If there was ever a question as to who was responsible for pushing out Rod Simpson, here it is. Unfortunately, just another example to show that anyone that displays any disagreement with the three stooges…..will be taken care of.
Over the past decade, our population has doubled, and General Fund Expenditures have tripled. At his rate, GF expenditures will reach $30 Million, with 40,000 residents. Not exactly a sustainable model. The BIA and city puppets love to say that growth pays it way, but in reality, it doesn’t even come close, leaving existing residents to pick up the tab.
Traveling like wild fire through the city tonight are very credible statements that the Stanislaus County Grand Jury is investigating public officials in Patterson. Assuming such statements are true, we finally let out a two-year in the making cry “FINALLY.” Finally, a group of residents with no ties to local developers or pseudo politicians will investigate the foul stench that comes from city hall.
Coincidentally, this past Wednesday, I filed a PRA request for certain emails from and to Annette Smith.
I wouldn’t be letting the cat out of the bag if I said that most corrupt and unethical public officials have the brains to conduct their shady deals on a peersonal email account. This is largely due to the fact that PRA requests from personal email accounts have consistently been excluded from disclosure under the CPRA.
Not letting that get in the way, I thought it would be interesting to find out how some public officials operate to achieve certain public policy projects. Up first is Annette Smith, as you can read from my request below, I simply want to know if she used city time and resources to address certain issues, if so, I want to know what she said.
It appears that I will not be the only one looking at emails next week, the Stanislaus County Grand Jury seems to be interviewing certain public officials and they have already made request to subpoena certain documents. Unlike a normal PRA, the grand jury may be able to subpoena personal email accounts too, creating a difficult situation for the above referenced hacks.
It is my sincere hope that Ms. Smith……or Sarakobiotch is not the person who we think she is (last D. Green reference.) For the sake of the city, I honestly hope that she comes out as clean as whistle, after all, she may be the next mayor.
Eventually, I will request the emails of every city council member, I just thought it would be fun to start at the top, and see if Sarakobiotch is really as close to these special interests as we think she is.
—————————————–
— On Wed, 9/22/10, Fred Ross <pattersonirritator@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Fred Ross <pattersonirritator@yahoo.com>
Subject: Public Records Act Request
To: “maricela vela” <mvela@ci.patterson.ca.us>, cityclerk@ci.patterson.ca.us
Date: Wednesday, September 22, 2010, 5:12 AM
Madam Clerk,
Please see the attached California Public Records Act request.
Warmly,
Fred Ross
———————————-
Fred Ross
pattersonirritator@yahoo.com
September 21, 2010
Via Email
Maricela Vela
City Clerk
City of Patterson
2nd Floor
Administration Department
1 Plaza
P.O. Box 667
Patterson, CA 95363
RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC RECORDS
Dear Madam Clerk,
Pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Cal. Govt. Code § 6250, et seq.), I hereby request the following documents and information:
Any e-mails from or to Councilwoman Annette Smith, from January 1, 2006 to the present, which includes the term “Ramos” anywhere in the text or subject line of the email message.
Any e-mails from or to Councilwoman Annette Smith, from January 1, 2006 to the present, which includes the term “Walmart” or “Wal-mart” anywhere in the text or subject line of the email message.
Any e-mails from or to Councilwoman Annette Smith, from January 1, 2006 to the present, which includes the term “bloggers” anywhere in the text or subject line of the email message.
Any e-mails from or to Councilwoman Annette Smith, from January 1, 2006 to the present, which includes the term “villages” anywhere in the text or subject line of the email message.
Any e-mails from or to Councilwoman Annette Smith, from January 1, 2006 to the present, which includes the term “planning commission” anywhere in the text or subject line of the email message.
Any e-mails from or to Councilwoman Annette Smith, from January 1, 2006 to the present, which includes the term “Keystone” anywhere in the text or subject line of the email message.
Any e-mails from or to Councilwoman Annette Smith, from January 1, 2006 to the present, which includes the term “West Park” anywhere in the text or subject line of the email message.
Any e-mails from or to Councilwoman Annette Smith, from January 1, 2006 to the present, which includes the term “Brown Act” anywhere in the text or subject line of the email message.
Any e-mails from or to Councilwoman Annette Smith, from January 1, 2006 to the present, which includes the term “Del Puerto” anywhere in the text or subject line of the email message.
Any e-mails from or to Councilwoman Annette Smith, from January 1, 2006 to the present, which includes the term “Brown Act” anywhere in the text or subject line of the email message.
Any e-mails from or to Councilwoman Annette Smith, from January 1, 2006 to the present, which includes the term “health care” or “healthcare” anywhere in the text or subject line of the email message.
A public record is “any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.” (Cal. Govt. Code § 6252(e).) Emails and other electronic communications fall within this broad definition.
I understand that there is a nominal fee for the copying of the documents requested above. Therefore, per your “public records request form”, I will pay $10 for a CD of the documents at time of pick-up. In accordance with California Government Code §6256, please provide the documents requested no later than 10 days after this request.
Please contact me at pattersonirritator@yahoo.com to make arrangements to pick-up the documents. Thank you in advance for your assistance with this request.
The shitty grin on Pat Dooley’s face as he says “4 of the 5 faces have changed” kind of says it all. At this point, it’s kind of scary when the candidate for mayor, faced with the probably the most significant document involving the city, can only comment on typos and the need for tabs. Not to be outdone, the Mayor takes the cake when she admits that she didn’t even get a chance to read the plan before the meeting, but she sure did study Hallowell’s argument that Arambel’s land needed to be switched from res to commercial. Let’s see, focus on a developer’s wish list or read the plan. Disgusting.
Smart Growth
There appears to be a concerted effort by the landowners and co. to demonize anything in the General Plan referring to smart growth. Some have even chosen to co-opt the term. West leads this charge by claiming smart growth principles even through this last boom. We admire his attempt to redefine smart growth, but for those interested in learning more, simply follow this link, then compare examples of smart growth to your community.
Now the County says they don’t have the money to manually turn on the sprinklers. Sheriff says not his job to keep parks properly maintenanced but is will to lend labor from nearby honor farm.
Why it takes $100,000 to supervise a few low level inmates is beyond me. Surely, we could call upon our Stars Volunteer force to monitor a few inmates while they turn the knob on the sprinklers once a week. Surely, we could take the Sheriff up on his offer by allowing inmates to mow the park once a week. Eight days of work a month to keep a regional park open and our elected officials can’t play nice to make it happen? The budget crisis is county-wide, yet the “park problem” is only on the Westside….other parks throughout the county remain lush.
The Patterson IrriGator just covered this story, take a look here:
The discussion about whether to support/build a massive Wal*mart Super Center tends to be oversimplified, and grouped into several topic areas:
1. Jobs
2. Tax Revenues
3. Small Business Killer
4. Excessive Traffic
5. Shopping Options
While we believe that all of the above topics are important, we think the discussion has barely scratched the surface…..a deep dive into these issue areas is sorely needed.
While elected officials will presumably hide behind the “job” curtain, most are simply salivating at potential tax revenues. Historically, these supercenters have given a boost to struggling general funds, monies that are used to increase our quality of life. But when you balance what we get, for being a host city for a new wal*mart supercenter, you can’t help but wonder if we’re really getting a good deal or just getting hosed.
Below is our financial analysis of what the proposed Wal*mart project can do for our community, and how it stacks up to possible alternatives for the site on Sperry and Ward.
Patterson’s 4 options:
No Project/No Development Alternative: The project site would remain in its existing condition and no development would occur
No Project/Existing Entitlements Alternative: The remaining 2006 entitlements for the Patterson Plaza Project would be developed on the project site, which consist of 149,200 square feet of retail uses (excluding the existing CVS/Pharmacy and Taco Bell).
Reduced Density Alternative: A 133,500-square-foot Walmart store would be developed on the project site. No outlots would be developed.
Mixed-Use Center Alternative: A 175,000-square-foot, mixed-use center featuring 100,000 square feet of retail uses, 25,000 square feet of office uses, and 50 apartments would be developed on the project site. No Walmart store would be developed under this alternative.
PROPOSED PROJECT
As proposed, the Wal*mart “Patterson Plaza Project” would generate approximately $72.5 million in annual sales. However, the city of Patterson would get back less than 1% of these sales, the result, a measly $687,559 annually under full build-out. The cumulative effect of a super-center realized by the small/local business community would probably be best characterized as terminal. Local businesses keep money circulated in Patterson, monies to Wal*mart will only fatten the pockets of WMT and the Walton Family.
Obviously leaving the land as is would not bring any surplus to the Patterson budget, so we’ll move on to the other three options with fiscal significance.
EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS ALTERNATIVE
The Existing Entitlements alternative would generate approximately $50.1 Million in annual sales. However, it also lacks any potential to produce a real fiscal surge. This alternative would fill Patterson’s coffers with $470,940 in general fund surplus. This alternative would bring us 4 restaurants, 4 retail shops (6,400 to 15,000 sq/ft), a bank, and possibly a smaller Target.
REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE
This alternative simply reduces the footprint of the Wal*mart from 158,000 sq/ft to 133,500 sq/ft. Annual sales would total $56,500,000, contributing around $531,000 in surplus to the general fund.
MIXED USE DENSITY ALTERNATIVE
Finally, as stated above, the mixed use density easily offers the most contrasting option to the proposed project. This alternative would generate only $28,400,000 in annual sales. A general fund surplus of $266,960. While it’s a little skimpy on the financials, it would decrease the amount of daily trips by 4,282 when compared to proposed project.
We have been told by our elected officials that we need this Wal*mart, but is it really the answer to our economic problems or is it simply being jammed down our throats to keep the city from flat-lining? Regardless of which project is ultimately selected, it appears that appetite for short term gains may very well spell the end to a future downtown core, anchored by small local businesses.
It appears that an “informal” complaint lodged against Stanislaus County Sheriff Deputies managed to reach the top of the food chain. If you missed it, Realini complained to the City Council and others about Sheriff Deputies giving a little extra treatment to some young ladies outside the Frontier. Shortly after dinner tonight, some of my guests confirmed this story.
I want to be clear, I believe the City of Patterson benefits greatly from their relationship with the Sheriff Department. Patterson has in effect, avoided the blunders of many local governments by shifting the pension/retirement burdens to the County. In other words, Patterson isn’t on the hook for fat deputy pensions that appear to be breaking the back of local governments throughout the State.
With that being said, the Sheriff Department leaves a lot to be desired. For years, the county has used the Westside as their training ground, shipping young cadets fresh out of POST to serve and protect the Westside. Consequently, we have been the laboratory for failed experiments and careless, reckless, ill-supervised deputies.
Unfortunately, some of these Deputies chose to make Patterson their career
Indeed, Realini’s complaint doesn’t rise to the level of past misconduct, but it gently signals a warning to us all, if we do not hold law enforcement accountable, who will?
Sheriff Christianson’s response below simply falls short of what we should expect from a chief. Instead, he chooses to chide Realini about process. He does have one thing right, the mission of the sheriff department is clear….it’s crap.
——————————————————-
Dear Ms. Campo, Mr. Cuellar and Mrs. Smith:
Monica went Karaoke last night (July 7, 2010) at the Frontier and witnessed something that is very disturbing regarding our police force. She arrived at about 10:30, shortly afterwards she went outside and saw a friend of ours chatting with a couple of police officers in two separate patrol vehicles. She also witnessed them allowing our friend to sit in the front seat of one of the patrol cars and turn on the lights and sirens. This is fine if it’s a PR event with children, not at that time of night with a very cute young (24yo) woman. When Monica left around midnight, she saw the same two officers still there with our same friend.
Do we really need that level of police presence in front of a bar, especially one frequented by our mayor and members of the Chamber of Commerce? I wrote to you a couple of weeks ago regarding the on-going issue between 3rd and Highway 33 behind St. Vincent de Paul where we do have an ongoing issue with vagrants getting drunk, urinating on the buildings and passing out. Wouldn’t their time be better spent patrolling the remainder of the city, or is the intention to drive out the only “safe” adult location to gather in the evening?
Jeff Realini
——————————————————
Good Afternoon Mr. Realini,
Thank you for sharing your concerns about our law enforcement services in the City of Patterson. Our Mission Statement is clear and our staff are committed to the highest level of professional conduct, behavior and performance. We abide by our guiding principles of honesty, integrity, professionalism and respect. We abide by the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics.
That being said, there is a process and policy in place which allows any citizen to file a complaint with the Sheriff’s Department if they feel our employees have allegedly violated any of our policies, procedures and/or guidelines. I have attached a copy of the form for your convenience although I see by your e-mail that you did not personally witness the alleged conduct/activity on the night of July 7, 2010.
We are accountable to the people we serve and you have my commitment that we take very seriously all allegations of misconduct.
What if Patterson’s General Plan Update started off like this:
Goal I: The Citizens of Patterson will dictate how Patterson grows.
A. The decision to authorize urban development on existing agricultural land and open space represents one of the most significant and far-reaching decisions that must be considered by the city of Patterson.
In light of this fact, any decision to approve a comprehensive development plan, specific plan, or other plan or zoning designation that authorizes or facilitates conversion of agricultural land or open space to urban uses shall not take effect unless that decision is approved by the voters. This goal will work to ensure that the citizens of the City of Patterson are provided the opportunity to vote on all such decision before urban development on such lands is approved.
B. Any decision by the City of Patterson to authorize or approve urban development on all or a portion of the parcels or areas subject to this goal shall require, and be contingent upon, approval by a majority vote of the City voters at a general or special local election.
The voter approval policy would apply to any decision or approval by the City of Patterson that encompasses all or part of a parcel or area in a “Planned Urbanizing Area” or area located outside the City’s Sphere of Influence.
A Patterson Mitigation Program (PMP) would aid in mitigating the loss of farmland resulting from residential development by the City of Patterson, by requiring the permanent protection of farmland based on a 1:1 ratio to the amount of farmland converted. The PMP would utilize agricultural conservation easements granted in perpetuity as a means of minimizing the loss of farmland.
LAFCO echoed the need for Ag mitigation in their review and comment of Patterson’s Draft EIR for the 2010 General Plan. Sort of amusing how they point out that on page 4 of the initial study, the City boasts that the “protection of agricultural resources around the City and in the region is an important consideration in planning the City’s future.”
While the City’s Draft 2010 General Plan sets forth a vague goal to protect and preserve agricultural lands, they offer no specific mitigation measures to offset or reduce the impacts related to the conversion of agricultural lands.
Indeed, the General Plan Study Area is nothing to sneeze at, it includes approximately 12,278 acres, including the City’s existing limits (3830 acres).
LAFCO ends their review and comment by strongly encouraging Patterson to include mitigation measures in the EIR. They suggest mitigation measures which encourage the use of agricultural conservation easements or other mechanisms for the direct loss of agricultural land should be considered in order to lessen the impact of the loss of important farmland.
Now is the time to take a serious look at these initiatives…we know what the alternative looks like and I think we’ve all seen enough of that.
With election season in Patterson starting to gear up, I thought it would be rather helpful to go over some future development plans being considered in the City. As we get closer to election day, catch phrases like “smart growth”, “slow growth”, “job growth” and “responsible growth”, will be tossed around like a pigskin on Friday night. But what do these terms really mean? Who actually has the vision to make these concepts reality?
If you’ve followed this blog in the past, you know that I’ve been quite critical of the city in their quest to line developer pockets and suck up as much land as possible. As noted in earlier posts, the City of Patterson really doesn’t need to add a single acre of land to carry-out the catch phrase concepts listed above. Indeed, most of these “alternatives” will pave over thousands of acres of prime farmland.
In an attempt to bring more discussion to this important process, I’ve listed the planning alternatives below with some quick facts about each of them.
Compact Development Alternative
Based on the principles of “Smart Growth”
Population 20 yrs = 46,360
Population 40 yrs = 57,500
5 acres of Highway Commercial west of Sperry Interchange, 15 acres west of I-5 at Zacharias Road.
Job Development Alternative
Emphasizes job-growth?
Population 20 yrs = 47,831 Population 40 yrs = 66,673
Area west of I-5 with a ‘Mixed Use – Hillside Development’ designation which would accommodate large-lot housing, open space and commercial development.
THE PATTERSON IRRITATOR IS AN INDEPENDENT WEBSITE AND/OR PUBLICATION AND IS NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE PATTERSON IRRIGATOR. NO PORTION OF THIS SITE MAY BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS CONSENT OF THE PATTERSON IRRITATOR.
8. “The Water district’s only interest is for THEMSELVES.“
Goal I: The Citizens of Patterson will dictate how Patterson grows.
Goal II: 
