Thursday, April 30, 2009
Data Duty
I guess I'm on "data duty" today.
I was listening to some snippets of the Public Hearing on Tuesday, and I'm concerned with what I've heard.
There was no decision on fixing up Pinegrove for the short term, or the long term at this Public Hearing.
There was a decision for the board to split up into "sub committees" to have more discussion.
There was Labella admitting that a few of their estimates were incorrect, specifically the sidewalk and parking lot estimate. Significant dollar amount errors.
This, supposedly, proves that Labella is "human and makes mistakes".
I'm sorry, but if the taxpaying "humans" are paying other "expert humans" $34,000 to do a study on the property, I don't think I'm out of line when I insist it be done without human errors. Especially since there's been an infinite amount of errors from the humans on the Town Board already when informing the residents of "facts" on this issue.
The fact that Labella did admit their errors does not prove to me that they are "on the up and up", or that the Town didn't influence them to provide inflated estimates to begin with.
It proves to me that the "threat" of the state investigating the books forced them to give the true numbers. It proves to me that the residents aren't as stupid as they think "we" are, and can easily find out with a few phone calls that their numbers were skewed beyond reasonable.
That's what that proves.
Collusion is a naughty-naughty thing, isn't it? "Ooopsies....some of our figures were incorrect."
Anywho......MEH went into a long speech at the Public Hearing on how "We deserve the best."
Stephanie Aldersley said at the regular TB meeting this month that she is "a senior, and I'd like an elevated running track."
I deserve, and would like, a brand new jaguar.......but, can I afford it? Not in this economy.
Am I justified in asking YOU to pay for MY new jaguar if I say "Well, other people have nice jaguars, and I want one too! I deserve it!"
What would be your answer to me if I said that? Ha ha I can only imagine..........
In reading the article comments in the D&C, somebody mentions statistics.
"Unemployment rate in town is hovering around 8%. About 7% of the population lives below the poverty line. About 20% of the population is 65 and older. Since 2000 the population growth has been a negative -2 %. Economic growth has been stagnant. The Town's property tax rate is the highest in the county, school taxes one of two highest in the county. The Town is 98% developed and can't attract "quick revenue generators" - but can give property tax breaks to Congel."
Are they accurate?
Let's go on a data journey...........
NYS Department Of Labor lists the unemployment rate for Irondequoit at around 8%. (If you scroll a little past halfway....you'll find Irondequoit. Select that, then hit submit, and you can see the page below.)
U.S. Census Bureau lists individuals below the poverty level at 6.6%.
U.S. Census Bureau lists individuals 65 years of age and older at 19.5% of the population of Irondequoit.
U.S. Census Bureau lists the population estimates as down -1.5% from April 2000 to July 2007.....so one can assume that this is the trend, and it isn't a far reach to say that population growth is -2% now.
I think it's pretty safe to assume that the economic growth in our area is stagnant. I don't think I need to provide "proof" of that statement. It's pretty obvious.
Monroe County lists the 2009 town tax rates as 6.4%. Gates, Greece, and Hamlin are higher.
They list the 2008-2009 school tax rate for East Irondequoit at 25.927298 and West Irondequoit at 24.606602. Brockport, Hilton, and Kendall are higher than EI.
Tony Favro, in this article, states that: "The town is probably 97 (percent) to 98 percent built out and you're just not going to attract the quick revenue generators that you can in other areas," Favro said.
I'll just take his word on that, because I don't have "data" that I can actually look up on this......that I know of anyways.....but Tony Favro is the Senior Planner for the Town, and the extremely educated and competent assistant to the Supervisor....so if he says it.....I believe it.
Medley PILOT tax breaks to Congel were approved before he secured financing for his project. He could very well pay LESS property taxes under the current agreement, and hold off on development until the "new" PILOT takes effect, in, I believe, 2016.
All in all, I believe the person who commented with the "statistics" was accurate.
I did all of this because I know someone is going to go on the D&C article comments to challenge those figures/statements.
Now you can show them the data. :)
I was listening to some snippets of the Public Hearing on Tuesday, and I'm concerned with what I've heard.
There was no decision on fixing up Pinegrove for the short term, or the long term at this Public Hearing.
There was a decision for the board to split up into "sub committees" to have more discussion.
There was Labella admitting that a few of their estimates were incorrect, specifically the sidewalk and parking lot estimate. Significant dollar amount errors.
This, supposedly, proves that Labella is "human and makes mistakes".
I'm sorry, but if the taxpaying "humans" are paying other "expert humans" $34,000 to do a study on the property, I don't think I'm out of line when I insist it be done without human errors. Especially since there's been an infinite amount of errors from the humans on the Town Board already when informing the residents of "facts" on this issue.
The fact that Labella did admit their errors does not prove to me that they are "on the up and up", or that the Town didn't influence them to provide inflated estimates to begin with.
It proves to me that the "threat" of the state investigating the books forced them to give the true numbers. It proves to me that the residents aren't as stupid as they think "we" are, and can easily find out with a few phone calls that their numbers were skewed beyond reasonable.
That's what that proves.
Collusion is a naughty-naughty thing, isn't it? "Ooopsies....some of our figures were incorrect."
Anywho......MEH went into a long speech at the Public Hearing on how "We deserve the best."
Stephanie Aldersley said at the regular TB meeting this month that she is "a senior, and I'd like an elevated running track."
I deserve, and would like, a brand new jaguar.......but, can I afford it? Not in this economy.
Am I justified in asking YOU to pay for MY new jaguar if I say "Well, other people have nice jaguars, and I want one too! I deserve it!"
What would be your answer to me if I said that? Ha ha I can only imagine..........
In reading the article comments in the D&C, somebody mentions statistics.
"Unemployment rate in town is hovering around 8%. About 7% of the population lives below the poverty line. About 20% of the population is 65 and older. Since 2000 the population growth has been a negative -2 %. Economic growth has been stagnant. The Town's property tax rate is the highest in the county, school taxes one of two highest in the county. The Town is 98% developed and can't attract "quick revenue generators" - but can give property tax breaks to Congel."
Are they accurate?
Let's go on a data journey...........
NYS Department Of Labor lists the unemployment rate for Irondequoit at around 8%. (If you scroll a little past halfway....you'll find Irondequoit. Select that, then hit submit, and you can see the page below.)
U.S. Census Bureau lists individuals below the poverty level at 6.6%.
U.S. Census Bureau lists individuals 65 years of age and older at 19.5% of the population of Irondequoit.
U.S. Census Bureau lists the population estimates as down -1.5% from April 2000 to July 2007.....so one can assume that this is the trend, and it isn't a far reach to say that population growth is -2% now.
I think it's pretty safe to assume that the economic growth in our area is stagnant. I don't think I need to provide "proof" of that statement. It's pretty obvious.
Monroe County lists the 2009 town tax rates as 6.4%. Gates, Greece, and Hamlin are higher.
They list the 2008-2009 school tax rate for East Irondequoit at 25.927298 and West Irondequoit at 24.606602. Brockport, Hilton, and Kendall are higher than EI.
Tony Favro, in this article, states that: "The town is probably 97 (percent) to 98 percent built out and you're just not going to attract the quick revenue generators that you can in other areas," Favro said.
I'll just take his word on that, because I don't have "data" that I can actually look up on this......that I know of anyways.....but Tony Favro is the Senior Planner for the Town, and the extremely educated and competent assistant to the Supervisor....so if he says it.....I believe it.
Medley PILOT tax breaks to Congel were approved before he secured financing for his project. He could very well pay LESS property taxes under the current agreement, and hold off on development until the "new" PILOT takes effect, in, I believe, 2016.
All in all, I believe the person who commented with the "statistics" was accurate.
I did all of this because I know someone is going to go on the D&C article comments to challenge those figures/statements.
Now you can show them the data. :)
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
More E-mails
"I must correct you..........."
She must! It doesn't fit in with the "plan"! She MUST correct you, unless you state at a Town Board meeting that the Town only owns 5 ft. around the Pinegrove building. That won't be "corrected".
ReMEHmber how I told you in a previous blog that she CONSTANTLY corrects people who say something she feels is "incorrect"........but she has no problem with "incorrect" information being told to residents before a vote.
Never once did she correct anyone who mentioned the "5 ft. thing".
That's because she did not want you to know the truth. She could have corrected Aldersley and the new PB member at the TB meetings when they repeated that misinformation..........but she didn't.
Why do you think that is?
DON'T FORGET ABOUT THE PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT AT 7PM IN THE BRODERICK ROOM AT TOWN HALL!!!!!!!!!!
Review the Labella report and tell them what you think about it!!!
Monday, April 27, 2009
MEHmories.............
Sitting around a lovely bonfire this evening and I'm feeling a little nostalgic. In preparation for the Public Hearing festivus tomorrow, I thought I would reminisce a bit.
ReMEHmber when the Supervisor told everyone that:
"...the grant money cannot be used to upgrade Pinegrove."
AND
"The grant can't be used to updgrade or maintain an existing building,.....any improvements to Pinegrove would have to come from taxes."
Both quotes were made in December 2008, wayyyy before Joe Morelle rode into town with his $125,000 grant. She was talking about CDBG, and, she was quite wrong on that.
(In the below article, the reporter stated that "Every other school building from that era has been torn down." That is false. There are 4 school buildings from this era in West Irondequoit that are still being used. 2 are used as day care centers and have many children in them, 1 has been converted to a church and then there is Pinegrove.)
ReMEHmber the silly notes she used to send us? Oh, I can reMEHmber it like it was yesterday. Mary Ellen, you rapscallion! Good times.....good times.
(If you notice the postage permit #1758......and compare that to old Dem political mailers from the last election, you can see that they are the same. The IDC paid for these mailers, under the guise of a "group" called the "Seniors First Committee", which has the same address as Irena Scoglio - the chair for the IDC and VP of the Library Board.)
So many good MEHmories.
ReMEHmber when she wanted to take money from the Home Improvement grant to fund the King$ Pork plan?
ReMEHmber when she said that the Town didn't own the land around the building? What a hoot that was! Fun times.
ReMEHmber when she played that dirty trick on everyone and let them keep repeating the same incorrect information? Ahhh Mary Ellen, ever the prankster!
Poor Mr. Schoonmaker. Given the wrong information by the Town.
Poor Mrs. Evans. Given the wrong information by the boss, but took the high road and apologized for the mistake after she found out the truth.
Poor Mr. Domm, victim to one of MEH's funny pranks.
Poor PBM at Public Input, not corrected by the Supervisor:
Poor Stephanie Aldersley not corrected by the Supervisor:
ReMEH mber when she tricked us taxpayers when she said that she went with one polling place to "keep costs manageable" because "the town would be required to do a special mailing, alerting residents to the location of their polling place"?
.......and then she went ahead and spent over $7,000 of taxpayer money on a special mailer with her "facts" on it? A mailer she didn't have to do? ReMEHmber that?
ReMEHmber when she told everyone over and over that the "Town has no plans to sell the Pinegrove building."? (It's on the above voter mailer.)
But then, in 2006 she paid Tim Poley thousands of taxpayer dollars to do a "Financial Evaluation of the Senior Center", and the disclaimer stated he was working on a purchase price?
Definitely some Kodak moments. I'm sure there will be more MEHmories made in the next few months.
ReMEHmber when the Supervisor told everyone that:
"...the grant money cannot be used to upgrade Pinegrove."
AND
"The grant can't be used to updgrade or maintain an existing building,.....any improvements to Pinegrove would have to come from taxes."
Both quotes were made in December 2008, wayyyy before Joe Morelle rode into town with his $125,000 grant. She was talking about CDBG, and, she was quite wrong on that.
(In the below article, the reporter stated that "Every other school building from that era has been torn down." That is false. There are 4 school buildings from this era in West Irondequoit that are still being used. 2 are used as day care centers and have many children in them, 1 has been converted to a church and then there is Pinegrove.)
ReMEHmber the silly notes she used to send us? Oh, I can reMEHmber it like it was yesterday. Mary Ellen, you rapscallion! Good times.....good times.
(If you notice the postage permit #1758......and compare that to old Dem political mailers from the last election, you can see that they are the same. The IDC paid for these mailers, under the guise of a "group" called the "Seniors First Committee", which has the same address as Irena Scoglio - the chair for the IDC and VP of the Library Board.)So many good MEHmories.
ReMEHmber when she wanted to take money from the Home Improvement grant to fund the King$ Pork plan?
ReMEHmber when she said that the Town didn't own the land around the building? What a hoot that was! Fun times.
ReMEHmber when she played that dirty trick on everyone and let them keep repeating the same incorrect information? Ahhh Mary Ellen, ever the prankster!
Poor Mr. Schoonmaker. Given the wrong information by the Town.
Poor Mrs. Evans. Given the wrong information by the boss, but took the high road and apologized for the mistake after she found out the truth.
Poor Mr. Domm, victim to one of MEH's funny pranks.
Poor PBM at Public Input, not corrected by the Supervisor:
Poor Stephanie Aldersley not corrected by the Supervisor:
ReMEH mber when she tricked us taxpayers when she said that she went with one polling place to "keep costs manageable" because "the town would be required to do a special mailing, alerting residents to the location of their polling place"?
.......and then she went ahead and spent over $7,000 of taxpayer money on a special mailer with her "facts" on it? A mailer she didn't have to do? ReMEHmber that?
ReMEHmber when she told everyone over and over that the "Town has no plans to sell the Pinegrove building."? (It's on the above voter mailer.)
But then, in 2006 she paid Tim Poley thousands of taxpayer dollars to do a "Financial Evaluation of the Senior Center", and the disclaimer stated he was working on a purchase price?
Definitely some Kodak moments. I'm sure there will be more MEHmories made in the next few months.
Emails
These are recent e-mails between Bob Ament and the Town Board. Following the e-mails are estimates on some of the repairs from Bob.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Freudian Slip?
Link to town website.
Link to Purchasing Policies And Procedures.
"For instance, the Town of Irondequoit has a thirty page document lying out the manner in which the Town can procure goods and services."
I know they meant "laying out"......but aren't you at least a little happy that they were finally close to truthful on something? Even if it was accidental?
:)
Looks like they changed the wording a bit today (4-27-09)......
"For instance, the Town of Irondequoit has a thirty page document that defines the manner in which the Town can procure goods and services."
"That defines".......much better! Good Substitution. Much better than "laying out".
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Letters In I Post Comparison..............
MORE Comparisons?
This time we are going to compare a letter submitted to the I Post versus what is actually in print.
Here is the letter that was "submitted" to the I Post:
I believe the above letter is 397 words.
Here is the letter that was printed in the I Post (between pink lines):
Link To Letters Archive
Was it a "space" issue? Letters submitted must be 400 words or less. The letter submitted was 397 words. The letter printed was only 203 words.
Was it because Mr. Fake Mathew Lewis was mentioned in the submitted letter?
The letter printed doesn't mention Fake Mathew at all, and I can understand that could be embarrassing.....he was a fake. WE know that, not everyone else does though.
BUT........it also doesn't mention Debbie Evans' recent article that was mentioned in the letter that was submitted.
Why is that? She's not fake....at least I don't think she is......why cut out that part?
And......it doesn't mention Mr. Scuderi by name in the printed version either......he's definitely real........why was that changed to "one person"?
This letter was chopped up considerably, and apparently WITHOUT the letter writer's permission.
Compare the first sentences of the submitted letter to what was actually in print in the I Post:
"Mathew Lewis said that mistakes were made on many sides of the Pinegrove issue.
Mr. Lewis those mistakes were outright mis-information spread by the current
Supervisor and Town Board members prior to a referendum."
VS
"Many writers of recent letters and essays have noted that mistakes were made on many sides of the Pinegrove Senior Center issue. Some were due to misinformation spread prior to the referendum,"
Should the public be aware that "one media outlet" has decided to either censor any negative comments on the current administration................or these letters are "being run by the administration first" before going to print?
The current administration did spread mis-information PRIOR to the vote.........WHY in the world is that changed and omitted from the "in print" letter?
God forbid the public knows the truth on anything.......
This time we are going to compare a letter submitted to the I Post versus what is actually in print.
Here is the letter that was "submitted" to the I Post:
I believe the above letter is 397 words.
Here is the letter that was printed in the I Post (between pink lines):
Link To Letters Archive
Was it a "space" issue? Letters submitted must be 400 words or less. The letter submitted was 397 words. The letter printed was only 203 words.
Was it because Mr. Fake Mathew Lewis was mentioned in the submitted letter?
The letter printed doesn't mention Fake Mathew at all, and I can understand that could be embarrassing.....he was a fake. WE know that, not everyone else does though.
BUT........it also doesn't mention Debbie Evans' recent article that was mentioned in the letter that was submitted.
Why is that? She's not fake....at least I don't think she is......why cut out that part?
And......it doesn't mention Mr. Scuderi by name in the printed version either......he's definitely real........why was that changed to "one person"?
This letter was chopped up considerably, and apparently WITHOUT the letter writer's permission.
Compare the first sentences of the submitted letter to what was actually in print in the I Post:
"Mathew Lewis said that mistakes were made on many sides of the Pinegrove issue.
Mr. Lewis those mistakes were outright mis-information spread by the current
Supervisor and Town Board members prior to a referendum."
VS
"Many writers of recent letters and essays have noted that mistakes were made on many sides of the Pinegrove Senior Center issue. Some were due to misinformation spread prior to the referendum,"
Should the public be aware that "one media outlet" has decided to either censor any negative comments on the current administration................or these letters are "being run by the administration first" before going to print?
The current administration did spread mis-information PRIOR to the vote.........WHY in the world is that changed and omitted from the "in print" letter?
God forbid the public knows the truth on anything.......
More Comparisons!
Here's my take on the comparisons between Pinegrove and King$ Pork, relative to rate of speed on moving forward:
King$ Pork: Movingforwardwiththeprocess!
Pinegrove: Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ovvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng
Fffffffffffffffffffffooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
rrrrrwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd
Wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiith
Thhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhe
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Prrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
rrrrrooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
Do you feel the same? Or is it just me?
I know "Government" is slow. I know there are procedures, and processes that have to be followed. But, in my opinion, what has been done so far should have been done already! BEFORE the referendum. Where were these feasibility studies on Pinegrove before? Where were the feasibility studies on King$ Pork?
Here's an article that was in the news 2 days before the referendum. February 22nd.
Link to below article.
"If the vote is approved Heyman says the center will move within 60 days."
Saturday, April 25th, marks 60 days from the vote. If the vote had been a majority of "YES" - then the Seniors would have been moving to King$ Pork by Saturday.
The majority of votes (from people of a diverse political persuasion, some with agendas, some without) were "NO".
For that, we got a $34,000 property condition report, and two Town Board meetings in 60 days.
The upcoming Public Hearing on this is day 63, but I do understand it made sense to wait until the Labella report came out so people could digest all that information before the Public Hearing.
I understand the Board's trepidation with letting anyone just willy-nilly go to Pinegrove and do major structural "repairs" etc. For liability reasons alone, they have to be cautious on this issue.
I understand that.
There are some small things that can be done right now that really aren't too risky of a liability lawsuit on the town, and you can always have them "sign off" on liability for some things.
Since the reality is that the seniors are at Pinegrove for the moment, it just seems like a nice gesture to let some landscaping be done, or a coat of paint on the outside of the building be put on, or whatever would be a "small" thing to do right now - to let a resident "feel" like you are as committed as he is to making the senior center a nicer environment........temporarily.
As far as I'm concerned, Pinegrove is a "temporary" solution while other options are discussed and studied.
There was no discussion from the public about moving to King$ Pork and spending over $400,000 from CDBG the first year.
That money could be spent on Pinegrove the first two years.
Over $250,000 was then going to be spent on the lease at King$ Pork the following years 2-5 from CDBG.
Why can't that money be used towards the purchase of a new building somewhere else, or renovation/rebuild of Pinegrove? That is covered under CDBG.
You're at Pinegrove temporarily.....it's not like you have lease payments to worry about. Make some repairs.
I know what is going to be said "Well....you are all about being "responsible" with federal tax dollars...Pinegrove repair is not being responsible with federal tax dollars!"
And, to be honest, in a way I do agree with you.
But, here's my dilemma:
I KNOW "you" are planning on "giving away" the building to WISD. I know this. It has been discussed for many years now, even before "you" took office.
I KNOW the WISD will have to make these costly repairs, or rebuild, or renovate once they take over ownership.
In that scenario, they will DIRECTLY AFFECT THE LOCAL TAXES! The school budget will go up to pay for the repairs, renovations, and move. The local taxes of the very seniors you claim to care about will go up MORE! To pay for repairs/renovation to a building they are no longer in use of.
I know, once it's outta "your" hands, what do you care......right? YOU (Town Administration) wouldn't have raised the taxes......the School District would have.
And, as far as I was "told" (from your repeated quotes to the media and your special voter mailing paid for by the taxpayer that you didn't have to do that cost over $7,000.00.) "you" had no plans to sell the Pinegrove building. That's what "you" said. Many times.
So, even if the senior center moved to King$ Pork, the town would still have owned the building, and I can't understand how "you" would let it sit there and rot if other groups were going to use it.
Where was the Community Center going to go if you "boarded the place up" and moved the senior center to King$ Pork?
I don't remember ANY discussions on that at all.
The Helmer Nature Center wasn't going anywhere "no matter what happens to the building", according to Mike Spang.
So, really, I would like to know, how "you" were going to work all that out? How were "you" going to pay for a lease at King$ Pork AND still maintain the Pinegrove building, since "you" would still own it?
How were "you" going to justify the School District raising the local taxes to fix up a building "you" sold them?
Just wonderin'.........
King$ Pork: Movingforwardwiththeprocess!
Pinegrove: Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ovvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng
Fffffffffffffffffffffooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
rrrrrwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd
Wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiith
Thhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhe
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Prrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
rrrrrooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
Do you feel the same? Or is it just me?
I know "Government" is slow. I know there are procedures, and processes that have to be followed. But, in my opinion, what has been done so far should have been done already! BEFORE the referendum. Where were these feasibility studies on Pinegrove before? Where were the feasibility studies on King$ Pork?
Here's an article that was in the news 2 days before the referendum. February 22nd.
Link to below article.
"If the vote is approved Heyman says the center will move within 60 days."
Saturday, April 25th, marks 60 days from the vote. If the vote had been a majority of "YES" - then the Seniors would have been moving to King$ Pork by Saturday.
The majority of votes (from people of a diverse political persuasion, some with agendas, some without) were "NO".
For that, we got a $34,000 property condition report, and two Town Board meetings in 60 days.
The upcoming Public Hearing on this is day 63, but I do understand it made sense to wait until the Labella report came out so people could digest all that information before the Public Hearing.
I understand the Board's trepidation with letting anyone just willy-nilly go to Pinegrove and do major structural "repairs" etc. For liability reasons alone, they have to be cautious on this issue.
I understand that.
There are some small things that can be done right now that really aren't too risky of a liability lawsuit on the town, and you can always have them "sign off" on liability for some things.
Since the reality is that the seniors are at Pinegrove for the moment, it just seems like a nice gesture to let some landscaping be done, or a coat of paint on the outside of the building be put on, or whatever would be a "small" thing to do right now - to let a resident "feel" like you are as committed as he is to making the senior center a nicer environment........temporarily.
As far as I'm concerned, Pinegrove is a "temporary" solution while other options are discussed and studied.
There was no discussion from the public about moving to King$ Pork and spending over $400,000 from CDBG the first year.
That money could be spent on Pinegrove the first two years.
Over $250,000 was then going to be spent on the lease at King$ Pork the following years 2-5 from CDBG.
Why can't that money be used towards the purchase of a new building somewhere else, or renovation/rebuild of Pinegrove? That is covered under CDBG.
You're at Pinegrove temporarily.....it's not like you have lease payments to worry about. Make some repairs.
I know what is going to be said "Well....you are all about being "responsible" with federal tax dollars...Pinegrove repair is not being responsible with federal tax dollars!"
And, to be honest, in a way I do agree with you.
But, here's my dilemma:
I KNOW "you" are planning on "giving away" the building to WISD. I know this. It has been discussed for many years now, even before "you" took office.
I KNOW the WISD will have to make these costly repairs, or rebuild, or renovate once they take over ownership.
In that scenario, they will DIRECTLY AFFECT THE LOCAL TAXES! The school budget will go up to pay for the repairs, renovations, and move. The local taxes of the very seniors you claim to care about will go up MORE! To pay for repairs/renovation to a building they are no longer in use of.
I know, once it's outta "your" hands, what do you care......right? YOU (Town Administration) wouldn't have raised the taxes......the School District would have.
And, as far as I was "told" (from your repeated quotes to the media and your special voter mailing paid for by the taxpayer that you didn't have to do that cost over $7,000.00.) "you" had no plans to sell the Pinegrove building. That's what "you" said. Many times.
So, even if the senior center moved to King$ Pork, the town would still have owned the building, and I can't understand how "you" would let it sit there and rot if other groups were going to use it.
Where was the Community Center going to go if you "boarded the place up" and moved the senior center to King$ Pork?
I don't remember ANY discussions on that at all.
The Helmer Nature Center wasn't going anywhere "no matter what happens to the building", according to Mike Spang.
So, really, I would like to know, how "you" were going to work all that out? How were "you" going to pay for a lease at King$ Pork AND still maintain the Pinegrove building, since "you" would still own it?
How were "you" going to justify the School District raising the local taxes to fix up a building "you" sold them?
Just wonderin'.........
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Residents Я Awesome!
An extremely keen, smart resident has brought up some VERY good points regarding the former lease proposal for King$ Pork (that MEH shot down for being "too expensive") versus the current proposal from Labella for Pinegrove.
There's some inconsistencies.
I know what you're going to say...."Of COURSE there's going to be inconsistencies!!! You big dummy!!!! You, and your small group of jihadists have an agenda!!!! Kings Park was bigger, better, and beautiful!!! Pinegrove needs MILLIONS in repairs!!!! You're all Republicans out to get us!!!"
(One looney-tune on the D&C article forum is claiming "we" are all out to attack the Catholic Church and he's going to spend all his money on helping MEH get re-elected and to defend the Church against our "jihad".....oooookaaaaayyyyyy. I'm not kidding, read for yourself....)
Or, look for yourself:
(The reply to "sam32" was one of the funniest ones I have ever read.)
Yeah, yeah....it's a "small group of haters out to get you".
We "don't want you to be successful". We "hate seniors".
"We" know, we've heard it a million times already.
Never mind the vote results, and just stick to that rhetoric, ok? Really. It makes you so much more credible when you regurgitate that stuff over and over. And, it's not divisive at all. No, really, not at all. ;) ;)
Here is the blog I did back in January on the King$ Pork Lease Proposal from 2007. The lease proposal that the Town had on the Town Website at the time did not include some dollar figures about the CAM, and the true price, so that was added to the documents (in red) I put on the blog. You can compare the two and see. Blog docs. vs Town Board Special Meeting Minutes 9-4-07. (Lease Proposal is page 7 on the Town pdf. - and notice it is called "Kings Park Feasibility Discussion", but doesn't have nearly the same information that Labella has for Pinegrove's "Feasibility Study".) For reference, here is the lease proposal for just the senior center that was unanimously approved at the 2008 November TBM.
Ok, now, on to the goodies.
Here is a page from the King$ Pork Lease Proposal from 2007:
(The above image was from the blog I did in Jan....the town STB minutes do not include 2b - I assume it had something to do with the proposed Gym/Pool/P.A.C expansion or something.)
This was the proposal for the Library consolidation & Community Center. Significantly more square footage and people than the Pinegrove building, right?
The square footage discussed for the proposed lease in 2007 was 59,612 in buildings B & C for the Libraries and Community Center.
In '1' of the above document, King$ Pork landlords were going to install a rooftop HVAC (at their cost supposedly), "at the same capacity as currently exists."
Mr. Keen, Smart resident points out:
"'same capacity' as for old office use?---didn't meh just parade engineers in front of the cameras as they explained that "Triggers" of change of use and adding any construction will trigger new codes. They didn't mention the code but one pertains to "make up air" a phrase they did use. Public assembly needs much more make up air than office use. BUT MEH and her engineers from LaBella and Monroe Piping failed to inform the public of the need to upgrade the HVAC units at Pork.
Ahhhh.....very good points, sir.
In '2a' - Town has use of the parking area east, north, and west of buildings B & C.....as long as it did not exceed "4 spaces per 1,000 usable square feet."
Mr. Keen, Smart resident points out:
"Parking: note the very low parking allowance at Pork Park. 4 per 1000 sf. Not even close to the needs that would be "TRIGGERED" (there's that damn word again) by change of use to Public Assembly. The Senior project allowed for about 85 parking spaces. Hell---Pinegrove needs over 150 according to LaBella. ---pinegrove is only 13,335 sf and Pork Park was over 20,000 sf. 50% bigger."
Labella's report is called "Pinegrove Property Condition Report" - for reference.
Recap:
King$ Pork proposal for Libraries & Com. Center in 2007 was for 59,612 sq. ft.
59 x 4.4 (spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of usable (leased) space.) = 259 spaces.
King$ Pork proposal for just Senior Center in 2008 was for 20,185 sq. ft.
20 x 4.4 (spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of usable (leased) space.) = 88 spaces.
Pinegrove building is 13,335 sq. ft.
13 x 4.4 (spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of usable (OWNED) space = 57 spaces.
I'm thinking Pinegrove's parking lot has plenty of space for 57 parking spots? Yes?
Labella is suggesting we need 134-167 spaces for Pinegrove based on a projected facility occupancy of between 400 – 500 people? How can Labella project parking spaces based on maximum occupancy at Pinegrove, and King$ Pork is based on square footage of usable space?
From Labella's report:
"Town Code 235-79: Off street parking requirement –
For Public Assembly use: Provide 1 parking space
per 3 seats at maximum capacity:"
Here is a link to the Town Code.
Go to chapter 235 - zoning - Article XIV Off Street Parking And Loading (§ 235-77 - § 235-79)- Specific Off Street Parking Requirements (§ 235-79).
They list:
Public assembly - Same as auditoriums. Auditoriums - 1 for every 3 seats occupied at maximum capacity.
How come King$ Pork gets 4.4 spaces per 1,000 usable sf. AND don't have to follow the Town Code for "Public Assembly"? Pinegrove does with Labella's report. Isn't a senior center at King$ Pork "Public Assembly"?!?!
The HVAC at King$ Pork had no "triggers". They were just going to install a rooftop HVAC at the same capacity that has existed (for office space) and not worry about "make up air" for Public Assembly there.........but Labella is suggesting that at Pinegrove we do need all of that.
I'm having a hard time understanding why an old building like King$ Pork didn't have the same scrutiny applied to it as the old building at Pinegrove.
Does anyone out there have a clue?
Does it start and end with an "a" and have "gend" in between?
There's some inconsistencies.
I know what you're going to say...."Of COURSE there's going to be inconsistencies!!! You big dummy!!!! You, and your small group of jihadists have an agenda!!!! Kings Park was bigger, better, and beautiful!!! Pinegrove needs MILLIONS in repairs!!!! You're all Republicans out to get us!!!"
(One looney-tune on the D&C article forum is claiming "we" are all out to attack the Catholic Church and he's going to spend all his money on helping MEH get re-elected and to defend the Church against our "jihad".....oooookaaaaayyyyyy. I'm not kidding, read for yourself....)
Or, look for yourself:
(The reply to "sam32" was one of the funniest ones I have ever read.)
Yeah, yeah....it's a "small group of haters out to get you".
We "don't want you to be successful". We "hate seniors".
"We" know, we've heard it a million times already.
Never mind the vote results, and just stick to that rhetoric, ok? Really. It makes you so much more credible when you regurgitate that stuff over and over. And, it's not divisive at all. No, really, not at all. ;) ;)
Here is the blog I did back in January on the King$ Pork Lease Proposal from 2007. The lease proposal that the Town had on the Town Website at the time did not include some dollar figures about the CAM, and the true price, so that was added to the documents (in red) I put on the blog. You can compare the two and see. Blog docs. vs Town Board Special Meeting Minutes 9-4-07. (Lease Proposal is page 7 on the Town pdf. - and notice it is called "Kings Park Feasibility Discussion", but doesn't have nearly the same information that Labella has for Pinegrove's "Feasibility Study".) For reference, here is the lease proposal for just the senior center that was unanimously approved at the 2008 November TBM.
Ok, now, on to the goodies.
Here is a page from the King$ Pork Lease Proposal from 2007:
(The above image was from the blog I did in Jan....the town STB minutes do not include 2b - I assume it had something to do with the proposed Gym/Pool/P.A.C expansion or something.)
This was the proposal for the Library consolidation & Community Center. Significantly more square footage and people than the Pinegrove building, right?
The square footage discussed for the proposed lease in 2007 was 59,612 in buildings B & C for the Libraries and Community Center.
In '1' of the above document, King$ Pork landlords were going to install a rooftop HVAC (at their cost supposedly), "at the same capacity as currently exists."
Mr. Keen, Smart resident points out:
"'same capacity' as for old office use?---didn't meh just parade engineers in front of the cameras as they explained that "Triggers" of change of use and adding any construction will trigger new codes. They didn't mention the code but one pertains to "make up air" a phrase they did use. Public assembly needs much more make up air than office use. BUT MEH and her engineers from LaBella and Monroe Piping failed to inform the public of the need to upgrade the HVAC units at Pork.
GUESS WHAT????? A resident wrote the Board and told them of the need for upgraded units. Guess what. It sure looks like the new HVAC Queen Hyman once again lied to residents. Never telling them of that added cost.
IN Fact again: The Senior Center Proposal at Pork Park never indicated any need for upgraded HVAC systems to support the change of use from Office to PUblic Assembly. Why didn't LaBella Engineers and Monroe Piping tell the residents of Irondequoit they needed to upgrade systems? How much would that have cost once they got in there? WHy did they leave that out? Maybe it isn't necessary at Pork Park but it sure seems it would be."
Ahhhh.....very good points, sir.
In '2a' - Town has use of the parking area east, north, and west of buildings B & C.....as long as it did not exceed "4 spaces per 1,000 usable square feet."
Mr. Keen, Smart resident points out:
"Parking: note the very low parking allowance at Pork Park. 4 per 1000 sf. Not even close to the needs that would be "TRIGGERED" (there's that damn word again) by change of use to Public Assembly. The Senior project allowed for about 85 parking spaces. Hell---Pinegrove needs over 150 according to LaBella. ---pinegrove is only 13,335 sf and Pork Park was over 20,000 sf. 50% bigger."
Labella's report is called "Pinegrove Property Condition Report" - for reference.
Recap:
King$ Pork proposal for Libraries & Com. Center in 2007 was for 59,612 sq. ft.
59 x 4.4 (spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of usable (leased) space.) = 259 spaces.
King$ Pork proposal for just Senior Center in 2008 was for 20,185 sq. ft.
20 x 4.4 (spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of usable (leased) space.) = 88 spaces.
Pinegrove building is 13,335 sq. ft.
13 x 4.4 (spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of usable (OWNED) space = 57 spaces.
I'm thinking Pinegrove's parking lot has plenty of space for 57 parking spots? Yes?
Labella is suggesting we need 134-167 spaces for Pinegrove based on a projected facility occupancy of between 400 – 500 people? How can Labella project parking spaces based on maximum occupancy at Pinegrove, and King$ Pork is based on square footage of usable space?
From Labella's report:
"Town Code 235-79: Off street parking requirement –
For Public Assembly use: Provide 1 parking space
per 3 seats at maximum capacity:"
Here is a link to the Town Code.
Go to chapter 235 - zoning - Article XIV Off Street Parking And Loading (§ 235-77 - § 235-79)- Specific Off Street Parking Requirements (§ 235-79).
They list:
Public assembly - Same as auditoriums. Auditoriums - 1 for every 3 seats occupied at maximum capacity.
How come King$ Pork gets 4.4 spaces per 1,000 usable sf. AND don't have to follow the Town Code for "Public Assembly"? Pinegrove does with Labella's report. Isn't a senior center at King$ Pork "Public Assembly"?!?!
The HVAC at King$ Pork had no "triggers". They were just going to install a rooftop HVAC at the same capacity that has existed (for office space) and not worry about "make up air" for Public Assembly there.........but Labella is suggesting that at Pinegrove we do need all of that.
I'm having a hard time understanding why an old building like King$ Pork didn't have the same scrutiny applied to it as the old building at Pinegrove.
Does anyone out there have a clue?
Does it start and end with an "a" and have "gend" in between?
Monday, April 20, 2009
Now This Is Odd........
Remember the blog I did a bit back about "Mr. Fakity-Fake-Fake" who wrote a letter to the Irondequot Post, and in that letter "Mathew Lewis" said that "but all the town leaders I wrote to, responded to me."?
A FOI request was submitted for those "responses", and an answer has been given, in record time I might add (9 days!),about that particular FOI request.
Here it is, in all it's glory:
Gee, if Mathew Lewis is a real person, and has a real address on Norton Street, and said he wrote to the town....there should be a record of that.
No such records exist.......
And, neither does Mathew Lewis on Norton Street in Irondequoit. We've e-mailed him, but he never seems to return our e-mails with a quote or explanation that I could show.
Here is the extent of what we have from/to Mr. Fakity-Fake-Fake.
But.......Mark Scuderi exists. We've e-mailed him too, and he got back to us right away (probably because he has nothing to hide, and is a real person. That always helps.)
This is what Mr. Scuderi has to say about it:
A FOI request was submitted for those "responses", and an answer has been given, in record time I might add (9 days!),about that particular FOI request.
Here it is, in all it's glory:
Gee, if Mathew Lewis is a real person, and has a real address on Norton Street, and said he wrote to the town....there should be a record of that.
No such records exist.......
And, neither does Mathew Lewis on Norton Street in Irondequoit. We've e-mailed him, but he never seems to return our e-mails with a quote or explanation that I could show.
Here is the extent of what we have from/to Mr. Fakity-Fake-Fake.
But.......Mark Scuderi exists. We've e-mailed him too, and he got back to us right away (probably because he has nothing to hide, and is a real person. That always helps.)
This is what Mr. Scuderi has to say about it:
Special TBM On 4/28!!!
Well now, I am officially impressed.
Yay! Y'all better go and speak your mind. Don't be afraid that certain TB members will mock you, or tell you to go back home if you go up to give input. Please share your ideas, and anything else you feel is relevant to this issue. Don't be afraid that someone will write a scathing, insulting blog about your idea in September '08, and then join the Irondequoit Democrat Committee in January '09, and be appointed to the Planning Board a week later. (These are the kind of people the Supervisor wants to surround herself with to represent you?)
Be respectful, state your concerns, tell them you are disappointed in them if you really are, or that you are impressed with what they have done if you really are....and DO NOT go over 3 minutes!!! The finger is hovering over the bell when it hits the 2:30 mark....I swear.
This is what everyone's been asking for...so go and share your ideas and concerns.
It is important.
Yay! The "Triggers" Are Up On The Labella Report!
They weren't there before the meeting on 4/16...the right side of the page was cut off where the "trigger" items were.
But now (and thank you so much Mr. Mazzenga, for getting to that today!) it is there and I can digest all of this information.
I didn't feel comfortable going into a "tirade" on something I didn't see the full report on when I did the previous blog about it.
But, now I can. Woo Hoo!
Here are the full estimates with the trigger column from Labella.
Grab yer ankles, taxpayers. This one is a good one. Hope there's at least a hair pull or a reach around included with these unbelievable estimates.
Well, I give them a hearty "Good For You" on this one.
Anyways, I'm not a contractor or anything....so I'm going to pick out simple things that I know I could help the Town save money on.
Let's go with "Add splash block to four downspouts."
Labella, on page 1, lists this item as "Immediate Maintenance", and their estimate is $200.00.
I, having the great contacts that I do (google), found that they are as low as $10.00 per splash block. I will personally spend $40.00 of my own money, and go to the Senior Center, and put them under all of your gutters - for free. I am an experienced splash-blocker-putter-inner, because I did do this all by myself at my house. With CONCRETE ones. Yeah. Way heavier!
On page 2 of Labella's Report, it says "Provide pull hardware where missing on some
cabinet doors", and their estimate is $200.00.
I, having the great contacts that I do (google), found that they are priced as low as $12.00 for a 10 pack. I will go so far as to purchase TWO 10 pks, of the $19.99 variety, and install them - for free. Don't worry about installing them, as I am experienced in this activity as well, installing them on my own cupboard doors when I refinished mine, all by myself. I have my own screwdriver, so you won't have to provide one......but I might like to use a few of those screws they obviously have loose to secure the cabinet hardware to the cupboard doors. $200.00 for attaching a cabinet handle? lol
Those are just two very small things that as a homeowner I have done myself, and I know those items are extremely inexpensive, yet do a great job. I don't think Pinegrove's splash blocks and cabinet door knobs need to be any more sturdier than what's in my home. I had teenagers, and tons of kids in my house when mine were younger. I haven't had cabinet hardware fall off one of my cabinets yet. One became loose a few years ago....and instead of buying a whole new house because of a wobbly knob....I got out my screwdriver and tightened it.
I could save the Town $400.00 with these two above repairs.
I hope I have time to call around tomorrow to some different contractors in the area, because I am going to get estimates on what Labella has in their report on a few different items, and compare. Of course, with "commercial property" estimated...not like a residence estimate or anything.
I'll let ya know what I find out, if I find out anything.
But now (and thank you so much Mr. Mazzenga, for getting to that today!) it is there and I can digest all of this information.
I didn't feel comfortable going into a "tirade" on something I didn't see the full report on when I did the previous blog about it.
But, now I can. Woo Hoo!
Here are the full estimates with the trigger column from Labella.
Grab yer ankles, taxpayers. This one is a good one. Hope there's at least a hair pull or a reach around included with these unbelievable estimates.
Well, I give them a hearty "Good For You" on this one.
Anyways, I'm not a contractor or anything....so I'm going to pick out simple things that I know I could help the Town save money on.
Let's go with "Add splash block to four downspouts."
Labella, on page 1, lists this item as "Immediate Maintenance", and their estimate is $200.00.
I, having the great contacts that I do (google), found that they are as low as $10.00 per splash block. I will personally spend $40.00 of my own money, and go to the Senior Center, and put them under all of your gutters - for free. I am an experienced splash-blocker-putter-inner, because I did do this all by myself at my house. With CONCRETE ones. Yeah. Way heavier!
On page 2 of Labella's Report, it says "Provide pull hardware where missing on some
cabinet doors", and their estimate is $200.00.
I, having the great contacts that I do (google), found that they are priced as low as $12.00 for a 10 pack. I will go so far as to purchase TWO 10 pks, of the $19.99 variety, and install them - for free. Don't worry about installing them, as I am experienced in this activity as well, installing them on my own cupboard doors when I refinished mine, all by myself. I have my own screwdriver, so you won't have to provide one......but I might like to use a few of those screws they obviously have loose to secure the cabinet hardware to the cupboard doors. $200.00 for attaching a cabinet handle? lol
Those are just two very small things that as a homeowner I have done myself, and I know those items are extremely inexpensive, yet do a great job. I don't think Pinegrove's splash blocks and cabinet door knobs need to be any more sturdier than what's in my home. I had teenagers, and tons of kids in my house when mine were younger. I haven't had cabinet hardware fall off one of my cabinets yet. One became loose a few years ago....and instead of buying a whole new house because of a wobbly knob....I got out my screwdriver and tightened it.
I could save the Town $400.00 with these two above repairs.
I hope I have time to call around tomorrow to some different contractors in the area, because I am going to get estimates on what Labella has in their report on a few different items, and compare. Of course, with "commercial property" estimated...not like a residence estimate or anything.
I'll let ya know what I find out, if I find out anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)