Eye On Modesto

Thoughts and observations about Modesto and Stanislaus County

Archive for the tag “Modesto California”

Modesto City Council’s Response to Potential Future Conflicts

By Emerson Drake 

AN URGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4, “PUBLIC WELFARE, SAFETY AND HEALTH” OF THE MODESTO MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 23 TO IMPOSE CERTAIN TIME, PLACE AND MANNER REGULATIONS AS TO PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES

SECTION 1. FINDINGS

A. The City Council of the City of Modesto hereby finds as follows: revisions to the City’s Municipal Code implemented by this Urgency Ordinance are immediately necessary as an emergency measure in order to respond to preserve the public health, safety and welfare. Specifically, the revisions and amendments to Municipal Code Title 4, Chapter 23 included in this Urgency Ordinance are essential and immediately necessary to improve the City’s regulation of public assemblies, and thereby ensure the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety and general welfare in the City of Modesto.

B. The City Council desires to amend Title 4 entitled “Public Welfare, Safety and Health” of its Municipal Code by adding Chapter 23 in its entirety, entitled “Restrictions on Use of Specified Items During Public Assembly ” to provide critically needed rules regulating the use of certain objects that may be weaponized during demonstrations, rallies, protests, counter-protests, picket lines, marches, or assemblies on public property so as to safeguard against violence and promote peaceful assembly for Modesto citizens, police and visitors alike. These regulations serve to deter violence, property damage and any bodily harm to individuals that wish to engage in peaceful protests and demonstrations.

  1. In developing this Ordinance, the City Council is mindful of the legal principles relating to regulation of activity in public forums such as sidewalks, streets and public parks. The City Council does not intend to unconstitutionally suppress or infringe expressive activities protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution or the Liberty of Speech Clause of the California Constitution, but instead is enacting reasonable content-neutral time, place and manner regulations that address the need to prevent violent, dangerous and hazardous situations from arising and to promote the safety of both the public and the police.
  2. D. The revisions to the City’s Municipal Code implemented by this Urgency Ordinance are immediately necessary as an emergency measure in order to respond to recent developments regarding a proposed public assembly that is seeking a permit for August 24, 2019, and which raise serious and alarming safety concerns regarding protecting citizens and police alike from violent disputes, and in order to reduce the threat of serious bodily injury or property damage during this proposed event and for future public events in Modesto. Specifically, the amendments to the City’s Municipal Code Title 4 adding Chapter 23 included in this Urgency Ordinance are essential and immediately necessary to ensure the orderly implementation of restrictions on specified items used at public assemblies to reduce the likelihood of violence and property damage and to ensure the safety of the general public, event attendees, counter-protestors and the police, and thereby ensure the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety and general welfare in the City of Modesto.
  3. E. The City supports peaceful protests, demonstrations and events. Unfortunately, some individuals have used protests and other public assembly events as “cover” to commit acts of violence, arson and vandalism. It is the intent of the City in enacting this Urgency Ordinance to ensure that public assembly events are peaceful and safe.
  4. F. There is an increasing concern about violence at public events and about violent clashes between those with opposing views. Numerous public protests, demonstrations and rallies conducted throughout the nation in cities such as Charlottesville and St. Louis, as well as cities throughout California, in Berkeley, Oakland and Laguna Beach have erupted in violence between demonstrators and counter-demonstrators, and violence against law enforcement personnel.G. On August 12, 2017, a car was deliberately driven into a crowd of people who had been peacefully protesting a Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. The driver of the car espoused neo-Nazi and white supremacist beliefs. In 2017, violence also erupted during a series of protests that place in Berkeley, California near the University of California campus. The violent interactions predominately occurred between groups with opposing viewpoints, including white nationalist groups and Antifa groups.

    H. At these events, devices such as poles, sticks, signs, wood and metal pipes, bats, chains, projectiles (such as rocks, concrete, pellets and ball bearings), as well as certain types of containers including glass bottles and containers filled with flammable or noxious substances and aerosol sprays deployed to cause flames or attack olfactory systems, and other items have been used as improvised weapons resulting in injuries and property damage. Demonstrators have also carried shields, thrown objects at police, used fire accelerant to light fires, used large poles and sticks as weapons to threaten bodily harm and to attack businesses. Rigid-support materials used on signs have frequently been used as weapons and turned upon police officers, marchers, or other demonstrators.

    I. The City of Modesto could see similar occurrences in its jurisdiction. The City Council does not want to take a “wait-and-see” approach. The City Council has a reasonable basis to believe that failing to enact regulations limiting the use of objects that can be weaponized at public assemblies increases the risk that violence will occur at a public event in the City.

    J. Event organizers have sought a permit for use of City facilities for a straight pride event to be held on August 24, 2019. The flyer associated with the event invites the public to join in a celebration of: heterosexuality, masculinity, femininity, babies born and unborn, western civilization, our wonderful country and Christianity. The website associated with the flyer, NationalStraightPrideCoalition.org, among other things, makes reference to whiteness/Caucasian as being the “mass majority biological racial component of the developers of the western civilization,” that “West is Best” and that its fundamental principles and values are under attack.

    K. Event organizers have invited the Proud Boys to attend the event. The proposed event applicant has stated he is a member of the local Proud Boys organization. The Proud Boys have been designated as a hate group by Southern Poverty Law Center and its members are known to participate in white supremacist rallies, events and organizations. Members of the Proud Boys are reported to have been violent during prior protests.

    L. The straight pride event is advertised as being open to the public. PRISM which stands for Pride-Solidarity-Multiculturalism is organizing to protest the straight pride event. The City estimates that the crowds drawn to the event as both supporters and protestors may reach as high as 1,000-2,000 people. MoPRIDE a Modesto organization providing support to the LGBTQ+ community has offered safe places for people during the event as personal safety and potential violence against members of the LGBTQ+ community is a serious concern.

    M. Anti-fascist (“Antifa”) groups are aware of the event and there is credible evidence to believe they will attend the event/counter-protest in large numbers. Antifa groups are known to wear masks to obscure their identities and are reported to have been violent during prior protests. There is an increased risk that if individuals wear masks or use other apparel to cover their faces and conceal their identities they will utilize their anonymity to commit acts of violence or vandalism without concern of identification and apprehension, disturbing the ability of others to safely assemble and demonstrate peacefully.

    N. During the City Council’s August 7, 2019 meeting tensions ran high as both opponents and supporters of the straight pride event spoke. There were large numbers of people in the audience and many speakers. The organizer of the straight pride event spoke and identified his organization as a “peaceful racist” group. Applicant Grundmann and other Council attendees were highly animated. The City has a reasonable basis to believe that these tensions are likely to accelerate and to increase the likelihood of clashes at the proposed straight pride event.

    O. The City has credible evidence that there is a heightened risk of violent conflict that may take place at the proposed public event in the City on August 24, 2019. The City’s Police Department is already planning significant security measures to address the heightened safety concerns for the proposed August 24, 2019 event, including possibly requesting reinforcements from other law enforcement agencies. However, these measures alone will not prevent the threat to public safety from the weaponization of objects used by demonstrators.

    P. The adoption of this Urgency Ordinance to limit the use of specified items at public assembly events is a necessary and critical tool for the City to have in place to ensure the safety of the general public and its police. Q. In addition to the above factual findings, the City Council in enacting this Ordinance does hereby also take legislative notice of the various principles and decisions regarding the regulation of public assemblies, including but not limited to, the following:

    1. Public streets, sidewalks and parks are the archetypes of a traditional public forum where the government cannot favor one speaker over another based on the viewpoint of the speaker . See Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 480-81 (1988); see also Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 828 (1995). The government may regulate First Amendment activities in traditional public fora, such as streets, sidewalks and parks when such restrictions are reasonable time, place and manner restrictions that are: content neutral; narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest; and leave open ample alternative channels of communication. See Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 473 U.S. 788, 799-800 (1985); see also; Bay Area Peace Navy v. United States, 914 F.2d 1224 (9th Cir. 1990).

    2. The First Amendment does not protect violence. See N.A.A.C.P v. Claiborne Hardware Co, 458 U.S. 886, 916 (1982).

    3. In response to potential angry or inflammatory speech, the City of Modesto may increase its police presence; enact security measures to ensure the safety of the public; arrest those who actually engage in violent conduct; and may enact time, place and manner regulations to maintain safety during public events. See Collins v. Jordan, 110 F.3d 1363, 1372 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307 (1967); Long Beach Area Peace Network v. City of Long Beach, 574 F.3d 1011, 1024 (9th Cir. 2009).

    4. The City of Modesto has a substantial interest in safeguarding its citizens against violence and in protecting police and demonstrators alike. See Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 724-25 (2000); see also Vlasak v. Superior Court, 329 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2003). Specifically, case law has confirmed that Modesto may enact regulations to make sure that materials used for signs and sign poles, as well as other objects, are not used as weapons. The City takes legislative notice of the City of Los Angeles regulations restricting certain objects at demonstrations and has modeled this regulations in keeping with the Los Angeles provisions validated by the Ninth Circuit in the Vlasak decision. See Vlasak, 329 F.3d at 689; see also Edwards v. City of Coeur D’Alene, 262 F.3d 856, 863 & 866 (9th Cir. 2001).

    R. It is imperative that individuals engaging in peaceful expressive public activity do so without fear of violence and that law enforcement personnel dedicated to protecting such activity be allowed to do so without suffering injury. This Urgency Ordinance provides a narrowly tailored content-neutral mechanism to reduce the risk of violence at demonstrations, rallies, protests, counterprotests, picket lines, marches, or public assemblies in the City of Modesto. Among other things, the restrictions limit the objects that can be used for signs, but still allow for signs to be utilized. Likewise, the restrictions limit the use of facial covering that obscure one’s identity at these specific public events (with exceptions for religious and medical reasons) without banning costumes or other expressive clothing. The restrictions are also directed at limiting other items (such as baseball bats, aerosol spray, weapons, glass bottles, shields, bricks, and rocks) that can, and have been weaponized, while still allowing for peaceful expressive activity.

    S. On August 13, 2019, the City Council held a public meeting during which it considered the adoption of this Urgency Ordinance pursuant to California Government Code § 36937 and the Modesto Charter § 716. Both California Government Code § 36937 and Modesto Charter § 716 allow the adoption of such urgency ordinances to take effect immediately to ensure the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety and general welfare in the City of Modesto.

    T. The restrictions on use of specified items during public assembly adopted herein are necessary in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare by providing a mechanism to limit and prevent violence and promote peaceful assembly. These are content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions that allow for peaceful public expressive activity. The restrictions are narrowly tailored to address the City’s interest in safety and preventing violence and to the extent they burden expressive activity they leave ample alternatives for communication. The regulations make public assembly safer by banning objects that can readily be weaponized without depriving people of the opportunity to demonstrate, rally, protest, counter-protest, picket, march, assemble or otherwise engage in peaceful free speech activities.

    U. These regulations adopted herein are necessary in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare by providing a mechanism to address the potential violence and companion property damage and personal injuries that have accompanied public protests, rallies and demonstrations in cities such as Berkeley, Oakland, St. Louis, and Charlottesville.

    SECTION 2. AMENDMENT OF MUNICIPAL CODE.

    The City of Modesto Municipal Code Title 4 (Public Welfare, Safety and Health) is hereby amended by adding Chapter 23 in its entirety as follows:

    CHAPTER 23 RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF SPECIFIED ITEMS DURING PUBLIC ASSEMBLY

    Section 4-23.01 Purpose

    (a) To ensure the peaceful expression of free speech, the City of Modesto has adopted the following provisions to limit the use of certain objects that may be weaponized during demonstrations, rallies, protests, counter-protests, picket lines, marches, or assemblies on public property in order to safeguard against violence for the citizenry of Modesto.

    (b) The City of Modesto adopts these content-neutral, time, place and manner regulations to ensure for the safety and welfare of all individuals. These regulations allow for the peaceful expression of differing ideas and views while reducing the risk of violent conflict by prohibiting the use or possession of weapons, or objects that may be weaponized during demonstrations, rallies, protests, counter-protests, picket lines, marches, or public assemblies.

    Section 4-23.02 Restrictions

    (a) No person shall utilize, carry, or possess the following items or articles while attending or participating in any demonstration, rally, protest, counter-protest, picket line, march, or public assembly:

    1. Any length of lumber, wood, or wood lath unless that object is 1/4 inch or less in thickness and 2 inches or less in width, or if not generally rectangular in shape, such object shall not exceed 3/4 inch in its thickest dimension. Both ends of the lumber, wood or wood lath shall be blunt;

    2. Any length of metal or plastic pipe, whether hollow or solid; provided, however, that hollow plastic piping not exceeding 3/4 inch in its thickest dimension and not exceeding 1/8 inch in wall thickness, and not filled with any material, liquid, gas or solid may be used solely to support a sign, banner, placard, puppet or other similar expressive display. Both ends of any plastic pipe permissible under this subsection shall be blunt;

    3. Signs, posters, banners, plaques or notices, unless such sign, poster, banner, plaque or notice is constructed solely of soft material, such as cloth, paper, soft plastic capable of being rolled or folded, or cardboard material no greater than 1/4 inch in thickness;

    4. Baseball or softball bats, regardless of composition or size;

    5. Any aerosol spray, tear gas, mace, pepper spray, smoke canisters, or bear repellant;

    6. Any projectile launcher or other device, such as a catapult or wrist rocket, which is commonly used for the purpose of launching, hurling or throwing any object, liquid, material or other substance, whether through force of air pressure, spring action or any other mechanism;

    7. Weapons such as firearms, knives, daggers, swords, sabers or other bladed devices, axes, axe handles, hatchets, billy clubs, ice picks, razor blades, nunchucks or martial arts weapons of any kind, box cutters, pellet or BB guns, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), dynamite, conducted electrical weapons (CEWs), including, but not limited to, Tasers or stun guns, metal/composite/wooden knuckles, or any chain greater than 20 inches in length or greater than 1/4 inch in diameter. This section also includes toy or replica firearms unless such toy or replica is fluorescent colored or transparent;

    8. Balloons, bottles or any other container such as water cannons or super-soakers, filled with any flammable, biohazard or other noxious matter which is injurious, or nauseous, sickening or irritating to any of the senses, with intent to throw, drop, pour, disperse, deposit, release, discharge or expose the same in, upon or about any demonstration, rally, protest, picket line or public assembly;

    9. Glass bottles, whether empty or filled;

    10. Open flame torches, lanterns or other devices that utilize combustible materials such as gasoline, kerosene, propane or other fuel sources;

    11. Shields made of metal, wood, hard plastic or any combination thereof;

    12. Bricks, rocks, pieces of asphalt, concrete, pellets or ball bearings; and

    13. The wearing of a mask, scarf, bandana or any other accessory or item that covers or partially covers the face shielding the wearer’s face from view and conceals the wearer’s identity, except for coverings worn due to religious beliefs, practices or observances or due to medical necessity.

    (b) It shall be unlawful and a misdemeanor to violate any provisions of this Chapter.

    (c) When feasible, excluding exigent circumstances, a warning shall be issued before enforcement of the provisions of this Chapter. Such warning shall be sufficient if provided orally, by posted signs or by amplified announcement.

    (d) Authorized peace officers, or employees, agents or representatives of the City, shall be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter when such officers, employees, agents or representatives of the City are engaged in official business of the City.

    (e) Nothing in this Chapter shall prohibit the imposition of specific conditions for activities expressly authorized under a permit issued pursuant to Modesto Municipal Code Section 4- 8.01 et seq. (Regulation of Parades) or prohibit the modification of these provisions for such permits issued pursuant to Section 4-8.01 et seq. upon a finding by the Chief of Police that such modification will not impair or threaten public safety.

    (f) Nothing in this section shall prohibit an individual from carrying a cane or using a walker or other device necessary for providing mobility or access so that the person may participate in a public protest, demonstration, rally, picket line or public assembly.

    SECTION 3 SEVERABILITY.

    If any portion of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional, by a court of competent jurisdiction, that portion shall be deemed severable, and such invalidity, unenforceability or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining portions of the Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council of the City of Modesto hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, sentences, clauses or phrases of the Ordinance be declared invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional.

    SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE/URGENCY.

    This Urgency Ordinance shall be passed and adopted at one and the same meeting and shall become effective immediately. The reasons for this urgency are set forth in Paragraphs AU inclusive.

    The foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Modesto held on the 13th day of August, 2019, by Councilmember(s) ____________________, was upon roll call carried and ordered printed and published by the following votes:

    AYES: Councilmembers:

    NAYS: Councilmembers:

    ABSENT: Councilmembers:

    APPROVED:_________________________ TED BRANDVOLD, Mayor

    ATTEST: BY: __________________________________ STEPHANIE LOPEZ, City Clerk (SEAL)

    APPROVED AS TO FORM:

    BY: __________________________________ ADAM U. LINDGREN, City Attorney

Advertisements

Borges’ Supervisor Campaign Loses Credibility

By Emerson Drake   

Taking a page out of Georgethe developer’s land use attorneyPetrulakis that says if you don’t have an issue manufacture or invent  one, Ms. Borges is using the 132 bypass issue with mixed results.  It didn’t matter to her that the issue has been settled for years or that the County has held multiple workshops over years (that Ms. Borges failed to attend) or that the State has much more influence in the final outcome than the County.   She’s been waving it like a flag with limited results.  But on this topic  what we question is highlighted by her map of alleged cancer clusters.

At the Bee forum during her introductory two minutes, instead of introducing herself she took the opportunity to throw down her display cards in dramatic fashion.  Between that and the Bee’s video issues it was somewhat hard to pick out.  But later in a conversation with a friend it was pointed out to me her map was either incomplete or was skewed for effect.  Well there is another option and that is no one gets cancer on the other side of Highway 99.  Upon further review her map looked like someone had taken a glass, turned it upside down and drawn a circle around it with a pencil creating the area in question, recorded the cancer cases, and then stopped marking the cancer cases on the rest of the map.

Maybe they thought it to be unimportant.  Maybe they thought no one would notice.  But her campaign would be wrong on both counts.  Changing the route at this late date would be impossible and hauling the contaminated soil away has been discussed and scientifically researched and set aside mostly because of the research and partially because of the exorbitant cost.

As for the alleged clusters, if you take a map of part of Modesto, including the rural western area that Modesto’s developers have their eyes on, draw a circle around the area (in a moderately populated area) in question then compare it to the lightly populated rest of Wood Colony you can’t help but get certain areas to stand out. If her campaign would have bothered to include more of Modesto then maybe the area in question would not have stood out.  But anything to win an election I guess.

During her performance in front of the Bee’s Editorial Board Ms. Borges repeatedly says she isn’t a politician and to check her 460’s.   When people run for office they are required to list the donations they’ve taken in and the expenditures they have made.  Candidate Borges was very aware it would be several days before she would file her 460’s let alone for them to be made available to the public.

But since she so enthusiastically invited us lets take a minute to consider what we discovered with a trip online.   From 1/1/18 to 4/21/18 her campaign has raised $22,589 in cash.  But apparently Stanislaus County voters haven’t been readily opening their wallets. Of the $22,589 only $3,589 came from Stanislaus County.  The remaining $19,000 came from two benefactors living in Texas.  $9,500 came from a man in Houston and $9,500 came from a woman in Bellaire.  For a Board of Supervisors race it’s strange to see so much out of state money.

Creating issues out of thin air, at best a dubious map, and out of state money, her future as a serious political candidate is being called into question.

 

Why This MID Election is Important to You

By  Emerson Drake  

Having gone to Modesto Irrigation District (MID) meetings regularly for more than ten years, researched their past, and following them with interest for more than twice that time, that there is no doubt that this election is crucial to MID’s and our future.

When you start to talk about MID people’s eyes have a tendency to glaze over after about 30 seconds, that is unless you are talking to them after they pay an electric bill during a hot spell when they have been using their air conditioning.   The fact is that MID was mismanaged for years by Tom Van Groningen (1993-2013) ,his cohorts on the Board and Allen Short, MID’s General Manager, during those same years.

A short look at MID’s history of business decisions shows an absence of, shall we say, critical thinking. It’s been suggested more than once if they’d flipped a coin instead of being led around by the nose or making the decisions themselves  they could have saved us about $500 Million dollars by the simple chance of the flip. From the geothermal fiasco, to a potential garbage burner to the overpriced (by 30 percent)  McHenry Ave solar farm contract north of town, it was one debacle after another.

Another fact is that a small group of business people led by Bill Lyons, yes the Bill Lyons of Mapes Ranch that wanted to sell our water to San Francisco, have controlled MID’s Board for this same period.  Bill has written checks for $5,000 to his special MID candidates (2 per election)  during contested election years. While his business partners, this year both developers and farmers,  took care of the third MID seat to the same fiscal level. His most recent beneficiaries were Paul Campbell and Jim Mortenson.  Campbell was elected and Mortenson was defeated by Jake Wenger four years ago.

So after they drove into almost $1 Billion dollars in debt what happened next?  Well first of all Larry Byrd, Nick Blom, followed by Jake Wenger two years later,  were elected to the MID Board.  Secondly the cost of natural gas plummeted.  This gave us the profit that people point to.  And what was the prudent course to take?  They started to pay down the debt.

Just as most of us learned as we matured you can’t live off of credit forever so the MID Board did the prudent thing.  It’s not sexy but it is necessary, you have to pay down the debt.  In the past MID, since they aren’t governed by the Public Utilities Commission, had the ability to our raise rates whenever they felt like it.

Our electric rates have been the same since 2011 so if you are feeling the effect of a high electric bill it means you used, like most of us,  a lot of electricity during the 31 days of 100 degree heat recently.

Now we’re faced with the decision of who to elect to the MID Board.  Both men are church going family men and business men.  But politically speaking that’s where the similarity ends. Stu has aligned himself with developers like Paul Zagaris, George Petrulakis, Mani Grewal, and special interest groups like Bill Lyons and company.  Jake has aligned himself with his friends, family, and the average working family.  Stu is a johnny come lately that admits to knowing little but what he’s read in the Bee, and has a penchant for making promises he can’t back up.  Jake has been fiscally responsible when it comes to being our voice on MID and is the most available person I’ve ever known in politics.  As an example if asked a question in person or online he’ll answer it immediately if time permits, and if it doesn’t or you have more questions he’ll give you his personal phone number and either give you the answer or get you the answer to your questions.  Unfortunately Stu isn’t knowledgeable about water or MID at all.  He’s like a one trick pony that looks nice but won’t take you anywhere.

The sound decision to make is to get up off you chair or couch and make sure you vote for Jake Wenger.

 

The City Attorney, Adam Lindgren, Just Can’t Get It Right

By Emerson Drake  

When it comes to making important decisions that effect the public, City Attorney Adam Lindgren often falls more that just a bit short, personally it’s my opinion he fails miserably.

Back when the City Council was going through the Wood colony debacle Adam Lindgren interpreted case law to say  that signs could not be shown in the Council Chambers and anyone doing so could and would  be removed.  This was enforced throughout the meeting until a Modesto citizen, Gaetana Drake had the chance to speak.  She cited specific case law relating to Adam’s decision. After further review as they say, Adam changed his decision and signs, which had been ruled free speech by the courts,  were resentfully allowed to be displayed  accompanied by a cheer from the 200 plus attendees.  At another City Council meeting regarding Wood Colony the city had allowed people to speak and then significantly changed what they were going to be voting on.  At first they refused to allow people that had already spoken to address the change.  Then once again a Modesto citizen, Gaetana Drake, pointed out case law which specifically say they had to allow it to be addressed once they significantly changed the motion.  You would think this would be City Attorney 101.

Starting to see a pattern?  We’ve recently discussed the 14,000 emails the city wants to keep out of the public and they actually started making up new policy and law.  Here is part of a follow-up email from the City where they try to charge for processing the same emails they avoided using in Public Record Requests.

The City Clerk’s office also communicated with you and asked you to narrow the requests in a manner that describes identifiable records which may be located by City staff with reasonable efforts. You informed the City that you do not wish to narrow your requests. Without more focused requests, the City considers these requests to be overly burdensome and cannot process them any further, without further action on your part, for the reasons stated below. Should you wish to contact our office and narrow your requests, and/or submit a deposit as explained below, we will be more than happy to work with you to provide the information you seek.

The City has determined that where staff time and expense necessary to respond to such broad and voluminous requests is not reasonable, the public interest in not wasting taxpayer resources to process the request clearly outweighs any public interest to respond to such requests, particularly when no attempt by you has been made focus the requests.  (Gov. Code section 6255; American Civil Liberties Union Foundation v. Deukmejian 32 Cal.3d 440, at 452-453.)

In order to begin processing this request, the City requires a $250.00 deposit, as printing and data extraction time (10 cents per page) is necessary to ensure that privileged, private, or personnel-related exempt records are not released in violation of the law.  Upon remittance of the deposit, the first 2,500 pages will be reviewed and then all non-exempt public records from those pages will be available for your inspection.  Additional deposits would be required to continue processing this request.

So in effect the City Attorney Adam Lindgren want $1,400 to process the 14,000 emails he should have been including all along in Public Record Requests. $1,400 in data extraction time?  And if the money isn’t paid in advance they processing of emails would stop!

It’s not only illegal  it’s unethical and more importantly it isn’t what the law says.    When we started this Public Record Request(PPR) for the private emails the Council has been using we were told the total email numbers were probably few and the topics inconsequential.  If, when they say a few, they mean 14,000 you have to wonder what inconsequential means.

But there’s more:  The 14,000 emails are only those on the City’s servers. Any emails sent from private email accounts to private email accounts are NOT included in the 14,000, and the city refuses to supply the email addresses saying the Council members will be given guidelines to follow and they will be going through their own emails to see what is relevant and what isn’t.

So the Mayor and Council that claim to be completely transparent and yet are using private email accounts, to conduct city business, are now going to police themselves?

Most reasonable people if asked would say that’s inconceivable. And to borrow a line from the Princess Bride, I don’t think that word means what you think it means,  especially when it comes to Modesto politics.

The Bee’s Jeff ‘the slimeball’ Jardine, First He Creates the News and Then He Writes about It

By Emerson Drake   recallbirgit

While this is far from the first time the Modesto Bee has allowed one of their employees to attack people in print it should be the last.  Some have questioned  if this was ‘slime ball’s’ idea or if it was spawned by one of his editors, I suggest either way it needs to stop and stop NOW.  Papers caught creating news can’t be trusted.  Public Record Requests are a wonderful tool when attempting to seek out the smoking gun of Hypocrisy. Jardine’s story  isn’t a case of the misuse of public money or the public’s trust.  No he’s made it personal and vindictive in our opinion.

 

Former Mayor Carmen Sabatino has been trying to point out that Stanislaus County D.A. Birgit Fladager through her minions has withheld exculpatory evidence (and yes the AJ Pontillo was subsequently  found innocent) and was more recently caught withholding discovery from the Carson defense team.  A  District Attorney withholds evidence that clears a mans name is in the minds of most people despicable and now to be caught for the second, or is it the third time, hiding evidence form the defense means Stanislaus County Court rooms can hardly be called a bastion of justice.

 

Jardine has use an informative sign as an excuse to attack our former Mayor at his place of business.   Jeff creates the story, he writes the story, and pronounces guilt in the story.  But Jeff, you’re the one that’s guilty here.

 

By Mayor Carmen Sabatino

Below is an official public records transcript between a Modesto Bee reporter, Jeff Jardine and a Caltrans employee, Rick Estrada.      The press is supposed to REPORT the news, not act in desperate protagonist measures to CREATE news, and then innocently report on their creation.

Jeff Jardine, the National Enquirer is calling – they need a gumshoe to report on alien abductions and bat-faced vampires lurking about.

January 10, 2017 at 11:19am FROM Rick Estrada TO Jeff Jardine

Jeff, you noted you were going to be out of the office for some time, so I felt an e-mail would serve best.

Regarding the Changeable Message Sign we were discussing on McHenry Avenue/State Route 108 in

Modesto:

** I have spoken to maintenance unit confirmed it is not a Caltrans sign

** I have spoken to maintenance unit and confirmed the sign is in the public right of way

** I have spoken to our permits unit and confirmed there is no permit issued for this sign

As a result, one of managers from the maintenance unit will visit this location and advise the owner of the sign that it must be removed immediately from the public right of way. If the sign is not moved following our visit, the next step is we will contact CHP and ask for law enforcement to get involved in resolving this situation.

Safety is always a priority for Caltrans. Our goal is to keep the state’s highways in the best, and safest, condition for motorists.

Regarding the use of a CMS sign when it is not in the public right of way? I would ask that you please call Caltrans’ Outdoor Advertising Unit, specifically Michele Day who oversees Stanislaus and other counties.  Her number is (916) 651-1254 and this is her realm of expertise. If she does not respond, her supervisor is James Arbis (oversees NorCal) and he is at (916) 654-6413.

 

January 10, 2017 at 12:52pm FROM Jeff Jardine TO Rick Estrada

It was not there when I drove by a few minutes ago. Maybe the rental company wanted it out of the rain.

 

January 10, 2017 at 12:57 FROM Rick Estrada TO Jeff Jardine

J=happyface

 

January 10, 2017 at 1:21PM FROM Jeff Jardine TO Rick Estrada

What about, as you mentioned, putting out a sign that looks like a CalTrans sign but bears a political message?

A violation of any sort?

January 10, 2017 at 1:23PM FROM Rick Estrada to Jeff Jardine

That’s where Outdoor Advertising comes in. We have a unit stationed at our HQ that deals with ‘advertising’ signs of this sort … I included a name and 2 phone numbers of potential contacts who can give you more concise information.

If they don’t get back to you, let me know and I’ll pull the chain. Hope everything’s going well Glad to see the sign is gone

J=happyface

 

January 11th, 2017 at 11:16AM FROM Jeff Jardine to Rick Estrada

OK, so Michelle said that if an unauthorized sign is reported, a maintenance crew would go out and seize it, informing whomever that they have 30 days to come pick it up at the yard. So can you tell me if that sign was seized or direct me to someone locally who can answer that question.

Mr. Sabatino claimed I was disrespecting him by even calling him.

 

January 11th, 2017 at 11:22AM FROM Rick Estrada to Jeff Jardine

I spoke with our Modesto Maintenance manager, who visited the location yesterday afternoon. When he got there, the

CMS sign was already gone – having been moved by someone other than Caltrans.

City might have stepped in? Or perhaps owner was told by someone else to move it … I had checked with our guys this morning

 

January 11th, 2017 at 11:25AM FROM Jeff Jardine to Rick Estrada

Thanks. Some folks posted pics of it on FB, and his PI buddy wrote about it on Carmen’s blog…..

When Thursday is the New Friday

By Emerson Drake  ladyjustice

When politicians and public relations consultants have bad news that has to be delivered for public consumption they try to do it on Friday afternoons. It’s referred to as the Friday news dump.  It’s used to avoid the media scrutiny that would accompany any release during the rest of the week.

 

You see newspaper people like to have weekends off just like the rest of us.  So the majority of the Saturday and Sunday editions of the paper are pre-written and much of it already printed.  They leave a small space for sports but that’s about it.  And with their staffing cuts many times reaching someone on the weekend  in the newsroom is impossible.

 

For the most part for courts in the  judicial system Friday is a day to sort out legal and side issues with the attorneys so juries get to stay home.  So any news will come out on Thursday and what better day to release a bombshell like the Frank Carson revelations of forgotten files than the day before Christmas Eve.  The Chief Deputy District Attorney Marlisa Ferreira, after delivering the bombshell of newly found files, had her car brought around to the back of the building and snuck out the back door, all of the time refusing to questions.  And of course where was District Attorney Birgit Fladager?  Conveniently out of town traveling with family, incommunicado. Couldn’t plan that any better.

 

The District Attorney’s conduct in this case, in our opinion, was reprehensible at best and vindictive, personal and almost criminal at worst.

 

One of the important questions remaining is will local mainstream media Public Relations Powerhouse, the Modesto Bee, call her out on her heinous behavior and run a series of articles ON A TIMELY BASIS (soon and often) or will they support this petty vindictive politician that is apparently using her office for personal payback.  Another example is if they backed a politician for office than you won’t see many follow-up negative stories.  But if you ran against one of their ‘favorites,’  and that’s a lengthy list,  then God help you because the Bee’s version of ‘scorched earth’ would make General Sherman jealous.

 

Bee history suggests they will run a positive article after they run a negative one for politicians and organizations they supported to gain ofice.  If they run an article showing the dark side of a few Sheriff’s deputies they’ll run a feel good article showing deputies interacting with children (not picking on deputies just using an example you’ll recognize.

 

So expect the Bee to allow the behavior of Birgit Fladager and her office to fall by the wayside.  They want to shape the narrative and decide which stories you’ll remember and which you’ll forget.  There goes that institutional memory thing I talk about again.

 

 

 

 

Our Options For Mayor Are Limited But Our Choice Is Clear

By Emerson Drake roadtrip

If you don’t mind lets take a short road trip. Lets get in the car at the Double Tree hotel on 9th St. in Modesto and go west on Maze Blvd also known as 132. We’re going to pass Carpenter Rd and Dakota Rd. Still heading west we pass Hart Rd and Gates Rd, past the old Yandell Ranch Airport. We’re even going to pass the large Mapes Ranch sign and go all the way to the river. Our journey was about 13 miles and took us around 23 minutes just to get here. Now lets turn right on the river and take it all the way to just past Salida to the north.

This is the area Ted Brandvold voted to give to the Modesto Chamber of Commerce complete control of for ANY kind of development they can dream up.   Now you know why the Modesto Chamber of Commerce, along with real estate people and developers are supporting Ted Brandvold.

So from 99 to past Mapes Ranch, to the San Joaquin river on the west, from here all the way past Salida to the North. That’s a lot of homes and farms and ranches for the Chamber to pave over.

The boundaries and votes I mentioned are all part of public record during Ted’s time on the Modesto Planning Commission. The plan was presented by Craig Lewis, Cecil Russell and “Broker Bill” Zoslocki all members of the Chamber, Craig Lewis is a realtor and Bill Zoslocki is a real estate broker while Cecil Russell is a lobbyist. All of these men support Ted for Mayor.  We need to hold Ted Brandvold responsible for his votes while on the Planning Commission.

Now you see why we need to vote for Garrad Marsh for Mayor of Modesto.

1910512_944071922335998_1822239559813798308_n

Modesto Workforce Alliance Falls Down on the Job

By Emerson Drake     workforceallchamber

So a local hotel is looking for breakfast attendants, housekeeping staff, maintenance personnel, and front desk clerks but can’t find an easy way to post on the Modesto Workforce Alliance website. These people are getting state money to run the unemployment office here in Modesto. The County is giving the Alliance $94,000 in taxpayer money to help develop business and bring jobs.  While at the same time the Alliance is receiving $64,000 from Modesto taxpayers for the same alleged services. To create  job postings looking for workers should be a no-brainer but it isn’t an easy task, as a matter of fact you can’t. So I called the Alliance for a phone number and guess what?  They gave me a number but no one answered it. So I called the Board of Supervisors and asked for assistance. Supervisor Monteith was on hand and is looking into it as you read this.

We sure aren’t getting much for all that money.  Mr. White  (Alliance CEO) I’m told by your office that you are working on updating the site by next year.  I think you need to step up your time table.

 

Attn John Gunderson Please Try Being Informed and NOT just Opinionated

By Emerson Drake    jgunderson

On July 26th Modesto City Councilman John Gunderson wrote an article under Community Columns John Gunderson: Clear thinking needed on Salida annexation issue where he makes several dubious and completely wrong claims.  Now we can’t tell you if just can’t comprehend what he reads or is just being malicious.  What we can say is when he relayed his columns to fellow council members, staff and others (yes the result of a public record request) where he claims to have done the research himself. The above photo is the Councilman’s ‘official’ picture.  The below one is the one he posted of how he see’s himself on facebook.  jJohnGunderson

Unfortunately Councilman Gunderson  has been wrong on this issue for a long time but to make specious claims he says he researched? well here is Katherine Borges’  response in its entirety. Her original post 

Fun from Cat and Gundy -or- John Gunderson Salida Facebook post #4 and my reply

 
John Gunderson’s new profile pic of “me”. Which ironically
(and eerily) looks just like my cat.

Well folks, Modesto City Councilman John Gunderson is at it again. I must really crawl under that guy’s skin because he can’t seem to go a week without a Facebook post on Salida. This week, he regurgitated an e-mail I wrote to the council in June regarding a tip I received from a Salidan that Modesto had hired a consultant to help them annex Salida. 

 
My cat. Rescued as a kitten
from the intersection of
Woodland & Carpenter.

While both Mayor Marsh and city planner, Patrick Kelly replied that the city didn’t hire Keith Bergthold as an annexation consultant, there’s something still amiss here. Why would Bergthold tell his Fresnan friend that he had an eighteen month contract otherwise? Perhaps it was just being bandied about and was all verbal at that point? Either way, its DOA now because the city can’t very well go and hire him after denying that they hadn’t. And how effective would he be with any kind of collaboration building with Salida? (Yes, that’s a rhetorical question.)

 
Councilman Gunderson can’t help but crank up the old propaganda machine starting right in the second sentence with, “Think the Goodwin Study would have been enough, the annexation concept was proven to be a bad idea.” First of all, anyone want to wager that Councilman Gunderson has NOT read nor thoroughly examined the Goodwin Study? Because if he had, he would know it shows that Modesto would stand to rake in $22.8 million a year in revenue in annexing Salida at full build out of the Salida Community Plan. How does that prove the annexation concept is a bad idea? And if it were proven to be a bad idea, then why is Modesto keeping Salida in their general plan? Councilman Gunderson wrote in his community column just two weeks ago that, “…the majority of the Modesto City Council feels (annexation) is still a possibility“. And he says I have “nothing to worry about???”

And once again, the councilman nay says Salida incorporating, “Should stop worrying about incorporation for Salida as well because that can’t happen either.” I previously responded to his comment about whether or not Salida can be incorporated, but it apparently didn’t register in his brain so I’ll say it again, “Keep in mind that no one has ever applied to incorporate Salida as a city. If no one has ever tried, how does anyone know whether or not it can be done?

 
Available land in
Beard Industrial Park
What he also doesn’t seem to comprehend is only supplying water in exchange for land -IS- extortion when you supply water to other areas without forcing them to turn over their land! To put it into language he’ll understand, its known as an “out-of-boundary service agreement” and the council approves them all the time. And once again, I’m going to call him out on his double standard for trying to justify water extortion by saying “Modesto ratepayers deserve better” when Beard Industrial’s sweetheart deal costs ratepayers and the city millions upon millions each year. The city of Modesto supplies both water AND sewer to Beard without annexing the land. (Read more about Beard)
 
Lastly, Councilman Gunderson said, “Modesto’s water should be leveraged for the best possible outcome that helps pay for services for residents of Modesto proper, not the surrounds.” When the City of Modesto purchased the Del Este Water Company in the mid-1990’s, they took over the existing wells and infrastructure in Waterford, Grayson, Del Rio, part of Turlock and Salida. So technically, they bought Salida’s (et al) water so its not “Modesto’s water” he wants to “leverage” to begin with. Our water comes primarily from wells in Salida so he wants to leverage our own water against us! Additionally, development occurs in all of those other former Del Este served communities and yet, Modesto does not “leverage” the water by extorting land from them; except in Salida.

In case you were wondering why Councilman Gunderson is so fixated on Salida its because if Salida were annexed, we would be assimilated into his district. That’s right, we would be the constituents of a man who feels water extortion upon us is justified because the majority Modesto residents in his district “deserve better” than the Salidans.

“The propagandist’s purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other sets of people are human.” – Aldous Huxley

Stay tuned for more “fun” from Cat and Gundy…at some point in the next 7 days – –
________________________________________________________________

 

More fun from “Cat”. Think the Goodwin Study would have been enough, the annexation concept was proven to be a bad idea. Catherine has nothing to worry about on that. Should stop worrying about incorporation for Salida as well because that can’t happen either. Refusing City of Modesto water for new development within the Salida TPA… refusal is extortion? Modesto ratepayers deserve better than that. Modesto’s water should be leveraged for the best possible outcome that helps pay for services for residents of Modesto proper, not the surrounds. Development outside of a city’s limits is a losing proposition because of the State’s mandated property tax distribution scheme. 

salidakat@
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 12:48 PM
To: COUNCIL; Brad Wall; Patrick Kelly; Terry Withrow; Vito Chiesa; Dick Monteith; Jim DeMartini; Bill O’Brien; Marjorie Blom; George Petrulakis
Subject: SALIDA ANNEXATION CONSULTANT
To the Modesto City Council:
I received the following from a Salidan today, “My father lives in Fresno and is friends with a man named Keith Bergthold. Keith told my dad he was hired by the city of Modesto to see what can be done about annexing Salida.”
I’ve met Mr. Bergthold at the Carpenter’s Church General Plan presentation in May and I also attended the April Stanislaus Community Foundation breakfast that was connected with Fresno Metro Ministries.
So you can fire Mr. Bergthold because HELL WILL FREEZE OVER before you ANNEX SALIDA or the Kiernan Corridor! Get that through your thick skulls!! How many different ways and from different people do you need to hear that before it sinks in?!? It doesn’t appear that turning out hundreds of people to voice that works since both Salida and Wood Colony have done that!!
I’ve told you once if I’ve told you a thousand times, we are willing to work with you if you want to develop the Kiernan Corridor (although I don’t know why since you are so IMPOSSIBLE, OBSTINATE and DYSFUNCTIONAL about our communities) BUT YOU’RE NOT GOING TO JUST TAKE SALIDA NO MATTER WHOM YOU HIRE!!! Your status quo land grab days are over!!! Get a clue!!!
Since you have a contract with Mr. Bergthold, why don’t you have him use his remaining time in educating you about “build up, not out”. Fresno has done well with that. Look around their Kaiser Hospital and then look around Modesto’s. And in the meantime, LEAVE SALIDA and WOOD COLONY ALONE you greed-driven sellouts!!!
Very sincerely,
Katherine Borges

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Garrad Marsh wrote:
Katherine,
You are wrong about Mr. Bergthold being hired by the city. Mr. Bergthold has not been hired (or to my knowledge even contacted) by any City of Modesto employee or elected.
Garrad

From: Katherine Borges [mailto:salidakat@
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 2:02 PM
To: Garrad Marsh
Cc: COUNCIL; Brad Wall; Patrick Kelly; Terry Withrow; Vito Chiesa; Dick Monteith; Jim DeMartini; Bill O’Brien; Marjorie Blom; George Petrulakis
Subject: Re: SALIDA ANNEXATION CONSULTANT
Mr. Mayor,
WHO hired him then? I was told he has an 18-month contract. Emerson has filed a public information request with the city. Even if it turns out that you’re right and the city has nothing to do with it, then you need to find out who working to annex Salida on your behalf. I want nothing to do with this man and will not contact him. His e-mail is: Keith.Bergthold@
Katherine

On Jun 4, 2014, at 2:47 PM, “Patrick Kelly” wrote:
This is to confirm that the City did not hire Keith Bergthold. Keith represents Fresno Metro Ministries and has volunteered his time to work with Stanislaus Community Foundation to look at asset based community development. At Keith’s request, the City presented the General Plan Amendment proposal at a community workshop (hosted by Metro Ministries) held on May 8, 2014, intended to inform the public about Modesto’s General Plan Amendment currently underway. At Keith’s request, the workshop also included a presentation by Carlos Yamzon, Executive Director with StanCOG about the 2014 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy. The intent of the presentation format was to share with the public Modesto’s General Plan Amendment proposal in context of StanCOG’s regional plan.
Patrick Kelly, AICP

From: Keith <Keith@
Date: June 4, 2014 at 3:37:17 PM PDT
To: Patrick Kelly < >
Cc: Katherine Borges <salidakat@ Garrad Marsh < >, COUNCIL < >, Brad Wall < >, Terry Withrow < >, Vito Chiesa” < >, Dick Monteith < >, Jim DeMartini < >, “Bill O’Brien” < >, Marjorie Blom < >, George Petrulakis < >, “Brent Sinclair” <>, “kberg@ <kberg@>
Subject: Re: SALIDA ANNEXATION CONSULTANT

Thank you Patrick. I have no idea where such false assertions mentioned below with respect to the City of Modesto and Salida or contracts with the City might originate. I have been volunteering with various groups in Modesto, Fresno, Madera, and Kern around community building for healthy people and healthy places – which is a regional initiative and goal of Fresno Metro Ministry. Please have people contact me directly to confirm my activities and intent. Thank you again for sharing this information. Regards, keith

 

Shh That Sound You Heard was Strings Being Pulled at the MID

By Emerson DrakeMIDpic

For the second meeting in a row the Modesto Irrigation District Board had a spirited debate, completely without rancor, which included several diverse positions.   After the Boards of Tom VanGroningen and Allen Short it truly is like a breath of fresh air.  Now if only the actions and decisions were different.

Jumping right into it:  The conversation started regarding the DRAFT  Drought Operation Rules proposed by staff.The proposed Transfer Policy was a complete reversal of what was decided at the last meeting which took place on Feb. 11, 2014.  You can watch it here starting at 59 minutes,  in the agenda it’s the ‘Drought workshop. You can forward to 1:18 to listen to the public debate. At 1:36 you can hear the unusual banding together of Mensinger and myself.  At 2:11 you can listen to Nick Blom argue the exact opposite position he voted for at today’s meeting.  http://mid.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=24&meta_id=1689 you can advance through the short sound issues without missing anything.

The topic centered on deciding on how water transfers would be handled, and who would be allowed to transfer their water.  At the time I supported the idea of farmers being allowed to sell their water to anyone.  I was behind Director Mensinger in his opinion.  But we lost the argument convincingly. Yet today the DRAFT proposal supported this same position.  So why did staff bring a proposal that lost, forward as potential policy?  A look around the room and then listening to public comment gave us some clues.  The Chamber trotted out Chamber Board of Directors member Ruben Villalobos in support of the grower to grower transfers. What does Ruben know about water transfers?  Absolutely nothing.  But when Chamber of Commerce  lobbyist Cecil Russell calls Ruben,  Ruben  says yes Cecil, and trots on over. Bill Lyons Jr. was sitting in the audience making sure the actors in our little play performed as they were instructed otherwise he would tell daddy on them.  To cut to the chase they wanted to allow farmers to sell their MID allocated  water of 18″ inches per acre.

Larry Byrd and Jake Wenger wanted to limit the transfers to family and were encouraging an incentive to farmers to decide to return the allocated water to MID.  Jake wanted $400 per acre and Larry $100 per acre as an incentive, to be distributed to other interested farmers and encourage the sharing of water if a farmer had other supplies (pumping).  Unfortunately the establishment of the incentive plan came after the ‘Transfer’ issue was resolved and may have been a mute point.

Much to the dismay of many in the room, Nick Blom decided to go with the self- described ‘city boys’ and voted for growers to be able to sell to anyone. It’s a extremely intricate issue and not one lending itself to simple explanations.   It’s understandable for farmers to want to help each other and no one is really against that.  The overreaching concern is a few of the wealthier farmers will be able to out bid smaller farmers and the smaller farmers might go under, not that the Chamber of Commerce would mind.

An attorney from Ripon (Stacey Henderson) claimed to be representing several small farmers decided to insert the term lottery into the mix.  It seemed like she took the opportunity to unduly influence the issue since this word was no where to be seen in the staff’s proposal.  Later during a break and in private  conversation she upbraided me for characterizing her comments as spin. She said if I had any question I should ask her first.  So I did and she walked away without saying a word.  Someone from Ripon is getting paid to influence our decisions.  Just like a lawyer/lobbyist making suggestions they had no intention on following through on.  Just more paid for testimony from my point of view.  We see lots of that at the MID.

Were strings being pulled and Directors were dancing to the Chamber’s and Bill Lyons tune?  This time it’s the farmers not the ratepayers who will pay.

On another note, Modesto City Councilmen Bill Zoslocki and Dave Cogdill just authorized MID to spend up to $504,000 on a study of the rim fire area.  Consequently,  our rates will be going up at a time when the Council wants to forgive Seneca Foods an $8 Million fine they incurred by generating excessive waste water, causing Modesto to settle a lawsuit costing up to $1 Million.

I wonder when the City Council will get around to telling us?

 

Post Navigation