• Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

Now the downtown overlords are pushing for a massive Chargers stadium subsidy, even though the only thing blighted in downtown San Diego is the City’s financial condition. The hastily drawn, secret bill to lift Centre City’s cap “doesn’t meet the smell test,” says Pasadena lawyer Sutton. “It was written on a notepad and grafted onto a bill regarding farmland. The legislature has no shame. These giveaways to developers are no different than Tammany Hall [New York City’s 19th-century graft haven]. The development agencies take the money and dole it out to political contributors.”

San Diego attorney Mike Aguirre has filed a suit against the legislature’s guerrilla raid. The defendants are three state agencies. “A finding that a project area is blighted is the absolute prerequisite for redevelopment,” says the suit. But Senate Bill 863 was rammed through “with no committee hearings, no debate before the public, behind closed doors, and while the City of San Diego and the Centre City Development Corporation were in the middle of conducting a study to determine if the relevant project area was sufficiently blighted,” says the suit. It cites a recent appellate decision in which the court rejected Glendora’s blight claim under similar circumstances. Aguirre filed in Sacramento “so we don’t sue the power structure in San Diego; we make them play an away game.”

Says Aguirre, “It is time to wean the developers from subsidies and have them embrace competition.”

That has worked in downtown Los Angeles, says Steve Erie, professor of political science at the University of California San Diego. He and a Ph.D. candidate, Vlad Kogan, have shown that in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Los Angeles was able to rein in its redevelopment agency, move tax dollars from downtown to the rest of the city, and block the big subsidies for pro sports facilities. Result: “a downtown renaissance with private capital,” says Erie. But San Diego “is the welfare queen of redevelopment agencies, still on the dole” and still steering taxpayer money downtown. “No other city has such a peculiar institution to capture the benefits for downtown.”

Jerry Brown might be able to do something about that.

  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

More from the web

Comments

fredjones2005 Jan. 26, 2011 @ 9:55 a.m.

This is why the Republicans in San Diego County don't care who is elected in Sacramento. They get there graft from kickback by the local redevelopment agencies. The major players in the San Diego are developers who like it the way it is. If Brown is able to steal the money from them, it's just a bigger thief stealing from a smaller thief. They all are stealing from "THE PEOPLE" who have to pay the bills.

0

Don Bauder Jan. 26, 2011 @ 11:02 a.m.

In San Diego, the redevelopment agency, and particularly Centre City Development Corp., are stealing from the county and from schools. The county should protest these thefts more than it does. Reason: county pols are controlled by the downtown real estate interests, just as councilmembers are. Best, Don Bauder

0

expdx Jan. 26, 2011 @ 10:05 a.m.

Don: Pigs at the trough. As an ex-resident of Golden Hill and current resident of Beaverton, OR I can testify that it is the same dynamic everywhere. I lived through the CCDC redevelopment of downtown...a complete giveaway to developers. Escondido can't vote on a public giveaway for the Beavers (Soon to be Friars?) baseball stadium. Not enough time say the rulers. CCDC works in the dark and sucks up the money and Mayor Sanders fiddles as the urban redevelopers drain the coffers. Wake up people...San Diego citizens get what they deserve. Maybe it is the effect of a large military-industrial presence: Do what we order! No questions! NO VOTES. DUH! Enjoy your sunshine, sunshine.

0

Don Bauder Jan. 26, 2011 @ 11:06 a.m.

Good points. Although the redevelopment agency (the council) supposedly has ultimate power, it cedes it to CCDC. Result: schools, infrastructure, maintenance, police and fire protection are sacrificed so the City can subsidize a billionaire pro football team family not residing in San Diego. It's criminal. Best, Don Bauder

0

laplayaheritage Jan. 26, 2011 @ 8:03 p.m.

http://tinyurl.com/20110124a

Hi All, Please see our proposal for a new NFL Chargers stadium on the waterfront in downtown San Diego, which will be built as part of the Convention Center Expansion. The plan could happen without the use of Redevelopment Money. Then CCDC would not have to destroy the Historic Wonder Bread building, and Eminent Domain of the existing Print Shop and Liquor Store.

San Diego can have a stadium and convention center by voting on a project that has the potential to make finance sense through a public tax increase on hotels, taxi, and the downtown Gaslamp District.

However, we are not construction estimators, so we do not know the actual costs, or if the building would pay for itself by constant use.

However, water Cisterns to both hold water, and make desalinization plant underground, as part of San Diego infrastructure would be great for San Diego.

Comments, concerns, and questions are appreciated.

0

David Dodd Jan. 26, 2011 @ 10:22 p.m.

"Comments, concerns, and questions are appreciated."

Hi. Why is your website in Latin? Why don't the links work? What is in this for you? Can you tell me what La Playa Heritage does to earn money and why they are so secretive? Are you money-sucking developers? Who paid who for that slick presentation? Who is paying for you to write here and in other San Diego publications that permit online participation? I'll stop there and eagerly await your response. Thanks, in advance.

0

laplayaheritage Jan. 26, 2011 @ 11:55 p.m.

The website is under construction until March. Hopefully what is in there is to get San Diego to put water cisterns underground on reclaimed tidelands for any project on Port Land including Chula Vista, the Airport Intermodal Transportation Center, North Embarcadero Visionary Plan, and maybe North Island.

The cisterns would stop the waste and evaporation from our County's surface reservoirs that loose 4 feet a year to the sun, and can be used to store water for reclaimation and desalinizations plans all along San Diego Bay, near the end users.

Thanks for saying the presentation is slick. Hopefully we could be the Project Engineer or Project Manager for the Cistern part.

0

David Dodd Jan. 27, 2011 @ 1:35 a.m.

"However, we are not construction estimators, so we do not know the actual costs, or if the building would pay for itself by constant use."

And then...

"Hopefully we could be the Project Engineer or Project Manager for the Cistern part."

Not saying that whatever you're advertising is or isn't a bargain, but all the same, it sounds like advertising to me. Camp out on redevelopment projects and propose to piggyback your proposal. Genius. Want the information to AEG in Los Angeles? Because there won't be a new stadium built in San Diego, at least not for a decade or more.

0

Don Bauder Jan. 27, 2011 @ 8:03 a.m.

I will stick up for Rhodes. She had many excellent ideas while retired. Now she is going back into business, but I do not believe she is using this blog as an advertising vehicle. She has been a good contributor for years. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Jan. 27, 2011 @ 8 a.m.

I can assure you La Playa is not a developer or beholden to developers. Katheryn Rhodes had had many fine ideas. Her particular interest is the homeless. I do not know why she wants this footballl stadium. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Jan. 26, 2011 @ 10 p.m.

Your proposal is interesting, but I see no need whatever for a football stadium. Qualcomm is excellent, well-located and with plenty of parking. The Padres have found that out. Their attendance has been worse the last two years at Petco, when they had very good, winning teams, than it was the last several years at Qualcomm, when they had horrible teams. I don't think the convention center expansion is necessary either. Best, Don Bauder

0

laplayaheritage Jan. 27, 2011 @ 12:06 a.m.

Hi Don,

Agreed. I love Qualcomm. It was built by Master Architect Frank Hope and is a great example of Modern Design and the Bauhaus movement.

But there is that $11.8 million annual subsidy in Transient Occupancy Tax (TOS) revenues for daily operations, and the $52 million balance for the 1998 stadium Renovation Bonds. The site is not being use to its full potential and cannot be given away to the unions, or anyone without a public vote. The public site is not being used to its full potential.

Beside water freedom, we really want Comic-Con to stay in San Diego.

http://www.facebook.com/#!/keepcomicconinsandiego

Plus getting AEG International into San Diego to construct the project could be beneficial.

http://www.aegworldwide.com/facilities/facilities

0

Don Bauder Jan. 27, 2011 @ 8:05 a.m.

So, as the Chargers suggest, should San Diego shell out $600 million to pay for a new stadium because of the relatively small amount Qualcomm dissipates every year? That would be crazy. Best, Don Bauder

0

dwbat Jan. 27, 2011 @ 8:22 a.m.

The same lies are being told again (as with Petco Park), that a new Chargers stadium downtown will revitalize the East Village, create lots of jobs, BS, BS. If it's such a great idea, let the Chargers build it on their own dime.

0

Don Bauder Jan. 27, 2011 @ 10:46 a.m.

And, you know, the Chargers have never said that they would do any developing near their new stadium. The stadium as proposed would be on a postage stamp lot. The Chargers said from the beginning that they would not develop surrounding areas. So who will? And what would they build? Condos downtown are glutted. (Vacancy rates are running 80% in some cases and new buyers aren't coming in because HOA bills would be so high.) Hotels are being taken over by lenders. There is no reason to build a retailing establishment because only a bit above 30,000 people live downtown. Office buildings are overbuilt. The entire commercial real estate industry remains in the doldrums. So who would build anything down there? Best, Don Bauder

0

clockerbob Jan. 27, 2011 @ 9:04 a.m.

Great read. Many are unfamiliar with bankruptcy. In 1995, I lived with people who prepared for declaring bankruptcy by spending as much as they could and as fast as they could. Even went around town to all of the quickie loan joints. Court voided every debt.

So, why not a park-stadium etc.

0

Don Bauder Jan. 27, 2011 @ 10:49 a.m.

The City of San Diego is already technically insolvent. The mayor admitted as much in all the warnings he made about cutbacks if Prop. D didn't pass. So some want a bankrupt city to spend $600 million to build a stadium for a billionaire family. Is anybody giving sanity tests to the downtown establishment? Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Jan. 27, 2011 @ 5:48 p.m.

I lived with people who prepared for declaring bankruptcy by spending as much as they could and as fast as they could. Even went around town to all of the quickie loan joints. Court voided every debt. ================= When you say "voided' do you mean the court did, or did not, allow these people to discharge the debts?

What you have described is against the BK rules and courts usually do not allow such abuses.

The fact is the vast majority of BK's-80% last I checked- were the result of job loss or medical bills, not abuses.

0

nokomisjeff Jan. 28, 2011 @ 9:10 a.m.

Surfpuppy, I see you've made 4531 posts to the Reader. I hope you're not billing your clients for that time, or perhaps business is not as good as it should be. 4531 posts.....you should write a novel and at least get paid for it.

0

Russ Lewis Jan. 28, 2011 @ 9:58 a.m.

Plus 1,331 as JohnnyVegas, for a total of 5,862.

0

Ponzi Jan. 27, 2011 @ 9:27 a.m.

When it comes to all this redevelopment talk, I am lost. I just feel that taxpayers should not be supporting fat cats.

In a true capitalist and democratic society, shouldn’t the development be “market driven.” That is if it makes sense for something to be built then the promoter can launch an effort to do so. Draft a business plan and recruit investors. In fact that is how most business is actually done in America (and elsewhere).

But it seems certain people are above the rules. The Moore’s, McMillan’s, and Spanos’s of the world. They don’t want to have OPM at risk, they want the taxpayers to pay for it and often times without any public input or vote.

It’s one thing for the government to invest in development for the purpose of government. It builds schools, administrative offices and other projects that are within the realm of public services. But it’s completely another to build stadiums and arenas that are for the sole use of private enterprise. Padre’s and Chargers are private entertainment franchises. They are no different than Ikea or Costco.

Should we pay for Costco or Ikea’s buildings? No. And we should not pay for any other privately owned businesses capital needs. Just because they call themselves the “San Diego” this-or-that doesn’t mean they are part of the government or entitled to taxpayer support.

If building a stadium is such a “good deal” let the businesspeople build it just like any other business. All the talk about bringing jobs and more tax revenue has been proven to be a fallacy over and over again. Much like the talk of “Super Bowls” being such a revenue engine for the city. It’s a one day party that might have people staying three days to a week, once every 7 to 10 years. There is no written guarantee of anything. What kind of businesspeople enter into relationships where there are no written guarantees? Stupid ones I say. We have seen plenty of “stupid” in deals with the Charger’s just looking at the Susan Golding era.

0

Don Bauder Jan. 27, 2011 @ 10:54 a.m.

You have it pegged perfectly, Ponzi. People lament the state of the schools. But schools suffer every time that redevelopment funds go into a private sector building -- stadium, ballpark, shopping mall, hotel, etc. -- that should be financed with private capital. And then the moguls who get the public to pay for buildings that should be financed with private capital go around boasting that they believe in free enterprise. They shout that business should be able to run without government interference -- that is, until they want a fat subsidy from the government, or they want a bailout. Best, Don Bauder

0

Duhbya Jan. 28, 2011 @ 9:40 a.m.

" Much like the talk of “Super Bowls” being such a revenue engine for the city. It’s a one day party that might have people staying three days to a week, once every 7 to 10 years." And then the NFL a.k.a.No Free Lunch, "threatens" the owners (voters) with the loss of ANY future bonanzas (haha), unless a new stadium is built. In many circles, this is known as extortion.

0

Visduh Jan. 27, 2011 @ 11:20 a.m.

Today's U-T has a piece in the business section about Pete Wilson's opposition to curbing redevelopment districts. He's shown talking to (guess who?) Bahnee D at a luncheon. I thought that he was a good mayor, but I also thought that he put entirely too much time, energy and political capital into rejeuvenating downtown. It took years to finally entice the odious "Dirty Ernie" Hahn to build Horton Plaza. And putting that shopping mall in the middle of the area didn't really do a lot for downtown. Even in its heyday, on weekends the stores within a block or two of the center were closed. Horton Plaza was and is an island of activity in a sea of office buildings.

The center was, of course, a redevelopment project, and was hailed as a great success. That it failed to make downtown a retail mecca and a real center of the city was seldom noted. But even in his twilight years, Pete still clings to the notion that such projects are an unmitigated good. How sad.

0

Don Bauder Jan. 27, 2011 @ 3:45 p.m.

What's sad is that if you look at the UT throughout the debates on the football stadium rehab, and on the $300 million subsidy of Petco Park, the newspaper was forever citing Horton Plaza as a great redevelopment success. It was no such thing, as the store turnover proved graphically. The current owner is tearing down the old Robinson's building that now houses Sam Goody. Why is it being turned down? Because it has so much vacant space. Best, Don Bauder

0

Brian_T_Peterson_DVM Jan. 27, 2011 @ 11:40 a.m.

With regards to redevelopment, the concept of “Sacramento black hole” is a fantasy. Redevelopment enthusiasts like to repeat the “keeping the money local” mantra as a reason for creating redevelopment project areas. The Voice of San Diego has two good articles about how public education, primarily local schools, is the big loser with redevelopment: http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/government/thehall/article_ef41d1d8-2847-11e0-8d71-001cc4c03286.html and http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/opinion/slop/article_74519990-2838-11e0-a64b-001cc4c002e0.html . Sacramento loses, because the state has to backfill the schools’ loss. You may contact Governor Jerry Brown by mail at: Governor Jerry Brown c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 445-2841 E-mail: http://gov.ca.gov/m_contact.php Tell him you agree with the abolition of redevelopment. This will stop your tax dollars from going into the downtown black hole. www.GrantvilleActionGroup.com

0

Don Bauder Jan. 27, 2011 @ 3:48 p.m.

Yes, the state has to backfill the money stolen from educatio, and now the state does not have the money. I am glad that the Voice is doing articles on this. The Reader has felt awfully lonely railing on this topic for a long time. Best, Don Bauder

0

historymatters Jan. 27, 2011 @ 5:43 p.m.

THANK YOU DON!!!! I have been waiting forever for someone to do a piece on the redevelopment scam. It is the root of so many problems. Pleas read my blog on Toni Atkins the State Assembly Majority WHIP and how she was working consulting w/ her wife Jennifer LeSar at LeSar Development Consulting even after she was elected to State Assembly. They were essentially selling their political connections and influence w/ redevelopment agencies to private developers and LeSar continues to do this.

We need to know exactly how rich Toni and LeSar have become of redevelopment dollars. http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs/ive-got-issues/2011/jan/27/why-is-toni-atkins-still-working-as-a-lobbyist-for/

0

Don Bauder Jan. 27, 2011 @ 9:23 p.m.

Yes, that relationship is one that should have been investigated long ago. It has been mentioned in the media. I believe I had it in the Reader some time ago, but I can't remember for sure. Best, Don Bauder

0

historymatters Jan. 28, 2011 @ 2:03 p.m.

My concern is that everytime I turn around Atkins is at an even higher position. She was just elected Majority WHIP! How did this criminal pull that off and why is no one speaking up? Atkins should be in prison not leading the House Majority.

0

Don Bauder Jan. 28, 2011 @ 4:31 p.m.

If all the politicians who belonged in prison WERE in prison the chambers would be well nigh empty. Best, Don Bauder

0

historymatters Jan. 27, 2011 @ 6:24 p.m.

This is an excellent example of what we are getting w/ these millions of tax dollars. Keep in mind the photos look much better than the actual project. http://www.theboulevard.org/Projects.htm

These projects are garbage and they are lying in their reports when they say what the projects will look like and the quality of construction they will give us. They always "value engineer" out all the perks and we end up w/ these awful stucco monstrosities that belong in Temecula.

They also lie about the buildings they are tearing down. The most recent project on the list "the Boulevard"....the developer report NEVER acknowledges there are potential historic buildings on site even though the site contains 1 of only 2 salt box buildings in SD and a the clay tile 7 up bottling factory along w/ a couple original craftsman homes.

The project was passed on fraudulant info as most of these projects are and the city continues to extend this permit from 2005 when they know this info was fraud.

0

Don Bauder Jan. 27, 2011 @ 9:28 p.m.

Fraud is the name of the redevelopment game. Best, Don Bauder

0

Founder Jan. 28, 2011 @ 1:56 p.m.

It should be very interesting to see what becomes of the ReDev. vote!

As mentioned above Atkins and also now State Senator Kehoe were both SUPER PRO ReDev SD Councilmembers so I see them talking about it but not changing much if anything... + It is sad to me that the smaller ReDev. Project Areas (like North Park) are now getting the heat from Sanders/CCDC's "Guacamole Bowl" Stadium deal and may very well not be able to continue to help the residents of those areas...

Link to the ReDev. Agency's Annual Reports: http://www.sandiego.gov/redevelopment-agency/pdf/fy2010rdaannualrpt.pdf

0

Don Bauder Jan. 28, 2011 @ 4:34 p.m.

Downtown hogs the redevelopment projects, thus stealing from the neighborhoods and, of course, stealing from the schools. Best, Don Bauder

0

Founder Jan. 28, 2011 @ 4:47 p.m.

Actually they "gave away" some of their "Low & Low Mod" money to other ReDev. Project Agency's so that they did not have to spend their 20% set aside "Low & Low Mod" money on housing inside CCDC...

This transfer of money from one ReDev. Area to other ReDev. Area, is one of my main frustrations AFTER using the money for projects like the Guacamole Bowl Stadium...

This transfers the much needed "Low & Low Mod" housing to other locations and tends to pack "Low & Low Mod" housing along transportation corridors which are also known as linear ghettos by the folks that are "slammed" by these often large Dense Projects. NTC is another Project Area that is not building "Low & Low Mod" housing inside its area (yet) and is giving away its "Low & Low Mod" money to other Projects Areas in a blatant attempt to reduce or eliminate "Low & Low Mod" housing within it's borders...

0

Don Bauder Jan. 28, 2011 @ 7:25 p.m.

In my opinion, these actions, as you explain them accurately, are a violation of both the letter AND the spirit of redevelopent law. Best, Don Bauder

0

Founder Jan. 29, 2011 @ 2:57 p.m.

Since this "shifting" of ReDev. money is legal, I'm sure that is not a violation But I agree that it is a "Loophole" that allows the elimination and or shifting of "Low & Low Mod" housing within its own borders, which changes the demographic and the "feel" of the neighborhood.

Liberty Station is now very up scale and has little to do with the NTC Project Area that many had envisioned years ago...

Here is more info: http://www.sandiego.gov/redevelopment-agency/pdf/faqredevelopment.pdf

0

Twister Jan. 28, 2011 @ 10:02 p.m.

Then why aren't the relevant jurisdictions prosecuting?

0

Don Bauder Jan. 29, 2011 @ 7:20 a.m.

These are usually challenged in civil suits. For example, a county that is deprived of funds because of a redevelopment scam might protest in court. There are two suits against the hush-hush, late-night caper to extend CCDC's borrowing power so an insolvent city can subsidize to the tune of $600 million the billionaire family owning the Chargers. Best, Don Bauder

0

Brian_T_Peterson_DVM Jan. 29, 2011 @ 7:43 a.m.

The State Controller is looking for evidence of redevelopment fraud. I received this from the GAG (www.GrantvilleActionGroup.com) e-mail list:

Steve Mar of the State Controllers Office wants evidence of Redevelopment fraud and abuse type stuff. They are looking at 14 state redevelopment agencies - closest here Coronado's. If you have specific documentation of same, please get it to him at smar@sco.ca.gov or 916 324-7226. He sez they may refer criminal data for investigation.

0

Don Bauder Jan. 29, 2011 @ 1:31 p.m.

Criminal cases against officials who abuse redevelopment laws would be welcome indeed. And long overdue. Yes, Coronado -- where housing prices are among the highest in the county -- is considered blighted. Best, Don Bauder

0

BlueSouthPark Jan. 29, 2011 @ 9:20 a.m.

There is a meeting on Jan 31 2011 of the "first ever Ad Hoc Committee on Redevelopment" chaired by Gloria. He and his possee " will spend the next year or so studying how to make redevelopment work better..."...if redevelopment still exists legally. Guess that's what the "year or so" means.

You can read his announcement of this glorious new body politic yourself: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150098947139601&id=6430579238

Here is the IBA's Jan 26 2011 report on restructuring RDA: http://www.sandiego.gov/iba/pdf/11_04.pdf

0

Don Bauder Jan. 29, 2011 @ 1:33 p.m.

The way to make redevelopment better is to close the agencies. And send the malefactors to prison. Best, Don Bauder

0

Founder Jan. 29, 2011 @ 3:05 p.m.

Redevelopment can be made better real fast by requiring that all the money go to infrastructure improvements for at least two years or until such time as a better definition of BLIGHT is adopted!

0

Don Bauder Jan. 29, 2011 @ 8:59 p.m.

I suggest much more than two years. And a very tight definition of blight. I also suggest criminal penalties for the malefactors. The Brown administration is looking into such penalties. Best, Don Bauder

0

BlueSouthPark Jan. 29, 2011 @ 5:01 p.m.

Agree. Gloria led the way on the anti-Walmart thing, so maybe his pro-Redevelopment thing will go south too. He could be cursed! (And not just by me.)

0

Don Bauder Jan. 29, 2011 @ 9 p.m.

He is already cursed in two senses of the word. Best, Don Bauder

0

Founder Jan. 29, 2011 @ 3 p.m.

In another year or so, the issue will be studied and that info will then have to be studied, until all the important folks are out of Office...

0

Don Bauder Jan. 29, 2011 @ 9:01 p.m.

Out of office and hopefully in prison. Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister Jan. 30, 2011 @ 8:13 p.m.

Are you aware of the "mini" mall being foisted upon the mayor's neighborhood (Kensington), a SunRoad development that is getting the natives in an uproar over things like traffic and loading up the neighborhood with cars because SunRoad has done a deal, including a reduction of 40 parking spaces in exchange for "low-cost" "housing" units?

0

Don Bauder Jan. 30, 2011 @ 10:24 p.m.

I'm not aware of this. Sunroad again? Sunroad and Jerry Sanders cooking up another scheme? Stop the world. I want to get off. Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister Jan. 31, 2011 @ 7:56 p.m.

Public servants need protection from prosecution for acts in the persecution of their DUTIES, but when they stray from their semper fi (not to the system, but to the PEOPLE, Goddamnit!) fiduciary function they should have compound criminal penalties for breach of the public trust. That which is criminal should be illegal, but they should be protected from innocent mistakes, even stupidity. We don't want them ALL in jail; we need somebody to fill the potholes! But believe me, when the top is this corrupt, the honest ones, the boy scouts and girl scouts are long gone!

Did you see the Redevelopment Committee meeting today? Ch 24. ASS-tound-ing! I laughed all the way through the reading of the independent review, p'd all over myself, s__t my pants, and pewk'd my guts out!

0

Don Bauder Jan. 31, 2011 @ 8:11 p.m.

If they make too many innocent mistakes, or are stupid, they should either be voted out of office (in the case of an elected official) or fired (in the case of a bureaucrat.) You put your finger on San Diego's problem: the corruption is at the top, and works its way down, rather than the other way around. It's called trickle-down crookedness. Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister Feb. 1, 2011 @ 7:33 p.m.

"Boy Scout" and "Girl Scout" are both DEROGATORY appellations for bureaucrats who are naive enough to think that their duty is to the public trust. They are "iced" {given useless work), abused in various ways, and finally driven out, leaving only the cooperative ones who will lackey their ways to retirement.

0

Don Bauder Feb. 1, 2011 @ 9:28 p.m.

...and a very remunerative retirement. Best, Don Bauder

0

Sign in to comment