Owner of West Point Loma Property Withdraws Appeal of OB Planning Board Denial of McMansion

by on December 5, 2012 · 30 comments

in Civil Rights, Environment, History, Ocean Beach, San Diego

OB’s front line against gentrification: 5100 block of West Point Loma Blvd.

It appears that the applicant of a residence on West Point Loma Boulevard has withdrawn its appeal of a denial for variances by the Ocean Beach Planning Board.  The applicant of the Douma residence at 5168 West Point Loma notified the City Clerk that it is taking its appeal off the docket for the San Diego Planning Commission; the project will now fall back to city staff.

At the February 15th meeting this year of the OB Planning Board’s Project Review Committee, the board voted to deny the Douma applicant’s request for variances the applicants claimed they needed in order to build their planned demolition of the existing duplex and construction of a three story residence.

This means that the decision of the Planning Board could stand. The Douma residence was one of four along that section of West Point Loma that OB and its planners has been going to the mat with the city about the granting of improper variances to property owners.

The OB Planning Board denied the Douma applicant because the Board believes that the way the city has been approving the variance requests has been an abuse of the whole concept of variances.  According to city law,  variances are to be granted for special circumstances only.  They said this decision followed the Precise Plan and was also consistent with their past recommendations.

At the time of the denial, planners pointed out that – in regards to the applicant’s claim of “hardships” –  there are hundreds of units in the zoning area that all possess the same supposed “hardships” that the Duoma property had.  The Board has felt for awhile that it is standing up to encroaching gentrification – a negative process of urban renewal that supplants one economic class for a higher one that can afford the new costs of McMansions along OB’s coast.

In order to request and permit a variance ( permission due to special conditions) to existing zoning requires the owner to prove a recognized hardship that is specific to their piece of property (and presumably not applicable to the other properties in the zone). According to Elizabeth Young, then-representative for the proposed Douma construction, the property presents 3 hardships including:

  1.  A substandard lot
  2. No alley access
  3. Land is in a flood zone (subterranean parking inadvisable)

The Board has believed for a while now that if the city thinks that these variances should be granted (which seems to be the case since proposals that were universally denied by the OBPB were granted by the city) then the city needs to rezone the area.

At the time, then-Board member Seth Connolly spoke for the entire Board when he stated:

“Using variances to work around a zoning issue is incorrect. It places undue strain on the Planning Board’s resources by requiring it to review possibly hundreds of similar requests and it places undue burden on the residence owners by greatly increases the cost of acquiring a permit.”

It was suggested that the city’s willingness to encourage requests for variances (rather than trying to rezone the area) could be seen as a tax grab. When asked by a Board member of how much they spent on the application for the variance, the applicant said that the deposit alone cost them $5000.

One fear of OB-lovers is that if allowed, the building of McMansions along that stretch of West Point Loma would create a virtual wall of concrete, blocking off views and spatial relationships with the ocean by other residents.  Critics of the city’s variance policy point to sections of Mission Beach, Mission Bay and Pacific Beach as examples of gentrification that has been detrimental to those communities.

The Ocean Beach Planning Board acts as an advisory board only and that the city is not obligated to listen to the OBPB’s recommendations. The City has consistently decided to ignore the OBPB’s recommendations on the last 4 projects of this type.

According to the OBPB bylaws the “Purpose of the Community Planning Group and General Provisions”, Article III states:

In reviewing individual development projects, the Board should focus its review on assuring conformance with the adopted community plan and/or the General Plan**. Preliminary comments on projects may be submitted to the City during the project. (Read OBPB Bylaws here)

Brenda McFarlane also wrote parts of the above post.

{ 30 comments… read them below or add one }

avatar Tyler December 5, 2012 at 11:00 am

I agree with most of this article and am glad the appeal was withdrawn, but can we get rid of the “McMansion” rhetoric? It’s a bit hyperbolic and ridiculous.

Reply

avatar Frank Gormlie December 5, 2012 at 1:38 pm

Okay, I’m getting tired of the word. Tyler, give us a new term to use.

Reply

avatar dave rice December 5, 2012 at 11:00 pm

I don’t really know that it’s the term to use here – when I think “McMansion,” I think of a 4,000 square foot single family residence on a 5,000 square foot lot in some tract in east Chula Vista where a 500 unit development essentially consists of 125 copies of 4 different takes on the same preposterously-sized suburban home. Think of the “Little Boxes” song from early episodes of Weeds…

McMansions do exist, but I’d say this is more “custom homes obviously incompatible with neighborhood character.” That doesn’t have much ring to it, though.

Reply

avatar Wizard of Cape May December 6, 2012 at 9:55 am

Dude, who are you to tell a property owner what they can and can’t build on their OWN property if it falls within the specs of the precise plan? I personally think these type of homes ARE compatible with the neighborhood character since this is obviously a beach community where those that own property next to the beach enjoy the spoils. Or maybe the progressive OB establishment has a some sort of phobia against affluent homeowners that drive Mercedes and vote Republican.

Reply

avatar Tyler December 6, 2012 at 11:08 am

I don’t believe David said one thing about whether or not they should be allowed to build, Mr. “Wizard.” Perhaps you are too busy with your vitriolic hate for OB progressives that have a “phobia against affluent homeowners that drive Mercedes and vote republican” to learn what reading comprehension is. All he said is that they are “custom homes obviously incompatible with neighborhood character.” He’s right. That doesn’t mean they can’t be allowed to be built, as long as they follow legal building codes (which apparently they don’t want to). You can’t argue that the homes do take away from a certain community aspect.

Reply

avatar Wizard of Cape May December 6, 2012 at 1:20 pm

Sure he did. Here’s the quote again…

“custom homes obviously incompatible with neighborhood character.”

I don’t know about you but that tells me Dave doesn’t want that style of home built on there because it’s “incompatible” with the area – even if it’s built within the specs of the precise plan and city codes. So if I look up incompatible in the dictionary it says something like this…

in·com·pat·i·ble
Adjective
(of two things) So opposed in character as to be incapable of existing together.

Add it to Dave’s quote and we get…

“custom homes obviously ‘incapable of existing’ with (the) neighborhood character.”

…and if we look up incapable in the dictionary we get…

in·ca·pa·ble
Adjective
Not capable; unable to do or achieve (something).

So in the end Dave doesn’t want the property owner “to be able” to build his three story beach crib. I won’t even go into the “obviously” part of the quote.

Unfortunately words do matter and they actually have meaning. I learned this at the public high school and university I graduated from.

Not sure what you mean by vitriolic hate. I assume that’s the typical lefty response to shut down debate/discussion. The line about Mercedes and Republicans is accurate and the articles and comments I’ve read over the years here on the Rag validate that.

Bud Pillsbury lives!

Reply

avatar Seth December 6, 2012 at 9:26 pm

It’s all good, Wiz, but it’s not “within the specs of the precise plan and city codes”. Which why a variance was requested in the first place. In fact, that’s the entire point of a variance. To grant an exception to the rules that everyone else plays by to address some sort of special circumstance.

When it works, the variance process does exactly that. The variance process is also routinely used by people to buy their way around the rules, and many departments of cities like ours are happy to take that money. I have served on the OBPB, and voted against a few of these variances during my tenure, including this one. I feel that it is important to mention here that I thought the Doumas were very nice people.Whoever they vote for is their business, and certainly didn’t notice what kind of car they drive.

The “rule” in question is the FAR limit of 0.7 that applies to most of OB, which dictates how big a place you can build relative to the size of your lot. There are other places that have a higher limit, and well… they aren’t OB. But either way, it’s the rule, and the variance being requested.

The homeowners who have applied for these variances have (essentially, in one way or another) claimed that their smaller lot sizes, lack of alley access and presence in a floodplain create a special circumstance where this FAR limit of 0.7 is more restrictive to them than other homeowners in the same zone who have more options available to them in terms of their parking configurations (in the alley or side yard, partially or fully underground, etc.).

There is some truth in that, whether you agree or not that it thus meets the requirements of a variance. There is also truth in the statement that most if not all of these homeowners were aware of these issues when they bought the property, and in some cases, even the FAR limit itself.

In this debate, there are absolutely implications in terms of possible/likely gentrification and its impact on the character of our community. There are certainly some who feel that these variances are just a loophole around the rules in place. Either way you feel about it, for my money, the issue here is whether we need to change the rules, or simply apply them.

Reply

avatar John December 11, 2012 at 7:33 am

“To grant an exception to the rules that everyone else plays by”

Well that’s the funny thing here, Seth. The variance was granted to property owners at 5166, 5164, and 5170, respectively.

Now the owner of 5168 (where I currently reside and have rented here since 1995) will not get the variance granted to those who sandwich his property- simply because, as you pointed out, he is a nice guy who is not about to fight this so hard if he knows the community is against it.

Congratulations. You’ve only proven again that nice guys finish last. I have known John Douma for years, he’s the best landlord I’ve ever had and I’ve always enjoyed having the lowest or close to lowest rent on the block. He certainly is not in this for the money or financial gain or showing off his castle. If anyone deserves to get the short end of the stick by the OBPB putting its foot down it sure as heck is not the Doumas.

So you may perceive this as some sort of victory for the power and resolve of the board, but I’m afraid to say it only came because unlike the others, Douma was not your enemy.

You beat the nice guy, while to the left and right of him, the others got their way.

This is terrible.

Reply

avatar Seth December 11, 2012 at 2:33 pm

John, as I said, I do agree that they seem like very nice people. While serving on the board, there was never any intent to stick to a particular person, or treat anyone unfairly. If you can cut a local homeowner or business a break, great… but we are recommending permits and buildings, not people. New buildings tend to outlive the people who built them, or get sold, or whatever. You can’t totally take out the personal aspect, but really no point in basing it on the applicants or playing favorites. If it is OK for one applicant, it is OK for everyone.

Truth is, had they not dropped their “appeal” of a non-binding, advisory recommendation, the Doumas would have very likely won, with a lot less of a fight than Stebbins had. Even if not, they would still be able to build a structure of nearly the same size without a variance.

What is/was at issue for me is that this is not how the process should work. As Jane said, there are hundreds of properties in North OB with the same restrictions on them in terms of building within the FAR limit. Are we going to make all of them go through this same process, which for whatever it is worth, is a modest revenue stream for the City?

Provided they can figure out the parking, each one of these variances is essentially an extra bedroom being built in North OB. Could end up being nearly 200 of them, in fact. Never mind issues of gentrification and building scale for a second, all of these extra bedrooms equal more traffic and less parking in your neighborhood, with more kids in our overcrowded schools and more strain on our public utilities.

Call it NIMBYism if you want to, but that is pretty much exactly what everyone I ever spoke to about it told me that they *don’t* want for OB. Certainly doesn’t mean I am against the Doumas or people trying to improve their properties to consider that.

So be it. I am not of the mind that it has to be either/or, and agree with Jane’s call to the Mayor to see if there is a Door #3, and a more fair, easier process for these homeowners that also respects the character of the community as we know it.

Reply

avatar John December 13, 2012 at 5:05 am

Fair enough, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I don’t really think you were trying to stick it to anyone, this is probably just a “the way things worked out” kind of thing.

avatar Kenloc December 13, 2012 at 9:10 am

So now it is down to population control because we don’t want more kids in our schools? I’m quite sure the beloved bar and restaurant district has way more to do with parking issues,increased traffic,and increased crime than someone adding an extra bedroom to their house.
I understand wanting to keep OB’s vibe,but I also view this as sort of a reverse class warfare,which I find disturbing. How much does a person have to make before they are considered “not OB enough” for you?What net worth does someone have to have to be considered part of the gentrification problem everyone is ranting about all the time? How do you feel about a planning board in a wealthy neighborhood doing everything they can to keep poor folks out? Seems like that is what is happening here in reverse and it doesn’t seem right.Hating on an entire class of people because of their economic status and material wants is wrong in either direction.You’re right John,society is training people that they have to be bulldogs to get what they want.The customer yelling and threatening to sue always seems to get handled 1st.

avatar Seth December 13, 2012 at 2:38 pm

John, no worries.

Ken, really has nothing to do with class or politics, in my opinion. It is more a question of applying the rules of the game fairly. I have two small kids. If I buy ice cream for one of them, I have to buy ice cream for the other one. If one person gets to do this, everyone gets to do this. And that has implications for this neighborhood going forward.

You are perfectly entitled to not have a problem with increased density in OB, but my experience tells me that you are in a very small minority there. Property rights are just one consideration here. If it was just about that, the whole neighborhood would have been turned into condo towers decades ago.

Truth is, there is already going to be increases in density and traffic. 92107 is projected to add another 1,000 residents over the next 20 years or so, and an explosion in regional population growth will bring a lot more visitors and cars.

Bottom line for me is that this is not how the variance process is supposed to work. Like, at all. There’s a process for changing the rules, and a better solution out there than making a hundred homeowners apply for a variance just to build exactly what their neighbors did. This is nonsense.

avatar Wizard of Cape May December 5, 2012 at 2:02 pm

“spatial relationships with the ocean by other residents” – that’s a good one.

If the people that own those barge like eyesores on W Point Loma want to build three story houses the width of a two car garage then more power to them. Gentrification can be a good thing and it creates jobs unlike the base class warfare promoted in this article.

Reply

avatar Judy Swink December 5, 2012 at 3:55 pm

This project (and the one next door that did gain approval despite OBPB opposition and conflicts with the adopted community plan) is simply one more example of how Development Services, under the Sanders regime, has sought to approve development plans that do not fit into the community. Sunroad was another example (that didn’t happen because of citizen pushback).

Another and even more egregious example is a proposed Rancho del Mar, masquerading as a Continuing Care Facility in expectation that it would qualify for a CUP because it was “essentially the same” (Not!) as the Intermediate Care facility allowable in the Future Urbanizing Area prior to voters’ adoption of the Nov. 1985 Managed Growth Initiative (Proposition A). The fact that an Intermediate Care Facility is hasn’t been allowed on Prop A lands since 1985 wasn’t going to stop them until citizens intervened and made clear that there would be litigation if the project was permitted absent a public vote to allow it. Since 1985, voters have approved the majority of “phase shift” development plans, consistent with Prop A.

I *think* but am not positive that this sneaky attempt has been beaten back. All of these examples highlight why it’s essential to have a separate Planning Dept. instead of putting city planners under the supervision of the Development Services Dept., as our erstwhile Mayor Sanders did a year or so ago.

Anyone who is interested can learn more by going to http://www.fsdrv.org/homeCurrentIssues17_2012.html and to

Reply

avatar Tyler December 6, 2012 at 7:03 am

My thoughts exactly. Well said

Reply

avatar Tyler December 6, 2012 at 7:04 am

Whoops. That was supposed to be a reply to Dave’s post.

Reply

avatar Debbie December 6, 2012 at 12:54 pm

I think the house is a welcome addition to OB. JMO …it’s got some character and I would not call it a mansion..there are much bigger houses in OB. I do not believe the community plans strives to retain rows of houses that look like boxes are currently exit now. I do however agree following codes are important. But once others receive waivers or variences then that opens the doors for others be it good or bad.

Reply

avatar Frank Gormlie December 6, 2012 at 1:36 pm

Well, your planning committee says it’s bad. So, why not stop these violations of the OB Precise Plan before they occur?

Gentrification, Mr. Wizard, by definition is bad. Why? Because it allows a different class of people in – your mercedes driving Republicans? – who displace the poorer segments of the community, the seniors on fixed incomes, the young families and working poor, students, sailors. It’s just lefties and progressives care about all sectors of society, especially those forgotten and ignored – the people developers and their supplicants don’t mind removing; so gentrification in the end means people removal. And those people to be removed are your fellow residents and citizens of your village. Try to be emphatic.

Reply

avatar Wizard of Cape May December 6, 2012 at 6:00 pm

I just saw a for rent sign on one of those barge buildings a few doors down last week – $1,200 per month for a 1 bed/1bath. What “poorer segments of the community, the seniors on fixed incomes, the young families and working poor, students, sailors” can pay that sort of coin for a 1 bedroom? Not everyone can live on the cheap next to the ocean and nobody should expect to be entitled to it. Rents are cheaper in the opposite direction and there is usually a correlation between the class of people (not race based as OB is white as notebook paper) and the rent they can afford. Visit or live by any one of the studio apartment complexes around OB and you’ll see (or hear) what I’m talkin about.

Reply

avatar Frank Gormlie December 6, 2012 at 8:16 pm

One of the great attributes of OB is that it has been a beach community where even poor people can live … but it’s getting less and less like that. If Ocean Beach becomes like Venice or Mission Beach or like most of the towns and communities up and down the California coast, then our village loses its character. Which is fine for some people – those who see OB as a source of speculation – and feel the “grunginess” of OB keeps property values down.

For a long time now, western civilization has placed limits on what individual property owners can do with their properties. Just for example – and to make it local – one couldn’t for example, build a saw-mill in the middle of Del Monte Avenue. One can’t throw up a 100 foot tower off the alley between Muir and Voltaire. These are “use” and height limitations fairly universally agreed upon. Plus you can’t build on the public right of way (sidewalk) even if that land is included in your deed of trust.

Okay, these are common-sensible. But what was going on in the Sixties and early Seventies in OB and up and down the coast was an assault by developers on what little land was still open and close to beaches and cliffs. There weren’t that many building and construction requirements, and builders were throwing up big boxes as apartments, squeezing as much land as possible under their concrete and wood, leaving little sideyards or front yards, and pouring in giant parking lots in front of their apartments, eliminating parking for the rest of the block, increasing the traffic, the density, the pollution, the noise – and cutting off the coast to the rest of the city and public by building monster rectangles many stories high, etc.

Anyhow, to cut to the chase: there was a rebellion, a reaction to this over-development, and the early 1970s witnessed an ushering in of an era where communities took more control over their coast, their assets and resources, and in general there was a new environmental awareness and willingness to raise issues of the quality of life and make them political. Due to this revolt, we now have the California Coastal Commission, the 30 foot height limit for the coast, and here in OB, we have the OB Planning Board that enforces – or tries to enforce – the OB Precise Plan. The OB Precise Plan places limitations and requirements on building in OB – which in recent years the City has been circumventing by improperly – even illegally – granting variances without requiring the property owners to meet the standards set up by the Precise Plan.

If the OB Planners agreed to allow one massive, over-sized 3 -story single family building – that would be one thing – but there are a string of property owners along that side of the 5100 block of West Pt Loma who want to ignore the Precise Plan and who are willing to beg the city for variances – and by letting one in – those others waiting in line can now point to that one and say ‘see? they got the variances and so should we,’ … and pretty so we’ll have a 30 foot high wall of concrete blocking along that block.

That’s why this could be a victory for OB and its thankless volunteer community planners.

Reply

avatar John December 12, 2012 at 8:51 pm

” and feel the “grunginess” of OB keeps property values down.”

I’m pretty sure that for a few decades, what really kept property values (and rents) down was the fact OB was directly under the departure path of a major international airport. Who remembers the “OB pause” where if you were talking on the phone or having a conversation outside, you had to stop and wait for the racket to subside?
The last decade or so saw several major changes, including 9/11 and a toilet economy seeing air traffic numbers plummet. Aircraft being developed with significantly quieter engines. The aircraft being more high performance, with much better climb rates, so the FAA dictated operations where they climb out quickly, out of earshot. Next time you think of it while driving down I-5, if you see a departing airliner, watch how steep it climbs- like the Boeing 757’s &767’s, they are absolute hot rods compared to jets of a generation ago.
The reality is while you still hear some planes, they are fewer than they were and only the oldest wide body jets still generate noise of an uncomfortable nature. A few a day is all I notice.
Many people in the old (noisy) days refused to live with such an unnerving racket.
I think this is the main reason why you will see OB begin to resemble other beach areas in coming years.
(remember the Cheers episode where Karla thought her house was cheap because it was haunted…then the gang spent the night with her there and they found it was under the alternative inbound route to the airport…)

Reply

avatar Sean M December 9, 2012 at 11:00 am

Most OB properties look like crap. Good job maintaining the neighborhood character OB Planning Board.

Reply

avatar OB law(yer) December 12, 2012 at 9:18 am

Most OBceans disagree with you sir. Besides….aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder…and not a relevant discussion point for the folks of the board. Perhaps you should attend a meeting and know more about what you speak before opening your mouth and proving no doubt your ignorance.

Reply

avatar Sean M December 13, 2012 at 9:00 pm

I know the properties in question. Could care less how much space inside a structure is considered “living space.” The improvements seem modest and your objections are petty. The animosity and disregard you express towards the “losers” is hardly magnanimous and your ill will is obvious.

Reply

avatar Eric December 9, 2012 at 4:09 pm

So the owners withdrew the request for a variance and will now build a house with exactly the same volume that will have a ground floor 1 foot higher to meet the city code which is 1 foot higher than the FEMA standard. It will still be a single family house, that from the street will be indistinguishable from what would have been built if the variance was approved. It will be in character with the 3 other projects already approved and or built in the same block. It will comply with current city codes without any variances. It will be well maintained, because the owners will be living in it. It will be a great improvement to the neighborhood.

Reply

avatar Seth December 11, 2012 at 2:37 pm

Thanks, Eric. Interesting. Should have read this first, before I replied above. Good luck with the parking not flooding, but hey, that’s their prerogative.

Reply

avatar Seth December 11, 2012 at 4:28 pm

Never mind, I think I misunderstood. Just above grade carport, not semi-underground parking.

Reply

avatar OB law(yer) December 12, 2012 at 9:24 am

Mr. Eric… your point please. Are you trying to tell us that the applicant can simply raise the ground floor and still get the variance? How so? What trick or loophole will these “nice people” be utilizing to circumvent what would have inevitably have been support of the appeal by the councilmember (and of course presuming the council would have supported his position)?

Help us all understand what process this project will be approved in the same configuration?

…and note – precedent law is not deemed appropriate in a hearing of such a nature. Each project must stand alone on its own merit to deserve special relief from a hardship such as having to build a garage instead of getting a bonus bedroom.

Reply

avatar OB law(yer) December 12, 2012 at 9:16 am

It is good to finally see the planning group get a victory in this longrunning battle with the affluent who simply want to break the rules that the folks in the middle can’t afford to circumvent.

When are the republicans going to learn that there are much more mobilized progressives and middle class folks than there are rich people when it comes time to vote? Oh yeah….they just did back in November. Ooops…

We know that Faulconer has always been a flopper….so it appears that he is now catering to the OB demographic instead of his previous ruling when he supported the Stebbins house. I guess the party told him to make nice with OB since in 2016 when he is termed out the Pubs will have to try to carry a portion of OB to keep the council seat in their party. Hummmph. How times change. To be courted by the likes of the Exhalted… whatever. When are we going to get a progressive candidate from the council seat who can really step up?

Kudos again to the planning board for serving their community and continuing to take on the incredible task of trying to interpret the overall will of the community with nothing more than a 30 year old community plan as reference. We sincerely appreciate your service to your community and your willingness to stand up for what is right. You have the backing of the community….not just a few loudmouth sore losers who frequent this sight only to lash out after they apparently didn’t get their way at a hearing. If you didn’t have the backing of the majority of the folks in town, you’d be hearing about it over the past 6 years or whatever that you’ve been fighting this war.

The truth is….the applicant got greedy and got stuck in a place where the decision maker couldn’t back their variance outright and certainly not the variance for the flood plain construction.

Mr. Seth again has relevant and spot on commentary on the process, the code and also the law. Why Mr. Seth stepped away from community service baffles me and if I were living in his district I would ensure that I wrote him in as a candidate for the board even if he weren’t running.

To the losers….. I never remember when the community elections are for the board, but my simple advice to you is to step up, run for the seat, and then have your voice heard instead of just cowardly barking away on a blog at nobody. That is way democracy works. The majority rules. Not just a few folks with money who lobby the councilmember hard behind the scenes. Mercedes, Jaguars be damned… Hey, quick, what’s the difference between a vote from a person who drives a really expensive car and a person who doesn’t even own a car????? Tht’s right…nothing.

To the editor — I echo your concerns….will the offic e of this new Mayor step in and support the community? Here is a first opportunity if he is going to carry through on his promises to a community that overwhelmingly supported him in being elected.

Dear Mr. Filner — Your response is anticipated to the Chairwoman’s Letter!

Reply

avatar John December 13, 2012 at 4:54 am

“It is good to finally see the planning group get a victory in this longrunning battle”

Hollow gloating, you could call it a victory if the applicant pursued the matter and lost in legal proceedings, obviously he doesn’t want to go against the grain of the community and withdrew the appeal on his own accord.

“with the affluent who simply want to break the rules that the folks in the middle can’t afford to circumvent.”

What do you consider “affluent”? I know one of the homeowners further down the block who is considering a project on his property, he is a public works employee at a military base and lays flooring all day. His wife toiled for 30 years behind a desk at an insurance company before retiring. Both of their cars are ten years old.
The owner of the property in this article comes from a similar background. It may be indulgent to stand on a soapbox and portray this as a class warfare issue, I guess you could finally wear that Che Guevara T-shirt with all due decorum.
However that isn’t a realistic portrayal of each property owner- nor is the irrelevant speculation about anyone’s political affiliations.

“not just a few loudmouth sore losers who frequent this sight only to lash out after they apparently didn’t get their way at a hearing. ”

Hmm, I know the names of all four property owners, and have rented from two, have been a neighbor of a third for a decade… (never have met Cox) I haven’t seen any of them commenting here- did I miss something? You might consider the possibility that other Obecians may not be lock step with you on some aspects of the issues at hand- but again it’s easy to justify your position if you can vilify the opposition as the greedy and rich.

A passing note on your ire for the rich… how many people do you write checks for on your company payroll every week?

Reply

Leave a Comment


7 + = 11

Older Article:

Newer Article: