voters, but it was the right thing to do for the long run. Yes it will hurt some of us, but we also added lots of new programs to assist low income and fixed income customers.”

Hmmm….So he admits the increases will actually hurt people, so we will start to subsidize more rates for those that cannot afford it.  I’d say it is not only going to hurt the poor, but our middle class!  Tax Advocate Jason Hunter states the following on NextDoor.

Jason Hunter, Wood Streets-23 May

Gardner is essentially saying he knows these rates will make a lot more customers dependent upon the government…and he’s good with that.

Additionally, the City has a conflict of interest yet un-resolved.  It taxes your utility bill and sets the charges on your utility bill.  The maximum General Fund Transfer (GFT) is 11.5% directly from the Water Utility Operating Funds.  If the City General Fund needs additional cash, they, the Council, vote to raise the Utility Water Rates thus providing more tax revenue thru taxation by GFT.  Therefore, by increasing the city’s water income per the questionable tiered system, which increases water rates atronomically, will therefore increase the amount of money in the fund, therefore increase the  11.5% transfer much more.  A little sleight of hand, the constituents are not quite privy to.  Further, as much as 75% or your water bill will be taxes.  Vote NO on the June 4th measure or initiative and demand your Refund!  Los Angeles had recently tried to sneak in a similar measure, but was voted out.  The question arising, is why are elected representatives are not representing and protecting their constitutents?

The Utility User’s Tax (UUT) on your utility bill is 6.5%, which goes to city services.  You were therefore paying 18% in taxes when you combine the 11.5% and 6.5% for the last 16years without a vote, therefore they voted to tax you 18%.

“The state cannot be trusted to handle transportation projects and tax revenues.  But people are asking, can Mike be trusted?  You have a proven record?  You fought to reign in out of control spending, save taxpayer money and balance the city budget without higher taxes?  Come on Mike, we the people our on you, you didn’t do your job!

Mike I think you screwed up along with your pals Andy, Chris and Jim by voting the utility rate increases.  If you want higher taxes, fees, etc., and less for your money, by all means vote for Mike for Supervisor.

The Riverside Rate Payers are actually asking what happened to Mike… and “Will the Real Mike Please Stand Up!”

THE RUSSO CONTRACT VOTE:

The Press Enterprise stated Councilman Mike Gardner’s position on the contract extension as follows.

Though he remains on the fence about the wisdom of the contract extension, Councilman Mike Gardner said he voted for it so there would be a 5-vote majority — enough to override a veto he knew Bailey was planning.

“I knew that there was disagreement on whether he had that authority, and I was hopeful that having five votes would dissuade him,” Gardner said. “I wanted to avoid what we have now: a fair amount of turmoil, and I’m getting lots of social media contact. It’s become a controversy that we did not need to have.”

Gardner interprets the charter the same way as the city attorney — to say the mayor can’t veto decisions relating to the city manager — but said the language is ambiguous and should be clarified one way or the other when a committee reviews the charter next year.

As for the contract, Gardner said it’s a good deal for the city, but bad optics. The contract should come in June, after the city has settled its budget, utility rates and marijuana policy, all of which could affect taxpayers’ paychecks, he said.

The total pay is high, but that’s what it takes to hire a good city manager, Gardner said.  “They are highly paid folks,” he said. “The difficulty is if you don’t pay what the market is, you won’t keep a good one, and you will hire somebody who may have a lot of talent and a lot of promise, but they’re untried and you don’t know how well they’re going to work out.”

Wow, really Mike, is that how it really works?  So are you saying that if we were to get a pallet of $100 dollar bills, we should be able to get a city manager who would solve all of City of Riverside’s financial problems?  It didn’t work that way with Russo, we gave him a lot of money and the taxpayer had to pay a lot more money.  He and your outfit gave us higher taxes then you gave him the farm.

According to the L.A. Times, Councilman Mike Gardner said he disapproves of the contract but voted for it in hopes of avoiding a veto showdown, said the city manager’s style has earned him some detractors who have now latched on to the pay issue.

“He is a very aggressive personality,” he said. “That’s what successful city managers have to have.  We have had city managers in the past who were the nicest, sweetest people in the world and everybody loved them and they didn’t accomplish very much.”

In response to the comment in the L.A. Times whereby Gardner was interpretated as saying he disapproves of City Manager John Russo’s contract extension, but voted for it anyway, in hopes of avoiding a veto showdown.  City of Riverside resident and Tax Advocate Vivian Moreno brought Gardner’s L.A. Times statement right to the man at City Council public comment.

The comment Moreno is referring to is as follows.  According to the L.A. Times, Russo declined to be interviewed. In an email, he said that “the true story is not about my contract but about petty corruption and a city that has changed and is changing, and a mayor who is not comfortable with those changes.”

 

IS CRIME INCREASING IN COUNCILMAN MIKE GARDNERS WARD 1 DISTRICT ACCORDING TO THIS NEW PRESS ENTERPRISE ARTICLE: UNDERCOVER OPERATION FOCUSED ON DOWTOWN RIVERSIDE NETS 23 ARREST?

         

According to this May 29, 2018 Press Enterprise story by Richard K. De Atley.  Spurred by complaints of blatant street drug sales from several areas of the city, including the downtown entertainment district, Riverside police said Tuesday they arrested 23 suspects in an undercover investigation, and at least half of those also face violations of various post-release supervision programs.

“Those arrested were dealing hard drugs — amphetamine, cocaine, heroin — drugs that kill,” said Riverside City Council Member Mike Gardner, whose Ward 1 district includes downtown. “This is not an activity that Riverside will tolerate,” he said.

The closure of the downtown Riverside bus depot, which had been a magnet for transients and the kinds of narcotics violations involved in the most recent arrests, has had unintended consequences, according to Riverside Police Department Detective Chris Williams. “I think they have spread out a little bit more in the city, especially downtown,” he said.

Williams said he was surprised at the number of narcotic deals outside the Riverside Public Library on Mission Inn Avenue. “That kind of surprised me. … I don’t know why that spot was a spot to hang out,” he said. He said other arrests in the downtown area were near White Park and a shopping center at University Avenue and Fairmount Boulevard.

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

ACCORDING TO THE ALAMEDA MAGAZINE, THE PHOTO WAS COURTESY OF JOHN RUSSO (Wow, thanks John!)

TMC Figured Russo out way before the City of Riverside did.  We had the all laid out for the City of Riverside, but they relied on their staff.  Thanks John for your Riverside legacy, Partnership Compensation Model, Measure Z, 50 year loan lease, Contracts without a Resolution.

Alameda’s city manager counts development progress at Alameda Point and smoothing over employee relations as his main achievements.

Alameda City Manager John Russo, a former Oakland city councilman and city attorney, is headed to Riverside.

Outgoing Alameda City Manager John Russo likes to use sports metaphors. So, when news broke in February that Russo, along with his oversize personality, was leaving the Island for a new opportunity and greater compensation in Riverside, the response from city officials was akin to what small-market baseball teams admit when they land a high-priced slugger in the last year of his rookie contract. “Frankly, we were lucky to have him,” Councilmember Jim Oddie said in the days after the announcement.

Following stints in Oakland, first as a council member and then as city attorney, Russo’s thoughtful wit and razor-like barbs made his hiring as city manager in 2011 as curious as a big fish swimming in a small pond.

By most accounts, Russo’s four years in Alameda were a success. In an understated, yet frank interview, Russo said his greatest accomplishment is not moving along development at Alameda Point, but repositioning the city and public employee unions away from constant back-biting to an atmosphere of shared values and greater economic certainty. There were rumors that Russo’s departure was exacerbated by the surprise results of the fall election, but Russo said the rumors are untrue and that he merely landed an opportunity to fast-track existing plans for moving himself and his family to Southern California. “To the surprise of many,” he said, “I’m not an important person. I am just city manager of a small California city, and later I’ll be a city manager of a bigger city in California.”

However, under Russo’s stewardship, decades of uncertainty over the direction of development at the former Alameda Naval Air Station was resolved following an agreement with the U.S. Navy for the city to limit housing at Alameda Point in exchange for reconveying the land at no cost to Alameda taxpayers. But, Russo said credit does not lie with his actions. “I don’t think I have a legacy,” he said, noting his viewpoint is deeply rooted in his Southern Italian ancestry. “I have a fairly fatalistic view of the world,” he added. “I know no one ever believes this applies to me, but I think I have a fairly modest view of what my role is. This community was ready to make progress at Alameda Point.”

The infrastructure of support preceded him, he said, when the community rallied around an ultimately unsuccessful pitch to lure a new campus for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to Alameda Point. “I didn’t make that happen. That feeling of ‘at long last, we need to do something about the base’ is what drove the process. The public itself was exhausted by plan after plan. Once you get that mandate from the people and the council, it makes it easier to get something done.”

Yet, negotiating the no-cost reconveyance is one of his proudest moments, Russo said, but even then, he believes luck was involved. The Navy’s previous $108.5 million asking price was never going to pencil out for the city, Russo said. Instead, he urged the Navy to erase the uncertainty of the last decade and return to the original offer of a no-cost transfer of the property. “I just wanted to start a dialogue by getting that number down, but they surprised me by saying yes,” Russo said. “With economic development, sometimes you have to throw the line in the water dozens of times to get a bite. We got a bite on the first throw. That was just luck.”

Next, Russo needed to dissuade some councilmembers from being starstruck by large-scale development at Alameda Point, which incidentally, provided an easy stab at legacy-building to a more balanced piecemeal approach. “The city kept swinging for the fences and trying to hit a grand slam by seeking a single entity to develop the entire point all at once,” Russo said. “What I told them is we need a rally of singles, and I will submit that we scored, and we will continue to score.”

Although he said more needs to be done to put Alameda on solid financial footing, Russo said a thawing of animosity between City Hall and public employee groups over salaries and benefits will greatly aid the city over the next decade. City employees now contribute a higher percentage of their salary to pensions and split the additional costs of medical benefits, Russo said. But they also enjoy pay raises when the city’s revenues increase. (Partnership Compensation Plan, whereby salary increases are tied to City revenue, did it in Alameda, he did it in Riverside.  Was Measure-Z just another Employee Profit Sharing Scheme?)

“What we’ve done here is created a true partnership for good times and bad times,” he said. “That’s a very foundational change in the relationship that had sort of veered from ‘Let’s do whatever labor wants,’ to ‘Let’s go to war with the people who work for us.’”

On the horizon for Alameda, Russo said, is increasingly higher premiums from the state’s largest pension group, the California Public Employee Retirement System, or CalPERS, and greater demand in coming years for post-employee benefits, both of which he said the city is ready to confront. “Alameda has made tremendous strides that will be very important in the coming five to 10 years in dealing with the two big challenges the city faces,” he said. “We’re on a path culturally to being able to have those discussions about those bigger issues in a way that is very businesslike and partnership-based rather than a bunch of symbols and blame and nonsense.”

Despite the accomplishment, Alameda’s fiscally conservative residents, including many who favor pension reform, rarely view Russo as a crusader for their cause. Russo said he relied on the professional opinions of the city treasurer and auditor and “not those taking positions that are founded in emotion or ideology,” he said. “I don’t use Tea Party-type people as my litmus test of my success, not nationally, and not locally. When I was in Oakland, I used to say, ‘I’m sick and tired of people who are sick and tired.’ That path leads nowhere.”   (Russo was not a crusader for the taxpayers of Riverside, remember Russo is part of the Blue Blood Liberal Elite… I’m exceptional due to my background, all others are an impediment.  Case in point whereby public comment is seen by Russo as a formality, not part of the Democratic process of community involvement..)

Some of these same people were often outraged by Russo’s in-your-face style during public meetings over the years. “I make no apologies,” Russo said. Instead, he was defending his employees from unfair attacks from the public and, in some occasions, members of the City Council. “When you stand publicly and accuse good, professional people on my staff of being either stupid, lazy, or corrupt, I think you should expect an answer. If you want to play above the rim, then expect to be rejected from time to time.”  (More revealing examples of the dark mind set of Russo. Did he simply display the classic case of a sociopath?).

Regrets? Russo has had a few. “I’m wrong all the time,” he said. “I just try to be right consistently more often than I’m wrong.” Specifically, Russo said he overreached on Measure C, the 2012 sales tax increase to fund a disparate wish list of city projects. “I just kind of threw it all in together, saying if you’re going to go to the public to ask for money, it should be a meaningful set of projects,” Russo said. Furthermore, elected officials sought additional projects as a strategy for cobbling together the needed two-thirds majority for passage. A more single-minded approach may have been more successful, he said. “I regret that my judgment there wasn’t as good as it should have been. Then again, maybe it isn’t a regret, because the public just didn’t want it.”

Contrary to popular opinion, the reason for his leaving Alameda has nothing to do with Mayor Trish Herrera Spencer’s slow-growth stance for Alameda. Instead, he said, they quickly forged a good working relationship and keep in daily contact. “This is not about whether Trish and I get along. We get along fine. It’s a very friendly relationship. We don’t agree on everything, but it’s not my job to agree. My job is to implement the council’s direction.”

However, he acknowledged conflict exists among the new city council. “There are clearly issues between the mayor and other council members, and there’s dissension there. That’s politics, and it’s not for staff to talk about. They have to work that out amongst themselves whether I’m here or not,” he said. “But that’s not why I’m leaving.”

Before accepting the job of Alameda city manager, Russo and the-Mayor Marie Gilmore had a “personal pledge,” he said, that if he took the job, he would agree to stay for the duration of her tenure. “When she left office, that pledge was gone,” Russo said, and the opportunity in Riverside arose around the same time. Russo and his family already had plans to eventually move to Southern California upon the end of his time in Alameda, he said. “It just moved forward what the family’s plan was by a couple of years.”

Russo’s bump in pay starting in May as Riverside’s new city manager will definitely help the college fund of his twins who will both be attending college starting in the fall, he said. His $296,000 annual salary in Riverside, compared with his $215,000 base salary in Alameda, is basically the difference between taking out a loan for their education and paying for it himself, he said. “I paid my way through college, and I didn’t pay off my school loans until age 43,” said Russo. “And I’ll be damned if I’m going to be paying loans until I’m 80.”

(Before Russo was fired he cashed out over $100K of taxpayer monies.  The traveling snake oil salesman caught the attention of our City, and the taxpayers caught the bite of higher taxes while he skipped town to greener pastures.  But still, the issue of both Russo and Guess’s contract have not been resolved.  Both current contracts violate City Charter as to not having a resolution passed by Council.  If Andy doesn’t put forward an investigation maybe District Attorney Mike Hestrin’s office will.)

From Johnny’s Facebook Page, was his wife holding a premonition of what was yet to come?

Should we now be more aware of Snakes in Suits?

JOHN RUSSO STATES HE LEFT JOB AT THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, I GUESS HE CONVENIENTLY FORGOT HE WAS FIRED…

BLOCK BY BLOCK: RIVERSIDE PUBLIC UTILITY INCREASES: TAXPAYER ADVOCATE JASON HUNTER INTERVIEWED:  On a side note, the City of Riverside has made it clear to community groups and local radio stations, they will not participate it Hunter is part of the debate.  In fact TMC has been told, Councilman Jim Perry, former City Manager John Russo and former RPU General Manager Girish Balanchandran apparently stated they will not to appear even if they were the only participant.

 

MVGORDIE BLOG SITE: CITY OF MORENO VALLEY CAUGHT MISUSING ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM IN ACCORDANCE WITH HUD REQUIREMENT!  Good read with supporting back up documents.  City Hall can call it an oversight, but the Office of Inspector General states “This condition occurred because the City did not have adequate written procedures or controls to ensure that it met HUD requirements and City staff was not sufficiently knowledgeable of the program requirements.” (Click on the Red Link).

 

FROM THE DESK OF COMMUNITY TAXPAYER ADVOCATE JASON HUNTER: Poll given on Next Door neighborhood web site:  Do you think Riverside Public Utilities staff should get automatic raises if our rates are hiked (without a vote of the public I might add)?  Accordingly in this poll, the Residents of the City of Riverside do not want their representatives to pass this.  If they do, it will be political suicide.  People in Ward 1 keep on wondering why the so called advocate neighborhood group, NOWS (Neighbors of the Wood Streets) continues to be an ineffective voice within the community.

Jason Hunter wrote this to the entire City Council and Mayor, as he believed the unethical/illegal behavior in this City needs to end, and the ratepayers/owners need to be aware of this conflict-of-interest… apparently the whole scenario seems like a lot of racketeering to me quite frankly.  Also, did you know 18% of the proposed rate hike is just plain ole’ new taxes?  Please write your Councilmember or show up next Tuesday at 7pm at City Hall to voice your opinion on a measure that is actually greater dollar-wise than Measure Z (2016 $50+ million sales tax).  Remember the Riverside City Council will decide Tuesday, May 22, whether to start charging residents more for water and electricity.  Get your asses out to City Council on this date!

Gentlemen, (I’m sure no pun intended)

RPU employees that put together this rate increase have a direct, material, financial conflict-of-interest in presenting this rate increase. I would urge you, for their sake (if not your own), to vote ‘no’ on the proposed utility rate increases. As you are probably aware, the Partnership Compensation Model (PCM) includes Utility Users Tax within the Balanced Revenue Index, which is used to calculate Executive, Senior Management, Management, Professional, Supervisory, Para-professional and Confidential Units automatic annual raises. The Utility Users Tax is currently 6.5% of all electric and water utility rates/charges. Ergo, the higher the rates, the higher the UUT, the higher the BRI change…the higher salaries go. I warned you guys prior to the passage of Measure Z that the PCM was terrible policy, essentially a bribe to get all employees to back certain revenue enhancements…but 6 of you (including the Mayor) were blinded by your need for instant gratification. The cows are now returning to the barn. I intend to allow the law of unintended consequences to fully play out if these ludicrous rate increases are passed next Tuesday. The PCM needs to be restructured or thrown out all-together to remove these perverse incentives.

Sincerely, Jason Hunter

CALL AND SEIZE CITY HALL, BE IT YOUR DESTINY TO MAKE THEM HONEST:

CITY OF RIVERSIDE ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

MAYORS OFFICE:

Mayor William “Rusty” Bailey     951-826-5551 (office), 951-801-8439 (cell), email:   3mayor@riversideca.gov

CITY COUNCIL:

Ward 1 – Mike Gardner     951-826-5991 (office), 951-941-7084 (cell), email:  mgardner@riversideca.gov

Ward 2 – Andy Melendrez  951-826-5991 (office), email: asmelendrez@riversideca.gov

Ward 3 – Mike Soubirous 951- 826-5991(office), 951-515-1663 (cell), email: msoubirous@riversideca.gov

Ward 4 – Chuck Condor 951-990-9819 (office), email: cconder@riversideca.gov

Ward 5 – Chris Mac Arthur  951-826-5991 (office), 951-990-9719 (cell), email: cmacarthur@riversideca.gov

Ward 6 – Jim Perry 951-826-5991 (office),  email: jperry@riversideca.gov

Ward 7 – Steve Adams  951-826-5991 (office), or 951-826-5024, email: sadams@riversideca.gov

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