Shop LocalMonday, February 28, 2011
Nearly 1 million Missourians voted in November to change the state’s puppy mill laws and make them tougher, bringing more than 61,000 more supporters to the polls than those who cast ballots against that proposal.
As a result, 51.6 percent of Missouri voters approved Proposition B, limiting to 50 the number of breeding animals a breeder can have, and imposing numerous controls on how those breeders can operate.
Opponents of the measure, sponsored by several groups, including the St. Louis-based Missouri Humane Society and the Humane Society of the United States, quickly marshaled legislative supporters who introduced a variety of bills to change or gut the voter-passed law.
“We’re not trying to repeal Proposition B,” said Karen Strange, Eldon, president of the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners — a group that actively worked against Proposition B and now is in the Capitol seeking to rewrite parts of it.
“We’re trying to make it where it can, actually, be enacted legally.”
That lobbying effort prompted billboards and one lobbying effort by supporters wanting to encourage the Legislature to keep its hands off the new law.
“I feel very strongly that the legislators — our senators and representatives — should abide by the vote of the people,” said Judy Baumgartner, Holts Summit, after seeking to talk with lawmakers nearly two weeks ago.
But Senate President Pro Tem Rob Mayer, R-Dexter, said lawmakers should be involved in reviewing the law, even though voters okayed it just a few months ago.
“Just because some organization had an attorney or two draft out a piece of language doesn’t necessarily mean that they didn’t make a mistake or overlook something,” he said.
Proposition B went to last November’s ballot as an initiative petition.
Senate Floor Leader Tom Dempsey, R-St. Charles, said: “We need to be very careful, whenever we infringe upon that (initiative petition) process.”
Still, he noted, “One of the things that was not in the proposition was a funding mechanism for enforcement.
“And you can have whatever you want to have in law, but if you don’t have an enforcement measure, then it’s just words on a page.”
Strange agreed.
“What we are trying to do is clarify what appeared on the ballot summary and, we believe, that those who voted for it actually believed they were helping — so that we can actually help animals,” she explained. “And we’re trying to clarify that so that we can, actually, do something about the substandard facilities who are doing it wrong.”
But in his blog last Wednesday, Wayne Pacelle — CEO and president of The Humane Society of the United States — said: “A goodly number of lawmakers in Missouri have told the press and their constituents that they have no interest or desire in repealing Prop B, the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, and only want to ‘fix’ Prop B.
“But ‘fix’ in this instance seems to be a synonym for ‘gut,’ and the whole ham-handed effort unfolding in the Show-Me State is an insult to the 997,870 Missouri citizens who voted ‘yes.’”
Dempsey rejects Pacelle’s view.
“Any member of this Legislature has the ability to file whatever legislation they care about,” he told reporters last week. “In this situation, Sen. Mike Parson and some others from outstate believe they are representing their constituents” who voted strongly against the ballot measure.
He said Parson, R-Bolivar, has been talking with supporters and opponents of Proposition B to see “if there’s actually some agreement they can come up with where they have a funding mechanism for enforcement and they have a strong law that puts unlicensed breeders out of business.”
Mayer said Parson is working on a bill that “will provide the protections that the voters wanted for dogs.”
Not so, Pacelle said, arguing Parson’s plan “would strip Prop B of all of its core provisions. ... There’s no fix going on, but a wholesale repeal. It’s the equivalent of going to the doctor to remove a mole, and he takes out your heart, lungs and kidneys.”
Comments
shelleyp 2 years, 2 months ago
SB 113 and HB 131 both gut Proposition B. If you look at the fiscal notes for both, neither is really interested in providing additional inspectors for licensed breeders. In fact, one fiscal note even rejects the Department of Agriculture request for additional inspectors based on the legislative change.
From SB 113:
"Officials at the Department of Agriculture state three additional Animal Health Officers responsible for the enforcement of the proposed legislation would be required for preparing investigations of alleged violations of the proposed legislation. The additional Animal Health Officers would work with program participants, general public; inspect commercial breeders, pet shops, kennels, animal shelters, and related facilities for proper licensure and compliance with animal care statutes and regulations.
Officials at the Department of Agriculture stated inspections are currently done on 1,390 commercial breeders and 1,341 other dog related facilities. Twelve Animal Health Officers currently inspect all of these facilities.
Oversight assumes since the Department of Agriculture already inspects all dog related facilities they would not need three additional Animal Health Officers."
People condemned Proposition B because it didn't provide additional funding, yet Prop B just adds new criteria for existing inspections -- it doesn't add to the work load.
SB 113, with it's triple inspections does add to the work load, yet the legislative committee rejected additional inspectors.
The whole funding thing is basically a lie.
shelleyp 2 years, 2 months ago
And for HB 131, the fiscal note states:
"Officials at the Department of Agriculture (AGR) state the requirements of this proposed legislation would mandate that the department follow up on any violations deemed to be of a serious nature and then prepare a legal referral to the prosecuting attorney or revoke the license of the facility. The current mandate is once per year or upon complaint.
AGR states three additional Animal Health Officers responsible for the enforcement of the proposed legislation would be required for preparing investigations of alleged violations of the proposed legislation. The additional Animal Health Officers would work with program participants, general public; inspect commercial breeders, pet shops, kennels, animal shelters, and related facilities for proper licensure and compliance with animal care statutes and regulations.
AGR states inspections are currently done on 1,390 commercial breeders and 1,341 other dog related facilities. Twelve Animal Health Officers currently inspect all of these facilities. In FY10, prior to the passage of Proposition B (2010), 789 inspections resulted in violations of Missouri law. After the passage of Proposition B, AGR estimates 1,219 dog related facilities would be subject to penalty as that is the current number of registered breeders with more than ten intact female dogs.
AGR states amending section 273.327 would increase license fee revenues by $83,000 and secure $57,500 for the promotion of Operation Bark alert. The program would need three (3) additional Animal Health Officers to follow up on repeat violations, prepare legal referral and pursue remedy through circuit court.
AGR states the additional increase of license cap would provide an estimated $83,000 toward the support of three (3) Animal Health Officers to carry out the provisions of this legislation. However, General Revenue funds would still be needed to pay the balance of costs for the three (3) additional FTEs. The additional General Revenue need by fiscal year is $141,452 in FY12; 1147,770 in FY13; and $117,284 in FY14. $57,000 of additional ACFA revenues is needed to pay for the additional responsibility of promoting Operation Bark Alert.
Oversight assumes since the Department of Agriculture (AGR) already inspects all licensed dog related facilities, therefore they would not need three additional Animal Health Officers. If AGR experiences a measurable increase in its workload as a direct result of this proposal then it can request additional FTE in future budget requests."
Again, they say additional inspectors are needed and the legislative committee states, "No, you don't"
As for Operation Bark Alert? That's for unlicensed breeders only, not licensed ones.
Combined, this just demonstrates that the talk of funding and more inspectors is both a fake a fraud being committed on the people of Missouri by some of the state representatives.
ptbamdb 2 years, 2 months ago
Well Shelley, that is one of the points of revising the bill.....to reflect what the voters really wanted. The voters thought that unlicensed breeders would be regulated or shut down by Prop B. After all, they were told that, time after time, by you, Barb Schmitz, Anne Hogan, and various other HSUS lying employees. It was a LIE, of course. But that and the other HSUS lies and deceptions tricked the voters into passing Prop B.
Now the legislators are merely trying to fix a mistake that will devastate rural Missouri if it is not changed. Raising the cap on fees is a good start toward more funding for inspections. The money for 'Operation Bark Alert' is really great! In fact, if Bark Alert continues just at the rate of its first year in operation, we can see over 60 illegal breeders shut down this year. Isn't that what we all want?
shelleyp 2 years, 2 months ago
Bunk.
What the voters wanted was to close down bad breeders, period. We don't care if they're licensed or not. Bark Alert won't do a darn thing about bad licensed breeders.
I'm really getting tired of the people trying to reframe "bad" breeders to be unlicensed breeders, only.
Having a license doesn't make you a "good" breeder--only a breeder willing to plunk down a few hundred bucks.
ptbamdb 2 years, 2 months ago
And I am getting really tired of you people calling us legitimate breeders 'puppy mills' and bad breeders. Having a license, makes us regulated, inspected, and legal breeders. Loving our dogs and cariing for them 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, makes us good breeders. We are good, licensed breeders.
shelleyp 2 years, 2 months ago
A legitimate breeder isn't one that cuts costs in order to maximize profits. They care about the dogs, and see them as something more than just machines to push out puppies.
A good breeder should have no problems with the Prop B regulations.
wyrenyth 2 years, 2 months ago
Nope, but any intelligent person should have a big, big problem with the HSUS.
Stop assuming that the sheep who are for you are the smart ones, and that every intelligent person who questions every step the HSUS makes are the dumb ones.
ANY breeder can tell you that there IS no money in breeding. Period. Anybody who can't figure that out either deserves to be shut down, or eventually gets out of it.
If you cared as much about the dogs as you claim to, maybe the HSUS should start spending some of that $19 million+ it's bringing in every year to educate people about why you should adopt, or what you should look for in a LEGITIMATE breeder, and less money on propaganda and misleading legislature. Or, if you really have to play the legislative game, how about leash laws and spay and neuter laws? Those would make a much bigger impact.
ptbamdb 2 years, 2 months ago
Cut costs? Are you talking about shopping for the best value in dog food, or perhaps spending $50,000 or more to rebuild facilities to suit HSUS and Prop B regulations?
A good breeder will be financially regulated out of busness. Unless of course, HSUS is prepared to cough up the money to build kennels of the size that will satisfy Prop B. I won't hold my breath for that to happen, because HSUS is not interested in keeping ANY breeder of ANY animal in business.
ptbamdb 2 years, 2 months ago
The vast majority of licensed breeders are doing a great job of raising healthy, happy puppies. You wouldn't know because you have not seen any of these licensed kennels. I have seen quite a few. I will rely on my eye-witness experience and 35-plus years of being heavily involved in the dog business for more accurate information on the conditions in licensed dog kennels.
There is a system of checks and balances that work in most cases. There are always a few that fall through the cracks, but they will be shut down by current regulations and methods. Note the recent licensed kennel that was shut down BY MODA. Bark Alert is effective in ferreting out non-compliant licensed kennels as well. Do you think that when someone calls Bark Alert, they would only pursue illegal breeders? Ridiculous! It was originally designed for pursuing illegal kennels, but they have shut down 61 illegal and 17 licensed kennels just last year. Did you notice.....Bark Alert said they shut down bad licensed kennels?
shelleyp 2 years, 2 months ago
From the HB 131 fiscal note...
"In FY10, prior to the passage of Proposition B (2010), 789 inspections resulted in violations of Missouri law."
Over half the licensed breeders had violations...and that's with the lax laws currently on the books. And inspectors who have been faulted, in three different audits, for being too lenient, too willing not to write down violations.
And you're talking about 17 licensed kennels...
789 violations.
ptbamdb 2 years, 2 months ago
And those violations were corrected, kennels reinspected. What do you expect to have happen? If someone has a violation, to get shut down and have your dogs taken away? Most violations do not directly affect the dogs. Things like: a lid off a dog food container, improper storage of supplies, no fire extinguisher in place, dog food spilled on the floor, paperwork missing, not being home when inspector shows up unnanounced, etc. At one point I heard that inspectors were told they had to find 'something' to write up or they weren't doing their job. Don't know if that is true, but heard it several times. The current laws are very detailed and specific. Nothing 'lax' about the current laws.
Yes, I am talking about 17 kennels with serious enough violations to have their license revoked. It is not a capital crime to have a 'write-up' at an inspection. Most violation are minor and do not affect any dogs.
shelleyp 2 years, 2 months ago
You're pulling guesses out of a hat. We already know from Knee Deep in Collies that no, corrections are not being made, things aren't getting better.
There's so many gaps, so much that is lax about existing laws, that it took dying dogs before someone finally moved on Knee Deep.
You're making stuff up as you go. "I heard somewhere that inspectors were told"--you hear this, Ruth, you hear that, but you never substantiate anything you write.
The problem with the existing laws is that when a breeder violates one of them, it's not necessarily a minor thing. The laws for cage size are already too small. The laws about clean water and access to food, are already too minimal. The laws about vet care are appalling--a violation there means a sick, injured dog without any care. A law violating the shelter requirements means dogs freezing in an outdoor kennel without bedding or stuffed in a hot building reeking of ammonia.
When you set a low bar on the existing laws, anything lower that bar means suffering, even death, for the dogs.
I am not willing to let some representatives condemn dogs to this kind of life just so they can placate special interests.
If the breeders can't do the job well, then they need to get out of the business. If they can't provide a decent life for the dogs, they have no business being in the dog breeding business.
ptbamdb 2 years, 2 months ago
Exactly what are you calling gaps in the current laws? You are citing an example where the kennel was shut down when the breeder did NOT fix things. That is not the normal course of events.
When I can't back something up, I say so. I SAID that I didn't know if it was true. I do not state suppositions as facts like you do. Sure, access to food too minimal? Current laws says twice per day; Prop B says only once per day. Bad example to give. You totally misunderstand current law. Well, probably just pretend ignorance to make an invalid point. Vet care is already mandated. A dog in need of vet care must see the vet or it is a violation. If it is something MINOR that can be treated by the breeder, it is. Children are not rushed off to the doctor for every minor issue, are they? It is ALREADY a regulation. {A law violating the shelter requirements......} HUH? Anyway, violations are breaking the rules! It is not that the rules or law is lax, weak, or has gaps. You seem to believe that the violations are the norm in care. They are NOT. That is why they are written up as violations, or breaking the law. Boy, Shelley, you are really dense.
ptbamdb 2 years, 2 months ago
By the way, your statistics are misleading. I'm sure they were not talking about 789 dog breeder inspections, as there are over a thousand other facilities being inspected as well. In fact, it is possible that NONE of the dog breeder inspections resulted in violations. Could have been ALL shelters that were not compliant. More than likely, there were violations in both classes of animal care facilities. Should we shut the shelter down for a violation? Or give them a chance to fix the problem?
shelleyp 2 years, 2 months ago
This is in a fiscal note attached to a bill appended by the oversight committee in response to data supplied by the Department of Agriculture.
Do you want to try that "statistics are misleading" statement again?
You are a breeder who evidently has problems meeting Prop B regulations. You'll find anything and everything to be "misleading" if it makes your point.
ptbamdb 2 years, 2 months ago
Sure, I will try again, since you are not reading before you reply. YOUR interpretation of the statistics are misleading. Those 789 inspections were not all dog kennel inspections. Since there are almost as many of the other type of facility (such as shelters) that MODA inspects, I would say MANY of those inspections were shelters or other facilities. What about this didn't you understand?
shelleyp 2 years, 2 months ago
I find it highly unlikely that many, if any, of the violations were not specific to commercial dog breeders.
I have the USDA inspection reports to know that approximately 50% of the breeders licensed by the USDA have violations. In many cases, the violations repeat between inspections, and many are extremely serious.
That's why the audits of both the Missouri Department of Agriculture and the USDA APHIS have shown that both departments are not doing their job when it comes to ensuring the welfare of the dogs.
ptbamdb 2 years, 2 months ago
You misunderstand the entire inspection and regulation process and are quite clueless about professional kennels. Have you ever even seen one? So you think shelters and pet stores do not get violations?
50 percent of dog breeders by your calculations are not getting violations? Are they good breeders? Should they be bankrupted by Prop B if they are following current regulations? Exactly how many kennels currently have 'extremely serious' violations with no followup inspection of compliance? If you have this important information, let's see it. What exactly are the 'gaps' in the regs you keep talking about?
TracyR 2 years, 2 months ago
How many citations are given out to owners of licensed motor vehicles on a yearly basis? How many are safety violations, given to parents with small children as passengers? In these instances, are the cars immediately impounded and the children siezed and sent off to foster care? I am talking violation of laws intended for HUMAN well-being and safety. Why would the consequence be less harsh for violations involving HUMANs than dogs?
"Violation". = "bad breeder" in every single instance? That makes as much sense as saying "motor vehicle violation" = "bad parents".
shelleyp 2 years, 2 months ago
You're comparing auto citations with puppy mill violations. Apples and oranges.
Existing laws are such that they barely ensure that dogs survive, When you violate these laws, the bar is set so low, that the very survival of the dogs is at stake.
To use your apples and oranges analogy, that would be the same as setting driver violations such that you have to be roaring drunk in order to get a DUI; travel at over 100 MPH to get a speeding ticket: and park your car in the middle of the freeway to get a parking violation.
shelleyp 2 years, 2 months ago
From the Bark Alert page
mda.mo.gov/animals/ACFA/barkalert/
"in 2009, Missouri once again took the lead in cracking down on unlicensed breeders with the launch of Operation Bark Alert."
...
"Operation Bark Alert has an online reporting system making it easier for you to help us locate unlicensed breeders in Missouri."
...
"Help the Missouri Department of Agriculture crackdown on unlicensed breeders. If you know of an unlicensed breeder in Missouri putting the health and welfare of animals at risk, report them here."
ptbamdb 2 years, 2 months ago
Proving exactly what I said.....Bark Alert was started to locate and shut down unlicensed breeders, as that is the source of the most problems. They do not hesitate to crack down on licensed breeders that are not in compliance, as well. Their main target is the main problem....unlicensed breeders. They shut down 61 unlicensed and 17 licensed breeders last year. I think that is a great record, and I hope that Prop B is changed to include funding for this much needed service.
shelleyp 2 years, 2 months ago
Bark Alert was created to go after unlicensed breeders. It's not been used with licensed breeders because supposedly inspectors find them in the course of regular inspections.
But every time someone calls Bark Alert, that's fewer inspections being made of licensed breeders, because the same inspectors have to do both jobs. And no, one whole new position is not going to make a difference -- the department has said that it is understaffed by 7 inspectors and the necessary support.
Of which the legislators will deny any additional general revenue funds. That's also in the fiscal note. "They don't need them"
ptbamdb 2 years, 2 months ago
Bark Alert claims 17 licensed, 61 unlicensed kennels closed by them. Your " It's not been used with licensed breeders" is obviously a lie. Does a person who calls in a report make sure it is an unlicensed facility? If a licensed facility is reported, do they check it out? Of course. Bark Alert shuts down unlicensed and licensed facilities if they are not following current law.
shelleyp 2 years, 2 months ago
I don't know why you're fixating on this.
If someone turns in a breeder who they feel is being abusive of the dogs, of course the department has to check it out. But the purpose of Bark Alert is to catch unlicensed breeders.
And the Department of Agriculture is the one who stated that a downside to the program is that the same inspectors who are responsible for licensed breeders, are also responsible for Bark Alert.
The Department does not have enough inspectors, period. The bills currently under consideration do not provide the funding to fully equip the department. One more position specific to Bark Alert does not solve the problems with not enough inspectors.
And with 789 inspections ending with violations, especially with the low bar set by existing standards, there's a problem with the licensed breeders.
ptbamdb 2 years, 2 months ago
Let me get this straight. You are for taking away property rights, bankrupting small businesses, flooding shelters and death clinics with displaced dogs, higher unemployment, more foreclosures, raising taxes, inviting HSUS into our state agriculture, and forcing unreasonable regulations on an already regulated industry, and yet you are arguing against doing or funding anything about the illegal dog breeders who flaunt the law and give the legitimate industry a black eye?
shelleyp 2 years, 2 months ago
Do not rephrase what I'm saying in order to suit your agenda.
Higher unemployment? Unlikely.
Raising taxes? In what way? This isn't a tax bill.
Bankrupting small business? Unlikely.
Flooding shelters? You all flood the shelters now, with your rejects and your abused and overused dogs.
Death clinics? Please, a limit on hyperbole.
Property rights? If you feel your constitutional rights have been abrogated, file a lawsuit. Note, though, that this is not the first state to put a limit on number of dogs at commercial breeders.
Lastly, if commercial dog breeding were a legitimate industry, why are so many of our state leaders so ashamed at having the most commercial dog breeding operations in the country?
ptbamdb 2 years, 2 months ago
What on earth makes you think our state leaders are ashamed of having the most dog breeders in the country? You can accept HSUS' portrayal of the legal dog breeding industry and feel ashamed all you want, but I am not, nor have I ever been ashamed to be a legitimate dog breeder in the state of MIssouri. It is every bit as honorable as being an author or a teacher or a day care provider or a minister or a farmer or a judge. In fact much more honorable than being an associate of HSUS, an organization whose leaders and employees deceive, lie, threaten, cheat, bully, bribe and do whatever other underhanded deed it takes to achieve their agenda.
online_editor 2 years, 2 months ago
I like the fact that this conversation is mainly about the specific requirements and analyzing the impact of Prop B. It's okay to be passionate about your viewpoints, but please don't get sidetracked with name calling or personal accusations. (So far, not much of that has happened but let's avoid it altogether.) Help everyone reading the forum understand the specifics of the disagreements by continuing to focus on the issues. Thanks. --Rick Brown, online editor
shelleyp 2 years, 2 months ago
This is a good reminder. I know that I'm finding myself being increasingly irritated, so it's time to stop.
fultonian 2 years, 2 months ago
I think they should get rid of dog breeding all together. There are so many dogs that get euthanized every year because they can't find good homes. All the while people force dogs to have more and more puppies just to take them away and be sold to other people. People in other countries look around for a bit of food to put in their tiny bellies, why even here in Fulton the SERVE pantry had an attempted break-in, most likely from someone who was hungry, and we kill and creamate perfectly good dogs just because they're not up to our standards. Why don't we start getting people to adopt dogs instead of breeding more mouths to feed. The dogs that are still unwanted could just be eaten.
ptbamdb 2 years, 2 months ago
No dog breeding = no more dogs......ever. That is the plan of HSUS. Wayne Pacelle says he doesn't want to see another dog or cat born. Prop B is just a start. HSUS will be back to further destroy what dogs are left. Are you sure that is what you want? In ten years or less, dogs would be extinct. Is HSUS going to compensate breeders for their dogs or just steal them to sell them to someone else? Or maybe they should just be killed? Why don't we just start with yours? Send the HSUS death squads around to take everyone's personal property (dogs) that are capable of breeding and have a big barbeque? Is this still America? You might want to rethink your position on the dog breeding ban. You might get really lonely in ten years without any dogs.
ptbamdb 2 years, 2 months ago
Prop B is a very treacherous bill that needs changed to even be constitutional. It is remaining on the books, but has to be better worded and changed to reflect what the voters thought they were getting. It was sold to the voters as a bill to regulate or shut down bad breeders it calls puppy mills. But what it actually does is to cause an economic burden on the good licensed breeders so great that it will force nearly ALL out of business. It does NOTHING to control the illegal, unlicensed breeders as it promised to do.
It violates state constitution, property rights, and other basic rights of a group of citizens of this state.
ptbamdb 2 years, 2 months ago
Response to Shelley: You are slandering legitimate dog breeders by calling them puppy mills. I and 1389 other dog breeders are offended by this and suggest you refer to LEGAL breeders without using that derogatory, inflammatory, prejudicial term. Just because HSUS labeled licensed breeders puppy mills to get Prop B passed, does NOT mean it is not a slanderous nasty term. Dogs have thrived to produce millions of healthy puppies in conditions dictated by USDA and MODA regulations in licensed Missouri kennels for years without Prop B's over-zealous over-reaching requirements.
Violations of the strict current rules certainly do not result in wholesale dog deaths, as Shelley suggests. Will it kill dogs if a lid is not replaced on a trash can, or if a fire extinguisher is missing, or if there is spilled dog food on the floor or if a dog breeder is not available for an inspection? The vast majority of violations are minor in nature and do not affect the dogs in any way. If the current rules ensure dogs survive/thrive, what is the point of Prop B? Oh, yeah. It criminalizes dog breeders and calls for jail time for minor infractions, such as a leaf, piece of gravel, or other harmless debris in a water bowl or a needed vaccination given by a breeder instead of a vet, etc.
Prop B demands pen-space the size of a bedroom for 3 tiny Chihuahuas, allows dogs unrestricted access to freezing temperatures or inclement weather (that we would protect them from without Prop B), demands temperature for nursing dogs that is too low for the survival of newborn puppies, etc. Prop B is a death-sentence for the dog breeding industry, as well as thousands of valuable breeding dogs in the one-thousand-plus kennels that will be bankrupted by Prop B.
Their expensive bank-financed USDA-approved, MODA-approved (until Prop B), veterinarian-approved kennel building will be outlawed and worthless.
There will be no market for their well-bred breeding dogs, as the market will be flooded. The illegal breeders may be buying up the best of the bunch. After all, they will thrive with the implementation of Prop B. Shelter will be begging for those dogs, but the clear-thinking breeders will NOT be giving their dogs to the very people who put them out of business. Their dogs will be humanely euthanized by their vet.
ptbamdb 2 years, 2 months ago
And Shelley, you never have explained about the 'gaps' in current regulations. I have not found any and am anxious to hear what those 'gaps' are that Prop B fills.
online_editor 2 years, 2 months ago
A general reminder to avoid having comments removed: Please avoid personal bickering and accusations against other participants, and instead, focus on issues related to the news story and legislation. Thanks. --Rick Brown, online editor
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID