Council Approves Street Tree Ordinance 5-0
By Matt Artz
Tuesday, May 4th, 2010 at 9:13 pm in Uncategorized.
Tune into Channel 7 at 11 p.m. to watch footage of the City Council approving the ordinance transferring responsibility and liability for street trees to homeowners.
The council chamber was mostly empty and only two people spoke out against the proposal, but the city must have thought people were up in arms over this, because they had a cop with arms folded directly behind me.
I felt a little self conscious about checking my gmail and the final score of the Yankee game, but I did it anyway.
A couple of things to note:
1) Judges rejected a lawsuit challenging a similar law in San Jose
2) This is only for residential homeowners. The city never maintained street trees for private businesses or schools.
All the council members basically said, “Sorry, Charlie.”
Here’s the mayor:
“We can’t do something if we can’t pay for it,” he said. “I hope the day will come when we can restore this service but in the meantime we have to do this.”
Council still has to approve a second reading of the ordinance. That will most likely occur on May 25, and the law would go into effect 30 days after that.
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
May 5th, 2010 at 2:25 am
This is what happens when we don’t pay taxes – you don’t get things. So this is essentially a stealth tax on homeowners. I am not saying its wrong to do this, just that this will happen more and more as we run out of money (because of the overly generous retirement benefits for public employees).
May 5th, 2010 at 6:27 am
The mayor said, “We can’t do something if we can’t pay for it.” Will homeowners be able to use that excuse?
May 5th, 2010 at 7:06 am
Quite a gift to Bacon, McDonald and Shah.
Hug a tree. Scowl at a pubic employee.
May 5th, 2010 at 7:41 am
Dear Mr. “We can’t do something if we can’t pay for it” Mayor,
Is that what YOU and YOUR City Manager, Fred Diaz, were thinking as you BOTH spent over $150,000 dollars on consultants and countless hours of staff time on preparing a SECRET A’s BALLPARK PLAN for the NUMMI site!!!!
And BTW: one department in the City charges another department at 2.5 times a staff persons salary for in-house services; if you don’t believe me check!
Maybe both you and Fred should start trimming trees and repairing sidewalks on your weekends to pay back the voters of Fremont the monies that you both and the rest of the Council MISAPPROPRIATED!
May 5th, 2010 at 8:18 am
So let me get this straight….any poor guy who happened to barely be able to afford a house is now also legally liable for the trees in front of it? ON top of that, the guy isn’t allowed to get rid of the tree that he’s now liable for? Even if he can’t or doesn’t want to pay for it? That doesn’t seem very fair to me. I see how you can justify transferring liability, but with that should also come the transfer of rights. VOR hit the nail on the head… If a citizen of ferment is financially liable for something, shouldn’t they have final say on the fate of the object/property? I understand the need reduce obligations on the city during hard financial times. But, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say, hey Jon doe, I want you to pay for this tree but you can’t do whatever you want with it, it’s still technically mine.
I’m a strong proponent for going green. But, when you observe recent actions, you’ve got to come to the conclusion that trees aren’t the way to do it right now. Take the new development on mission blvd behind mcdonalds…that development planted something like 10 new palm trees!!!!!! As if mission blvd didn’t already have enough massive palms that we can’t take care of. On one hand we’re saying that we can’t afford trees (& I totally understand that), I even understand the need to pass the baton on to somebody else (although I do have my sticking points about this, see above) But, what I DONT get is why
don’t our actions agree with our evaluation of the situation?
May 5th, 2010 at 8:29 am
Fremont* grr iPad correction
May 5th, 2010 at 9:12 am
Ishan, you may have accidentally hit on the perfect new name….Ferment!
IPad screen keys are not meant for serious, lengthy tomes.
May 5th, 2010 at 9:21 am
There goes the Irvington BART Station…
SACRAMENTO – A Sacramento County judge has ruled that the state can transfer more than $2 billion from local redevelopment funds to help close California’s budget deficit.
I wonder how much Fremont will have to cough up?
May 5th, 2010 at 9:48 am
You know, that’s exactly what I felt. But the above post was typed really really quickly! I have pretty big hands, but I’m fairly comfortable typing long documents on this thing.
Ouch…I’d figure its closer to the max than not, our city’s size proportionally speaking will probably result in that.
May 5th, 2010 at 10:03 am
It is difficult to swallow these rationalizations in light of other ongoing activities I observe that our street maintenance folks have seemingly found time for.
I conclude that either our priorities are confused OR we’re just looking (again) for the most effective – “herd ‘em towards a tax measure” – stick.
In both cases, we’re managing and making decisions based on very broad generalizations (which, occassionally prove profoundly wrong) and anecdote.
How Bob Weickowski – who has near-term aspirations for higher office – can sit by without aggressively challenging such nonesense is beyond me…..
Time to stay below the radar I s’pose – -
May 5th, 2010 at 11:03 am
The loss of tree trimming is negligible compared to what’s erupting in Oaktown.
Oakland is $42 million in the hole because of (gasp) pension obligations. From the article (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/05/05/BARQ1D7JUI.DTL&tsp=1):
“Last year, Oakland was supposed to pay $85.7 million for retiree medical care, according to a city staff report. But the city only paid $12.5 million, the report said.
“[Oakland's pension] plan pays up to 66.7 percent of salary. The salaries, however, aren’t based on pay from the 1970s or ’80s. Instead, they’re based on current pay.
“If you were a captain who worked the graveyard shift, your pension would go up if the salary of a captain working the graveyard shift goes up now,” said City Administrator Dan Lindheim.
“PFERS is locked in stone,” Lindheim said. “It’s impossible to change.”
Let me correct Mr Lindheim: PFERS is impossible to change, outside of bankruptcy.
Ishan, right now we are dangling tree trimming as a major issue, but these are some of the hard decisions you may have to make. Are you up for it?
May 5th, 2010 at 11:14 am
MENLO PARK (CBS 5) ―
A grassroots group in Menlo Park has turned in enough signatures for a city worker pension reform measure to appear on the November ballot.
The measure would reduce pension amounts by about 20 percent for new Menlo Park employees, raise the retirement age from 55 to 60 and require voter approval for future pension increases. It does not apply to police or firefighters.
Backers of the measure say under current contracts, many city employees will get hefty pensions. 50 percent will get at least $58,000 a year, while 25 percent will get at least $75,000 a year. But the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) said pensions cannot be changed through voter initiatives and plans to file a lawsuit.
KPIX video report has more.
http://cbs5.com/politics/menlo.park.pensions.2.1675286.html
May 5th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Attacking the pensions on “new hires” is certainly a step but is cannon fodder for those folks who are hoping to cross the finish line with their existing contracts intact – - and, which, based on all of the projections I’ve seen – are just as big an economic disaster.
If concessions can’t be reasonably negotiated w/*existing* employees – BK is the way to go.
May 6th, 2010 at 7:23 am
Okay, I’ve got one more scenario regarding trees and who is responsible once this goes into effect.
A tree branch breaks off and flattens a car parked beneath it on the city street. The car’s owner contacts the homeowner for damage repair. The homeowner contacts his insurance company. The insurance co. says the city owns the tree and they should pay. The city says the homeowner is responsible because they are responsible for the tree’s maintenance. The homeowner claims it was an act of God. This is becoming a chicken or egg situation.
May 6th, 2010 at 8:02 am
http://www.ktvu.com/video/23470670/index.html
May 6th, 2010 at 10:18 am
I know I’m repeating myself, but if the City Council hadn’t raised the cap on Redevelopment funding, there would be plenty of money in the city’s general fund to pay for street trees, sidewalks, and road repairs.
May 6th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
I’ve contacted the city’s tree maintenance department MULTIPLE times over the past 15 years to ‘groom’ the trees at my address. One tree leans over the street and raises the sidewalk. The only thing that was performed to that tree was to patch the sidewalk to even out the raised sections. I have a launching ramp on my sidewalk over the root. I was told that my neighborhood was not slated for maintenance – with each of my request over the 15 years. The last reponse was the fact that homeowners are responsible/liable for said tress. I did obtain a permit to have an outside company trim, at my expense, only to be told for asthetic reasons the tree will always lean due to lack of maintenance in past years. My other tree has only a few years left before its demise. As a result, we do not park under either tree for fear of limbs breaking and car damage, which reduces the use of the street parking for my property. One recourse I have, is to get city permission, if granted, to cut the trees down, again at my expense. I asked and was refused for any preventative maintenance to the trees. Now it is up to me to take care of trees that are a danger and a nuisance. The city has restrictions regarding what can be done to a tree and who performs the tree service – it’s up the the property owner to pay for it. So wrong.
May 7th, 2010 at 11:21 pm
Can you spell “recall”? I know, I know, it will never happen! But it should!!!!!
May 8th, 2010 at 9:57 am
How many signatures does it take for a recall?
May 8th, 2010 at 11:04 am
Gus Morrison answered that question in a previous post.
With the amount of registered voters in Fremont, plus a healthy amount over..the magic number is about 13500 signatures needed for a recall.
Check Gus’s blog, he may have the actual numbers posted there.
May 8th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Wow! That’s all? 13,500 doesn’t seem like many!
May 8th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
How many FCN members are there?
And how many people have overgrown trees and/or bad sidewalks in front of their houses- that Fred what to make YOU liable for?
A recall might be easier than it seems RIGHT NOW!
May 10th, 2010 at 4:12 am
After talking to Bob Wieckowski during a campan call, he blamed this on the voters of Fremont and as someone who wants to be a law maker he was quick to hide behind a 100 year old state law.
May 10th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
So can I sue the city for leaving their tree on my property?
May 10th, 2010 at 9:10 pm
I would definitely have voted against this. I don’t believe the answer to the City’s budget problems is to remove more and more services that the City used to provide as they did with the burglar alarm policy. I would rather the see City come up with creative ways to save money.
Let me provide one example of where I believe the City could have saved money. On February 2 there was an item on the consent calendar for the purchase of new radios for the Police Department. The cost was $1.8 million. The radios were top-of-the-line radios costing over $3,000 each with one being available for each individual officer so that they wouldn’t have to share.
I’m not an expert in police radios and, of course, I want our police officers to have the equipment they need to do their job. But reading through the report it appears that we could have been a little more frugal about this purchase given the tough economic times that we’re in. I would have at least asked questions about how these costs could have been trimmed. No City Council member asked a single question about this.
Arguably, we could have reduced this to, say, $1.5 million dollars by trimming out some things or putting some purchases off for later. That would’ve saved $300,000 which would be close to the total cost of employment for two or three tree specialists for a year. (I’m assuming that the money for this expenditure could be transferred to the General Fund.)
I’m also concerned about the legal ramifications of this. In driving around the City over the last couple of days I noticed all sorts of trees that seem to be in need of trimming. There are also many sidewalks that are already in need of repair due to tree roots. Is the City going to survey all existing trees to determine what work is needed now? Will the City take responsibility for this work? Or do the existing liabilities simply transfer over to the residents as of the time this passes?
I’m sure most Fremont residents aren’t aware of this law. They are also not arborists and probably don’t know when a tree needs maintenance. Is the City going to at least have professionals regularly review all of the trees to make sure that no dangerous situation exists? How do we ensure that the tree maintenance that is done is done by professionals as opposed to residents thinking they can do this on their own?
There are well-accepted reasons why we have laws to preserve our existing trees. We should not put the responsibility for maintaining these in the hands of people who don’t understand how to maintain them and might not even know that it is their responsibility to maintain them. Our City should not drop their established responsibility of maintaining roadside trees.
May 10th, 2010 at 11:27 pm
http://www.fremont.gov/archives/35/020210%20CC%20Agenda-WEBSITE.pdf describes what Vinnie is talking about.
Vinnie, what exactly could they have cut from that purchase to save $300k? According to the packet, buying later would have cost more because they would have missed out on piggybacking another agency’s purchase. Buying one radio for each officer supposedly saves money in the long run because of increased accountability. As for going to cheaper models, I can’t even come close to judging what’s necessary or what the model differences are. Encryption compatibility, signal power, sound quality, processor speed, features, management, etc. Can you?
I’m all in favor of saving money, creative solutions, and the city paying for tree trimming. I’m just not convinced that was the best example to bring up. Please show me more examples where the board messed up and you’d have voted differently.
May 10th, 2010 at 11:59 pm
As noted, I am not an expert on this. I’m not exactly sure what could have been cut from this purchase. My main point was that no Council person even questioned this purchase. If I would’ve been on the Council I would’ve at least asked tough questions of the PD and investigated whether we could have gotten away with spending less. Isn’t that what we should be doing in these tough economic times? Any good manager should always scrutinize budget proposals that come their way, especially large ones such as this.
May 11th, 2010 at 5:58 am
How about no new radios! At least Vinnie IS questioning this purchase – if only part of it!
To do so, for fire or police is often the third rail of politics (I.e. Bad for votes).
The public is so scared of cutting “health and safety” budgets that they (I.e. YOU) haven’t noticed that that percentage of municiple budgets in the state over the last twenty years has gone from about 42 to 58 percent!
Why?
And then there’s that new police station: while the rest of city staff makes do spread out in what had been comercial office space!
May 11th, 2010 at 6:00 am
How about no new radios!
At least Vinnie IS questioning this purchase – if only part of it!
To do so, for fire or police is often the third rail of politics (I.e. Bad for votes).
The public is so scared of cutting “health and safety” budgets that they (I.e. YOU) haven’t noticed that that percentage of municiple budgets in the state over the last twenty years has gone from about 42 to 58 percent!
Why?
And then there’s that need for a rebuilt police station: while the rest of city staff makes do spread out in what had been comercial office space!
May 11th, 2010 at 8:10 am
The agenda stated several reasons for buying them when they did:
1. There was a federal funding program to pay for part of it. 300k or so.
2. The old radios were not compatible with a new county system coming down the line.
3. Another larger agency had negotiated a good price, and the city had a chance to piggyback on that price.
Perhaps it would have been good for them to ask questions, but perhaps they were already asked before at previous meetings, in 1:1 meetings, and via email. I certainly prefer as much as possible being done in public. However, questioning for the sake of questioning just wastes time and disrespects city staff.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=uvW&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22radio+equipment%22+site%3Afremont.gov&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= shows three recent city agendas that talk about the radio systems. It looks like this was planned a while ago and was necessary.
Vinnie,
What questions would you have asked and when would you have asked them? Did you ask them what kind of questioning and research they had done outside of the council meetings?
May 11th, 2010 at 9:01 am
Jon Simon is a very strong backer of our present city council especially Mayor Wasserman.
Now does it all make sense?
May 11th, 2010 at 9:15 am
It’s always loads of fun to fan the flames of mis-trust and associated divisiveness when management attempts some degree of oversight and verification.
If, as Jon suggests – staff has performed ALL of the necessary competitive bidding and analyzed all possible alternative fulfillment considerations – then the process of Council review is, in and of itself, a complete waste of time. Is the Council merely a “rubber stamp” in this situation ? I’m guessing that there is a reason for their review – what should that be ?
Any purchasing decision – no matter the economic times – which is uncomfortable with occassional scrutiny would be highly suspect. Indeed when reasonable questions are deflected with defensive assertions, our P.D. would be the first to question – “What have you got to hide ?” – - –
In more challengeing times of seriously constrained resources it is even more important that an added dose of caution and scrutiny be applied in the name of fiscal conservatisem and, yes indeedee, this added scrutiny will, in and of itself, introduce a certain amount of inefficiency.
The discomfort that such scrutiny creates for folks like Jon Simon encourages them to generalize that we are penny-wise and pound foolish. Those listening closely to hearings into the recent mortgage crisis will recognize some of this same muddled thinking.
Those who generalize arguments against the management fundamentals of “trust – but verify” either do not ascribe to the fundamental of assignment and distribution of authority, OR have something they wish to hide, OR – maybe, perhaps, simply use these kinds of generalizations to satisfy other political aims.
May 11th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Thanks for that FG and bb: it does make sense now!
May 11th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
After browsing the council agendas that Jon linked, it appears that communication equipment has been in the budget reserved for capital equipment upgrades for over a year.
Even if Vinnie was to do what he does best, and act like his inneffectual manner would have any impact, a 300k savings on radio equipment would only be diverted to another capital equipment purchase, NOT to tree trimming.
Perhaps if Vinnie were on the council, he could change the budget going forward. But to claim that he could have moved money from this to that is false.
May 11th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Marty, he qualified his statement.
You know Marty, if you directed your wrath to those who have been on Council you might actually make a comment not worth dismissing on it’s face!
May 11th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Marty, he qualified his statement.
You know, if you directed your wrath to those who have been on Council you might actually make a comment not worth dismissing on it’s face!
May 11th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
Ummm Marty – wake up dude !! –
Vinnie very clearly says – “I’m assuming that the money for this expenditure could be transferred to the General Fund.” – Last sentence – Paragraph 4 – Post #25
But the major POINT (why is Martee always OFF point ?) was – That this was a sizeable purchase and Vinnie was surprised at the lack of discussion of a major acquisition . .especially when we are in tough economic times . you know – like when he said “My main point was that no Council person even questioned this purchase.” Post #27 – third sentence.
Look if you want to bash a candidate because you prefer the taste of current council members boots – that’s fair – but at least keep your facts lined up.
May 11th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Argue all you want, but don’t confuse the Capital Budget with the General Fund. Most of the Capital Improvement Program funding comes from other than General Fund sources. I don’t believe there has been much, if any, transferred from GF to CIP for the last several years.
Items in the CIP are programmed and planned in a 5 year CIP plan, which is reviewed and updated every 2 years. Once an item is approved in the plan and the funding is assured, it ought ot be a consent item. IF council didn’t want it, they shouldn’t have put it in the plan in the first place.
And, focusing on radios is a bad choice. There are few vendors and Motorola seems to have a lock on the business. Then, the feds sell off bandwidth and force public safety to change to different frequencies, focing radio upgrades. The Loma Prieta earthquake and the Oakland fire showed the need for interoperability between all public safety departments in the county, forcing many changes to systems. There are many forces pushing this issue.
And, transferring money from CIP to GF (if even legal or possible) is a bad choice because it only delays the inevitable. You lose the capital improvement needed and you only fund the GF for a short period and then you have to cut anyway.
May 11th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Box, A few things:
1. I am spot on point.
2. Vinnie is not surprised at the lack of discussion. He is ignorant to the basic elements of a city budget (Read Gus’ post above – I understood the hurdles in moving CIP money to GF off the bat, and I am not even a former mayor).
3. As long as Vinnie’s strategy is to leach on and exploit every point of malcontent for his personal gain, I will be there to bash.
May 11th, 2010 at 7:14 pm
Nice try Marty. I obviously know the difference between the CIP and the GF or I wouldn’t have mentioned it in my original post.
If you look in the CIP mentioned you’ll see that there’s a $3.9 million shortfall in funding for all radio improvements, all the more reason to be as frugal as possible with the police radio purchase. You’ll also note that sidewalk repair is listed there as well with a shortfall of $25 million.
My point, once again, was that we should scrutinize all major expenditures such as this.
May 11th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
“My point, once again, was that we should scrutinize all major expenditures such as this.”
I agree. But I think you’re taking quite a bit of liberty in inferring that the council has not executed the same due diligence you would have. Your argument is conjecture based on one vote.
May 11th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Marty says -
“Your argument is conjecture based on one vote.”
No – Vinnie’s observation was a lack of scrutiny by council at the time of the vote. . . . that’s not conjecture – that’s a fact.
Marty says -
1. I am spot on point.
Wrong again and again and again Marty.
Hey Gus – while you’re explaining inner workings for our benefit, maybe you can help us understand how the 1:1 radio to officer ratio improves “accountability” – it certainly increased the total number of radios purchased – - what did this buy us ?
May 12th, 2010 at 7:00 am
Sure box. Vinnie will say anything to get elected.
He now admits that a savings in radio equipment could not have been diverted to tree service, but he thought he’d bring it up anyway.
Just as he admitted that the council could not have saved NUMMI, but he thought he’d bring it up anyway.
I am sorry that you feel charged with defending this guy. It’s becoming an increasingly difficult job.
May 12th, 2010 at 7:38 am
You’re right Marty – thanks for setting me straight.
Any thoughts on the “accountability” question in my post #42 – GUS OR MARTY ????
May 12th, 2010 at 7:40 am
Vinnie; please don’t let the “dribble” above get to you, your sincerity and concern for the public interest is most appreciated.
I only wish that you had been elected last time so that we would have known about the secret plan that was being worked on to put the A’s at NUMMI.
BB: does the old saying “like nailing jello to a tree” remind you of anyone?
May 12th, 2010 at 9:44 am
Anon, I think you meant “drivel”, but I suppose “dribble” could be made to fit.
May 12th, 2010 at 10:58 am
Still wondering about the “accountability” rationalization – - – no takers on this topic for some strange reason.
May 12th, 2010 at 11:27 am
Bbox, Re “accountability”-
People treat possessions they have sole responsibility for better than they treat items they share with others. This is a concept realized by most before kindergarten.
May 12th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
OK – I’m with you Marty and Gus – and by your logic, we need to then buy all city employees a private (unshared) vehicle since they don’t take particuarly good care of the current shared resources –
R I G H T ????
(Keep swinging Marty, you’ll get a hold of the ball sooner or later)
A concept only a kindergartener would get. . . . . indeed !
May 12th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Box, I didn’t say I agreed with the “accountability” argument. I can care less if cops have their own radio or share one.
May 12th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
OK – let’s take it real slowly now – I am afraid that you’re losing a grip here Marty – - so, according to your most recent post – NOW you disagree with “..a concept realized by most before kindergarten.”
Marty, it’s important to make up your mind – if you’re going to USE an argument then you kinda need to agree with it . . . unless you just go running around mouthing off nonesense that you neither ascribe to nor believe in – - HEY – wait a minute – Marty is a City Hall fan – - this makes PERFECT sense – - But, jhey I’m just kiddin’.
The more likely explanation is that Marty finally figured out the problem with the “improved accountability” argument and really really doesn’t want to go there any more – but OOPS – too late !
I do so hope and pray that others are watching closely at the (I hasten to use the words) “thought processes” of those who are so quick to defend City Haul.
May 12th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Sorry I didn’t respond faster Box, but as an old retired guy, I am busy with life and look at the blog infrequently, but with interest.
As for one radio per officer, I can see logic to the argument, but I am not privy to the actual discussion between staff and council. It seems to me that, since we send solo officers out on the streets with only the radio as their life line to help, that radio ought to be functional and reliable. If the officer is responsible for his/her specific radio, he/she will be very likely to assure it functions property and is maintained. If he/she just grabbed the next radio on the rack (as they did on NYPD Blue), there is much less of a certainty that it has been maintained, that the last user had dealt with any problem, etc.
It is different when dealing with cars, trucks, or other tools needed by employees. Not many of them involve employee safety or public safety.
Funny, as an elected official, I was rarely supported by the safety unions. In 11 elections, I was supported by fire once and police maybe twice, but I seem to be the major defender of them. Probably it is because we ask much of them, which we pay for pretty dearly, but if we demand quality and accountability in our staff, they deserve to be trained, equipped, respected, and supported when performing the duties to which they are assigned.
May 12th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
I suggested a kindergartner could understand the argument. As Gus states, there is some logic to the argument of accountability.
You don’t necessarily have to agree with something to see the logic in it. This is a concept realized by most before 3rd grade. Unfortunately for you, you will surely craft a response proving otherwise.
May 12th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
I know how it is, Gus – as an old guy looking for work – I am busy with a variety of tasks. Isn’t it wonderful that technology has afforded us so many ways to remain active with so many interests and needs on a real-time basis ??
Unlike you – I’m personally guessing that an officer on the beat sees his/her vehicle as just about as important a piece of safety-related equipment as that radio – so I personally dont agree with your assessment.
Like you I want our men and women in uniform to have the best – but, I also know that at the end of the day – someones’ gotta write the check and it’s getting tougher and tougher to do so. . . .
And because times are so challenging – we’ve GOT TO BE WILLING to scrutinize and examine every possibility. There is no room in our economic future for any sacred cows. Open the door – look inside – maybe there’s no money to be saved – but if there is – if it’s only nickel – we better do it.
In my assessment of Vinnie’s thoughts – that’s all he was saying.
Boy oh boy – if Marty cant cut Vinnie some slack as a neophyte in politics – I’m bettin’ he’s gonna just rip poor ol’ Ishan to shreds . . . . dontcha think ?
OR –
Maybe not. . . . .