March 10, 2007

Bite me once, shame on you, Bite me twice shame on me!

City Agrees to pay a homeless woman $57,000.00 because one of the police dogs used in clearing the river bottom of homeless encampments bit the woman instead of the fleeing felon the police were hunting.

So what happens? Funny you should ask! Once again the Gang in the Ivory Tower has proven they are incapable of running the cities business as a business should be run. Now anybody with any sort of limited intelligence would know that if the police dog bit the lady and it was admitted to be a gross mistake, the lady certainly is entitled to all medical cost and some amount for pain and suffering.

The Gang in the Ivory Tower using their collective brain power decided to try and "low-ball" the woman because she was a homeless person and everybody knows she shouldn't receive as much money as a "non-homeless" citizen. So the woman was forced to hire the assistance of an attorney. Once this happens it is no question that the cost to the city is going to increase, if the Gang in the Ivory Tower had treated this homeless woman as they would have treated any respected citizen of Ventura they probably could have saved the tax payers a few thousand dollars, or maybe not.

Now of course the city attorney's office denied that the fact that the woman was homeless had any bearing on the situation, so I suppose that means the Gang in the Ivory Tower would treat any citizen in the same shabby matter. As a matter of fact they would and have, witness the shameful, immoral, (I say illegal) way in which the city has treated one of it's most distinguished citizen, I am of course referring to Ms Helen Yunker who was just recently feted by the Girl Scouts of America because of her volunteer work. Because of the way the city handled the problem with Ms Yunker she was also forced to hire an attorney and go to trial. Ms Yunker lost the case in court because the judge refused to allow her to present evidence showing that the city had been solely responsible for the problem she was facing.

I can't say for sure but to me personally it appeared that the judge in the case simply closed his eyes to the truth of the matter and decided that he would singlehandly decide against Ms Yunker thereby saving the city the expense of having to fix the problem. However what happened by not settling with Ms Yunker and fixing the underlying problem, the city wound up spending more of our tax money on court cases fighting the issue. Maybe the city should have hired an out-of-town consultant to adjudicate the issue...

Rellis Smith

res@venturastuff.com