Petition drive begins to stop Michigan’s Emergency Financial Manager law

Earlier this evening, I received an email from Ypsilanti Mayor Paul Schreiber, asking me to sign a petition calling for the repeal of Public Act 4 (PA4), or, what’s commonly known as, Michigan’s Fiscal Accountability Act. This, as you might recall, is the legislation put forward by Governor Rick Snyder upon taking office, which gives the State the authority to force out the democratically elected leaders of targeted communities, and replace them with appointed czars, who are given the authority to, among other things, sell community assets, void contracts, and break unions. I took the opportunity to ask our Mayor a couple of brief questions. Following, with his permission, are his responses.

MARK: Do you think this petition is likely to help?

PAUL: I think the petition will attract further attention to the fiscal accountability legislation and force the state legislature to reconsider giving the emergency manager unfettered power to void contracts.

MARK: What’s your sense as to where Ypsi stands on the list of communities to be sent Emergency Financial Managers? Is there an immediate danger?

PAUL: No, there is no immediate danger of and emergency manager in the city of Ypsilanti. City council will start wrestling with the next two-year budget after July 1. I would expect other communities will be entering into the fiscal accountability process before Ypsilanti. Ypsilanti has a healthy reserve but a structural deficit (more money going out than coming in). I’m sure that other communities have a structural deficit without the reserve funds, although I don’t know which communities will be first to be targeted.

MARK: If it’s eventually going to happen, is there anything else that we can do in hopes of delaying it? Would, for instance, it make sense for us to pursue greater integration with the Township now, while we can do it on our own terms, rather than waiting for an EMF to come in and force consolidation?

PAUL: The city of Ypsilanti has already taken drastic steps to keep the finances solvent. In 2003 the recreation department was eliminated as well as funding for human services. In 2008, the public safety and administration was pared down. Last year police and fire dispatch were moved to Washtenaw County and Huron Valley Ambulance, respectively. The next two-year budget has city council looking at another round of cost reductions. Hard decisions must be made. We are already exploring a police authority and a fire protection box alarm system to consolidate public safety services across the county. As municipal and county finances are squeezed further, I expect to see more willingness to enter into consolidations that make sense for everyone.

MARK: I notice this petition is just for those in Washtenaw County. Is there any coordination between different regions within the state? Is the Democratic party working to develop any kind of unified response to this legislation?

PAUL: I’m sorry but I don’t know about the coordination effort.

MARK: What, if anything, has changed since you addressed the community at Rebekah Warren’s WCC event a few months ago? Is there any good news?

PAUL: Since Sen. Warren’s public meeting this past spring, the Ypsilanti tax revenues have been a little higher than projected. Assuming current spending and the new projected revenues, the city would run through reserve funding in 2016. The previous projection was a year earlier. Revenues are still going down while expenses are staying level – thus the structural deficit.

MARK: As progress on the Water Street development would change the City’s fortunes considerably, I should probably ask if there’s been any progress…

PAUL: Discussions of a county recreation center on about 1/3 of the Water Street property continue, but none have occurred at the city council table. No action will occur in the near future until commitments are made.

In response to my question as to whether this petition tied into a larger state-wide effort, the Mayor later sent the following note from Ann Arbor Teachers Union President

Ladies and Gentlemen,

A statewide campaign to repeal PA4 (Emergency Managers), led by Michigan Forward, will launch this weekend with press conferences and petition training in several cities. Among them: Detroit, Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids, Traverse City. This petition campaign requires 161,400 signatures; our goal is 250,000. Once submitted and verified, the question of PA4’s repeal will be placed on the November 2012 state wide ballot. A diverse coalition of labor, faith-based, and civic groups is organizing to complete our goal of 250,000 within 60 days. For information click here.

The press conference in Ann Arbor will be at the Ann Arbor Education Association, Saturday June 18, 10 am. We are at 4141 Jackson Rd, in the Michigan Educational Credit Union, directly across from the Ann Arbor Motor mall.

We have five speakers who will each say a few words about the dangers and abuses – both proven and potential – of PA4, followed by Q&A, and then a brief petition “do’s and dont’s” training session for attendees. The public has been invited.

Speakers (thanks!):
Rebekah Warren, MI Senate (18th)
David Rutledge, MI House (54th)
Paul Schreiber, Mayor of Ypsilanti
Sabra Briere, Ann Arbor City Council
Steve Norton, Managing Partner, Okno Group, LLC

This campaign is winning the formal endorsement of groups from all along the political spectrum, progressive to conservative. More are being considered by organizations who have yet to meet and vote. The diversity of the groups who have and will soon endorse this campaign is a function of the universality of the threat imposed by PA4… an attack on the very core foundation of democracy: one person, one vote. In that you as members of the press play such a crucial and ongoing role in preserving our local democracy that PA4 so blatantly threatens, I hope you will attend and encourage your peers to attend as well.

The petitions will begin circulating on Saturday.

This entry was posted in Economics, Michigan, Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. Kim
    Posted June 16, 2011 at 6:19 am | Permalink

    I have no problem with this, but I think it’s worth noting that this is being organized by the teacher’s union, which has a great deal to lose if the legislation continues. Not only does PA4 give the EFM’s that take over local government the power to invalidate union contracts, but it gives the same power to those taking over school districts.

    Speaking of Snyder’s plans for education, did anyone see that they were lauded yesterday by Jeb Bush?

  2. Kim
    Posted June 16, 2011 at 6:22 am | Permalink

    I’m also curious to know what, if anything, it means that the Mayor of Ann Arbor will not be joining these other speakers on the 18th.

  3. Posted June 16, 2011 at 6:27 am | Permalink

    I still can’t get over how Republicans can be so into local government, but support the appointment of unelected financial dictators whose job is to disband elected local governments.

    How can any of them be behind any of this?

  4. Posted June 16, 2011 at 6:29 am | Permalink

    Remember that idiot who kept posting here for a while, that suggested that the level of political representation a community has should be proportional to the amount of tax revenue they provide to the State? I found him entertaining.

  5. Edward
    Posted June 16, 2011 at 8:09 am | Permalink

    I didn’t know that the proposed county health and fitness facility would take up 1/3 of Water Street. That’s a lot of land for something that wouldn’t contribute a dime in taxes.

  6. Mr. X
    Posted June 16, 2011 at 8:23 am | Permalink

    Speaking of Jeb Bush and his enthusiasm for Snyder’s reforms, I found this quote on to be particularly interesting.

    “If Florida can do it, Michigan can. I applaud Gov. Snyder and legislative leaders for seizing the opportunity to transform education in Michigan so every student can achieve their God-given potential.”

    I like that he said “seizing the opportunity”. I think that’s really telling. It confirms that this financial crisis we’re facing is a wet dream for conservatives, who have wanted an excuse to dismantle our public education system for the past 30 years.

  7. LaidOffTeacherPatti
    Posted June 16, 2011 at 8:55 am | Permalink

    Mr. X…that quote is absolutely terrifying.

  8. Mr. X
    Posted June 16, 2011 at 9:38 am | Permalink

    Yeah, it’s fucked up.

  9. Glen S.
    Posted June 16, 2011 at 9:43 am | Permalink

    In order for this effort to gain traction, I think it essential that leadership from a broad cross-section of Michigan communities get on board as early as possible.

    For better or worse — if this effort appears to be only about relatively poor communities and school districts with large minority populations (Pontiac, Benton Harbor, and most especially — Detroit) it will be easy for many white, middle-class, suburban and rural voters to dismiss this as a ploy by spendthrift cities and districts to avoid making tough choices, and therefore, dodge financial responsibility. After all, if “they” can’t manage “their” finances, don’t “they” deserve a financial manager?

    That’s why I think it essential to get leaders of other more typically middle-class and affluent (yet, still struggling financially) communities like Troy, Allen Park, and even Ann Arbor to take a leadership role in this effort.

    Only when folks begin to understand that this undemocratic (and likely illegal) plan threatens to dismantle (or at least, seriously undermine) ALL Michigan communities and school districts — not just the “usual suspects” — will we be able to build a critical mass capable of overturning this disastrous legislation.

  10. Glen S.
    Posted June 16, 2011 at 9:46 am | Permalink

    I also agree with Mr. X that both the state and national financial “crises” are actively being taken advantage of by wealthy elites as a pretext to enact reactionary and regressive social and economic policies that would be impossible given different circumstances — a prime example of the “Shock Doctrine” in action.

  11. Mr. X
    Posted June 16, 2011 at 9:47 am | Permalink

    All the more reason to ask why Ann Arbor’s Mayor won’t be attending Saturday’s event, Glen.

  12. TaterSalad
    Posted June 16, 2011 at 9:55 am | Permalink

    Emergency manager law…… thing going for Michigan!
    Why is Barack Obama wanting to cut the militarys pay and benefits but is giving money to our enemies? Liberals can not answer this one!

  13. Maria
    Posted June 16, 2011 at 10:03 am | Permalink

    It’s okay if the AAEA heads this particular drive, because while they certainly have much to lose if it goes forward, but so do many other constituents. I would think 160,000+ signatures won’t be that hard. Does anybody find it ironic that Roger Fraser is an EFM and he helped drive up Ann Arbor’s debt load. Fine EFM he’ll be. It’s more like the blind leading the blind with that one.

  14. Adam Warner
    Posted June 16, 2011 at 10:15 am | Permalink

    A few points of clarification —

    The PA-4 Repeal campaign is a statewide initiative led by Michigan Forward.

    (Read about it here:

    In Washtenaw County, in addition to the AAEA, a number of other local labor unions and community groups in the county have been working together as the Washtenaw Community Action Team (WCAT).

    On Saturday, June 25th from 11am-2pm, the WCAT will hold a coordinating meeting for the PA-4 Repeal campaign at the Ann Arbor Community Center (625 N. Main St.) This event will provide the opportunity for activists, unionists, educators, students and community members to come together to discuss the details of the petition, the of PA-4 and the (short-term and long-term) strategy to win.

    We’re excited to announce that Chris Savage from has agreed to speak. We hope to have local officials speak as well.

    We’ll have more information in the next few days.

    One final thought — The other week Mark suggested that time was better spent advocating for graduated taxation (as opposed to efforts like the Recall Rick Campaign). The idea, I take it, is that what is needed is an alternative for Michigan not opposition.

    I share Mark’s sentiments, and I think the PA-4 repeal works to similar ends:
    (1) the goal of 160,000 signatures is achievable (2) once the signatures are collected and processed PA-4 goes on hold until the 2012 vote (3) the opposition and citizens of Michigan will have said no to a very bad piece of legislation with very disingenuous pretenses and very real consequences — this is undoubtedly a victory (4) Lastly, given the scope and aims of the bill, this effort (and the hopeful victory) will allow us to change the conversation; that is, we will be able to effectively say ‘Michigan is in trouble, Rick Snyder proposed an unacceptable way out, let’s talk about another’

    I hope readers of this blog turnout to the June 25th event so we can begin to have that discussion. (Mark we’d love if you covered it!) More information will come out in the following days.

  15. Glen S.
    Posted June 16, 2011 at 10:17 am | Permalink

    Mr. X.,

    I’m guessing that leaders of some communities (like Ann Arbor) that feel they’re not as far along on the crisis continuum may feel it is better to try to “ride out” the Snyder Administration, rather than risk any kind of confrontation with Lansing.

    If so, I think that’s a shame, since I think this is all going to catch up with them, in time, as well.

  16. Posted June 16, 2011 at 10:24 am | Permalink

    Roger Fraser will provide sorely needed local municipal government experience to the Snyder administration. I hope that his advice is strongly considered. I don’t think that he is or will be an emergency manager. He understands the fiscal challenges cities face and he has been a strong supporter of Ypsilanti.

    Concerning Water Street, the 1/3 land figure was something I heard, but is just one of the many details that need to be decided. Stay tuned.

    Paul Schreiber

  17. EOS
    Posted June 16, 2011 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    An EMF in the City could not force the township to consolidate. The voters in the township would have an opportunity to vote against such a detrimental merger. Too many in the City assumed that the State would provide funds when the City depleted theirs. Instead of free money, the State will provide fiscal management. This would not be a possibility had the City managed their budget responsibly. When the population decreases and revenues decline, services must be reduced proportionately.

  18. Posted June 16, 2011 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    The city of Ypsilanti has general fund reserves at 55% of annual expenditures. This is a healthy reserve by any measure.

    Ypsilanti city council is focusing on sustainability for the city while looking at all reasonable options. Even though an emergency manager can break contracts, municipal consolidation requires a vote of the people.

    Paul Schreiber

  19. EOS
    Posted June 16, 2011 at 11:20 am | Permalink

    The general fund reserves are projected to be completely depleted by 2015. (As stated in the City’s own budget packets.) Not a healthy situation by many measures.

  20. Robert
    Posted June 16, 2011 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    EOS, please tell me you don’t support this EFM BS.

  21. EOS
    Posted June 16, 2011 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    I don’t support this EFM BS.

    I support fiscal constraint exercised by elected officials, low taxes, and more individual citizen responsibility.

  22. Heidi
    Posted June 16, 2011 at 7:08 pm | Permalink

    Just the EFMS doing their job…hiring felons to control water treatment operations in Pontiac..sigh

    On a side note, Public employees should be a worried about SB7 which will probably pass. Everything seems to think that this is only going to affect teachers, but all other public employees that get state/tax aid, city workers, county workers, firemen, policemen, librarians etc.. to quote one of my good friends “In MI when SB 7 passes, employees of places that receive state funds will begin paying 20% of their health premium. MI’s Congress is the 2nd highest paid in the country & they won’t be paying 20% of their health premium, & they voted to keep their lifetime health care. ”
    Where is the “shared sacrifice” in that?????

  23. Heidi
    Posted June 16, 2011 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

    that should be but it will affect ALL other public employees that get state/tax aid, city workers, county workers, firemen, policemen, librarians etc.. sometimes the brain works faster then the fingers.

  24. Andrew Jason Clock
    Posted June 17, 2011 at 12:44 am | Permalink

    So, I was wondering why we haven’t heard any more about Washtenaw Parks and Recreation’s plan for a recreation center on Water Street? Isn’t this something we should be talking about, at least? They are talking about BUYING 10 – 12 acres of Water Street and constructing a huge attraction on it, one that could bring jobs and pedestrian traffic downtown, and so much more.

    As the mayor points out, we don’t even have a recreation department. We have almost no recreation facilities, and the ones we have, particularly Rutherford Pool, are in need of major repair or total replacement. WCPR wants to build a modern version of the facility on Washtenaw in A2, including indoor and outdoor pools, weight rooms, exercise rooms, and much more, and make the place a hub for the Border to Border trail, which thousands of people use every year. This project would also bring infrastructure to Water Street (roads, water, sewer, power) making the adjoining property much more attractive to developers. I can’t think of anything better we could possibly do to kick-start a revitalization of Water Street, Downtown, and Depot Town, and give us a viable recreation facility.

    Yes, there is the tax issue. As county land, that 10 – 12 acres would not be taxable. But guess what, it hasn’t generated tax revenue in 10 years, has absolutely no prospect of generating tax revenue in the foreseeable future, and it’s purchase cost and interest payments are what are draining our cash reserves. What do we have to loose? Not tax revenue, because again, we haven’t gotten any of that from Water Street in 10 years!

    I’m challenging council to bring this issue to the public, either in a council session or a town hall. What is being done to make this deal a reality? If members of council are lining up against it, what is their reasoning, and what, exactly, is their better plan, and why didn’t they bring it up sooner?

    I don’t see anything on the horizon that can compare to what the county is offering. This project is a chance for Ypsilanti to get a new start for downtown. Why aren’t our leaders talking about it?

  25. Pete Murdock
    Posted June 17, 2011 at 6:10 am | Permalink


    The concept of a County recreation facility’s possible location on the Water Street is in the serious discussion stage. The staffs of City and County Parks and Rec are meeting to flush out the details of this possibility. At the moment other than a concept that the City and County Parks and Rec are willing to explore, there isn’t anything more to unveil or discuss. The goal is to have a more detailed plan presented publically to City Council in September that would include issues that are not currently determined, such as the size, location and scope of the proposed facility, the infrastructure needs of the site, and the timing of the construction. When we have more complete information, we will have a real project to discuss.

    The fear that some (or all) City Council members are opposed to this project is unfounded and I have spoken to all of them. The City would not have initiated this discussion with the County Parks and Rec if City Council was opposed to the concept. At the moment there are plenty of details to be determined and worked out and then we will have an actual plan to look at to support or oppose. Your attempt here and other places to man the barricades on this issue I sense is a little premature.

    Stay tuned…

    Pete – 485-7799

  26. Andrew Jason Clock
    Posted June 17, 2011 at 7:15 am | Permalink


    Thank you for bringing a little light to the process. However, given the recent track record in regards to decisions about parks and recreation and related projects, there is no such thing as manning the barricades too early in Ypsilanti.

    Maybe I’ve just gotten too cynical, but I don’t really think so.

  27. Walt
    Posted June 17, 2011 at 8:02 am | Permalink

    Does Andy Ypsilanti ever have his facts right?

    Go pool!

  28. Andrew Jason Clock
    Posted June 17, 2011 at 6:54 pm | Permalink


    I stopped posting as Andy Ypsilanti long ago. Exactly what facts do I have wrong? Please, enlighten me.

  29. EOS
    Posted June 18, 2011 at 8:49 am | Permalink

    The City was able to eliminate Parks and Rec because they rely on the Township programs and facilities without contributing to the funding of those programs and facilities. Having the County fund a Rec Center on Water Street makes it impossible to capture taxes to pay off the existing debt, which was the original plan for Water Street. There won’t be taxes on a County facility that can repay City residents. If the County builds a Rec Center at Water Street they should not have to pay for the land. It’s City owned land and the City stands to reap an economic benefit from its development.

    I think the new Rec Facility should be built farther away from the pre-existing facility. It should be put in close proximity to a larger portion of county residents. Putting the new Rec Center in Ypsilanti Township would benefit a greater number of County Residents at a significantly lower cost to the County. Really, how much of Water Street do you want to use for parking for a popular Rec Facility?

  30. Posted June 20, 2011 at 10:26 am | Permalink

    “Putting the new Rec Center in Ypsilanti Township would benefit a greater number of County Residents at a significantly lower cost to the County.”

    Since you suggest that the City should pay for a county rec center within its borders, I assume that by proposing that the rec center be built in the Township, you would like the Townwship to foot the bill? Did the Township pay for the county’s Rolling Hills Park and Water Park?

    As for the City relying on Township Parks & Rec “without contributing to the funding of those programs and facilities”, that’s just a lie. The Township charges a higher non-resident rate for most uses.

  31. EOS
    Posted June 20, 2011 at 10:45 am | Permalink

    I’m not sure about Rolling Hills but the land may have been donated. The Whitaker Road library was built on land donated by the Township and 75% of the cost of the building was paid by the Township. I don’t think the City should be able to have the County pay for the land on which they build a Rec Center. It’s not the county’s obligation to bail out city residents for the mistakes made by former elected officials. I think the land for the new Rec Center is in the Township Master Plan and available to the County at no charge.

    The Township charges $10 more for classes to city residents than township residents, but class fees pay only a small portion of total costs. The Township has a large staff and significant costs for recreation and parks.

  32. Mike B
    Posted June 20, 2011 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

    On Saturday an entusiastic group of volunteers met at the 4th floor office of AFSCME in the Key Bank building in Ypsilanti to get instructions and pass out petitions to call for a referendum vote on PA4, The EM law. I secured copies and I am gathering signatures. I will bring it to the Council meeting tomorrow. I can get more also and undoubtably will have to as it seems to be well received. If you are interested cantact AFSCME at 480-1300.

  33. Posted June 20, 2011 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

    I think if I’ve learned anything in the last several months from watching the protest happening all around the world – it’s that if you want something to change, and that something is tied to an abuse of power, then the only way to get results is through forced and prolonged protest. An afternoon in the streets or an overwhelming number of signatures isn’t going to bring this to a stop – if it’s going to end, it’s going to do so because people take the streets outside the governor’s office and stay there for weeks, even possibly months. otherwise…

  34. Rolling Eyes
    Posted June 20, 2011 at 9:46 pm | Permalink

    Dear EOS,

    1. I’ve spent a bit of time researching and, as best as I can discern from County records and media accounts, Rolling Hills was purchased with millage funds and some supplemental matching Federal grants.

    2. I read the Ypsi Township master plan and the only reference to a rec center I found was a nondescript thought of having the Township fund their own rec center with a Township millage. Please direct me to your source if I’m wrong.

    3. Following that, you said: “It should be put in close proximity to a larger portion of county residents. Putting the new Rec Center in Ypsilanti Township would benefit a greater number of County Residents.” The Township is rather large with winding boundaries. Can you tell me/us where in the Township you foresee a Rec Center being more accessible to “a greater number of County residents.” Can I assume it would be accessible by bus?

    4. This gets personal. My kid has, I admit, enrolled in activities at Township facilities. I assumed this was welcome because:

    A) The Township routinely mails a catalog of programs to my home.
    B) Half the kids in the class where not from the Township, which seems to make it unlikely my kids class would be viable without the participation of folks from surrounding communities (specifically, in my limited experience, Ypsilanti city, Superior Township, Pittsfield Township, Ann Arbor Township and Ann Arbor city).

    5. If we are sucking off your tax dollars, I apologize. We selected the Ypsi Twp programs because they were close to our home and a large number of our kids friends were in the program. Oddly, these friends live outside of Ypsi City but went to Ypsi City schools…

    6. Perhaps you’re right. We should trace every dollar and make sure everyone outside of a border pays their full share. Maybe Ypsi should charge Township residents a fee for the Heritage Fest, Elvis Fest, Orphan Car Show… Better yet, maybe we should charge admittance to all the folks east of Prospect who go to Prospect Park or walk to the bus stop or use our sidewalks…

    Maybe what we need to make our region great is fiefdoms.

  35. superior guy
    Posted June 20, 2011 at 11:33 pm | Permalink

    I don’t have the right to judge since I live in Superior Township which has almost no parks of its own, but our family likes to ride our bikes to parks and playgrounds. I can’t say our experience is normal but we aren’t going to Ypsi Twp again. We rode to Loonfeather? first time. The only other people there was a guy getting a blow job in a pickup from what I presume was a hooker. Not a conversation I was ready to have with the kids. Then we tried a ride to the Ford Lake park. A bunch of guys with sticks and a pit bull “fishing” for turtles. Needless to say we did not feel welcome as we went by. In both cases we could not find anyone at the booth or who seemed to be working. We called the county sheriff and they said they would send someone by but we didn’t wait. Seemed like a free for all. Really disturbing use of public space. I’ve gone back alone to see if our experience was normal and each time it seemed like the parks were there for prostitution. I would not want to go back let alone take my family. I hope people in the township care enough to do something about this for their sake not ours. We are done with it. More important things to care about!

  36. Rolling Eyes
    Posted June 21, 2011 at 10:21 pm | Permalink


    I realize I wrote a lot. If you need to narrow it down, can you at least respond to number three?

    3. Following that, you said: “It should be put in close proximity to a larger portion of county residents. Putting the new Rec Center in Ypsilanti Township would benefit a greater number of County Residents.” The Township is rather large with winding boundaries. Can you tell me/us where in the Township you foresee a Rec Center being more accessible to “a greater number of County residents.” Can I assume it would be accessible by bus?

    If it helps, here is a map of current county parks. I agree, Saline is also under served, but they already have a great city rec center so building a county competitor there doesn’t make much sense.

    And, here is a map of the region’s population density to help you justify you assertion that it would “would benefit a greater number of County Residents.”

    I look forward to hearing your ideas!

  37. EOS
    Posted June 22, 2011 at 1:20 am | Permalink

    Miss a day and you’re not on the front page. I didn’t see your post. Sorry.

    Here’s the Master Plan that includes a Rec Center on pre-owned County land in an underserved and growing population:

    Since the Murray building is accessible by bus I wouldn’t assume the need for a new center to be accessible by bus. Most residents in the county never ride a bus. The Whittaker Road library is not on a bus route but it is used by a much greater number of patrons than either of the two other libraries that are on bus routes.

    I admit that my assertion that a rec center built in the Township would serve a greater number of persons than one on Water Street was a future oriented projection.

    To be honest, I don’t know why anyone would want to go to Heritage Fest, Elvis Fest, Orphan Car Show, or Prospect Park. I don’t go when it is free and I sure wouldn’t consider going if I had to pay for it.

    By the way, school districts cross municipal lines. If someone from the Township lives in the Ypsilanti public school district, then they pay school taxes for that district.

  38. Mr. X
    Posted June 22, 2011 at 8:58 am | Permalink

    We rode to Loonfeather? first time. The only other people there was a guy getting a blow job in a pickup from what I presume was a hooker. Not a conversation I was ready to have with the kids.

    We stopped funding blowjobs in City parks years ago.

  39. Walt
    Posted June 22, 2011 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

    The city has “friends” groups to do that now.

One Trackback

  1. […] really have an opinion one way or the other, but, seeing as how a conversation has broken out in another, almost completely unrelated thread, I thought that I should probably start something here, on the front […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative Peter Sickman-Garner