Don't Be Afraid to Show Off Royal Oak's Downtown -- It's One to Be Proud Of

While some paint a picture of Royal Oak's downtown as the second coming of Bourbon Street, it is actually a vibrant mix of residences, businesses, and restaurants; a downtown to proudly show off.

Having carefully read and considered the recent string of posts by former City Commissioners Mike Andrzejak and Chuck Semchena, and related commentary by some Patch readers, the same thought keeps entering my mind: We can’t be living in the same city.  Because the city described by Messrs. Andrzejak and Semchena is not the Royal Oak I know and love.  The city they depict is an almost post-apocalyptic Atlantic City – a city overrun, 24-hours a day, 7-days a week by drugs and alcohol; a city nobody would ever want to move to, much less visit, shop or eat at, or locate their business in.  Reading their columns, it’s a wonder our city remains standing at all and that we haven’t turned into the burned-out, run-down town depicted in the movie Robocop (though based on the commentary of our former city commissioners, surely if we allow one more BBQ place to open that serves alcohol, or one more steakhouse that may want to allow their patrons to have wine with their prime rib, we’re certainly going to meet that fate.  Maybe it’s a good thing the Robocop franchise is being reborn so a new generation can see what reality these former commissioners believe awaits us in just a few short years).

Of course, our city isn’t the second coming HBO’s Boardwalk Empire.  It’s in many ways thriving.  And I should know – I have lived in the downtown since late 2007, when I bought my home on Main Street just past 11 Mile, or, in an area our former commissioners   I think they meant to use the term pejoratively, but I take it as a compliment.  The Emagine Theater, a beautiful, successful, welcome addition to our downtown is certainly a “hotspot” and, as I predicted it would when I defended it against the unsubstantiated claims of these same former city commissioners, it is attracting new businesses to our city while not creating any of the alcohol, parking, or traffic concerns so many used as scare tactics when the theater was first proposed. 

Now, before I continue, let me answer a question I’m sure many may wonder.  “Of course this guy supports bringing more bars to our city – he’s 28-years-old – it’s him and his friends that are part of the problem and causing our downtown to be overrun with drunks.”  Surely that would be one of my first reactions upon reading this column.  But, like so many of the other arguments lobbed by the former City Commissioners and their supporters, the caricature is just that.  Truth is, you probably won’t find many 28-year-olds more intolerant of loud, obnoxious drunk people causing problems in our downtown than me.  I don’t drink alcohol, never have, and I can count the times I’ve been to Blackfinn on one hand (okay – maybe two – it’s a decent place to watch a game).  My point isn’t to denigrate Blackfinn, which itself gets unfairly caricatured, but to say this: As a homeowner in our downtown, and as a person who far from stumbling home at 2:00 a.m. is someone who would rather not be brought out of bed by hollering and yelling from Main Street below (which I overlook), I have no interest in seeing Main Street transform into Bourbon Street (though, I will say, I did visit downtown New Orleans for the first time this past January and found it to be a wonderful, engaging, and hospitable city).  But I also know that the Royal Oak I live in, the downtown I live in, is not the booze-filled, crime-infested city I have seen the former commissioners and some of their supports describe it as.  And it’s about time more people stood up for our city, and the downtown, instead of running it down and chasing new families, businesses, restaurants, and visitors to neighboring municipalities. (And here I have to credit both and for their thoughtful takes on this issue and for standing up for our downtown).

Reading the columns from our former commissioners and the comments attached to those posts, you would literally be afraid to walk downtown at night, or any other time of the day for that matter.  But that’s not the Royal Oak I see on a daily basis.  I see a downtown filled with people of all ages and backgrounds; seniors and families; young professionals grabbing dinner at Gemmayze, desert at Estoria, and yes, maybe a drink at Blackfinn or Fifth Avenue (God forbid).  Teenagers buying videogames at Gamestop, getting a new phone at Verizon wireless, and maybe a drink at Goldfish Tea or Caribou Coffee.  I don’t see a bar on every corner; I see ice cream shops and clothing stores; cupcake factories and pizza joints.  I see a place to grab a bagel, a place to grab a hamburger, and a place to grab my mom a Mother’s Day present.  I see law offices and yoga studios, Stagecrafters and Mark Ridley’s Comedy Castle, and yes, I see 526 Tequila Blue and Goodnight Gracie’s. 

When I look at the Downtown Development Authority webpage, and the businesses it lists there, I see 10 “clubs and bars”, 2 “breweries”, a “cocktail lounge”, a “comedy club”, 4 “theaters”, 8 “coffee and tea houses”, 56 “restaurants”, 7 “sweet and pastry” shops, 8 “alternative and vintage clothing” stores, six “antique and collectable” stores, six “art galleries”, 16 “clothing” stores, 4 “children, infant & maternity clothing” stores, 3 “fitness” gyms, six “footwear & accessories” stores, 7 “gifts, cards, and books” stores, 8 “grocery and specialty foods” stores, 6 “home furnishings and decorations” stores, 4 “jewelry” stores, 19 “salons, spas, barbers, & beauty product” stores, and 8 “specialty stores.”

I also see a busy downtown business and office presence.  According to the DDA’s website, the downtown is home to 6 “accounting, booking, & tax preparation services”, 15 “advertising & marketing services”, 8 “architectural services”, 2 “automotive sales & services”, 5 “banks & credit unions”, a chiropractor, 3 churches, 6 ‘”civic & nonprofit organizations”, two dentists, 3 schools, 3 “engineering services,” 4 “entertainment” services, 2 “family services”, 6 “fitness” services, a funeral home, 8 “graphic, branding & website design services,” 12 “information technology services,” 2 insurance offices, 3 interior design businesses, 6 “investment & financial services,” 23 law firms and law offices, 3 “medical services”, 12 “mental health services,” 4 “mortgage services”, 6 “public services,” 15 “publishing, production & media services,” 10 “real estate agents, brokers & property management” services, 2 “transportation services”, and 11 “miscellaneous businesses/services.”  Plus, there are over 1,000 residents whom, like me, live in the downtown either in one of the numerous condo developments that did not exist a decade ago or at senior residences like Barton Tower and the Royal Oak Manor. 

Now, that may read as a laundry list, and to be fair, Commissioners Andrzejak and Semchena would almost certainly classify some of the “restaurants” as “bars” (though, , a “true” restaurant in their words is one that serves at least 80% food, and that anything short of that is merely a bar that serves “some” food – a classification Andimo’s would surely be stunned to learn, given that its plan of operation calls for a 70/30 food-to-alcohol ratio.  Lilly’s Seafood similarly fails this test (65/35 food-to-alcohol ratio); as does Town Tavern (70/30), Oak City Grille (70/30), and even Katana’s steakhouse (75/25).  I could go on, but this column is already at 1,200 words).  In short, one can hardly dispute our downtown has a healthy mix of retail, businesses, restaurants, and yes, bars.

Reading through the crime reports each week, I don’t feel scared of living downtown – or walking around downtown at night (and, let’s also be honest, while Messrs. Andrzejak and Semchena would have you believe that every bar is overcrowded with drunk patrons every night of the week, as much as the pocketbooks of some local owners may wish that were the case, most every weeknight, the downtown is pretty quiet) but I do worry about my younger sister, who moved to Royal Oak last year.  She lives near one of our local gyms, and while our former commissioners would have you focus on the isolated incidents at our local bars, the vast majority of the weekly police blotter is not taken up by incidents at downtown, but is theft from homes and vehicles, including repeated incidents at L.A. Fitness.  Indeed, what would really take a bite out of crime is not shutting down our bars and restaurants, but if we started encouraging residents to stop leaving their cars and homes unlocked, and discouraged people from leaving valuables like computers, GPS devices, cell phones, and purses on the front seat of their cars, in easy reach of would-be predators.  I am far more afraid, and with good reason, that my sister may be the victim of crime at the gym than when she comes to have dinner in our downtown.

There’s far more to say about the downtown – and I hope to discuss some of these points in future blog entries.  But what I most want is to remind people that Royal Oak, including our downtown, is a city to be proud of.  While many want to tear it down, we remain a community where businesses want to locate, parents want to raise their children, and where many seek to retire.  Do not let a vocal minority of doomsayers scare you from trying a Taste Love Cupcake, grabbling a late-night snack at Estoria, or having dinner on a Friday or Saturday night at Mongolian BBQ or even Blackfinn (they even have steaks, pork chops, and salmon on the menu).  Show off our city to your out-of-town neighbors – I know I do (and it’s even gotten some of them to move here themselves, a better testament to our city and downtown I know not).

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Mike Ripinski June 25, 2012 at 01:52 PM
Nice job Scott! A thoughtful, intelligent, factual presentation. You and I are obviously on the same page however there will always be those hwo will choose to manipulate the facts to suit thier anti-downtown arguement. I was in downtown RO again on Saturday night and I could not have been more proud and excited to see how many families and well behaved young people were enjoying the evening. ( My wife did comment on the current fashions being a little on the risque side. Maybe we are getting a little conservative in some ways. Yikes! ) As I have said a few times, I am not around at 2 AM - not even awake at that time - and I am sure the atmosphere does change at some locations but lets not have a glass half empty mentality. The real challenge is to provide our public saftey departments with the funding to cover our ENTIRE city. I think no one would argue that we'd like to see more manpower and get back toward levels that we were at a few years ago. Unfortunately the tax revenue has dropped as our SEV's have decreased. The simple math tells us that we cannot expect the higher level of service and pay less for it. I congratulate the current city commission and city manager for their hard work and dedication while adressing the challenges of maintaing our vibrant, attractive and popular city - from 696 to 14 mile and from Woodawrd to I 75. That includes downtown RO.
Chris June 25, 2012 at 02:27 PM
Mr. Warheit, how come you, or Mr. Ripinski, or, Mr. Esbri never address whether the city commission is following the statement of purpose of the liquor ordinance. None of you three address whether the city commission is following the master plan. If I remember correctly, from when you ran unsuccessfully for city commission, you didn't live in Royal Oak back in the 1990's, so it's no surprise that you have zero recollection when the downtown was unruly and problematic. Please address how the city will pay for stabilizing the downtown if it becomes unruly again. Also, please address how many bars is enough. Thank you.
Chris June 25, 2012 at 02:28 PM
PS......I would ask the same above questions to Mr. Ripinski and Mr. Esbri, too.
Chris June 25, 2012 at 03:26 PM
If everything is so wonderful about adding more and more bars, then why has former police chief Quisenberry, and current chief O'Donahue consistantly recommending denial of addition transfers? The police chief has consistantly recommended denial of addition bars going back to @ 2000, or before. They were recommending denial when they had over 100 police officers in the department. Are the police chiefs wrong, too?
Rick Karlowski June 25, 2012 at 04:25 PM
Exactly when did questioning if granting an ever increasing number of liquor licenses for the downtown somehow become not supporting nor having pride in the downtown? The questions raised, and never addressed, are – 1.) At what point do additional bars become counterproductive to development of other uses (retail, office, kid friendly venues)? 2.) Do liquor serving establishments require more police resources and, if so, how much more and who pays for it? 3.) Is an “entertainment district” what the residents of the Royal Oak envisioned for the downtown or not? As for the “vocal minority of doomsayers” comment, I am tired of the name calling rhetoric on this and other topics. My first my public comments at City Commission meetings where defending the downtown against folks complaining that a line outside Blackfinn was a prelude to Sodom and Gomorra. I voted against the moratorium in 2009, and would again now if it was structured the same way. That doesn’t mean I think the current development course of approving ever more and larger bars is a good one in the long run. I started questioning what we are doing based on my observations during my (frequent) trips to our downtown. Is our downtown a crime ridden den of inequity? Hardly. However, a restaurant manager I was speaking with told me that as reputations go, “Birmingham is where you go to eat, Royal Oak is where you go to drink”. I would like to change that perception.
Mike Ripinski June 25, 2012 at 06:21 PM
Rick - I was paying attention to your post until that very last sentence. One restaurant manager told you that " Birmingham is where you go to eat, Royal Oak is where you go to drinkl." I would argue that the hundreds of patrons that were packed into the many RO restaurants this past Saturday night did not come to drink first. I would also believe that the owners/ managers of Cafe Muse, Damato's, Lily's, Tom's Oyster Bar, Pizzaria Biga, Bastone, Gemmayze, What Crepe, Town Tavern, Oak City Grille, Sangria, Oxford Inn, Monterey, Andiamo's & others would argue that they were not packed with the "drinking crowd" on Saturday night. I observed many families, couples and groups enjoying their dining experience in our beautiful, peaceful vibrant downtown. Whomever that restaurant manager is, he certainly does not speak for a vast majority of the dining public. That arguement just does not hold water!
M.A.D.D. Mom June 25, 2012 at 06:55 PM
What color is the sky in your universe, Mr. Ripinski? If Royal Oak is home of 10 of the top 20 bars in Oakland County, then I think it is an accurate depiction that people come to Royal Oak for its drinking district. No one argues that there are exceptions like Germayze, Town Tavern, etc. To me, you have little credibility on the subject, if you haven't been in the downtown near closing time.
M.A.D.D. Mom June 25, 2012 at 07:16 PM
If Royal Oak is home of 10 of the top 20 bars, by sales volumn in Oakland County, then I think it is an accurate depiction that people come to Royal Oak for its drinking district.
Rick Karlowski June 25, 2012 at 08:15 PM
The statement is not whether or not people have dinner in the downtown, the statement was made as to what the PERCEPTION is of primary driver for many who visit to come to Royal Oak. Whether they ate first or not is irrelevant. I can safely say Birmingham does not have a party bus issue. Beside that, nobody has addressed the base questions being raised as to where we want to go with regard to development in the downtown, which was and is the issue.
Scott Warheit June 25, 2012 at 09:30 PM
Rick - I think we are more of a likemind than you may admit. You say you want to change  Royal Oak's perception to a place people come to eat and that you opposed the moratorium. Both read to me that you would agree with what I've argued since the moratorium was proposed: That we need to encourage new restaurants to locate in Royal Oak, that opening nightclubs on every corner is not the way to build a sustainable downtown, and that we need to review every liquor license request individually based on the merits of the application, including the history of the operator and type of establishment that may open. I think even you would admit that some of the restaurants in Birmingham would never consider opening up a similar post in Royal Oak if they couldn't have a liquor license.  But if you read the columns posted here by our former commissioners, and some of the related comments, they are of the opinion that no alcohol establishments should be permitted at all.  Period.  And that even restaurants, true restaurants, that have no entertainment or dance permits, are part of the problem if they serve alcohol. As for not supporting our downtown, your comments may not fit under that banner, but how can you read the former commissioners' posts as anything but the disparagement of our city? The last post claimed we have a heroin epidemic in the city because we have allowed so many bars to open.  You may approach this debate reasonably, but you can't say that about others.
Scott Warheit June 25, 2012 at 09:32 PM
The problem MADD Mom is that your comment that "no one argues there are exceptions like Germayze, Town Tavern, etc." isn't accurate, and that's been my point the whole time.  In fact, Gemmayze was *tuned down* for its liquor license transfer the first time it appeared before the City Commission because it had an out-of-town license, forcing the owners to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on an in-city license (and even then, then-Commissioners Andrzejak and Semchena *still* voted no).  Of course, forcing restaurants to spend such an enormous sum on a license only encourages them to either a) increase their prices or b) make up the revenue by selling items they earn higher profit margins on, like alcohol.  In other words, we are creating an environment which forces restaurants to serve more alcohol in order to justify the high cost of a liquor license; but that's an argument for another day. And if you read the the blog post from former Commissioners Andrzejak and Semchena from last week, they specifically don't agree with your statement that Gemmayze and Town Tavern are "exceptions."  In their mind, neither is a "true" restaurant, and are just "bars that serve some food."  These are their words.  As I wrote above, even a place like Katana's is considered a "bar that serves some food" under their definition.  That's simply not an accurate deception of our downtown and these restaurants, and that's been my point the entire time. -Scott
Scott Warheit June 25, 2012 at 09:33 PM
As an aside, let me show you just how looking at gross alcohol sales in a vacuum can have no connection whatsoever to whether an establishment would be considered by the general public to be a “bar” or a “megabar.”  In 2007, the top 10 purchasers of liquor for on-premises sales in Oakland County were: Lucky’s in Novi; Big Rock Chop & Brew in Birmingham; The Townsend Hotel in Birmingham; Mitchell’s Fish Market in Birmingham; 220 in Birmingham; D’Amatos in Royal Oak; Fifth Avenue in Royal Oak; TGI Friday’s in Southfield; Capital Grille in Troy; and Sagebrush Cantina in Lake Orion. Now, I think we all can agree that places like Mitchell’s and Capital Grille are not what anyone would consider to be “drinking establishments” and that we would welcome those types of restaurants with open arms (same with TGI Friday's).  Yet, each of them were among the largest purchasers of alcohol in Oakland County.  What it goes to show you is that you can’t judge a restaurant by looking this one statistic without any context of what the establishment actually is in practice. -Scott
Debbie Campbell June 26, 2012 at 12:46 AM
Two bar/clubs Chen Chow and South located in Birmingham are creating a similar public safety/unruly patrons problem in their community—As happens in RO these establishments presented themselves to Birmingham’s council as restaurants to gain approvals and then morphed into nightclubs shortly after opening. In April, Birmingham and Patch ran a series of articles on downtown Birmingham that explores issues raised by recent nightclub incidents, as well as the city's response to them. No name calling or denial of a problem existing in any of the articles/comments. Birmingham has taken steps such as shutting down valet service at midnight instead of at 2 when the bars close--Birmingham also allocated a beefed up police presence and foot patrols in the downtown area. Birmingham is strictly monitoring liquor license applicants, adhering to their liquor license ordinance and the goals and objectives of their Master Plan— ---Royal Oak isn’t doing any of those things.
Debbie Campbell June 26, 2012 at 02:05 PM
Mayor Ellison and Commissioners: Rasor, DuBuc, Fournier, Poulton voted to approve Hamlin Corner a 375 person capacity bar/restaurant with a dance permit and carry-out beer and wine sales against recommendations from our Police Department... The Police Department listed these reasons for denial in a memo dated 3/8/12: --Transferring the liquor license will cause further strain on police resources. --The Police Department is opposed to granting a dance permit. --The Police Department is under staffed and their ability to properly monitor the current liquor establishments is greatly diminished. --The addition of an establishment this size would only create a greater strain on our resources. Is it good public policy to ignore recommendations from law enforcement? These elected officials are sworn into office to uphold public safety.
Rick Karlowski June 26, 2012 at 02:29 PM
The comment that the police department automatically rejects or does not consider merit is untrue. Read the police department reviews sent to the LCC during deliberations. In fact, they recently approved the the request for change that resulted in the Red Fox.
Justine June 26, 2012 at 04:06 PM
Excellent article Scott. I'm extremely proud to brings friends and family to my house that is located a block from Barnes and Noble. I love it here - the restaurants, the people, the atmosphere - and I'm the ripe old age of 45. I moved here because of the great downtown about 8 years ago and haven't ever regretted it. And I can assure everyone singing the praises of Birmingham (and it is a great city too), having worked there for many years, there are a LOT of alcohol related incidents there...
Rick Karlowski June 26, 2012 at 04:30 PM
Scott, you are making my point on the changes, not for the better, in our downtown. You cite data from 2007. Fast forward to today - Royal Oak has 5 of the top 10 (including numbers 1 and 4), and 10 of the top 20 liquor serving establishments in the state of Michigan.
Rick Karlowski June 26, 2012 at 05:04 PM
Pasternak - You forgot the reason - which is the department does not have the manpower to adequately police additional establishments. Which, again, is part of the point of all this - what is the cost of enforcement of liquor serving establishments versus other uses, and who pays for the difference.
Mike June 26, 2012 at 06:10 PM
I moved to RO in 2005 as a 25 year old and haven't left since. I love what the city has to offer with it's downtown entertainment and city neighborhoods. I recently sold my condo for the full asking price in 1 day (i'd bet that this wouldn't happen in too many other surrounding areas) and bought a new build home in RO. RO is basically the only area in Metro Detroit where people from all directions come to spend their disposable income on a regular basis. In other words, we are a desirable location and the reason behind that is the fact that we have bars and restuarants in a condensed area. The dinosaurs that want to keep the bar/restaurant industry from opening new businesses in RO clearly don't understand that the reason RO is RO is because of that. If all these businesses in different industries wanted to rent or own the vacant buildings they wouldn't be empty would they? No, bars and restaurants do want to rent or buy them and that's why most of them aren't empty anymore. I remember when the block with Bfinn and Tequila Blue was empty.....not anymore. If you don't like the atmoshphere then A) don't live here or B) move outside of the downtown area. RO's housing market has increased dramatically over the past 6-8 months and it's not because the rest of the market has changed. It's because people want to be here and that does drive up property value. Also, how many millions does parking ticket revenue generate from these bars/restaurants?
Debbie Campbell June 26, 2012 at 07:32 PM
I grew up in Birmingham and honestly don’t care much for it. I chose to move to Royal Oak decades ago and I love this City. I love my ring neighborhood and I expect adopted plans and ordinances to be adhered to, to prevent the downtown from over-whelming my neighborhood. The cost and public safety ramifications of our rapidly expanding drinking district are cause for concern–It’s not sustainable growth, completely ignores adopted plans and ordinances and defies sound planning practices. And at the risk of sounding “dinosaurish” Mike, maybe you will answer a question that none of you “more bar” folks will answer : How is the city going to pay for the designated police unit that was identified in the ICMA report as being needed to maintain order in the drinking district? And Justine yes, Birmingham does have alcohol related problems—but unlike RO their elected officials meet those problems head-on. As stated in my previous comment, Birmingham heavily sanctions bars that allow their clientele and businesses to get out of control—which is NOT the case in Royal Oak. Our City Commission rewards bars that have police calls and other problems with expanded plans of operation and special event permits.
Rick Karlowski June 26, 2012 at 07:50 PM
Pasternak - Your statement implied the police say no regardless and without rational. That is not the case. As for your opinion that liquor serving establishments do not require a greater amount of policing than other establishments, even if just as walk throughs to insure compliance with liquorr laws or operating agreements, it is not shared by the ROPD.
Rick Karlowski June 26, 2012 at 09:23 PM
Scott - I have crossed swords with Chuck and Mike on verbiage used regarding the downtown on several occasions, but I don't read their blog series as disparaging of the downtown or Royal Oak. They are writing from experience about what it costs to rein in out of control liquor establishments based on incidents that happened in the late 90's. I don't intend to speak for Chuck and Mike, but their seeming disregard for the type of established is again based on that history where establishments opened as one thing and morphed in something totally different with very unwelcome consequences. The only way to prevent that from happening is thru constant vigilance by the city with regard to adherence to the agreed to operating agreements, and that costs money. Money that, because of the DDA structure, these enterprises are not adding to the general fund. NOBODY, well, nobody I know or have read, including Chuck and Mike, is remotely suggesting that the downtown become dry. As for the heroin comment, I have re-read their blog numerous times and can’t find that statement. Please post the whole paragraph where it is located, as it is possible that I am reading past it.
Debbie Campbell June 26, 2012 at 11:03 PM
Thank you Rick for your response to Mr. Warheit’s word twisting mis-statements concerning the “Under The Influence Series”. Our former Commissioners Andrezejak and Semchena have performed decades of service in this community--Both of these men, and particularly Semchena as City Attorney worked tirelessly, to shepherd Royal Oak through some tremendously difficult times—Their historical perspective on the damaging and costly effects of out of control nightclubs is invaluable-- Those were sad days for our community and it is truly difficult to sit back and watch all the pieces coming together that will allow this dark time in Royal Oak’s history to repeat itself. Only this time around we are without the financial, legal and public safety resources to reign it in. This time though the elected officials can’t say they weren’t warned…It’s unfortunate that many of the currently seated commissioners are too arrogant, smug or just plain dumb to listen and gain some wisdom from those who have been in the trenches before them.
Rick Karlowski June 27, 2012 at 03:02 PM
I have read the actual letters presented by the ROPD to the commission, and the rational stated for not agreeing to the application is staffing. There is no "conspiracy" or "just say no" policy.
Rick Karlowski June 27, 2012 at 03:21 PM
The same old straw man argument - the choice is between an ever expanding bar scene or closing the place at 5pm. As for "people moving to the country", - sorry that doesn't apply either. Folks moved in, like in 2007, when we had 1 of the top ten liquor serving establishments, versus 5. Sounds like the farm is changing. Had either of you bothered to actually read the blogs and comments, you would note the intent is NOT to close the downtown, but to make sure it doesn't return to the conditions faced in the late 90's where $100,000's where spent to rein in a few (the vast majority of establishments, then as now, where not an issue) out of control bars. Yes, I know, that could NEVER happen. Of course, that is what they said back then too. If you folks have a plan to keep it from happening and a revenue source to pay for it, I am all ears. Till now, all I hear are false choices and name calling.
Rick Karlowski June 27, 2012 at 04:24 PM
Pasternak - Interesting the the link and/or address for said document you quote is missing from any of your posts.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something