Spotsylvania News

Jeff Branscome writes about Spotsylvania County.

RSS feed of this blog

Second rezoning request for assisted-living and age-restricted housing

Spotsylvania County’s Planning Commission will have a public hearing Wednesday for a rezoning application for an age-restricted facility, assisted-living homes, commercial and office space.

This rezoning is for 39.1740 acres that are zoned for commercial and residential. The applicant, Lee Garrison, is seeking zoning to allow for residential housing, office space and retail, which is called a mixed-use project. The land is on the east side of Lafayette Bouelvard, across from Hotchkiss Street. Garrison has the project broken into a commercial bay and a residential bay, with no mention of phasing the development. 

Here is the application and narrative.


The total units proposed for Lafayette Crossing are a 100-unit age-restricted apartment complex, 88 town homes, and 100-unit assisted living center. The application includes a request for a gas station,  retail, a county-owned satellite site for the Magistrate’s Office and up to 246 apartments. 

The county supervisors recently approved a similar facility at the beginning of River Road and the intersection of Bragg Road. 

It is unclear what current zoning would allow because all of the property has five different zoning categories. In glancing through the various documents I found this to best explain what the land can currently be used for:

If approved, this version of the Lafayette Crossing project would supersede the proffered development approved July 8, 2008 in Rezoning R07-13. The rezoning was for 18 residential units in the PDH-4 portion of the development, to include 12 single family detached homes and 6 attached units. The by right project also includes Commercial zoned land with a maximum of 11,883 square feet of retail and 27,050 square feet of office buildings. The R-2 portion of the property has an approved preliminary plat for 29 single family detached units in a cluster development known as Marquis Reserve.

This is an unusual case because Garrison is seeking his second rezoning on some of this land, a case which set a precedent in the county in which Garrison was given proffer credits for seven lots on Elys Ford Road that he put in a conservation easement before he filed the prior rezoning. 

Garrison is asking that his new rezoning proposal supersede his July 2008 rezoning approval, which was for 12 detached homes, six town homes, along with 11,800 square feet of retail and 27,000 square feet of office. 

County staff is recommended denial. You can read the staff report here

The planning staff recommends denial because the applicant is not taking enough steps to ensure that all of the land that is part of the rezoning is studied for cultural resources and that the cash proffers of $572,000 is $1.3 million short of county guidelines. Here is the full list:

  1. The proposal is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, and has weaknesses in the vision, planning district, level of service, public facilities, historic preservation, and economic development elements
  2.  The applicant’s Capital Facility Mitigation contribution does not mitigate the expected impacts, as identified in the Proffer Policy.


  3. The applicant has failed to fully identify impacts on cultural resources.
  4. The proposal reduces the office potential of the property, as compared to the by-right potential.
  5. The proposal does not offer any timed phasing for development to indicate the intended pace of construction. 

Here is a copy of the applicant’s cultural resources study. 

The applicant says the county will have a net gain of about $72,000 from the project.



  • lgross

    Why is Dan getting his own copies of the material
    while the public cannot get it on the county web

    (at least I cannot find it).

    I note that at the BOS meetings also that
    presentations and other materials are also not
    being made available on the BOS Agendas.

    Sounds like we’re starting to slip backwards here.

  • gramps

    I downloaded the docs referenced. They come from the site however, they have a .aspx file extension and I can not open them. When I attempt to open them with the windows vista recommended program they open in some form of gibberish. I do not know what program can be used to open .aspx files. I suspect someone at the county failed to convert these docs to .pdf before they put them on the county site.

    Interesting question as to why or how Dan got his copies. Perhaps he will tell us?

  • gramps

    Further Info on .aspx file extensions.

    .aspx is a “server-generated” web page based on ActiveX scripting that uses the Microsoft ASP.NET framework. Supposedly, .aspx files can be opened by any web browser. I, however, have tried and can not get my Internet Explorer browser to open these files.

    However, I am not a computer genius so I’m not surprised.

    I did note that these files are on the web site Again I am not sure which agenda, but a safe bet is the latest one.

  • gramps

    WOW, there is a real issue with the county web site. ALL agendas (incl BOS) seem to be in this .aspx format. I could not open any that I checked. Sent email to IT at county and asked what gives?

  • lgross

    I can see them this morning. I could not even
    see the Dec 1 Agenda yesterday.

    This morning I can see both the Agenda and the
    supporting docs.

    I receive via email – usually over the weekend or
    on Monday’s an automatically generated
    message that tells me that the BOS or the PC
    Agenda is available for viewing.

    9 times out of 10, the BOS Agenda is there but
    often – not all of the supporting materials.

    For instance, VDOT gave a presentation at a
    meeting showing how they spent money in the
    county – and that presentation was not available
    in the agenda packet.

    On the PC side of the house, not infrequently,
    the Agenda is not there at all.. sometimes not up
    until a few hours before the meeting – and again
    - not all the materials are there – including some
    generated by the County Departments like

    I suspect that not all parties realize and
    understand the process and deadlines for
    providing info that can be placed on the website
    but not sure how come county-generated docs
    are not there….

  • gramps

    I, too, can see the agendas, but when I attempt to view any individual agenda item these are all in .aspx file extension format and therefore unviewable.

    How are you viewing the details of the individual agenda items?

  • lgross

    I’m just getting them like normal.. clicking on the
    individual items and they are coming up

    most of the individual items are PDF files

    I don’t see an PPTs in this packet but they
    normally come up also.

    Have you changed anything on your computer

    might want to take this to email.

  • lgross
  • gramps

    Sometimes I wish I had never entered the computer age. I did a system restore and my problem is gone. I have no idea what I did or when I did it.

    I apologize for the mayhem. I have notified the “computer folks” at county and confessed to my crime, heheh.

  • MAVRICKinc

    I sincerely hope Bill Haas and Larry Gross got their County website, CPU, and Planning Commission’s December 2, 2009 meeting agendas, proposals and problems resolved.

    Now that they have had an opportunity to view the televised version of the meeting, and the very few real parties of interest in land development, in Spotsylvania County, who showed up, there shouldn’t be much left to the imagination on where Spotsylvania County, its elected officials and special interest groups are headed.

    Leon Hughs, AICP, Assistant Director of Planning provides US and the Spotsylvania County Planning Commission with the changes found in CA09-0007: Subdivision Ordinance Amendment/ Non-Residential Provisions ZONING and DSM Amendments and unanimously passed by the Planning Commission.

    The changes are recorded in a PUBLIC DOCUMENT 85 pages long and found at the Spotsylvania County website.

    Anyone wishing to top-sheet the details, will find the Planning Department’s overview memorandum to Mary Lee Carter and her Commission Members dated November 23, 2009
    outlining the process attended by only Planning Department personnel, 2 members of the Planning Commission, real parties of interest, stakeholders in the development of their market share in Spotsylvania County, an no other. Public participation is strictly prohibited from the business of the Spotsylvania County Development Focus Group. Simply said, all WE get to do is look at an end product, usually cast in concrete.

    The Planning Commission’s December 2, 2009 meeting, had no member of the public showing up to acknowledge, question or put their spin on these latest changes in our Land Use, Development, and Zoning Ordinance changes.

    TRICORD was there to announce their participation in the Development Focus Group’s engineered changes and making it abundantly clear how pleased TRICORD was, with these changes.

    You be the judge on what TRICORD’s investment opportunities arise from these changes in land use and development.

    Check out the published “Pros and Cons” that are attached and come with these latest changes. If you have time on your hands, and wish to reserve any judgement on what has just been accomplished, I suggest take a look and read of the changes made to Chapter 20, Subdivisions…and all the language and land use leverage that come with these changes, or call up your County district leaders and see what they have to say.

  • lgross

    Mr. Garrison made an interesting argument that
    was not objected to by the PC save for one

    And that was that the County says that a
    development must pay for itself – in addition to
    providing the scheduled proffers.

    Mr. Garrison made the point that not only did this
    development “pay for itself” on an annual basis
    that it actually generated a net $72,000 annually
    and that because it more than met the “pay for
    itself” threshold that he felt that some of most of
    the net should be applied to the proffer total.

    I can see both sides of this but was curious how
    others might feel about it.

    So.. some projects might just barely “sqeak” by
    on paying for itself while others generate a
    substantial net. Should credit be given for the net
    amount over and above the break-even

  • gramps

    trouble understanding just how a development “paying for itself” can generate a net annual surplus. Unfortunately, I have not viewed the PC re-runs on this. I intend to look more carefully at the presentation material on the county web site to see if I can gain further understanding.

  • gramps

    Okay, I see how excess annual revenue can be generated.

    However, I do not see how the applicant arrived at the $72,000 figure cited in Dan’s post. I see, in the Application and Narrative section a claim that the proposed project will generate either an excess of $59,136 annual revenue or $80,000 annual revenue depending on the “scenario.”

    As for larryg’s question, I think this credit back business is a slippery slope unlikely to favor anyone except the developers. But, what the heck do I know, eh?

  • lgross

    I “think” the calculation is based on the projected taxes that
    will be generated minus the cost of services provided.

    I don’t recall seeing a worksheet provided but putting one in
    the online packet could help folks better understand the
    numbers behind the numbers.

    I note on the Hicks development near Kingswood that it was
    stated by the applicant that the county does not even take
    into account ALL taxes generated by development – I believe
    he said sales tax – which if true is also a significant revenue
    stream that the county uses to balance it’s budget.

    But Mr. Garrisons point was that if a development generates a
    significant net revenue for the county – that it could, in his
    view, be treated as “extra” money for infrastructure – that
    normally is paid for through proffers.

    Several of the area developers have been more assertive as
    of late on a more precise accounting of development costs –
    and that in doing so – it will show that there are revenues
    beneficial to the county that are not currently accounted for in
    the current development process.

    The fact, that they are pursuing this issue in the midst of
    economic purgatory is also helpful to making their case.

    I was also impressed that Mr. Garrison paid more than 15K in
    up-front fees with no guarantees that his project would be
    approved (and still has to gain BOS approval).

  • MAVRICKinc

    Larry: My curiosity exists on several different levels, the first of which would be to ask you where you want to take us; forward, to the back of the bus or just stand in place with only speculation about what you know or don’t know.

    YOU claim to “see both sides” of the Garrison rezoning project, with the Planning Commission offering little if any resistence to the Garrison proposal, which underwrites more high density population growth in the Battlefield District, with little, if any more details than offered in this blog at this time.

    Are you asking US to guess what you’re trying to say, but without appropriate details on which to better understand what’s being played out on our television sets?

    Your disclaimer; “I ‘think’ the calculation is based on projected taxes….BUT THEN CLAIM YOU “don’t recall seeing a worksheet provided but putting one in the online packet COULD HELP FOLKS BETTER UNDERSTAND THE NUMBERS BEHIND THE NUMBERS.”

    So what is it you are trying to convey except more speculation.

    Question: If any of us were to pay $15,000 to Spotsylvania County without any guarantee of taking lawful title to the proposal or property, what would any of us think of our chances of persuading the Spotsylvania County BOS to accept a proposal that the Spotsylvania County Planning Department rejected for cause?

    Why should any of us speculate about what can only be described as anything more than a foregone conclusion? The devil is still in details and the fine print, but who’s looking or even cares about how it reads or the consequences it brings to OUR table?

    Reductions in fee structures, 3.3% GO-BONDS, proffers without allowance for infrastructure cost, Urban Development Area consignments are just the tip of the iceburg. If Development is supposed to pay for itself, where’s the money? Or, is this money just another “projection” founded on wishfull thinking and someone’s revokable version of good intentions?

    Check out the changes our BOS are making to our Comp. Plan, zoning protocols and the leverage being found by changing the framework of Ordinance and how Development will be allowed to initiate THEIR vision of what comes with living in Spotsylvania County.

    Just remember, you’re not allowed admittance to Spotsylvania County’s DEVELOPMENT FOCUS GROUP meetings either.

    So, how could any of us know what’s going on behind closed doors, until development agendas are already cast in concrete? When was the last time you had a serious discussion with any member of our BOS and thought to share with the public your imput and feedback you received?

    Are you any more accountable than our BOS, or should we speculate about that too?

  • gramps

    This SPOTSYLVANIA FOCUS GROUP, who is “allowed to attend” it’s meetings? How do “we” know the public is NOT allowed? Who organized the Group? Who chairs the Group? Are they an “official” County Group? Do they meet in County facilities? If they are an official Group, WHY are they exempt from the “sunshine” laws? If they are NOT exempt, where are their agenda and minutes filed?

  • MAVRICKinc


    Where are the minutes of these meeting? Ask the Planning Commission or Wanda Parrish. Mary Lee Carter should necessarily have all the answers to your inquiries.

    Please make special note you’re not going to find answers to your inquiries at the Spotsylvania County website. Why else would you be asking me the questions you already know the answer to? Ask yourself what the answers are. You haven’t found any so far, and if you did, why would you be asking questions instead of answering where this information is provided and how WE can access it, after I’ve identified where this information SHOULD BE FOUND?

    If not, why don’t you already have the answers to your own questions?

    Bill, you’ve been around for a very long time and there is no question in anyone’s mind that you don’t know what’s going on behind closed doors. If you don’t know, you have made it abundantly clear to everyone you know who to call for the answers and it’s not me. I’ve already asked.

    Simply said, why don’t you ask THEM the questions and see what you get back for your token call to those who have the answers. Maybe they’ll clue you in on what is public access and what’s not.

  • gramps


    First, my questions were specifically posted as a new post because I was NOT directing them only at you, but to anyone that “lurks” on this web site. I have seen other posts about the focus group by you and I knew you did not know the answers. My hope was that someone else might respond with some clarification for the record. I still have some hope about that.

    However, in the interim I did some more research and I found some interesting information on the Spotsy web site.

    1.) The 4/1/09 PC Agenda contains a Flow Chart that prominently shows how the Focus Group fits into the county planning process. See last page of Appendix C.

    2.) The 4/1/09 PC Minutes–Page 3– mention the Focus Group and describes approximately when the Group was formed. (2007 I think)

    3.) I did a search of PC Agendas and Minutes using the phrase “Developers Focus Group” and found a copy of Meeting Notes for the 5/20/09 Focus Group Meeting. This doc contains a list of FG members present and their organization. It also appears that the meeting was held at the county offices on Spotsylvania Avenue. The Social Services Conference Room on the 4th floor to be precise. These minutes are reasonably extensive and provides insight about the role being played by the FG vis-a-vis the county.

    I do not know how much other info is on the county site, but there is the appearance that this group operates in a very low profile mode and has at least once met in county leased offices.

    It is now my hope that someone from the county will step forth and provide some “sunshine” on this group and it’s activities.

  • gramps

    Oops, sorry. My reference to a 5/20/09 FG meeting should have been 5/21/09. Sorry about that.

  • lgross

    yup – I’m not happy either with their way of doing business.

    One can understand why they want a select group where they can sort of let their hair down and have some frank discussions – and action prospective actions
    that might arise would, in theory, have to be processed in a more open forum and governance process – i.e. hearings of proposed codification.

    But then… we sometimes end up with advertised hearings on “text” changes where little does anyone suspect that sometimes those innocuous-siding “text
    changes” can profoundly affect downstream actions.

    so.. ideally.. you’d have a process that allows more open discussion .. to really get to some issues in ways that would be much harder with a much more
    formal process…

    and that’s as far as I’ll go in support – to essentially say that I understand the motivation .. and that in some cases.. you MIGHT bet a more useful work
    product but we also know. what often happens instead and that it ends up not only not a legitimate public process but instead a psudo-secretive cabal trying
    to use their access to government to change government rules in ways that benefit special interest groups – at the expense of the public.

    Governments are _never_ monolithic institutions – and almost always made up of various personalities – some of which are exceptionally scrupulous and
    mindful of what it is important to have a legitimate public process – and then we have others who have absolutely no compunction at all and either their
    ignorance or agenda don’t gives a rat’s behind and will push forward – unfortunately not as individuals but as individuals performing a government role – i.e.
    they become the government.

    thus we end up with what appears to be this shadowy group in terms of who they are, who created them and what their operating procedures are (and are
    not) and how all of this gets conveyed to citizens who – if you think about this – are paying the salaries of some of those involved – and those same folks, in
    theory, are being directed by Administrators who themselves are accountable to the BOS.

    I’m not positive, but I think this group may have got started as an Ad Hoc focus group at the just-concluded Comprehensive Plan update process where the
    main group was very large and very diverse and some of the issues needed sub-committees to flesh out some of the issues and report back
    recommendations to the larger group for their consideration.

    Part of this had to do with developers concerns that the development process varied widely from one county to another and that even within a given county
    that the process was not well understood … arbitrarily expensive and time consuming – and dynamic.. changing …

    Underlying all of this is an acceptance by most parties that development itself, especially non-residential development is inevitable but beneficial if done

    so … I can understand how some who participate in the focus group would consider a fully public involvement process for it to be tantamount to it losing it’s
    ability to be effective in discussing issues – but I think. without better transparency and accountability safeguards – this group, at the least, could end up
    undermining public trust precisely because it is operating in a more closed fashion than many expect.

    enough blather.. I’m sure this will be more than enough for Marty to set off on another tirade…

  • MAVRICKinc

    Bill: you’re first in line of the terrible twosome.

    It’s December 7, 2009 and you’re talking about a Focyus Group meeting that took place on May 21, 2009.

    I no longer had any interest in what you were trying to say or spin when you concluded you “did not know much other info on the county site, but there is the APPEARANCE that this group operates in a very low mode and has AT LEAST ONCE met in county leased offices.”

    So, what else do you know? NOTHING but conjecture and more speculation.

    Larry assumes the same role. He doesn’t know anything ether about Spotsylvania County’s FOCUS GROUP.

    The moment he says, “I’m not positive, but I THINK this group MAY HAVE got started as an Ad Hoc focus group at the just concluded Comprehensive Plan update process where the main group (who ever that might be) was very large and very diverse and some of the issues needed sub-committee to fleah out some of the issues and report back (to whom?) reccommendations to the LARGE GROUP (who ever they are) for their consideration.

    Larry, if you weren’t there, at these meetings, with public access denied, what good is your theory and conclusions on what you think went on and goes on at these meetings?

    Your condescending rhetoric, as always, is deeply appreciated.

    Simple fact of the matter is neither one of you know what goes on behind closed doors at these FOCUS GROUP meetings. BUT, I’ve listed a number of people who are well acquainted with the issues being discussed by the County’s FOCUS GROUP, and within Spotsylvania County’s Planning Dept. and Planning Commission’s jurisdiction. You might consider calling them up instead of trying to call me out.

    You guys have been playing these same cards almost forever, or at least to the point you can no longer distinguish the difference between one card or the next one you play. What you “think” and I know have long been debated and going nowhere. You wouldn’t and couldn’t have it any other way. I know, because I showed up every time and know the difference between a tirade and a single citizen’s concern that all is not right, but have yet to receive a satisfactory or persuasive answer back.

    If you guys want to make a point, I suggest you leave out the disclaimers, and start telling US what you know and don’t know, instead of walking around in the same circle you’ve been stuck in for more years than I could possibly imagine.

    If you want transparency and accountability, I suggest you stop knocking on the door, waiting for someone, anyone, to open the doors and let US in. Wishful “thinking” isn’t going to get you anywhere, except to the same point you started from.

    Tirade, or tempest in a TEA POT, you only get back what reality has to offer. Guessing doesn’t count.

    I made my calls.

  • gramps

    Well Marty, you are right, again. Except, I have read one edition of their minutes and I think that is one more than you have read.

    I am interested in this group and their origin for entirely different reasons than you. It is my opinion your only interest is to gain entrance because they will not let you in. Dig out the notes from that meeting and read them, see who attended, and perhaps you will have some of your curiousity satisfied.

    One of my interests is the seemingly low profile this group has been allowed to maintain while “advising” our County officials. I had to work pretty hard to “feret” out those notes and I have worked even further to find the repository of the rest of their meeting records. So far, no luck beyond the one set of notes. That seems rather curious to me. Did this group only convene one meeting? I suspect not.

  • lgross

    really? where?

    If I have done this.. then I would apologize .. so
    please show me where I did this.

  • MAVRICKinc

    Bill: I appreciate all the work you have done that doesn’t go anywhere else except back to the same launching pad you lifted off from.

    When it comes to the Spotsylvania County FOCUS GROUP, that permits no one, including the press, you might want to call up Wanda Parrish, Director of Planning to confirm who gets in and who is not allowed.

    Even Mary Lee Carter, Chairman of the Planning Commission had to DEMAND that she and one other member of the Planning Commission be allowed to attend these FOCUS GROUP meetings and there were many, not one.

    Why don’t you cut to the chase and ask her where the FOCUS GROUP meeting minutes, and invited membership are kept?

    Lewis Watts, Code Compliance, will accept all the blame for creating this FOCUS GROUP but readily admits this FOCUS GROUP is quite different from the one he put into place years ago that has morphed, evolved into something else, and well beyond PUBLIC ACCESS.

    Instead of looking in all the wrong places, as we have encountered in past debates, lets hear back from you, after you’ve made a couple calls of your own to the people who are in charge of this FOCUS GROUP. As I’ve already said, I’ve made my calls.

    Larry: Condescension can be found just about anywhere. You elect to put it at the end of your “blather” and calling me out for yet another one of my tirades.

    Simply said, you don’t need to apologize to me fo anything you say. I can’t imagine why you would even try to be something you’re not or ever will be.

    Stick to your game plan. You’re trying to say something that serves in all our best interest, but you always put a disclaimer in front of what you really know but can’t say for fear of losing your place at THE TABLE.

    You’ve made a good start, but words are just that and nothing more. Why don’t you beef up your rhetoric with something more than “I don’t know, but this is what I THINK.” even if you have to march to the center of the circle, of your making, and check back with us on what you find.

  • lgross

    I would characterize much of what is said here as
    blather – and that’s view is not said with condescension hombre.

  • gramps

    Here is what I have learned about the Development Focus Group. I will use the info to answer my posted questions. So far, no one from the County has seen fit to come forward and provide clarification.

    Who is “allowed” to attend its meetings? Attendance is restricted by the Planning Staff. Attendees represent the directors of Building, Planning, Zoning, Economic Development, the County Attorney, and the County Administrator. Members of the development community are also members of the Group. Some members of the Planning Commission may also attend.

    How do “we” know the public is NOT allowed? Beside the word of MGWork, the intent of the Planning Department is that these meetings be kept on a “technical” level where participants feel free to openly express themselves. Open public meetings are felt to restrict this interaction. Separate public hearings are available for public input.

    Who organized the Group? The County Planning Department with, perhaps, the advice of the Planning Commission.

    Who chairs the Group? As best I can determine the Group is facilitated by Ms. Parrish or one of her staff.

    Are they an “official” County Group? That depends on what is meant by “official.” Group members are not appointed by elected County officials.

    Do they meet in County facilities? Yes, they meet at the “so-called” east campus on the fourth floor.

    If they are an official Group, WHY are they exempt from the “sunshine” laws? It would be a “stretch” to label the Group official. My original question presumed the Group was exempt. It is not clear to me that they are or are not exempt. Further discourse on this question requires more legal knowledge than I possess.

    If they are NOT exempt, where are their agenda and minutes filed? My search revealed only one copy of a set of minutes. That set was for the May 21, 2009 Group meeting and was attached, in whole, as part of the June 17, 2009 Planning Commission Agenda. An excerpt from those same notes was attached to the November 4, 2009 Planning Commission Agenda. It is reasonable to conclude that minutes or notes are kept. Since they do not show up on the County web site, the only other conclusion I can draw is that they reside in a filing cabinet in the Planning Department.

  • gramps

    the Development Focus Group was formed on May 31, 2007.

  • MAVRICKinc

    Bill: thanks for the effort, but you are still back at the same point you started from. You, nor any member of the public knows what business is being conducted behind closed doors by Spotsylvania County’s FOCUS GROUP.

    All you or anyone else can do is speculate whether the FOCUS GROUP is an official product of the Spotsylvania County Planning Department and Commission, which it is, without minutes or notes.

    IF there’s a record, it’s public record and subject to public inspection. If they are in someone’s file cabinet, they need to be made public. If such records do exist, why wouldn’t Wanda Parrish volunteer where these records are kept, if they do exist, provide details and access to these records?

    It really is simple. Wanda Parrish is in charge of what goes on at these meetings, whether the record started in 2007 or not. If Spotsylvania County is conducting business FOR Spotsylvania County with only special interest groups, and behind closed doors, what is so special about our rights to know what’s going on, being proposed by special interest to the County and impacting its citizen’s quality of life.

    If the records don’t exist, why wouldn’t WE want to ask WHY they don’t exist, and if they do exist, why wouldn’t we want to inquire where these records are kept.

    You have already confirmed NO ONE is allowed admission to these meetings, including the press. However, the select few in Spotsylvania County are allowed admission without any feed back to the public. Mary Lee Carter is allowed admission, but I can’t recall that she has ever shared with the public, what’s going on behind closed doors at these FOCUS GROUP meetings.

    Why don’t we all just sit back and make more excuses for a government that conducts business for Spotsy from behind their castle walls. If you can’t swim the moat, or wait until the draw bridge comes down, you will always be on the other side, and always at high tide.

    Larry,your shout out just doesn’t qualify for a response. “BLATHER” is your creation and will for all time be your nomenclature, but I am glad to see you asking more hard questions, even if you’re not getting answers.