“The information we gave you in response are the complete result of e-mails
which respond to the public record search criteria you provided.
As I noted previously,
we did not repeat portions of the search we had conducted previously
or provide duplicates of the information we already provided to you.”
Denise Turner email to George Hartzman
November 1, 2011
Second sentence contradicts the first.
This was supposed to be a search of Marlene Sanford’s emails.
Were Marlene’s TREBIC and any other lobbying emails searched or not?
Per our prior face to face conversation,
I recall you told me you could search Marlene’s emails on RUCO.
Marlene Sanford was the lobbyist
involved with killing RUCO at the state level.
The RUCO Advisory board met at TREBIC’s headquarters.
Robbie voted against RUCO three times.
I was told by you that I could request access to Marlene’s TREBIC emails.
If this is not the case, please say so.
As you were the taxpayer funded Greensboro Partnership’s Lobbyist,
and the Greensboro Partnership is a paying TREBIC member,
please recuse yourself from this process.
The election is next Tuesday.
If this is not resolved by then,
the validity of the election will be more messed up than it already is.
If this is not resolved,
you may have manipulated the election
along with many members of our local media.
"From: Marlene Sanford - TREBIC (E-mail) To: Knight, Bill; "Trudy Wade";
Mary Rakestraw; Danny Thompson; Kee, James; Zack Matheny
From: Marlene Sanford - TREBIC (E-mail)
To: Knight, Bill; "Trudy Wade"; Mary Rakestraw; Danny Thompson;
Kee, James; Zack Matheny
Cc: "Jon Lowder"
Subject: Council Agenda Item 44 - RUCO
Date: Monday, June 06, 2011 4:34:33 PM
You may have on your agenda tomorrow night as item 44
a resolution asking you to oppose Senate Bill 683/House 554 Residential
We respectfully ask you NOT to pass the resolution.
Contrary to what you will hear from GNC and GHC,
S683 and H554 would not
"eliminate proactive inspections
by every county and municipality in North Carolina",
or "end Greensboro's Rental Unit Certificate of Occupancy ordinance."
The bills absolutely do allow local governments
to have proactive inspections on problem properties.
...Deadlines and fines are the real teeth of Greensboro's RUCO ordinance,
and we support them...
Chief Legislative Counsel
NC League of Municipalities
It is the threat of these fines that probably have been helpful
in reducing the number of substandard housing cases the city has on record.
...the claim that RUCO has "reduced substandard housing in Greensboro
by almost 50%" is not accurate.
Greensboro's RUCO program
involves inspecting every single rental unit in the city.
After 7 years we now know that about 90% of them
have passed with flying colors,
while, sadly, the 10% that are problem properties still have problems.
RUCO's universal inspection approach
has actually delayed cleanup of the city's housing,
wasting time and money on the other 90% - including even luxury apartments.
The bills would absolutely allow the city to target proactive inspections
on fixing the problems and fine the bad actors.
Marlene [who lied?] Sanford"