PLEASE NOTE: The views,
opinions, observations, deductions, & the like,
herein expressed are those of the Author, and NOT
necessarily those of the Staff or Management of, or
Advertisers with, Redding.com, The Record
Searchlight, or of any organizations therewith.
►Statement #1:
Gary Cadd stated that the idea of the City of
Redding having a representative on the Shasta County
Air Pollution Control Board came, initially, at the
urging of him & other members of the public before
the City Council took up the idea & began seriously
campaigning in favor of it.
►Statement #2: Cadd stated that he urged the Shasta County Board of
Supervisors to start posting online the video
footage of their meetings.
Verification: True. He and several others have gone
before the Board of Supervisors to do that. He also,
by other means (e.g., individual contacts) urged the
County to post online video footage of public
meetings.
►Statement #3: Cadd stated
that at least one City Council member stated a lack
of technical expertise
to efficiently oversee some of
REU operations.
Verification: True.
►Statement #4:
Missy McArthur stated that only three persons were
actually evicted for nonpayment of electric bill, &
each of those were "bank foreclosures."
Verification: Three persons were referred to Code
Enforcement for Abatement Proceedings wherein orders
to vacate were sought, however, approximately 2600
persons, this year, were served with "notices of
disconnect." Rather than risk any possible liens on
the property, among other things, those unable to
properly pay, after having been served with
"disconnect" notice, ended up moving out of their
homes before their cases could have risen to the
level of "Referral to Code Enforcement for Abatement
Proceedings." No tabulations (according to
information accessed on City of Redding's website)
of tenants being evicted by their landlords for
"occupancy without power" are actually
accessible on
City of Redding's website. Often, the eviction, by
landlord, of a tenant from residence can require
fewer days than the City's similar abatement (for
occupancy w/o power). In such cases, the landlord
can expect to incur penalties from the City, for
failure, under such circumstances, to evict. There
is limited remedy available under Chapter 14.20 of
the Redding Municipal Code, but that may not always
prevent a landlord from evicting what he/she deems a
bad risk (for, among other things, possible future
non-payment of rent, given the nonpayment of REU
bills). Therefore, where specifically a tenant is
served with a "notice of disconnect" for
non-payment, the same can expect to be evicted by
his/her landlord & thus not be counted in that
statistic mentioned by McArthur. So, while
technically three persons have been "evicted" by the
City for non-payment of REU bills, those effectively
evicted by City of Redding for non-payment of REU
bills number significantly higher.
BTW, just as an aside, when Redding was first
incorporated in 1887, ALL buildings within the City
Limits, then, would, by the standard applied today,
have been deemed unacceptably "unsafe to occupy."
►Statement #5:
Dick Dickerson, in complete agreement with
McArthur's statement, stated that all homes
(regardless of condition) not connected to
electrical power, are so inherently unsafe as to
necessitate the kinds of proceedings that have been
the subject of much controversy.
click here to hear
statement on youtube
Verification: That is not only false, but patently
ridiculous. When Redding was first incorporated in
1887, ALL buildings within the City Limits, then,
would, by the standard applied today, have been
deemed unacceptably "unsafe to occupy." Was the
entire City of Redding uninhabitable, then? If so,
how could anyone have survived? Shasta County, being
one of the original counties of California, came to
be when the State joined the Union in 1850. Were ALL
structures in the County of Shasta, then,
uninhabitable? If so, how could anyone have
survived? By itself, non-connection to electrical
service does NOT render a dwelling structure
uninhabitable, needless to say. Bldg. code
provisions & City policy both notwithstanding, other
conditions must exist in order for a dwelling
structure to be actually uninhabitable. Now, whether
a building may be considered legally uninhabitable,
as opposed to actually uninhabitable, because of
disconnection from electrical utility service;
Dickerson did NOT in his statement differentiate. So
anyone listening to it can safely understand him to
mean what is commonly meant by the use of such terms
as "unsafe to occupy." The common application of the
term includes under its rubric actual danger to
occupants, & not mere failure to satisfy certain
legal prerequisites.
►Statement #5:
Cadd stated that people
served with disconnect notices often move out of
their dwellings prior to their cases being referred
to Code Enforcement for Abatement Proceedings
because, among other things, of the possibility of
being fined by the city to the tune of $2500per day.
click here to hear statement on youtube
Verification: True it is that people served with
disconnect notices often move out of their dwellings
prior to their cases being referred to Code
Enforcement for Abatement Proceedings because, among
other things, of the possibility of being fined by
the City on a per diem type of basis. The
administrative penalty (which is a civil penalty, as
opposed to a fine for misdemeanor violation), under
Redding Municipal Code § 1.14.050, is $2500/day.
Colloquially, civil penalties are often described in
terms of being fines. A $2500/day penalty, by
whatever name, is still a $2500/day penalty.
►Statement #7
Dickerson stated that the City could be held liable for damages resulting from
fires happening to structures disconnected from electrical service owing to
non-payment, should the City change policy & allow, even temporarily, occupancy
of dwelling unit disconnected from electrical utility service owing to
nonpayment.
Note: Please be patient. The Verification of
Statement #7 is necessarily a lengthy one, for
reasons that will become apparent upon the reading
of it.
Verification: False. Dickerson seems to be
relying on a novel legal theory that a house w/o
connection to electrical utility service is somehow
per se a property of the City. Either that, or else
he, by his statement, is claiming that a statutorily
mandatory duty is that of the City to have a policy
calling for the eviction of those recently
disconnected from electrical utility service. So
let's examine. Shall we?
Cal. Gov. Code § 835 reads as
follows:
Except as
provided by statute, a public entity is liable for
injury caused by a dangerous condition of its
property if the plaintiff establishes that the
property was in a dangerous condition at the time of
the injury, that the injury was proximately caused
by the dangerous condition, that the dangerous
condition created a reasonably forseeable risk of
the kind of injury which was incurred, and that
either:
(a) A negligent
or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the
public entity within the scope of his employment
created the dangerous condition; or
(b) The public
entity had actual or constructive notice of the
dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient
time prior to the injury to have taken measures to
protect against the dangerous condition.
Now, from whence did the theory that a house w/o
connection to electrical utility service is somehow
per se a property of the City come? Ordinarily,
where a fire, under such circumstance as mentioned
in Dickerson's statement, to one property causes
damage to the person or property of another, the
liability would rest with the owner of the property
whose burning caused the damage, NOT with the City
wherein that property sits, unless, of course, the
City actually does own, even if only in part, the
property in question.
And what about Cal. Gov. Code § 818.2, under which a
City, in this case, cannot be held liable for merely
failing to either a) adopt a policy requiring
eviction of those disconnected from electrical
utility service, or b) enforce such a policy, where
one be already adopted?
Cal. Gov. Code § 818.6 reads as follows:
A public entity
is not liable for injury caused by its failure to
make an inspection, or by reason of making an
inadequate or negligent inspection, of any property,
other than its property (as defined in subdivision
(c) of Section 830), for the purpose of determining
whether the property complies with or violates any
enactment or contains or constitutes a hazard to
health or safety.
Take a look at "Clayton v. Sunnyvale (1976, Cal App
1st Dist.) 62 Cal App 3d 666, 133 Cal Rptr 306."
Therein, it was the Opinion of the Court that a city
could not be held liable for injuries sustained by a
17 yr. old youth after having fallen down flight of
stairs at private apartment building on basis of
negligence on part of city in inspecting, or failing
to inspect.
The liability, naturally, was that of the property
owner, not the city wherein the property was
situated.
Also, under the Opinion of the Court in "Armistead
v. Los Angeles (1957, Cal App 2nd Dist.) 152 Cal App
2d 319, 313 P2d 127," the test (to determine whether
or not, for nuisance repair/abatement order
purposes, a building should be subject to "red
tagging") that if old building be not up to present
day building standards & legal requirements should
not be the sole controlling one.
A question then comes. "What if eviction from a
dwelling recently disconnected from electric utility
service by reason alone of having recently been
disconnected from said service be a duty expressly
mandated by State statute?"
And so began a several days' quest to find such a
mandate as Dickerson might, by his statement,
suggest somehow exists. After looking far & wide,
even into the the 2010 California Building Code, the
2007 California Electrical Code, the 2010 California
Residential Code, etc., etc., not to mention
relevant provisions of the California Government
Code, of the California Health & Safety Code, & of
the California Public Utilities Code (just to name a
few), I have yet to find such a legal authority as
Dickerson, by his statement, claims exists.
The question is NOT whether the City has the mere
authority to enforce building standards. The City
most clearly & obviously does! And only a fool, BTW,
would suggest otherwise! Neither is the question one
of whether or not City has the mere authority to
adopt & execute a policy of evicting persons whose
dwellings be recently disconnected from electrical
service. The question is whether the City of Redding
could be held liable in the event that, in the
absence of such policy, an occupied dwelling
recently disconnected from electrical service burns
& causes damage to the person or property of
another. And the answer to that question is "NO."
Dickerson's statement (that the City could be held
liable for damages resulting from fires happening to
structures disconnected from electrical service
owing to non-payment, should the City change policy
& allow, even temporarily, occupancy of dwelling
unit disconnected from electrical utility service
owing to nonpayment) is therefore clearly erroneous!
►Statement #8 :
McArthur claimed co-authorship of 2010's Measures A
& B.
Verification:
McArthur did not co-author the aforementioned
measures, in the sense that she made such
substantial contributions as to be considered a
co-author. She did,
however, according to inside source, make some
contributions to the final product.
But the
credit for authorship of the two measures belongs to
Rick Bosetti.
►Statement #9: Cadd stated that, about the time of
June 2011, at least one Council member stated that
future economic improvement be necessary as means of
partial funding of certain CBAs (Collective
Bargaining Agreements) whilst avoiding additional
layoffs. Play statement:
click here
Verification: True.
For example, Patrick Jones, when June 21 2011 Agenda
Item 9.15(a) (Resolution approving amendment to
Memorandum of Understanding with R.P.O.A.; and
Resolution regarding the California Public Employees
Retirement System (CalPERS) Member Contribution) was
being considered, made such statement, basing it on
past history of MOUs previously agreed to.
►Statement #10: Cadd stated that, under "Complete
Streets," bicycle left turn lanes get placed where
it is too often dangerous for bicyclists to use
them.
Verification: True. Take a look at, for instance,
South Bonnyview Rd. where it connects with
intersection with Hwy. 273.
►Statement #11:
Dickerson stated that without
"Complete Streets," streets,
roads, & the like, would be
unavailable for use by
bicyclists & pedestrians. Play statement:
click here
Verification: That is patently false!! Sidewalks
have existed on several city streets for, in some
cases, almost as long as the city has been
incorporated, though the original versions of such
sidewalks have long ago been replaced. Also, bike
routes have been on Redding city streets for
decades. And the idea of keeping streets available
for use by bicyclists & pedestrians, as well as by
motorists, has LONG predated the conception of the
so-called "Complete Streets" concept. Not only was
that statement of Dickerson's patently false, but it
is plainly absurd!
►Statement #12: Dickerson stated that the "Northern California
Veterans' Museum and Heritage Center" organization
asked for approximately $190K of City of Redding
assistance & got it.
Verification: What they, Aug. 21 2012 Redding
City Council meeting, requested was $193,800 to
assist, not with construction, but with permitation
& permitation-related costs. McArthur was initially
opposed, but eventually changed her vote to one
favorable. The request was approved. HOWEVER,
approval of funding agreement, & of relevant budget
resolution appropriating monies for that purpose,
needed both to be adopted before any monies could be
expended for that purpose. So, at Oct. 16 2012 City
Council meeting, consideration of whether or not to
take such action took place.
McArthur, this time, voted "no." The vote was a 2-2
tie, Councilman Jones having recused himself. Thus,
the request was denied, though it can certainly be
agendized anew for future Council meeting for
consideration.
It should be noted that the Aug. 21 2012 City
Council meeting was heartily attended, whilst the
Oct. 16 2012 City Council meeting was, presumably by
reason of the broadcast of the U.S. Presidential
Debate, rather lightly attended. At the more
heartily attended meeting, McArthur, after initially
opposing the request, voted in favor of it. At the
rather lightly attended meeting, McArthur voted as
she was initially inclined, at the earlier meeting,
to vote. To wit, she voted "no" at the Oct. 16 2012
meeting.
So, Dickerson's statement was accurate, but only at
the time he made it. It cannot accurately be made
now, & that because of what happened at the Oct.
16 2012 Council meeting.
►Statement #14: Dickerson stated that sales taxes are up by
about 9% over the last year, and that property tax
receipts have not grown at all.
Verification: True. Second Quarter sales taxes 2012
are up 9.5% over second quarter sales taxes 2011.
Property Tax receipts, meanwhile, are down 2.2% over
a year ago, according to the 2012-13 (Shasta County)
Annual Assessments Report.
►Statement #15: McArthur stated that the City's Reserve is
about $5.2M, up from about $4M a year ago, and that T.O.T. (Transient Occupancy Taxes) are also up from
last year. Play statement
click here
Verification: Sort of true
.
The $4M figure is based on previous estimate for
City Reserves for the fiscal year ending June 30
2013 (a.k.a., FYE June 30 2013). What grew from $4M
to $5.4M (not the $5.2M figure McArthur used in her
statement) was the estimate for the City's Reserve.
Previously, the City has maintained a 5% Reserve.
The $4M figure represents the previous estimate of a
6.6% Reserve for FYE June 30 2013. The $5.4M figure
represents the new estimate of an 8.6% Reserve for
FYE June 30 2013. Keep in mind, the increase in
Reserves, this fiscal year from last, is according
to the relevant Staff Report for Aug. 21 2012 City
Council Agenda Item 9.10(a), owing to a one-time
"true up" of former Redevelopment Agency funds,
accounting for the difference.
There is increase in T.O.T., for each of the past
several years*, although the rate of growth (this
fiscal years from last) is expected to be less than
half that for last year to the one immediately
previous.
*That part of McArthur's statement is true. On the
other hand, her description of the state of
Redding's Reserve is one that is found wanting.
►Statement #16:
Cadd, in response, stated that the two retail sales
secotrs that saw any growth are in fuel sales &
automobile sales. Play statement
click here
Verification:
?
Such category specific figures
for second quarter 2012 are not yet available from
City's Finance Division, & probably won't be until
after the Election. But, if the breakdown be
approximately the same for 2012 as for 2011, then
most certainly the two areas wherein sales growth
would be found would be in sales of motor vehicle
fuel & of motor vehicles.
►Statement #17:
Dickerson stated that the
Privatization Evaluation
Committee discussed the weighed
whole matter of privatisation of
City Serivces, &, for the most
part, found it wanting. Play
statement
click here
Verification: True.
►Statement #18:
McArthur stated that privatisation of "parks &
recreation" would necessarily result in exhaustion
of useful life of City equipment with the City
holding the bag for certain costs (presumably
repairs & replacements). Play statement
click here
Verification:
All depends on
the specific terms of
the contract that might be negotiated. A given set
of contract terms could, for example, require the
contractor to provide his/her own equipment, or else
financially to see to the maintenance, replacement,
etc. of city equipment used. So, would privatization
of "Parks & Rec." operations NECESSARILY result in
exhaustion of useful life of City equipment, leaving
City holding the proverbial bag for certain costs
(presumably repairs & replacements)? No.
