Wednesday, July 16, 2014

The Tom Love Video Is Now Available For Tattler Readers

A link to the video of Tom's talk can be found here.
Tom Love, who is the President of the Board of Directors for the San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District (link), stopped by City Hall last Tuesday evening and spoke to us about the state of the water supply we now find ourselves completely dependent upon. This because our very own municipal water company is now an almost completely waterless one, which has got to be embarrassing for them.

Love has come under much criticism here in town because his remarks about this area's at risk water supply, which ran for over 26 minutes, seems entirely too optimistic to many. So much so that he was called out on his inappropriately sunny views by Councilmember Rachelle Arizmendi, who seemed astonished at what she, along with a room filled with her constituents, had just heard.

That moment is also on the Tom Love video. Do not miss it.

-
The video of Mr. Love's remarks has now been posted on YouTube, and should you wish to revisit his talk you can do so by clicking on the link provided above. It is located underneath the large personality screenshot we included with this Tattler edition. Or, should you wish, you can link to it here as well.

As I said, Tom has come under considerable criticism on this blog. Below is a sampling of the remarks that were posted here by readers on July 9, the day after last Tuesday evening's City Council meeting.

Anonymous July 9, 2014 at 9:59 AM
Love's "presentation" was indefensible. There is too much riding on this. A whole community needs a reliable water source. He clearly had an agenda. He's alligned with all the pro-development people and he was willing to throw Sierra Madre under the bus to further that agenda. Governor Brown declared a state of emergency over the water crisis. Every city is having problems. The drought is most likely going to get worse. For him to get up there and paint that rosy a picture was disgraceful. Thank goodness the Council called him out on it and he started to backpedal pretty rapidly. He spoke first to try to influence the tone of the meeting. I'm glad no one listened to him. Various water boards have become very corrupt. Without further evidence, I won't tar him with that brush yet but I still think his presentation was a disgrace.

Anonymous July 9, 2014 at 10:02 AM
Tom Love basically said everything is fine and we have plenty of water. He was even worse than that One Carter lawyer who spoke up at the June 24th meeting. I'd like to know who placed the phone call to get him out to that meeting and try to change its direction?

Anonymous July 9, 2014 at 10:05 AM
Love looked like a complete idiot. He came there at someone's request to put the brakes on the building moratorium. Councilwoman Arizmendi expressed what everybody felt. The question is what made him go against all the data of where Sierra Madre and this state are heading. I think we know the answer to that question.

Anonymous July 9, 2014 at 10:28 AM
I wonder what Mr. Love has to say about today's announcement: "The State Water Resources Control Board meets next week to consider draft emergency regulations. 'We are in a drought of historic proportions,' Board Chairwoman Felicia Marcus said in a telephone interview with Associated Press. " The public meeting will be held July 15 in Sacramento. If the board adopts the regulations they would take effect immediately and remain in force for 9 months. 

Full story: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/jul/09/california-board-considers-fines-for-wasting-water/

Seems like Mr. Love would have known all this, being on the SGVMWD Board? It's not like it all happened overnight. So it's puzzling, why he would present such a rosy interpretation of these very dire circumstances?

Anonymous July 9, 2014 at 10:28 AM
That was Rachelle's finest hour so far. It was the "wait a minute" moment that stopped Love in his tracks. Granted he can rifle off some facts but anyone can skew the data to fit the result they want. Love did that and I too lost all respect for him.

Anonymous July 9, 2014 at 10:33 AM
I just want to thank Love for speaking up the way he did. If one reader is correct that he spoke up repeatedly in favor of the assisted living facility and after what he did last night, we now know him for what he is. He has an agenda and he is in the pro-development camp. If he speaks at any future meetings, he will have no credibility or influence whatsoever. Thanks again for getting up there and letting us know we have plenty of water.

I have been told by someone whose opinion I value that Mr. Love's efforts to influence last week's City Council confab were worse than what Allen Graves attempted. The reason for this being that Graves was only speaking as a private citizen, whereas Tom strode into the room as a leader of the area's highest water authority. His words were supposed to be a completely accurate depiction of our water situation, and set the tone for what was to follow. Instead we apparently got something else.

-
It has also been reported to me by meeting attendees that Tom was overheard telling people in the lobby at City Hall that there is no water shortage, and that things are not as bad as some have said.

So this morning it is a full week later, and people have had an opportunity to reflect a bit upon what they saw and heard at that meeting. You now have a chance to revisit this controversial talk by an influential member from the San Gabriel Valley water management elite, and let the community know your current take on what was said.

As you should be well aware, both the water and development moratoriums are back on the agenda for next week's City Council meeting. There is still a lot that needs to be worked out.

In many ways this is a conversation that has just begun.

ABC News: FEDERAL METEOROLOGIST: CALIFORNIA 2 YEARS AWAY FROM RUNNING OUT OF WATER (link)
A U.S. Department of Agriculture meteorologist believes California is only two years away from completely running out of water.

In a recent interview with 24/7 Wall St., federal meteorologist Brad Rippey said the drought has dragged on for three-and-a-half years in many parts of the country and is possibly worst in California.

"Reservoirs which are generally fed by the Sierra Nevada's and the southern Cascades [are] where we see the real problems," Rippey told 24/7 Wall St., "At [the current] usage rate, California has less than two years of water remaining."

(Mod: A little something to think about.)

This evening's EENER meeting on water
In a review document prepared by Bruce Inman for tonight's EENER get-together, a "preliminary list  of study matters" is discussed (link):


If anyone is going to this EENER get-together and gets some copies of staff's list of City Council study matters, which apparently is being handed out fresh this evening, please send one my way. Thanks!

http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

113 comments:

  1. Tom Love deserves a special place in the pantheon of scroundrels for what he did Tuesday night. The Star News had another recent article talking about how, following on the heels of the water emergency that Governor Brown declared in the state, the state is now considering emergency mandatory conservation efforts because of one of the worst droughts in California's history. And here's Tom Love telling us that everything is just fine and dandy. In fact, he tried to present a picture so rosy that Councilwoman Arizmendi even said that he had presented a pitcture so rosy that he implied that we don't need any conservation efforts at all. That's how skewed and biased his presentation was. Could it be that that Tom Love, as Director of the San Gabriel Valley Muncipal Water District might, just might, not want us to return to our own wells? Could it be that Tom Love wants us to remain dependant on the MWD? Don't we pay alot of money to the MWD for that crappy water we get? Have we all read about the corruption at the various water boards and isn't there an active criminal investigation of some of the members of these water boards? Tom Love strode up to that podium with an agenda. He deliberately spoke first so he could have maximum impact. He's the Director of an organization that has a financial interest in not wanting us to return to our own wells but to remain dependant on the MWD for our water supply. The fact that Tom Love is a resident of Sierra Madre and would throw all the residents of Sierra Madre under the bus to further his own agenda makes his presentation all the more dispicable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In regards to the most important issue possibly ever to face Sierra Madre - our water supply - Mr. Love reached the following conclusion about our long-term water supply, and I'll quote from the video: "Available local supplies with periodic supplemental water from the San Gabriel District the City should be able to maintain a long-term water supply." That was his conclusion. He also tried to diminish Sierra Madre's usage by saying it represented only ..15 percent of the MWD supply or the "proverbial drop in the bucket". I could add more and more quotes whose thrust was that we do not have a water emergency and we do not need moratoriums. Mr. Love was well-prepared with written remarks, spoke first to set the tone for the meeting and basically concluded everything is fine. Only after getting questions did he start to retreat from that rosy picture. The video is there for all to see about what Mr. Love was trying to accomplish. While I hope the drought does not get any worse for all of our sakes, if it does get worse, Mr. Love will remain permanently on record as having deliberately down-played our water crisiss Let's be clear. He was not a disinterested person simply presenting the facts. He was there to accomplish a goal He was willing to roll the dice and play politics with the water emergency facing Sierra Madre. That's the only conclusion that anyone can draw from watching that video or being in those City Council chambers that night.

      Delete
    2. So let me understand this. Tom Love says Sierra Madre has a secure long-term water supply - from the SGMWD that he just haapens to be the Present of the Board of Directors and to which Sierra Madre just happens to be a paying customer. Yet, a federal meteorologist says California may run out of water entirely in two years and California itself is about to enact mandatory emergency water restrictions in light of one of the worst droughts in California history. Who to believe?

      Delete
    3. so Mr Love is another salesman for a utility company?

      no surprise that he's a good friend of John Buchanan

      Delete
    4. Love was trying not to lose a customer of the SGMWD. He was willing to put the whole town in jeopardy to do it.

      Delete
    5. It was nice to see that the City Council was not taken in by this nonsense.

      Delete
    6. Love was told to be there and try to influrence the meeting. He almost got away with it. Thankfully, the City Council saw right passed what he was trying to do. Judging by the further news that has come out since that meeting, Tom Love's now go beyond mere incompetence and rise to the level of deliberate fabrications.

      Delete
    7. The water boards wield alot of power. A lot of its members are corrupt.

      Delete
    8. After watching that video, I have renewed faith in our City Council for smelling a rat when they see and hear one.

      Delete
    9. Tom tried to sell us all on a bill of goods that may not exist in the not too distant future. We need to rely on our own wells and put Sierra Madre on a sustainable path. Tom Love is representative of all the reasons why we need to rely on our owns wells for our water and not rely on people like Tom Love to look out for us or the SGMWD to look out for us.

      Delete
  2. In the face of the overwhelming evidence and the opinions of all of the experts, Tom Love basically says we have an unlimited water supply. If he thinks he's a pariah in the community now, wait until the lawyers for these various projects use his comments in any lawsuit against the city. At Tuesday's meeting, he already had the lawyer for CETT quoting from his earlier remarks. Hey, thanks Tom for providing the ammunition to the people who want to blow up this town. I guess it came down to a choice between your fellow neighbors in Sierra Madre and the benefits you and the SGMWD get from us having to be dependant upon your water supply. You made it very clear on Tuesday night about who you are looking out for.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I know it was mentioned before but could somebody talk about how Love got on this Board and how we can get rid of him. I will gladly volunteer my time and money to replace him with someone who is going to be looking out for Sierra Madre residents and not looking out for is own interests.

    ReplyDelete
  4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HXJRrbcLPM

    In the video above Tom Love in 2011 he said we need to maximize and manage the use of our local supplies "so we are not relying on the less dependable imported water supply"

    Which is pretty much the exact opposite of the message he tried and failed to deliver last week. Tom Love is a civil engineer who makes his living working for government and developers. His company is preparing the EIR to complete the 710 project. Tom Love is a hopelessly conflicted lying politician.

    Tom Love was elected to the water board as Sierra Madre's rep in 2002. He is up for re-election in November. The filing period to run a candidate against Tom Love just opened. I say we get Allen Graves to run against him and watch them eat their young.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom Love isn't exactly a preservationist. If it means we have to all drink yellow water than so be it as long as they try to keep the spigot flowing to facilitate further development. If he has to fib a bit about how reliable our water supply is from the MWD, why not. Sierra Madre is a paying customer and he need to do or say anything possible to maintain that revenue source.

      Delete
    2. We need to find a good candidate and get rid of this guy.

      Delete
    3. The only way we can get meaningful change is to put the right people in office. I think Delmar, Arizmendi and yes, Goss are going to be great. We should get rid of Love and the sooner the better.

      Delete
    4. As the drought worsens, that video is really going to come back and haunt Mr. Love. Whoever runs against him in November just needs to quote from that video. It makes him look like a fool at best and a liar at worst.

      Delete
    5. I would say liar.

      Delete
  5. I personally know Tom Love and have for almost 20 years. You might not agree with what he says, but I know him asa very honest and good man. It really hurts to see this blog i read every day rip apart someone as kind, good hearted, and honorable as Tom Love. Instead of bad mouthing a man you don't know focus on arguing the issues. The personal attacks are what give this blog a bad name and why some of my friends think I am a crackpot for reading it and believing in it. But I know three things, i am not a crackpot, the tattler is a vital place for truth, and Tom Love is NOT in anyone's pocket. Please be respectful and mature in your posts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This has been all about the issues. You can't see that? Maybe you really are a crackpot.

      Delete
    2. Crackpot is as crackpot does

      Delete
    3. I was referring to prior comments on this blog about him. If I am a crackpot then all the readers are too.

      Delete
    4. Love holds a political office, and as such can be replaced. Since he has chosen to work for interests other than those of Sierra Madreans, he should be replaced. That is how it works in the big bad world.

      Delete
    5. Some people stay in power for so long they forget who they're working for.

      Delete
    6. Tom Love said things that fly in the face of all the evidence. The State is set to enact mandatory emergency water restrictions. Sierra Madre is a customer of the San Gabriel Metropolitian Water District. We pay alot of money for that water supply. When Mr. Love prsents a picture so rosy that everyone in the room, including the City Council, couldn't believe what they were hearing, its not hateful to suggest that Mr. Love may have been looking out for something other than the residents of Sierra Madre. Its not hate-filled to call him out on that. Water is about as important a basic human need as you can come up with so there was no more important issue that could have been up for a vote at that July 8th City Council Meeting. He was clearly trying to influence the City Council to not vote in favor of the moratoriums by giving them specious information about the state of our water supply. He did not want Sierra Madre to be placed on a sustainable footing but rather hoped that Sierra Madre would remain a paying customer of the SGMWD for which he is the President of that Board of Directors. Dispicable...yet. I'd even throw in disgraceful.

      Delete
    7. Dear 12:45:
      I think people on the Tattler are respectful in their posts. If anyone isn't, the Moderator does a pretty good job of not posting those comments. You may like Tom Love and he may be a nice person personally, but I challenge you to watch the video. The Tattler is kind of enough to post that so everyone can see and hear Tom Love's comments directly from his mouth. None of your comments addressed Mr. Love's actual statement to the City Council. He reaches conclusions that are not supported by the experts that I read. If fact, they seem to be the very opposite of what the experts are saying. It is obvious from Mr. Love's remarks that he sought to down-play the water crisis and convince the City Council to oppose the moratoriums. That's the reality of what he did. Because of his position as President of the Board of Directors of the SGMVD he may also have a conflict of interest because Sierra Madre is a paying customer of the MWD. He used his credentials to gain additional influence over those in attendance. Recent news reports only seem to underscore why the City Council reached the right conclusion in not heeding Mr. Love's advice. You have the video. People can read the comments and reach their own conclusions. As someone who was in the room that night when Mr. Love gave his carefully prepared presentation, I can tell you there was no mistaking what his aim was. Had he succeeded, I believe that all the residents of Sierra Madre would have to pay a severe price for his duplicity.

      Delete
    8. They're all nice, 12:45. Especially when they want something.

      Delete
    9. Love chose to take a very public position about our water crisis. A position that is contrary to all the evidence that continue to come out. He also highlighted his credentials to try to further influence things. I'm sure that Tom talked to a few pro-development people who told him, "Look, here's what we need you to do".

      Delete
    10. Tom Love took a very public stand at that City Council meeting on July 8th. He used the power and authority of his position to back up his views. All the Tattler does is post the video of his comments for all to see and reach their own conclusions. It was clear to me what he was trying to do. It was very orchestrated and very deliberate which makes it all the more odious.

      Delete
    11. Love can't believe what he was saying.

      Delete
    12. Love can't hide from his video-taped comments. Allen Graves was a bit more nuanced and can try to make the argument that he was misunderstood. I don't think Love is going to be able to do that. His rosy picture of our water situation keeps looking more and more dishonest as time goes by more news comes out about the severity of the drought. The only thing that could save Love now is enough rain that causes a flood of the magnitude that caused Noah to buiild an ark. Anything less than that, and Love is finished.

      Delete
    13. Love is getting too much love after what he did.

      Delete
  6. Lets get a list of people to run against Tom Love who might actually win and approach them and see if they are in. I think the MaryAnn, Chris, or De would make excellent candidates.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with finding a good candidate out there. We need someone who is looking out for Sierra Madre and not the SGMWD or themselves.

      Delete
    2. I will gladly sign on to any campaign of a candidate opposing Tom Love. It will be the "Anybody but Love" vote".

      Delete
  7. Chris Koerber? He will just serve 2 yrs then quit, he isn't committed. MaryAnn YES. De Sure. Koerber no way no how. I say John Crawford run, he is truly this towns savior.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Crawford doesn't live here anymore and Koerber is moving away to take care of sick family.

      De is a good guy but has a ton of responsibilities here in Sierra madre. I vote MaryAnn.

      Delete
    2. Koerber served his full term. When are you running for Council or water board?

      Delete
    3. Maybe Nancy Walsh should run. After all, her major agenda item while mayor, the toilets at the Hart Park House, do use water.

      Delete
    4. Nancy is rested and ready.

      Delete
    5. 1:06 how's that UUT increase working out for ya? Oh, wait.

      Delete
    6. No, The Community Services Commission nixed Nancy's plan because Nancy wanted to take out the toilets in the park so the Seniors could have their storage room. Most insane idea she ever had (besides taking out the volunteers she didn't like.).

      Delete
    7. I really like what Nancy's done with the City Hall landscaping.

      Delete
    8. I miss Josh.

      Delete
    9. Try throwing bigger tomatoes.

      Delete
    10. Good people need to step up and run for these kinds of offices. It seems like they only attract the sleazy types.

      Delete
    11. We should stick Crawford on the Water Board. He's shake'em up a bit.

      Delete
  8. I watched the entire video, what did Mr Love do wrong? He just reported facts, and constantly said that we need to conserve and this year is worse than 1991. We have a two year reserve in the SGV district and are dependent upon the state water project on any water they get for us. Without the state water project exchanging water with MWD we wouldn't get any water at all. AND since the water table will drop below the level of our wells, we won't be able to access the aquifer. To me being 2 years away from having no water at all is terrifying. His voice might have been upbeat but what he said is very depressing. Time for Sierra Madre to get rid of lawns, and have a total building moratorium.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you watch the video you can clearly see that Tom downplays that two years figure. But if you really want to be frightened, check out this article. Apparently it isn't just Sierra Madre that has two years of water left, it is the entire state.

      FEDERAL METEOROLOGIST: CALIFORNIA 2 YEARS AWAY FROM RUNNING OUT OF WATER
      http://abc30.com/news/federal-meteorologist-california-2-years-away-from-running-out-of-water/168870/

      Delete
    2. Thanks for that. I've added it to today's post.

      Delete
    3. 1:24 ignores Mr. Love's conclusions that Sierra Madre has a long-term sustainable water supply. In other words, there is no crises. There's a reason why Council woman Arizmendi, after listening to him, expressed surprise that his remarks suggested we don't even need to conserve water.
      Pull out the quotes. You can't sugarcoat what Love did. Its on record now for all to see and hear.

      Delete
    4. I actually just watched the video. It looks like a presentation of numbers, he never said that Sierra Madre isn't in a crisis. Instead he says its the worst its ever been. He also says there is a two year supply of water. Don't understand all the hubabalo on this one. Can we refocus on what is important, stopping the monastery development. With Love's comments we can further justify a moratorium.

      Delete
    5. Hey Mod,
      Why do you censor opinions that call out certain pro tattler politicians for the things they have done wrong?I have issues with Delmar, yet my comments have not been published. I have taken screen shots of the comments and forwarded them the the Star. I think the CENSORSHIP of opinions by a quasi news source would make a great article. To think, I used to love this site, and it took Delmar for me to loose all respect for you guys.

      G

      Delete
    6. Yo G: I have a problem with people who do not tell the truth about people that I respect. Sorry. We have standards on this site. And by the way, why do you always spell "lose" as "loose?" Makes you look kind of illiterate.

      Delete
    7. Don't be a lazy ass, "G" ... If you don't like this blog go and start one of your own.

      Delete
    8. I watched the video again after listening to Love in the Council Chambers the other night. My opinion is the same. Without having all the facts and numbers before me, I couldn't really follow what he was saying. I'm guessing that is why Denise asked for his presentation, so she could study for herself what he was saying.

      Delete
    9. Maybe "G" could get a column in the MVNews. I hear Hail Hamilton's spot is still open.

      Delete
    10. Love said that Sierra Madre has a sustainable source of water well into the future. That's what he said. I'll let the lawyers for the developers quote his comments. The reason the lawyer did that at the meeting is because Love supported their agenda. I'm not cutting Love any slack on this. What he did was reprehensible. Further data since that meeting is making his comments look even more rediculous.

      Delete
    11. You can't watch that video without coming to the conclusion that Love was trying his best to downplay the water crisis. We can argue about whether he actually believes what he said or not. I suspect that a few people tallked to him and asked him to get up there, speak first, and try to derail the meeting. The idea that he was not trying ot do that is ludicrous. Councilmember Arizmendi almost fell out of her chair she was so surprised by how optimistic his comments were. The whole state may run out of water in two years and Tom Love thinks everything is fine. The problem is there is no way that he can believe his own words. He knows he was trying to spin things to get the City Council to change their minds. He was playing politics with a very serious issue. That's why he deserves our ire.

      Delete
    12. G dog. It's Moderators blog. It isn't supposed to be "fair and balanced" like Fox news.

      Delete
    13. Yo G. I just went over to the Star News site and there is a huge banner headline about how the Mod refuses to post your comments. Biggest I have ever seen there. No, really! Go check it out why doncha?

      Delete
    14. 1:24 you sure had a different reaction than I did. You may need to watch the tape again if you are really serious about what you say were the tenor of his remarks. Rachelle seemed pretty surprised by them. That was the only reaction anyone could have had to them if you're honest about it.

      Delete
    15. As someone who likes Tom Love, I wish he would clarify his remarks so that people understand his position on the water crisis and the need for conservation and moratoriums. That federal meteorologist saying that California will run out of water in two years is truly frightening. If Love has access to some secret water supply for Sierra Madre, I guess that's a good thing.

      Delete
    16. I don't think the Tattler is afraid to post contrary remarks. I see it all the time. I think it does sometime weed out the profanity and really personal attacks as wells as those views that are so "out there", he doesn't want his valued readers to even waste their valuable time to read it. I'm sure that's few and far between though. Tattler publishes provacative things and lets the reader draw their own conclusion. What more can you ask for? In the case of Love, the Tattler didn't just start railing against him. It published the actual video of his remarks. You can't get any more fair than that. Love was hoisted by his own petard.

      Delete
    17. Love should issue a formal statement for publication in the Tattler and elsewhere as the expert he thinks he is, to refute all the experts who say we have a water crisis of epic proportions. Why won't Love have the guts to do that?

      Delete
  9. It looks like city staff's big PR push now is to make sure they get all the credit for the moratoriums. Anybody surprised?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm shocked, shocked!

      Delete
    2. City Staff believes that many here in town share theIr belief that they are never wrong. It is one of staff's most endearing characteristics.

      Delete
    3. Now that's Chutzpa!

      Delete
    4. I think the Tattler has "outed" Tom Love and showed his true colors. And the Tattler did it by just posting Love's own remarks. That did him in far better than any commentary from the Tatler could have done or any comments from the readers.

      Delete
  10. Surely Love knows by now he's on the Tattler. As bad as Allen Graves was, at least he had the you know what to come on the Tattler and clarify his remarks at the City Council meeting. I would challenge Tom Love to do the same. If people misunderstood his remarks on July 8th, let's here a clarification.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 2 years before the entire state of California runs out of water? Thank God for beer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe Arcadia will give us some water to make up for all the water they've stolen from us?

      Delete
    2. Come on Mr. Love. Come on the Tattler the way Allen Graves had the courage to do. I dare you.

      Delete
    3. Love should simply explain his remarks. We know the impression he had on people. His slience is deafening. He should correct the record or stand by his remarks.

      Delete
    4. Love should come on like Graves did. Don't worry, we'll be nice.

      Delete
    5. We all know that Love knows about this post on the Tattler. I know that if it were me, I would do what Allen Graves did and try to correct the record. He may catch some more flak but at least you have the opportunity to respond in writing and not off the cuff to make sure you get it right.

      Delete
    6. Tell us your views Tom so that we can understand. We wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong impression, now would we?

      Delete
  12. Tom Love's video is self incriminating. It is that simple.
    He should have made very clear his vested interest in keeping up his water 'sales numbers' to Sierra Madre. If we conserve water and find alternative sources for water ,he looks bad. His dismissive statements are disingenuous at best.
    He is a good example of the low level pols who got us into this mess. Without a crisis, real or fabricated ,we don't need them. The first water conservation target should be Tom Love's job doing to someone who will honestly serve our interests.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Watch the video, it doesn't show that at all.

      Delete
    2. Not true 10:21. His conclusion was that Sierra Mare's water use is the "proverbial drop in the bucket" of overall use and that we have a secure long-term supply. That's an out and out lie and it was done to stop the moratoriums. Tom Love wants us to use more water and be reliant on the SGMWD becuase that's who he works for. All those water guys are corrupt as far as I'm concerned.

      Delete
    3. Give me some quotes 10:21 that point to the severrity of the water crisis. There's plenty of Love't quotes that say there is no crisis. We know what he was trying to do and he knows what he was trying to do. That's why he won't come on the Tatterl nd correct the record if he thought it needed correcting.

      Delete
  13. Tom Love is a civil engineer who works for DR Consultants and Designers. All of their clients are government and developers. Tom Love's entire economic existence is dependent on government and developers. So Tom Love is pro-growth and pro-development. He has no intention of obeying the will of Sierra Madre voters. He is the wrong person to be representing the residents of Sierra Madre. Pretty simple.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I like it when individuals get together and share ideas. Great site, continue the good work!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Share what ideas? Tattlers don't want to listen to other ideas, just conspiracy theories. On the other hand, it does make for entertaining reading. Of course, I suspect you are talking tongue in cheek.

      Delete
    2. I think that those who don;t like the Tattler use the term "conspiracy theory" because they don't want to admit to the incompetence at City Hall. Besdies, in a city where a wrench jockey is given a $37,800 health care package, which is the highest in California, or had the highest utility taxes in California until Measure UUT was shot down, or raised water rates 100% over the last several years and the water still turned yellow, it is possible to believe that things are not quite right downtown.

      Delete
    3. I love the Tattler and have been reading it since its inception. I still don't believe everything that comes out of city hall is a conspiracy. I worked to defeat the UUT, I worked to get the right people elected, and I try to get to the Council and Planning Commission meetings as often as I can. And, that 12:03 post confirms my statements. A few Tattlers just don't like to hear anything but their own voice. Just because I disagree with you about the conspiracy theories, doesn't mean that I am a champion of City Hall every time, at all times. p.s. my water is still turning yellow and I am not blaming City Hall for that.

      Delete
    4. I agree. Laziness, incompetence and indifference are far better explanations for the shoddy work product coming out of city hall.

      So who do you blame the yellow water on?

      Delete
    5. All ideas are welcome on the Tattler including Love's if he would care to come on.

      Delete
    6. I think its a bit of a conspiracy in that I don't believe for a second that Love did this on his own. Someone called him and asked him to help the pro-development cause. Love complied and tried his best. Fortunately, everyone saw right through him.

      Delete
    7. "Only Love Can Break Your Heart." - Neil Young

      Delete
  15. http://tinypic.com/r/et9zc9/8

    here is a pic of the entrance to the San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District where Tom Love is supposed to be representing our views, not his own. Note that Tom Love's HQ in Azusa is completely surrounded by brand spanking new McMansions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh please, Azusa is nothing in the world like Sierra Madre. McMansions are something they like, along with a brisk downtown section, plenty of big box stores and auto dealers. Who wants to live there? Maybe that is why Love lives in Sierra Madre instead of Azusa. Azusa is also home base for the SGVWD so it makes sense his office is there.

      Delete
    2. Sounds like Azusa is something you and Tom Love both like....

      Delete
    3. Azusa is the hime of Rosedale, a bad housing project very much in line with what SCAG is pushing. If you want to witness just how horrible state mandated central planning mandates can be, get on over to Azusa and check out Rosedale. Bring a barf bag.

      Delete
    4. But Rosedale's community transit oriented! It's right on the future Gold Line station! It's sustainable!

      Delete
    5. Thank God and Measure V that we kept that crap out of Sierra Madre.

      Delete
    6. Nancy Walsh is on record saying that 400 sq. ft. apartments are cool - just like San Francisco.

      Delete
    7. EENER EENER EENERJuly 16, 2014 at 3:36 PM

      Did I tell you It's sustainable?

      Delete
    8. I wish I was an Oscar Mayer Eener

      Delete
  16. Hannibal Lecter: First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature? What does he do, this man you seek?
    Clarice Starling: He kills women...
    Hannibal Lecter: No. That is incidental. What is the first and principal thing he does? What needs does he serve by killing?
    Clarice Starling: Anger, um, social acceptance, and, huh, sexual frustrations, sir...
    Hannibal Lecter: No! He covets. That is his nature. And how do we begin to covet, Clarice? Do we seek out things to covet? Make an effort to answer now.
    Clarice Starling: No. We just...
    Hannibal Lecter: No. We begin by coveting what we see every day. Don't you feel eyes moving over your body, Clarice? And don't your eyes seek out the things you want?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Harry: Every day for the past ten years, Loretta here's been giving me a large black coffee- except today she gives me a large black coffee and it has sugar in it. A lotta sugar. I just came back to complain.

      Crook: Say what, sucka?

      Harry: Well, we're not just gonna let you walk out of here.

      Crook: Who's we sucka?

      Harry: Smith and Wesson... and me.

      Delete
  17. http://cityofsierramadre.com/city-news/702-city-council-consideration-to-extend-the-interim-moratorium

    city press release about the screw up on the meeting notice

    Sometime between now and Monday the city will issue a "fact sheet" that will likely disclose that One Carter isn't affected by either moratorium. One Carter is currently working to get the planning commission to approve their design so they do not have to appear before the city council. The project that definitely gets screwed is Mater Dolorosa (cry Cameron you crybaby) and probably Greystone.

    ReplyDelete
  18. the only way to stop One Carter would be to alter the building moratorium that was passed to prevent future water usage as opposed to just hook ups...

    ReplyDelete
  19. What does Lady Gaga know that Tom Love Doesn't?
    http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/entertainment/Lady-Gaga-asks-Californians-to-conserve-water-267374351.html

    ReplyDelete
  20. My understanding is that One Carter was stopped that's why that lawyer McDonald was so worked up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why he was so worked up is a mystery.

      Delete
    2. McDonald gets paid to get worked up. He probably doesn't care one way or another persoanlly about One Carter or Sierra Madre or development or its water crisis. He's a paid mouthpiece for an owner who refuses to show up and speak for himself.

      Delete
    3. He's messenger boy for Beijing.

      Delete
  21. The problem most anti-Tattler posters have is they are completely witless.

    ReplyDelete
  22. one carter is deadJuly 16, 2014 at 9:55 PM

    One carter is stopped. The target demo wants 5000 sq ft houses on tiny lots. They will not buy a 2500 sq ft house on the same tiny lot. The planning commission will not move. The developers can sue, but they will lose since the use proposed is reasonable. Ergo the project is deasd in the water (or lack there of).

    ReplyDelete
  23. maybe I missed it, but Gene Goss didn't have any tough questions for Tom Love did he?

    probably not, Love endorsed Goss (like Love's endorsement means anything?)

    Love is a friend of John Buchanan and Buchanan also endorsed Goss

    ReplyDelete