Paying off Mello Roos

[CA renter]

ER,

Thanks for following up on this, and for putting pressure on them to dig more deeply into the details of Mello-Roos.

IMO, there is no reason for Mello-Roos. It’s simply a way to direct more money into the pockets of long-time land owners and developers.

The developers should have to spend their own money to build the infrastructure necessary for their developments, and the costs of this should be fully included in the price of the houses. If they can’t make the numbers work, then they’re paying too much for the land.

By keeping these costs separate from the cost of the homes, gullible buyers won’t bother to look into the *total* price they’re paying for the houses. As always, they’re keeping people in the dark by focusing on payments instead of total cost.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter]ER,

Thanks for following up on this, and for putting pressure on them to dig more deeply into the details of Mello-Roos.

IMO, there is no reason for Mello-Roos. It’s simply a way to direct more money into the pockets of long-time land owners and developers.

The developers should have to spend their own money to build the infrastructure necessary for their developments, and the costs of this should be fully included in the price of the houses. If they can’t make the numbers work, then they’re paying too much for the land.

By keeping these costs separate from the cost of the homes, gullible buyers won’t bother to look into the *total* price they’re paying for the houses. As always, they’re keeping people in the dark by focusing on payments instead of total cost.[/quote]

Wholeheartedly agree here, CAR. Prior to 1987, Developers in SD County DID use their own money to build the infrastructure needed for their residential developments. And those costs WERE factored into the price of a new-construction house or condo.

Part of the problem was that the concept of a “master-planned community” was successfully sold by Big Development to city and county officials of past decades who fell for it hook, like and sinker.

The MPC idea appealed to our elected officials because it took the pressure off them to find land for needed libraries, parks and fire stations (which wouldn’t have been needed if they hadn’t approved the subdivision permits in the first place). These developers “donated” the land for these public buildings (tiny pieces of large parcels, which they paid a mere song for back in 19xx) :=0

However, our short-sighted elected officials permitted all this stuff whilst having dollar signs in their eyes in anticipation of endless incoming property tax revenue. Of course, a good portion of their votes for what amounted to rampant urban sprawl occurred before the state decided to intercept it, confiscate some of it and return the balance back to the counties from whence it came, leaving CA cities and counties short of funds for needed services :=0

Now, all these affected CA jurisdictions (hundreds of them) are scrambling to figure out how they’re going to properly SERVICE all these outlying residents on into the future. It’s a comedy of errors which isn’t going to end well, folks.

Hence my impending “retirement” to a much lesser-populated county or out of state.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Now, all these affected CA jurisdictions (hundreds of them) are scrambling to figure out how they’re going to properly SERVICE all these outlying residents on into the future. It’s a comedy of errors which isn’t going to end well, folks.

Hence my impending “retirement” to a much lesser-populated county or out of state.[/quote]

Is this really true? Are all MR jurisdictions scrambling? The PUSD is the only MR district that I’ve ever heard of that has actually raised MR assessments post initial sale. I suspect there are other problems in other parts of the state. But I’ve never heard of that happening right next door in Carmel Valley or anywhere else in the city of SD (outside of the PUSD). There are plenty of older MR districts in CV that have been paid off in due course. The infrastructures have been built and the homeowners paid for it as originally agreed. Maybe similar problems in Chula Vista as in the PUSD (I don’t know)?

Is it possible that the problem is not the MR regulations allowing tax assessments/bond issuance to pay for infrastructure. The problem seems to be when these schemes are abused by municipalities and school districts. I think there’s some evidence that MR can be used successfully.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]
Now, all these affected CA jurisdictions (hundreds of them) are scrambling to figure out how they’re going to properly SERVICE all these outlying residents on into the future. It’s a comedy of errors which isn’t going to end well, folks.

Hence my impending “retirement” to a much lesser-populated county or out of state.[/quote]

Is this really true? Are all MR jurisdictions scrambling? The PUSD is the only MR district that I’ve ever heard of that has actually raised MR assessments post initial sale. I suspect there are other problems in other parts of the state. But I’ve never heard of that happening right next door in Carmel Valley or anywhere else in the city of SD (outside of the PUSD). There are plenty of older MR districts in CV that have been paid off in due course. The infrastructures have been built and the homeowners paid for it as originally agreed. Maybe similar problems in Chula Vista as in the PUSD (I don’t know)?

Is it possible that the problem is not the MR regulations allowing tax assessments/bond issuance to pay for infrastructure. The problem seems to be when these schemes are abused by municipalities and school districts. I think there’s some evidence that MR can be used successfully.[/quote]

SK, I was referring to outlying areas. Carmel Valley is not really outlying, and, in any case, a portion of its MR bonds should now be ~10 years from maturity/retirement.

As you know, smaller CA inland cities have been heavily affected adversely by the “boom-bust” culture that urban sprawl causes, so much so that they felt it necessary to file for BK protection. These cities were all primarily overdeveloped in the last decade+.

Using SUHSD, GUSD and SUSHD for examples, the MR bonds collected in those districts appear to be used ONLY for infrastructure within the CFD’s. As you can see from the photos below, the PUSD’s multimillion dollar HQ is far more lavish than the HQ’s in these other local school school districts. In the SUHSD, older schools go wanting for pavement repairs, lockers, water fountains and the list goes on (in spite of Prop “O”). In my own kid’s school, the lockers have been rendered unusable so have been permanently caged, while the District’s *newer* schools have carpeted auditoriums and indoor pools, for starters.

As it should be. Those residents are paying through the nose for these perks for their kids.

[quote=bearishgurl on August 7, 2012 – 1:45 pm]I’m troubled by the PUSD’s all-brick facade multi-level HQ with its (very expensive) dbl-paned “Low E” windows.

[img_assist|nid=16542|title=PUSD HQ|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=66]

Why did they think they needed to build this “monument” and not tax its property owners to pay for it? I thought there was a “captive audience” of current and aspiring homeowners in the PUSD. Why wouldn’t they approve a new construction bond to build this monstrosity and upgrade its older schools … even if the bonds from 2000 were not yet paid off?

The SDUSD HQ with its 40-60 year-old trailers and add-ons was originally constructed in the ’30’s!

The GUSD HQ was actually built in the ’20’s, yet their taxpayers are currently funding Prop U (which they’re doing great things with, btw)!

[img_assist|nid=16543|title=GUSD HQ|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=100]
[/quote]

http://piggington.com/powaythe_real_debt_bomb#comment-215909

Here’s a question for the PUSD Board: “If you purport to currently have a ~$168M “surplus” in MR bond revenue, then, pray tell, why aren’t you using most of it to pay down the ill-fated Prop C monies you borrowed at subprime interest rates??”

THIS ^^ is the time bomb that is going to cause the county assessor to eventually raise EVERY property owner taxes who owns within the PUSD.

“This is a perfect example of how something that’s done today can adversely affect the next generation and the generation after that.”

—Dan McAllister, San Diego County treasurer and tax collector.

Where Borrowing $105 Million Will Cost $1 Billion: Poway Schools

I did just listen to the sound bytes that ER provided and also visited the Adobe Bluffs Elem website. The truth is, if Willow Grove is truly FULL of students who reside WITHIN its attendance area (and has accepted no transfer students) then those SantaLuz residents who are complaining really don’t have a case. Adobe Bluffs, although much further away, DOES have a 917 API score and VERY LIKELY was ALSO built with MR bond money (circa 1992). The only difference is that AB Elem may not have as “homogenous” of a student population as does Willow Grove (read: AB may have some low-income students). This won’t affect the quality of education of any student but I agree that it is much more inconvenient for SantaLuz parents and therefore transportation to/from AB Elem should be provided by the District.

In any case, Superintendent Collins stated that at least one temporary building would be erected on Willow Grove’s campus by Spring 2014. It is only kindergarteners who are currently affected, no? When more room is made on the WG campus, then those resident-students can come back to their neighborhood school. It’s not the end of the world.

Contrary to the testimony of SantaLuz parents at the PUSD Board mtg, MR payments aren’t made to any one school or group of cluster schools. They are paid into a school district but I agree that they should not have been used to fund infrastructure in older schools or build a new HQ, as is apparently what happened in the PUSD.

There is NO GUARANTEE ANYWHERE in CA that your kid will be admitted to his/her neighborhood school. This decision is entirely up to your school district. If no room is available in your kid’s neighborhood school, the District should provide him/her transportation.

[all]

[quote=bearishgurl]

SK, I was referring to outlying areas. Carmel Valley is not really outlying, and, in any case, a portion of its MR bonds should now be ~10 years from maturity/retirement.
[/quote]
And no true Scotsman…

Carmel Valley is not outlying, but the area right next to it is?

[quote=bearishgurl]

Here’s a question for the PUSD Board: “If you purport to currently have a ~$168M “surplus” in MR bond revenue, then, pray tell, why aren’t you using most of it to pay down the ill-fated Prop C monies you borrowed at subprime interest rates??”
[/quote]

MR is to be used to build and maintain the infrastructure in the covered area. Prop C money is for the schools outside the MR areas.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=all][quote=bearishgurl]SK, I was referring to outlying areas. Carmel Valley is not really outlying, and, in any case, a portion of its MR bonds should now be ~10 years from maturity/retirement.[/quote]And no true Scotsman…[/quote]

What about the subdivisions which were built in Carmel Valley in the very early nineties??

[quote=all]Carmel Valley is not outlying, but the area right next to it is?[/quote]

Yes.

[quote=all][quote=bearishgurl]Here’s a question for the PUSD Board: “If you purport to currently have a ~$168M “surplus” in MR bond revenue, then, pray tell, why aren’t you using most of it to pay down the ill-fated Prop C monies you borrowed at subprime interest rates??”[/quote]MR is to be used to build and maintain the infrastructure in the covered area. Prop C money is for the schools outside the MR areas.[/quote]

captcha, my understanding is the Prop C bonds are paid by ALL property owners within the PUSD. If you own there, take a look at your last tax bill.

[all]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=all][quote=bearishgurl]SK, I was referring to outlying areas. Carmel Valley is not really outlying, and, in any case, a portion of its MR bonds should now be ~10 years from maturity/retirement.[/quote]And no true Scotsman…[/quote]

What about the subdivisions which were built in Carmel Valley in the very early nineties??

[quote=all]Carmel Valley is not outlying, but the area right next to it is?[/quote]

Yes.

[/quote]

Carmel Mountain Ranch was built in very early nineties, it is in PUSD and there is MR. Santaluz is halfway between CMR and CV, about three miles from either. Another 3 miles from a business park that hosts Sony, Nokia, Broadcom, HP… Santaluz is an outlying area only if you are observing the world from a Tijuana suburb.

[quote=bearishgurl]
captcha, my understanding is the Prop C bonds are paid by ALL property owners within the PUSD. If you own there, take a look at your last tax bill.[/quote]

You are misunderstanding again.

[waitingtobuy]

This is very disturbing.
This misuse of funds is a clear criminal act.
Are parents/community leaders doing anything abt it?
Any possibility of a lawsuit against PUSD?
This scam must be stopped.
I don’t want to see anyone eating $2k lunch and relishing ice cream sundae with my hard earned money.

[earlyretirement]

[quote=CA renter]ER,

Thanks for following up on this, and for putting pressure on them to dig more deeply into the details of Mello-Roos.

IMO, there is no reason for Mello-Roos. It’s simply a way to direct more money into the pockets of long-time land owners and developers.

The developers should have to spend their own money to build the infrastructure necessary for their developments, and the costs of this should be fully included in the price of the houses. If they can’t make the numbers work, then they’re paying too much for the land.

By keeping these costs separate from the cost of the homes, gullible buyers won’t bother to look into the *total* price they’re paying for the houses. As always, they’re keeping people in the dark by focusing on payments instead of total cost.[/quote]

You’re welcome CAR. I do think many of the various local and maybe even national press needs to investigate this in greater detail. The shame of it is that parents (taxpayers) don’t really seem to care too much about this. It’s mind boggling to me.

I actually don’t always think Mello Roos taxes are a bad idea. It just depends on the actual development. I think in many cases they are necessary if a project/development is going to be done properly.

However, if you have them, there MUST be clear oversight and rules governing the funds and their disbursement, etc. In the case of PUSD, there doesn’t seem to be any oversight at all on what they are spending the funds on.

This is all VERY disturbing to say the least.

[quote=waitingtobuy]This is very disturbing.
This misuse of funds is a clear criminal act.
Are parents/community leaders doing anything abt it?
Any possibility of a lawsuit against PUSD?
This scam must be stopped.
I don’t want to see anyone eating $2k lunch and relishing ice cream sundae with my hard earned money.[/quote]

I totally agree. Disturbing is putting it mildly. I do think it will take a lawsuit to really uncover just how much misuse of funds is going on and what it’s being used on (and has been used on over the years). An explanation of who exactly can draw on these 200 checking accounts and what the process is?

It doesn’t seem like anyone wants to “rock the boat” but I’m afraid it’s going to take a formal lawsuit. Any lawyers on the board interested?

[ocrenter]

[quote=earlyretirement]
I totally agree. Disturbing is putting it mildly. I do think it will take a lawsuit to really uncover just how much misuse of funds is going on and what it’s being used on (and has been used on over the years). An explanation of who exactly can draw on these 200 checking accounts and what the process is?

It doesn’t seem like anyone wants to “rock the boat” but I’m afraid it’s going to take a formal lawsuit. Any lawyers on the board interested?[/quote]

This is unfortunately the unfortunate truth when it comes to the MR.

There have been gross abuse of power with complete lack oversight.

Hate to say it, but a class action lawsuit is way overdue.

[SK in CV]

[quote=all][quote=bearishgurl][quote=all][quote=bearishgurl]SK, I was referring to outlying areas. Carmel Valley is not really outlying, and, in any case, a portion of its MR bonds should now be ~10 years from maturity/retirement.[/quote]And no true Scotsman…[/quote]

What about the subdivisions which were built in Carmel Valley in the very early nineties??

[quote=all]Carmel Valley is not outlying, but the area right next to it is?[/quote]

Yes.

[/quote]

Carmel Mountain Ranch was built in very early nineties, it is in PUSD and there is MR. Santaluz is halfway between CMR and CV, about three miles from either. Another 3 miles from a business park that hosts Sony, Nokia, Broadcom, HP… Santaluz is an outlying area only if you are observing the world from a Tijuana suburb.

[/quote]

I would tend to agree. Carmel Valley is no more of an outlying (or at least as much of an outlying area) as Santa Luz. Escondido is more outlying, and if there have been MR abuses there, I haven’t heard much of them. Same with some of the other truly outlying areas that had major development over the last 15 years…San Marcos, Vista, Oceanside. Maybe there have been problems, but if so, they haven’t been near as public as the problems in the PUSD.

And I’m pretty sure there are some MR that are fully paid off in Carmel Valley.

The problem seems not to be the design of the MR laws, but rather abuse of the process. Should be a warning to us all, pay attention to the political process and get people elected who will make wise financial decisions and vote those who haven’t out of office.

[earlyretirement]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=all][quote=bearishgurl][quote=all][quote=bearishgurl]SK, I was referring to outlying areas. Carmel Valley is not really outlying, and, in any case, a portion of its MR bonds should now be ~10 years from maturity/retirement.[/quote]And no true Scotsman…[/quote]

What about the subdivisions which were built in Carmel Valley in the very early nineties??

[quote=all]Carmel Valley is not outlying, but the area right next to it is?[/quote]

Yes.

[/quote]

Carmel Mountain Ranch was built in very early nineties, it is in PUSD and there is MR. Santaluz is halfway between CMR and CV, about three miles from either. Another 3 miles from a business park that hosts Sony, Nokia, Broadcom, HP… Santaluz is an outlying area only if you are observing the world from a Tijuana suburb.

[/quote]

I would tend to agree. Carmel Valley is no more of an outlying (or at least as much of an outlying area) as Santa Luz. Escondido is more outlying, and if there have been MR abuses there, I haven’t heard much of them. Same with some of the other truly outlying areas that had major development over the last 15 years…San Marcos, Vista, Oceanside. Maybe there have been problems, but if so, they haven’t been near as public as the problems in the PUSD.

And I’m pretty sure there are some MR that are fully paid off in Carmel Valley.

The problem seems not to be the design of the MR laws, but rather abuse of the process. Should be a warning to us all, pay attention to the political process and get people elected who will make wise financial decisions and vote those who haven’t out of office.[/quote]

I totally agree. I don’t consider Carmel Valley and Santaluz as “outlying areas”. Not at all. I mean they both still have San Diego addresses! LOL.

As well, EXCELLENT comment about it not being the design of the Mello Roos laws but the abuse of the process and oversight of the spending.

As I mentioned, there are many times when Mello Roos taxes are needed and developments would probably never get off the ground without them. They can and do make sense. However, what seems to happen with this type of thing is that implementation often times gets corrupt and random people start getting access to the funds and they use it as their personal piggy bank.

What we need is a full accounting of the past Mello Roos tax intake and a full accounting of where the funds have gone over the years, a complete breakdown of district by district which schools or what things this money has been spent on.

And again, I’m still waiting for an explanation why they need 200 checking accounts for these funds. And also who can access these funds.

I agree we need to get ANYONE out of office via recall or other legal means that might be breaking the laws and using these funds for purposes they weren’t intended for. And make sure we send a strong message to any possible incoming officers that we as taxpayers won’t put up for this kind of fraud and abuse of power.

The biggest problem I see is that this sort of thing seems to be generally accepted over time. Incoming administrations might see past administrations using funds for unintended/illegal purposes and then they think it’s ok for them to as well. And the fraud and abuse just becomes sort of institutionalized.

WE as taxpayers need to stop this and totally nip it in the bud. And once it’s stopped, make sure there is clear and proper and regular oversight of the spending.

[bearishgurl]

The “close in” areas were originally built as exits off the interstates, such as Carmel Valley 92130 (fka “North City West” at I-5 jct I-805). The more “outlying” areas were not situated near interstates and remained very small until the MR act enabled them to mushroom into what they are today. Examples are San Marcos (92069) and Fallbrook (92028 – to a much lesser extent).

The Covenants lying within SD County (92067) have been there for several decades. They are not situated “right on” the interstates but nonetheless are very well-established and do not lie within CFD’s.

The community of SantaLuz (92127) and the communities lying within the Covenants (92069) are completely different animals.

All of 92127 is a “later-annexed” zip code (part city/part county, where it absorbed a small portion which was formerly in 92128, I believe). The 92127 annexation took place just 12-13 years ago and 95% of it lies within CFDs. Due to its distance from 92101, it is all considered “second-tier” suburbs or “outlying” but not far enough as to be an “exurb” to SD (ex: Temecula in RIV Co, Campo or Pine Valley).

In SD County, the base zip code from where local first and second-tier suburbs and exurbs radiate from is 92101. It has no bearing on where job centers may be located today. 92101 is where the City and County HQs and Main County Superior Courts are located. This is the “original” San Diego and it is what it is and will never change.

SK, of course you are aware that Esco is a medium-sized city in its own right (like Chula Vista) and is a second-tier suburb to SD due to distance from 92101. Like Esco, Chula Vista (91910/91911) is very well-established but is a first-tier suburb (due to having an 8-13 mi distance to 92101). Esco has 3 well-established zip codes (92025, 92026 and 92027) and I am not aware of any CFDs lying within Esco’s city limits (do any Piggs know?). CFD’s inhabit all five of Chula Vista’s zip codes BUT the bonds which financed 91910’s biggest CFD are now retired (RDR II) and only about 15% of 91911 is inhabited by CFDs (Sunbow). 85% of 91913 is inhabited by CFDs, 90% of 91914 is inhabited by CFDs and 100% of 91915 is inhabited by CFDs. Due to distance from 92101, 91913, 91914 and 91915 (later annexations to Chula Vista) are considered “second-tier” suburbs.

About 1/3 of 92154 lies within CFD’s, all east of I-805. This zip code was annexed to SD roughly 30-35 years ago. Due to distance from 92101, the communities within it (incl Nestor, Otay Mesa and Ocean View Hills) are considered “second-tier” suburbs to SD. There are several more SD City zip codes which, although annexed to SD at some point in time, are still considered “second-tier suburbs” due to distance from 92101.

Signed,

Well-versed in local City/County urban-planning practices

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=all][quote=bearishgurl][quote=all][quote=bearishgurl]SK, I was referring to outlying areas. Carmel Valley is not really outlying, and, in any case, a portion of its MR bonds should now be ~10 years from maturity/retirement.[/quote]And no true Scotsman…[/quote]

What about the subdivisions which were built in Carmel Valley in the very early nineties??

[quote=all]Carmel Valley is not outlying, but the area right next to it is?[/quote]

Yes.

[/quote]

Carmel Mountain Ranch was built in very early nineties, it is in PUSD and there is MR. Santaluz is halfway between CMR and CV, about three miles from either. Another 3 miles from a business park that hosts Sony, Nokia, Broadcom, HP… Santaluz is an outlying area only if you are observing the world from a Tijuana suburb.

[/quote]

I would tend to agree. Carmel Valley is no more of an outlying (or at least as much of an outlying area) as Santa Luz. Escondido is more outlying, and if there have been MR abuses there, I haven’t heard much of them. Same with some of the other truly outlying areas that had major development over the last 15 years…San Marcos, Vista, Oceanside. Maybe there have been problems, but if so, they haven’t been near as public as the problems in the PUSD.

And I’m pretty sure there are some MR that are fully paid off in Carmel Valley.

The problem seems not to be the design of the MR laws, but rather abuse of the process. Should be a warning to us all, pay attention to the political process and get people elected who will make wise financial decisions and vote those who haven’t out of office.[/quote]

SK, I never stated that MR (bond-money) abuses are rampant throughout the state. In fact, in my post above with the link to an earlier (Aug 2012) thread on this subject, I stated that other county suburban school districts had appeared to be using their MR bond money appropriately. What I did state was that the MR Act created an environment for Big Development to convince local jurisdictions to approve massive “master-planned communities” which has had the recent effect of creating boom/bust cycles in areas which never witnessed this phenomenon before (ex: Stockton, Los Banos, Napa, Tracy, etc). These “boom-bust” cycles caused these (formerly rural/agricultural) cities and counties to “ramp up” their personnel to increase services for a huge new population increase which turned out to be temporary, causing them to later lay off due to severely falling values (which were never supported by local fundamentals). These developer-driven cycles also occurred in exurbs located in Eastern Alameda County and the City of San Bernardino (an exurb of Los Angeles). The fallout of these “boom-bust” cycles was and is devastating to county and municipal coffers. However, I believe those subd’s in Eastern Alameda County and Napa County are well on their way to recovery now. The same cannot be said for the City of SB, Stockton and Los Banos, for example, because higher-paying white-collar jobs within ~25 miles of these cities (adequate for a monthly mortgage payment) are not in abundance.

I am totally with CAR in that developers should have had to finance ALL the infrastructure on their land as a condition of subdividing for residential development and then roll this cost into the price of each parcel when purchased as new construction.

In the absence of the MR Act, if each new parcel over the last ~30 years (with new construction on it) had been priced appropriately from the get go, CA wouldn’t have all this unwanted and unneeded urban and exurban sprawl because each fully-developed parcel would have been too expensive for the masses of past and present buyers who were drawn to subd’s within the CFDs (in comparison to a home in an established area).

But we can’t turn back the clock. The unintended consequences of the MR Act are now knocking most of CA’s elected and appointed officials upside the head because the MR bond money emanating from these CFD’s was never intended to to be used pay the extra city/county workers salaries to service these residents. The available county and municipal services will be permanently curtailed going forward for EVERY CA resident. And for many overdeveloped jurisdictions throughout the state, the gravity of this problem is such that their residents’ needs are so great that they must permanently “borrow” agencies and their personnel from neighboring cities/counties which either did not have the land available for or were wise enough to NOT fall for Big Development’s ruse.

In conjunction with the later (1986) enactment of Props 58/193 (the progeny of Prop 13), the after-effects of the MR Act have been no less than fiscally devastating to the (former) “Golden State.” As I have posted before here, Henry Mello could not have possibly envisioned this sad scenario when he and Mike Roos introduced the bill to the Legislature and has to be turning in his grave by now :=0.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV]. . . The problem seems not to be the design of the MR laws, but rather abuse of the process. Should be a warning to us all, pay attention to the political process and get people elected who will make wise financial decisions and vote those who haven’t out of office.[/quote]

Good advice, SK. I’ve been saying the same thing on this forum for years. There seem to be a LOT of disenchanted people (primarily with how all levels of gubment are run) who appear to be completely ignorant of the process and/or don’t want to take time to get involved.

The letters Pigg ER is writing and the (press and elected official?) contacts he has made appear to have been a positive start. Even though fairly new to SD county, he seems to be quite eloquent in his posts and so is likely the same in person 🙂

I was very active in local politics for years but I’ve long ago run out of energy for this sort of thing :=0

[Author]

Posts