No on Measure A : City of Riverside

Home » THE WATER LAW SUIT

THE WATER LAW SUIT

This was the original law suit filed by Riverside Residents Dr. Javier and Vivian Moreno against the City of Riverside.

waterjpg

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL DOCUMENT

The following is the City of Riverside’s filed response to the suit.

cityresponsecoverjpg

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW CITY’S FILED RESPONSE

The following is the settelement agreement reached by the Moreno’s and the City of Riverside.

SETTELMENTa     settlement2     settement3     settelment4

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE VIEW SETTELMENT AGREEMENT

At todays City Council, City Attorney Greg Priamos attempted to mitigate the importance of this settlement by dismissing that it had any value due to the fact that there was no court opinion, which would indicate a precedence.  Though the Moreno’s settelment was in their favor, the Moreno’s receive no monies as a result of this suit being a citizen private attorney general suit, the benefit is to the residents and citizens at large.  Private attorney general is an informal term usually used today in the United States to refer to a private party who brings a lawsuit considered to be in the public interest, i.e., benefiting the general public and not just the plaintiff.  The rationale behind this principle is to provide extra incentive to private citizens to pursue suits that may be of benefit to society at large.  In general, any person, citizen, may sue in care of the Attorney General of the State of California if they see an issue which violates the state constitution and it’s by laws.

 CAPartAnalysis2

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

The City Attorney Greg Priamos continues to attempt to mitigate and belittle the circumstances that led to the law suit in this ballot insert.  Mr. Priamos, “some have argued?”  No Priamos, the law of the State of California argued that you were breaking the law, and in violation of the the California State Constitution.

For more information on this June 4th, 2013 Measure A, contact us noonmeasureariverside@hotmail.com

WETTWOPSD233

GOVERNMENT SHOULD LIVE WITHIN THEIR MEANS, AFTERALL, WE THE TAXPAYER HAVE TO..


3 Comments

  1. Thomas Huelskamp says:

    Just got my ballot. Measure A wording is written to defraud every uninformed voter. Disgusting.

    • Thanks Mr. Huelskamp for your support, even in the ballot insert the City Attorney Gregory Priamos continues deflect the circumstance that led to the law suit. They didn’t give you an opportunity to vote back in 1996, and continued to illegally transferred monies to the general fund, even though the taxpayers in California overwhelmingly by 84% voted for Proposition 218.

  2. Tom Courbat says:

    I believe Measure A is illegal as it provides for some NON-WATER DEPARTMENT CUSTOMERS to vote on whether a portion of payments made by WATER DEPARTMENT CUSTOMERS shall be transferred from the Water Department to the General Fund of the City of Riverside. Since any city residents who do NOT receive water from the city have no vested interest (no “skin in the game” as it were), there should be no basis for allowing them to vote on whether the city should be allowed to continue the illegal practice of using excess Water Department earnings in the general fund. Proposition 218 is very clear, UTILITY FUNDS COLLECTED FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE (e.g. providing water) MAY NOT BE USED FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE. The city has been aware of this prohibition since 1996 and has blatantly continued this practice until private citizens had to sue to make them stop violating the law.

    The use of scare tactics (we’ll take away your free Internet, swimming, certain police protections) is reminiscent of the roaring 30’s – you pay gangsters for “protection” and you’ll be able to continue to run your business without gangsters tearing up your place of business or scaring off your customers. The use of these Water Department funds for police, fire, parks, etc. has been illegal since 1996 – why should Water Department customers have to pay twice for the same service? They pay the same taxes as everyone else in the city for police, fire, parks, etc. and then they pay ANOTHER 11.5% when funds are transferred from the Water Department to the General Fund. Clearly the Water Department is charging more than its cost of operation (also against the law) so that an 11.5% “slush fund” is created and then slipped over to the general fund. Any legitimate audits of the Water Department should have pointed out the illegality of this practice years ago.

    It’s EXACTLY like what I saw on the reality show “Kitchen Nightmares” tonight. The owner of the restaurant was paying his waiters/waitresses an hourly rate. All tips left by customers (who CLEARLY intended the tips to be for the servers) were kept by the OWNER who prohibited his staff from pocketing ANY tips left for them. When the customers were informed that the owner was pocketing the tips, they were absolutely outraged!! So should every voter in this election be outraged. Water charges are to pay for water, not police & parks. Tips are for the workers, not the owners.

    STOP THIS RIP-OFF BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE – VOTE NO ON MEASURE A!

    Tom Courbat
    Former Finance Director
    County of Riverside

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: