Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Camden Neighborhood Association PRESS RELEASE":
Joe, I have an interesting bit of information for you. I have a friend that was attending a SU sorority meeting tonight that was interupted by a SU fraternity guy with some flagrant SAPOA information. She told me that he stated that his landlord, by the name TJ (I'm assuming TJ Maloney), told him that he needed to get SU student renters registered to vote in the up coming Salisbury Council elections. He stated that he was told that student renters would be served eviction notices for failure to vote for Dryden, Dixon and Boda and blatantly denounced Cohen, Spies and Mitchell. He continued the explain how Cohen, Spies and Mitchell are going to force the 4-2 legislation upon college students making renting extremely expensive and unaffordable. He did not hand out any printed propaganda, but he did distribute voter registration forms.
This is clearly going to far legally, morally and ethically. SAPOA has made it perfectly obivious that they do not care for their tenants nor do they care to fight in a fair manner during this election. It is also interesting that SAPOA truly believes that they can get SU students to register to vote, but what they fail to realize is that a great majority are either not truly residents of Salisbury (most use their home address as their residence)or the students live in the County. Keep in mind that the Students dorm ARE NOT in the City so on campus residents are not considered residents.
To me, this is clearly voter intimidation and should not be tolerated. Is there any legal action that can be taken to curb these types of actions? I think that it would be adviseable for Cohen, Spies and Mitchell to hold open candidate forums on SU's campus to explain their platform and how it will truthfully affect SU students.
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
61 comments:
Thanks for posting this Joe! I would have love to posted my identity, but unfortunately that would leave me in a vulnerable situation. I just hope that a few more SU student renters or other renters chime in to further confirm and verify my statement.
No. There is no legals action that may be taken because there is no proof. This is all hear-say. This is propaganda. And who's to say that SAPOA is behind this. How do you know that our friends in Camden aren't just spreading a crock. You don't because you can't trust anyone in this city. OUT WITH THEM ALL. Its time for a fresh start. Salisbury politics is like a bad case of hemorrhoids.
I'll bet that guy was Stu L. in his "Joe College" disguise
This sounds like a SAPOA tale made up to entice those three candidates to go to their BS forum at SU. If the author will not identify themselves, they should name one faculty or staff member who was there to verify the story. Better yet, report it to the Board of Elections to investigate the "voter intimidation".
Questionable.
Maloney is too smart to do something like this. (Other landlords, not so much.)
No, "our friends in Camden" wouldn't cook this up either. I have friends in Camden and get sick of hearing attacks like the one posted here.
If this is true, Joe, the student should swear an affidavit or whatever to the state's attorney office. Beware, Joe, your blog is going to get used by the usual low lifes for misinformation, just like they make every election ugly.
So an Anonymous person says that someone came somewhere and said that they were all being alledgedly threatened by someone else in a way that is impossible to trace, improbable to believe, and unconfirmable.
Great.
Mr. Maloney was my landlord for a year. He provided a great and safe home for us to live in. They irrigated the lawn and cut the grass every week and maintained the home very well. They were the best landlord I had in Salisbury. However, someone representing my landlord (Not Mr. Maloney) did stop by asking us to register and vote for certain candidates who do not support the 4-2 legislation. But we were never threatened by eviction and I strongly doubt he would say that. Besides how would he know who the students voted for?
"This comment worthy of a post" is sketchy
So college students can vote - but a long time business property owner can't..... makes a whole lot of sense.
You all think this is sketchy, but we know that the SAPOA guys are giving money to these candidates in their secretary's names. Unless you really believe a secretary coughed up $500 for a local city council race, you have to admit that these guys are sketchy and will do anything to win this election. I look forward to seeing the next financial reports, when surely Mr. Boda and his pals will reject donations from people who use such sketchy tactics.
Sketchy, maybe, but it fits with the nastiness done to Jim Ireton and before that to Tim Spies.
Here's hoping the students don't get duped again. They were told to vote for Gary Comegys and the first thing he did was make noise a crime while students were out of school.
SU students any anyone else who is interested may attend a candidate' forum on March 24th at 7:15 p.m. at Bethany Lutheran Church on Camden Ave., just a few blocks south of the campus. The forum is sponsored by the Camden Association.
Anybody who follows the city issues knows that if Cohen and Spies get elected it will be open season on the rentals. This will directly hurt college students...to disagree is a lie. With Debbie, Terry, and Tim you can believe every issue that deals with rentals will be back on the table including 4-2...if i were a college student i would register and vote!!! It's not against to law to register people ask acorn!!!
Anon 8:49, yeah, that's why Comegys voted for the noise ordinance against students. That's why rentals are still here and 4 to 2 has been proven to be written for landlords. Because of social networking sites, students now share their horror stories of the the landlords and rentals here in Salisbury. You no longer have the luxury of student ignorance. Their memories and reach now extend beyond 4 years. Students are no longer the tools landlords still think they are.
SAPOA has only one thing in mind and that's $$$$$$$$. It's what they do.
Richard Insley tried this trick four years ago and was outed. We haven't heard from him since.
Comegys made noise a crime - he said, "We have to get this passed before the students come back!"
Tim Spies and others stood up for the students and against adopting the noise law, saying that it was way over the top. Comegys and his two majority buddies voted it in anyway.
SAPOA is freaking out because the new dorm at SU will take at least 200 student rentals out of circulation.
Sounds like voter registration in Libya!
I know when I was young if the Status Quo, estasblishment had made such a statement I would have done the exact opposite.
I like the fact that SU is building more dorms to house their own students. When it comes to parties and noise they can police their own without interupting service of the SPD.
Just makes good common sense. Kudos to SU.
This statement is 100% true! I was at the same meeting last and couldn't believe it myself. I'm just glad that my parents are my landlords on not these scumbags.
If this is true, what dirty, underhanded tactics these people use. Students, you are in college, think for yourself and don't fold under the guise of someone threatening to evict you. Call Terry or Tim and see how they stand on the issues. I believe they are holding a meeting at Bethany Church sometime soon. Go to it, ask questions and get answers for yourself, don't believe all the BS you hear. SOPOA you just need to stop all the crap that is associated with your group.
Oh please. Even IF someone showed up and made the threat, you people seem to forget one basic tenet of voting.... IT'S ANONYMOUS! So how in the world is someone going to evict you for not voting for them if they have no clue who you voted for. The POST is extremely questionable. I would think that decently educated college students (not to mention all of you "folks") would have figured this out.
Have any of you- ANY OF YOU- read the "Safe Streets" Neighborhood Legislative package? Cohen, Campbell, and Ireton spent months drafting a bill that would force ALL converted single family homes to convert back. Period. If not now, then in 10 years. It really is that simple. Of course SAPOA is going to fight Cohen and Spies tooth and nail. Can you blame them? The city is literally trying to liquidate their investments out from under them! Its right there in print! Read it! You will see on page two that they expect these landlords to dredge up zoning records (which the city no longer has in possession) that were written prior to 1936!! If they do manage to find these papers, (which would cost thousands of dollars per property to locate) THEY STILL HAVE TO CONVERT THEIR PROPERTIES IN 10 YEARS!! THEY ARE LITERALLY TRYING TO OUST EVERY SINGLE RENTAL HOUSE IN THE CITY. Explain to me how Cohen and Campbell are standing up for tenants? Explain to me why T.J. Maloney shouldn't tell students to vote? Because right now their option is vote or get kicked out of the city. As a student who needs somewhere to live, I gotta tell ya, I'd rather vote. And I plan to.
They are not trying to oust EVERY SINGLE RENTAL, only non-conforming uses in single-family residential neighborhoods. This means apartments, duplexs and quadplexs will stay. This means rentals in every other neighborhood will stay. This means CONFORMING rentals in single-family neighborhoods will stay. It's only trying to phase out what should not have been in single family neighborhood to begin with - BOARDING HOUSES.
Yes they are. It says it right there in black and white, that illegally and legally converted non conforming rentals will be forced to convert back. That means that if you followed the rules and did everything by the book to turn an enormous single family home into a quality living space for 4 people (which would require minimum conversion anyway since most of these places already come with 4 or 5 bedrooms) that you still have to convert that property back to a single-family unit. Its time to call a spade a spade: the city doesn't want rentals in its neighborhoods, regardless of whether they are run by good or bad landlords. They make no distinction between a 4 bedroom house with four people living in it and an actual boarding house. And for the record, I lived in a property that actually used to be a boarding house in Salisbury which was legally converted to a student rental and it was awesome. Having happily lived in one of these legally subdivided, enormous buildings that you want to expel from the city, I can tell you that I was more than comfortable in it and so was everyone else. Even if a "small family" required that much living space, there is absolutely no way that they could afford the utilities. You (and the rest of the Camden Neighborhood Association) really need to update your facts and your expectations; they are unrealistic, antiquated and morally wrong. If you want a peaceful neighborhood, try talking to your neighbors- drafting a bill that would kick them out of their houses comes of as passive aggressive...and evil.
All we ever hear from the Spies and Cohen supporters is whining. If you folks didn't have SAPOA to hate, you wouldn't actually have a platform or a religion. Ironically, the very people who cry out the loudest about the horrors of the rental industry are the same people who have completely refused to seek solutions to problems in a reasonable way without perpetuating this ridiculous name calling and inacurrate vilification. Remember Camdenites, it is your favored candidates that actually have it in for tenants and landlords. And your own words have proven that point.
LetsBlogical said: "It says it right there in black and white, . . . non conforming rentals." Did you read what you wrote? Whether they were legally or illegally converted, they are non-conforming uses, which means they are uses in a neighborhood where they are not supposed to be. Which means they are not zoned for that neighborhood. Every place else in the state phases out non-conforming uses over time, usually ten years or so. Some of these non-conforming uses have been there much longer than that. That doesn't change the zoning of the neighborhood and that doesn't give them the right to stay there. As for your logic that big houses can't be converted back to single family homes, tell that to all the single families living in those big houses in Camden. Yes they can. And lastly, I'm not a Camdenite. I don't live in the Camden neighborhood. Tar me with a different brush.
Students , time to take up arms and fight. The power is yours , if it weren't for you guys , salisbury would be down the tubes even further. If you get a threat , team up and beat the crap out of the person.
Fine. How about the brush of an outdated elitist who is so hellbent on "purifying the neighborhoods" that they will resort to regulatory blackmail in order to get their own way. Nevermind the millions of dollars that have been invested in these houses (some of which have been here, providing quality homes to good people, for over 40 years), nevermind the thousands of tenants who will literally have nowhere to go once they are displaced, nevermind the hard-working people who have actually tried to improve this sad excuse of a city that will be foreclosed and in debt, nevermind the collective drop in property value that will effect the homeowners and renters alike that will result in the monetary ruin of Salisbury as a whole, and nevermind the fact that rental properties weren't hurting you in the first place. You want them out. Because their house doesn't match yours. Yea, I can read what I wrote, can you? Cause what you wrote is that antiquated zoning laws should take precedence over human lives. If you are ok with that, so be it. But I'm not. And you shouldn't expect anyone else to be either.
"Blogical" you are definitely a landlord. Recently you advised me to take a loss and move out of the city. Now again: stop whining, move into the city - to your rental preferably-and vote in the city. Or beter yet - living in the city you could run for office here!
And btw - the law would be implemented for ILLEGALLY converted houses.
I wish you would a) stop calling me a landlord, (I happen to be a tenant who knows what I'm talking about) and b) read the legislation before you comment on it. You are misquoting it and don't know what you are talking about.
Anon5:32...just read the law. If the owner can't "prove" when the house was converted they would only have a year to convert it back to single family...if they can "prove" when the house was converted and fits into the proper dates it will be allowed to operate for 10 years. That means All all rentals wether "legally" or "illegally" were converted would have to back to single family and have NO more than two unrelated tenants living in the house...the concern is what happens to the tenants?
The questions that the students should ask are...Are you happy with the current 4-2 law or are you going to revisit that topic? Are you going to increase the fees for registering a property (increase in rent)? Are you going to keep allowing the random neighborhood inspections without notice to Homeowners and Renters? How many more layers of government are you going to add which dilutes the effectivness of your departments? These are just a few...however we will here..how are you going to fight crime? how do intend on bringing business downtown...and others.
I'd like to see SU build a ton of their own dorms and leave the crooks of the rental industry with a boatload of empty houses. Then they wouldn't have so much money to throw around and mis-inform people during every election.
5:32.... You are definitely not a landlord. Law will be implemented on legally converted homes as well. Meaning, homes legally converted decades and decades ago would be forced to revert back to single families within ten years. Unfair way to treat low income individuals/families and people that invested in Salisbury. If you had rental properties in Salisbury you would know the situation better.
SU needs to house most of their students on campus so that single family homes can once again be made affordable to families in Salisbury, Fruitland, and other area towns. And remember that Orville Dryden's son-in- law is involved in real estate and rental properties.
Since you refuse to read it I've highlighted (and even capitalized in the highlighted areas) the parts of this bill that you think I'm wrong about. I've done all the hard work for you. See for yourself. Cambell, Cohen, and Ireton spent months writing it- lets take a look at all of their hard work (which cost the taxpayers $10,000+).
Neighborhood Legislative Package,P1
"WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council find that SINCE 1936(!!), the year the first zoning ordinance was enacted in the City of Salisbury and continuing to date, there has existed within the City the practice of converting single-family residences located in single-family zones to use as multi-family residential uses;"
"WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council recognize that the City of Salisbury's records concerning zoning enforcement do not always provide sufficient data to determine the scope of conversions to unlawful multifamily uses and, in many cases, THERE EXISTS NO ADEQUATE MEANS OF DETERMINING WHICH RESIDENCES HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY CONVERTED to multifamily residential use subject to prosecution under the zoning ordinance;"
"WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council have determined that IT IS DIFFICULT FOR ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS TO ASCERTAIN which residences located in a single-family zone are lawful uses, unlawful uses, or lawful non-conforming uses and that attempting to enforce the zoning code on a case-by-case basis in this context would place an undue burden on the taxpayer,"
Neighborhood Legislative Package P2
"WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council ARE AWARE that some of the single-family residences converted to multi-family residential uses are owned by individuals and entities WHOSE LIVELIHOOD IS LARGELY DEPENDANT UPON INCOME FROM RENTAL UNITS;"
"WHEREAS, the purpose of these amendments is to promote the goal of returning nonconformance to conformance by ending unlawful nonconforming uses, establishing uniform standards and criteria for remedying the problem of unlawful AND IN SOME CASES, LAWFUL conversions from single-family to multifamily residential uses and..[..]..recognizes that enactment of this amendment to the zoning code may create PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES OR UNUSUAL HARDSHIPS."
Neighborhood Legislative Package P3****
"ANY REGISTERED BUILDING OR STRUCTURE LOCATED IN A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE WHICH AS BEEN CONVERTED FROM A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND USED CONTINUOUSLY AS A MULTIFAMILY DWELLING MAY CONTINUE THE USE FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED TEN YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE..[..]..AT THE END OF THE TEN YEAR PERIOD, THE LAWFUL NONCONFORMING USES SHALL BECOME UNLAWFUL..."
P.S. You want proof I'm not a landlord? I'll meet you any time, any place. Just name the date.
LetsBLogical is none other than Kris Adams. No need to meet I know where your office is located and we have met. I am one of your tenants soon to be former tenant.
Let's B Logical called me an outdated elitist hellbent on purifying the neighborhoods. Wrong again. I'm too poor to afford to live in those nice single-family neighborhoods. That said, those neighborhoods won't stay nice if people keep putting in non-conforming uses. The neighborhoods were established for single families to raise their kids in. They were not established for multiple families at higher densities. They were not established for a transient population of college students that could change with each semester or school year. They were not established for migrant workers or any of the other renters packed in there. Buying into that neighborhood you probably were informed your building was non-conforming yet you chose to buy it anyway because the landlords controlled the city and who was going to enforce the law? You chose to invest in a non-conforming property, now you cry foul that it's days are numbered. Sounds like a poor investment to me. As for the City not keeping proper records, you can thank Barrie Tilghman for that. Remember that huge shredding truck before she left office, a lot of those records went there so that certain shenanigans couldn't be traced. Judging by all the ranting over this topic, it sounds like the landlord faction is really running scared. Good. It's about time.
7:51 Based on that little outburst, I think I am correct in calling you an outdated elitist.
7:50 Kris Adams is gonna get a good laugh if you show up at her office, cause I'm not her. If I've told you once I've told you a hundred times, I'm a student, a renter, and an informed citizen. Apparently thats a rare combination around here, but thats what I am. I'd still be happy to meet with you, Lord knows that you could use an education. You just let me know what place and time work for you and I'm there. I'll think you'll find that I'm quite charming in person although, I can't say I'm so sure about what's coming my way.
college student huh? i have shoes older than you then and you are going to tell me how things are done here. what a laugh. take a look around kid, there are plenty of empty houses. there is no shortage of housing. if it passes, like in any democracy you just can't make everyone happy history 101 but you can make some convert back to family dwellings.
Looks like you're going to be mighty unhappy old fart
Buy some new shoes.
Boy, I would like all my students to be that informed! In any field for that matter.
If we are not on your intelectual level - MOVE AWAY 8:12
You know Joe, after reading this heated conversation, the original post still only amounts to hearsay. In realty, the landlords actually haven't been heard by the administration or the council members who drafted the legislation, so it is illogical for the landlords to be in support of those same folks as candidates. Seems to me, if the legislation passes, some tenants are going to be out of a place to live. So, if the landlords are letting the tenants know the facts and encouraging them to vote, I don't think that is wrong. This whole situation seems so extreme. I think if we had had better leadership that encouraged honest thoughtful communication, these extreme positions could have been avoided and we could have come to some effective solutions without the animosity. It's a shame this is the sole issue that will make or break an election in Salisbury.
I have lived in the same house in Camden for over 40 years. We raised our children here. The house next to me is a college rental, and I have no problem at all with these young people. One would hardly know that anyone lives there, they are so quiet. The house was not always that way. Under the previous owner, a well-known renter to college students, the house was a nuisance--loud parties and all the attendent problems. The new owner renovated the house inside and out and then carefully screened who rented there. If all landlords were as responsible as these owners are,people wouldn't be complaining so much.
It is a shame that the word "renter" has come to have such a negative connotation. My wife and I, as young newlyweds, rented an apartment, also in Camden, in what had been a single-owner home at one time. We also rented in a similar old building on N. Division. Both of those buildings are still multi-family apartments. How many of us, as a matter of fact, were not renters at one time? Yes, there is a proliferation of students now--when I attended Salisbury State, most students were "day hops," living at home, or lived in the dorm--but if landlords followed the law and made their tenants obey the law and the provisions of their own contracts, we could all live in harmony.
Don't worry about all those poor renters being displaced if a few non-conforming rentals are eliminated. Once Rinnier's dorm goes active, there will be plenty of surplus rentals on the market for any displaced persons.
So funny to see the SAPOA apologists here. Logical, how about you answer one question for me: do you really think a secretary contributed $500 to the city council candidates? Does that seem "logical"? No? Then you have to admit that these people are crooked and willing to bend the laws in a desperate attempt to control an election in acity where they do not live. Just look at the financial reports, and that is all you need to know.
Anyone who believes this crap I have a oceanfront property in Wango that I would like to sell you!
Blogo, just go protest somewhere, preferably the mexican border
Blogo, just go protest somewhere, preferably the mexican border
Before I begin I would like to state that i am neither a landlord nor a SAPOA puppet. I simply hold an avid interest for the community in which I attend college. I find it difficult to believe that a lawyer made this mistake. There has been so many variations of news revolving around this legislative package that there is no way of knowing exactly what is rumor and what is factual. There is just too much gray area to have a firm grasp on the situation. Even the government documents are vague. Those of you who seem to have harsh opinions towards renters, landlords, and SAPOA might want to take a step back and consider your own situation. Renters are not in able to purchase a home so they rent. How many of you owned a home when you were in college? Landlords depend on this income to support themselves much like you depend on your income to support your family. And SAPOA is simply an interest group much like the Camden Neighborhood Assoc. If you have a problem with your neighbor then you confront your neighbor and try to make right. You don't try to get them kicked out of their home. That's what this is. Along with increased student housing on campus, there will also be an increase in enrollment. There will be no decrease in student renters. The repercussions of driving college students out of the area would have a drastic impact on the economy. Nearly 8000 students bring their money here and stimulate businesses. Your employers. Landlords and renters have been attacked. If you worked with them rather than against them, you might be pleasantly surprised by the help that they will provide to you.
As for this whole press release thing. If you go around listening to what every Harry, Dick, and Joe say then you've got a case of the middle school syndrome. The only difference is that people's income is on the line. Would you just stand by if somebody was presenting a plan to reduce or eliminate your income? Your livelihood? There is no factual support to this press release and I have to say that it seems rather tactless and desperate on the Camden Neighborhood. Association's part. Are we really resorting to rumor and hearsay to establish a following. If that's the type of organization that you want to be affiliated with then count me out. My morals tell me that one should base their opinions off of fact rather than gossip. Truthfully, I don't particularly think that SAPOA really cares about this press release. They are confident that the people will see it for what it is. A farce.
10:31,
You are wrong. Still no answer from anyone from SAPOA about the fact that $500 in campaign contributions supposedly came from a secretary. That is a fact, so perhaps you ought to start from there when you are deciding whether people capable of that are also capable of going to students and making up lies. One of these days these guys are going to get caught, and it will be a great day.
10:44,
You are claiming that I am wrong yet you provide no supporting evidence with regard to any one of my statements. You have no response from SAPOA about this $500 contribution so what have you got to work with. You my friend are a prime example of what is wrong with this community. You're willing to believe anything that you hear rather than thinking for yourself. You are obviously unwilling to reason with anybody. Why don't we drum up the little topic of Safe Streets money being used for this neighborhood legislative package. Is that a moral thing to do. Well that's the type of government you're supporting. Honestly, I haven't done my research about his $500 contribution but I'm certainly not going to take your word for it. I will do some research and get back to you with my thoughts on that. In the mean time, if you are going to respond to me please make it pertain to what have have stated. Furthermore, you establish broad generalizations about these people based upon what you want to hear. I bet you don't watch what they have to say on Pac14. You have only one thing on your mind. Attacking a group of people whom you've never even met face to face.
Hi Joe- I was actually in the meeting as an adviser and the college student who came in distrubting voter registration forms, read a written statement from his landlord denouncing Cohen, Spies and Ford. The college student was very ill-informed and when I asked him if he had even been to the websites of the candidates he was denouncing he said he did not. I even asked who he was going to vote for since he was not going to vote for those 3- he had no idea who was even running. He said his landlord came over and asked for his help in spreading the word and made statements like if you get even an alcohol citation you can be evicted and that Cohen, Spies and Ford support legislation to allow any police officer to randomly enter your house without warning. When I asked him who his landlord was he said "TJ" and then quickly stopped talking. I politely reminded that chapter to do their research before voting as with any election and I told the kid collecting the forms to also look up their websites to see if he really believes everything he hears. Its sad how quickly people will latch onto ideas without doing any research to validate the points they are expressing.
Well 10:59, what do you say now? Looks like there's support that this took place.
"Honestly, I haven't done my research about his $500 contribution but I'm certainly not going to take your word for it. I will do some research and get back to you with my thoughts on that."
Easy to do: look up the financial statements (available online). You will see I am right about the $500. Once you see that, I hope you will come back and admit it. And when you do see that, perhaps you might grant me that people who would do that would also be willing to do what three people have now described.
And it is pretty funny that you think I haven't met SAPOA members. I have met many. Some are good. Some are tearing this city up. Those are the ones I am calling out, and will continue to call out.
@6:43.....homes in Salisbury are cheap. I'm sure every landord would love to sell their homes right now. Guess what no ones buying them....how do you connect that to students? Warped logic
Thought individuals could only give 250...do you know Joe?
1:10 pm With your financial logic, I counter that Tim Spies and Terry Cohen have been bought and paid for by the Camden Association which is in fact a special interest group. Most of their donations came from the Camden Association members so there is no doubt they will do the CA's bidding without hesitation. In fact, if they win, why don't we just transfer the council chambers to Debbie Campell's living room because we all know that is where city decisions are going to be made for the next 2 years at least.
3;26,
The secretary is down for giving $250 to 2 candidates, both of whom SAPOA supports, thus the $500.
the worst part is that this in the focus of everyones attention jncuding our mayor and meanwhile someone visiting family was robbed at gun point in our city park while walking his dog ........................
Perky little Logical, should be named Hysterical.
Cohen is on record as not supporting the amortization bill as written.
Spies, too.
Oh what a tangled web you weave, when first you practice to deceive.
You tried to use this against Ireton and he beat your boy Comegys, who made noise making a crime while you were away.
You tried to use this against Campbell and she beat your boy Boda 2 to 1.
You tried to use this against Cohen her first time and she still got on council.
You said the city would collapse with 4 to 2 even with the compromise and that renters would be severely hurt. Didn't happen.
So here you go again.
Give it up and help Salisbury live in peace. Tell mommy she might actually make a better profit.
Salisbury...same day, same old...
Illogica:
Your reply to the truths mentioned here? Or have you given it up and changed your lies to another topic?
Post a Comment