Posts Tagged ‘scott simpson’

 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

PasadenaIndependent_WEBMastHead

COLLAGE

A two part series of articles has been written regarding Pasadena’s Public Works Director Siobhan Foster and City Manager Michael Beck with relation to their part with the City of Riverside featuring former fired Resource Principle Analyst Jason Hunter, former City of Riverside Business Owner who was retaliated by a City of Riverside Executive and Taxpayer Advocate Vivian Moreno, former fired Riverside Contracts Administer for Public Works Sean Gill, former fired Deputy City Attorney Raychele Sterling and retired 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 Scott Simpson.

PART ONE:

SHAKEUP AT PASADENA CITY HALL-TWO KEY DIRECTORS “FIRED WITHOUT CAUSE” FROM CITY FALLOUT FROM EMBEZZLEMENT SCANDAL RAISES MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT MICHAEL BECK’S MANAGEMENT.

PART TWO:

PART TWO: MICHAEL BECK AND TOXIC POLITICS

RIVERSIDER’S COMMENT ON THE PASADENA INDEPENDENT:

The people of Pasadena are lucky they have a newspaper that is covering this information. The owner of the Riverside paper, the Press Enterprise, retired, and it was sold to a Texas corporation that then gutted its staff’s ability to do this kind of investigative reporting. It has since then changed hands again.
Meanwhile, Michael Beck was hired as City Manager by the City of Riverside WITHOUT ANY SEARCH FOR, OR INTERVIEW OF OTHER CANDIDATES. I know; I was there objecting to this hire.
Why was Beck hired without any search for candidates? I think it’s because our then-Mayor, Ron Loveridge, knew Beck would participate in covering up what already had been taking place for years, under the “leadership’ of the previous City Manager, Brad Hudson, who, with Loveridge, had concocted a redevelopment scheme, the so-called “Riverside Renaissance,” that has left local citizens forced to overpay utility bills, sewer charges, and more, and stripped local services so that, for example, the annual expenditure on public libraries is only 25 cents per citizen per year. (I think Pasadena was spending at least $4 a year on library services).
Beck had worked at the University of California at Riverside, where our multi-term Mayor, Ron Loveridge, was continuing to accrue pension credits while on repeated annual leaves to serve six four-year terms as the City’s Mayor. (This means Loveridge is getting pensions from both the UC system AND from the City of Riverside; a recent salary poll showed that some unnamed associate professor at UCR is making $680,000 annually, and I bet that it’s Loveridge.)
So Loveridge knew Beck before extolling his virtues as a City Manager — an accolade Beck received despite his lack of ANY experience as a city manager.
I hope this newspaper continues to dig deep into this story!  LETITIA PEPPER, former Attorney for Best, Best & Krieger.

Beck started out without the proper credentials to be a city manager, but Mayor Loveridge brought him from UCR to pull off the Renaissance scheme. Although Beck is not smart enough to pull this scheme off himself he had help. We also fired good management so the scheme could be pulled off. Check with the purchasing manager, did they replace him/her. Did someone alert management and get fired? This is a trick Beck learned in Riverside. Fire Beck!!! Check not only your interfund/interagency loans but also your bond proceeds.  City council need to call the state controller to do an audit. Do not rely on outside auditors they can be bought and sold. Beck is no good, he will only try to hide the larger problems.  Someone needs to ask Beck why he was in the City of Riverside, city hall about 3 months ago, saw him in the elevator.  – DVONNE PITRUZZELLO, former candidate for Riverside Mayor & Council

And why, people should ask, did Beck fire Green and Foster “without cause”? Why weren’t they fired FOR cause — for failing to institute, and then follow, procedures designed to prevent the theft of at least $6.4 million? It looks like Beck is actually TRYING to protect them. He’s probably hoping that the average person will think that by firing them without cause, at least Beck is punishing them.
Under these circumstances, describing their departure as being “without cause” is actually a reward, compared to what should be happening.
So who REALLY knew WHAT was going on with that embezzlement — and WHERE did the money go, and WHO got a share of it? Will BECK’s name figure as an answer to any of these questions? Let’s hope there is an in-depth investigation and prosecution in the works.

I can’t believe the incredible timing of this article. Toward the end of the article, Jason Hunter, a former City of Riverside employee fired for knowing too much and not keeping quiet, talks about how the City of Riverside’s top officials worked to silence public discussion.

One of the ways to do that was that the City Council voted to take away the public’s right to take things off the Consent Calendar so that they were available for public discussion, and how then a small group — the Mayor, Mayor Pro tem, City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk — would decide what items went on the Consent Calendar.
In fact, individual Council members were denied the right to put anything on the Discussion or Consent Calendar at all, thus depriving their constituents of any voice as to issues that needed to be discussed.
I just recently stumbled onto the fact that this method of controlling public discussion is a violation of the Ralph M Brown Act. On January 16, 2015, I sent the Riverside Mayor and City Council a letter demanding that they stop violating the Ralph M. Brown Act and return to the former — and legal — method by which members of the public may object at any City Council meeting to any item being placed on the consent calendar, which then puts in on the Discussion Calendar for a full, public discussion and debate about its merits.
I am still awaiting a response, but if the City fails to correct this glaring, and meaningfully timed violation of law, there is a group of citizens ready to retain my legal services to sue the it.
Notably, the motion to take away this public right was made by Riverside City Council Member Dom Betro and seconded by Council Member Steve Adams as the “Riverside Renaissance” shell game was about to heat up. Steve Adams has been a HUGE proponent of developing the Ag Park land (mentioned in the second article in this series)and has continued to insist that there are no toxic chemicals there. I believe that Steve Adams was a primary a proponent of using sewer funds to build the infamous “road to nowhere” — a road built with city money leading directly to land that Cox, the developer mentioned in part two of this story, was planning to develop.  – LETITIA PEPPER, former Attorney for Best, Best & Krieger.

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “OFFENSIVE,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!  TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED.  I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO THE ACLU.  RATED 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!   COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS!  WE JUST CAN’T SPELL!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT BY CONTACTING US AT:   THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

 

 

20140709__SJM-DROUGHT~2While the City of Riverside finds it acceptable to waste water in their own backyard, the political assassination attempts against Councilman Soubirous by the City of Riverside and those underworld associates who have interest within Riverside, continue..

NUP_154811_4091+INTERNETCROPbwisuzu

According to Joe Isuzu: “He’s Lying…”

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. Incidentally, he himself, had personally been retaliated by the the City of Riverside’s Code Enforcement on nonsense property related issues (an altogether different issue that must be addressed) as a result of his first amendment rights to express the wrongdoings by the City of Riverside:

WATERWASTER     letter2     letter3     letter4     letter5     letter6

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW THE FULL LETTER BY SCOTT SIMPSON, WATER EXPERT, TO COUNCILMAN MIKE SOUBIROUS

Mr. Simpson states that the State of California cannot force conservation on us. We are not regulated by the state Department of Water Resources and they cannot regulate the use or conservation of the water in Riverside. That is why the state declarations of drought emergency have called for “Voluntary Conservation”.  They cannot force conservation upon us without a true lawful declaration of “Water Supply Emergency” in Riverside. Only the City of Riverside can declare our emergency.  So the question remains, Did the Riverside City Council declare a “Water Supply Emergency” this July 2014?

The other known premise is that the City of Riverside export or sells off in excess of 20% of our water supply to neighboring watering agencies at a profit.  With a faux drought declaration, the City could in essence sell more water at profit, hence, increasing the the water coffers.  Does anybody remember Measure A?  The passing of Measure A meant that 11.5% of those water coffers will be transferred to the General Fund.  The more money the Riverside Water Utilities gains the more money transferred!  This question was asked if the board knew that this was motive operandi in order to increase badly needed General Fund monies.  No one answered…  the board consist of:

  • Justin Scott-Coe – Board Chair
  • Ian J. Davidson – Board Vice Chair
  • Darrell Ament
  • David Austin
  • Susan Cash
  • Ronald Cole
  • Nick Ferguson
  • David E. Roberts
  • Andrew Walcker

Hence the question remains, do we as Riverside residents truly “own it?”  The water of course…AND SHOULDN’T WE BE RECEIVING DIVIDENDS, SINCE WE BUY INTO THE WATER PUBLIC UTILITIES WHEN WE PURCHASE OUR HOME IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE?  SO DO WE REALLY OWN IT? OR WE ARE ONLY GIVEN THE PERCEPTION OF OWNERSHIP?

Untitled-2

WATCH THE “I OWN IT” VIDEO PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE (CLICK THIS LINK)

Blue Riverside continuing a long standing tradition in contradiction and hypocrisy regarding the faux water crisis…of which there is none in Riverside.

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 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, 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!  WE JUST CAN’T SPELL!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT BY CONTACTING US AT:   THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

Pu1T0UfvSGJyBBMf-r3kE2dJ-d6fbR2ktzstZ2nkWjkh1QUhkDIc0xkOsbm-1VNCfVrccqA5V7pcE74BVoRrQo

PDone     PDtwo     PDthree

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW THE FULL LETTER SENT TO ATTORNEY MARK MAYERHOFF, OF LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE

MARKMEYEROFF

MARK MAYERHOFF (CLICK TO ENLARGE)

What should be brought to the forefront is that Liebert Cassidy Whitmore is actually representing Councilman Paul Davis in the current case of Raychele Sterling vs. City of Riverside et al.  Liebert Cassidy Whitemore is also the law firm that is doing the investigation for the City of Riverside against, of course, Councilman Paul Davis.  So the firm is defending him but at the same time crucifying him and sticking the knife into him!  Those in Riverside who keep up with the politics see this time and time again.  Those in Riverside who are sleep, need to wake up and see what is happening in your City.

Additionally, I will be filing a bar complaint against you and your firm for violations of conflicts of interest rules, since your firm is my direct representation in the active case Sterling v City of Riverside et al. I have never waived my conflict rights in this case and neither can the council. Regards,
Paul Davis
Council Member –

This according to Councilman Paul Davis’s personal statement as indicated below, under “Full Davis Personal Statement on this Investigation”.

The letter is directed toward Mark Mayerhoff, which Davis states he is “shocked” that his firm has released an incomplete investigation, as a result of the following:

Meyerhoffletterredactionsone copy     Meyerhoffletterredactionstwo

In the letter Attorney Mark Mayerhoff states the Investigation that will be release to Press Enterprise reporter Alicia Robinson will be redacted (to obscure or remove from a document prior to publication or release).  Of course we asked the question of Why?  Especially in the name of transparency.  Mayerhoff also states that he attached an unredacted copy of the investigation to Councilman Davis.  We have the unredacted investigation as follows, all 417 pages.  Alicia, if you need the full unredacted copy just download from our site!

invest417

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL UNREDACTED INVESTIGATION AGAINST COUNCILMAN PAUL DAVIS

The following is a personal statement made by Councilman Paul Davis in reference to his investigation and submitted to Thirty Miles.

PSDAVISone     PSDAVIStwo     PSDAVISthree

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL DAVIS PERSONAL STATEMENT ON THIS INVESTIGATION

Some telling excerpts are as follows:

These issues that Soubirous and I have been charged with is misappropriations of Public Funds for Political Gain and it is about exacting retaliation for our not being the “Go along to get along” guys, like many of the rest. The funds issue will be handled in another venue, as Adams and Bailey appropriated the funds without authority of the council. Evidence will be produced to prove this up. What happened is Barber files the complaint then funds the investigation under his 50K expense authority and they split up the contracts into four separate ones to equate to $200k authorization.
Interestingly enough the hired gun law firm and investigator failed to insert my interview “Eratta”, correction sheet into the investigation materials and even failed to incorporate the right statements in to Gumpart’s statements, where I said “Surely Not” and the stenographer records “Sure”.  Gumport does this so that he can make a point in his opinion on his questions as to the effect of my statements on CM Barber being able to do his job. However, I have attached is separately.
More to come.
Paul Davis
Councilmember – Ward 4
City of Riverside

And of course it is not over yet!  There is “MORE TO COME” according to Councilman Paul Davis!  We will sit back and wait because it will be sooner than you think.  Paul Davis’s Interview “Eratta” is as follows:

erratta

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL PAUL DAVIS TRANSCRIPT WITH ERRATA SHEET

We did a story on Ol’Scotty back when he intended to “Ferret” out a problem

We asked the question if Scott Barber should have been fired a long time ago.  First is he qualified for the job of City Manager?  Having a Thespian Degree?   Just back in September of 2012, City Manager Scott Barber decided to take his City Manager hat off and play Council by authorizing a change order of $2.5 million without council authority for the Fox Performance Plaza.

06clapper-articleInline           sb

      CM Scott Barber                              Sorry, CM Scott Barber

He brought the issue to Council and basically appeared they would rubber stamp the idea, after-the-fact.  Had this type of shenanigans been done before by the prior City Manager?  The City Manager’s discretionary spending cap is at $50,000.00, anything over that amount must go to council.  Certainly violated the Charter Amendment.  What made Barber think that he had the authority to act as an elect and ferret it out without them?  A complaint should have been filed against him with Human Resources, and Council should have fired him immediately.

What is now remarkable is the fact that Scotty is creating more liability as what appears to be personality problems at the expense of the taxpayer! It is now becoming evident he doesn’t care about the residents of Riverside, if not, only for himself.  Will Scotty sue the City of Riverside?  Or I should say, the taxpayer because of his perception of in house politics?  Remember Scotty is a remnant of the Hudson legacy; he, Brad Hudson was convicted of credit card fraud.  But our current Mayor Rusty Bailey considers him a moral compass, go figure..

Some things never change as this is common in Riverside. Brad Hudson ran the city and the Council as the Mayor was just a figure head madding back room deals, traveling, giving speeches and breaking a tie vote. Well a city attorney made the law up as he went but talked his way out. As the Mayor left and the hopes of an honest Mayor we saw a candidate who had powerful friends of the former Mayor. yes false fliers were sent out but the candidate got caught and apologized, using illegal Fed agent license plates and more corruption, as he was the choice of the people. To start his term he made national news by having a citizen arrested for speaking over 3 minutes, a lawyer arrested for clapping and big money was made with the help of the city Attorney in red lining homes for illegal foreclosure. People were in place to defend and protect the criminal acts. Brad Hudson skipped out along with the Deputy Attorney after illegally buying Glock Hand guns as the Feds closed in but the council did nothing. A replacement who would follow orders was needed and the Code Enforcement Director was picked. Things went for bad to worse as all violations by the council insiders were ignored but the firing of a Deputy attorney who reported illegal action was done as Mrs. Sterling was out. HR answered to Hudson and that was well known. Loveridge was funny as his old time lies did not work on a new generation. Just think Adams history of assaulting his girl friend, messing in a police promotion and as a veteran police officer taking illegal plates still got elected to council again and now running for Congress. Wow we have enough corrupt Congressmen in DC but at lease Riverside has an Honest Congressman in Mark. Well Davis and Mike know their honesty and loyalty to their Wards is not what the Bailey team wants. Most people know a misdemeanor is a violation that gets you jail time and a fine. But it seems Priamos missed that class in law school. Mike charged with hear say that failed even paying to LA lawyers 200,000 dollars which a law student would know. Then Davis with documents as evidence and wow the filing of complaints done wrong but no problem as even the Brown Act was violated twice and no due process in either case. Conflict of interest even paid Attorneys were clue less. The Mayor is spending allot to get two council out in the next election and put Bailey team members in their seats. What is clear is Riverside no longer wants citizens to elect their representatives but will let the Mayor do it. The way things are going Bailey wont need an election to continue as Mayor he will appoint himself. Scott Barber is a good worker and did a great job giving out tickets in Code Enforcement rather legal or illegal and really wanted the city managers job to do as he was told. Anyone who lives in the city of Riverside knows how things are done and employees/appointees take orders and follow them. I remember when we were asked for bond for the Library to help the children well after the money was given oops the council and mayor used it for something else only to come back again to ask for money for the Library. Using citizens and wasting money while making back room deals will continue until the voters clean out the corrupt elected officials and the Bailey Team. The Feds and the State are likely to come in and then the blame game but it will be great to see Brad Hudson and Greg Priamos finally answer to their crimes over the years.  – AirJackie, Commenter to TMC

CODE OF ETHICS AND CONDUCT COMPLAINT HEARING BETWEEN FORMER EMPLOYEE JASON HUNTER AND JUSTIN SCOTT COE CANCELED FOR FRIDAY JULY 25TH, 2014 FOR FLAWS IN THE PROCESS!  MORE TO COME.  DOES THIS MEAN ALL PRIOR COMPLAINTS NEED TO BE REHEARD?  TMC THINKS SO!

337062249

JUSTIN SCOTT COE

WAS THIS CANCELATION ALL BECAUSE OF WHAT KEITH NELSON HAD TO SAY? AND CALLING THE HIRED ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY A LIAR?

letterone

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW COMPLETE LETTER FROM KEITH J. NELSON TO SOUBIROIUS

Board Member, Keith J. Nelson, Ph.D., Inland Regional Board of Trustees, who also served a member of the City’s Adjudicating Body whenever an alleged violation of the City’s Code of Ethics, responded in this letter to Councilman Mike Soubirous regarding his concerns with the behavior and involvement of City Attorney Greg Priamos and outside legal, hired by the city, local Riverside attorney Doug Smith.  In fact, Doctor Keith J. Nelson calls Attorney Douglas Smith a “Liar” in the above letter.  This is the kind of corruption we have come to in the underbelly of the City of Riverside, and it is being taking notice locally, but world wide.  Thirty Miles of Corruption has being receiving hits from all over the world as you can see from it’s data banks.

1493020-327972687

RIVERSIDE ATTORNEY HIRED BY CITY OF RIVERSIDE, DOUGLAS  SMITH

WATER CONSERVATION: THE FAUX DROUGHT IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE.  We don’t have a drought in the City of Riverside, but it seems the City will create one in order take advantage of fines and maintain the current water rates.  The clincher is that the City passed an ordinance to comply with State Law.  They didn’t have to because we are exempt because we own our water supply.  We as a City are also under a court order, if we don’t use the water we lose it!  Since we own our own water in no position to declare a water shortage!  Large educational institutions such as RCC and UCR are exempt.

memo                     ordinan

   CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM                            WATER RESTRICTION ORDINANCE

This is how contradictary this ordinance is, if you are a recipient of Gage Canal water, there are no restrictions, you can use as much as appropriated yearly to you depending on your shares.  That means you can run the water into the street if you want.  Of course, I’m not advocating that, but the point is that we have a unfair application of the laws, maybe because the City can always depend on squeezing a little more from the residents.  The City didn’t have to pass the ordinance, but they did, they did because there is a monetary MO behind it. Education institutions such as UCR and RCC are exempt. One of the absolute benefits of living in Riverside is ownership of water.  You can maintain you pool and jacuzzi as long as you don’t “overfill.”  Did you get that one?  Who overfills their pool?   The San Bernardino Water Basin holds about 5 Million acre feet of water. Only about a million acre feet are available to the existing wells. So about 4 millions acre feet remains to be tapped by deeper wells. There is plenty of water. This is focused on an income source, and that income source is us.  This political move also seems another way that the City can put one neighbor against the other by the snitch call to code enforcement, the other police force.  It’s time to see what is occurring in the City of Riverside and remove your Councilperson.  In my ward it is Councilman Mike Gardner.

Remember, approximately 20% of our water is sold to Western Municipal.   Are we to conserve more water so that the City can sell more off to other communities for a higher profit.  Cite the citizens on water violations to increase profits.  Then they will then ask us to use less water then they will raise water rates to increase profits. You will use less and pay more. Then they will manipulate the tier pricing seasonally or at will to increase even more profits.  The more money in the water fund, the more that 11.5% water transfer to the General Fund will have.

The Faux Drought continues with more City propaganda regarding  water usage!  New article by Alicia Robinson in the Press Enterprise addressing the city’s position regarding water conservation.

FROM THE DESK OF SCOTT SIMPSON: SCOTT RESPONDS TO RIVERSIDE’S FAUX DROUGHT AND THE DATA AND ARTICLE IN THE PRESS ENTERPRISE: REFERRING TO PE ARTICLE: DROUGHT GROUNDWATER AT RECORD LOW:

waterSplash

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:

Interesting yet, manipulating the data. They first mentioned that ground water levels have dropped due to increased use/demand from consumers but, the graph displays only gw available in acre feet. The data that should have been shown in the graph in order to keep consistent with the written conversation is depth to ground water in the wells (1934-today). They have the data. The graph displays how much water was available every 2 yrs from 1934 on. This is the amount legally available to harvest annually. It is close to displaying how much water(rainfall) went into the basin each season. 1960-64 was the driest period on record but historical references are available of other dry and wet periods back to the early 1800’s. What the graph really shows is that Riverside takes about 10% of the annual harvest of water supplied by normal rainfall. The other water agencies share in the other 90%. The San Bernardino Water Basin holds about 5 Million acre feet of water. Only about a million acre feet are available to the existing wells. So about 4 millions acre feet remains to be tapped by deeper wells.

Of course in the current dry spell (notice there were several dry and wet periods 10 yrs apart) the available gw has decreased some due to demand but mostly due to low rainfall in the local mountains. Look at the wet years; almost instant recharge of the gw basin occurs as soon as we get the first normal or above normal rainfall. This shows the amount available to the various water harvesters is the amount of water that recharges the basin each year or about 500,000 acre feet on average. (this is detailed in the Court settlement order of 1980 settling the big water rights lawsuit filed in 1964.) There is plenty of water available in the gw basin. The Court has limited access to most of it.

Currently, Riverside uses about 84,000 acre feet of gw per year. Half or 44,000 acre feet is harvested from the San Bernardino Basin. The other 40,000 comes mostly from the North Riverside Basin from a well field near the soccer complex and old dead golf course. The North Riverside Basin is geologically and hydraulically connected to the San Bernardino Basin. Ground water flows from the San Bernardino Basin into the North Riverside Basin continuously via a narrow under ground channel beneath the Santa Ana River in Colton.

Now, lets get back to water rights. A Water Right is a legal claim to a fixed amount of water harvested annually from a defined source such as, a river. Your claim can be legally challenged at any time by another water harvester from the same water source. There are pre-1914 water rights and post-1914 water rights. The difference is the date of first lawful claim to the water. Post-1914 water rights claims are granted, processed, regulated and disputed through or by the Calif. Dept. of Water Resources. This legal status encompasses all of the state’s water resources unused or in its natural state post-1914 water law. This is about 62% of the states total water resources during average rainfall periods. The UlS. Constitution prohibits congress from passing retroactive law so, we get old law still in effect for many and the new law applying only to those engaging in the regulated activity as of the date of new law. Two systems of legal claims to water co-existing at the same time.

The other pre-1914 water sources comprising 38% of the states water resources pre-existed the 1914 change in state law toward state regulation of water harvesting and the creation of the Dept. of Water Resources. So if you held a legal water right prior to 1914 it was formed under old law dating back to the founding of the state circa 1849 and before John North et al started up the land development scheme (the Southern California Colony Assn) that became the city of Riverside circa 1885.

From 1850-1914 the primary concern of Californians and incoming settlers was the availability of water and the price! People were experiencing the tyranny of corporate monopolies with the railroad. Railroads arbitrarily raised freight prices after settlers moved in. Cheep rates to draw in settlers and raise them later to extract profits from them when they financially can’t leave. The basic lack of competition in a natural monopoly like a railroad sucked the money out of the local farmers. It was feared that the same monopolistic behavior would (and was) occur with water providers. The state legislature of 1850-1905 was very serious about curbing monopolistic water providers. 1852 saw the first laws regulating the formation of water companies and pricing. Our state Senator of the day, John Satterwaite, authored several laws including one passed in 1862, the Satterwaite Act or Civil Code 552. John North incorporated the So. Calif. Colony Assn. under this law to make profits from the sale of land with a guarantee of water delivery in perpetuity. In part it says, “The corporation is formed to build a water distribution (canal) system to make the land livable and profitable. The corporation making its’ profits from the sale of the land and the water sold at cost.”
This is further elaborated on in Superior Court, Appellate Court and Supreme Court decisions leading to Cal. Supreme, Price v. the Riverside Land & Irrigation Co., 1880. Where the law and lower court rulings were placed in context justifying the Supreme Courts decision. In part saying, ” The corporation having formed under the law of 1862 (civil code 552) may not make profits from the sale and delivery of water. The water belongs to the land and is fixed to it permenently. The price set for delivery of water is based only upon the cost of operating and maintaining the canal, pipes, pumps or other infrastructure annually, Water is not sold as a comodity the lawful price to only recover the cost of providing water to the land.” Including that this was a contractual obligation of the original sale of Colony land(s) to settlers. So, the So. Calif. Colony Assn. contractually sold parcels of land with the advertised and promissed guarantee of water delivery in perpetuity to the land, a contractual obligation that continues forever to pass with the land ownership and successive owners of the water company including a future municipality. This is published case law stating that state water law of the time is still in effect and contractural obligation both pass to successive owners. The water right is fixed to the land receiving water permanently and cannot be altered. State constitutional law upholding and the U.S. Constitution, fourteenth amendment protection of lawful contracts upholding. Land owners served by the city of Riverside water dept. as successor owner of the Riverside land &Irrigation Co. cannot be denied the water they have always received in the same amount and quality as originally delivered to the land and in perpetuity at not more than the cost to deliver the water.

So we are in a period of drought. The law and the Cal. Sup. 1880 says, “The (city of Riverside) water company must declare a water supply emergency to deviate from it otherwise lawful supplying of water to the land, in order to initiate any form of reducing water supply or consumption during the emergency period. It must also stop connecting new land/customers to the distribution system until the emergency is canceled.”

Hence, Riverside cannot charge us fees for conservation programs because that is not a cost of operating and maintaining the infrastructure/service. Riverside cannot do anything other than request Volunteer water conservation. Riverside cannot raise prices to force consumers to use less water. Riverside cannot use tiered punitive pricing to force less water consumption. You have a lawful right to water in the same amount as was originally delivered to your land. My parcel was originally planted in citrus pre-1890 and irrigated with about 8 acre feet of water per acre, the water also being of drinking water quality and used to supply the house. So my water allotment for our .84 acre parcel is about 6 acre feet of water per year. After that, Riverside can require conservation and maybe raise prices.

RUSTY’S RED TROLLEY! DOES HE THINK IT CAN?  MEETING PLANNED FOR JULY 30ST, 2014 TO EXAMIN THE FEASABILITY STUDY!  The City of Riverside received a Cal Trans Grant of $237,000.00 to do a feasibility study, and you better believe with this money the focus is on a reason to have it!

Train_around_the_Christmas_tree FOUR          streetcar5 copy6

CLICK IMAGES TO ENLARGE

TMC will have a rebuttle of the pro’s and con’s of a trolley system in the City of Riverside, and will be able to do it for no cost to the taxpayer!

meetingtrollyjuly2014

CLICK IMAGE TO VIEW DETAILS OF THE MEETING

TROLLEY UPDATE:  TMC WAS TOLD THAT AT THE MEETING, THE TABLES HAD NAME CARDS OF ALL THE COUNCIL AND MAYOR WITH THE TROLLEY STUDY PACKETS.  NOT ONE MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL SHOWED, EVEN THE MAYOR DIDN’T SHOW AND IT’S HIS PROJECT!  IT APPEARS ANOTHER $237K IN STATE GRANT MONEY DOWN THE DRAIN..

THE RIVERSIDE CITY COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE WILL TAKE QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS ON THE UPCOMING SPECIAL AUDIT OF THE SEWER FUNDS.  THIS WILL BE THIS TUESDAY JULY 29TH AT 6:00PM IN THE MAYOR’S CEREMONIAL ROOM ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL.  

photo

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY NEIL OKAZAKI LEAVES CITY OF RIVERSIDE.  Sources have said that Neil Okazaki would be leaving his position, possible going to the County.  This occurred the day of the Soubirious hearing.  Was this hearing the turning point for Okazaki?  Weeks before, City Attorney Greg Priamos said he was leaving for a position with the County as well.  What seems evident is that no one wants to go down with the ship!

 FUROR ENGULFS CHICAGO’S RED LIGHT SCAMERA CAMERA SYSTEM!  You’ll thank those that voted to remove our cameras here in Riversider sooner or later.

SORRY EVERYBODY! WE STILL HAVE MORE ON COUNCILMAN SOUBIROUS’S INVESTIGATION THAT WILL BE A COMPLETE SHOCKER! STAY TUNED FOR MORE AS RIVER CITY TURNS!

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 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, 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!  WE JUST CAN’T SPELL!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT BY CONTACTING US AT:   THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM