Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Millville First & NJ Motorsports Park

Below are notes taken. There is no editorial comments made. We all just listened since it was a public meeting. My friend took the following:

Meeting Notes from Millville First Meeting, Dec. 9, 2008

Four Friends of Millville members attended this meeting. Our preference was that the proceedings of this meeting be communicated via video; however, at the start of the meeting, Emil Van Hook approached Mark Krull and demanded that he not tape the proceedings (Mark had his omnipresent camera). Andrew Van Hook added that if any recording of the proceedings was shared, Mark would be sued.

So my notes will have to suffice. I’m confident these are reasonably accurate, although there may be some errors due to misunderstanding or misinterpretation. These were the proceedings as I recorded them:

Emil Van Hook: Millville sold the Motorsports land at $5 thousand an acre; its actual value is $50 thousand an acre. Millville First (MF) is not against development if it works to the benefit of Millville taxpayers. MF does not like the agreement with the Motorsports Park (MP) . MP does not pay taxes in the traditional way. Instead, they pay in lieu of taxes (PILOT). MP was given a 15-year PILOT in the amount of $175,000, with an option to renew for another 15 years. Nothing can be done about this. There is some development at the Motorsports Park that will not be under this PILOT agreement – e.g., hotels.

Emil referred to a chart illustrating the difference between the amount Millville is receiving through the PILOT agreement versus what the MP would pay without such an agreement. Using an estimated assessment of $40 million, if full taxes were paid by MP in 2006, Millville would have received $3,533,075 in taxes. The chart illustrated an increasing gap based on a 7 percent increase each year, using state averages. Millville tax increases, according to Van Hook, have been significantly more, and at times less. This year the increase has been less, but it is an election year. The problem is that the deal with MP does not consider the local taxpayer, who is significantly shortchanged.

David McCann spoke on the noise issue. He noted that as Emil demonstrated, the MP is an investment of taxpayer money. The investment was made on the taxpayers’ behalf in the belief that the MP will help economic development. Although the past season was only partial, there seems to be no spillover effect into the local economy. A recent survey indicated that downtown Millville would benefit from the synergy of the arts district and MP. It was suggested that if events were coordinated, Millville would be a destination for tourists. There is no evidence this is happening. The MP is event-driven; people come in just for their events and the benefit does not spill over into Millville.

Harry Fisher also spoke to the noise issue. The Porecca Drive Homeowner’s Association was involved in discussions with the MP developer and the city, but they did not get very far. The city passed a noise ordinance. However, 20 minutes at 80 decibels will never happen, because noise dissipates as cars move around the track. The Planning Board held a hearing on the MP development plan. Millville First had their own noise expert who conducted tests. The Planning Board did not take any action with respect to the city noise ordinance. A lawsuit on the part of environmental groups also did not have any impact on the noise ordinance. The outcome of the lawsuit was a consent agreement, which did not address the noise ordinance but instead addressed noise abatement through things such as asphalt, buildings, and trees. However, a lot of the provisions of the agreement never happened. The consent agreement was not monitored by the city.

A Daily Journal article today reported the 2009 lineup for the MP. The events include the loud open-wheel races as well as the AMA series anticipating attendance by 40,000 people. Things are going to get worse. There will be 80 decibel readings every 10 minutes.

There was some reference to circulation of a petition protesting three new tracks that were never part of the original plan.

Paul Porecca: People have to get involved in government. Things happen, and if you don’t act, it’s too late. It is not too late for the future of the MP, even though the city has opposed amending agreements. The city commission at the time (David Vanaman, who is here, was not a member at the time) asked the MP developer to present whatever they wanted to make the project a success. The city signed off. What can be done now: let the commissioners know how you feel about what is going on. They are sensitive to feedback. We can’t give them a blank check. The MP has to come half way and do their share. A recent news article said the MP wants to put in three motocross tracks. MF went to the city and asked if there would be public hearings. The proposal was to put these tracks on the residential side of the MP. This was a significant change the MP intended to make without city approval. It is clear these changes would have gone through if the city (thanks to MF) had not stepped up and asked MP to comply with the law. The Millville city commissioners are “in the pocket of the Motorsports Park” and “will do everything not to get in their way”. But any changes in approving MP plans is when citizens have to come out. Elected officials understand numbers. You must stay alert and let the commissioners know you are unhappy about noise and finances. Every taxpayer in Millville is supporting the MP “country club”. The city spent $25 million on cleanup at the MP site. The contract said the MP was supposed to pay for the cleanup. Granted, the city got the money from the state and the cleanup cost was about $7 million. You are all supporting the private country club. $27 million was spent on sewer, water – the commissioners said it is for the industrial park, but no one is there except MP. Perhaps we can do something in enforcement on noise abatement. MF asked the city about enforcement of the agreement with MP, and the city did not know who was in charge of monitoring noise and had to ask the solicitors. The original plan for MP was for a four-mile track that could be separated for races. MP said it would be better to have two separate tracks. The city heard about this and asked their attorney about the change. The MP said it was just a little thing and did not require action on the part of the Planning Board or commission. Going back to the original agreement with MP, any major changes must be approved by the Planning Board and the commission. If a substantial change, the commission must be involved. A minor change can be handled by the Planning Board. The city said “oops” on the creation of two tracks. In fact, the city is guilty of a lot of “oops” – the cell tower at the airport without a permit and the illegal contract with Sun (the city didn’t get money back). It was clear the MP had to get approval for changes. The city could ask the MP to apply for approval retroactively and then attach conditions to approval – e.g., noise abatement measures such as a wall. MP moved their track despite a consent order that said garages in certain places would serve to abate noise. Because they created two tracks, it looks as if these garages cannot be constructed as originally proposed. The commission is not going to do anything because it bought in to the MP “hook, line, and sinker without regard for the rest of us.”

Bob Teseroni: The MP has diverted traffic from High Street. The MP club house has a restaurant open, which is not helping the High Street merchants. At the Union Lake Crossing shopping center, the developer has not constructed the promised wall to protect school children. There are no soccer fields, as promised.

Paul Porecca: The city is not writing good contracts to protect its citizens. There is no time limit in their contracts as to when things must be completed. The construction of an oval track at MP is planned on the Cedarville Road side. This is the type of track NASCAR would use. We don’t know what the plans are.

Question: Why can’t the city require walls to control sound? Porrecca: This could have been a requirement but is probably not financially feasible. The city could have made different requirements. The only reason there is a wall at one track turn is because Citizens United and MF pushed for it.

Noted from audience: Permits have to be renewed (e.g., environmental). These could be held up by citizen objections. Complaint about traffic – Porecca notes it is going to get worse, especially if Nabb Ave. is extended. All traffic will go down Sherman.

Question about dirt bikes at MP. Porecca: State police permits are needed to run a race. There is a plan to put an ATV track next to the oval track south of Buckshutem. The MP does not need more permits from the city. Vigilance is needed. We must keep an eye on the Planning Board and the city to see if applications are filed.

Question: Will motorcycles be more annoying because of higher pitch: Emil Van Hook: Involvement is one of the most important issues. We have to be vigilant and knowledgeable. MF action resulted in the withdrawal of the Matzel & Mumford proposal to develop the land next to Union Lake (Wawa tract). There is also going to be an ordinance amending tax abatement, again thanks to MF. Eminent domain – no commission member would like to talk about eminent domain for private purposes, thanks to MF (not for public purposes). The shopping center has had a tremendous impact on Millville. Traffic is horrendous. MF started with protesting the development at Union Lake (Matzel & Mumford). It looks at issues and negotiates. Another success – one of the commissioners said at a public meeting that there would be no more 15-year tax abatements. The other 15-year abatement is Target, which pays $264,500 a year versus the $1.5 million it should be paying. This new position is a direct result of MF activity.

Question as to whether MP has met abatement commitments. Answer: Don’t know. MF has asked about vegetation planting. OPRA request filed asking what was done. Kim Ayres and city engineer said requirements had been met.

Question: $7 million environmental remediation costs should have been paid by developer. Can the city get this money back from the developer? Answer: Agreement says developer responsible for cleanup. The city gets $2 million a year from the state for environmental cleanup. The city chose to take three years funding and use it for cleanup of 1300 acres at industrial park. Much of this is wetlands that can’t be built upon. 500 of these acres are used by the MP. Most of the cleanup was done on these 500 acres. The MP should have paid for one third of the cleanup. Porecca: “You have to sue. I have two law suits.”

MP has not purchased land south of Buckshutem yet. They agreed to buy 707 acres and have purchased 500. They are in contract to buy the other 200 acres. Their 2004 contract expired because the city didn’t get its act together. MF called the city’s attention to the fact that they needed a new contract. MF pointed out the deficiencies. The city signed a new contract as a result of MF pushing, but the only change was that the MP is not required to use union labor. The contract calls for the purchase of 700 acres in stages. We don’t know the expiration date. Will check. It is probably, “whenever you’re ready.” There is no change in the price of the land. MP borrowed from Merrill Lynch – don’t know the impact.

From audience: Saw plumbing between the two tracks; looks as if for campers. The answer is to “get a whole new regime” (clapping). Response: That is an issue to be addressed in May. Vote them out.


Anonymous said...

Sounds like it was a pretty good meeting.
Why would you want to videotape the meeting if you have notes?
I'm glad you respected their wishes. Yes, it is a public meeting but maybe there were some people there who didn't want to be taped. To continue to tape after you were asked not to is not only disruptive to the meeting but also rude,inconsiderate of other's feelings and only thinking of yourself.
I understand you really don't agree with MF. Then why go to videotape the meeting?? Were you deliberately trying to upset them?

Anonymous said...

I was unable to attend the meeting but appreciate the information posted. Sounds like it was an informative and constructive meeting. Hopefully, our Commissioners will take steps to help the taxpayers and downtown merchants and to assist the residence with regards to the sound issues.

Anonymous said...

There are no trolls like Millville First trolls.

miraclegal said...

Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean they're trolls. The world is full of different opinions. No need top resort to name calling.

Anonymous said...

I read this and I see that Millville First left out several of the facts. The environmental issues at the airport have been paid for by the DEP and it includes 1500 acres not 500. The land that the current Phase 1 of NJMS pays an abated $175,000 to the city. MF forgets to tell people that 283 acres were owned by the city for over 40 years and there were no taxes paid and the other 217 was land that the city bought from Better Materials (the city bought about 820 acres total) and that land was assessed as farmland. The total 820 acres paid a total of about $10,000 per year.

Anonymous said...

Van Hook's chart showing the millions the citizens of Millville "lost" in taxes due to the tax abatement was a farce. Who exactly was going to pay these millions? The farmer who would still own the land if the city and then the Motorsports Park hadn't purchased it? Millville also received over $2 million for the sale of 217 acres of the land to the Motorsports Park in just Phase 1, and that was about $700,000 less than the city paid for the entire 820 acres. The land for the industrial park is now valued (due to the water and sewer that have been developed with money from the state and UEZ) at about $12 million. The city has made a solid investment on behalf of its citizens. The only reasonable point at this meeting was the noise issue. I live in Millville and it hasn't bothered me, but I do feel for people who want to spend weekends working in their yards and have to listen to the continual buzzing. I don't know how bad it is, but it could be annoying.

Steve Ries said...

I attended this meeting; it was the second Millville First meeting I have attended. I give these men credit for preparing an informative short meeting and standing up and trying to make changes which they feel are important.

Noise at the racetrack has always been a concern of mine and I am sorry I did not get involved in this issue earlier. I have friends that live on Smith Street and on a racing day the noise can be down right obnoxious, I have heard it first hand.

My main concern with the racetrack has always been the fact that it has destroyed the ability of the airport to expand. By building the racetrack in the fashion it was built it is my understanding neither runway can be expanded. The racetrack has also removed almost half of the footprint of the airport that could have been used for longer runways, taxiways, additional tarmacs, additional hangers, a terminal, repair stations, fuel storage and warehouses for freight haulers, etc, etc. Maybe the airport does not need these facilities right now but it might in 10 or 20 years if it were going to expand. This lack of foresight on the part of the City is disappointing; they should never have let this happen.

Noise is still my concern. I think we should all be aware of future plans for the racetrack facility and we should get involved if we think it is important. One thing is true which Millville First kept hammering home during this meeting was the fact that responsible citizens have to get involved. This is how successful government works. It really is government by the people for the people. Don’t’ be afraid to call your City Commissioners, I have and I will continue to do so. Don’t just complain among your family and friends. You have to attend meetings, write editorials to the newspapers and write to blogs such as this one. You have to do everything you can to make the changes which you feel are important. This is how good government works and this is how we build successful communities.

I thank Millville First and the sponsors of this blog for giving me a chance to speak my mind.

Steve Ries

Millville Crime Watch said...

What is MF so afraid of that their leaders would gang up on a citizen taping their proceedings? Maybe it is the fact that most of what they say is a distortion of the truth, and a video would be proof of their lies?

Mark Krull was actually threatened with a lawsuit if he made this video public. Well, Mark didn't make it public. I did.

Linda Forbes, who also attended the meeting, took copious notes of the proceedings. You can read the whole sordid story on Mark's blog. I am surprised that Emil didn't try to take Linda's pen from her.

I have been too busy lately to pay too much attention to all of this, but I had to comment. MF has this inability to present fact unexpurgated by half-truths. By presenting only a part of the story, they arrive at conclusions that are totally erroneous, and mislead a susceptible public.

Emil starts off with the ludicrous claim that the city could be receiving $3,533,075 in taxes annually rather than the $175,000 payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) that the New Jersey Motorsports Park (NJMP) is paying as part of the deal to lure them into the area.

The big discrepancy in numbers makes good press! At first glance one would be impressed at the arrogance of a city commission hell-bent on giving our hard-earned money away to greedy developers.

Emil is making the blatantly false assumption that NJMP would locate here regardless of incentives offered. Emil also suffers amnesia, apparently. As a member of city commission and unelected mayor, he was a culprit of some massive tax abatements. So, the hypocrite that he is, he is all for giving tax abatements as long as he is the one doing the giving. He is against, if it is someone else doing the giving.

But let us take a look at the real numbers. MF refuses to tell the public that 283 acres were owned by the city for four decades, and the city received absolutely no property tax on this land.

Millville First refuses to remind the public that the city purchased another 820 acres from Better Materials Corp. This land was set up as farmland, and was given the same sort of abatement that Paul Porreca gets.

Yes, Paul Porreca refuses to discuss the almost $40,000 a year in property taxes that the citizens of Millville are required to subsidize due to his farmland exemption. He has a hobby of raising horses.

These 820 acres brought in a mere $10,000 a year in taxes. Millville First INSISTS that the $10,000 a year for is far better than $175,000.

Millville First conveniently forgets that the city paid $2,800,000 for 820 acres of land, and sold 217 acres for $2,000,000. There are still another 600 acres available for development, meaning job creation and more new ratables.

The value of the rest of the land, thanks to the fact the city brought out sewer and water is around $12,000,000. Oh, and the water and sewer were paid for using UEZ money. That is money that MF is completely against us having. yes, they are against the UEZ district which saves you and everyone that shops in the area money!

It does not cost you a DIME! It SAVES you money. You pay half the sales tax you would otherwise pay, and that money gets to stay in Millville rather than going to the black hole in Trenton where is would be siphoned off to Newark or Camden. Paul Porreca is AGAINST us getting to keep some of the sales tax revenues we spend, he is AGAINST you saving money on your purchases, he is AGAINST the creation of new jobs - and yet he has no problem whatsoever being subsidized by you, the taxpayer, to the tune of around $40,000 a year!

But Millville First would rather pretend, as they do in the Disneyland they reside in, that in this economy the Motorsports Park, which will be a $100,000,000 project by the time it reaches completion, would willingly invest without the added incentive.

However, MF will complain out of the other side of their mouth that New Jersey is not business friendly. Why is that? Why does NJ rank last? MF will readily agree it is due to the highest taxes in the nation.

Bob "I-carry-a-gun-to-public-meetings-because-it-makes-me-a-man" Tesoroni, as confused as ever, made the following statements: " The MP has diverted traffic from High Street. The MP club house has a restaurant open, which is not helping the High Street merchants. At the Union Lake Crossing shopping center, the developer has not constructed the promised wall to protect school children. There are no soccer fields, as promised."

Okay - I thought this meeting was about the NJMP? The NJMP has absolutely nothing to do with Union Lake Crossing or the soccer fields. Wake up, Bob!

His other statements claiming that the NJMP has done nothing to help the merchants on High Street is delusional! During the season I rarely saw less than a dozen people from the track on High Street.

During the day, many of the wives were checking out the local shops. The Old Oar House did a ripping business, finally being forced to be open on Sunday nights where they were packed with visitors from the track.

Did they buy when they came down town? Guess what, that is not the city's nor the NJMP's business. All that can be done is bring people downtown. If a business refuses to be open, or to expand their hours to accommodate this new traffic, the onus is on them.

But none of these characters from MF have ever contributed to the businesses on High Street. They, in fact, have been lobbying to destroy the Arts District.

Emil Van Hook, the only one with a presence on High Street managed to take a successful department store and turn it into section-8 apartments and dingy office space. He is one of the biggest recipients of UEZ grants, using the money for a facade grant one time to pave a parking lot. His building is an eyesore despite the manifold grants he has applied for and received.

What was really interesting was that Porreca brought up the issue of dirt bike tracks and the requirement of a permit from the State Police. The Porreca's should know first hand. I seem to remember an illegal dirtbike track on Porreca Jr.'s property. So once again, hypocrisy. If someone else is doing it and the city of Millville can somehow benefit, if new jobs are created, MF is against it. The question is; if they can profit from a project that is questionably legal, are they for it?

Anyway - this is enough negativity for the day! Another side of the story demanded to be told. Read both accounts, and you decide! (You will NEVER hear Millville First ask you to read opposing accounts)

miraclegal said...

Well, I've read both sides and I think I agree with Millville First.

Do you have a personal vendetta against these people or something?

I thought Mark did the right thing in respecting the wishes of not to videotape. (BTW Mark, u never did answer the question in the first response.)

Like the first post said, maybe people didn't want themselves on someone's video. I think if I were at a meeting I wouldn't want someone I didn't know secretly taping me! By asking Mark to turn it off doesn't mean they're afraid of anything.

You sound like a very bitter man Mr. Crime Watch

Anonymous said...

I have to agree with crime watch on this one. Why was Mark threatened with a lawsuit for trying to video tape the proceedings?

Isn't Millville First a registered non-profit? And didn't they publish their meeting as public in the newspaper? That gives Mark more than the right to video tape the proceedings.

Anonymous said...

Crime Watch - AKA Carl Johnson again has all the answers. Problem is, he wasn't even present. I guess he couldn't get Dottie to escort him to the meeting and therefore had to stay at home and spy on his neighbors. During the season Carl states he rearely saw less than a dozen people from the track on High Street. If that is true, then the number would be 6, not 12. Most people who have had too much to drink see double. Bottom line is in the numbers released by the MDC. It is what it is.

Anonymous said...

Micralegal, if you want to see personal vendetta and bitterness -- see the last post. This writer really has a problem with Carl Johnson, who wrote the post you responded to (you can also see the same on Carl's blog). You may not agree with Carl Johnson, but be aware that the previous poster seems to be in the arms of Millville First and has something very sick going on. I think Carl knows who he is, but regards him as too insignificant for a response. Best to forget the taping incident and focus on the facts, which Carl has right. MF distorts facts to serve them. You can watch them in action at the city commission meetings. They seem to want to get back into power. If they do, Millville will really be headed for the dumps. At least we have some hope with the present commission.

Anonymous said...

I've attended a couple of meetings of Millville First and find them informative and open. Persons attending are permitted to speak on any subject matter they so desire. I noticed on your blog you stated that four members of Friends of Millville attended the meeting. When do Friends of Millville have their meetings? I would like very much to attend a few of your meetings and then decide who has the interests of Millville as their agenda.

Steve Ries said...

Yes, by all means I would like to attend a Friends of Millville meeting. Hopefully it is not a matter of picking sides because I refuse to do that. I want to see us all working together for the betterment of Millville. I think most if not all of our City Commissioners are sincerely trying to do this as well.

Hopefully the Friends of Millville can also use the American Legion hall. I would like to see a short well prepared meeting much as Millville First did. I would like to see the Friends of Millville address the noise issue at the racetrack and I welcome to hear their other ideas for Millville.

You are either part of the solution or part of the problem and I think we should all work together to be part of the solution.

Anonymous said...

Not being allowed to videotape a public meeting is NOT a violation of one's first amendment rights, though I won't hold my breath waiting for Carl to correct his blog. The U.S. Supreme Court -- the ultimate arbiters on free speech -- has repeatedly refused cameras into its public courtroom, with liberals and conservatives voting against it. Studies have shown that cameras dramatically alter people's behavior, some being more reticent to speak while others "play to the camera". Some just may not like the way they look that day and would prefer to not have a permanent record of it. So while you think you and your camera are performing a civic duty, you're actually doing just the opposite. Besides that, it is simply rude, inconsiderate behavior to videotape people without their consent.
I voted for you for the school board but am coming to regret it. Your bad camera etiquette; blogs, with quotes from Sitar Bob, such as "think of the sound of the racetrack like prison sex - once you except [sic!] it's [sic!]inevitability, you might just as well loosen up and try to enjoy it!!!"; and photos, like the toilet with what looked like human waste in it for the recent post on the auto industry (the picture since removed but readily viewable in the land of Cachedom), have nothing but shock value. I am no prude and will defend your right to post this stuff, but I would remind you that children generally have free access to the Web and it behooves all of us to think about that. I would have thought a school board member would understand this. (Oh well, on the upside, at least it's not a joke about a president planning on killing 140 Muslims that was recently printed in the Inferno and available at the Barn Studio of Art, where children of all ages take classes).
No one was more disappointed than I was to see Magazzu sweep yet another election. However, you, Carl, and Linda continue to play right into his hands.
As for the racetrack, I applaud MF for standing up against the noise. I don't like uninvited guests into my home and NJMP's noise is exactly that. Others, like artist Michelle Post, are also speaking out. Yes we all have to put up with unwanted noise in our lives, from church bells that permit religious expression; to sirens that save lives and help catch criminals; to roads, railroads, and airplanes that form the backbone of our economy. However, being forced to put up with excessive noise just so wealthy people can drive around in a circle is another matter entirely.
Mr. Ries I have never met you, but I hope you consider running for City Commission. Your refusal to take sides in this pointless vendetta between MF and Friends of Millville is admirable and on target. MF may have a number of cranks among its ranks, but F of M appears to have a bunch of know-it-alls, who don't know as much as they should.

Millville Crime Watch said...

Once again Millville First spreads lies and misinformation.

New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that videotaping public meetings is a 1st amendment right.

But then we have come to expect that Millville First to be unable to speak truthfully on any issue.

Anonymous said...

Ha! Millville Crime Watch you kill me. First of all the New Jersey Supreme Court does not make rulings about the First Amendment, since that is found in the U.S. Constitution (territory of the U.S. Supreme Court). The N.J. Supreme Court does rule on New Jersey's Constitution and it has ruled that, under it, citizens can videotape government meetings. N.J.'s Supreme Court justice in the relevant case stated the following: "Openness is a hallmark of democracy -- a sacred maxim of our government -- and video is but a modern instrument in that evolving pursuit. . . . The use of modern technology to record and review the activities of public bodies should marshal pride in our open system of government, not muster suspicion against citizens who conduct the recording." What this means is that governments in New Jersey cannot issue blanket prohibitions against the videotaping of their meetings. However, the N.J. Supreme Court also said that such acitivities can be regulated. Furthermore, this ruling does not cover meetings of non-governmental groups, such as Millville First, nor does it permit recordings to be made when the attendants of the meeting are unaware that this is occurring.
As for the first amendment and videotaping, the U.S. Supreme Court has been very clear on this, finding that under the First Amendment the right to speak and publish does not provide for the "unrestrained right to gather information." Federal courts have also found no First Amendment right to videotape trials, thus upholding rules prohibiting videotaping in courtrooms (such as the U.S. Supreme Court's).
So in summary, no one has a right, either under the U.S. Constitution or the N.J. Constitution, to go into a meeting of a group, such as Millville First, and videotape it.
As for the MF spreading "lies" accusation, I will point out that I do not attend MF meetings -- heck, I called a lot of them "cranks" in my last post. But that is what we have devolved into in Millville -- you criticize someone and you are automatically pigeonholed into one of the groups -- in this case I am branded an MFer by Millville's well known poster/blogger of a million names. It's too bad civil discourse is an impossibility on blogs like this, but that's what happens when you have obsessives like Millville Crime Watch attacking anyone who disagrees with him (and Forbes and Krull going along for the ride).
Like I said, a bunch of know-it- alls, who don't know as much as they should, and who play right into the hands of Magazzu.

lforbes said...

Anonymous, you are the one who sounds like a know-it-all. In the interest of open and forthright discourse, and to get at the heart of some of the issues you raise, why don't you tell us who you are? I've concluded that in these forums, anonymous = coward.

Linda Forbes

Anonymous said...

You may probably be very curious to know how one can manage to receive high yields on investments.
There is no need to invest much at first.
You may begin earning with a sum that usually is spent
for daily food, that's 20-100 dollars.
I have been participating in one company's work for several years,
and I'll be glad to let you know my secrets at my blog.

Please visit blog and send me private message to get the info.

P.S. I make 1000-2000 per day now. [url=]Online Investment Blog[/url]