Writing Shotgun

CALLING ALL HITCHCOCKS: CITY’S BRAND-NEW PENALTY FOR ILLEGALLY RAVAGING A WETLANDS—ONLY $1,000

 

Never again will somebody like Sean Hitchcock be able to illegally ravage Long Beach’s delicate wetlands areas without facing punitive remedies from the city. Thanks to regulations recently approved by the City Council, the next time somebody like Hitchcock disregards law, animal and plant habitat and human life, he could face a fine of $1,000 a day.

Of course, it only took Hitchcock parts of  two days to do his damage.

For somebody like Sean Hitchcock—who owes a nice chunk of the multi-million-dollar success of his 2H Construction company to fat contracts with local government agencies—that’s … uhh … surprising. For one thing, it’s less than the penalty he paid this time–$6,229.85.

That doesn’t appear to trouble Craig Beck, who heads Long Beach’s Development Services department and Redevelopment Agency—and who had warned Hitchcock that his plans to put soccer fields on his coastal area property violated zoning law. If anything, he seems concerned that the new regulation will be perceived as too extreme.

“I don’t want to make it sound as though we’re going to be heavy-handed with this new tool,” he says. “We just got it. We’re going to be using it gingerly.”

Part of Beck’s anxiety may be because the new penalty—called an administrative citation—is part of an expansion of code enforcement powers for building inspectors and animal control officers. He’s apparently concerned that small businesses and pet owners will fear sudden and large fines. The new citation capability was not prompted by Hitchcock, who on March 19 and 20 tore through land that had been used as wetlands habitat and capped poisonous toxins from an old city dump. But Beck acknowledges that, had the new rule been in effect then, it could have applied to Hitchcock.

“Let’s say the city manager went out and said, ‘stop work,’ and let’s assume Mr. Hitchcock did not comply with our stop-work order and continued,” Beck says. “We could write him a citation. The citation is similar to you or I getting a traffic ticket. But the way we see it, we wouldn’t issue the citation immediately. We’d ask him to correct the situation. This citation is only for people who blatantly ignore the situation or those most egregious in what they are doing.

“Certainly, this scenario is in the hypothetical, but that’s how we see this rolling out. Depending on how it works, we may have to get a little more aggressive.”

Despite a long career as a successful contractor and much experience with Long Beach regulations, Hitchcock acquired no city permit before launching his massive earthmoving work last spring. According to the Development Services department, Hitchcock has subsequently paid $12,459.70 in permit fees—double the $6,229.85 it would have cost him—which was the standard penalty until the new rules were put in place by the city council in September.

The council’s enthusiasm for punishing Hitchcock has obviously diminished quite a bit since its March 24 meeting, when members of the panel seemed to be trying to out-outrage one another.

A sampling:

Patrick O’Donnell, 4th district: “Going forward, how do we make sure this does not occur again… It’s pretty obvious there’s a lot of anger out there… How does the city act to fight construction we find errant?”

Rae Gabelich, 8th district: “Developers know what they’re doing. This particular entity is not new to Long Beach. What’s the adage: ‘Do it and ask for forgiveness later’? That’s not good enough. They are destroying an environment like this. If this type of activity happens again, maybe we look to some kind of a fine or some kind of restitution that has to be made.”

Gerrie Schipske, 5th district: “I echo the comments of my colleagues. [Speaking to Gabelich] The phrase is ‘It’s easier to get forgiveness than permission.’ But in this case, I don’t think you’re going to get either.”

Suja Lowenthal, 2nd district: “It’s no different than when somebody moves into a historic district and paints their house a different color from the traditional palate … There are no words for this. I think this is just blatant disregard. No one is in business in that capacity and not know what it takes. To even amend your home you have to get a permit. I find it more than egregious. It’s completely disrespectful and total disregard, not just to the city and residents of the city but also to areas we hope to preserve for open space. I’m more than mystified by this. I hope we will all be in support of penalties to the maximum level.”

Gary DeLong, 3rd district: “Councilwoman Lowenthal’s analogy is a good one. In this case, they bulldozed half the house rather than change the paint before stopping… Would like to be sure there is something in writing on city letterhead, what you can do or can’t do, so there is no confusion in the future, no excuse to say, ‘I didn’t know.’”

Mayor Bob Foster: “Make sure that not only Coastal Commission remedies but any other remedies that may be available to the city for either restoration or to assess the damages we have to recover.”

In spite of all this indignation, however, nobody appears to have pursued the most-logical response to Hitchcock’s blatant violation of city codes: legal prosecution. In California, every violation of any law is at least a misdemeanor; if a law does not specific a punishment for its violation, the violation falls into the category of a misdemeanor. In Long Beach, virtually any violation of the Municipal Code can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor under Section 1.31 of the Code.

So?

“The only thing I know about this event is what I read in the paper,” says Tom Reeves, Long Beach’s elected city prosecutor. “I don’t know what investigation occurred or what the results were. In other words, no one presented me with any official report or documents.

“When this first occurred I contacted planning [the planning department’ and asked if it was proceeding. They said Coastal [the California Coastal Commission] had jurisdiction. That was my understanding when this first broke. Since then, nobody has brought anything to this office.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • sunshinelb
    City Permit Fee for grading- 100,001 cubic yards or more $3,621.11 for the first 100,000 cubic yards, plus $54.65 / addt'l 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. If the permit cost was $6229.85 then first 100,000 cubic yards was $3621.11 then the additional grading was 482,519 cubic yards or total material graded was 582,519 cubic yards.
    http://www.lbds.info/civica/filebank/blobdload....

    Has anyone seen the postdated grading permit? Does this include the foreign soil brought back in to cap the methane leak? I wonder how the city determined the amount of grading... after the crime was committed. Any ideas?
  • The Latest
    Hello friends,

    We sucessfully argued for stronger precedent this week before the Coastal Commission. This small parcel, less than 1/4th the size of 2H, on PCH in Huntington received minor grading and infill and vegetation removal. The case rolled around while we studied it .

    This parcel did not contain 1/50th of the species, or wildlife, or bio diversity that 2H had. Wait until you see the evidence.

    They proposed an Order to Restore, repair and replant, and the owner co operated and was apologetic. Due to this, the Coastal Experts waived the litigation and assessed a 125,000 fine.

    We were concerned that this sent the wrong message, and set the wrong precedent for the local 2H matter. They pulled the Offer to settle, issued a range of terse comments, just like they did when we brought the 2H matter to them, and demanded stiffer sanctions in response to testimony.

    The uplands/wetands owner just agreed to a full restoration, with stiffer conditions and monitoring, and a 250,000 fine. 2.07 Acres/250,000. 2H is over 10 acres, do the math.

    This hearing was broadcast all over this State and was widely watched.

    LB Report did a piece on it.

    Here is a key argument made last Wednesday. In this Huntington Beach case, the City requested that the CCC assist them in enforcing their LCP, or zoning plan, and press charges and apply sanctions.

    And thus far, 2H has been wholly UN co-operative. In fact his Council basically tried to poo poo the matter and tainted 2 people on the Legal Team to 'Bring it on''. Love to. Live for the opportunity.

    To date, Long Beach has made no such request to enforce existing law. Actually, they seek to ignore their own LCP ( Local Coastal Program ).

    Check out Joe Segura's piece about the troubling non prosecution on the Criminal side as well, printed 11/6/09. The net version has more details.

    The 2H case will go to Planning, then get Appealed to Coastal. Please stay involved and stay engaged. The wheels of justice can move too slow in some Jurisdictions, but some people keep pushing that old cart.

    Now check this out, just before Item 12, ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS was heard, which is when we argued item 12.5, Commissioner Suja Lowenthal got up and walked out.
    Three advocates speculated that she might now have wanted to disclose the Conflicts of Interest possibly, or disclose any Ex Parte Communications. It is a crime to vote on an enforcement action if anybody has tried to talk to you about the matter beforehand, unless you disclose and describe all of the details. Interesting exit.

    The consultant used here, Marice White, was the front woman for the Wetlands Home Depot as a Lobbyist. She is hooked up around here, interesting huh ?

    On sad and tragic news, if you watch the CCC tape, Dr. Vandersloth (msp)(sorry), a true wetlands champion, and long time activist, went home, and died, that night.

    Rest his fine soul. The Land Trust had a moment of silence for him at their General Meeting last night.

    Final hot rumor....sources say Hitchcrotch deeded or tendered the property back to Dean. Nobody is surprised, this has had the smell of a sham transaction , and attempt at a high comp, and retribution for blocking the 2-10 Wetlands Exchange 8 days prior with a Statutory Demand to Cure.

    Experts tend to agree that this mess is wholly Political as buddies look out for buddies.

    And get sued.

    Expect this matter to escalate.

    Bulldozer DeLong.......what a Wetlands Developer he turned out to be.
  • Thanks for the update, sir!

    I read Segura's piece with interest and while I appreciate Fentis' assertion that our Prosecutor could have been more pro-active on this, the hard fact is that he wasn't and, whether we may like it or not, is not required to be. Besides, do we know of a certainty that his office didn't make a call such as that Fentis describes but was rebuffed?

    All the CLB inspector that was present on the site on 3/21 had to do was issue a simple citation, thus memorializing the violation as well as the stop work order on a document that would serve as the proper vehicle to proceed with a prosecution. But the inspector did not do this.

    Despite that the work proceeded even after the inspector ordered it stopped and the City Manager himself was required to respond and assure that the work did indeed stop and did not resume, still there was no CLB citation. AQMD issued two and I understand that CIWMB issued one as well, so why not CLB?

    This, in my opinion, was the true failure in local public policy leadership in this area, that we failed to properly prosecute such a blatant violation of our Permit laws to the fullest extent of the law.

    This failure in leadership has also had another adverse side-effect. The absence of a CLB citation, memorializing a violation of local law, has now been used as an excuse by the CSLB for not taking action against Hitchcock's business license.

    Twice now, once after an original complaint and once after an appeal of the decision, the CSLB has asserted that no violation of our State's Business and Professions Code had occurred and, thus, the CSLB had no jurisdiction on the matter and, so, would not take action against Hitchcock's license.

    Section 7090 B&P, however, is quite clear that "...if the registrar finds that any contractor licensed or registered under the provisions of this chapter has willfully and deliberately violated any state **or local** law relating to the issuance of building permits [...] the registrar **shall** (not "may", not "could" but "shall") take disciplinary action against the contractor's license in accordance with this chapter."...and that..."For the purpose of this section, there shall be a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof that construction performed without a permit is a willful and deliberate violation."

    So despite that Hitchcock "willfully and deliberately" violated "local building permit laws" (as clearly evidenced by the fact that the unlawful work was ordered stopped, twice, and an "emergency permit" was eventually required to undo the damage he had done) the CSLB has failed to " take disciplinary action against the contractor's license in accordance with this chapter."

    A proper CLB citation, and subsequent local prosecution, could well have made a difference to the CSLB in their findings. Absent that, it seems, the CSLB investigators apparently hadn't the ability to recognize a "local building permit law" when they see one or to be able to tell when one has been violated, whether a citation was issued or not.

    Most frustrating.
  • L.C.
    Dear MythBuster.
    You are correct that the AQMD and the CIWMB would not just look at the site and walk away. (3/26)
    AND THEY DIDN't! Actually, both agencies (on 3/27) told the city that a soil cap cap must be placed on the site immediately to alleviate the release of methane. Also, on 3/27 Derek Burnham, Long Beach City Planner,advised Hitchcock that the city could not issue those permits.
    Derek advised, "that the land destruction at the site,identified as Seadip. subarea 23, had exposed a closed landfill and resulted in the release of methane gas at the site, creating safety and health hazards at the site." Hitchcock had to take the AQMD as well as the CIWMB reports and get an immediate
    California Coastal Emergency permit to recap the landfill--which he did.
    It's all on city records--do your homework, babe!
  • mythbuster
    LC Babe,
    The SCAQMD report allowed for a month or more to place the cap; that is not immediate need response for an URGENT health hazard situation. My point is, if you read what I said, there is NO WAY that the exposure was enough to cause anyone to get sick like the posters claim or the SCAQMD would have ensured the exposure was handled right away (like that day!). I am obviously not arguing whether the owner was mandated to place the cap by the agencies. What I am saying is that it was not because the methance counts were at a level that would make people sick or it would have been taken care of the same day by SCAQMD.
  • Mike Ruehle
    Contrary to what you say, AQMD does not have the authority to make anyone do anything and is not in the business of providing solutions to peoples violations. Their authority extends to citations, fines and arresting people who are in violation of the law.

    Hitchcock received a Notice of Violation (NOV) requiring action to be taken on his part to remedy the problem. Initially Hitchcock claimed ignorance which bought him time. Failure to quickly address the problem he created could easily have made the made the violation "willful" and could have subjected Hitchcock to much more severe penalties including inprisonment.

    I've worked for years in refineries where incidents occurred that had dramatic impacts on the surrounding community. AQMD never once came in and demanded a solution to the problem. AQMD just fined the heck out of the refinery until the problem was resolved. If the refinery ignored repeated citations, the AQMD got court orders to shut the refinery down. However, AQMD's authority did not allow them to take any action themselves to resolve an issue the same day.
  • Janis Populi
    Coastal Advocate's prescient comment 2 days ago... "THESE WETLANDS MAY BE IN MORE PERIL IN CITY HANDS, THAN IN PRIVATE HANDS. Stay tuned." says it all.

    Something else smells really bad right next to Hitchcock's methane leak....The "land swap" i.e. gift of public funds deal makes NO sense for the citizens of Long Beach: it is a bad financial deal for the city, Long Beach assumes unknown liability and toxic remediation costs and in all probability will financially benefit unspecified "special friend" developers, property owners, lobbyists and real estate companies paid for with your tax dollars.

    Keep up the good work Mr. Wiengla.
  • Esteemed Mr. W: As usual, you hit the nail on the head...the City most certainly *could* have sought criminal prosecution in this but didn't. Considering the high profile nature of Hitchcock's violations, not to mention receiving official notice of his violations from two other government agencies, a reasonable person would think that if any such case argued for prosecution 'to the fullest extent of the law', it would have been this one.

    It seems to me that the City also could and should have sued Hitchcock in Civil Court, citing that he and his employees severely compromised the health of surrounding residents when toxic methane gasses were released into the neighborhood causing, in turn, the City to expend a considerable amount of public funds to respond to and to deal with those unlawful actions from the moment they occurred and up to the present time.

    But for Hitchcock's unlawful actions the City would not have had to expend those public funds and the City should desire to recover every penny of them from him. But this doesn't appear to be the case. A reasonable person must ask why.

    Part of such a civil suit would have been findings by our City's own Health Department but, to my knowledge, no one from that Department was ever asked to respond to the scene and assess the true scope of the impacts to public health. A reasonable person must ask why.

    lbresident: with respect, I get that you're becoming tired of this story. Many others are as well, but, at least for me, it is far more than just a story about damaged natural habitat and Coastal Zone property. It's a story about justice (and a perceived lack thereof) and about the rule of law (and how it does not appear to apply equally to some) and about how some who are apparently well-connected seem to receive preferential treatment from others who are positions of governmental authority in our City. Positions in which they serve at *our* pleasure and not Hitchcock's or Dean's.

    Many of the things the City has done in response to this incident seem designed far more to simply appease a vocal and angry minority of residents than to assess fair and reasonable and, most importantly, effective consequences against Hitchcock for his unlawful actions.

    Many see this entire sad affair as an abject public policy failure and they see such failures as at once chronic and systemic.

    As Mr. W. makes clear in his response to you, this story seems to have a life of it's own if for no other reason than because every time the City takes another action concerning Hitchcock, those actions seem half-hearted at best and far less-effective than they might otherwise be. A reasonable person must ask why.

    I happen to think we deserve better from some of those we elect to represent us and from some of those our electeds appoint to assist them in conducting the City's (i.e. our) business.

    But maybe that's just me.
  • The Toad
    No, John, it's not just you.

    Something really "stinks" here (and not just the methane gas) and anybody who has followed this story should be righteously indignant. I perceive that the Press-Telegram is somehow complicit in this by their LACK of reporting on this story on an ongoing basis.

    Keep up the good work DW. THANKS!
  • Laurence B. Goodhue
    Perhaps what we should consider furloughing both the entire City Attorney's
    and City's Prosecutor's Offices and contract out that work to the new City
    Attorney for the City of Los Angeles who appears to have no problem
    prosecuting:the errant including City officials,elected and otherwise,and fat cats who try to buy their way around the law to the detriment of the public.

    What say you?Should we put the questions to the public through Charter
    change??We contracted out part of the LBPD responsibilities a decade or
    so ago with positive results.Why not try the same with the timid?
  • Mr West-Do the right thing
    WILL THE REAL PAT WEST PLEASE STAND UP ?


    There is no clearer example of why Gary Delong has to go .....

    What a Wetlands Developing , Coastal Demolishing Politician !

    No clearer evidence exists as to why his character is wholly unsuitable for a coastal area.

    And Pat West ? When you got appointed, you went out of your way, on the night that you were sworn in, to personally assure the Coastal Preservation Community that under your Administration, not one square foot of Wetlands would ever be harmed ? Please Sir, question your conscience and tell us all why that promise seems to have faded, palpably, and demonstrably?

    You have stated to mutual friends, who also will allege this on the record, if need be, that you have a centering goal in mind, quoting; '' I want to be able to drive my children by this Wetlands some day and say that your Father had something to do with protecting this habitat''??

    Clearly, this is a highly laudable goal, but what changed?

    What are you going to tell them if that Sunday drive includes Loynes Drive? That destroying this 10 acres of thriving habitat was a fair trade off? Or that in this instance, the Councilman demanded that you look the other way for his Golfing Buddy ? That 'they tied my hands politically'.

    Dear Mr West, if you want meaningful Wetlands Restoration credentials, you need to bite the bullit, and take the blows for setting aside this area in the same manner that your predecessors did? They did the heavy lifting for you? They got it zoned and designated Wetlands, Brackish Pond? They did the work for you, all you have to say is a deal is a deal? I made a promise, I gave my word, and my word is my bond? Or is it?

    If not, why ? Fine, make a few big shots frown for a little while. They'll get over it.

    In the long run, one is always wise to simply do the right thing, and thus far, the Coastal Preservation crowd is far less than impressed.

    Set Politics aside, stick to the high ground, be true to your word, and better judgment, and write a Staff report demanding a full restoration ??

    Or tell the kids, that when the going got tough, you sold out, and looked the other way, and that where the rubber meets the road, your word means nothing?.
  • Screw your health concerns
    Big Bad John,

    Recall, just after this terrible event, you,Mike ruehle, Diamond Dave Wielenga and others attended Mr DoBong's luncheon at Cafe La Strada, on 2nd St. Bill Pearl was there, and were many others.

    Mr DeLong went on and on about anything and everything except this event, and attempted to play hear no evil, see no evil, you know.

    Residents Reps, and part of a Legal team were watching. They posed questions, one being '' Mr DoRong, there has been a release of contamination and a spread of toxic dust....people are getting sick, Seniors are seeking Medical treatment, others are getting ill for a period of days'' We immediately asked for a Health Risk assessment the Tuesday following this outrage? . What is the status of this investigation?

    I am aware of none, he said.

    The follow up question was '' In order to allay resident concerns, and quantify any risk of continued exposure, will you please have our Health Department, or any other related Agency, test and disclose any and all risk to residents, or the natural resource values ? '' '' In the Public Interest''

    ''And will you Notify the affected residents downwind, and render this condition safe?''

    DeLong replied '' Of course, I will look into it, and make sure that this happens''.

    Nothing happened. He did not even pick up the phone to our Health Officers, or write an email.

    We got all of the records. Nothing is in any transcript. If the issue is disregard for the health and safety of the community, or the environment, there is all of the evidence that you need to convict.

    A concerned Councilperson would view such responsibility as an affirmative duty. He should not even had to be asked. And the Health Department is Negligent for not even responding on their own? They have a Duty to Warn and Make Safe?

    Talk about deriliction of duty?

    Apparently, if you do not have a round or two of Golf with the Councilman, at Virginia Country Club, you are basically, and largely, irrelevant.

    Ask Wielenga how toxic the land was ? A friend gave him a tour shortly thereafter. His clothes reeked of methane,H2so4,and an oily, fertilizer smell, for days after. You could smell the Levi's worn, from 20 feet away.

    At the first Vigil, decrying this horrendous event, people got so sick that they had to leave. Residents a quarter mile downwind called the Gas Department afraid that the had a Natural Gas leakage in their home ? It was the the 2H lot venting the sins of our City's prior unregulated, wide open, refuse disposal methods.

    Welcome to our 'Green City''.

    Just a point of clarification to an event that you were a percipient witness to.

    Politics, Retribution for Home Depot and for stalling the Feb 10 Wetlands Exchange, and operation circle the wagon's - CYA. Protect a 'Buddy' and limit City Liabilty.

    And profit close friends.
  • Mike Ruehle
    I asked one question at that meeting. It was, "Councilman DELONG, can you please explain your involvement in the Land Swap and wetlands bulldozing." Councilman DELONG nodded his head in the affirmative and then responded "NEXT." DELONG refused to answer my question and only responded later to wetlands questions after Assistant City Manager Frick began contradicting herself while TRYING to answer other wetlands related questions. Soon afterwards, DELONG called a end of the meeting when it was obvious most people wanted to hear about his involvement in happenings at the wetlands.
  • mythbuster
    Your rubble is such a crock! Do you really think that SCAQMD would inspect the site, take test results and then just walk away and allow people to get sick from exposure?! That would expose the SCAQMD to responsibility. There is NO WAY that there was any remote level of contamination that could make anyone sick or the SCAQMD would have taken huge and severe steps to correct the situation IMMEDIATELY!
  • howardx
    why post minutes apart using two different aliases?
  • Mike Ruehle
    He's just trying to make it appear there are more supporters of his point of view than there really are.
  • mythbuster
    I notice neither of you have a response to the matter of my subject. But it is nice to know that you "like" each other and think you are great investigators. You must be the guys that have seen Delong, Dean and Hitchcock golfing, paying attorneys and bribes with such great investigation abilities (NOT).
  • lbresident
    what is this the 4th story on this subject??? can you write the story about how many LB cops live in LB. Or what is the status on the breakwater funding? is the council going to commit to the feasibility study in order to have the corps look at the reconassaince study? or how about what is foster's plan to fix our infrastructure now the measure I failed? Another tax hopefully that includes renters this time and focusses on the core services and not new fire stations? I mean really with all of the issues out there you have plenty to write about. Let's mix something else in every once in awhile...
  • Marshall Rooster Coghburn?
    Remember the John Wayne classic, Rooster Coughburn? The scene where John Wayne is drunk, and argumentative, and Baby Sister(Kim Darby) and Chen Lee are trying to have a debate with the Marshall, who has a hangover, and Baby Sister get's frustrated, and walks away stating emphatically; ''I will not bandy words with a drunkard.....you have gained nothing when you have bested a fool''

    Why does this nonsensical, masturbatory, circuitpus reasoning of the "res' hit an altime low here? And why does Kim Darby refusing to debate the hopelessly confused, and at times untoward Marshall come to mind?

    Res, you have hit an all time low this time, and need Coffee,Counseling,or something.

    '' We have done nothing when we have bested a fool''

    So, what are you this town's Senior Editor now? And self appointed thought police ? Are we to have you filter pablum to the masses ala Joseph Stalin ?

    The degree of your arrogance and sense of entitlement turns the stomach.

    You've got 1 vote buddy, and few friends here.

    And if Joe Segura, David Wielenga, or Bill Pearl need your advice, they will ask for it. Something says that they have done just fine left to their own devices.

    Maybe you should start your own paper ? Call it '' The Naples Asshole''
  • HighHat
    Did you know that The Coen Brothers are going to remake "True Grit" this winter starring Jeff Bridges (as Rooster), Matt Damon (in the Glen Campbell role) and Josh Brollin? Girl has yet to be cast. Should be very interesting. Joel and Ethan LOVED the book as kids and always felt the original film failed to live up to the source material.
  • Dave Wielenga
    Hi LBres...
    Believe me, I'd like it if this story wasn't ongoing. Please also believe me that I'm investigating other things. But after I heard Derek Burnham say at the Zoning Administrator Hearing that the city now had some new remedies in place, I thought it sensible to find out what those remedies might be. And after City Manager Pat West emphasized to me that city officials had invested all available energy to find remedies for such a situation, I thought maybe I'd ask City Prosecutor Tom Reeves why Hitchcock hadn't been charged with a crime. And after the city council had made such a big show of their outrage when Hitchcock first tore into the wetlands, I thought it was worth revisiting now that they aren't making a peep. It is tiring, but what's most exhausting is realizing that at the end of all of this, another Hitchcock could rip into another part of the wetlands with the same result. Thanks for your loyal readership.
  • lbresident
    Well this elitist jerk appreciates the work you do and would love to see it focussed on the issues I mentioned. I would also love another update on the movie studio/tesla saga. Keep up the good work...
  • Dave Wielenga
    By the way, LBResident, I do not consider you elitist simply for expressing boredom with my story choices. I need all the help and/or criticism I can get.
  • The Toad
    Dave W.--Please don't be so damned humble. You need and deserve a lot more PRAISE than you get.

    THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!
  • Dave Wielenga
    Mr. Toad, you're a prince!
blog comments powered by Disqus
 

© 2007-2008 Seven Days Publishing LLC.