Ethics Approval

In 2006, the Los Angeles Times published a story alleging Rep. Calvert had personally benefitted from a federal funding request. The story stated that the request was for a freeway interchange near property Rep. Calvert owned and later sold and alleged the sale experienced a higher profit because of the federal funds obtained for the interchange. However, the interchange was actually located 16 miles from the property and local experts have stated that the possibility of an interchange had no effect on the property value of the land, especially since the freeway interchange had yet to even be built or fully funded.

The local Press Enterprise published a follow-up story and determined that the property had been sold at fair market value and matched sale prices of similar properties in the area. It was also reported that the Riverside Transit Agency requested funding for the project as part of the State Transportation Infrastructure Plan (STIP), a multi-year transportation plan crafted by local officials. The Press Enterprise later editorialized that the claims against Rep. Calvert were unfounded. Read the editorial here.

In response to the Los Angeles Times story, Rep. Calvert also sought out the opinion of the Democratically Chaired House Ethics Committee which determined that, after reviewing the facts, Rep. Calvert had indeed acted properly. Click here to read the letter from the House Ethics Committee which is comprised equally of both Republicans and Democrats.

At no time has Rep. Calvert been under any investigation. All funding requests sponsored by Rep. Calvert originate with a local county, city, transportation agency, or other public agency, not from Rep. Calvert personally.

In another issue, Rep. Calvert was a silent one-third partner in Stadium Properties. In 2006, the partnership in good faith and in good money bought a 4.3-acre parcel of land in Jurupa from the Jurupa Community Services District (JCSD) and received clear title to that land. It was later determined that the JCSD had not publicly noticed the land which is required by state law. The Jurupa Area Recreation and Parks District (JARPD) expressed interest in the land and took action against the JCSD and threatened eminent domain on the property. In a Grand Jury Report (read here), the Grand Jury found that JCSD had violated the law but found no wrong-doing on the part of Stadium Properties or Rep. Calvert. Throughout the dispute, Stadium Properties repeatedly stated they wanted to work with both the JCSD and JARPD to resolve the issue. After four years, the dispute between the two agencies was settled with the statement that Stadium Properties acted properly and had no knowledge of the violation of the law. Read the story here.