In this episode we explore how former Salisbury mayor, Jake Day, along with the City Council, not only sold city-owned downtown properties to “preferred” real estate developers at substantial losses and well below market value, but have provided enormous tax abatements and subsidies to developers at taxpayer expense. Moreover, the City Council has made it a habit of discussing these issues in closed sessions, thus excluding the public and avoiding their scrutiny. The County Executive has also been complicit in picking the winners and losers, and it is apparent that these bad actors are loyal to certain developers, rather than to the citizens they supposedly represent. Why are taxpayers being forced to take the financial risks for the benefit of these private developers? Just follow the campaign money and you'll likely find the answer.
Open Agenda TV S2 E56 Salisbury Development and Jake Day's Legacy
Show Transcript
Disclaimer: The following transcript was auto-generated and may contain spelling or contextual errors.
You're watching Open Agenda. Here's our
host, Joe White.
>> Welcome to Open Agenda. I'm your host,
Joe White. In the studio with me today
is Mr. Michael Langford from Salsbury.
Thank you
>> for having me.
>> Dr. Joe Vanosa from Salsbury. Thank you,
gentlemen.
>> Thank you.
>> Salsbury. We're talking about Salsbury
City Council.
>> Seems to be in the wind.
>> Yeah. Um I know I know you you both were
at the city council meeting Monday night
and uh Michael, you gave some great
comments. Public monies are for the
public's interest, not for private
development. And you can conflate per
private interest with a outcome that can
theoretically,
you know, benefit the public, but that's
not actually using what that those
public monies are for. I think our
taxpayer money needs to be more
earnestly and sincerely allocated to
things. I think that appropriate
expenditures, investment into community,
um allocating to developers and then
claiming that their private interest is
going to have a public benefit is not
it. That's why they're doing private
sector business in the first place.
Their whole reason why they have a legal
market is that there's a benefit to all
of us by them just doing business. They
already have that benefit. They do not
need public monies. That is wholly
inappropriate. And then part of the
reason why they are being it has been
suggested by prior administration Jake
Day that we wave connect fees and we
help these developers is because they
frankly cannot get conventional
financing. They have for whatever reason
whether they stretched their business
prospects too thin their credit is not
that good they've overextended
themselves happens all the time. We
don't need to assess it and judge people
because of in that aspect, but it is
wholly inappropriate if they cannot get
financing for say a parking garage that
the city would take out a bond to
protect private interest. That's
ridiculous and wholly inappropriate,
very unethical.
>> Want to talk about Lot 10 and and some
of the other appointments that were
made. And I want to take a a different
perspective. I want to bring in Trish
Melvin. She's a resident of Futland. She
watches, she keeps up with this stuff
through our show and and through her own
research, but I want to see get her
perspective as someone who's closely
related to this type of subject but not
immersed in it. Right.
>> Absolutely. No, I think it's valuable,
too. Um, a lot of times people on the
city stuff, I feel like, um, when I've
talked to people around the county,
right, that might live in Hebrin or some
other area, they often feel hesitant to,
uh, state their opinion because they're
like, I don't have a, you know, a dog, a
a horse in this race, right? And, um,
but I really think that it allows us to
share information amongst different
communities and deepen our understanding
and, you know,
>> well, and working for other people. If
Salsbury wants to make a mistake, maybe
at least Fruitland or Delmare or Hebin
could learn from it before they
>> I was just going to say that's generally
the the the the view that I hear from
people outside of Salsbury is all what
do they do now?
>> Yeah. But also maybe Futinland's doing
something Salsbury's not. You know,
we're some other way too we can learn
from
>> I want to I want to find out what she
has to say.
>> Yeah. Dr. Joe, will you come back after
she
>> This week has been quite a year, but I'm
think I promise I'll stick her busy
week. It's been a busy week.
>> So stay with us. When we come back,
we're going to bring in Miss Trish
Melvin from from Fruitland and we're
going to talk about the Salsbury City
Council meeting from last Monday night.
So stay with us. We'll be right back.
Welcome back to Open Agenda. In the
studio with me now is Mr. Michael
Langford from Salsbury, Mr. Trish Melvin
from Futland. Thank you all. So city
council meeting was last Monday and I
want to go over some of the highlights
uh particularly the the the lot 10 uh
issue. So I would like to discuss uh
again the lot 10 subreient agreement. So
specifically it feels so inappropriate
this resolution because of my earlier
comments about public money is not for
private interest. If you go to page 28
and 29 on uh the agenda packet for
tonight, you can see that there's a PGO
capital project payo funding general
information form from the Maryland
Department of General Services in which
the developer this resolution calls for
us to release state money and the first
draw black and white says land
acquisition after the conclusion of land
acquisitions developers can be
reimbursed up to $75,000
upon present presentation of the payment
proof of payment. Why are we paying a
developer who is supposedly investing in
filling our coffers with the state
money? So why would we ever? That is
just bad city governance.
>> It's wholly inappropriate. Is deeply
unethical. Jake Day is to blame
specifically for this and it is wrong. I
am willing to say that state money for
infrastructure improvements is the
justification given. But if you look,
the very first draw, black and white,
says $75,000
to the developer. Why would you ever
support that?
It doesn't make any sense. Why would
you, if I go into a It doesn't make any
sense. The taxes are then stayed because
of here is home. So there's no revenue
for the city. So you're telling me that
for the city property, the city is not
going to get any money because that
money is just being swift switched
around from the state. But it's all
because money goes to a general fund
from from taxes. That's the same money.
So, they are getting reimbursed. The the
developers made no development on that
lot and they've owned it for over two
years. They have no financial investment
if we reimburse them for it. And there's
no tax revenue.
So, you are propping up this private
developer for what? Why are we going to
give Nick Simpson Menus Capital
Partners? Why are we going to pay them
for the lot that they supposedly bought?
So, you're giving it to them. You're
giving them state money. You're giving
them city property. And it's deeply
unethical. It's deeply wrong. I don't
understand the rationalization from
public servants putting forward a
resolution, which is just a suggestion
because you guys don't have the
authority to actually sign this
document. But it honestly feels
fraudulent.
The aspect of why would we ever sign off
on paying back people who invested in
our city. It makes every argument that
any of Michelle Gregory, Angela Blake,
or Deshaawn Dowy have ever made in favor
of these development deals. You
undermine every single argument you've
ever made because now we get nothing. We
get no development. We get no
investment. We get no revenue. Where's
the city benefit? It's deeply, deeply
wrong. Disappointed.
>> But I want to ask you where where are we
standing with lot 10? I want details.
Basically, um, so they passed a
resolution on Monday, which is basically
nothing more than here's our considered
opinion as a legislative body. They
don't actually have the authority to
sign contracts. Um, that's not their
role.
>> You're talking about the city council,
not the mayor of the city.
>> The city council's role as a legislative
body is not to sign contracts or commit
any uh the city financially to anything,
right? That's executive branch's power.
>> So, um, so the resolution feels
inordinate in that way and it's kind of
a red, you know, raises a little bit of
a red flag. Um what specifically is in
there is there were forms in the agenda
packet for that evening that went from
what were from the capital project PIGO
funding general information form which
is from uh state of Maryland. It it lays
out in very black and white um on page
like 2728 is the form and then on page
43 it's very black and white what the
draw schedule is. So draw one is total
reimbursement for the price they paid
for that lot 10 to acquire at 75,000.
>> So they get it for free. So yeah. So,
they're giving them that property. Then,
draw two is over $2 million, up to over
$2 million reimbursement upon proof of
uh payment for design plans and
architecture and all that. All of that,
which again is that you're a developer.
So, that's the cost of your business is
to develop things to make plans.
>> Yeah.
>> And then the third draw uh would be
reimbursement for inspections upon the
completed hotel conference center and
>> so you can open so you can start making
money. Right.
>> Right.
>> Here we go again. another meeting,
another closed session on lawsuits. Uh
this time at 5:30, it was on the Marina
Landing case that's uh pending in the
federal court. Um about a month ago, the
judge in that case dismissed uh count
one. Uh there are two counts that
dismissed one of them. That was the c uh
count under the federal constitution and
um civil rights laws regarding u dep
alleged deprivation of property rights
that's been dismissed from the case. Uh
if that was part of the discussion,
there's absolutely no reason that that
couldn't have been held in open session.
Uh it's a matter of public record. Um
these these lawsuits
uh they all have something in common and
and that is they were all uh about uh
downtown development that was fermented
by the former mayor day
uh that frankly um and I'll go back to
the Marine Landing case count two the
one that's left is under the city's
zoning law essentially saying we the
developer thinks he's entitled to
building permits. The city thinks no. I
think if we take a good look at the
zoning code, I have uh and I've come to
the conclusion that there's pretty good
chance that he hasn't complied with the
zoning code. If that's the case, the
whole case can be dismissed. I think
that needs to be looked into. Uh and I
mean that would put an end to that one.
>> So Trish, I mean you're a resident of
Futland.
>> Thank thankfully you're not dealing with
the Salsbury.
>> Definitely resident of Futland. But you
I mean you're you're hearing this. I
mean a private enterprise is coming in.
They're they're they're getting public
land that was that was owned by the
citizens of Salsbury. Uh and now not
only is that price going to be
reimbursed to the developer, but also
part of the development of it and even
the inspections at the end. How do you
feel about that?
>> I've been paying attention passively
since I live in Futland and I have a lot
of questions. taking a step back and and
and getting away from the minutiae, the
details and the granular detail. I think
that these arrangements were probably
made um anticipation of a a bright
future and right now I don't think that
that's on the horizon. Times are not
going to it's hard to say what the
future holds and we've made a bet on the
future by these tax abatements. I
understand.
>> Yeah.
>> And it it was a gamble. it may not play
out
>> well. I mean, and Michael has referenced
that where they're they're short capital
funds for like sewer and water and
they're having to bill. I mean, in
Fruitland, you you all have a sewer and
water bill. In Salsbury, they do theirs
has gone up 60% in the last two years,
right?
>> Yeah. Maybe 80, I think, actually.
>> Okay. 60 might be conservative.
>> It's quite it's quite a bit
>> because of these these, you know, like
you said, sunny day prospects and and
and they were put in by u former mayor
Jake Day's administration. So,
That's another thing. Just passively
listening. I hear um complaints or
sometimes demonization of of Mayor Day.
Um
I think he's the first mayor that's done
anything in a long time. Um again, I
didn't pay too close attention, but it
seemed to me the city of Salsbury
stagnated for decades.
>> Okay,
>> I moved here in the 80s. Um nothing
happened. And then we got a mayor where
things started to happen. Um, and when
you do things, you're going to have
people criticize you.
>> Yeah.
>> So, I don't know how much of that is
what's really going on. Well, but I
guess the question I have is that, you
know, we have empty lots, lot 10, Maria
Landing, they're not generating any
future tax revenue for us. I understand,
you know, did you was it necessary to
attract uh developers to to give this?
Well, I mean, we have documented other
developments have been built and you're
talking about there's not producing any
tax revenue. By a lot of the numbers,
they're even once they're developed,
they're not going to produce any tax
revenue. Uh, and and unfortunately,
they're going to create a burden. Is
that
>> that was a gamble. Yeah. That
>> but but also you can look at the market
really. So, what a lot of the times what
they do is they pray upon people's
ignorance is that people just don't know
what the market looks like if they're
not in real estate and people in
government and nonprofits don't. And so
they um so the issue I think is that
people portray it as though how do we
incentivize development and it's like
how did the railroads get built
>> is private industry.
>> Yeah. Because people wanted to not
because we incentivized anything. So the
way to be effective like in working in
public private partnership look at
Amtrak not not always financially
solvent but like works functions right
as it's supposed to. People use it as a
commuter daily from New York and DC and
Baltimore. It works. There's a way to do
private public partnerships. This is not
how it's done. And I think that's that's
my big problem is that a lot of times
people aren't familiar with real estate.
They're not famili Look at a company
like Dr. Horton. They build like over
500 homes in the last like 3 years.
Nobody's given them any breaks.
>> They haven't asked for any of that.
>> Actually, they've had to compete against
other interests that do get the breaks.
So, they're in some ways having to to go
up against unbalanced system. Building
on what he said, I think somebody else
pointed out the devel development in
Futland that's going on without any
subsidies for the developers.
>> That includes a hotel that's going on.
No subsidy there. Why are we subsidizing
this hotel? So when you when you really
step back and you look away from
personalities, what you see is you see
government in this case when they talk
about uh incentivizing development,
they're really subsidizing development
and they're subsidizing people who have
a bad business model and don't really
have a a proper grasp of the market and
can't function and thrive within it. So
then it becomes the question of all
right well why would the government
invest in one developer over another?
Well, maybe there's some aspect. You
know, we live in a time of a lot of
social justice, so maybe there's a
reparations aspect. Are any of these
developers people of color? Are any of
them women? Are any of them queer? None
of them are. They're all,
you know, white men who are like
basically handed things a lot of times.
Some of them are from here, some of them
are not. But that aspect does not make
them bad people, but it means that like
any kind of argument that we're making
this a better place, that we're pro
providing opportunity to community. Um,
as someone who worked in hotels in Ocean
City for seven years, you are not going
to be providing new jobs with a hotel
that help people buy mortgages. You
won't. It won't improve people's quality
of life at all.
>> They're like starter jobs.
>> Service jobs.
>> Yes. Service jobs that don't really help
people become stable. They they don't
help them acquire housing themselves.
So, all of like the kick in the can
arguments that like if we if we're
friendly to business, then people want
to live here and then we'll make more
money and people will be more stable.
None of that's going to happen if
>> Could the citizens vote for these tax
abatements?
>> No. No,
>> they were executive ordered in some
cases.
>> Yeah.
>> So that that is using the exe and and
you know
>> and using the surplus uh model where
they basically class condemn these
properties then sold them as surplus
without putting them on the open market
which I think as a as a capitalist and I
am one that hey look maybe the property
was only worth $50,000
but if it was worth 75 then that's what
you would get for it. or if it was worth
two million. I mean, we we've documented
Marina Landing as a a property that at
one time the city paid over a million
dollars for
>> correct
>> a bigger block, but this 80s, right?
>> In the 80s, but and this is only a piece
of that and they sold
>> but it's also the piece with the marina,
you know, and uh
>> so what what other uh topics came up? I
mean, we we talked about the there's a
new city administrator, right? Yeah, we
have I would say also if you want to
look into the value of property too, how
we how you what you were just referring
to Joe is if you look on Estat for state
of Maryland, then you can look up what
people paid for the property, any
property in the state of Maryland. It's
all public. So you can go look what all
these lots are actually worth like
decades ago and it's more than what they
were sold a few years ago for
>> and they were sold to an inside friend.
>> Yeah. And so that becomes at that point
it doesn't become it doesn't matter who
Jake Day as a personality is. It's what
he did. And at the point in government
is you're no longer talking about people
as individuals. They're not private
citizens anymore. These are public
officials. These are people that we hold
to a standard. They're accountable to
the public. They're and they're supposed
to be transparent in the dealings. And
if it didn't work out, then that needs
to be said. And it's not really a
personal thing, but people uh take it so
personally when really it's like this is
how we make a better government is by
saying this worked, this didn't work,
you know. So, so if there was no
benefits, tax abatement or tax relief,
would these lots just remain unsold
growing weeds?
>> I mean, they're not growing weeds. I
mean, that that lot 10 is used was used
one by the flea market for over two
decades and then it's used by the
courthouse every week. I mean, people,
lawyers, police officers, uh people go
into rank court, everything the district
court
>> I through there the other day. It was
empty. It was a 3:00 on a Thursday
afternoon. I guess court I had parked
but also if I go to court there
>> but they've also closed it off right
>> um now yeah now now now now uh Nick
Simpson's been you know kind of having a
little temper tantrum about like who can
use use the lot since he does properly
own it
>> but um but the agreement was that uh
people can continue to use it in
perpetuity until it's developed and it
has not been developed so he's not even
keeping his word on that level.
>> Yeah.
>> Well, I got a question uh because I hear
comments about developers from out of
state. I think April mentioned a
developer from New Jersey who's totally
um ignoring the upkeep of properties.
And so I hear that the outofstate
developers are demonized. Then the local
guys are called cronies and they're
demonized. So I mean what what
developers do we want?
>> Well, so I mean you can't take what one
person says and apply it to all of us.
So like for me I what I want I tell my
tenants this all the time. You don't
want me to give you a preferred parking
spot. You don't want me to do you any
favors. if you want me to do my job. So
with developers develop, you don't need
any help.
>> Well, that's how they do it in Futland.
>> And that's ex and that's exactly it. And
all all all over all over the rest of
like Delm Marva there there's plenty of
people that are just, you know,
developing. So like they don't they
don't need that help from our government
if they have the money. I think a lot of
times um yeah, I think out of town, in
town, I think that those are things that
make people feel comfortable or
whatever, but really it doesn't really
matter where somebody's from. It's the
quality of the work they're putting out.
So, I've never heard a good word said
about any developer full stop where
wherever they're from. So,
>> the the developers who who need a
handout, but you don't hear from the
ones who just do it privately. They come
in, they develop their property, they
make their money,
>> they make a profit, and
sounds like the essence of the problem
is the just initial arrangements that
were made to accommodate. I think that
the reason why we're looking at
developers and making those assessments
is because we're looking at a very
narrow subset of people, right? And that
we and that we don't really need to take
uh three to six individuals that we're
referring to as developers in town, out
of town, whatever. I don't think that
that represents like what Joe was saying
is that the private sector in general,
it just does what it does. Like
>> you just don't hear from them.
>> Yeah. They're very private people
anything and they don't they don't ask
for anything. they just make their money
>> and they don't and they don't want to be
on WBOC because of a of a lot sale. They
they don't want their business
highlighted in that way. They're paying
advertising.
>> So, I do want to touch on a couple other
things though. They they did hire a new
city administrator.
>> Yeah. Nick Rice um who I believe comes
from Worcester County has number uh
>> u because Andy Kitsro, he moved to to
East back in the first part of July.
>> So, now um yeah, because I think Tom
Stevenson and sometimes Alan Swagger
would be sitting in for the last couple
months um since Andy's left. So, it's
good that we have a more fully staffed,
you know, getting the city staffed.
>> And they did put some new appointees on
the historical district, but they also
still don't have the planning and zoning
set up for Salsbury.
>> Yes. Uh, yeah, they've had one or two
closed sessions now about the uh Salt
new Salsbury Planning Commission that's
being formed, which is very odd.
>> But all of these cases have something in
common, and they were fmented and
permitted by the former planning and
zoning commission. Uh, in my 50some
years of practice, much of which has
been involved with zoning and
development. It's the worst planning
commission I've ever seen the last eight
or so years.
We're going to have our own commission
now. Let's do a clean start. Let's let
anybody that was on the old commission
be gone. We really need people who will
be independent. That commission was not.
I know you're going to talk about this
in another closed session tonight. So
please bear this in mind. We really need
to have people who are not don't have
one feet in some cases two feet uh
involved with development and
developers. So you have a chance to make
a clean start. Let's do it.
>> It's all going to be public record as
far as so why um you know close sessions
and what they're for like having legal
counsel about specific issue. But it's
very odd and again not typical because
they're still they appointed uh people
historic district commission and youth
development advisory committee. So they
they appear able to take a vote and put
people on committees or commissions but
this one in particular
>> seems to be done behind closed doors.
>> Yeah.
>> Well, thank you Michael. Thank you
Trish. Appreciate your insight. Um
Michael, if you'd stick around like
bring Dr. Vosa back on and talk just
about how some of this might work.
>> So stay with us. When we come back we're
going to bring in Dr. Joinosa and talk
get his sense of the Salsbury city
council meeting. So stay with us. We'll
be right back.
Welcome back to Open Agenda. Mr. Michael
Langford, thanks for sticking around.
Dr. Joe, thanks for coming back.
>> Thanks.
>> So it was a great conversation we had
with Trish Melvin. Uh and it was great
to get her perspective as you know she's
a a resident of Fruitland. Yeah.
>> And you know they have development there
and uh
>> not as much drama.
>> Not nearly as much drama at least not
that we know of. Right. So, uh, talking
about this lot 10, uh, and we've talked
about it from the county's angle that
the county executive has signed a deal
with Memphis Capital, Nick Simpson,
>> uh, that the flea market's been
displaced several years ago and and and
the parking lot basically isn't getting
used
>> uh other than district court.
>> Yeah.
>> You know, do you see the city of
Salsbury are they moving in the right
direction? I mean, making a resolution
that they can't even sign. It's so funny
to me and I I I want to start by
commending my friend Michael on his
comments because
they they were the encapsulation of so
many things that are wrong with the
city's approach because here's the
reality as others have said when the
city council passed that resolution it
was non-binding. So what it says to me
is this is a signal to Memphis Capital
and Mr. Simpson. What this says to me is
that at least
Council President Dowy, Council Vice
President Angela Blake, and Council
Person Michelle Gregory
are giving you, the developer, their
full allegiance, their full
subservience. They are here to serve
you. We don't care what the courts say.
We don't care about the fiduciary
responsibility to the citizens. We, as
the council, at least the three of us,
are here to serve you, the developer. We
will give you my child's future
infrastructure funds needs. We will give
you, Mr. Simpson, your children's safety
for more police or firemen. And we will
give you all those things because we
want to be businessfriendly. And what
that really means in real speak to
somebody like me is the local government
is going to pick who gets to develop our
public resources and they could profit
on it even if they're not actually using
any actual traditional mechanism of
profit and loss. Right. The government's
picking a winner.
>> Oh yeah. And the irony is this is going
to lose anyway because as the
representative of the chamber of
commerce said in a city council meeting
about six months ago, he literally said,
"Yeah, this is going to be a great uh
opportunity for a lot of people to have
their firsttime job, which translates as
a minimum wage job. It's not going to
give any local person the ability to
become a homeowner, right? This this is
another series of low-wage jobs designed
to basically be, you know, framed as
some big investment." I I see that that
lack of quality, right? So like um you
know there are larger like economic
issues that nobody locally is
responsible for, but if you just like
zoom out for a second and go 30 years
back,
>> what somebody who makes $50,000 today
who is still just going to be it would
have made you solidly middle class 30
years ago. Now you're still workingass.
You're still really struggling paycheck
to paycheck. And what you can get for
that that those wages now is you can get
a room at the Ross. you can get a which
is a dormatory style,
>> right? You can get a couple a couple
hundred square feet for for $850 a month
instead of before you could get a whole
house on a quarter acre lot.
>> And this is what's so frustrating to me
as somebody who considers themselves
sort of a traditional progressive is
that you've got these people who are
doing the bidding of corporations and
developers and I don't care whether
they're they're they're local or not.
You know, I had this conversation with a
a fellow uh academic from a certain
university, and she basically made the
argument, well, that well, they're
local, so we know that, you know, that
they have our best interest. I was like,
oh, so local crooks are better than out
of town crooks.
>> It's a crook, you know,
>> it's a crook, you know, I I cannot I
have to say this, I cannot truly express
how idiotic that belief is. It it is
amazing to me the lack of values and
integrity in people in the sense of just
like what I said uh on Monday was that
public money isn't for private interest.
It's just simply inappropriate.
>> And yet that's the only thing this at
least the majority of the city council
can do. At least particularly these
three council people.
>> These three council people it's not that
they just do it. They go out of their
way to the public to say we serve thy
menus capital. And look, one one thing
that should be really brought up is
Michelle Gregory has thrown her her her
hat in the ring to to run for county
executive. You you can talk about her
chances of winning or be
>> she hasn't actually filed yet.
>> Okay. So, but she said she sure
>> but but she's giving you a good synopsis
of what that might look like and we
already have a county executive who's
going to sell us out to the developers.
>> When people use that term unarty, this
is where I see it as a real thing.
>> She's a Democrat and Julie.
>> Julie Jordano is a right-wing
Republican. Michelle Gregory claims to
be a progressive Democrat. They both
want to give Menus Capital and other
developers your public money because
they both find some kind of maybe
enjoyment, belief. Maybe they're
>> Maybe it's in their uh campaign finance.
That's you want to look and find. That's
what it was. I'm sorry. It's in the
campaign finance reports.
>> I mean, I think politicians don't
function different than business people
in the sense that they're doing what's
in their self-interest, right? that
aspect of what Adam Smith talked about
in Wealth of Nations still applies here
that people are generally, you know,
seeking what is pleasurable or
beneficial to themselves. It's in their
self-interest. Doesn't make them bad.
>> Sure.
>> But, um, I think as a society, I think
one of the things that's missing is that
there's a process, right? There's a
permitting process. There's inspections.
There's I think that due process and
leaning into that versus it's not really
supposed to cater to any particular one
person's interests. obviously
>> and even and even I'm sorry but even
Adam Smith says that right in the wealth
of nations like because again one of the
things people tend to forget about
>> you know his approach even though I
don't necessarily fully agree with it
but he also was very much guarding
against monopolization
>> you know a true free market doesn't give
certain entities the access to a
government to pick a winner or a loser
and yet here we are
>> yeah well thank you both I really
appreciate your analysis of of of that
and I know that you both stay on the on
the on the case so to speak at the city
council. So when more comes up I hope
you come back in and talk about it.
>> Definitely will. Thank you.
>> Thanks for watching this episode of Open
Agenda. We'll be back later this week
with another new episode
as was reported on Open Agenda today.
And again, plug in for them because they
actually researched it.
