Well, this is kinda inconvenient for a council that told us the Coastal Commission would rain down hellfire upon Proposition A.
E-mail here.
And judging from the header, it looks like the whistle-blower was in the Coastal Commission office, not the city office. Which would kinda lend credence to former Coastal Commission Chair Sara Wan's opinion that the council was full of BS.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave...
ADDENDUM: They had a whole conference call with the CCC on May 15th, and then followed up with the e-mail two weeks later. It is clear that city staff were trying pretty hard to get the CCC to tell them Prop A had a CCC problem. And given that we never heard about this discussion from the city, it's clear they did not get the answer they were looking for.
Come on, Council. Show some backbone and eat humble pie. Immediately call a press conference and retract all your untrue statements. Tell the citizens you were wrong. VOTE YES ON A!
ReplyDeleteOops! A little embarrassing.
ReplyDeleteAnother boo boo for Murphy. 2nd strikes. 3 strikes and you are out! (well maybe not with our council)
So the bifurcation was another myth from the No on A camp? What do they have left in their bad of goodies?
He has already made 2 major blunders in his probationary period. Get rid of him! Have him take Glenn Sabine and Gus Vina with him.
DeleteEveryone mentioned in this email memo who works in Encinitas needs to go! The Encinitas planners are the same people who have been in charge of the General Plan Update for the past 3 years.
DeleteDo you seriously think that these are the correct people to be deciding the next 30 years of planning for the City of Encinitas? They can't even accurately report the minutes of a Coastal Commission meeting without altering the truth.
We did not spend 2 million dollars for the purpose of a General Plan Update. We spent it so that these people and Gus Vina and Norby could continue getting their paychecks!
If the Council doesn’t do something, there are more and more discussion about recalls taking place. Something has to be done to stop this hemorrhaging of taxpayers’ money before it is too late.
I will be the first one to sign the recall of the city council bozos!
DeleteThe non-partial ballot "analysis" by Sabine is a lie and folks are voting on its basis. Now what?
ReplyDeleteFire Sabine. Watch him at council meetings. He is very skilled at avoiding all questions. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer. But totally adequate for the stupid council. Anybody must seem brilliant to them!
DeleteAs quoted from our City Attorney's Impartial Analysis:
ReplyDelete“The Initiative’s effective date would differ depending on whether lands are located inside or outside the State’s defined “coastal zone.” With respect to those portions of Encinitas outside the coastal zone this Initiative would take effect ten days after the Encinitas City Council certifies that it received a majority of the votes cast on the measure. The Initiative would take effect within the coastal zone portions of Encinitas following both voter approval and certification by the California Coastal Commission. As a result, if approved by the voters, this Initiative might apply to only a portion of Encinitas for a period of time.”
Isn't he paid by the tax payers to check the facts before he misleads the public? Is it time to clean out City Hall? Vote Yes on Prop A.
Sabine did not do his homework...Deadwood. Impartial analysis my culo!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBarth's reaction should be interesting, considering how forcefully she's used this as her main argument against Prop A.
ReplyDeleteHa ha. What is dumbo Barth gonna use now? She must be scrambling to find another excuse to not support prop A. I am sure her developer buddies will misdirect her in another way. This is getting embarrassing for her.
DeleteCome City Council do something great today for our City,
ReplyDeleteFire the Jerome Stocks left over evil Sacramento Gus.
He has to go. He was shucking the ill will of the Stocks Era.
Ever read The Art of War? .... didn't thing so. Its about thousands of year old psychology of human behavior. its very straight forward and inherent truth.
Do the right thing and sleep good at night or ill your poor souls to the sesspool or Guss's suggestions.
Its easy to right our wrong.
Hire a PR person= wrong.
Fire Gus = Right
Figure it out or you wlll be right next to Jerome!
Gus increased our DEBT.
Gus has nothing to offer for increasing review because he doesn't know shit about the Coast or Business. He is a pure government bureaucrat. If you don't see this, YOU deserve to be fired!
Guss is Jerome's boy, Retirement at $200k per year, and offers no value to Encinitas residents. Pure Waste.
Pleas ask your favorite Council representative how they like Gus and how old is he and when he maximizes his retirement and can retire by 55?
Guss is a $16,666.66 per month nightmare! Hurting our City every day he stays in office. Plain and simple.
Gus surely is bad news, but Barth is in love with him and looks to him for everything. How clueless must you be to look at him for direction? One brief conversation with him and you can tell he is not good for Encinitas. Kranz is too busy figuring out his next bully move and victim and Shaffer is too busy listening to her voice over, over, and over again. Gaspar and Muir are enjoying the show realizing that they couldn't have planned it any better. Barth, Kranz, and Barth are bumbling idiots and are falling for all the traps set for them by their sneaky staff.
DeleteParanoia runs deep.
DeleteFor a reason.
DeleteThe NOT impartial analysis by City Attorney Glenn Sabine also LIED by falsely saying lower residential height limits WOULD be raised. Even the obviously pro-development impact report said, "could be construed to be raised." Sabine took conjecture and speculation to outright falsehoods.
ReplyDeleteSabine and Gus Vina are UP FOR EVALUATION, which evaluation will be discussed at the June 12 Council Meeting. Please, bloggers, anyone who cares about our City's future, write Council and inform them of your opinions of Gus Vina and Glenn Sabine. You can do this by e-mail, but please include your name and address, as comments from those in Encinitas are to be weighted more heavily.
The evaluation process was to include an online opportunity for the public to weigh in, online, but that was suddenly and mysteriously "nixed" by some unnamed lawfirm, without providing any basis for that decision, in statutory law, or legal precedent.
Please, write all of Council and let them know what you think of the services provided by Glenn Sabine and Gus Vina. I think they are TERRIBLE, both corrupt, for many, many reasons. They do not serve the public, but only kiss up to Council, and do their bidding, without thought of what is the best way to serve the public trust.
Recall everyone!
DeleteI agree. Once YES on A wins, then the people can start a new project to get rid of council!
DeleteI agree. Yes on Prop A and fire Gus.
ReplyDeleteThe person to also fire is Glen Sabine. Does anyone know Dr. Lori? She was collecting stuff on Glen for years and has all sorts of stuff on him. I remember that from a post on the Leucadia Blog a few years back. I know she said she disliked him and he cost the city a lot of money. Maybe she might want to get involved in addressing the Council.
ReplyDeleteI know there are good attorneys out there (somewhere), but I can't resist...
DeleteThis one is for Glen Sabine-
Question - How many attorneys does it take to put a roof on a 5-story building?
Answer - It depends on how thin you slice them.
Good thing we're in Darrell Issa'a Congressional District where trying to make something out of nothing is SOP. The letter is asking the CCC to officially state whether just changing the adoption process requires CCC concurrence and if so what is that process. Escondido and Yorba Linda aren't in the coastal district so those initiatives wouldn't be subject to CCC review. And in case you've forgotten, the Right-to-Vote initiative does more than require a public vote, it changes the height limitations and how height is measured which impacts three specific plans that require CCC approval.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, building height isn't in the LCP and not under Coastal Commission authority.
DeleteThey had a whole conference call with the CCC on May 15th, and then followed up with the e-mail two weeks later. It is clear that city staff were trying pretty hard to get the CCC to tell them Prop A had a CCC problem. And given that we never heard about this discussion from the city, it's clear they did not get the answer they were looking for.
DeleteSigh. Read section 4, where OUR planning dept tells the Coastal Commission that they would have no approval on what the council is trying to do that is, in their own words, "int eh spirit of" Prop A. The point is, if it doesn't apply to the Council, why does it apply to Prop A? IT DOESN'T.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that with Prop A, developers can't build up a nice, high pad and THEN measure up from that point is a GOOD thing. Height limitations DON'T CHANGE from our current General Plan. No matter how many times you want to repeat the lie, it's still a lie.
These things are good...unless, of course, you're a developer planning to upzone or perhaps a paid building industry troll?
Sigh. Read page 3-31 of the Downtown Specific Plan under Commercial Mixed where it allows building heights to 33 feet if one or more affordable units are included. The Downtown SP was approved by the CCC. The Right-to-Vote Initiative overrides the current General Plan's flexibility in allowing specific plans to have different height standards so the initiative overrides the Downtown SP plan option of 33 feet. That's a change to the plan which requires CCC approval. Given the broad interpretation of the CCC's accessibility mandate (see 101 re-striping) I'm sure the CCC will want to look at what impact that change has, if any, on coastal accessibility.
DeleteFalse- if the Coastal Commission approved an increase- that happened without a vote of the people- then the Coastal Commission will not see a reduced height of 30ft as an impact. Nice try.
DeleteBy the way- the council rebuttal states no upzoning happened without a vote of the people, the truth is the 101 height and density increase happened with a vote of the people. Don't stand to close next to Vina, Barth, Shaffer, kranz, Muir and Gaspar- their pants are likely to go up in flames any moment now.
1:03
DeleteOnce again, building height isn't in the LCP and not under Coastal Commission authority.
Sigh, Sigh, what do you mean "Given the broad interpretation of the CCC's accessibility mandate (see 101 re-striping)" What you call "re-striping," was, in fact, eliminating a lane for motorists on a primary circulation element, North Highway 101, which the City had stated REPEATEDLY, in staff reports, and on its webpage re the North 101 Streetscape Project is an early phasing of that project, and REQUIRES an amendment to the General Plan, the N101SP AND the LCP. Because of the redevelopment crowd, is pushing, HARD for higher densities, mixed use, along the 101 corridor, as already allowed, but with MITIGATED NEGATIVE IMPACT DECLARATIONS, which five roundabouts as fictitious "traffic calming devices" would allow.
DeleteThe redevelopment crowd ignores Coastal Commission review requirements when it wants to, and gets Council to do the same. At other times, when there IS NO ISSUE, it pushes Coastal Act review as a fake "bifurcation" issue. What a joke. Remember, put lipstick on a pig, and it's still a pig.
I smell Christy Guerin and possibly her daughter(s?), and does she have a son? I know her daughter should be about 28 by now, and that she was friends, played soccer with, socialized with Brian Bilbray's daughter, and Corrupt Judge Lisa Guy-Schall's daughter. Guy-Schall's also connected to development, but thank goodness she appears to be out of the Vista Court, now.
We got our absentee ballots and are mailing in our YES on A votes today. I hope to God Prop A passes, or Guerin is likely to run again. She already did her lying robo-calls. I was so glad when she left to be Brian Billbray's District Manager, moving his office from Escondido to Solana Beach, of course. This City will turn into a police state. Christy Guerin was running in relays, while on "retirement disability" with the police dept. for "stress fractures," receiving an extra $3,000 per month for that, in addition to her Council pay and later, her pay from Bilbray. She and her husband have been feeding at the government trough, for years.
Oink, oink. What a shame the Council we had such high hopes in has let someone like Guerin slither back into the picture. This would also explain the anonymous sockpuppet poster's dislike of certain people, in particular, often mentioned here, in vain.
Guerin loved hobnobbing with developers on the Golf Course, that she helped to subsidize. Her re-election would be the worst thing that could happen. Tony Kranz, don't you understand how you are playing into the hands of those who did such dirty tricks to prevent you from holding office? Can you STOP with the nullification jive? What was NULLIFIED was the will of the people who did NOT want to go above 30 ft., two stories. That was done by a supermajority of Council after the people serving on the Specific Plan Action Review Committee and the Community Advisory Boards said yes to mixed use, but NO to increasing to three stories and raising the height limit. You were GONE when it went down, Tony, so don't keep on with the nullification BS, PLEASE!
What now ,Well chicken little said the sky is falling
ReplyDeleteSomeone once said there is a difference between Chicken Little and chicken shit. At least one of them, maybe both, are coming from Gus Vina and our Council!
DeleteYES on A!!!
DeleteThis council appears more corrupt than the Dalager, Bond and Stocks trio! And it's early on . .
ReplyDeleteThe council of sustainability is more interested in sustaining power than sustaining our community character.
ReplyDeleteThat section you've highlighted in the letter from Director Murphy doesn't refer to the initiative. It refers to the council action taken on May 22nd to amend the GP. It is true that since we did nothing to our LCP, nor to the SP's, the CCC would have no "approval" authority for that amendment. However, if Prop A passes, the resulting nullification will make less capacity for Visitor Serving Commercial and affordable housing (the 3rd story in Downtown only happens if deed restricted affordable housing included in the project). On that "back door" amendment, you can count on the CCC to have an opinion.
ReplyDeleteWasn't visitor serving commercial changed to mixed-use in the downtown Encinitas specific plan? And the visitor serving mixed-use area is very small. It consists of 3 or 4 properties owned by one person? And these 3 or 4 properties can have a building height up to 37 feet? And didn't the developer of Pacific Station (who is on the downtown Encinitas Merchants Association?) try to buy out of the affordable housing unit requirement and still get the advantage of a taller building and increased density?
DeleteBuilding height policy isn't included in the LCP under Coastal Commission authority. The commercial district (streets 101 and 2nd)no longer function as true commercial districts. They are mixed-use commercial. Perhaps the Council's true motivation in opposing Prop A lies in the 3 or 4 properties in the very small visitor serving commercial mixed-use area.
Ms. Wan who served 15 years and was a Coastal Commission Chair explained articulately why the Coastal Commission would not get involved.
DeleteWhile Mr. Kranz participating in this forum is appreciated and using his name is admirable he is never the less a first time council member with limited coastal commission experience.
Add to that the city email references prop A and staff reach the same conclusion as Ms. Wan.
I will be voting based on the recommendation of Ms. Wan and voting yes. Why the council opposes the citizens right to vote is beyond me unless they have a plan to upzone the city with 5 story buildings.
would Mr Kranz please expalin why he put his name on the council rebuttal argument that says no upzoning has happened without a vote of the people, when the truth is the 101 was upzones with a vote? If wants to restore his credibility will he retract the misleading statement before the election of remain complicit in spreading falsheoods?
DeleteI don't appreciate Kranz's comment or opinions. He is so dull and clueless. He needs to just go away and stop with his ignorant statements.
DeleteIn my opinion, former Coastal Commissioner Wan mis-reads the impact of Prop A on the Downtown Encinitas Specific Plan (DESP) in the two ways I mention above. If Prop A passes, it seems obvious that the City will be required to process LCP amendments through the CCC for at least these two areas of the DESP:
DeleteWhere it currently says that the building heights on the Cozen's Site (2.6 acres just east of the Moonlight Beach parking lot) allows for "33 feet or three stories whichever is less, with allowances for 37 feet for sloped roofs."
And where it currently says "...except that, if a development project includes one or more dwelling units guaranteed affordable to low or very Iow income households as defined in the Encinitas Housing Element, the maximum building height is 33 feet or three stories, whichever is less."
Both of these potential amendments would be right in the CCC wheelhouse, as they would reduce the potential for visitor serving and affordable housing. Consider that and click here to read the CCC staff report from the last time the City amended the DESP.
It sounds like Kranz is getting Marco Gonzalez to write his comments for him above. Marco has damaged his own reputation and has gone against his own set of stated values the same way that Kranz, Shaffer, and Barth have violated their own principals. He and our council have alienated environmentalists in Encinitas and certainly at a regional level. And for what?
DeleteWasn't visitor serving commercial changed to mixed-use in the downtown Encinitas specific plan? And the visitor serving mixed-use area is very small. It consists of 3 or 4 properties owned by one person? And these 3 or 4 properties can have a building height up to 37 feet? And didn't the developer of Pacific Station (who is on the downtown Encinitas Merchants Association?) try to buy out of the affordable housing unit requirement and still get the advantage of a taller building and increased density?
DeleteBuilding height policy isn't included in the LCP under Coastal Commission authority. The commercial district (streets 101 and 2nd)no longer function as true commercial districts. They are mixed-use commercial.
Perhaps the Council's true motivation in opposing Prop A lies in the 3 or 4 properties in the very small visitor serving commercial mixed-use area.
While Councilman Kranz continues to throw out red herrings that match his wheelhouse description, he offers his opinion. Mr. Kranz would have people believe that a 30 feet maximum building height instead of the special 33/37 feet building height given to favor a small 2.6 acre property would be the downfall of the Downtown Encinitas Specific Plan. While the rest of the specific plan spells out a maximum building height of 30 feet for all other buildings in the specific plan, the 2.6 acre property isn't held to that same standard.
Mr. Kranz thank you for joining the debate. will you answer the question of 6:36? why did you and the council sign your name to a statement that claims as fact no upzone has happened without a vote of the people? we all know the 101 waa upzoned without a vote of the people by a high desnity pro development council. You are complicit in spreaeing this falsehood. what happened to all that trust and transparency you and the council ran on? willyou come, do you have the integrity and charcter to answer the question and be held accountable?
DeleteMr. Kranz you mention tne Cozen's site. Is this the same Cozen's who is a developer: The site you reference as you know was upzoned to increase density without a vote of the people yet you and the council spread the falsehood no upzoning happened with a vote. why? Mr. Kranz is this the same Cozen's often seen with council memenr Gaspar? Is this the same Cozen's you suggested would be a good strategic planning consultant? It sounds to me like the new council of cronies is the same as the old council of cronies, like the high density attorney Marco Gonzalez who benefitted and profited by Kranz and the council's vote to increase density in Olivenhain. so much for trust and tranparency, and integrity.
DeleteYou are not an expert on Coastal Act Law, Mr. Kranz. Everett DeLano, the attorney who wrote the initiative is. He says it will not be a problem. So does the former Chair of the Coastal Commission. Also, that fact is directly pointed to in Planning Director Jeff Murphy's letter to the Coastal Commission. The Coastal Commission "bifurcation" issue is a red herring.
DeleteMr. Kranz, did you both to read the letter to Council that Everett DeLano wrote, and which is on the City's Municipal Election webpage, http://archive.ci.encinitas.ca.us/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=697346&dbid=0, pages 60-62, which speaks to the false allegations in the pro-development impact report?
From Page 60:
I. The Initiative’s Effective Date is Not “Complicated”
The Report asserts that the effective date of the Initiative “is complicated by the fact that portions of the Encinitas General Plan and Zoning Code comprise the City’s ‘Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan’ under the Californial Coastal Act of 1976.” Report at 7. “The fact that the City has a certified LCP does not “complicate” the Initiative’s effective date. As the [Impact] Report notes, pursuant to Election Code Section 9217, initiative measures take effect 10 days after the election results are declared by the City Council. That fact that the Initiative may amend portions of land use planning documents that constitute the City’s LCP may lead to Coastal Commission review of those changes, but that review does not “complicate” the Initiative’s effective date.”
Please do not rely on redevelopment interests' spoon-feeding you incorrect information, Mr. Kranz. Please try to read what people, who supported you, are sharing with you. Please try to think for yourself, and not go along with those peddling insider influence.
Everything I've written here is my opinion, formed through information obtained in a variety of ways, without any reliance on one side or another. (And the words are mine too 8:17.)
DeleteOf course I read Mr. DeLano's letter. And I don't disagree with his point on the law, which is that it takes effect 10 days after the council certifies the results. However, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to imagine that within those first 10 days, a property owner will ask for a court to keep the law from taking effect until the legality of the petition and parts of the initiative have been determined by an impartial judge. And my hunch on how the Coastal Commission will respond is based upon their history of impeding plans that reduce the amount of affordable housing and hotel rooms in the coastal zone.
The council rebuttal to the official Argument in Favor of Prop A doesn't say "no upzoning has happened without a vote of the people" as 6:35 asserts. It says, "Major land use changes HAVE ALWAYS happened with a vote of the people and the Council is committed to codifying this practice." The Home Depot project, the Encinitas Ranch development and the Ecke Ranch proposal in 2005 were all major, and all were voted on by the public. Prop A defines any upzoning as a major change, but the definition before was essentially this: if you couldn't get 4 out of 5 votes from the city council, it was major. I actually prefer having a more certain definition of what's major, as well as requiring a vote on any upzoning. That's why I voted to remove the 4/5ths exception.
Tony, it IS "too much of a stretch" to imagine that within the first 10 days after the initiative passes, a developer (you say property owner) would come forward to "keep the law from taking effect. Courts give every credence to laws passed by initiative. Pending any review, which probably would not be required, Prop A will be in effect. A lawsuit wouldn't be "ripe" until after Coastal Commission completed review, if required. This is the same for properties that are in the Coastal Zone, anyway. They either must apply for an exemption, or do an environmental impact report. Their owners cannot sue because they are required to go through Coastal Review, whether or not they are within existing rules of the General Plan, of 30 ft., two stories. You aren't reading the posts here, DeLano's letter, and Sara Wan's letter, carefully.
DeleteMajor land use changes HAVE NOT ALWAYS happened with a vote of the people. Two examples are the major land use changes made through the North 101 and Downtown Encinitas Specific Plans, that were pushed through, against the wishes of the people, to go beyond 30 ft. and two stories, which we wanted. The Ecke Ranch proposal was voted on because that land, was on title, as being Agricultural in perpetuity. The Home Depot project is on environmentally sensitive land. Because they were major, and we got to vote, does NOT mean that the changes in N101SP and DESP were voted on. Those ARE MAJOR land use changes for which COUNCIL did NOT allow the public to vote. Tony, please, can you use simple logic?
No where in the General Plan or in Encinitas Muncipal Code is "major" defined as an increase in zoning not allowed by a super majority of Council. That is just a rationalization and a poor excuse, illogical, on your part. Your vote to remove the 4/5 exception does NOT remove the less than five acre, the definition and categorization of intensity of use, and the height limit exceptions, as Prop A will. All those exceptions would still be in the General Plan, Policy 3.12, as pointed out by Peter Stern, at the Council Meeting. Council's attempt to do a preemptive ordinance had one positive effect. It showed that Prop A, like removing the 4/5 exception, would likely NOT require Coastal Commission Review. Read the Memo, Policy 3.12 of the GP, and the comments on this post again, Tony. Your rationalizations and excuses don't make sense. Council and you are clinging to the lies, speculation and conjecture that you paid for in hiring, without Council input or notice to the public, an Orange County firm, known to be pro-development, to create an biased impact report.
Wasn't visitor serving commercial changed to mixed-use in the downtown Encinitas specific plan? And the visitor serving mixed-use area is very small. It consists of 3 or 4 properties owned by one person? And these 3 or 4 properties can have a building height up to 37 feet? And didn't the developer of Pacific Station (who is on the downtown Encinitas Merchants Association?) try to buy out of the affordable housing unit requirement and still get the advantage of a taller building and increased density?
ReplyDeletewow 3:17 interesting news. Any other facts or comments to substantiate the claim appreciated.
DeleteAll in the city's records. Just business as usual in Encinitas.
ReplyDeleteUnless of course they are destroyed now that there is mention of them.......
DeleteNow that is entirely possible!
DeleteThe Coastal Commission reviewed our original General Plan and was fine with the 30 foot height limit. Since any plan that would increase height would be out of compliance with the General Plan and the LCP, that increase would have to go through the Coastal Commission. Prop A reduces the approved Specific Plan height back to 30 feet and is consistent with the General Plan and the LCP. This is, in a nut shell, what Wan's letter and the Staff's comments in the memo says. As mentioned previously, this only affects a few properties.
ReplyDeleteOf course anyone can sue the City at any time over any issue, but I think it would be a stretch that someone would file within the ten day period to delay Prop A's implementation, given that that attempt would be costly and probably futile. Our Council majority is over thinking Prop A because they are afraid of a possible project that will be voted down by the public under Prop A that could be in conflict with State law. They don't want to face the fact that a conflict with the State over social engineering is inevitable. The State has given us an unfunded mandate to not do what the citizens of Encinitas want and need, but what Sacramento thinks is best. We should be resisting rather than being in fear of Sacramento.
We need a new City Attorney to do that.
I really don't think a rational person can read Sabine's review of Prop A. and consider it not biased. How hard would it have been for one of the two sets of attorneys involved here check with the Coastal Commission.
Anyone taking bets on how his review will go ?
cogent and true- thank you
ReplyDeleteMr. Kranz you are being intellectually dishonest to put forth that no up-zoning has happened without a vote of the people. How did the 101 get rezoned, was it a major change in the use of land to increased density? IF it was not a major change in land use why did it require a vote by the council?
ReplyDeleteMr. Kranz you have proven to be no different that Jerome Stocks, James Bond and Dan Dalager-obfuscating and making clouds of smoke to cover for self serving political incompetence. Wow, what a disappointment you and your integrity turned out to be. I will not be voting for you again.
Hey Tony you never answered the questions about the Cozens site, is this the same Cozens you recommended be a consultant with the city? Thank you for the response and interaction with the public
ReplyDeleteHey Tony-
ReplyDeleteIs Cozens going to be the new PR guy, or is it Norby? Can you tell us why there is no money to pay for playground equipment but there is money to pay for the new PR guy?
Hey Tony- what happened to all that responsible spending you talked about? You have been the biggest disappointment. You will forever be known in the town as 'One and Done' Tony unless you being voting differently