Local Government TV

Thursday, February 09, 2012

Cunningham Strikes Out on Reassessment. Or Did He?


Lehigh County Executive Don Cunningham said he felt like he was at the plate in the bottom of the ninth with two outs and eight runs behind. Like most who find themselves in that situation, Cunningham struck out in his attempt to dissuade Commissioners from overriding his veto of an Ordinance that starts the reassessment process. They voted against him, 8-1. Tom Creighton was the sole Commissioner who was willing to delay reassessment another year.

Cunningham certainly struck out with Commissioners and the Lehigh Valley Association of Realtors, but with Allentown homeowners, he may have hit a home run. That ball has not landed.

Before Commissioners voted, they gave the Exec his swings. Ironically, it is Cunnigham who started the reassessment process himself. But in January, when he received the actual data, he put on the brakes for two reasons.

First, Cunningham noted, as we all know, that the real estate market is sluggish, especially with higher priced homes. Prices there have dropped in recent years. So for those people, reassessment is probably a good thing because values will be reduced. But for people with lower priced homes, like those in Allentown and the boroughs, it's probably a bad time to reassess, especially since there is no way to incrementally increase assessments for people who have a hardship. "You will get your bill, and you will have to pay it," he explained.

Second,  Cunningham is concerned about the impact of reassessment on nine different school districts and twenty-five municipalities in the County. Some of those school districts, like Northern Lehigh and Northwestern, have little in the way of commercial and industrial property. That will ultimately mean higher taxes for residential owners. "The individual's tax bill is all that matters to him," Cunningham observed, and it will be an unpleasant surprise for some.

Cunningham pleaded with Commissioners to wait just one year.

The Lehigh Valley Association of Realtors, appraiser Ray Geiger (read his op-ed) and two tea party members urged Commissioners to override Cunningham. But another group of people are in no rush. They're members of a special interest group called homeowners.

Rosemarie Dorward, who lives on 16th Street in Allentown, complained that ordinary people who have lived and worked in Allentown their entire lives "are being penalized. We don't get any tax breaks. ... Do we want more homes for sale in Allentown? You can't get people to buy now because of the school district." She urged Commissioners to listen to Cunningham and wait. "We don't need to tackle this right now. We have other major problems in this City and this economy."

Jeff Boore, who lives on 21st Street in the Queen City, asked, "Do you think we have more money? I have to tell you that personally, I'm at the limit. Where do you think this money's gonna' come from? You drive the value of my home up? That's a question. Does anybody have an answer?"

After an uncomfortable silence, Commissioner Vic Mazziotti agreed there's a lot of confusion about reassessment. He told Boore there will be no additional revenue to the County. While values may go up, "the tax rate will go down proportionately to generate the same amount of revenue. On the average home, the taxes will actually go down, and the reason for that is that there's been a shift in value to commercial and industrial property." Mazziotti added that reassessment is "strictly for fairness."

In contrast to Cunningham, Mazziotti argued that higher priced homes are actually under-assessed, while lower-priced homes are over-assessed.

Mazziotti's explanation brought Richard Sayre, who lives on N. 16th Street, to the podium. "It's he said, she said. What's the right way? ... We need answers. How can you pass something if you don't have all the answers of how it's going to affect everyone?"

In a brief discussion among Commissioners, cut short after Commissioner Percy Dougherty called for the vote, Tom Creighton was the sole Commissioner who thought the case had been made for waiting a year. Creighton noted that in each of Pennsylvania's 67 counties, assessment is done a little differently, In Blair County, Creighton observed, assessments are quite simple - $1 per square foot. That County has used that model for the last 50 years. "I feel we should delay in case the rules change," he concluded.

Dougherty, after pointing out that reassessment should be statewide and not county-by-county, inconsistently argued the County should nevertheless move ahead.

Scott Ott, noting the state is unlikely to make any changes any time soon, stated, "We can't pin our future on hopes."

In contrast to Mazziotti, who argued that reassessment is tax neutral, Commissioner David Jones delivered a brief sermon noting that the County must reassess to combat a "continuous decline in tax revenue."

After voting to over-ride Cunningham, Commissioners began making promises they would work with taxpayers who are adversely impacted, as they filed from the room.

"All your input is valuable," Chairman Brad Osborne told homeowners who left unhappy.

Since reassessment are universally unpopular, it is likely that Commissioners will be seeing many more unhappy homeowners in the months to come. But instead of blaming Cunningham, they'll be pointing angry fingers at Commissioners for moving ahead despite the recommendation of the County Executive.

I guess they showed him.

That's why I think Cunningham may have hit a home run last night, despite striking out.

58 comments:

  1. Don raised the issue ...not well thought out . Three hundred thousand dollars later wanted to stop it. Runner out trying to steal home.. Game over- a loss .

    ReplyDelete
  2. Your fawning over Cunningham borders on the creepy. commissioners did the right thing. Strike three fort the Don, he's out.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The $300,000 was not wasted. Cunningham just sought a one year delay. I reported factually what happened. I explained both sides. And I predict this will hurt the Comm'rs. Homeowners get funny when the tax man comes and starts adjusting their assessments, even if it's done for all the right reasons. I saw evidence of that last night. So even if I did not know Cunningham, I'd have to say he's going to come out of this looking a helluva' lot better than the Comm'rs who wanted to flex their muscles.

    ReplyDelete
  4. STORY MENTIONS THAT INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES ASSESSMENTS WILL INCREASE, I HOPE THIS WILL NOT CAUSE BUSSINESSES TO LEAVE, THUS A LOSS OF LOCAL JOBS.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The statement that reassessment will be revenue neutral is simply not true. It will for the County because that was Cunningham's decision. But County taxes are just a portion of the property tax residents pay. They also pay school, municipal and township taxes. And there is no agreement that those taxes stay revenue neutral. Under reassessment townships, municipalities and school districts (subject to Act 1) can increase their revenue by from 5% to 10%. Did the Commissioners make sure that all the school districts, townships and municipalities agreed to the "revenue neutral" approach for their taxes? If not then those taxes can and will go up. And school taxes are 4 to 5 times what people pay in County taxes. They would have been better off waiting until they had agreements with the school districts to make sure they would keep things revenue neutral as well. Just sayin.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Not one County, other than Lehigh, is going through this. Why?

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Not one County, other than Lehigh, is going through this. Why?"

    Because Vic and Ott, et al, got illegal, unreported campaign contributions from the realtors?

    seriously, they did. maybe that helped their motivation?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ott and MazziOtt had 4,780 reasons to be motivated to vote for reassessment. The Realtor's gave each of them $4,780. So now we know how much it takes to get them to break their promise not to raise taxes. They can bray "revenue neutral" all they want but the fact is they just increased the county, local and SCHOOL taxes for close to 50,000 tax payers.

    At least Ott got more than 30 pieces of silver for this.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 4:50 -

    Your school district and municipality can raise taxes whenever they want to. They don't need reassessment to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You're right.

    Cunningham likely played politics with the issue, and will likely continue to do so to curry favor with those whose taxes will increase.

    Not very surprising if that's the case.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anon 6:19 AM:

    Tell us all about the "illegal, unreported campaign contributions from the realtors"?

    And while you are at it, have the courage to sign your name. Or are you a coward?

    There were no illegal or unreported campaign contributions.

    Vic Mazziotti

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anon 4:50

    You are correct. However, that requires a vote to increase the millage rate with applies to and is visible to all taxpayers. Reassessment takes the millage rate the other way and creates winners and losers so it it easier to blend in a tax increase as part of the process of establishing the lower millage rate. The increase is somewhat hidden, does not effect everyone the same and the blame for any increase can be shifted. Many local and school district taxing bodies will take advantage of the reassessment to do just that. So I'm just sayin that the claim that reassessment will be revenue neutral is not true. It will be for the County but no one can make that claim for the other taxing entities.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Vic -

    The Realtors did mailers and phone calls for you to the tune of almost $5,000. You didn't list that on your report after the election or on your year end report filed on January 31. So that contribution was not reported, period. If you hadn't been caught by The Morning Call it would still be unreported.

    Come on - either you are a political nincompoop like Barron or you think the voters are.

    And why should I sign my name just so I can get one of your harassing phone calls you make to anyone who disagrees with you.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Cunningham argument lacks credibility. He initiated the reassessment process just one year ago. He is the one who first jumped into the pool. The real estate market conditions then were equally known. Market conditions are not much different this year. Cunningham is just playing politics, the result of which your post acknowledges. My guess is that he is trying to rehabilitate himself politically by saying he is not wet and I find that troubling.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Remember Cunningham has a referendum question that could open the door for his third term.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anon 8:49.

    One can't report something they don't know about. So if the realtor's spent campaign money to support anyone, they'd have to inform the candidate to report it, which they did not. So if the candidate doesn't know about it, which was certainly true during the first vote which was 8-0, it can't influence the vote. The article and accusation came out afterward.

    And what about the democrats? ALL of them support reassessment! Thats includes the 2 former commissioners during last year vote and the 2 remaining this year.

    Take your troll hate someplace else!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Vic---you would be found guilty of perjury if you made that statement in court.

    It is quite clear. You accepted $4,780 worth of contributions from the realtors. They declared it. Others who received it declared.

    The only thing to say is "I'm sorry." You are entitled to your opinion, but not your own set of laws.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anon 8:49--- your post is exactly wrong. 180 degrees opposite what the law says.

    It is the candidates responsibility to ask the contributor how much they paid and list it as an in-kind.

    Scott Ott knew about it. He did it.

    It's actually not a big deal that it happened. It was Vic's first run for office and mistakes happen all the time.

    The big deal is that Vic appears to be unable to engage in the simple act of saying... "oh. I'm sorry. I am human and I made a well-intentioned mistake."

    He's a better person than that.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous 8:94 ---

    are you saying that Vic didn't know he was on the realtors' mailpiece?

    If he knew it was incumbent on him to ask how much they spent and he did not.

    Looks like the other endorsed candidates all did.

    ReplyDelete
  20. NLVlogic -

    Nice try, but no cigar.

    The Realtors spent almost $20,000 supporting four Commissioner candidates. Two of them (Ott and Brace) reported the support back in December and Vic did not. The claim that Vic is clueless is certainly true but is not a very good defense.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Let's get one thing straight. There is a big difference between and in-kind contribution and an "independent expenditure." What LVAR did in sending a flyer out for Ott, Vic, Scheller & Geoff Brace, constitutes an independent expenditure. There is no obligation by any of them to report it. LVAR must report it and did. I see no violation of campaign finance laws here. Believe me, I have tagged Ott & Scheller a few times, but not over this. That's a bullshit accusation.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Not one County, other than Lehigh, is going through this. Why?"

    Several counties are undergoing reassessment against their will. One County, Erie, is doing so voluntarily, according to Cunningham.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Vic---you would be found guilty of perjury if you made that statement in court."

    No he would not. Vic is being honest. The contribution was reported by LVAR . It is an independent expenditure. Mazziotti has no control over LVAR and what they do or do not do. But if you feel this is illegal, why have you filed no complaint? The voting registrar will tell you exactly what I just did.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "The Realtors did mailers and phone calls for you to the tune of almost $5,000. You didn't list that on your report after the election or on your year end report filed on January 31. So that contribution was not reported, period. If you hadn't been caught by The Morning Call it would still be unreported."

    The Morning Call did no independent reporting on this. It did repeat Cunningham's assertion about a failure to report the LVAR expenditure as an "in kind." While I happen to agree with Don about waiting a year for reassessment, I disagree with him that there was some legal obligation on the part of Mazziotti to report an expenditure made by someone else over whom he has no control. Those are classified as independent expenditures and they must be reported, but not by the candidate. No campaign finance law was broken and the public was informed about the expenditure by LVAR's own report.

    That is why I chose not to write about this when I first became aware of it as an issue in some people's minds. I did not see it as a problem.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anon 9:54 AM:

    Are you going to apologize now that you know the truth?

    You wanted me to say "Im sorry". But I did nothing wrong. Now that you know the truth, will you say "Im sorry"?

    I doubt it!

    Vic Mazziotti

    ReplyDelete
  26. i take exception with the explanation by vic, NLVlogic and even bernie. although they may be legalistically correct, vic and the others were interviewed by the directors of the realtor association, and the mailers resulted from their answers. all knew about the mailers, especially since the realtors sent more than one. on the mailers the realtors minimally identified themselves, with a small lvar in the corner. although i believe the commissioners acted in good faith, certainly the realtors are now dancing in their underwear, waiting to do appraisals for the thousands of assessment appeals sure to follow.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Your school district and municipality can raise taxes whenever they want to. They don't need reassessment to do so.

    This writer is more on point then he or she may know. For all those who say taxes are likely to rise on the reassessment, It the millage rate that counts.

    Lynn Township cut its local tax rate by 40% in 6 years, with or without any reassessment.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Mike

    I was interviewed by a pro-gun rights group during the primary. By your take I must know whether the group spent money for me and how much. I can't know if they dont tell me. Heck, I dont even know if I passed their test!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hasn't anybody learned yet?

    If a realtor advises you to do something, the right decision is to do the exact opposite of it.

    Besides, never trust men with facial hair. Especially bad looking facial hair. Yes, we're looking at you Mr. Association of Realtors Public Relations Guy.

    Yours,

    Association of Used Car Salesmen and Divorce Attorneys

    ReplyDelete
  30. NLVlogic, if you want to contend that none of the slate knew that the Realtors send multiple mailers, and that the slate didn't communicate with each other about such things, I can provide no proof to the contrary. however, personally, I would be embarrassed to make such a contention.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Michael:

    I knew that the LVAR did a mailing. I received one. I understand that there were others. The point is, it was an independent expenditures. Candidates do not report independent expenditures. The organization that makes the expenditures reports them.

    With what part of the above do you disagree?

    Vic Mazziotti
    P. S. I am more than willing to say "I'm sorry" when I make a mistake. I have made many in my life. More than most people. And I have apologized. But in this case, there is nothing for which to apologize.

    ReplyDelete
  32. vic, as i wrote before, it's a legalistic distinction. in my mind because you were interviewed by the realtors, and they liked your replies, they contributed to your campaign significantly by sending expensive mailings. your fellow slate members decided to declare the same assistance as an in kind contribution. i'm not the one who asked for an apology, i simply believe that you did have more control over that contribution than independent expenditure designation implies. i think that when people begin receiving their new assessments, this mailer issue will be small potatoes. at breakfast a mortgage broker was already recommending certain appraisers.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Mike

    You imply that the candidate must know how much the mailer cost, when, and in which reporting period the expenditure was made, which is independent of when it was mailed or received. That's too great a standard

    ReplyDelete
  34. Michael:

    Are you against reassessment, period?

    Vic

    ReplyDelete
  35. dave, the printing cost of those oversized postcards are pretty standard, and the mailing costs are identical. the slate sent several themselves, so yes, the sum would be easy enough to ascertain. again, the issue was not raised by me, nor any request for an apology. i only responded to the defense made by vic and yourself.

    vic, i believe the reassessment should have been postponed. the leading appraiser in the valley had an op-ed piece pressing for a over-ride of the veto. he said that he didn't have a horse in the race. in reality, he has THE horse in the race. with the data valid for use for 5 years, why submit the taxpayers to more change and anxiety in this most stressful time?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Michael:

    Yes, I could estimate the cost of the LVAR mailings, if I knew how many they sent. That is not the question. The question is: should I report it on my finance report? The answer is "no", acording to the Chief Clerk of the Lehigh county Election Office.

    Those are the fact. So what is your beef? I don't get it.

    Vic

    ReplyDelete
  37. Since Cunningham knows what Mike's and every single individual's reassessment number is---and the Commissioner's do not. Instead of fretting about LVAR's minimal contributions---you should be asking yourselves which of the property owner's who will experience a "large tax increase" are on Mr. Cunningham's donor list?

    ReplyDelete
  38. vic, please review all the comments; someone criticized you about it. you, dave and bernie all then defended your decision. i then simply opined that the justifications seemed stretched to me, especially because i knew about the interviews with the lvar. although the election clerk accepts your viewpoint, he also accepted others on the slate who declared it as in kind. i don't have a beef, just a difference of view on a minor point.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Mike

    If I were to estimate the cost, then my filing would be wrong, perhaps understated, which is just as misleading. And you would hold the candidate to guess at the number of mailings sent by an independent third party so as to estimate that cost?

    And what about those mailings that slip through the cracks? i.e. those the candidate did not receive or can not know about?

    The responsibility of disclosure should be with those who spent the money to sent the independent mailings. Any other way is just unworkable.

    Its OK to criticize whether reassessment should be delayed, or whether a delay of 1 year would make any real difference in the numbers, (I dont think even Cunningham addressed that) but I think your other point about being required to declare a third-party's independent expenditure is too much. Respectfully,

    ReplyDelete
  40. Why are people so surprised by Vic's behavior. He was a Stoffa Crew member. Stoffa benefited from Abe Atiyeh putting up billboards during Stoffa's campaign. Stoffa claimed he never even saw them. Now Abe will make millions on a county lease. Things that make you go Hmmmm!!

    Vic was part of the dump Gracedale crowd that made such fasinating numbers.

    So all in all based on past behavior seen here in Northampton county, Lehigh county should not be surprised.

    The only drama is seeing which mancrush, Cunningham or Mazziotti old Bernie roots for. In all fairness the Don was one of Bernie's first, sorry Vic.

    ReplyDelete
  41. dave, it's absurd to think that any candidate for county commissioner does not know how many mailings went out with his picture on it. this is lehigh county, not the state or country. it's exactly these absurd arguments and statements which drew me into this debate in the first place. obviously, if vic asked the election clerk for an opinion, he knew the mailings were sent.

    ReplyDelete
  42. For those who want independent expeditures reported, fine.

    But I would have to ask where they should be reported. There isn't a section on the campaign finance report to do so.

    If Voter Registration says they don't need to be reported, and there's no place on the Campaign Finance report to do so, what's the issue?

    ReplyDelete
  43. I disagree. By way of illustration, there was a mailer sent during the primary by a tax limitation group (I think). It had a picture of the former board with green and red arrows. This was during my race. I was surprised when I saw it. I saw it the first time when I got one in the mail.

    You would have me to know all about it, including how much it cost, how many households it went to, and which reporting period the payment was made. That may be regardless of when it was mailed. The idea is absurd.

    To your credit tho, you're having debate (others simply rant). And I give Vic credit for responding.

    One commissioner punted, flip-flopped, instead of taking responsibility for a hard vote which affects Lehigh County (likely either way the vote went) he differed to another body. We heard that before. He was for something before he was against it. That might be the real story up here. Oft repeated I fear.

    I respect those I disagree with when they are are consistent and articulate. The others are like the wind, unpredictable and dangerous.

    ReplyDelete
  44. The realtors listed the expense as an in-kind donation. there is a story on lehigh valley live right now.

    Lisa Scheller is amending her report.
    The other two candidates on the mailer reported it already.

    Vic knows better than everyone else though.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Yes, anon, let me quote from it, since your so apt at spouting Cunningham's talking points


    Tim Benyo, Lehigh County chief clerk of registration and elections, said if that is the case, the $4,780 donations were independent expenditures, not in-kind campaign contributions, so Mazziotti and Scheller were not required to report them.

    "I'm satisfied (they) met the requirements," Benyo said. "An independent expenditure is something that is done without the candidate's knowledge. If these mailers were sent out without the candidates' knowledge, they did not have to do anything."


    The reports, including the Realtors are filed after, sometimes long after, the expenditure is made.

    ReplyDelete
  46. NVLogic just made the point for me.

    If it was done WITHOUT THE CANDIDATE'S Logic, it is an independent expenditure.

    The Lehigh Valley Elections Director has clearly not read this blog or Vic's post of 11:11, where Director Maziotti says that he received one of the mailers.

    But it's clear that Mr. O'Hara doesn't want this line of pursuit to continue so in respect of his forum, ok.

    But the law is clear. The realtors reported it as an IN-KIND donation. Every other candidate reported it as an in-kind donation.

    Vic admitted that he received and had knowledge of the mailer.

    Say whatever you want, but the reality is that Director Maziotti misunderstood the law. Could not be clearer.

    But if you can come to any other conclusion than that it was just a simple mistake after being faced with this logic....well then NVLogic is not very logical.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Nice try anonymous, like a good troll try to twist words to the contrary into those portending agreement. The mailers come after, sometimes long after the expenditures are made, I made that point earlier. But of course, you the anonymous troll ignore that,

    And you know better than the head of the department charged with overseeing the election and enforcing its rules. Then sign your name as Mike, Vic and Bernie have done. And go file a complaint.

    And if O'hare really didn't want you on this forum, he could have shut you (or me) down.

    Run from the facts like a dog with its tail between its legs or continue to spout Cunningham's talking points. Either way, I don't care.

    ReplyDelete
  48. There's a lot of back and forth in the comments today, but I'd like to give a shout out to anon 11:03.

    "The Association of Used Car Salesmen and Divorce Attorneys."

    Hillarious. Very witty.

    ReplyDelete
  49. See this is the problem with those of the extreme left and right.Its their way or no way.Of all the issues facing the county they choose to start with reassessmet.Lvar of course has an agenda.Like a PAC they support and are apart of getting their candidates elected.The problem for Vic is that wether right or wrong if this doesnt play out right he will lose support and credibility with some of the very voters who put him in.The sense of betrayal will not sit well with many republicans.democrats are use to betrayal,I might add.The coming months will not be pretty.Politics the game of champions.

    ReplyDelete
  50. This all about realtors feeling sorry for their customers during the housing boom. Now their customers get a break while the long term residents PAY!! What is fair about that. All the people that bought during the boom time knew what they had to pay in taxes. Now they hit the so called lottery. Where is the justice!! Its blind I say. Its corrupt I say. Thank you to Don Cunningham for calling this out and shame on the Commissioners. Wondering how many of them were paid off by the Realtors Association in some way or another.

    ReplyDelete
  51. i did a post on ryan conrad's ambitions last november. although i believe that the commissioners acted on their own volition wednesday evening, the association with the realtors will become baggage for them

    ReplyDelete
  52. for those interested, here's one of two postcards by the realtor association featuring vic and the other candidates they supported for commissioner

    ReplyDelete
  53. I appreciate those links, Michael. They provide some perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "Anon 9:54 AM:

    Are you going to apologize now that you know the truth?

    You wanted me to say "Im sorry". But I did nothing wrong. Now that you know the truth, will you say "Im sorry"?

    I doubt it!

    Vic Mazziotti"

    pretty freacking thin-skinned for a man who ran for public office. and it would appear to me bernie's wrong. you should have reported it.

    that way everyone could know you're in the realtor's pockets.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Let's get a few things straight here:

    1) Reassessment is the right thing to do. Cunningham knows it but made a political decision to back off. Higher ups in the Democratic party verified his rationale - it's a win-win for Cunningham, reassessment gets done (which he knows is the right thing to do) and he gets to blame Commissioners if anyone's taxes go up.

    2) Cunningham's concept about delaying for a year is smoke and mirrors. In reality, he would delay for as long as possible so it doesn't impact his chance to run for a third term (which by the way he pushed through a change in the home rule charter that allows him to do that - funny that no media picked up on that - I equate it to the pay raise debacle in Harrisburg a few years ago)

    3) This chatter about political contribution is more smoke and mirros planted by Cunningham's cronies. There's really no story hear - LV Realtors spent money to help commissioners (inlcuding Cunningham, McCarthy, and Dougherty in 2009) to get elected. It's all been reported and is publicly available. Cunningham's trying to muddy the waters to deflect attention from his own flip-flopping over the years.

    4) Cunningham lost the support of his own political party on the Board of Commissioners on this issue. That's a tough pill for him to swallow. The clear bi-partisan support for reassessment and support from experts in the field (including Cunnigham's own staff) make Cunningham look like he's out of touch with reality.

    ReplyDelete
  56. 8:43 am agree with points 1 and 2 with 3 and 4 a spin. In a gamble to have your adversaries take the fall for possible future problems is brilliant.Happens all the time in are system,business,justice and sports. Looks like your side got played.Sorry, move on,cryin is for wimps.

    ReplyDelete
  57. right, right. Vic's acceptance of an independent in-kind contribution is far worse than the MILLIONS of BS backdoor money changing hands in the players a block up the street at the NIZ.

    Get a grip.

    Move on to where the real money is.

    I'm not addressing these recent couple of posts, but the earlier one.

    Talk about wasting time talking about nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Michael Molovinsky apparently has no clue about the requirements of financial reporting for campaigns -- just one of the reasons he's been unsuccessful perhaps in his efforts to attain public office.

    You are a contrarian, Mike. I'll give you that. Unfortunately, what your "contrary" to is common sense.

    ReplyDelete

You own views are appreciated, especially if they differ from mine. But remember, commenting is a privilege, not a right. I will delete personal attacks or off-topic remarks at my discretion. Comments that play into the tribalism that has consumed this nation will be declined. So will comments alleging voter fraud unless backed up by concrete evidence. If you attack someone personally, I expect you to identify yourself. I will delete criticisms of my comment policy, vulgarities, cut-and-paste jobs from other sources and any suggestion of violence towards anyone. I will also delete sweeping generalizations about mainstream parties or ideologies, i.e. identity politics. My decisions on these matters are made on a case by case basis, and may be affected by my mood that day, my access to the blog at the time the comment was made or other information that isn’t readily apparent.