Oak Ridge City Council Continually Wastes Taxpayer Money with Dismal Results on the Oak Ridge Chamber of Commerce to Recruit New Firms and Jobs.
Oak Ridge Needs Government Accountability and an Audit of the Oak Ridge Chamber of Commerce!!

Oak Ridge Accountability Project

April 28, 2004

Oak Ridge, Tennessee

 

 

 

A “Taxpayer Bill of Rights” Helps Bring a 20% Revenue Increase and a 4 cent Tax Cut to Spring Hill, Tennessee!

 

Unlike Oak Ridge (with the Tennessee’s Second Highest Tax Rate), Spring Hill Chooses to Economically Compete with Nearby Communities!

 

 

Last summer, on July 22, 2003, Spring Hill became the first community in Tennessee to enact a Taxpayer Bill of Rights.  Mayor Ray Williams lead the Bill of Rights effort, which among other things, gave Spring Hill citizens the right to vote on local tax increases.  Judging from the city’s outstanding economic performance since that time, the strategy has worked like a charm.

 

Since the Bill of Rights was passed, the city has experienced: a rapidly expanding population base, a booming city economy, an expanding city revenue stream---and lower city property tax rates.  As the article below explains, the expanding population and economic base allows Spring Hill’s tax revenue to climb, while its tax rates fall.

 

The Spring Hill experience shows that new residents and businesses see the idea of citizens controlling local tax rates---in a very positive light. Spring Hill’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights has provided an important competitive edge for the city, one which complements its other attractive features.  Other cities (and counties!) across Tennessee are considering the Spring Hill experience---and thinking about creating their own Taxpayer Bill of Rights---so they can share in these benefits.

 

This contrasts with the approach of cities like Oak Ridge.

 

In 2002---ten months prior to the passage of the Spring Hill Bill of Rights---the Oak Ridge City Council rejected a Taxpayer Bill of Rights proposal, saying that citizens voting on tax rates was in the Council’s view: unconstitutional.  Earlier that same year, Oak Ridge government projected the need for a 7% to 9% annual increase in city property tax rates---for the foreseeable future.  Oak Ridge currently has the second highest property tax rate (combined city and county) in Tennessee.  It is also saddled with a stagnant population base and a seriously lagging economy.  

 

An article from today’s Nashville Tennessean provides the latest update on Spring Hill.  The article is available on the web at (http://tennessean.com/williamsonam/archives/04/04/50489561.shtml?Element_ID=50489561 )

 

 

 

Oak Ridge Government Charged with Hiding Key Actions in Order to Influence the Outcome of the 2003 Oak Ridge City Council Election!

 

McBride to the Council: Oak Ridger’s Pay the Second Highest Property Tax Rates in The State Of Tennessee And Deserve Much Better Than This.

 

Proposed Approach to Highland View Described as:

“Heart-Breaking for Residents and an Incredibly Expensive Albatross for Oak Ridge Taxpayers”

 

 

Charging that city officials attempted to manipulate last year’s City Council election, Dr. Martin McBride has urged that the Council to put a controversial urban renewal project on hold.  The comments were made at a regularly-scheduled City Council meeting.

 

“This action, the proposed urban renewal of the Highland View neighborhood, was planned well before last year’s municipal election,” McBride told the Council and those citizens who watched the meeting on television.  “However, Oak Ridge voters were not told about it until after the election was over and three incumbents were safely re-elected,” 

 

After the meeting, McBride brushed aside a Council member’s contention that voters were informed about the renewal project through the city’s strategic plan. “That just doesn’t wash.  The plan does not mention either Highland View or urban renewal.  No, voters were deliberately left in the dark on this. Oak Ridger’s pay the second highest property tax rates in the state of Tennessee and deserve much better than this. Take a look at the Strategic Plan  (http://www.cortn.org/council/strategicplan.pdf ) and judge for yourself.  If you were a Highland View resident, how would you feel?”

 

“The Council’s lack of accountability to Oak Ridge citizens has run Oak Ridge’s tax rates through the roof, seriously damaging the city’s economy and undermining the financial foundation of its great schools.”

 

Martin McBride is one of five candidates for a city council seat in this year’s unusual mid-term election.  In 2002, he founded the Oak Ridge Accountability Project and organized a highly successful city-wide petition drive. 

 

Over 5,500 residents (30% of Oak Ridge’s registered voters) rushed to sign the petitions during that drive to win the right to hold a referendum on a Council-Backed bail-out of a local shopping mall.  The measure was soundly defeated by voters in August 2002, despite a $200,000 campaign urging its passage. 

 

In early 2003, the Oak Ridge Industrial Development Board secretly created a second Mall bond.  Like the Highland View urban renewal project, government officials kept the second mall bond hidden until after the normally-scheduled municipal election was completed (in June 2003)---in order to shield incumbent Council members standing for re-election from voter questions.

 

The text of Dr. McBride’s comments during the last evening’s Oak Ridge City Council meeting is included with this release, for information.  The Mayor of Oak Ridge interrupted the speech at the end, not allowing the last paragraph to be delivered. No other citizens rose to speak during this portion of the City Council meeting.

 

 

This evening, I would like to bring to your attention an Oak Ridge government action that is seriously harming citizens within our community. 

 

This action, the proposed urban renewal of the Highland View neighborhood, was planned well before last year’s municipal election.  However, Oak Ridge voters were not told about it until after the election was over and three incumbents were safely re-elected. 

 

It has been said by a member of this council that the Oak Ridge strategic plan somehow informed citizens that this project was coming.  Unfortunately, that is just not the case.  The strategic plan vaguely mentions some housing initiatives, but does not inform Highland View residents that they will be the target of an urban renewal project. 

 

The Strategic Plan also does not inform Oak Ridge taxpayers of the costs of this project---which are likely to run into many millions of dollars (not including the cost of a large number of lawsuits). 

 

Such secrecy and concealment---be it a product of innocent circumstance or deliberate manipulation---seriously undermines the faith of voters. It adds instability to Oak Ridge’s government and to its economy.  Such practices are also inconsistent with and disrespectful towards the sacrifice of so many Oak Ridgers, who have made their life’s work the pursuit of scientific truth and the defense of our nation.

 

This action has hung a terrible label on the homes in this neighborhood, the label: blighted.  Residents (both citizens who own their own homes and those who rent in the neighborhood) came to the microphone in last week’s public hearing to say that they were scared.

 

What message does the Council’s plan for seizing property in Highland View send?  What message does “secrecy” send to the owners of property in other historic Oak Ridge neighborhoods?  How can citizens trust a government that plays this type of cat-and-mouse game with Oak Ridge home owners?

 

When people went into the voting booth during the city council elections last year, no one knew that Oak Ridge government had plans push through:

 

1. A major new mall bond (which over-ruled a popular citizen referendum) and

 

2. A very expensive urban renewal project (whose purpose is apparently to clear historic neighborhoods in Oak Ridge---so that wealthy land developers can once again make money off of the taxpayers).

 

Both of these spending projects have negatively impacted our schools and other key city services---because they have robbed them of needed financial resources. They also have brought another major property  tax increase closer---which when it happens, will further depress the already-weak Oak Ridge economy.

 

The Highland View project is heart-breaking for residents and an expensive albatross for Oak Ridge taxpayers.  You, as the Oak Ridge City Council, need to halt this project---now.  If any on the Council believe it is important to pursue the Highland View project, they need to have the courage to stand, face the voters, and make the case openly and honestly during next year’s City Council Elections---when 4 City Council seats are on the line! 

 

*This is an opportunity for the Council to correct a major injustice---and substantially build community trust.  I urge you to halt this project now, before it goes any further and does any more damage to our community.  This second “Sneak Attack” by Oak Ridge government upon its citizens in less than a year---is just plain disgusting.  Please do not let this stand.

 

_________________________________ 

*The last paragraph of this speech is included for informational purposes, only. The Mayor interrupted the speech at this point and refused to allow it to continue.

 

 

 

 

Oak Ridge City Council Poised to Raise Property Taxes, A Move Which Would Further Damage the City’s Economy

 

The Council Chooses to Protect its Economic Development “Sacred Cow” Within the Budget---At the Expense of Schools, Other Key City Services, and the Taxpayers

 

Why Economic Development Doesn’t Work in Oak Ridge

 

 

The Oak Ridge City Council appeared on the verge of returning to past tax-hike strategies at its Council meeting last evening. Past Council policies of routine annual tax increases have all but destroyed the bulk of the city’s economy, yielding an eroding tax base for its schools and severe hardships for many who live on low fixed incomes.

 

“The Council’s actions last night appeared yet another signal that it is poised to return to its old ways of tax hike after tax hike,” said Martin McBride, spokesperson for the Oak Ridge Accountability Project.  “Past Council tax hikes have really hurt the Oak Ridge economy---the economy which forms the revenue base for key services, services such as, schools, police, and fire.  Tax increases drive people and jobs away from this wonderful community and they really hurt Oak Ridgers living on limited, fixed incomes.”

 

“We need more folks moving here, especially families with young children.  Our outstanding schools and our other great city services require an expanding economy to fund their activities over the long haul.  Another tax hike simply delivers another body blow to the economy---which hurts everyone.”

 

In a related budget action, the Council committed to a major expansion and extension to one of its favorite “sacred cows,” so-called economic development activities by the Oak Ridge Chamber of Commerce. Over the past decade, the Chamber’s activities have had very limited economic impact on Oak Ridge, yet the City Council has directed many hundreds of thousands of dollars funding towards them. The Chamber is quick to claim credit for nearly everything positive that happens in the city’s economy.  Yet in reality, they have played a relatively minor role.” 

 

There is a very good reason why the Chamber’s efforts have yielded so little benefit: Oak Ridge’s non-competitive tax rates. Oak Ridge currently has the second highest combined (city and county) property tax rates in State of Tennessee. Oak Ridge workers can live in West Knoxville and only pay half the Oak Ridge tax rates. 

 

According to the Oak Ridge strategic plan, nine out of ten people who work in Oak Ridge do in fact choose to live elsewhere.  This means that the main economic and tax revenue boost from new Oak Ridge businesses most often leaves the city and goes to surrounding communities---communities that directly compete with Oak Ridge. 

 

“Oak Ridge taxpayers are in reality paying to “economically develop” everyone else (rather than Oak Ridge.) The Oak Ridge economy would be much better off if the city used its available resources to improve its basic product (by say, further upgrading our outstanding schools) and if it lowered its high tax rates.  That way, the benefits from new residents and businesses would tend to stay in the city.  There is money within the Oak Ridge city budget to make these improvements, it’s just tied up in a number of non-productive, sacred cows.”

 

During the meeting, Dr. McBride also summarized the recently-proposed top-ten school project for the Council.  This project would build the already-excellent Oak Ridge School System into one of the ten best educational systems in the nation. His remarks are attached for information.

 

The Oak Ridge Accountability Project  is a group of Oak Ridge families interested in helping government reach for that next higher level of government accountability and performance.  The group’s spokesperson, Martin McBride, can be reached at (865) 482-5386 or at accountable@earthlink.net .

 

Comments to the Oak Ridge City Council

On the Top-Ten School Proposal

February 16, 2004

 

Our city is approaching an important point of decision. We have the opportunity to turn our already-excellent school system into one of the nation’s very best.  Oak Ridge schools are currently ranked as one of the best in Tennessee and among the top two hundred nationally.  We are proposing that our school programs be further strengthened so that Oak Ridge Schools become one of the ten best school systems---anywhere.

 

Over the past six months we have discussed this idea with a cross-section of Oak Ridgers.  The response was very positive and enthusiastic.  I have also spent several hours with Dr. Thomas Bailey, our School Superintendent, exploring the top-ten concept. This goal seems definitely achievable---should the community wish to go after it.

 

In recent years, our great schools have almost single-handedly kept the Oak Ridge economy from sinking. Day-To-Day and week-to-week, their consistently-high performance level attracts new residents and keeps our city’s economic head above water. Our school system is the crown jewel of our wonderful city.

 

We wanted to come here this evening and discuss the top-ten idea with the Council, because it’s the Council who controls the city’s priorities and its overall budget.  While setting school priorities and making school decisions are clearly the responsibility of the School Board, your decisions on the city’s overall priorities either enables or constrains further school development.

 

It is important to understand that when we say “top-ten,” we are talking about the full range of school programs---not just the academic programs. We would, for example, expect a top-ten athletics, music, and arts programs to accompany top-ten academic and training programs. We think that the combination of sustained property tax reductions and the pursuit of top-ten status for our schools, will give the Oak Ridge economy the shot in the arm that it badly needs.

 

The goal of this proposal is to provide busy Moms and Dads with the best set of educational opportunities in the country.  It will take hard work---but it will also be a lot of fun. 

 

Can you imagine how much fun it will be to listen to Oak Ridgers discuss and agree upon the criteria to define a top-ten school?  We have a city filled with very creative and very passionate folks.  Imagine what they will come up with! 

 

This is a project that will likely foster partnerships with other school districts and it will certainly need input from notable academic institutions, such as the University of Tennessee.

 

We urge you to support the further exploration and development of the top-ten school concept.  Please think of that wonderful day, when the Chairman of our School Board, our Mayor, distinguished community leaders, and the Governor all stand at the outskirts of our city---to proudly witness the unveiling of the sign saying: Oak Ridge, One Ten-Best School Systems in the Nation! 

 

Thank you and good evening.

 

 

 

 

Dear Friends:

I thought you might be interested in an update on our issue with the

League---and in seeing a couple of the e-mails we sent to the newspapers. 

Both David and I have talked to League officers yesterday about the bias

concern.  I met with the President of the Local Chapter, yesterday morning.

The people were quite interested, but noncommittal (as one would expect;

they need to discuss this with their group)

I sent Heather McCoy (Oak Ridger) an e-mail with the complete text of my

letter to the League, which is included below for your information. The

e-mail also addresses the lingering concern about the Oak Ridger.  Also

included is a copy of an e-mail on my conversation with Georgiana Vines

(News Sentinel).  Both Ms. McCoy and Vines were very interested and asked a

number of good questions.

It's important to emphasize that our group fully supports the League's

function. The League should play a very important role in the upcoming

political debate.  The problem here is the League's political bias against

our organization and against governmental change.  I hope the matter can be

resolved quickly.  We really need them. (Boy, try to bring up something a

little different for Oak Ridge government---and its amazing how many doors

close (and how quickly)!)

Despite the many obsticles, we have made an incredible amount of progress

over the last year.  All the credit goes to our wonderful volunteers and to

the citizens of our great city.  They did not lose hope, when the Council

turned away last year.  They pushed forward and obtained the right to have a

Charter Commission.  That's an amazing accomplishment! Thanks again for all

the interest and support.

By the way, Mt. Juliet will be voting on the first Taxpayer Bill of Rights

in the State next Monday Night.  There is a wonderful example of government

partnering with its citizens!  Hat's off to Al Williams and the Mt. Juliet

City Commission.  Way to go!

Please stay tuned! 

Thanks

 

        Martin

 

 

 

Heather:

 

Here is a copy of my complete letter to the local chapter of the League of

Women Voters, for your information.

 

As I said, I would prefer that you get a copy of the questionnaire directly

from the League, as the document belongs to them and I think it is their

right to release it. 

 

By the way, I have similar concerns about the Oak Ridger---questions of

institutional bias.  I think you guys are dropping the ball, as far as

informing the citizens about the Charter Commission and the proposed

reforms.  Like the League, the Oak Ridger treated last fall’s Charter

Commission petition drive with indifference. Like the League, the paper

appears to go out of its way to avoid mentioning the Commission’s

citizen-sponsored component.

 

There was a very large message sent out by the 5,500 signatures in our first

petition drive.  That message want a change in the service of government and

the institutions that provide public information.

 

The paper may be drifting into a complacent state of mind, perhaps thinking

that printing letters to the editor is an adequate substitute for balanced

and fair (and hard-hitting) journalism.  Since your corporate parent, Morris

Communications, has not stepped forward (as we asked) and investigated the

journalistic ethics issues that arose last summer, there also remains an

unfortunate cloud of suspicion over the political motivations of the

newspaper. I continue to think the latter issue can be resolved with the

adoption of some straight-forward ethics guidelines by the corporation.  I

am surprised Morris does not see this as a practical dollars-and-sense

issue---and just solve it (so we can get on with life and get back to

supporting the newspaper!)

 

I really appreciate what you as a reporter, must do to gather information

and wrestle it into a coherent story (on a short deadline!)  That takes a

great deal of skill and hard work.  I would like to see the Oak Ridger

concerns put to bed before the Charter Commission begins, as I think they

distract your readers from the quality of your on-the-street product. 

 

I see myself as just your average idealistic citizen.  More than tax

control; more than community economic growth, I just want to see Oak Ridge

live up to its potential as a “City of Ideas.”  To make that happen, the

city needs its key institutions (such as the city council, the League, and

the local media) to become a bit more open to and encouraging of new

thoughts and approaches. 

 

The Accountability Group was able to have a very successful Charter

Commission petition drive last year, in part because we had previously

achieved a high-level of city-wide prominence.  The apparent indifference of

the Oak Ridger and the League to us or the drive, did not appreciably hinder

our efforts. 

 

That’s fine, as far as we go.  But, what about the next citizen group that

comes down the road?  Will the newspaper and the League step forward and

show interest in their ideas?  That needs to happen, if Oak Ridge is to

truly become a “City of Ideas!”  Food for thought---

 

Good Luck with your story.

 

        Martin

 

 

Dear Oak Ridge League of Women Voters:

 

It is with regret that I must decline your invitation to appear at the

League’s candidate forum for the Oak Ridge City Charter Commission in Oak

Ridge, Tennessee.  Accepting the invitation might be seen as an endorsement

of the League’s active opposition to accountability reform over the last

year and acceptance, more recently, of the League’s opposition to my

candidacy. Attendance might also be seen as legitimizing the League’s use of

a politically-motivated litmus test.  These types of tests are harmful to

good government.

 

The upcoming Charter Commission election has one, and only one, objective,

namely: to provide citizens with the opportunity to change their government,

if they wish to do so.  The Charter Commission is a last-ditch, check and

balance mechanism. It is an option available to citizens under the Tennessee

Constitution when, representative government denies them the opportunity to

modify government direction and structure.

 

The citizen call for change has been opposed by many established Oak Ridge

groups (including, unfortunately, the League) since we first stepped forward

last year. I respectfully say to all of the champions of status quo: please

stand aside and allow the citizens to decide the matter for themselves!  An

Oak Ridge Charter Commission was created by the citizens, so that they might

have a direct role in shaping the future of this wonderful city. They

deserve the right to manage the Commission process---and they deserve full

and accurate information from sources such as the League.

 

Inaccurately and incompletely characterizing our reforms, as the League does

in their recent candidate questionnaire, is unhelpful.  Failing to explain

the five accountability reforms and their underlying bases is unhelpful.

Failing to properly credit sponsorship for the reforms and recasting the

reforms, arbitrarily eliminating the term “accountable” from the text of

several, is both unhelpful and potentially confusing.

 

Proposing a politically-motivated litmus test for accountability candidates

is also unhelpful. The League’s test is clearly designed to block my

candidacy for office.  You propose to evaluate the worthiness of candidates

based upon length of time served within local government and previous voting

frequency in local elections. These criteria would prevent the majority of

Oak Ridge citizens from seeking elected office. That’s nonsense!

 

The League’s litmus test closely resembles tactics used to suppress women

and minorities---for many years.  Leaders of the women’s movement, such as

Susan B. Anthony, undoubtedly were the target of such strategies, from the

established institutions of her day. Litmus tests are an attempt to keep

targeted groups away from government. They are elitist and exclusionary in

nature and just a bad idea.

 

When citizens who have not participated in government, come forward because

they wish to become involved---government becomes energized. The League

needs to encourage people to become a part of government, not block their

access and drive them away with litmus tests!

 

Our city-wide petition drives were characterized by the local media as one

of the most important activities to occur within Oak Ridge in the year 2002.

We registered over a hundred new voters during these drives and succeeded in

getting two important issues placed upon the election ballot. Over 5,500

citizens (over a third of all registered city voters) rushed to sign our

first petition in less than 20 days. The League’s response was first one of

indifference and then outright opposition and hostility---as the

accountability activities became progressively more successful.

 

Following last year’s referendum success, the League excluded our group’s

leadership from community discussion sessions with the City Council.  The

League also spoke out against our supporters, referring to them as

individuals who just want to “gripe.”  Many of our supporters were

volunteers, people who donated thousands of hours in public service to walk

city streets and talk to citizens in our city-wide petition drives. In

return for this wonderful civic effort, the League treated them, in my

opinion, as second class citizens---in an apparent attempt to marginalize

and silence their voice.

This all runs counter to the principles, goals, and core values contained on

the League’s national web page (www.lwv.org ).  The League’s national goal

states that government should be: “representative, accountable, and

responsive.” The League core values endorse: “grassroots initiatives.” The

national web page indicates that the League: “neither supports nor opposes

candidates for office at any level of government.” (see the following web

pages: www.lwv.org/where/america.html ;

www.lwv.org/about/lwvus/lwvus_desc.html  ; and www.lwv.org/about/lwvus.html

)

 

As the time for the Charter Commission approaches, my chief concern is that

the League’s tactics could generate a serious and lasting credibility

problem for itself with the community.  The city needs an unbiased and

credible League function to assist in informing citizens about Commission

issues and activities. The community needs the League to help with the

approaching community-wide debate over accountability reform.  It does not

need another biased political opposition group, dedicated to steadfastly

resisting government change and accountability (we have plenty of those

already!)

 

I wish you good luck with your upcoming candidate forum. I am sorry I will

not be able to participate under these circumstances. Thank you for

considering my input.

 

 

Sincerely yours,

 

 

 

Martin McBride

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Martin McBride [mailto:accountable@comcast.net]

Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 9:59 PM

To: David Crowe (dhcrowe@msn.com)

Cc: Georgiana Vines (vines@knews.com)

Subject: Update on my conversation with Ms. Vines of the News Sentinel,

today

David:

I just had a conversation with Ms. Vines at the News Sentinel. She started

our conversation by telling me that she is a League member. I told her that

we really supported the League function and wanted to straighten this out

before the election. I tried to emphasize that point. She sounded somewhat

skeptical about the League bias issue.

I can understand her skepticism. Until I experienced all these closed doors

myself, I was skeptical! Until you have experienced what our group has gone

through in the last year, its hard to fully understand the very significant

impact that these types of biases have. Over the last year, barrier after

barrier has been imposed on our activities, in an effort to sidestep and

block routine public discourse.

I told Ms. Vines that our issue was clearly one of high public interest

(judging from the 5,500 petition signatures). Yet, the League chose to

totally ignore us. We managed to register over a hundred new voters within

20 days. That simply does not happen----without unrest. Unregistered voters

do not switch directions overnight, unless they are deeply concerned over

something. Yet the Oak Ridge League’s response matched the Council’s (and

virtually every other civic group in Oak Ridge): continued silence. We were

the only ones who seemed to take notice.

After we prevailed in last August’s election, League’s opposition became

more active and visible. They kept us out of their community chats with the

Council. I frankly question the legitimacy of their approach. I see no basis

for excluding people from discussions with elected officials, simply because

of political association. Also, the application of the term “gripers” by the

League to our hard-working volunteers was deliberate and quite demeaning.

Why did the League choose to criticize (instead of celebrate) this

extraordinary citizen participation? Why did they ignore our success in

registering new voters? Why did they exclude us from the Council chats? Why

did they ignore the Charter Commission petition drive? There is only one

obvious answer, here---overt political bias.

We discussed our recent concern over the League’s inaccurate recasting of

our reforms and the League’s arbitrary decision to drop the term:

accountability, from them. The first three reforms were actually created

with a great deal of community input, another point lost by the League’s

questionnaire.

When we came to the Litmus test issue, Ms. Vines wanted to know if we were

we saying that voting frequency was somehow private (rather than public)

information. That information is clearly public information.

This line of questioning may indicate that the League will try to divert

attention to the mechanics of the questionnaire, rather than the

more-important policy issue. To use an analogy with historic racism; groups

advocating racial exclusion undoubtedly tried to divert attention towards

questions like: is this literacy test accurate?---rather than focus on the

more-important policy issue: should a literacy test be associated with our

elections in the first place? If the League tries this tactic, I think they

will lose further credibility with the public. The question of litmus

testing is clearly the more significant issue.

I was thinking after this conversation, that there is probably another

factor working against our group. It may take a while for the media to

recognize that the Accountability Candidates are really not running as

traditional political candidates. Our election reflects much more about the

five accountability reforms, than it is about us as individuals. This is a

bit different than your typical personality-linked political contest.

I think that our concerns could be easily resolved, as I explained to the

League President this morning, with some statements of clarification from

the League. I am hoping that they decide to deal with them, rather than

adopt a defensive posture. The League needs to successfully function as a

neutral third party in Oak Ridge, this summer. The city really needs them!

We need them!

I look forward to seeing Ms. Vines final position on all of this. I

appreciate her interest.

Martin

 

 

 

 

 

 

Financial Economics Homepage      ||       Attorney at Law Homepage

DISCLAIMER. This web page was written by a lawyer, and it discusses legal issues. It would not be complete without a disclaimer. This web page and all its constituent parts and all the various links are provided subject to and governed expressly by the terms of this disclaimer. I provide this site for educational purposes and to stimulate a discussion among people with a common interest in legal issues. I do not warrant or represent the accuracy or timeliness of the information contained in this page or any of its constituent pages. Neither this web site nor the articles contained on it are legal advice. The information presented is not intended to be advice as to a specific fact pattern with which the reader may be presented. This web site and articles describe general, non-specific legal information. They are not intended to cover all the issues related to the topics discussed. Any member of the public must exercise caution in trying to apply general information about the law to the specific facts of some matter of concern. Accordingly, please note that by using this page you acknowledge that the information at this site is being provided "as is" and not as legal advice on any matter. No atttorney-client relationship is hereby established between the reader and Dr. Michael Guth. I also make no representation as to the authorship, quality, reliability or accuracy of any of the links from this page or any of its constituent pages. Pages linked to which are not maintained by me may be subject to other terms and conditions. Neither this web site nor the articles contained therein are solicitations. Rather they inform the public about legal services and non-legal services offered by attorney Michael Guth. By accessing this page, you acknowledge that you have both read this disclaimer and understood its terms, as a condition to visiting my site. "In a perfect world we wouldn't need this disclaimer, but in a perfect world, you wouldn't need lawyers either." -- Ms. Parry Aftab.