Questions to Steve Rosansky and the Daily Pilot.

As I wrote those last two posts (here and here), I started to ask myself some questions about the issues raised by Councilman Steve Rosansky and by the Daily Pilot.

Councilman Rosansky keeps touting his accomplishments with the Rehab Home issue. So here are my questions regarding that.

1. He says that he was the key organizer of a statewide conference over A YEAR AND A HALF AGO involving many other cities and leaders.

Question - HAS THERE BEEN ANY FOLLOWUP? WHAT WAS THE RESULT OF THAT CONFERENCE? HAVE THERE BEEN ANY OTHER CONFERENCES?

The answer is NO, NONE, and NO. There was a conference and nothing else happened. It was a meeting just for the sake of having a meeting.

2. He says that his work led to State Senator Tom Harman following his lead and introducing legislation (which failed).

As I understand it (and I haven't spoken directly with Senator Harman), Senator Harman heard this was an issue, wanted to meet with City Leaders to address it, and Steve Rosansky tagged along for the ride AFTER THE FACT. Supposedly, he was invited to a meeting AFTER the meeting was set.

3. He says that he voted in favor to pass an ordinance with limits the Group Homes.

Question - what has contributed more to the decreased amount of Group Homes in Newport Beach?

The Economy?

The Ordinance?

Let's see, the Sober Living By the Sea deal was THAT THEY WERE CLOSING HOMES THAT WERE ALREADY CLOSED.

I think that was an economy issue...

Now, the Daily Pilot article.

"Rosansky later helped Princic lease in 1999 on one unit of the duplex to a man the mayor later learned operated a group home in Costa Mesa.

Rosansky brokered another lease on the other unit of the duplex in 2004 with the same group home operator, who told the mayor he wanted to use the unit as his home office. Concerned the duplex could be used for business dealings of the rehab home, Rosansky stipulated in the lease the second unit could not be used for that purpose. The terms of the lease obtained by the Daily Pilot states “premises are not to be used for recovery housing.”

“I made it very clear he could not do any type of group home housing at this property, the mailer is totally false,” Rosansky said."

ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT STEVE ROSANSKY RENTED TO A KNOWN GROUP HOME OPERATOR, WHO WANTED TO USE THE UNIT AS HIS HOME OFFICE, AND DIDN'T EXPECT HIM TO USE IT FOR BUSINESS DEALINGS OF A REHAB HOME??????

What kind of business did Steve Rosansky expect him to conduct in his home office?

Girl Scout cookies?

Mary Kay cosmetics?

I guess when a lawyer uses a home office FOR BUSINESS, he doesn't do his law business from it?

Why didn't the Daily Pilot follow up on that glaring omission?

Now, here's the kicker.

and Councilman Steve Rosansky needs to be asked this.

If the house wasn't supposed to be used as a Group Home, then why were City officials asked to inspect the property numerous times?

and

WHY DID STEVE ROSANSKY HIMSELF FEEL AS THOUGH HE HAD TO INSPECT THE PROPERTY TO MAKE SURE IT WASN'T BEING USED AS A GROUP HOME?

And then ask Rosansky what he saw when he personally inspected it?

All the years I've rented, I've never had my landlord, or any City Officials, come and inspect my home.

And I'm a deviant in many meanings of the word...

But let's just say for argument's sake that the home wasn't a Group Home, per se, but actually a true home office, conducting Group Home business, of course,

Didn't the work he did there help facilitate the Group Home business and weren't the checks Rosansky received still tainted by Rehab Dollars?

and wasn't Rosansky a Councilman during that time?

So with that logic...

- Money received from a drug dealers can't be construed as coming from drug dealing sources.

and

- Money received from a Group Home operator can't be construed as coming from Group Home sources.

Dirty money is still dirty money.