County Commissioner to City Council: Speak Up

Stadium opponents have been dishing all week about how they wish the City Council would take a page from the County Commission's playbook and throw some real curve balls at the Rays.

When asked about the buzz, County Commissioner Ken Welch had this to say this afternoon: "The county commission is not going to be rushed into making any decisions without the proper protocol."

His advice for his fellow politicos in St. Pete: "Be as direct as possible. If we have questions, we just ask them."

-Cristina Silva, Times Staff Writer

Comments

[Jon McPhee]

Thank you, Commissioner Welch, for speaking up for how legislative bodies should do their jobs. The game is not about throwing curve balls at the Rays owners. It's about using experience and forethought and the expertise that is available to thoroughly understand what's at issue in this kind of transaction. Part of that is parting the curtains and veils that proposers usually use to hide the real shape of things -- hard questions on all the issues that might bite the community starting with the first signed document, through the first spade of dirt, and ending when the last debt is paid.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Thanks to all of our BOCC. When I watched their hearing on Tuesday I thought why can't our City Council make the same effort at doing due diligence?
However I give the guys some credit for rebounding on Thursday at their workshop before the hearing. Thanks to Jamie and Jeff Danner for explaining that they need to be assured everything "works" and is carefully vetted before this is simply put on the ballot. Then there is good ole Bill Dudley who claims that since we didn't get to vote on the original dome..which we all agree was a mistake...we MUST vote this time. Yes by all means...let's correct a past mistake by making another mistake. I see councilman Dudley..2 wrongs make a right? In other words no matter how bad, even at the risk of bankrupting our city, he'll put it on the ballot because we didn't get to vote 20 years ago. Thanks for the proper due diligence Councilman...Duds can't you just come out of the closet and admit you love the Rays proposal. We could at least admire your honesty if not your judgement.
Herb Polson for Mayor!!!!!

[Steve Lange]

And just as the Board of County Commissioners is asking for the facts and detailed information before they vote, so should we the voters, ask for and expect this very same information before we vote on a misunderstood referendum. Voting without the facts is a waste of all of our time, government and the citizens.

Just the facts "first" please, or no vote.

[Jon McPhee]

Let's try to do the right thing here. Here's one resident's thoughts. Anything missing, Thomas? Can we avoid a rush to judgment?

Dear members of the City Council and County Commissioners:

Let me start off by saying that, on principle, I fail to see the wisdom in gifting a huge subsidy and public land and other assets to a private sports team ownership group that is capable of paying for its own assets. That group is running through a well-scripted series of steps that have persuaded other governments to commit such resources to obtain what are described as “unquantifiable” and “inestimable” benefits that supposedly flow from having a sports team in town.

Valuing those benefits may well be a “political” decision, committed by our representative form of government to our elected leaders. But our leaders at least owe a duty to all their constituents to understand as far as prudently possible all the impacts of such a deal, good and bad, and to be prepared to “just say no” at an early enough stage in the process so they are truly negotiating on behalf of the public’s interests and not just acting as a conduit for the transfer of public funds.

I understand that, politically and after serious negotiation, all or some part of this proposal may still go forward. All I, and from what I read many other citizens, ask is that you make sure all the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed before acting in all our names, and hear our voices on the wisdom or unwisdom of the whole thing.

THE NEED FOR DUE DILIGENCE

The City and County are contemplating entering into transactions that potentially involve over $400 million and under some projections closer to $1 billion in transfers of public assets, tax revenues and bonding capacity to several private parties. Any arms-length business transaction of this magnitude would command a major exercise of due diligence, material-issue and fatal-flaw analysis, well before any action that might initiate any legal commitment between the parties.

Possibly, the City and County have already started this due diligence. As representatives of the citizens of the City and County, with the ability not only to commit tax and borrowing resources but to affect the lives and futures of residents in other ways, it seems incumbent on both governments to undertake effective and complete due diligence, including efforts to quantify the risks and true nature and impacts of the proposals. This may require obtaining outside expertise that the governments may need to effectively evaluate the material aspects of the set of transactions now under consideration. This is especially so since the apparent scope of information and level of detail provided by the proposers is far short of what a prudent party would want in advance of any movement toward closing, with all its consequences.

Reliance on projections and possibly unenforceable undertakings by the proposers, without the full disclosure usual in large transactions, along with extensive independent review and explication, would not seem to be prudent.

A very quick review of available resources to inform due diligence inquiries turned up the following resources:

A DEFINITION

I take the liberty of providing a description of transaction due diligence from one source, in relevant part:

“Due diligence is a critical component of any major business transaction. Quite simply, due diligence is the process of investigation employed by a Buyer to ensure that information provided by a Seller is accurate, and to uncover information not provided by the Seller that may affect the outcome of the transaction.

“Due diligence involves extensive analysis, and frequently includes the use of expert opinions. In the case of purchasing a home, most people, at a minimum, analyze comparable neighborhood sales, and tap the expertise of a home inspector to look for hidden problems. This is similar to the due diligence process employed by many venture capitalists, who often seek the help of consultants to evaluate potential investments. External parties are important in the process of due diligence because one person cannot have all the expertise necessary to perform perfect due diligence. Lawyers and accountants are frequently employed in addition to domain experts [for issues like bonding, environmental exposures, and evaluations of returns on investment. JM]

“In any given business transaction the Seller will seek to achieve the highest price for their goods, and as a result has an incentive to polish (if not cover up) any blemishes that would reduce the value for their goods, or preclude the transaction from occurring. It is the responsibility of the Buyer to uncover these blemishes, and to determine how that affects the deal. Due diligence is the response to the cliche "Let the buyer beware."

“The scope of the due diligence will be determined by the magnitude of the business transaction - a merger or acquisition will require much more diligence than a licensing transaction. The first step is to identify a leader or coordinator of the due diligence investigation. The leader then creates the budget, recruits a team, and establishes a confidential disclosure agreement with the Seller. A request for information is presented to the Seller, and the materials received by the Buyer are reviewed for issues. Additional requests for information are made if necessary, and the due diligence team produces a report on their findings. If nothing is significantly amiss, the transaction will be completed. However, if the due diligence team finds problems, the terms or valuation of the deal may be renegotiated, or the deal may collapse entirely.

“Specific areas for investigation in due diligence include corporate history, financial stability, products and the applicable markets, competitors, research and development programs, intellectual property coverage, operations and manufacturing, legal and corporate issues, and human resources.” [This list is not inclusive, especially for the transactions under consideration. JM]

http://www.reportbuyer.com/business_services/misc_business_services/due_diligence_life_science_transactions.html

GUIDES AND RESOURCES FOR APPROPRIATE AND COMPLETE DUE DILIGENCE

There are hundreds of sources for outlines and checklists for due diligence. The following link is to one provider of a basic resource text:
http://duediligence.info/DueDiligenceToc.htm
One of the basic initial items in transactions which involve “partnering” of the scope proposed here is the disclosure of the financial condition and the assets of the sellers, which here are the team ownership group and the developers.

Here is another list, prepared by one of the many attorneys who work in this area and with whom I have absolutely no connection. This was one of the first few items to appear in the Google list from my first search. There are, no doubt, many more attorneys from this area, and other disinterested experts, to which the governments can turn:

http://ezinearticles.com/?Due-Diligence-Checklists---For-Commercial-Real-Estate-Transactions&id=624089

A quick Web search on “transaction due diligence analysis checklist” turns up hundreds more resources. One should not necessarily get into the corner of “paralysis by analysis,” but it appears so far that little disclosure and less analysis have been done, so the public parties are a long way from that corner. Given the history of past publicly funded transactions that apparently relied on rosy projections and a significant amount of wishful thinking, and the size of this set of transactions and the scope of potential risks the public is being asked to assume, some extra caution would seem to be warranted.
One major inquiry, external to the set of transactions itself, but clearly key in relevance, should be examination of the full set of costs and benefits, including items such as displacement effects, experienced by other state and local governments that have given such subsidies before, with awareness of the effects of advocacy by analysts and of similarities to and differences between those situations and the present and potential future conditions in Pinellas County. There will have to be a political judgment at some point in the process too, that depends on the will of the voters as well as the wisdom of their elected leaders and staffs. This is patently a crux in the determination of what this area will “look like” in the future, and should be driven by all the stakeholders, not just a few who might stand to profit.

Possibly, the proposed set of transactions could be altered to change the present visible ground truth that this is simply a very large subsidy to a sports team ownership group which could afford to build its own stadium. Without informed negotiation that is at least as aggressive as the efforts of the proposers, the outcome may once again not be to the public’s benefit. This group has already shown it is willing to play (but not show) all its cards, up to and including the threat to move the team to another venue with complete disregard for the owners’ legal obligations and public undertakings, and does not appear to have been particularly forthcoming on the information presented to the City, County and public to date.

ONE RESIDENT'S QUICK THOUGHTS

My own thoughts, from an initial scan of issues that have already come up, on items that should be on the checklist in addition to the ones in the literature:
• Identification of all stakeholders and veto holders, including at least residents, community groups, government agencies
• Ownership of every parcel involved, present and future, with title and other real property interests from leases to easements to future interests
• Valuation of all public assets involved, with attention to validity of assumptions and projections
• All income streams involved, from tax revenues to rents to subsidiary transactions, e.g. vendors, skyboxes, advertising, naming rights, and potential displacement of present incomes of existing businesses
• All costs involved, including interest on debt service, infrastructure additions, ongoing public services, e.g. at least safety, sewer, water, roads, loss of existing assets such as the present stadium
• Present and prospective market conditions for sports viewing choices, residential property in redevelopment, retail participation in redevelopment, tourist and trade capacities and demands for hotel space, with assessment of validity of projections
• Terms of ownership, both present and prospective, for all properties and interests, including e.g. the proposed ownership group’s office building
• All government approvals required, with time lines for them, whether constitutional, legislative, regulatory, or ownership-based
• Existing comprehensive land use planning and zoning, with means for and nature of any changes required
• Tax status of all properties involved, both present and in the event the proposals go forward
• Analysis of bonding costs and benefits, bond counsel opinion, and possible lost opportunity cost of this use of bonding capacity
• Examination of possible lost opportunity costs of dedicating these properties to the proposed uses
• Risks and benefits of allowing ownership group to control construction and disbursement of public funds and determination of change order-versus-overruns, construction litigation, what entities would be created to manage this work, capitalization, and what oversight and controls would be appropriate
• What impact fees would be appropriate
• Further explication of the traffic and especially parking situation and impacts
• Impacts, duration and effects on residents and businesses from demolition and construction
• Environmental issues and liabilities for all elements of the proposal, including at least assessment of the former gas plant site and any cleanup required, bearing in mind possible residential use of the property
• Nuisance-type impacts from an operating stadium (light, noise, etc.)
• Experiences of and costs and benefits to other communities and governments that have undergone stadium projects, whether publicly or privately funded, with evaluation of validity of analyses in light of advocacy by authors – including stadiums that have been built by team owners or private businesses, e.g. the four identified in the Ownership group’s Power Point slide purporting to show the relative position of this proposal in the universe of recent stadium projects
• Time lines and critical paths for all elements of the project, PERT or whatever

This is the product of just an hour or so of thoughts and research on due diligence. I claim no expertise, but I note that presentations and opinions by “experts” tend to reflect the wishes of the business paying for the opinion. Part of the due diligence exercise is cutting through the selective presentations to get to the real nature and risks and benefits of a transaction. I would hope, however, that any experts to which the City and County turn would be tasked to represent with honest advocacy the interests of the polity as a whole.

It is reported that the County has retained counsel with some experience, to examine this set of transactions. This is at least a hopeful sign, and one hopes the City has done or will do the same.

The municipalities will be retaining bond counsel for the debt obligations they would have to assume before issuance. That counsel will offer an insured legal opinion on the ability of the municipalities to pay back the bonds, likely out of tax revenues that in effect include the entire taxable structure of the city and County, with respect to something more than the proposers’ suggestion that the transactions will pay for themselves out of additional new sales and consequent tax revenues. No less diligence should be undertaken to analyze the risks and benefits of the set of transactions themselves before they are inked.

Sincerely yours,

Jon McPhee

[Rick K]

City Council and County Commission:

I post here as a follo-up to Jon McPhees's very long post about "due diligence."

I am unlike Jon.

I believe you already fully understand your responsibilities and have a good grasp on the best way to assess the suitability of these twin redevelopment proposals.

I am confident you will apply yourselves as you do with respect to each issue you consider.

I openly ask you to be biased during this process, though. I ask you to be biased towards finding a way to let the voters decide, to the extent that this is constitutionally permissable, and as long as nothing comes up in the process between now and the decision deadline which makes these proposals unsuitable.

I am sure you will demand answers to questions. I encourage that.

There are those whose objective is to not let there be any public vote on these matters. I would ask you to resist that objective and try to work with staff and the Rays and whomever else needs to be involved to place the question before voters.

These twin redevelopment proposals represent a major transformative change in our Region and the core downtown of St. Pete. Many people are like me, we are more excited by the potential redevelopment of the Trop site than anything else.

We are tired of having to go to International Mall or Citrus Park Mall or Brandon Town Center to find new, fresh, retail options with a mix of offerings. We are tired of going to Ybor or Channelside with friends to visit multiple bars and clubs within walking distance of each other.

These ideas excite us.

So please let us know what we, in the public, can do to help move these questions from "idea" to the ballot in November.

[C.Manfredi]

To Mr. Aaron Sharockman, A Happy Memorial Day weekend to you.

The Downtown Business Association on Wednesday May 21,2008 had both the "Preserve Our Wallets and Waterfront" (POWW) and the "Fans For Waterfront Stadium" conduct a debate sponsored by The Pier. I video recordered the debate and put it on "You Tube" so others who cannot make it to any debate will get a feel of the issues first hand. They were put in the order as they spoke.

Link to Debate:

http://www.pinellas4insurance.com/debate-page/debate.HTM

Thank You and I hope some of your readers will find this useful.

C.Manfredi

[Jon McPhee]

I actually agree with Rick on something: that this subsidy proposal should be submitted to a vote. Any attempt to infer otherwise is just wrong. Most of the information I have seen indicates that most people here feel the same way.

It also seems clear that the Commission and now the Council, along with an indeterminate number of undecided members of the public, feel the need for some more disclosure and study and information. When that happens, relative to the Al Lang referendum that is the only “vote” we all get, is an open question. It would be nice, for a change, if the voters, who Rick has said in the past usually vote in ignorance on a wide variety of candidates and issues, this time have a clear understanding, at the very least, of the financial realities and risks going into the polling place.

As to the amenities and ambience part of the debate, it looks like according to Rick and a number of other subsidy supporters, it’s the Young Guns, who want a more convenient Ybor with bars and clubs and whatever else goes with Ybor, and high-end shopping without having to drive all the way across the bridge or down to South Florida, and who “own the future,” versus the Cotton Toppers and Blue Hairs who are just waiting to die on their Green Benches.

I imagine both sides would be happy if this was played out as a kind of emotional Rugby scrum. I’m just one individual, who would like to see major public decisions arrived at out of something more than feelings, from irrational exuberance to intolerant hate.

This one voter thinks it is wonderful that all of us each get only one vote, and that each precious one really should count just exactly as much as every other one.

[The Dumbing Of America]

Stu, you must have taken lessons from our wonderful President. Keep telling tales and eventually the public will believe.

[Rick K]

Thank you C Manfredi for shooting / posting / linking to those videos.

Good stuff.

[Rick K]

Jon we are closer to agreement than I think many imagine.

I insist that no matter how much data is available (and I definitely am interested in more data), almost everyone will vote based upon an opinion or emotion.

People will vote based upon whether they like these proposals or not.

It is that simple, really.

[Louis Southard, St. Petersburg]

I find it peculiar that, after sifting through the scant comments on the adjacent blog "The Heater", I see no signs of these rabid Rays supporters, namely Ray F and Rick K, actually supporting their team on those blogs?? Could it be they could care less about their team's day-to-day play because they are not really baseball fans at all, rather they're just paid marketing guys hired by the Rays to take over the Ballpark Frankness blog and turn it into the circus that it has obviously become? One or the other of them (or both in tandem) snipe just about every single opposing view. And they do it for the most part during business hours. And I can assure you they will snipe my comments as well, likely under a new name.

I also find it peculiar when I watched the last City Council meeting as the secretary read off the 600 names and whether they were "for or against", of which those cards were numbered according to who arrived first, a great majority of the "fors" came in groups of 5 or 10 consecutively, which suggest the Rays were busy loading busses of these paid supporters to come downtown and taint the real numbers after they got off work. Additionally, not a single one of the "supporters" that I can recall asked or suggested the City Council begin asking more "tough questions" of this proposal, they just wanted the stadium built at any cost or they wanted to vote. Vote on what? We have hardly any real information beyond a PR campaign. Something to ponder. For the record I am on the fence about this issue and am completely dumbfounded on how anyone could want to force a rush vote when nobody in this entire county has been given any hard facts, numbers or guarantees. I love the Rays but I am beginning to lose patience with the games they seem to be playing off the field.

[Rick K]

Louis,

I am surprised by a few of your remarks. First, I have no idea why you people insist that anyone who supports letting the question of these twin redevelopment proposals come to a public vote must be paid by the Rays.

On the one hand, you claim the Rays have been premature and incomplete in the proposals they have put forth so far, yet you think they are sophisticated enough to hire paid bloggers. I am sorry, but it seems to me that it would make more sense for the Rays to spend whatever money they might wish to spend on bloggers on, instead, answering the many questions that have been put to them.

In truth, I suspect that is precisely what they are doing, since I have not received a penny of contributions from the team, or anyone else, for these comments I post here.

I have ZERO interest in blog/forum debates about sports. While I do happen to enjoy the Rays (much more so this year than in years past, to be honest), reading inane debate about Maddon's belief in pitch counts.

Louis, I don't see my support for letting the public decide these issues (to the extent the public gets to have a say) as being connected to my personal status as an approving fan of the local team. I like the ideas behind these paired redevelopment proposals primarily because I LOVE the idea of redeveloping the Trop Site.

I also think the new waterfront stadium design is cool, and I see many benefits from that. But my attraction to this issue is more about the Trop site. My attraction to these forums is my attempt to keep the debate honest and free of distortion and hijacking.

I do not like bullies. And I will not sit idle while a very small number of people try to lie, cheat, and otherwise use hishonorable tactics to dictate what this City will become.

Read whatever you want into the City Council meeting, Louis. If you are convinced that it provided an accurate representation of the current views in the greater city population, good for you. I am not sure I share that view.

The primary reason that the 'supporters' (a fair number of whom simply asked the Council to let this matter come to a vote, without indicating how they will vote) haven't asked the City Council to ask tough questions is because we take it for granted that they will.

We don't make it a habit of asking cops we encounter daily to protect us; we don't ask firefighters we encounter at the Little League field to remain prepared for fires and other natural disasters.

We expect that our City Commission (and by extension, City staff) will do their jobs.

I have to admit that this difference in views startles me. I have noticed more than a few of the "anti" crowd start out with the view that those who work in government will not do their jobs.

In summary, Louis, most of us who support proceeding down the path towards a November ballot question do not believe we will be without answers in November. We do not believe that we need to know every imaginable detail, 6 months before such a vote.

Instead, most of us believe that the City and County staffs, and our elected officials are quite competent. We trust in the process, which includes press scrutiny, to provide us with suitable answers by the time we vote (if we vote).

When the question is, "Should we take action now that will prevent us from letting people vote 6 months from now," most of us find it hard to answer that question in the affirmative.

[Jon McPhee]

Bullies?

Quoth the Rays Boys, "We don't like the stadium we bargained for. There's too long left on the lease. We don't like the terms we contracted for, or our current puny offices. We want a better, no, a REALLY good subsidy out of public funds, or we're going to take our ball and bat and go somewhere else, leaving you all bereft of the incalculable benefits of having a MLB team willing to take a big subsidy from your community. Gimme, or you're in the toilet."

Wow -- Rick, the Master Misdirector, the Bashaw of Bushwah, the Sultan of Sneer, chiding anyone on alleged misdirection. As far as trusting the staff and our elected representatives, in spite of your repeated assertions that all the information the ignorant electorate and our reps should have to make a half-billion or billion-buck decision, why are so many people, including apparently some Council and Commission members, getting a little testy about unanswered fundamental questions? It's not much of an answer to reiterate that all questions have already been addressed (footnote in very small print-"in enough detail for the schmos to decide already.") It's also not much of an answer that "all will become plain and clear in the fullness of time."

Other footnote, to my entry: police and fire persons have so far stayed in their jobs long enough, after specialized training, to know their jobs pretty well. Did I read that budget shortfalls due to tax revenue shortfalls are leading to losses of staff in safety, education, health, etc.? I don't believe there is an academy that teaches mayors and legislators how to do their jobs. (There is one for judges, most places.) It's like Ronald Reagan said: "Trust, but verify."

[Rick K]

Jon, thank you for proving my point.

The current Rays ownership/management did not participate in the decision to build the Trop at its current site and to its current specifications.

I have no idea why you wish to suggest otherwise.

I have no idea why you are pretending the Rays have not come up with a very imaginative way to greatly reduce the amount of net tax monies necessary to make these deals work, and insist instead on calling it a grab for subsidies. In fact, it looks like the taxes generated by the Trop redevelopment will far outstrip the cost of these deals.

I have no idea why you choose to call me names.

I have no idea why you repeatedly mischaracterize my factual claim that no one who votes is fully knowledgeable (and absent bias) about every issue and candidate they vote upon as an endorsement of less than full disclosure.

You are offering answers I do not fully understand. Without taking my contributions here out of context, I think everyone can see that I have argued time and time again that I believe we will have all the answers we want by November, and those who feel they don't have answers should be free to vote no.

Lastly, I love it when you folks who have no appreciation for the multiple accomplishments of President Reagan misuse one of his most important quotations.

If I have not made it clear, I advocate for more full disclosure. More verification.

I dismiss the silly notion put forth by some that there should be a guarantee and a lack of any doubt or any degree of chance.

I encourage the City, the County and all other bodies and groups to continue on this march.

I encourage everyone to ask as many questions as they want.

Then, I ecourage the BOCC and the SPCC and the public to decide if they think they have enough information to make the decision, when it is time to be made.

Jon, I have no idea if you advocate something different from this. I think many serious people want the same thing. We want questions asked. We want debate. We want votes.

Others don't care HOW it happens, they just want their way to prevail.

I am not in the later group.

[Thomas]

Rick K - Actually you are in your own group.

Any time you want to be accountable for you erroneous slander; your misrepresentation of facts; or your misinterpretation of the plan - just go ahead with a retraction and an apology.

Or maybe you want to just post another "bet" to try to divert attention away from your complete lack of credibility.

[Just an Observer]

All the baseball stuff aside - I must say I am amused that the same BOCC who rubber-stamped a land deal profiting an elected county offical at the expense of taxpayers would now like to lecture us on the merits of "due diligence".

Pretty funny that there BOCC.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rick K,
You speak often as if the taxes generated by redevelopment are fact...yet in the same post you point out the folly of hoping for any guarantee against this gamble. Why should we take this gamble when there is no need. Perhaps you've arrived too late on the scene to remember the 40 million dollar fiasco that was Bay Plaza. Or maybe you haven't read what happened this year as the citizens of Tampa became stuck with a $750,000 annual loss of interest only, because the city simply guaranteed (co-signed) on a federal loan on 9 million for a 47 million dollar project. Certainly the Ybor city location looked more promising than the current polluted Trop site. The adjoining neighborhood assn. to the trop site literally celebrates when therer is less gunfire from one month to the next. Just because you want to blindly accept projections from New York investment bankers who stand to make hundreds of millions (doesn't make them bad...simply makes them investors and gives them a HUGE conflict of interest) doesn't mean the majority of St. Petersburg residents are such rubes!!!

[Rick K]

Thomas, I recommend you call 211.

They can help.

atrulyconcernedcitizen:

You and I see things differently.

This does not surprise me.

For every development deal there are many naysayers and people who are certain "it" won't work.

Those people have never impressed me very much.

That is not to say the naysayers won't ulitmately prevail in these debates. Of that, I am not sure.

You can look at these twin revelopment proposals and claim that the main reason you don't like these proposals is because they are offered by "New York Investment bankers."

Some would suggest you are using coded words to hide your bigotry. I don't know you, so I won't make that connection.

Many who stumble upon this blog for the first time and read through the various comments are stunned by the narrowmindedness of the anti side. Many antis actually believe that ANYONE who is favor of letting this public process move forward must be a paid employee of the Rays.

Being so narrow minded that one thinks all opponents are motivated by personal payment is not the sort of thing that impresses any newcomer to these discussions.

You make the connection to the citizens of St. Pete being rubes. That strikes me as funny. The people who have vision and can see likely economic realities in the future are not usually characterized as rubes. On the other hand, people who put their heads down, cover their ears, and shake their heads stubbornly while screaming, "NO!" are usually closer to what mosty people picture when they hear the word "rube."

I don't really need to label people. I don't think for one second that those who post in this blog represent a proportional reflection of the likely outcome of a public ballot question.

[Amused Observer]

Truly Concerned: All cost/benefit analysis attempts to predict likely streams of income and expenses. Are you saying there will not be taxes? Have you not been to International Mall?

[My Eyes are Bleeding]

thanks to Jon McPhee for keeping his most recent diatribes less than 15 paragraphs .... your prose in this blog are PAINFULLY BORING to read

[Freedom Man]

Larry needs to read more of these threads if he thinks that the name calling and uncivil interaction is fairly equal here.

[Chris Jenkins]

Thor! I do so love your contributions. You make it difficult to keep up with you with all your name changing pseudonym stuff, but in the end, prose don't lie (sorry Shakira!).

FreePlug, Freedom Man...feeling patriotic? And love the gender cross! Awesome.

Rick K, keep that spin coming, buddy. Delicious. I'll have mine with a side of pompous self righteousness...I see it's your daily special!

[Is it me or does Chris seem like a waiter?]

Chris. You aren't funny.

[Chris Jenkins]

Yup, that's me. Posting comments while waiting tables.

(Psss...Thor's a horrible tipper.)