New City Budgets Tags $10 Million Surplus For Public Safety And Neighborhood Improvements

This came over the transom on Thursday from Councilwoman Kris Murray:

Council Approves Historic Budget

$10 million surplus for public safety and neighborhood improvements

Dear Friends,

 On Tuesday, the City Council unanimously approved a historic city budget, dedicating a $10 million surplus, created by growth in the resort district, to neighborhood improvements including restoration of police and fire personnel, iconic new community centers and park expansions, repaving local streets and roads, and significant improvements for water, sewer, sidewalks and other vital infrastructure.

This year’s budget demonstrates the effectiveness of Anaheim’s long-standing strategy of investment in our resort area, which has a direct and tangible nexus with sustainable, new revenue to fund improvements across all Anaheim neighborhoods.

Due to the strength of the city’s tourism industry, as we continue to build on a legacy founded 60 years ago, Anaheim’s budget is balanced, we are investing millions in surplus revenue citywide, and we have a five-year outlook that will secure a 20 percent cash reserve for the city.

 The full budget, which also highlights Anaheim’s AA ratings from Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch, is available here. Read the press release here.

It’s a great day in Anaheim!

Kindest regards,

Kris Murray

Council Member


  1. WEST ANAHEIM NEEDS TO SEE SOME OF THAT MONEY. We all know that the politicians favor 22 motels in one area, so the rest of Anaheim doesn’t have to deal with it. DEAL WITH BEACH BLVD!
    WEST ANAHEIM is still part of ANAHEIM!
    change the C.U.P.’s
    push out the slum lords
    give ussome shopping, restaurants, and a grocery store, but most of all, do what we all want in this area:

  2. The city is working and investing in west Anaheim. If you went to the budget workshops you would see the level of investment focused on west and central Anaheim. The Beach and Brookhurst Blvd investments are just a part of it. The new policies the council adopted last year to hold slumlords accountable started in west Anaheim and we are patiently waiting in the Colony. To say the council supports the motels that have been in west anaheim for decades is not remotely accurate. You should take a look at the budget documents – you would be pleasantly surprised. Did you speak to the council or city staff during the budget prep over the past several months and ask for something they didn’t respond to?

    • Those motels ain’t getting a 70% ToT rebate, that’s for sure.

    • We are frustrated at the amount of money that has gone onto other areas of Anaheim for so long now. Yes, Kris has been very helpful in responding to our concerns. But its clear the west has a reputation for being last on the list. I have been to tons of meetings, for decades, rallied neighbors, spoke to everyone not only in council but everyone else. Every citizen in this west end community has been begging for the closure of those motels for 25 years. They are essentially homeless shelters and not a magnet for tourism, they only provide an overly condensed area profiting only the slum lords.22 motels is a ridiculous number and understandably why its difficult for the city to manage. But….let me ask you this,here on the west end did you know we get 55% of the police calls, 75% of them which are regarding transients, we have NO groceey store, a place to shop, no entertainment, dog park, farmers market, safe parks but we carry an abundance of motels, hookah bars, and we have only been asking for our fair share. Lets reevaluate the ribbon cuttings in the last few years, or even further back. We are very happy for your packing house, restaurants, artic, everything around the stadium, convention center, and entertainment district. But we challenge you to come to West Anaheim, where the people here that have not left yet, invite you to enjoy an evening out on Beach and Ball. I dare you to walk in the evening, where you will not find an ice cream parlor, yoga studio, or lunch place…in fact we do not have ONE coffee house in this area. I dunno, does that make me selfish to want those things when every part of Anaheim already does? Sorry, I live in west Anaheim, but all my money is going to Cypress.
      Thank you.

  3. Hey, if there is a “surplus” how come Kris Murray is borrowing money to fix asphalt and dipping into the TOT to pay for her ARTIC boondoggle?

    Oh, right, the cops have to get their gravy to keep playing ball.

  4. Kris Murray is one member of a five member Council who voted unanimously to approve the city budget. Where do you get off making that statement? Also, genius, the resort district is funding the shortfall – so your statement is not only ignorant it’s false.

  5. The money came from borrowing $20MM on top of the Convention Center expansion funds, or as Lucille Kring put it, like refinancing your house and taking out equity to go to Europe. Nothing like realizing your civic leaders are OK with fiscal policy mimicking the same mentality that just took out the mortgage markets.

    So they borrowed an extra $20MM, and allocated it for civic improvements, AKA basic maintenance and upkeep that should be built into our General Fund budgets as the cost of running a responsible city. To applaud that is like saying I showed restraint in the family budget because there is still room left on the credit card at the end of the month. Hey, I could have maxed it out, honey, so let’s celebrate my newfound sense of responsibility by going out to dinner.

    Ryan, you are right, the Beach Blvd motel owners are NOT getting that TOT kickback, and if ever i wanted to swallow my horror and advocate for someone getting it, I might just push for it THERE. Instead of closing the motels, how about we form a BID funded from TOT increment to rehab the motels into mid century kitsch that is driving huge tourism markets in other areas? Fix up the basic streetscape so baby boomers will pull the Lexus into the motor lodge that drips with the nostalgia they have already proven they will pay big money for, offer Bella Notte linens and free wifi, and price the meth sketchers out of the rooms to reimagine them as profitable economic tax generators that prove their value beyond what we have to forfeit in subsidy to fund the individual rehab loans and basic street improvements. The Restaurants naturally follow the customer base, just as they used to in the heyday of OC’s iconic tourism boom. If a motel owner has to choose between Mr. and Mrs. Retired Aerospace Engineer at $149 a night for the motel room (but has to work pretty hard to keep the place clean enough for Mrs. RAE’s standards) or can keep renting for $49 a night to Mr. and Mrs. Mc Sketcherson, (who aren’t really married, the rings are tattoos, isn’t it romantic?) and watch their property values and resale tank, which do you think they will choose? Blight resolved, locals get to eat in decent restaurants, hookers leave.

    But no, let’s keep throwing money at the section of the City that needs it the least, using plans cooked up by staffers who have never worked in the private sector, using consultants ordered to do anything but a market study of the hospitality industry, while ignoring the readily available market studies that fail to produce the predetermined outcome of staff, in allegiance with their Council masters.

    Jordan Brandman keeps using the phrase “The Anaheim Way” (I love how he has repositioned himself as “old Anaheim”) and he has NO IDEA where that phrase came from or what it meant to those who built Anaheim’s hospitality industry in the day. It is time to reclaim that, along with the concept that the Resort provides support for the community, not the other way around.

    • Sick of Politics

      We have tried to offer Incentives and cooperation from the motel owners. They make too much cash under the table taking advantage Of the clientele. And us residents suffer. And every effort to rid the motels will be met with opposition from those who claim the city if targeting the poor. Only those people don’t live near it to know what’s really going on.
      I say, get rid of all of them. If necessary, keep 2-3 of them and make them boutique hotels.

      • Ok I did not know this about the motels, I thought they wanted to clean up and had simply been overrun by the criminal element and couldn’t fund improvements to make them economically viable. So I have a lot to learn, things have changed a lot since I left West Anaheim for the colony, but I still have a heart for the land of my childhood and I do believe West Anaheim deserves the chance to pull itself out of the gutter that was created by twisted city policies for decades.

        So can you please help me understand what CAN be done if the motels are closed? Even slumlords have property rights, so is there a chance to buy them out? No RDA funds what do we use? Can’t condemn them if the intent is to give them to another private business owner, our charter won’t allow it. Can condemn for park space or public improvement but a park on beach could be iffy….seriously, please share ideas, what should happen there? How does this get fixed?

        • . . . the charter doesn’t allow for bonds to be sold without a vote, either.

          There are ways.

        • Sick of Politics

          Developers have made offers and most refuse to sell. The city applied for a grant and received just shy of half a million to draw a specific plan for the Beach Blvd. corridor. I hope that plan calls for NO motels or only a few.
          I don’t see how they can’t be closed down. They’re a public nuisance, operate unlawfully, act in concert with the drug dealers and prostitues. Their conditions are deplorable!
          Costa Mesa is currently fighting against a motel and they’re being sued for it!

  6. Cynthia you are such a hypocrite. You were one of the loudest voices for the resort district during the original battles to keep housing out of that district. You were also one of the loudest voices supporting SOAR in the Colony when you were a member of their board. You never once opposed the city for previous policies to split sales tax or TOT when Mayor Tait was a council member and they voted unanimously to pass those programs. All of a sudden with the mayors 180 on these policies in Anaheim (but conveniently not in Garden Grove) you start insanely attacking city staff and consultants who recommend expanding those policies and have no political stake in any of this. The budget surplus is also funding a new fire house and other structural one time expenses. It just kills you that city revenues are exceeding budget forecasts because of the resort district – your claims don’t hold any water if the city continues to prosper and build the parks and services that are planned citywide. As per usual, your superficial attacks don’t hold any credible facts.

    And for the record, didn’t you speak in favor of the expansion of the GardenWalk agreements in 2007? I may be wrong but thought you did. Thay would be worth researching since the council meetings are archived online.

    • Wow, you think I want budget projections to fall short of what the City NEEDS in order to function so I can be right? I want the City’s long term monetary policies to be accurate so we can sustain this community into future generations. If we need to borrow money to build a fire station, great, just SAY SO. but don’t borrow it and then claim it resulted from some “surplus” when it came from bond money. We need to know where it is coming from so we know which policies to keep pushing and which fall flat and need to be borrowed out of. That has nothing to do with me or being right, it is just a planning-for-the-future thing. I don’t know how someone even GOES THERE with that kind of mindset, like I want my children to fail so I can prove I was right about their career choices or something. Talk about SICK.

      Proud Colonist, you are correct that I was among the loudest of the Resort’s cheerleaders, and if you truly listen to what I said then and what I say now, the message is the same. I still support the Resort’s ability to “provide vital city services” to support the surrounding community. I do not support efforts to turn the Resort into the economic equivalent of a black hole from which no funding ever escapes. The point of an “economic engine” is to provide POWER to the transmission to move the vehicle forward. I don’t care how much energy is expended to rev the engine if it sits in the driveway in Neutral.

      I don’t know why Murray and this anonymous commenter have both tagged me with ANY viewpoints from 2001-02. I understand the “need” to stick Tait with those views, so you can make him look like a hypocrite for supporting something and then not backing it. Perhaps if he had not put it in his campaign materials it would be OK for him to do a 180. Ya think? Murray’s snit the other night that she had not “seen” me opposing this at the beginning of the 21st century is pretty odd, since I don’t think she was an Anaheim resident to “see” anything here, but mostly because I didn’t attend my first council meeting until the very end of the Daly administration, mid to late 2002. Prior to that I took no position on anything at City Hall, and i could not tell you the name of the mayor back then. So whoever is briefing you and Ms. Murray needs to check their timelines and facts.

      But when I have gone back to those old ’01-’02 meetings to see the context of where these policies originated, I have a better idea of how someone as conservative as Tait might have supported this type of incentive and suspect I probably would have at the time as well. Anaheim had just put all our economic eggs into the Resort basket, with the 1997 sale of half a billion in bonds to be paid from the General Fund, bonds that will cost one and a half billion to repay and which carried huge balloon payments on the back end for accrued compound interest. Disney’s 2nd gate came online in 2000-2001, just in time for religious zealots with murderous intent to take out tourism, travel, and the entire nation’s peace of mind along with the lives of our fellow Americans. So subsidizing hotels to try to keep development moving forward to meet the common goals of paying the bonds intersected with flipping a giant post 911 “up yours” to the terrorists. We had to send the message that we would NOT be bullied into retreating into our homes and never get on an airplane again. Anaheim especially is an all-American icon, (not everyone is aware we were one of the original 911 targets when they intended to steal more planes than they got a hold of, Disney not only being symbolic but sitting on top of water and power supplies for the entire region) so I get why Anaheim would do pretty much anything to keep momentum going in that period. For context, Anaheim was also home to major manufacturing jobs that did not leave our employment base reliant on the dead end low paying jobs of the Resort, but that is not the same now either. If you want to return to the days of ordering the City’s female staff to wear nude hose with their skirts, well I guess you can try that. Me, I prefer to look at the current economic conditions, and work from there.

      As I said, I was among the most vocal of Resort supporters during Round Two of efforts to incentivize development during the 2007-08 SunCal fight, and the subsequent hotel feasibility gap from 2008. I supported the Resort then on the same basis I would cheerlead for them today, TO PROVIDE VITAL CITY SERVICES. I gave a ton of time and energy to that effort, and together we collected well over 20,000 signatures. not once do i recall getting someone to support the Referendum or Initiative based on the idea that we should generate TOT to give it back to hoteliers. Everyone I spoke with wanted the TOT to support programs for the surrounding city. So I have not changed my position at all, it was the organization I worked with that changed their tune, suddenly claiming it was evil for SunCal to prevent the Frank property from generating TOT but perfectly OK for the hotelier to scoop it up once it was generated. I have a hard time promoting that to the same people I told would benefit from services provided by that TOT. So I asked that my name be taken off the letterhead.

      I don’t speak of why I left SOAR because information offered to me in confidence must be respected, but please do not confuse my refusal to “out” my old friends for some issues I could not stomach with some form of acceptance for what I cannot stomach. I believed completely in what I was telling my friends and neighbors back then, but like watching sausage being made. after seeing what was going into the casing I couldn’t sell it for them anymore. I know that my old friends who are still involved do believe in what they are doing, leadership is good at keeping them from seeing behind the curtain. although I have to question why they don’t demand to see what is happening in the control room since it is being done with their names on the messages. The CB Richard Ellis report that the “5% generates 50%” slogan came from…well the original doc was not offered to us, only the regurgitation of its contents. It turns out that is not what the report says, so while we were not lying in the sense of deliberate untruths, what we were telling people was not factual. So while you paint me as evil because I stopped parroting back a prepared message, what kind of person would I be to keep at it after I had read the report and knew it was not true?

      As far as “insanely attacking staff and consultants” I have disputed their FINDINGS, because they are not supported by facts. We have a train station which will cost taxpayers millions per year, because the revenues staff insisted would be produced were based on ridership numbers staff KNEW could not be real, they grabbed ridership for the high speed rail project, 20 years away if it ever materialized, and used it for FIRST YEAR ridership. I have the email from Natalie Meeks, to OCTA, including key staff, colluding to use those numbers that the trained professionals on the email KNEW could NOT POSSIBLY in ANY SCENARIO happen. Calling them accountable for that is not an attack, it is called being a grown up with responsibility for providing reliable numbers. Now the ATID has to backfill those losses that were entirely predictable. By the way don’t look for lease agreements for restaurants to bail out next year’s ARTIC numbers either, go find an engineer to explain the difficulty of adding tenant improvements to floors tension-supported for a clear span building, and then tell me when a restaurant might have gas, electric, plumbing installed and whether or not the “experts” responsible for designing future tenant locations should not have foreseen that problem.

      The “experts” claiming the hotel subsidies are a good deal provided examples of “everyone else is subsidizing,” but I went to see what kind of tax revenue those sample hotels were producing. Call me crazy, I expect “experts” to provide examples of ACTUAL HOTEL DEALS THAT GOT BUILT much less ones that supply the kind of tax base claimed in the reports so we can see that this works! Again, holding “experts” in their field accountable for the reports they write to recommend a specific course of action is not “attacking” it is expected for those who are held to professional standards.

      So do you want to review the materials provided by those “experts” we rely on when making decisions worth many millions of dollars? Because it is those decisions that ensure we can keep parks seeded and libraries open so our grandchildren will enjoy the Anaheim we got to grow up in. Bickering at me might make you feel better but it doesn’t accomplish anything for the residents of this community, seeing as how I am not in charge of anything, so flinging poo my direction doesn’t fix what is broken. We are already seeing the lies come to roost, with the ARTIC shortfalls based on the flat out untruths of Public Works staff. There is more where that came from. there is another $10MM potentially missing that needs to be accounted for eventually, and you can blame me but that isn’t going to keep cops on patrol, and holding staff and consultants accountable for truthful and accurate reports so we can correctly measure our future budget decisions DOES keep cops on patrol. Which do you prefer?

      • Cynthia, you quit SOAR because they did not support/endorse your candidate for Mayor. Instead they supported Tom Tait and you left over it. You made it sound as though you were being used and manipulated by SOAR and since you couldn’t have your way you accused others of inappropriate behavior. In fact, you accused someone of being on Tom Tait’s payroll without disclosure, you accused others with business interests of being reliant upon the good graces of Tom Tait and/or his direct supporters for deals worth many millions without disclosure. You even accused the time keeper at a candidates form of mis-timing the candidates to favor Tom Tait (by the way you also accused the time keeper of being on Tom Tait’s payroll). During this time you even expressed sympathy for Kris Murray and Gail Eastman and railed about the damage that would be caused to them because a number of community volunteers, that you had recruited, would no longer be involved because of SOAR’s actions. Sadly, I know of other organizations that you have quit with the same conspiratorial zeal because something didn’t go quite your way. Your drama is legendary in this community.

      • Cynthia, you are arguing facts with anonymous cowards making ad hominem attacks on you.

        Not much more to say than that; just thought that it bears note.

        • Would these be the SAME anonymous cowards who make up CATER?

          Didn’t think so.

          • Scary anonymous commenters but we’ll protect the identity of CATER’s members to the death. I hope they do make ARTIC a homeless shelter Diamond. Then your family will have somewhere to go when you ge evicted from your Brea apartment. But you’ll have so much new office space

  7. You are delusional. I’m actually laughing out loud by the twisted logic that the rebate policies Tait supported when he was on the council were really about telling Osama Bin Laden where to stick his terrorist activity. That’s rich – so how do you explain the ones he voted for pre-911? I think Liberal OC has a better explanation for the mayors change of heart. And did you or did you not support the extension for the GardenWalk hotels? It wouldn’t be hard to find if you did.

    • “I think Liberal OC has a better explanation for the mayors change of heart.”

      That is most likely because this blog and that one both support the socialist activities you endorse.

      I, for one, am not afraid to say that Tait used to be wrong. And now he has wised up. Lots of people were once under Pringle’s spell. The number is dwindling fast. I wonder who the last three will be.

    • I have no doubt that you find that particular delusion attractive.

      • Read it again, I said there was a crisis of Anaheim just having put all of our economic chips on the roulette table of tourism when terrorism wiped out the entire travel industry. This timing (2000-02) could have taken out Anaheim’s General Fund since a few years earlier (1997) we had put the full faith and credit of Anaheim taxpayers into bonds that we owed one and a half billion on (and are still paying off) so we needed to try ANYTHING to keep the “economic engine” revving at top speed. I can see how some would consider measures we might not otherwise in a healthy economy. And yes there was an air of extreme patriotism in that post 9-11 period, (for most of us) in which everything from winning the Bowl games to buying cheap domestic beer was an act of defiance against Osama Bin Laden, and there is no doubt in my mind that some measure of “not letting terrorists keep us down” was likely included in the backing of hotel policies in 2001-02, but again I was not there and not involved. Go ask whoever is briefing you and Murray, they seem to have been around back then, even if they got it wrong today.

        I had initially advocated for the 2007-08 feasibility gap policy that offered 50% of TOT back to the developer to cover the higher costs of construction and operations, I make no apology for it, I thought the 50% baseline numbers worked. My objection to the current policy is that there is clearly no market to support the higher end hotels or someone will real financing would have stepped up by now, meaning the subsidy will serve to screw the hoteliers trying to work the same market at a disadvantage, and it offers no protections for those market rate units from being cannibalized (a minimum room rate based on a percentage above city-wide ADR would have fixed this, but nope, we won’t consider that) and the math offered claims what we lose in TOT percentage is made up in volume, as the subsidy allows steel frame construction and more rooms over the wood frame 3 star construction, but then of course does not REQUIRE that benchmark, and sets the minimum size at 250 rooms, the same as the 3 star hotel used in the example of “falling short” revenues. Someone want to explain how collecting 10% of slightly higher TOT for 250 4-star rooms scores Anaheim more than collecting 80% of 250 3-star rooms at slightly lower room rate TOT?

        As far as SOAR, I left for reasons I will not discuss, because the events took place behind closed doors (you may recall I was on the PAC board and got to see and hear conversations the rest of the Advisory Board was not privy to) so while I have no intention of offering my reasons for your consideration (I don’t care if you agree or not) the reasons were good enough to make me walk away from some very, very nice perks of the position, and I don’t need your validation to know I did the right thing. The endorsement of Tait was the more public of issues. but far from isolated. Our Mayor has ALWAYS had a more cautious position on Resort subsidies, and would never have backed the streetcar, that was obvious, yet was supported by the pro-Resort forces over the endorsement of Shirley McCracken who would have given the Resort an open checkbook. That bizarre values twist solidified in my mind that back room deals were being made, and I wanted no part of it. I was very glad to discover later that Tait had no knowledge of what others were doing to score endorsements on his behalf. And lest you think I am throwing out empty accusations, people flat out TOLD ME of the (often publicly funded) favors they (believe) they traded the former Mayor for their endorsements of the next Mayor in order to flip them away from their support of Shirley, which is another conversation we will not be having. But clearly friendship and loyalty are one way in that organization, and I didn’t want my name on the letter head anymore.

        I will address my resignation letter from SOAR only because it was already made public here before, and because I care very much still about those I left behind in the Kool Aid factory. That letter was not, as you claim, filled with accusations, but was instead trying to serve as a warning to the good men and women on that board about to look like Class A jerks for the misdeeds of others who used their names and good reputations to gain the trust of the public and then abuse that trust for their own purposes. Someone very hostile to SOAR and especially Pringle had video of that candidate’s forum, I was offered a copy, which I still might have actually, and by clocking the permitted responses by both Tait and McCracken it was painfully clear that Tait was given additional time to answer while McCracken was cut short and made to look unprepared and unprofessional. If you don’t believe me, ask Shirley about it. I knew then and believe even now it was an HONEST MISTAKE because the time keeper (someone I still have great love for) is a person of great integrity, who was overheard asking how to operate the timing device, as it was unfamiliar. I will go to my grave believing that person has one of the best hearts on earth and it destroyed me that I failed to communicate effectively this was a warning and not mudslinging. The person who had the video and documents didn’t care who they hurt as long as they “caught” Pringle gaming the system on behalf of his “boy” Tait, and nobody in SOAR leadership wanted to hear about it, they circled the wagons and pretended it didn’t happen. Well, the video shows what happened, and the Campaign reports show the individual as a “campaign consultant” (she was paid to coordinate a party for him for pete’s sake, not exactly an operative) but that part would not have come out, the only public story would be someone on Tait’s payroll shorting McCracken time and cutting her off while fudging to stretch for the candidate paying them. Given this was the first endorsement and one of the most powerful in an already contentious election it was going to blow up on good people who didn’t deserve it. Would you prefer I not warn them? You know, I think you would.

        Why does this bother you? I would think you would welcome my not being there. It’s been 5 years, isn’t it time you moved on? I’ve been part of many organizations, the ones I quit in a huff (i can think of two) have been run by some of the same people using the same deal making policies, so I guess that would be a pattern. I detest those who use my involvement to pretend they are friendly to taxpayers or candidates and then betray them in self interest. Not exactly an epidemic given how many boards I have served on.

        What is your point? The average Anaheim resident does not know, nor care, who I am, what I think, or who or what I have supported in the past. But given the details I think the integrity of the average resident would also prompt them to quit if they discovered they were being used to promote the special interests of insiders against the best interests of the members that leaders claim to represent. Good luck getting that finger pointing exercise to result in the outcome you are looking for. I can only imagine you are trying to deflect the conversation away from discussion of the very real policy positions of your buddies on Council, because you cannot defend them with logic or reason or math. So getting people looking over at that evil Cynthia Ward is the best deflection device you have in the toolbox? Kinda sad….

        Now, let’s face it, the entire purpose for this little comedic exchange on the views of an unelected non-leader “just a housewife/historian” is to distract from the real issues, IE bragging about some budget “surplus” that is in fact money borrowed in excess of needed funds on the back end of bond money that you know voters would NEVER have approved if given a choice. This has been coupled with a hotel subsidy that also would not be approved by voters, hence the need to prevent voters from ever seeing the option on a ballot.

        Anaheim residents want to discuss how to pay our bills in the future, and how to keep the greatness Anaheim still holds, while building on it to achieve our goals of being the best Anaheim that we can be. How about you stick to that, figure out how to defend your Council buddies using actual math and facts backed with studies using REAL HOTELS THAT GOT BUILT AND GENERATED FUNDS AS PROMISED (short list, apparently, given the consultants failure to list any) so you might consider a more productive use of all of our time, like how to pump the budget full of real money our grandchildren don’t have to repay.

  8. Without the ANAHIEMBLOG Cynthia would have absolutely no forum for her grandstanding. Shut this site down and she’s back to neighborhood newsletters and bothering people. An out of work Lawyer working from his apartment in another city (TRANSLATION: LOSER).

    With that being said, I visited with the Clerk-Recorder staff today, and within 30 minutes I could name, every individual who owns the property she claims is being held in “some kind of Russian shell game”. Wasn’t too hard Ms. Ward. As best I can tell none of those are related to Disney, Pringle or Jesus Christ. So I have to wonder how far your paranoia reaches, is it real or are you simply a shill for Tait?

    Mayor Tait, who also has business interest in the city could fairly be re-named Mayor Taint, using your one-sided views.

    • I believe that this anonymous lady or gentleman is likely lying about his supposed “research” and that anyone who believes her or him is being foolish.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Skip to toolbar