Dear Editor,

I want to thank Phil Robertson, patriarch of Duck Dynasty for contending for the faith!  In his interview with GQ, he spoke the truth that many of us God fearing Christians felt needed to be expressed.  Phil paraphrased the truth that can be found in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.  If the liberal media and the LGTB community are at odds with this message, they can take it up with God!  The hypocrisy in the liberal and entertainment media was futher exposed!  A & E loves the money, but hates the message!

The mega-popular Duck Dynasty series is so refreshing in this dark world.  Heck, you can watch it with your 3 year old.  Our founding fathers would have loved it!  A family with deep reverence for God, family and country is such a rarity in today’s media!  My suggestion to those who find this message to be offensive:  exercise your constitutional right and change the channel!  Perhaps you can find a Myley Cyrus special!

Silent no more!

Michael Pollard

Antioch

By Bradley Taylor

It isn’t fair to tar all teen drivers with the same brush, many young drivers are very responsible and are unfairly scapegoated. However; the facts, figures and statistics in California don’t lie. Both sexes aged 16-19 have the highest number of yearly crashes than any other age group. In fact, California is in the top 3 states for the amount of car crash fatalities including young people.

Safety researchers and administrators have been debating the topic for many years. It’s a topic that many people are passionate about; teens would obviously argue that they aren’t all the same, many are very careful drivers and know how important road safety is. Adults could argue that teens don’t have enough experience to handle the responsibility of a motor vehicle. The big question is; should California raise the legal driving age to 18?

First, let’s take a look at the reasons young drivers have both more accidents and more severe incidents than other age groups:

Poor hazard detection

It takes time for young drivers to acquire good hazard perception skills when in a real driving environment. The older a driver is, the more experienced they are and therefore the more efficient they are expected to be at identifying hazards.

Not responding to hazards appropriately

Young drivers are much more likely to overestimate their ability to avoid a risk and tend to underestimate serious crash risks. Although this could apply to any new driver.

Taking risks

Teenagers are much more likely to take risks when driving than older drivers. They tend to be overconfident in their skills and often practice things like speeding, tailgating, running red lights, making dangerous and illegal turns and failing to give enough space to pedestrians.

Not wearing their seatbelt

Teenagers are less likely to wear their seatbelt than adult drivers. Seatbelts help to save thousands of lives every year, so it should be the first thing a teen does when they get in the car.

Lack of experience

Young teenagers won’t have completely mastered handling a vehicle and have all of the driving knowledge they need to drive as safely as possible.

Driving unsafe vehicles

Teenage drivers are typically much less affluent than other groups of motorists and with the large insurance premiums they must pay they, are left with less money to spend on a vehicle. They are encouraged to drive inexpensive vehicles to keep their insurance premiums down and therefore will often buy old and tired cars with few safety features and these cars are likely to have existing defects which could present risks while driving. Young drivers who are lucky enough to afford modern vehicles can benefit from the safety features and driver aids they provide.

Driving under the influence

This is one of the biggest causes of serious crashes with teens and the majority of them are fatal. Teenagers are more likely to take risks and consequently are more likely to drive whilst unfit. Regardless of a vehicle collision, a conviction for drink driving is a serious offence, even with a decent lawyer a young person could find themselves behind bars.

Peer pressure

As the number of passengers in a teen’s car increases, so does their risk of an accident. This is blamed on peer pressure and wanting to impress their friends. A USA study published in May 2012 shows the strong correlation between numbers of passengers and increased risk of fatal crash involvement.

Driving at night

Teens driving after 9 pm triple their risk of having an accident. Various motor insurance companies have considered offering discounted premiums to young drivers who do not drive at night, using “black box” vehicle tracking technology which informs the insurance company when and where the car is driven. It can also be used to inform the insurance company if the driver commits motoring offences such as speeding.

All teenagers are not the same and there are teens out there who wear their seatbelt religiously and practice driving in the safest way possible. It would be very unfair to considerate drivers to raise the legal driving age and the social and economic impact of raising the driving age must be considered. Young drivers need to be able to travel to work and school and raising the driving age could deny young people vital opportunities. However, by raising the driving age to 18 potentially thousands of accidents could be avoided and lives could be saved. Hopefully a compromise could be found to reduce the unacceptable number of incidents involving young drivers without removing them from the roads. These could include more driver education, stricter enforcement of drink driving for young drivers and further restrictions on young drivers.

Author

This article was written by Bradley Taylor, a freelance writer from Derby, UK. Bradley is a motoring enthusiast who loves writing about cars and everything automotive but he is versatile and also writes across a variety of other topics. He loves travelling and new experiences. You can find him on Google+ and follow him on Twitter.

By Barbara Zivica

MARCH 2012: Council approved a Letter of Understanding with the Antioch Police Officers Association in which APOA agreed to contribute more to their PERS retirement in return for a 6% pay increase on the first pay period after March 1, 2012, a 3% raise after March 1, 2013, another 4% increase after September 1, 2013, a raise after September 2014 of between a minimum of 2% and maximum of 4.25% and a raise on September 1, 2015 between a minimum of 2% and a maximum of 5%. The deal also included acceptance of a two tiered system in which new hires could retire at age 55 with 3% of the average of their top 3 years of annual pay multiplied by years of service vs. the current 3% of their highest pay at age 50 multiplied by years of service. Council also granted them 2 extra days vacation.

NOVEMBER 2012: Voters elect Mayor Wade Harper, Council member Monica Wilson and re-elect Mary Rocha. Council then votes 3-1 (Agopian dissenting) to use an application process to select someone to fill Harper’s vacant council seat, ignoring a precedent to appoint the person who received the third highest vote (Jim Davis). Council selects Tony Tiscareno.

DECEMBER 2012: An accelerated swearing in ceremony is held in order to allow the Mayor and newly seated council members to amend the previously signed contract with APOA which changed the 3% at 50 pension calculation to a 3% at 55 formula. The so-called Urgency Ordinance of Public Peace, Health or Safety is quickly passed and adopted in order to avoid adhering to a new voter approved law which would take effect January 1, 2013 reducing the pension formula for new police hires from 2% at 50 to 2.7% at age 55 and freezing benefit formulas for lateral hires.

(All these actions took place during a time in which the City Manager was deploring the decline in property tax values and the city had millions of debt for under funded retirement benefits which continues to increase as more employees retire.)

JANUARY 2013: Council asks staff to explore ways to increase revenues via a sales tax, a parcel tax or business license tax. Because dedicated ballot measures require 2/3 voter approval to pass, council decides to go with a non specific sales tax measure which would need only 50% approval plus 1 vote to pass.

Council goes on an aggressive campaign to promote the ballot measure, Mayor Wade Harper acting as the principal officer of Citizens for a Safe Antioch. Numerous flyers are sent to voters stating that passage of Measure C, a temporary emergency ½ cent sales tax on non food items, would raise $5 million to hire 22 new police officers to decrease Antioch‘s homicide and home burglary rates, proactively deal with gangs and drug dealers and to address speeding and noise issues in our neighborhoods.

NOTE: The ACTUAL ballot measure states that the revenue would be deposited in the City‘s general fund. It could be used “to fund all essential city services including increased police staffing to reduce crime and gang activities and improve 911 emergency response time; restored code enforcement to clean up blighted properties; and local economic development and job creation.”

(Measure C passed with 68.09% approval. However, only 11,175 of Antioch’s 43,792 registered voters cast a vote.)

DECEMBER 2013: After several closed meetings and no input from the Economic Development Committee as done in the past, Council hires Steve Duran, the current City Manger in Hercules to replace retiring City Manager Jim Jakel. Fortunately, Duran has an impressive resume which includes time in the private sector in real estate and business management so this is one council decision I approve.)

DECEMBER 10th: Council passes a resolution establishing procedures for the sales tax citizens’ oversight committee: Committee to be composed of 7 residents serving staggered terms, one of which shall have a financial, accounting or auditing background. ( The part of the resolution I object to is that members of the committee are not prohibited from serving on other City Boards, Commissions or Committees.) Mayor Harper wanted to appoint all the committee members himself but fortunately, Councilman Agopian was able to persuade him to include a councilperson in the interview process.

Wonder what’s next. Will City Government still be closed on Fridays and the Animal Shelter remain a part time operation?

Editor:

Thanksgiving Black Thursday is now memories. It wasn’t the bust some retailers feared. I, myself, who have avoided Black Fridays like the Bubonic Plague, peeked into Wal-Mart on an evening walk working off curiosity and the second portion of pecan pie.

At best, it was organized chaos with snaking lines of brimming carts. Thankfully, shoppers seemed subdued, perhaps digesting the turkey tryptophan or glazed ham. The Pilgrims would be happy there were no stampedes.

While I don’t begrudge the retailer relief, I sigh, though, for the national gestalt. For my two cents, another incremental step of noise and distraction had been added to an already disquieted world. After all, Thanksgiving is more than just a day for family but for reflection and rejuvenation.

Everyday life is inundated with busyness, complexity, noise and incessant material urges. On a national day of gratitude for all our enduring gifts, need we fight the crowds for more ‘stuff’?

Could Christmas Day be the next to fall to the relentless economic machine of consumerism driving our world? Will people think, ‘hey, I went to morning service and it’s mid-day. I’m itching for a sale!’

Fanciful scenario? Admittedly so, but in a world where national retailers toyed with calling Christmas trees ‘holiday trees’ anything is possible.

Consider Joe Lieberman, the former Senator from Connecticut and Vice Presidential candidate under Al Gore, who wrote a compelling book called “The Gift of Rest; Rediscovering the Beauty of the Sabbath.” Admittedly, Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew, goes a great deal further in his observance than most people would ever consider. He not only not refuses working unless urgent, but turns off his Blackberry, avoids cars, and even darkens house lights.

What I find most interesting in his book, though, is the Senator’s less extreme argument for non-religious people. Lieberman says that having a day a week of rest not only aids spiritual rejuvenation but makes plain physical and psychological sense. After all, aren’t we always “on”, forever thinking, worrying, planning, wired and connected? Who couldn’t use a pause, a momentary break, to rejuvenate; maybe have some time to think on the greater import of life.

My wish for our great country, then, is not to dampen the shopping fever. No, there are plenty of days for cash register euphoria and now Black Friday never looked so good.

I submit, though, that for our mental collective well-being, if nothing else, we get back to the Sabbath, or if we will, Day of Pause. Meantime, I hope we can start by keeping at least a few days dear; Thanksgiving, Christmas (for those of other persuasions, the likes of Passover or Ramadan).

It’s a mad, mad, mad world. A little centering is maybe what the good doctor ordered.

Walter Ruehlig

Antioch

By Allen Payton, Publisher

First, I want to congratulate the council on their vote to move forward on approving Kelly’s new owner, last Tuesday night. While I don’t like gambling of any kind, the fact that the city allows for six, six-table card rooms in town, and there was already one at that location, I didn’t have a real problem with the approval of Kelly’s to reopen as a restaurant, bar and card room.

If it had been a large card room, like the 100-table Kenny Rogers Card Room, that Kelly’s previous owner Al Cianfichi (pronounced shawnfeeky) proposed when I was on the City Council, or the Indian casino proposed for the Hillcrest and freeway area, where the eBART station and development are currently under construction, I would have fought it, like I fought those, too.

But, the main thing the Council’s vote did was send a strong message to both the business community, that they’re willing to work with those trying to improve business in town, like Kelly’s new owner Tony Keslinke (pronounced kesleenky) has done with both the ABC Building on A Street and the Friendship Manor on Cavallo Road, and to staff, that the Council’s in charge in Antioch and that they give direction to staff and staff is to merely give their input and advice to the Council.

I especially want to applaud both Mayor Pro Tem Mary Rocha for her aggressive move and Mayor Wade Harper for his strong, supportive comments, to get to a vote on the matter, that night, instead of delaying it as it appeared city staff preferred to do, and return at a future council meeting for a vote, or worse, delay the reopening of Kelly’s for as much as three more years, until after the state granted Keslinke the needed license, which would have in effect killed his plans. I also applaud Councilman Gary Agopian’s very clear thinking that ensured the council didn’t act rashly on the motion to approve, without including any additional conditions.

We need more aggressive, common-sense actions by this Council like that, specifically in the area of economic development, if we’re ever going to grow our local economy, attract businesses to Antioch which will hire our residents, and put more money in the City’s coffers without having to raise taxes, to pay for needed services and turn things around in town. First, Antioch must reduce crime, second it needs to be business-friendly. With the passage of Measure C, the former can start to be accomplished, and the Council demonstrated the latter, last Tuesday night.

New City Manager Hiring & Process

Second, and on a related matter, as the Council decides on the hiring of a new city manager, I believe they need to hire someone from outside City Hall, with an entrepreneurial, pro-business mindset, who is a possibility thinker, who will change the attitude toward business, especially on the Second Floor in Planning and Community Development, that has persisted for far too long of “no, you can’t do that in Antioch” to “yes, you can do that and we’ll figure out a way to help you do it.” That attitude needs to permeate throughout the city with a message that Antioch is “open for business.”

One of the first things the new city manager needs to do is put all the employees back to work five days a week and make sure City Hall and other facilities are open on Friday. Even though the staff (except the police) took a 10% pay cut, and were then given 10% less time to work, by eliminating Fridays and adding one more hour to each of the other four work days, it effectively reduced the public’s and businesses’ access to our city by 20%. That needs to be corrected, immediately.

It would be great if the Council would allow some of the community leaders the opportunity to meet the finalist(s) for the job of City Manager, before they vote to hire. It is my understanding that the Council’s final vote to hire must be done at a public Council meeting. It would be good for the public to have the finalist’s resume available on the City’s website so the public can provided informed input before the vote.

That’s how we did it in 1998 when the Council I was part of hired Mike Ramsey as City Manager. The final questions to him from the Council were out in the open, not behind closed doors and members of the public had the opportunity to give their input to the Council before we voted. However, in that case, Ramsey had been the Assistant City Manager/Economic Development Director for the two years prior, so people in town already had a good opportunity to get to know him. So, allowing the public some time to find out about the finalist for the job would be a positive thing for the Council to do before they vote, for them, the public and the applicant.

More on Economic Development

A simple, low-cost thing the city could do is provide printed business cards for each of the members of the Planning and Economic Development Commissions. That way when they’re out in our community, and whatever other meetings in the Bay Area, California or elsewhere they might attend, they can help promote our city and make connections benefiting our city. In fact, every member of every commission should have business cards they can use with both the city’s phone number and their own phone numbers, as well as their city email address on them, so We The People can contact our elected and appointed officials, as well.

One last thing, for now. The Mayor needs to bring back the issue he championed, last year, when he was Mayor Pro Tem, and have the city spend a little money, one time, for permanent marketing of downtown and change the names of L Street to Marina Way, plus A and 2^nd Streets to Rivertown Drive, before all the new freeway signs are made and it will cost much more to do later. That way, when people drive through Antioch on Highway 4 in either direction, they will see signs that say “Rivertown Drive” and “Marina Way” and know there’s a river, a waterfront, a marina and another part of town, down there, that they should check out. Unfortunately, the last time the council voted on this, Harper was not in attendance at the meeting (yet, they voted, anyway), and three of those who voted were up for election, later that year and they were afraid to spend the one-time money on that instead of police, and it devolved into a debate over the condition of L Street and the adjacent neighborhood, instead of about what the new name will do to promote the downtown. I believe it will be a positive catalyst for improving the areas north of the freeway. It’s an idea from the 1996 Economic Development Plan that’s long past time to be implemented. Let’s get ‘er done.

By Barbara Zivica

The Antioch City Council is holding closed sessions on November 15^th and November 19^th in regard to “Public Employee Appointment: City Manager”.

Selection of a city manager (and city attorney) are personnel issues and thus permitted by closed session. (It only takes the votes of three council members to make a selection). Unfortunately, there is no requirement for council to announce names of finalists or their qualifications. (Selection of City Manager Jim Jakel was made in closed session and announcement made in open session.)

The job description of a City Manager is: An executive level administrator in municipal affairs, generally filled by appointment as opposed to election. Most municipalities require managers to have a college degree or a certain number of years of experience in council-manager form of government.

City Managers pay a major role in formulating the city budget, forming and implementing city policy and generating ideas for increased efficiency of city services. Hiring and firing of city department heads also falls under the direction of city managers.

NOTE: When City Manager Dave Rowlands left, the council had the Economic Development Steering Committee interview the final three candidates and provide input to the council. That’s how Mike Ramsey was selected. Regrettably, that is not the process the current council is following.

By Barbara Zivica

Before Citizens for a Safe Antioch, whose principal officer was Mayor Wade Harper, start crowing about the successful passage of Measure C, the 7-year half cent sales tax measure, let me point out a few facts.

The ballot measure merely stated that, should the measure pass, revenues would go into the General Fund and could be used for ANY legal municipal purpose. It did NOT say passage would enable the hiring of 22 police officers or that a Yes vote would bring back sworn law enforcement officers to protect students in Antioch schools.

Yes, as an endorsement by the Contra Costa Times pointed out, voter approval would bring Antioch’s sales tax to 9%, matching cities such as Concord, Pittsburg and Richmond. True as stated, but left unsaid is that the majority of Contra Costa’s 42 cities have a 8.5% sales tax rate. Those with a 9% sales tax are Hercules, Orinda, Pittsburg, Pinole, Richmond and San Pablo, El Cerrito and Moraga have a 9.5% sales tax rate.

The two most interesting post election facts to me are that the majority of money raised to promote Measure C came from outside the community and voter turnout was extremely low. According to the Elections Office, Antioch’s total number of registered voters is 33,864 but only 10,085, less than 1/3, bothered to vote one way or the other. (6,854 voted YES and 3,229 voted NO).

It may have been a win but it certainly wasn’t an endorsement for higher taxes by the people of Antioch.

Editor:

A question has been asked about citizen’s viewpoint on ½ % sales tax increase in Antioch, it did not mention that it would last for 7 years.

Before I reply to the question, I believe that my observations are necessary to clarify my opposition to Measure “C”. It will be a single item on the Ballot on November 5^th. I forecast a small voter turn-out which, unfortunately, will not fully represent citizen opinion on this major issue.

I make this plea: Please, please vote. We need a high count. That is very important. It sends a message to our politicians’ to consider before they attempt to raise more Taxes in Antioch. The Mayor has told me that he believes a large majority of Antioch support Measure “C”. If the count is something like 2000 YES and 1985 NO is that a real majority?

My desire is to give the reader background information (as a pseudo reporter) especially to those who do not attend City Council Meetings.

I have been sitting on street corners with a sign asking for “NO on “C”. I am amazed how many people have been asking “what this is about”. That is what prompted me to write this commentary.

I am going back to original items that were on agendas concerning additional money to hire more police officers. My reason is also to shed light on how our city manages business. Then the heading of this document will be obvious.

I have attended every Antioch City Council Meeting that had the Sales Tax issue on the agenda. In the beginning there were 2 measures being proposed. The one not on the ballot, was designed to collect additional money from business license fees on rental properties.

Let’s start at the very beginning to give you knowledge of “how” this Measure was allowed on a ballot in the first place.

The City Council declared a Fiscal Emergency using increase in crime to authorize Measure “C”. A consolidated statement to be used on the Ballot was sent to the CCC Elections Department. (CCCED). The CCCED required the City to agree to pay Ballot costs. The Council complied immediately approving the cost of over $22,000.00. That is charged even if the measure fails. A very costly deficit win or loose.

PROPOSED MEASURES:

First agenda item proposed increasing income from Business Rental Fees. Currently Apartment and Multiple Dwellings are charged rental fees, Single rented Residences are not.

The idea was to charge a $20.00 monthly license fee on single rented properties. The money would be used for additional Officers.

A number of homes have been bought in bulk, are owned by investors for the sole purpose of making money, a return on investment (ROI). ROI from dwellings is certainly a Business and has made a large impact citywide.

Adding single or multiply owned individual property to require payment of Rental License Fees would equalize treatment to all parties in the rental business.

The second agenda item (it became Measure “C”) was also proposed. An increase in Sales Tax by ½% for 10 years was introduced. The money was also to go to the Police Department. It was amended to make it more “digestible” from 10 to “only” 7 years. This was done to obtain support by The City Chamber of Commerce, it was their idea. (Perhaps off the subject; in my opinion, The ACC group has not attracted new business into Antioch for years.)

Council members Harper and Agopain made many statements telling us that we need more officers to “prevent” and “reduce” crime. Police statistics were used to support their claims. The need for more safety stressed.

Both the Mayor and Council Members said that they were not going to “let criminals take over our city”. The solution is more police meaning more “boots on the streets”. They insinuated that criminals would not want to come into Antioch because added police would defer them.

There were never explanations as to “how” the additional officers could prevent or reduce crime. Unfortunately a set of new crime statistics had not reached their desks that might have enlightened them. Those statistics showed lower percentages crime (excluding murder from 3 to 5; I ask you, how can Police prevent murder?)

I made citizen comments at every meeting suggesting alternatives. I talked of more focus on developing cohesive neighborhoods instead of more police. I gave our Council documents about the city of Richmond’s applied efforts to reduce crime which was independent of police methods; something that Antioch might apply.

I stated that more officers would not “prevent or reduce crime”, it might reduce “response time” but Police intervention is after the crime has been committed.

There’ll always be criminals; they know consequences if caught in the act but have no fear of police. Suggesting that they will avoid Antioch because of additional officers is a farce.

The City Council (not listening to any input) was not sure how voters would react if both of the Agenda items were placed on the ballot. They feared defeat similar to Measure “P” three years ago. (Note: That measure required a 2/3 voter approval and failed.)

The Council placed an order for an Independent Survey of constituents to help them determine what to do. The cost of the Survey was $18,000.00. Only 400 Citizens were surveyed. The forecast resulted in an “estimate” that if both measures were on a ballot one would fail.

A well-known group up of citizens ‘The Breakfast Club”(which consists of former council members, Ex-mayor, and other businessmen) appeared before the Council and advised them that they were in support of applying the Rental Fees but were against any Sales Tax increase. I had also pleaded (twice) saying that the fee option was best because it was fairness in business, would provide a stable yearly amount of money, and it wouldn’t be limited to 10 years.

After the survey results were interpreted which indicated that if both items were placed on the ballot “one would fail” (and advice that a 2/3 majority vote would also be very risky). Our City Council deleted the Rental Fee idea and choose to go ahead with only the increased Sales Tax Measure.

Then with fear of failure placing it on the ballot with specific use of funds to the Police Department requiring a 2/3 majority vote. They modified the earlier decision changing direction to send the money into the General Fund. Measure “C” reasons changed! Can we still claim the “emergency” Read the ballot the reason for the tax has been changed! The tax is no longer going to the Police Department it will (supposedly) be divided into a fair distribution for ALL city service improvements. Manipulation?

To influence a yes vote by citizens the Council has promised to set-up (yet another) Commission as oversight of tax expenditures. The group of 7 will report once a year, will be appointed by the Mayor, and will have no power.

If you read the “Yes on “C” signs , and receive a big post card, and stickers on your newspaper you should take the time to find out where all of the money to pay for this massive advertising is coming from . Data is available at the City Clerk’s office. My investigation indicates that people owning multiple single unit rental properties have contributed over $30,000.00. Their Ads are propaganda. All placards tell you the money is for more police! This deception is supported by the Mayor and Council Members. I have reported $150.00 contribution for NO NEW TAXES signs without deception.

In closing I offer this for your consideration: The addition of Police Officers to “Prevent Crime” is pure speculation. The change directing income into the General Fund is a manipulation.

If Measure “C” passes the City Council will likely continue “deficit spending”, they have in the past and there is no reason to believe this will change. It is likely that hiring more police will start before money for tax has been collected and placed into the General Fund. The old “Buy now Pay later” repeatedly used by our “leaders” is one of the reasons that our city is near bankruptcy today.

Considering money contributed to influence the “WIN” compared to the amount spent supporting LOOSE makes me feel like it is a David vs. Goliath battle.

I assure you that I am not against any improvement of our Police Department. I supported the Rental Business Fee, I own and rent one property and had no problem with that proposal.

There is more to consider, just months ago Police Department benefits were increased. Retirement benefits cost went up. (Another “spend forward action”). The Police Chief pleaded for the extra money to lure (some costly) “experienced” officers. Some he had interviewed wanted more than our city was currently offering.

The Council moved without hesitation and approved that request and we will pay for it year after year. It is deficit spending! (Note: The Police Association can demand more when labor negotiations re-open and no ballot measure is required for increased in city spending.)

Placing “C” on the Ballot because we need more income to eliminate an “EMERGENCY” is wool over the County Elections Departments eyes. We have been in an “emergency” state for the last 5 (or more) years! Why the “emergency” now? Why wasn’t it declared before the huge reductions of all city services? That is a mystery to me.

I think our citizens should have been asked to send written ideas on possible solutions to reduce debt and used to develop and implement a strategy to solve our problems. That, however would require more than a 3 minute input at meetings and it might be considered as interference.

November 5^th is my 79^th Birthday. I have been a resident since I was 9 ½ years of age. I hope David mentioned earlier will prevail. I thank you for reading this to the end. I have tried to minimize insinuation, within this article, it is opinion, and everything written is based on my participation and observations of City Council actions for many months.

I will appreciate your Gift at the Ballot Box when you Vote “NO on “C”. Again, I thank all of you for reading this to the end.

Fred Hoskins, Antioch