Monday, October 26, 2015

The Promised Water Infrastructure Repairs That Never Happened - Plus Tonight's Public Safety Nonevent

-
As you are already aware I am sure, in the past the City of Sierra Madre was not quite on the level about the reasons why it was raising water rates as it should have been. What residents were told was that repairing things such as aging water mains and the pipes attached to them was the reason for the additional water rate squeezing.

An example of this rather blatant and unabashed dishonesty can be found below. If you read paragraph two of the 2010 document we're reproducing below you will see that it says the following:

"The City imposes it's water rates in order to fund the City's costs of operating and maintaining the water system, as well as to pay off the costs of improvements to that system."

I think the following sentence is also key:

"Water rate proceeds may not be used by the City for any other purpose."

\

You almost have to laugh. In a rueful sort of way, of course. This water rate increase was approved by the City Council back then, but only after a vigorous Prop 218 challenge was conducted by certain folks in town. Who, based on the disastrous shape we find Sierra Madre's water infrastructure in today, were completely right.

So if the City could only use this revenue for water system maintenance and improvements, why do we have these myriad leaks today? And if the City did not use the revenue for the water system and infrastructure, what DID they use it for? Water bond payments? CalPERS? Hawaiian shirts and leis?

The answer is this had nothing to do with water infrastructure and everything to do with toxic bond debt. And City Hall didn't want to admit it.

It is hard to believe that the city employees responsible for the above document are still employed here.

Of course, we are talking about a Sierra Madre tradition here. The following is from way back in 2003:


As you may recall 2003 was a rather momentous year for Sierra Madre because it was then that One Carter was laid waste for a development that was never built and resulted in numerous rancorous lawsuits. Lawsuits that continue to this very day. That plus the schemes for the Downtown Specific Plan were first hatched.

But again, the water mains and the unhappy pipes attached to them were not replaced. That responsibility now falls upon the residents today. Residents who have already paid at least twice to have these repairs made, only to have been rather shamelessly fibbed to by the city.

It would be nice to get some sort of accurate accounting of just what exactly these two water rate increase were spent on. Along with all those others, of course.

It would probably take an army of lawyers to get it, though.

Tonight's "Public Safety" Nonevent

A nonevent because the outcome of tonight's "process" was determined way before this handpicked group of not exactly disinterested individuals was apparently rigged by SMPOA (or whatever they call themselves these days) errand boy Councilmember Harabedian. A fellow who is convinced that he is a lot smarter than you, even though he continually gets caught doing stupid stuff like this.

What follows is a report by Public Safety Committeeman Bill Coburn on his somewhat overlooked news site called Sierra Madre News.net (link).

Of course, Bill does not mention in this report that as a member of this committee he is a part of the news he is reporting. Nor does he mention that his sister is a committee member as well, oh my country cousins. Meaning that just maybe he should rename his site Sierra Madre News.not.


I have reread this troublesome missive a couple of times now, and I do not recall seeing any mention of the savings that hiring the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department would bring Sierra Madre's sorely abused taxpayers. This despite the fact that hiring this vastly larger, much better equipped and certainly more physically fit law enforcement agency would save a large portion of the budgetary shortfall being shamelessly whined about above.

It is also noteworthy that the LASD presentation to the people of Sierra Madre is not being televised. Anybody know who made that call? Maybe they don't want very many people to see it?

Gosh, I wonder how Bill will be voting tonight? Well OK, maybe I don't.

Prepare to be embarrassed by these people.

sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

152 comments:

  1. When will this corruptness end? Just show me the NEW pipes and repair the infrastructure!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The new pipes are not part of the process.

      Delete
    2. Its not about reparing pipes. It is always about higher salaries, benefits and pensions for city employees.

      Delete
    3. Yes 7:14, you're right. And don't forget the bond debt!

      Delete
    4. It's not about the pipes, it's about the shaft.

      Delete
    5. We do get a lot of that.

      Delete
  2. All public meetings concerning the citizens and or tax payers of any city in the state of California SHALL be recorded either by voice and or video and SHALL be televised in accordance with any and all previous public meeting taking place in city hall chambers. Looks like the city hall criminals are trying to alter or delay public's perception of democracy in action. So many other cities politicians have tried to stop or slow down Sheriffs Department taking over 'public safety' patrols only to find the service is much better the out of pocket costs are fantastic along with no more harassment from city halls enforcers aka; local police. See you there tonight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seems obvious the cop union's messenger boys Goss and Johnny don't want you to see the Sheriff presentation.

      Delete
    2. The decisoin has already been made. The Sheriff Department presentation is already dead on arrival no matter how much money it will save us and how much better the service would be.

      Delete
    3. Dare I say the UUT tax increase will be DOA, too?

      Delete
  3. "It is hard to believe that the city employees responsible for the above document are still employed here."

    Yes, it is.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Video tape this meeting by any and all attendees please, bring your electronic recording equipment to make history catching crooks in action at the dais this evening.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It may be illegal to video movies but it is ok to video a public council meeting. Bring your smart phones.

      Delete
    2. Yes, please. I have to work and can't come. It's unfair that it won't be broadcast.

      Delete
    3. City Hall fears the Sheriffs. They will put on a slam bang presentation tonight and our great leaders don't want anyone to see it. Stinks.

      Delete
    4. LASD WILL RUIN SIERRA MADRE PERIOD!!!!!!

      Delete
    5. Somebody didn't get the memo about drinking the water.

      Delete
  5. Minutes, Recordings, and Documents

    You have a right to obtain copies of the minutes of open meetings under the California Public Records Act. The governmental body from which you request minutes may charge a fee or deposit. Additionally, you are entitled to inspect any writing or document distributed to members during a meeting. If a document was prepared by the governmental body itself, you are entitled to inspect it at the time of the meeting. If a document was prepared by someone else, you are entitled to inspect it after the meeting.

    Governmental bodies may, but need not, make audio recordings of their meetings. If the body chooses to record its meetings, those recordings are public records, just like ordinary minutes.

    You are not entitled to copies of the minutes or recordings of closed sessions or meetings (discussed below), unless you can prove to a court that a closed session was held in violation of the open meetings laws or that discussion in a closed session strayed from the topics listed in the agenda.
    For information on your ability to use recording devices at public meetings, see California Recording Law.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Officer Potato Salad is going to be standing in front of the KGEM camera during the Sheriff presentation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds like a total eclipse!

      Delete
  7. Those who are behind keeping the Sheriffs out of town are the very same people that have been trying to build up the city. They keep popping up like a sore thumb pushing for more taxes and Mc Mansion construction. We don't have the infrastructure to support any of this but they say raise the taxes more. Bad water and kept police will be followed by more crowding and more taxes. Be brave, keep your heads out of the sand and speak up.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Where's the transparency. This is an important meeting and those who may not be able to attend should be able to watch it at home. All those who profess that we need to get revenue and raise the UUT should be in favor of the Sheriff's proposal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Transparency? I'm reminded of the time I ran into a former city treasurer at a local store. I specifically asked the treasurer, " Do you get to see and review the City accounting books? " The Treasurer replied, " Oh no, I just sign the checks presented to me. I never see the books."

      Delete
  9. Where do I sign the 0% uut petition?October 26, 2015 at 7:18 AM

    I have an idea. Let's give the same people who put out Codger Bill's press release, which fails to mention the 22% more patrol hours for $800k less money that the sheriff will provide, even more of our money to spend! Yeah. That's the ticket!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Remember, it is always about these two things:
      1) Your money
      2) Their pockets

      Delete
  10. 22% more patrol hours for $800,000 less. Better trained, more experienced. Why would we not want this, we even have sheriffs living in town. With this kind of information to be reviewed by council how could they not choose the SD? Just one of the reasons they would not choose the SD is because some groups in the community are talking about longer response times, that is not true. Whether these people really believe this or are out and out lying they are still effecting this cities safety.

    Not only would the SD have the same response times, as they will be coming out of the same building but they would have a quicker back up responding in some emergency's . Not to mention that SMPD calls the Sheriffs Department when they can't handle a situation.

    This should be a no-brainer, stick to the facts and ignore the emotions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some of this comes from pressure groups and the politicians they bought off with campaign money. Sad to see that kind of thing happening in Sierra Madre.

      Delete
  11. Because our Police don't want to go to the Sheriffs Department does that mean we pay better or less work here or better money to be made suing the town. The good officers will do very well with the Sheriffs. Why would we want to have officers on our payroll who cant make the grade with the Sheriffs?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One of the factors is when you start working with LASD you end up doing one or more years working at the Central Jail. I don't know if transfers have to do that or not.After that, I'm sure assignments are by LASD seniority so a transfer wouldn't be working Altadena or Sierra Madre to start.

      Delete
    2. Sierra Madre duty would be a reward for those who have done a good job for the LASD. Safe andeasy.

      Delete
    3. Agreed, 10:00. We're not coming to the negotiation table empty-handed.

      Delete
  12. If the Sheriffs aren't picked I'm not voting for the UUT.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Smart cookie. Why let the City waste money?

      Delete
    2. WHERE IS ALL CAPS GUY?October 26, 2015 at 10:05 AM

      Better yet, vote to kill the UUT. Tell that Earl guy it's time to set up shop in Kirsting Court on a Saturday morning.

      Delete
    3. I agree. I wonder why City Hall cannot figure out why they keep losing these UUT votes. It isn't really the money, it's all of those lies. They are their own worst enemies.

      Delete
  13. This is what the City Council and city hall will not show you http://www.sheriffs.org/sites/default/files/uploads/CLESDocument.pdf Get the facts yourself don't rely on those who have suspected motives in ANY answer they give the public or in any press statement.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Henceforth: The 20/20 ProposalOctober 26, 2015 at 9:55 AM

    Let's set aside tonight's silly meeting for the time being. It's purpose is plain from the city notice and its failure to link to the Sheriff's proposal. It is designed solely to create astroturf support for a tax increase. And to insulate Mayor Tax the Little People from the consequences of his failure to lead.

    The facts are simple. We will get 22% more police services for 20% less money ($800k savings against $4 million police budget). We will be able to apply this to other civic needs that will measurably improve our lives. All without a tax increase.

    So, rather than waisting your time with this cherry picked committee you should be asking those council members resonsible for the fiscal health of our town a simple question:

    Why are you against receiving 20% more patrol services for 20% less money?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm not. Go with LASD unless SMPD can match costs.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Is this the way it works?
    The cherry picked committee advises the City Council to keep the Police Dept instead of the the Sheriff's Dept., then the Council votes to keep the Police Dept. Done deal!
    Am I missing something?
    Feel free to correct my thinking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is called astroturfing. Phony events staged to help create the illusion that there is some sort of a public consensus for what is really the agenda of special interests.

      Delete
    2. Don't forget nepotism too. Bill "Rooster" Coburn and his sister, Rosemary Burnett, are both on the committee. Rosemary is married to Bob, recently retired from SM Fire Dept.

      Are you trying to tell me Sierra Madre couldn't get a committee of 5 members who aren't blood relatives? Really?

      Delete
    3. It's a Hatfield committee.

      Delete
  17. Hey Mod, will someone from the Tattler Research Team be covering the meeting or making a report?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep. Gonna have some live blogging for anyone who might wish to join the conversation. Trying to do our best to fill in for the lack of TV coverage.

      Delete
    2. Thanks!
      I really want to follow this, but have to make a living.
      I was hoping it would be recorded and I could watch it later.

      Delete
    3. Apparently it is something the city prefers you not see.

      Delete
    4. The city has a contract with KGEM to have live coverage for the council meetings, planning commission meetings, and a few specified extra meetings. Apparently they have either gone over the extra meetings or KGEM is asking for several $$ extra to have live coverage. this meeting will be recorded, just not live. So, what you need to do is get off your tush and get down to the council chambers. Bring your kids if you need to, they will have a great experience.

      Way back in 2010 when MacGillivray was on the council, she proposed raising the water rate higher than the others proposed to put money into a fund for infrastructure. They rejected it out of hand. Even Bill Coburn wrote an editorial agreeing with her. The headline went something like this "Just because it was MaryAnn's idea doesn't mean it was a bad one."

      Delete
    5. Don't ya love the 6 PM time? Any working stiff with a commute will have no chance of getting there at 6.

      Delete
  18. What's this I hear about Mater Dolorosa making a pitch for development of their property at Kiwanis club tomorrow at 12:30? Public is invited?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Susan once again gets to use the Iguanas to feather her nest.

      Delete
  19. Wonder if our police don't want to go to the sheriffs because they won't be answering to Elane, they would have to answer to someone of a higher authority, a well trained and knowledgeable boss who will make you do your job or your out.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Are you kidding? Who would choose to work under Elaine with her moods, lies and mandates unless they had to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have heard that Elaine Aguilar is no longer the sole City Manager, but that she now shares those duties with Ms. Cox.

      Delete
    2. There are 2 asst. city managers.

      Delete
    3. Sheriff is speaking. Sgt Winslow, weber, chief johnson capt. jacobs and the speaker who's name I didn't here. No formal answer to 36-37 questions. Chief-answer #5. Mutual aid-major incident-there is an incident captain-need help-call from other dept. largest sheriff dept. in the USA. Assist other agencies. Committee member-will there ever be a time that there SM would be uncovered. SD: No there will always be someone here. In an emergency men are drawn from stations. There is actually a lady here who has her dog in a baby stroller

      Delete
    4. Same committe lady: how ill needs be paid for-like improvements-negotiated. CM: nominal fee for phase 2 study. How much? SD: Takes 3-6- months to make report. Can't give a figure. CM-pg 65, Prop. A & B-If we took what's shown in b and substitute some numbers from a is that a problem? SD didn't understand question. SD: Proposals are unique. , SD: staffing comparison, pg 54 discusses proposals. CM: if we want to add things. Sheriff: absolutely. We can go into what we provide and tailor it to your needs. I think it's old police chief: altadena and la canada-flint are long standing contracts. Low costs due to 40 year old contract. SD rates change. depends on services, etc. THESE HAVE BEEN 2 REALLY STUPID QUESTIONS.

      Delete
    5. CM: CAN YOU COMPARE THESE CITIES WITH WHAT YOU GAVE US, SD: LOOK AT PG 26 IN PHASE 1 STUDY-YOU'LL SEE THERE BUDGET THERE. DID SHE NOTE READ THE REPORT, DUH!

      Delete
  21. it is 5:50, people are starting to arrive. The Sheriff are here in suits. 2 committee members. 26 people so far. 3 SMPD members. Oh and the Chief. Looks to me like a stacked deck. Elaine is here. Goos just walked in.Many, many talking to police members. I have to say, I have never seen any of these people before.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Live blogging now begins. Those of you not watching at home might want to join in, though how you would know what is going on is a mystery. The room is about half filled, most attending seem to be of retirement age. The contingent of Sheriff Dept folks are in dark suits. Room is rather quiet.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Chief G, the half CityManager Elaine Aguilar is in the house, as is former Police Chief Diaz, Lambdin, Goss, Coburn and his sister. Looks like the show is about to begin. My guess? This is a cop crowd, and the Sheriff folks are going to have to deliver quite a pitch.

    ReplyDelete
  24. They all appear to know each other as wll as the first name of the SMPD in the audience. romm is pretty full. About 50 people so far. It is now 6:00, The meeting has begun.

    ReplyDelete
  25. police lady taking pictures. another SMPD just came.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Seated here with former Mayor MaryAnn MacGillivray. It is not the usual crowd in attendance, by the way. And the room has filled up. No seats in the lobby.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then you're sitting with the smartest person in the room.

      Delete
    2. The intellectual level is lowest at the council dais. Individual intelligence increases as you move upwards towards the back of the room.

      Delete
  27. another SMPD arrives

    ReplyDelete
  28. ron coleman-important things in the city and it's not being televised. can't do anything about it now. This is important. I am very disappointed. Big applause

    ReplyDelete
  29. Chief is looking very old.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Coburn is not speaking into the microphone. Now he is, but maybe we were better off not hearing him.

    ReplyDelete
  31. 6% liability surcharge included in numbers-yes

    ReplyDelete
  32. Crowd seems pretty grumpy. Not happy.

    ReplyDelete
  33. elaine-agenda is available on line. we don't print the whole package. no one seems to have gone on line to review the questions. Ron Coleman: how many people have the document that is being talked about. In the e-flash from the city nothing was said. 1 person has the document. It's available on phones and laptops. Elaine is giving instructions to find it. Lambden: these are a list of questions given by citizens for sheriff to answer.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Sheriff Department spokesman is handling questions from the Commission very well.

    ReplyDelete
  35. This is really disorganized. Lambdin is asking the audience to submit written questions. That should have been done before this meeting began.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Chief Diaz seems confused about the rates contract cities pay. She seems to think that there is some sort of grandfather cause. The Sheriff Dept spokesman is now brushing that one aside.

    ReplyDelete
  37. So did the SMPD people knock on some doors to get newbies to attend?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Goss is speaking. He is citing conduct problems of deputies in the past. Wants to know how the new regime under Sheriff McDonald has handled this.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I agree, it is not well organized on the committes part. The sheriff is very professional.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Total personnel under Sheriff McDonald is 19,000 people. Lots of assets.

    ReplyDelete
  41. The SD is very good. Professional, on the ball, can answer the questions.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Why wouldn't this city hire these guys? My god, what a vast gulf between what we have now and what could have if the city contracts with the Sheriffs.

    ReplyDelete
  43. will SD have recorders? Not yet. Diaz: Will mental health evaluation teams be available to us. Does she need help?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Chief Diaz has inquired about Sheriff mental health teams. Maybe they could send one by City Hall.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Lambdin just claimed that the people of Sierra Madre and its police department are one. An "us." Is that why the PD has sued "us" as often as they have?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lambin is a two faced "*%&$*"

      back when the SMPD was doing the cross walk sting he was ranting about entrapment and how the SMPD was underhanded

      dude makes me wanna puke - liked it better when he was in Hawaii

      what's next - Joe Mosca moving back?

      Delete
  46. here we go-Lambden-community based policing-like SMPD does that? I mean I've heard about them fixing leaks and all, but really?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Lambdin is claiming the people of Sierra madre and the SMPD are close. Yet none of the PD live here. Chieg Giannone lives in San Dimas.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Lambden says our police know us and greet us. you can go and speak to the chief. Really? Took the chief 3 years to answer an e-mail from me. The chief never addresses me by name. Only got confusion at the front desk.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Didn't Diaz have problems here? Why is she on this committee? She doesn't seem overly bright.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I had to go to the police station three times to find someone to sign a robbery report.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Lambdin is expressing concerns about response times.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. did he express concern about a SM "detective" shooting an unarmed man in the back?

      Delete
  52. "There will always be deputies in this community 24/7." The response time canard has now been disposed of.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Lambden:we have 3 minute response time. Received e-mails saying response time was poor. SD: says they triage calls as to priority, Doesn't expect poor time. deputies will be here. oh boy, here we go-public comment. Chief suggests that SD sit at dais and answer questions as asked.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Better questions from the residents than the committee. Reasonable inquiries, good answers from the Sheriffs.

    ReplyDelete
  55. "What would happen to the officers of the SMPD should the Sheriffs take over?" They can come and join the department. The opportunity would be there.

    ReplyDelete
  56. A lot of concern about the fate of SMPD officers. Unfortunately some of them would not be able to make the cut. This is why the cop union is fighting this so hard.

    ReplyDelete
  57. BS dectector for the fact challengedOctober 26, 2015 at 7:02 PM

    7/2/14 LA Times: sheriff response time in La Canada is 3.7 minutes. According to article city is 8.6 square miles. Has two dedicated patrol cars. We sheriff will no doubt do better with Sam number of cars in our tiny town.

    ReplyDelete
  58. The amount of officers in town would be the same under the Sheriffs and they are under the SMPD.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BOY HAVE YOU BEEN MISSLED YOUR NIEVE

      Delete
    2. Spell check, dude. Try it.

      Delete
  59. Who are fatter, SMPD or Sheriffs?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. I think we know the answer to that one.

      Delete
  60. There is a concern here that there would be no going back.

    ReplyDelete
  61. I didn't know they fingerprinted anything here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was robbed of $7,000 in computer equipment. SMPD did nothing.

      Delete
  62. Deputies would not live in Sierra Madre. How many SMPD live in Sierra Madre?

    ReplyDelete
  63. 7:21, tell me someone didn't make that argument. Please.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Who are these people and where do they come from?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The SMPD emptied out the Buc,

      Delete
  65. This is really a farce. I would not get up and say anything pro sheriff in this crowd. This guy that's giving a one on one report of bad incidents with sheriff's dept. Mr. Foster is his name. Jeez! He is a whack job.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Some of these people are really rude!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They're pro cop pro-tax people. The cop union got their people out. They must be very upset this wasn't televised. Then again, judging by the level of questions, maybe not.

      Delete
  67. $3.2 million for the Sheriffs, SMPD $4 million.

    ReplyDelete
  68. I can't stomach much more of this stupidity. Where have these people been?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is that unfortunate portion of the real Sierra Madre. Rude and poorly informed.

      Delete
    2. Neil the Pigs mom was quite a sight.

      Delete
  69. 20% more patrol hours for 20% less money.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Questions are over. God that was painful. It is amazing how little some of these people know.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Only 1 of the SMPD's sworn officers live in Sierra Madre.

    ReplyDelete
  72. The Public Safety Committee is now trying to come up with reasons to reject the Sheriffs. Something they intended to do all along.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Sierra madre needs more resources. Is that raising taxes or bringing in the Sheriff's Dept that already has those resources.

    ReplyDelete
  74. What is Sierra Madre's yearly CalPERS payments?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Marilyn Diaz just said that Sierra Madre's PD is very expensive, and doesn't know if this town can afford it anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  76. 20% more patrol hours for 20% less $October 26, 2015 at 8:31 PM

    Seriously? If true, it means the message is sinkin in.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Glenn Lambdin doesn't see any financial benefits in going with the Sheriffs.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Glenn has now confessed that it really is all about money. Go figure. He says he doesn't have a good answer. But he does say that there is waste everywhere. So how does a small town of 11,000 afford so expensive a department?

    ReplyDelete
  79. Marilyn Diaz states that the only way to fund the SMPD is with a 12% UUT. Since that isn't going to happen there might not be any other choice than to go with the Sheriffs.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Goss: Even with a 12% UUT the PD would be underfunded in a couple of years,

    ReplyDelete
  81. Proposal A closes the PD stations for 8 hours each night. But that is just a building. The Sheriffs would still be on patrol. So why does that matter?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 10 pm to6 am. Calls dispatched out of TC during those hours. Full patrol during those hours. Also increases total patrol hours by 22%. Saves $800k per year.

      Delete
    2. Not something this particular committee cares to discuss.

      Delete
  82. The Coburns are saying we should keep the SMPD and tell the City Council they need to raise the UUT to 12%.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Oh my gosh! They are rejecting all 3 Sheriff proposals! I am stunned!

    ReplyDelete
  84. The sheltered people of Sierra Madre are living an odd fiction. They really must believe they live in a virtual gated community and never venture out into parts of So Cal where the LA Co SD patrols and keeps people safe. Pray tell they never go on the 210 freeway through La Canada Flintridge or down to the 10 Freeway on Rosemead or Baldwin through Temple City. Temple City High School one of the highest performing in the San Gabriel Valley, How do the students accomlish this if they live in fear of danger of only being policed by the LASD.

    ReplyDelete
  85. What a useless exercise. The recommendation is that the cuts be made elsewhere, and the funding and staffing of the SMPD stays the same. Why did they even bother?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What a disappointment.
      Smacks of a bait and switch.

      Delete
  86. Yes, "level three cuts" for everyone but the SMPD. If you threw the PD jobs open to the public at half of what they make now the line of applicants would extend all the way to Pasadena.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Thanks Mod for keeping us informed since the meeting is not televised. That was by design too.

    ReplyDelete
  88. 137 comments. I am really looking forward to the aritcle about this, Mod!

    ReplyDelete
  89. Lambdin - reject all 3 Sheriff proposals, no cuts to the SMPD. Increasing funding. Level 3 cuts everywhere else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And hope for additional funding from elsewhere.

      Delete
  90. Reject Sheriff proposals, no additional cuts to the Sierra Madre PD, and hope for additional funding elsewhere. As predicted, this committee did what they were expected to do.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Neil the Pigs mom & Tattoos and her girl friend were in attendance tonight didn't help any side much. When it comes to dollars and sense the Sheriffs contract make more sense. There are hidden fees connected withe SMPD but the city council will not tell you about these other than they could amount to over $300,000.00.......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There were a lot of rude, clueless and entitled people there. Neil the Pigs mom being among the worst.

      Delete
  92. Capoccia, get out fro under the bed and lead!October 26, 2015 at 10:25 PM

    Well, thank God that farce is over with.

    The amazing thing is that the facts are smashing the fiscal delusions of our civic "leaders." As the ex-chief and named target of multiple smpd lawsuits noted, smpd is expensive and we may not be able to afford it any more. Amen Sister Diaz!

    In fact, the sheriff will deliver 22% more patrol hours and save us $800k per year. We can use the savings to improve the library, build a senior center, and build improved little league and softball facilities. These are facts. Let's embrace them to the betterment of our town.

    ReplyDelete
  93. I will give every ounce of my energy and time to defeat the UUT increase. I hope some of those nut cases have a real police emergency and see what happens, I do hope no one gets shot in the back.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Niel the New Pig deserves better. That girl has a barnyard mouth on her somethin' fierce.

    ReplyDelete
  95. I'm voting NO

    Lambin is a bona fide jack axe

    If you want to know how smart he is, just ask him

    ReplyDelete