By Emerson Drake
9/14/11
After his Nolo Contendere plea back on March 6, 2009, Alfred Chip Huskey was sentenced to 365 days in jail and probation in exchange for one felony count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under the age of 16. Huskey in his statement to the Probation Department blamed alcohol and methamphetamine abuse for his actions.
Although the Probation report recommended a prison sentence, the Honorable John Whiteside indicated the substantial mitigation in this case, defendant’s lack of criminal history and his exemplary record as a deputy, outweighed the aggravating factors: his violation of trust, and the vulnerability of the victim.
Judge Whiteside placed Huskey on three years of formal probation, ordered drug and alcohol terms, including testing, for Huskey throughout his probationary period. This is according to the District Attorney’s press release.
What the press release failed to mention is Huskey wasn’t required to register as a sex offender. Various reasons have bneen suggested by the department since then, including sparing the victim the need to detail her experiences in court. But it needs to be mentioned that Huskey is presumed to be witness X, appearing prominently in documents regarding the death/killing of Craig Prescott while in Sheriff’s custody.
Neglecting to require this may be haunting the D.A.’sa department currently.
Huskey moved to San Joaquin County soon after his release from local jail. But without notifying the probation dept. as he was required to do, he moved back to Modesto. When the Probation department went looking for him they discovered he was living with a woman and her four children, three boys abd a five year old girl up in Groveland.
It has been reported in court documents he was watching the young girl while her mother was at work, sometimes in 24 hour or more stretches. According to court documents he was sleeping in the same bed as the young girl when they were left alone. When the girl’s mother was asked if she knew that Huskey was on probation for felony molestation of a minor under the age of 15, she said “someone” had mentioned it but when she asked Huskey he denied it.
If Huskey had been required to register as a sex offender the yound girl’s mother could have easily verified the truth.
Judge Whiteside, many people will believe YOU and the District Attorney should be held accountable for anything that may have happened to that little girl. According to court documents she has been seen “dirty dancing” and has begun to bully her playmates. One of the first signs of sexual abuse is a change in behavior of the victim, including disciplinary problems and acting out towards other children.
This case keeps dragging out and the D.A. doesn’t seem to be very concerned. The A.D.A prosecuting Huskey seems more concerned about keeping her name out of the public’s eye.
But the final injustice is that all Jerry Powers (head of the probation dept.) is asking is for is 10 days in jail and a modification of terms of Alfred Lowell “Chip” Huskey’s probation.
10 days, Just 10 days in jail.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
It’s Prime Time for County Election Reform
By Emerson Drake
9/10/11
Too long have special interest groups been allowed to have a step-up on County voters. It’s time to make effective changes which will help protect the ordinary citizen. Here in Stanislaus County we’re between county elections so the time is right to level the playing field and empower the people.
1.We need to up the limit to $99.99 a citizen can make to a candidate without having to have his or her name divulged to people who place their self interests above those of others. It provides protection from both politicians and bosses who might take umbrage at your political choices and seek retribution for your decision. This is the same level as the state and most cities allow.
2.We need a $1,000.00 limit on personal campaign contributions and a $2,000.00 combined limit before a Board member is required to recuse themselves from and votes or discussions which would have a financial impact on the donor. This has no impact on the amount of a donation one can make but does impact a Board of Supervisor member. This limit should be in play for the four years leading up to an election and or the four years after one. This would limit special interest groups or individuals with deep pockets from influencing Board decisions inappropriately.
3.We need to stop allowing large campaign donations of $1,000.00 or more to elected department heads who then utilize these same companies for county business. This would stop the perception, real or implied, contracts with Stanislaus County can be influenced or purchased illegally.
These requests for action have been brought before the Board of Supervisors several times in the past two years.
The time for action is now.
Call, write, email, or just stop and talk with them on the street and let them know how important and timely this is.
•
District 1 – Bill O'Brien
William O'Brien
Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors
1010 10th St, Suite 6500
Modesto, Ca 95354
(209) 525-4440
ObrienW@StanCounty.com
•
District 2 – Vito Chiesa
Vito Chiesa
Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors
1010 10th St, Suite 6500
Modesto, Ca 95354
(209) 525-6440
vito.chiesa@stancounty.com
•
District 3 – Terry Withrow
Terry Withrow
Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors
1010 10th St, Suite 6500
Modesto, Ca 95354
(209) 525-6560
WithrowT@StanCounty.com
•
District 4 – Dick Monteith
Dick Monteith
Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors
1010 10th St, Suite 6500
Modesto, Ca 95354
(209) 525-4445
MonteithD@StanCounty.com
•
District 5 – Jim DeMartini
Jim DeMartini
Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors
1010 10th St, Suite 6500
Modesto, Ca 95354
(209) 525-4470
DemartiniJ@StanCounty.com
9/10/11
Too long have special interest groups been allowed to have a step-up on County voters. It’s time to make effective changes which will help protect the ordinary citizen. Here in Stanislaus County we’re between county elections so the time is right to level the playing field and empower the people.
1.We need to up the limit to $99.99 a citizen can make to a candidate without having to have his or her name divulged to people who place their self interests above those of others. It provides protection from both politicians and bosses who might take umbrage at your political choices and seek retribution for your decision. This is the same level as the state and most cities allow.
2.We need a $1,000.00 limit on personal campaign contributions and a $2,000.00 combined limit before a Board member is required to recuse themselves from and votes or discussions which would have a financial impact on the donor. This has no impact on the amount of a donation one can make but does impact a Board of Supervisor member. This limit should be in play for the four years leading up to an election and or the four years after one. This would limit special interest groups or individuals with deep pockets from influencing Board decisions inappropriately.
3.We need to stop allowing large campaign donations of $1,000.00 or more to elected department heads who then utilize these same companies for county business. This would stop the perception, real or implied, contracts with Stanislaus County can be influenced or purchased illegally.
These requests for action have been brought before the Board of Supervisors several times in the past two years.
The time for action is now.
Call, write, email, or just stop and talk with them on the street and let them know how important and timely this is.
•
District 1 – Bill O'Brien
William O'Brien
Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors
1010 10th St, Suite 6500
Modesto, Ca 95354
(209) 525-4440
ObrienW@StanCounty.com
•
District 2 – Vito Chiesa
Vito Chiesa
Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors
1010 10th St, Suite 6500
Modesto, Ca 95354
(209) 525-6440
vito.chiesa@stancounty.com
•
District 3 – Terry Withrow
Terry Withrow
Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors
1010 10th St, Suite 6500
Modesto, Ca 95354
(209) 525-6560
WithrowT@StanCounty.com
•
District 4 – Dick Monteith
Dick Monteith
Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors
1010 10th St, Suite 6500
Modesto, Ca 95354
(209) 525-4445
MonteithD@StanCounty.com
•
District 5 – Jim DeMartini
Jim DeMartini
Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors
1010 10th St, Suite 6500
Modesto, Ca 95354
(209) 525-4470
DemartiniJ@StanCounty.com
BRCH’s Recommendations Open for Public Comment Until After the November Elections
By Emerson Drake
9/8/11
Muratore, Moradian, and Madison with Wright’s help, pushed through their twenty page diatribe against the homeless to the Council’s Safety and Community Committee Wednesday night. Couched in terms like “To improve the lives of all Modestoans by combating chronic, long-term homelessness through better utilization of city and community resources” their mission statement hardly describes the recommendations made by the BRCH (Blue Ribbon Commission on the Homeless.)
The presentation of the report was given by Steve Madison from the Building Industry Association, who is now rebranding himself by touting he’s also a member of the Salvation Army’s Board of Directors. His expertise according to his prior statements to the BRCH is that he bought hamburgers for two homeless people (hamburgers not big macs more cost effective) and talked with them for thirty minutes or so.
One concern David Wright Jr. had was the homeless in Modesto could be over fed. According to Mr. Wright if you’re homeless you can get fed 21 times a day just by walking a few blocks. When that was questioned, his response was “it’s in the report.” Then it must be true, Right? Kind of hard to believe, isn’t it? Twenty one times a day three hundred sixty five days a year all in just a few blocks walk.
The BRCH tried to suggest they were concerned about the quality of food the homeless were being given so they are recommending the City use County ordinances designed to protect the public from for profit vendors against the well meaning Christians who feel the call to feed those less fortunate than themselves. I really don’t understand how prepackaged food stuffs like top ramen falls into this category but they intend for Modesto to apply it that way.
Between their incredulous claims and their insistence at pushing stereotypes like homeless people make between one and two hundred dollars a day pan handling, you have to walk away shaking your head wondering just what their real agenda might be.
Another recommendation is to use a “park security force” (preferably armed) to control and subdue the homeless population and any other undesirables they find in the parks. They gave the example of Santa Maria which has non armed security that reports to the Park district. The BRCH proposes to capture the $500,000 dollars the Parks and Neighborhoods Dept. spends because of vandalism but are unable to delineate exactly how those monies could be quantified. Julie Hannon of Parks and Neighborhoods couldn’t say how much of the vandalism was caused by the homeless and MPD Chief Harden said the Department doesn’t capture those statistics. .
When the Chief was asked what he thought of a Park Security force, he replied “ I haven’t seen any numbers on how effective they would be.” He also seemed concerned by a certain amount of anecdotal fear mongering heard during the meeting regarding aggressive panhandling. A citizen pointed out the public can help themselves and everyone in Modesto by reporting the aggressive panhandlers. And overall these were just a few of the individuals involved in that practice and the MPD has been very responsive to calls for assistance on regarding aggressive individuals.
Darryl Fair, former SCAP director who was expected but didn’t attend the meeting has been blunt in the past about wanting a sugar daddy (Uncle Sam will do) to write him a grant check to fund his desire for a day center and low and behold there it is, recommendation number five.
While a drop in day center would be nice, the hoped for location meets some of the business community’s and member Mike Moradian’s concerns. The main concern for many members of the BRCH being, the further away the better, also known as NIMBY. But the 720 G St. location is nowhere near a park or many of the meal locations.
The Safety and Communities Council Committee made the final political maneuver, considering it contains one council and one Mayoral candidate up for election on November 8th. Tthey put off a review of citizens comments until November 12th, after the election.
It’s such a brave thing to do, bury it until accountability is minimized.
We not only invite, but suggest you read the report. We encourage you to make a comment to the Safety and Communities Committee. Let them know how you feel. Read the report word here. http://blog.voiceofmodesto.com/content/report-muratores-tainted-blue-ribbon-commission-homeless
9/8/11
Muratore, Moradian, and Madison with Wright’s help, pushed through their twenty page diatribe against the homeless to the Council’s Safety and Community Committee Wednesday night. Couched in terms like “To improve the lives of all Modestoans by combating chronic, long-term homelessness through better utilization of city and community resources” their mission statement hardly describes the recommendations made by the BRCH (Blue Ribbon Commission on the Homeless.)
The presentation of the report was given by Steve Madison from the Building Industry Association, who is now rebranding himself by touting he’s also a member of the Salvation Army’s Board of Directors. His expertise according to his prior statements to the BRCH is that he bought hamburgers for two homeless people (hamburgers not big macs more cost effective) and talked with them for thirty minutes or so.
One concern David Wright Jr. had was the homeless in Modesto could be over fed. According to Mr. Wright if you’re homeless you can get fed 21 times a day just by walking a few blocks. When that was questioned, his response was “it’s in the report.” Then it must be true, Right? Kind of hard to believe, isn’t it? Twenty one times a day three hundred sixty five days a year all in just a few blocks walk.
The BRCH tried to suggest they were concerned about the quality of food the homeless were being given so they are recommending the City use County ordinances designed to protect the public from for profit vendors against the well meaning Christians who feel the call to feed those less fortunate than themselves. I really don’t understand how prepackaged food stuffs like top ramen falls into this category but they intend for Modesto to apply it that way.
Between their incredulous claims and their insistence at pushing stereotypes like homeless people make between one and two hundred dollars a day pan handling, you have to walk away shaking your head wondering just what their real agenda might be.
Another recommendation is to use a “park security force” (preferably armed) to control and subdue the homeless population and any other undesirables they find in the parks. They gave the example of Santa Maria which has non armed security that reports to the Park district. The BRCH proposes to capture the $500,000 dollars the Parks and Neighborhoods Dept. spends because of vandalism but are unable to delineate exactly how those monies could be quantified. Julie Hannon of Parks and Neighborhoods couldn’t say how much of the vandalism was caused by the homeless and MPD Chief Harden said the Department doesn’t capture those statistics. .
When the Chief was asked what he thought of a Park Security force, he replied “ I haven’t seen any numbers on how effective they would be.” He also seemed concerned by a certain amount of anecdotal fear mongering heard during the meeting regarding aggressive panhandling. A citizen pointed out the public can help themselves and everyone in Modesto by reporting the aggressive panhandlers. And overall these were just a few of the individuals involved in that practice and the MPD has been very responsive to calls for assistance on regarding aggressive individuals.
Darryl Fair, former SCAP director who was expected but didn’t attend the meeting has been blunt in the past about wanting a sugar daddy (Uncle Sam will do) to write him a grant check to fund his desire for a day center and low and behold there it is, recommendation number five.
While a drop in day center would be nice, the hoped for location meets some of the business community’s and member Mike Moradian’s concerns. The main concern for many members of the BRCH being, the further away the better, also known as NIMBY. But the 720 G St. location is nowhere near a park or many of the meal locations.
The Safety and Communities Council Committee made the final political maneuver, considering it contains one council and one Mayoral candidate up for election on November 8th. Tthey put off a review of citizens comments until November 12th, after the election.
It’s such a brave thing to do, bury it until accountability is minimized.
We not only invite, but suggest you read the report. We encourage you to make a comment to the Safety and Communities Committee. Let them know how you feel. Read the report word here. http://blog.voiceofmodesto.com/content/report-muratores-tainted-blue-ribbon-commission-homeless
Muratore's Tainted Blue Ribbon Commission on the Homeless to Present its Manifesto
By Emerson Drake
9/6/11
Did anyone else notice they don't call it that anymore? Yet Muratore went to the Safety and Communities Committee and arranged (interesting how councilmen scratch each others backs) to head up the BRCH (Blue Ribbon Commission on the Homeless), he also managed to get people of similar thinking or agendas named to it.
Former SCAP Directors, who when they were exposed to the light of day, chose to abandon ship in the face of public knowledge and criticism. Yet they continued to accept SCAP funds to foster a mistaken belief in the Community they were a non-profit doing Gods work.
Also interesting is how Muratore appointed a friend and business partner "not in the official sense", but Joe did get his real partner Ryan Swehla's and Scott Monday's Trinity renovations to use him for all of their home inspections. And just because this same man helped Joe get elected to the City Council, well that had nothing to do with anything. But Moradian does have an intense dislike for the homeless which he blames for just about all of societies problems.
Now on Wednesday 9/7 they'll be parading before the Safety and Communities Committee their manifesto. But where did this document come from? They didn't meet in public to discuss its contents. They certainly haven't met in public and voted. So where did it come from?
Well much of it came from the same man who has overstepped his bounds and placed a heavy hand on this BRCH to direct their agenda and results. Now that Muratore has given back (read forced to) the $62,500 dollars and been banned from further NSP2 participation, (Trinity Renovations and Benchmark Reality are almost inseparable in the NSP2 conversation) his hands are clean and his desires are only for what's best for Modesto.
Yeah Right.
The BRCH has been attempting to paint the homeless "both temporary and permanent" with the same broad brush as second class citizens. If these commission members weren't so agenda driven, one is looking for someone to write a grant for money (ala SCAP style) and others attempting to funnel more funds into organizations they either represent or head, this could almost be believable.
Wednesday at 5:30 the Safety Committee will meet to hear the official version of the BRCH suggestions. No public discussion by its members and no public vote on its contents.
Why didn't Councilman Muratore just save us a lot of time and render his edict six months ago.
Heck, why is Joe Muratore still a Councilman?
9/6/11
Did anyone else notice they don't call it that anymore? Yet Muratore went to the Safety and Communities Committee and arranged (interesting how councilmen scratch each others backs) to head up the BRCH (Blue Ribbon Commission on the Homeless), he also managed to get people of similar thinking or agendas named to it.
Former SCAP Directors, who when they were exposed to the light of day, chose to abandon ship in the face of public knowledge and criticism. Yet they continued to accept SCAP funds to foster a mistaken belief in the Community they were a non-profit doing Gods work.
Also interesting is how Muratore appointed a friend and business partner "not in the official sense", but Joe did get his real partner Ryan Swehla's and Scott Monday's Trinity renovations to use him for all of their home inspections. And just because this same man helped Joe get elected to the City Council, well that had nothing to do with anything. But Moradian does have an intense dislike for the homeless which he blames for just about all of societies problems.
Now on Wednesday 9/7 they'll be parading before the Safety and Communities Committee their manifesto. But where did this document come from? They didn't meet in public to discuss its contents. They certainly haven't met in public and voted. So where did it come from?
Well much of it came from the same man who has overstepped his bounds and placed a heavy hand on this BRCH to direct their agenda and results. Now that Muratore has given back (read forced to) the $62,500 dollars and been banned from further NSP2 participation, (Trinity Renovations and Benchmark Reality are almost inseparable in the NSP2 conversation) his hands are clean and his desires are only for what's best for Modesto.
Yeah Right.
The BRCH has been attempting to paint the homeless "both temporary and permanent" with the same broad brush as second class citizens. If these commission members weren't so agenda driven, one is looking for someone to write a grant for money (ala SCAP style) and others attempting to funnel more funds into organizations they either represent or head, this could almost be believable.
Wednesday at 5:30 the Safety Committee will meet to hear the official version of the BRCH suggestions. No public discussion by its members and no public vote on its contents.
Why didn't Councilman Muratore just save us a lot of time and render his edict six months ago.
Heck, why is Joe Muratore still a Councilman?
Are those who "take a Stand" for the Truth Complaining?
9/6/11
By Patrony
Out of curiosity, I wanted to search for editorials from other newspapers in the state. Here are the titles of a few I read in today's editions. 1) San Francisco Gate: 'A drug shortage no one is answering'. 2) LA Times: 'Pricey Homeland Security.' 3) Sacramento Bee: 'Solar deal needs probe.'
After reading today's editorial, 'Make life better: Stop complaining', by Mark Vasche, in Sunday's Modesto Bee, I realized that according to Vasche's definition, the other editorials were all 'COMPLAINTS'. Vasche implied that bringing up negative issues are just idle complaints and are not justifiable.
C'mon Mark Vasche, why are you being passive aggressive? Why not state a direct message and just say who you're talking about instead of hiding behind a few authors' quotes just to take cheap shots at your targets?
To be honest, I thought your editorial reminded me of another article I read recently about a governor who ridiculed individuals whom he viewed as 'COMPLAINERS; his name was George C. Wallace. Wallace served as Alabama's governor in the sixties. Wallace accused civil rights workers of going against natural hierarchy for disrupting a time- honored social order which he referred to as the, "Southern way of life." Wallace lambasted their so called 'complaining' and began his own campaign to stop the tide of integration. While Wallace was a strong segregationist who had his own racist agenda, he appealed to fellow Alabamians by calling the civil rights workers, 'COMPLAINERS'.
I do not believe you are a racist nor a segregationist, but I do believe you have a personal agenda; doing all you can to lighten up the heavy ridicule from concerned citizens about the SCAP scandal in which your son-in-law, Scott Monday, is involved.
Mr. Vasche, people are not complaining, but we are needing answers. We are not 'COMPLAINERS', but we are devoted to standing up for truth and justice, and we have every right to demand both. You must understand there is as much difference between 'complaining' and taking a stand' as there is between 'arrogance and humility.'
By the way, I believe learning the truth would make me feel better and cause me to live my life more full.
By Patrony
Out of curiosity, I wanted to search for editorials from other newspapers in the state. Here are the titles of a few I read in today's editions. 1) San Francisco Gate: 'A drug shortage no one is answering'. 2) LA Times: 'Pricey Homeland Security.' 3) Sacramento Bee: 'Solar deal needs probe.'
After reading today's editorial, 'Make life better: Stop complaining', by Mark Vasche, in Sunday's Modesto Bee, I realized that according to Vasche's definition, the other editorials were all 'COMPLAINTS'. Vasche implied that bringing up negative issues are just idle complaints and are not justifiable.
C'mon Mark Vasche, why are you being passive aggressive? Why not state a direct message and just say who you're talking about instead of hiding behind a few authors' quotes just to take cheap shots at your targets?
To be honest, I thought your editorial reminded me of another article I read recently about a governor who ridiculed individuals whom he viewed as 'COMPLAINERS; his name was George C. Wallace. Wallace served as Alabama's governor in the sixties. Wallace accused civil rights workers of going against natural hierarchy for disrupting a time- honored social order which he referred to as the, "Southern way of life." Wallace lambasted their so called 'complaining' and began his own campaign to stop the tide of integration. While Wallace was a strong segregationist who had his own racist agenda, he appealed to fellow Alabamians by calling the civil rights workers, 'COMPLAINERS'.
I do not believe you are a racist nor a segregationist, but I do believe you have a personal agenda; doing all you can to lighten up the heavy ridicule from concerned citizens about the SCAP scandal in which your son-in-law, Scott Monday, is involved.
Mr. Vasche, people are not complaining, but we are needing answers. We are not 'COMPLAINERS', but we are devoted to standing up for truth and justice, and we have every right to demand both. You must understand there is as much difference between 'complaining' and taking a stand' as there is between 'arrogance and humility.'
By the way, I believe learning the truth would make me feel better and cause me to live my life more full.
West Palm Beach Forced to Repay HUD $1.67 Million Due to Mismanagement Will Modesto be Next?
By Emerson Drake
8/30/11
Friday, June 3rd 2011 when the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ordered West Palm Beach to pay back $1.67 million it received from 1998-2007. City documents show $1.19 million of the $1.67 million is owed as a result of the 2006 Blue Roof program, run by Paula Ryan, West Palm Beach's interim housing director at that time and a candidate for mayor this spring.
Sounds a lot like Modesto only in our case it was a Modesto City Councilman, Joe Muratore, who pocketed the funds.
Again from West Palm Beach, "We didn't play by the rules, and we got fined as a result. Hopefully that will never happen again," Mayor Jeri Muoio said. Lois Frankel, who left office in March and is running for U.S. Congress, was mayor when the Blue Roof program was created and carried out.
West Palm Beach was audited in 2008 because Miami's HUD office "ranked the city as high risk in its fiscal years 2006 and 2007 risk assessments," HUD said. It initially sought $3.39 million from the city but only required West Palm Beach to pay $1.67 million in its final determination.
The audit, done by HUD's Office of the Inspector General, found the city deficient in four areas: contract administration, monitoring, maintaining supporting documentation and reporting program income.
The deficiencies happened "because the city disregarded HUD requirements and had ineffective policies and procedures," the report stated.
This information is from the West Palm Beach News but the content strikes a resonate chord here in Modesto. Why is City Attorney Susan Acala Wood refusing to detail her involvement in Muratore's decision to vote back in 2010. After all she was quick enough to publicly weigh in when Garrad Marsh was preparing to vote on another matter around that same point in time. Is her decision to stay mum political?
Will Modesto be forced to repay HUD for the misuse of funds from both the SCAP fiasco and Councilman Muratore's greed?
Where would the money come from?
And lastly, why is Councilman Muratore still on the City Council?
8/30/11
Friday, June 3rd 2011 when the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ordered West Palm Beach to pay back $1.67 million it received from 1998-2007. City documents show $1.19 million of the $1.67 million is owed as a result of the 2006 Blue Roof program, run by Paula Ryan, West Palm Beach's interim housing director at that time and a candidate for mayor this spring.
Sounds a lot like Modesto only in our case it was a Modesto City Councilman, Joe Muratore, who pocketed the funds.
Again from West Palm Beach, "We didn't play by the rules, and we got fined as a result. Hopefully that will never happen again," Mayor Jeri Muoio said. Lois Frankel, who left office in March and is running for U.S. Congress, was mayor when the Blue Roof program was created and carried out.
West Palm Beach was audited in 2008 because Miami's HUD office "ranked the city as high risk in its fiscal years 2006 and 2007 risk assessments," HUD said. It initially sought $3.39 million from the city but only required West Palm Beach to pay $1.67 million in its final determination.
The audit, done by HUD's Office of the Inspector General, found the city deficient in four areas: contract administration, monitoring, maintaining supporting documentation and reporting program income.
The deficiencies happened "because the city disregarded HUD requirements and had ineffective policies and procedures," the report stated.
This information is from the West Palm Beach News but the content strikes a resonate chord here in Modesto. Why is City Attorney Susan Acala Wood refusing to detail her involvement in Muratore's decision to vote back in 2010. After all she was quick enough to publicly weigh in when Garrad Marsh was preparing to vote on another matter around that same point in time. Is her decision to stay mum political?
Will Modesto be forced to repay HUD for the misuse of funds from both the SCAP fiasco and Councilman Muratore's greed?
Where would the money come from?
And lastly, why is Councilman Muratore still on the City Council?
The People of Modesto Deserve a Fair Shake from City Government
By Emerson Drake
8/31/11
WE do deserve a fair and honest shake from our city government but we sure aren't getting one now. We have a Councilman who voted for NSP2 money and then ended up putting some of it ($62,500) in his own pocket. When the truth was about to come out he told on himself, BUT, he didn't mention how his company "Benchmark Realty" is managing the houses for Trinity Renovations and will be getting a slice of the pie monthly for the next 25 years.
We have a candidate for Mayor who a developer purchased and decided to run in the race for $14,000 dollars. Kind of like buying a horse to run at the track without having to buy feed or tack but who will go in any direction you pull his reins in.
We have local developers paying "rental" money to City Council candidates running for re-election. Chopra just loves those "rentals" . They're cheaper than owning with no maintenance costs, and a new crop coming every two years.
You don't have to ask what Escalon based Bavaro Farms is doing donating big money to Modesto candidates for, do you? OK, if you do, I'll help out. It's because they have land they want Modesto to annex and zone for homes. They did this same thing in the last election and will continue to do it until they motivate the council to ignore the "advisory votes" and do it anyway. The last annexation ( two years ago) the Bavaro's hoped for lost by over 70%.
And don't think it might not happen since we have a candidate for Mayor who says he'll ignore advisory votes and do what he thinks is best for the city. So much for representing the people.
We need a new amendment to our City Charter which would prohibit councilmen from accepting more than $1,000 dollars from any person or business without having to recuse themselves "step back and not vote or take part in the discussion" when that individual or business had something in front of the council for consideration, similar to what the County Board of Supervisors is considering.
Do we need honest government and a fair shake?
Do we deserve an honest government and a fair shake?
Damn straight we do. And until we get some changes in the same old, same old, it isn't going to happen.
8/31/11
WE do deserve a fair and honest shake from our city government but we sure aren't getting one now. We have a Councilman who voted for NSP2 money and then ended up putting some of it ($62,500) in his own pocket. When the truth was about to come out he told on himself, BUT, he didn't mention how his company "Benchmark Realty" is managing the houses for Trinity Renovations and will be getting a slice of the pie monthly for the next 25 years.
We have a candidate for Mayor who a developer purchased and decided to run in the race for $14,000 dollars. Kind of like buying a horse to run at the track without having to buy feed or tack but who will go in any direction you pull his reins in.
We have local developers paying "rental" money to City Council candidates running for re-election. Chopra just loves those "rentals" . They're cheaper than owning with no maintenance costs, and a new crop coming every two years.
You don't have to ask what Escalon based Bavaro Farms is doing donating big money to Modesto candidates for, do you? OK, if you do, I'll help out. It's because they have land they want Modesto to annex and zone for homes. They did this same thing in the last election and will continue to do it until they motivate the council to ignore the "advisory votes" and do it anyway. The last annexation ( two years ago) the Bavaro's hoped for lost by over 70%.
And don't think it might not happen since we have a candidate for Mayor who says he'll ignore advisory votes and do what he thinks is best for the city. So much for representing the people.
We need a new amendment to our City Charter which would prohibit councilmen from accepting more than $1,000 dollars from any person or business without having to recuse themselves "step back and not vote or take part in the discussion" when that individual or business had something in front of the council for consideration, similar to what the County Board of Supervisors is considering.
Do we need honest government and a fair shake?
Do we deserve an honest government and a fair shake?
Damn straight we do. And until we get some changes in the same old, same old, it isn't going to happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)