CityView Portal
| We are sorry but no more comments are being taken for this case |
| Return to CityView Portal |
| Submitted comments will appear below after staff approval. | |
|---|---|
| Koko Mikel | 6/7/2017 7:12:36 PM |
| At the last public hearing on 6/05/17 I was surprised to find that the focus of the discussion toward the end was more like on building a buffer on the south side of 92nd Ave. which is north portion of Ridge Equipment property R2 zone. Buffer is definitely essential but it does not help the safety of the pedestrians and the traffics using 92nd Ave. which is the only access to C St. from Newland subdivision. I see many children walking or bicycling on 92nd especially during summer as well as resident mothers pushing baby cart and people walking dogs to enjoy the bike path along side of C St. In winter the width of 92nd significantly narrows due to the accumulated snow and ice. It will be too late if anyone is injured or even worse as the results of rezoning which will increase the heavy equipment traffic. Please focus on safety issues too. I mailed some pictures of the conditions of 92nd Ave. yesterday for you to look at them if you don't have time to drive by out neighborhood. I do hope that they will help you visualize our concerns. Thank you. | |
| Jacqueline LaFrance | 6/7/2017 2:10:40 PM |
| I am opposed to this rezoning for many reasons and feel that the applicants reasoning is ostensible at best. Many of the criteria needed for approval are lacking in sound justification and supporting evidence. In regards to criteria 5: it is questionable when legal vehicle access will be granted to this site due to the median and crossed lines on 92nd Ave. These traffic features severely hinder access to and from the property. If Mr. Hoffman did indeed survey the property himself, the ingress/egress issues are obvious. It is clear from standing at the north end of the property, on 9nd Avenue, that Arctic Ave does not connect to 92nd. This is clearly shown by a dead end sign at the corner of 9nd and Vernon Street. Meanwhile the only feasible access is through an established neighborhood, which is not built to standards that the subsequent wear and tear on Vernon and 88th will not be able to maintain adequate levels of service to the existing neighborhood. The permit on file for the land clearing makes no mention of Vernon and 88th being uses to access the site. There was a lack of adequate material given to the Traffic and Engineering Dept. to properly weigh in on the rezone request. Criteria 6: The rezoning is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts upon the natural environment, including air, water, noise, storm water management, wildlife, and vegetation, or such impacts shall be substantially mitigated. Can this standard truly be met? Bald Eagle roosting trees are protected under the Disturb Clause and I can find no record of proper documentation that the correct procedures have indeed been followed. While I recognize that the Planning and Zoning Commission does not have regulatory authority over Eagle habitat, showing that it is not likely to have significant adverse impacts on wildlife is a stated criterion for approval. The proper documentation that all necessary steps were indeed taken to substantially mitigate the impacts of loss of habitat should be available prior to the clearing of that habitat, if the applicant did indeed follow them. I am concerned that the Applicants haste to clear the land was an attempt to side-step the landowner’s burden of the environmental limitations upon the land, and now that it is cleared, those trees cannot be replaced. I understand that the Applicant does not have to disclose what the development plans are for the site. However, by not having development or site plans, the full impacts are uncertain. I am concerned by what appears to be a lack of consideration on the Applicant’s part to the realities of this development. When coupled with the vehicle access, environmental impact, this lack of development plans appears to be a deliberate minimizing of the legitimate concerns of the surround residents. It is only reasonable to request that the party seeking a rezone be prepared with adequate information and plans to meet the criteria. I found it very dubious for Mr. Hoffman to state at the public hearing on June 5th. That the property owner had no prior knowledge of the split zone, as though that merited some consideration, but that the public time for comment on the 2040 draft plan had come and gone. For the Applicant the lack of knowledge should be taken in consideration for a rezoning at his request, justified by a yet to be adopted plan? For the established neighborhood any objects are too little too late? Furthermore, it was disturbing to hear the way the applicant tried to hold the suggested L3 landscaping hostage in exchange for granting the rezone request. I understand that the purpose of the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on this case is only to approve or deny this rezone. However the testimony guidelines state that “If you have an alternate solution to the matter under review suggest it with your reasons in support”, and I would like to do that at this time. I suggest that the area South of 92nd Ave, West of “C” Street including Government lot 5 and the Heritage Land Bank parcels 5-005 and 5-006 continuing south to 96th Ave all be rezoned to R-2M. This would: • Resolve the split lot zoning while preserving the intended buffer and support many land use policies. • Prevent recurrent similar zoning issues in the undeveloped adjacent land. • Protect the surrounding established neighborhoods including Newland, Dimond Estates and Laurel Acres form the encroachment of incompatible uses. • Relieve the burden of rebuilding 92nd Ave to municipal weight standards. • The public Utilities and sediment pond can provide a natural buffer from incompatible uses, while still allowing more appropriate I-2 development to the South, which would be more accessible with the continuation of 100th Ave. to the west. • Result in added acreage to the residential land inventory, which has the largest deficit. • Allow for the platting and subdivision of the lot, increasing its economic value for the property holder, who is adamant that they have no current development plans for lot at this time. While this solution does decrease the amount of I-2 land. With all the foreseeable problems surrounding this particular lot, with respects to road access, weight limitations, being impacted by wetlands, adjacent residential property, traffic and safety, it is questionable that I-2 is the highest priority and best use of this land. The Comprehensive Plan is to be read as a whole, and while I understand that LUP 26 does support keeping the already existing portion I-2, I don’t feel that there is adequate reasoning to grant the rezone, and that perhaps the best solution involves questioning whether an I-2 zoning in that location is appropriate. In light of the limited access from C Street, any development of that area should be more compatible with the surrounding use, as we are really talking about rezoning a road. This road (92nd Avenue) is one of the few limited access points to an established neighborhood. When read as a whole I feel the 2040 plan draft provides much more support for the protection of existing properties from incompatible uses. While the landscape buffer may be adequate in some cases, here it does not address the safety of the neighborhood. We are not merely objecting to some eyesore going in across the street, but to a dangerous traffic situation, impacting everyone’s sense of safety. Does granting an exception, to a single property owner, and preserving one goal in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan warrant the dismissal of so many others? | |
| Jeff Schmitz | 6/6/2017 10:43:33 AM |
| Re: Staff Report on Case 2017-070 1. Staff writes that "Arctic Blvd is not constructed South of Dimond Blvd". This is grossly inaccurate; Arctic Blvd is constructed South of Dimond Blvd to Garnett St. 2. Staff Report indicates Community Council comments were not received. Bayshore Klatt had indeed responded; the date of Staff report was contradictory to at least Taku Campbell's meeting date of the day prior. A Resolution of opposition was passed at that meeting. Council Chair travels precluded submitting a copy however it was indicated in the first on line public comment that one had been passed. 3. I would question the Staff assertion of 2,000 to 10,000 vehicles per day on the subject portion of 92nd Ave as it is a dead ended street. Hard data from traffic Engineering is required to posit this as fact as the latest data publicly available indicates no data at all for 92nd Ave at that location. (Ref: 2014 Traffic Engineering Document) The only street connecting to 92nd in that area carries well under 2000 vpd total, 1211 to be more precise. 4. Staff assessment of the applicants responses to the requirements exhibits very little critical thinking, rather it reads more like a rehash of the applicants own verbage. | |
| Dael Devenport | 6/5/2017 5:35:10 PM |
| I oppose the rezoning request of Ridge Contracting Incorporated and any affiliated company or entity for the following reasons: 1. Overview. Ridge Contracting Incorporated (hereinafter ‘Ridge’) operates a heavy equipment business at 9600 Vanguard Dr, Anchorage, AK 99507. Ridge intends to open an additional heavy equipment operation on parcel 016-291-20-000 consisting of 5 acres owned by Knecht Revocable Trust. Approximately 2.65 acres of this property are Class B wetlands. The property adjacent to 92nd Avenue is zoned R-2M, approximately 0.54 acres. In March, a Ridge representative presented plans to the Klatt Bayshore Community Council to seek new zoning of I-2, which would allow a heavy equipment operation with the egress onto 92nd Avenue. This request is due to the fact that C Street is owned by the State of Alaska and egress is not possible onto C Street. 2. Proposed rezoning legally untenable. The corner property is currently zoned R-2M adjacent to a residential neighborhood and a residential street. It is illegal to drive and/or operate heavy equipment on a residential street according to municipal code. 3. Rezone to I-2 not appropriate. Rezoning the R-2M property to I-2 in not appropriate for this corner property, as the adjoining lots consist of a residential neighborhood and Class A wetlands. 4. Conflicts with Title 21 - Unacceptable land use design. Title 21.01.030 states rezonings must be compatible land use and have GOOD access to transport. Rezoning is not compatible to current surrounding use and does not have good transport access without significant infrastructure improvements. 5. Unacceptable spot zoning. Rezoning from R-2M to I-2 would be spot zoning. The site to the west was designated as an elementary school site. The property to the south is Class A wetlands owned by the MOA Heritage Land Bank. Both the school and the wetlands have been selling points for many people deciding to buy homes in the area. Rezoning this property would be inconsistent with and damaging to the integrity of a viable and well-established neighborhood with long-term residents who have lived there for decades. The proposed rezone would cause: a. Significant noise and light pollution that compromise the safety and quality of life for residents. b. Increased illegal traffic of heavy equipment on the residential streets of 88th Avenue, 92nd Avenue and Vernon Street. c. Devaluation of neighborhood property values due to degradation of the quality of the neighborhood which means less property tax revenue for the city. d. Decrease in green space and access to bike path. e. Decrease in safety and quality of life. f. Unmanageable traffic conditions on a residential street 6. Increased traffic problems on 92nd Avenue and C Street. The proposed rezone would increase dangerous traffic conditions as heavy equipment exits onto the residential street 92nd Avenue. 92nd Avenue and Vernon Street are not designed to accommodate heavy equipment. The municipality to would be required to subsidize an individual business owner using taxpayer money to redesign 92nd Avenue to handle heavy equipment at the expense of neighborhood residents. In addition, making left hand turns from 92nd on to C Street by industrial traffic will be problematic since there is no traffic light at this intersection and spacing between traffic is not sufficient for industrial equipment to turn onto C Street. 7. Proposed rezone impacts Vernon Street. Heavy equipment and large trucks currently illegally use Vernon Street to access the industrial areas along C Street. Rezoning the R-2M to I-2 would increase illegal traffic from heavy equipment. As was proven by the industrial traffic use of the residential streets 88th and Vernon during the land clearing phase of this project in April 2017, Vernon to Dimond would be the easiest route for industrial traffic. Vernon is currently on the municipality’s list of qualifying streets for traffic calming, pointing to an existing knowledge of dangerous traffic conditions for this residential area. There can be no certainty that this route will not continue to be used for business purposes. 8. Proposed rezone impacts bike path access. The safety of pedestrians will be compromised because this street provides an access point to the C Street bike path and is used by the residents of the neighborhood. Rezoning the corner property from R-2M to I-2 would further compromise access for residents of the neighborhood to their homes, to businesses, to green space, and to the bike path. 9. Unacceptable use of taxpayer money. Because 92nd Avenue is not designed for heavy equipment, it would need to be rebuilt by the municipality. The municipality would subsidize an individual business owner using taxpayer money to redesign 92nd Avenue to handle heavy equipment. This means homeowners would be paying for the degradation of their own neighborhood! 10. Unacceptable impact on environment and wildlife. The natural environment and wildlife have already been adversely impacted by this applicant. Eagle roosts play an important role in the life cycle of non-breeding eagles and are specifically protected in the ‘disturb’ clause of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) (16 U.S.C. 668-668d, 72 FR 31131). The applicant has unfortunately already destroyed the roost and the surrounding habitat on this piece of property that has been used by eagles for years. This green space used to provide sustenance for these birds and other wildlife that have been displaced by the owner’s actions. In addition, the applicant has left a piece of machinery sitting idle in a large puddle of water to rust and leak oil and other toxins into the water system for the last month. This type of negligent behaviour seems likely to continue once the property is developed. Residents have already complained that the removal of trees and other vegetation from this piece of property has increased the traffic noise from C Street. There was no vegetative buffer left in place to mitigate the negative visual and auditory impacts. The adverse impacts to the environment, including air, water, noise, and wildlife will only increase if this property is developed for industrial purposes. 11. In direct odds with LUP 14. There is a great need for residential properties in Anchorage. According to the Municipality’s own Anchorage Housing Market Analysis, which states, ‘ there is not enough buildable land to accommodate future housing demand under historical development patterns, current land-use policies and development options...The mismatch between future housing demand and land supply is serious and needs attention’ (McDowell and ECONorthwest, 2012). 12. Precedent has been established. The Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 97-020 denied rezoning of this piece of property from R-2M to I-2 in 1997. Many of the same residents that opposed rezoning at that time are still in opposition for the same reasons. 13. Rezone does not meet the AMC Code 21.20.090. This states that a zoning amendment may be approved ‘only if it is in the best interest of the public’. 14. I-2 zoning does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. The I-2 zoning occurred after the Newland neighborhood was already fully developed. The R-2M zoning is intended as a buffer between industrial use and a residential neighborhood. Rezoning the R-2M to I-2 would remove this buffer. 15. Land use study should be necessary before any rezoning or development. A reliable Land Use plan should be completed before any request for rezoning, conditional use or development is approved or permitted on the parcel located on the corner of 92nd Avenue and C Street. The Land Use plan should include: a. Assessment of land use that would result from rezoning R-2M to I-2 b. Assessment of road and access upgrades c. Assessment of auditory impacts d. Assessment of visual impacts e. Assessment of safety impacts f. Assessment of traffic impacts g. Assessment of air pollution impacts h. Assessment to wetlands i. Assessment to wildlife and endangered species j. Assessment of ecosystem impacts k. Assessment of decrease in property values 16. No assurance of not degrading the residential neighborhood. Based on past behavior, I place no confidence in Ridge Contracting Inc. that if rezoned the proposed development would not degrade the safety and quality of life in the residential neighborhood. Please DENY this rezone request in order to protect the quality of life of the residents of the Newland Neighborhood who enjoy walking and biking with our children and dogs, running and other outdoor activities. We currently engage in these activities to patronize local businesses, and enjoy the nearby green space. Thank you. | |
| Cheryl Smith | 6/2/2017 7:07:06 AM |
| My husband and I bought a house in Newland Subdivision - 620 W. 88th Ave.- in 1983 when the subdivision was brand new. A group of us who had moved in, saw the need to work together for improvements to our new neighborhood. We formed a home owners association so we could work towards some things such as street lighting, road paving, and preservation of land bordering the neighborhood to be held as land for a school or park. People were very concerned that industrial development did not happen in our neighborhood. I don't recall all the steps we took, but it involved petitions, meetings with city officials, and the result was that the land bordering the south side of the neighborhood was added to the heritage land bank to be reserved as potential school site. I understand now that the land is once again industrial and is being razed. Although I no longer live in the neighborhood, it is very sad to see that the bit of greenspace that was part of the neighborhood may be gone. Newland already gave up a chunk of the neighborhood with pushing C street through. It doesn't seem right that they have to lose that bit of greenspace that the residents had fought to keep as a school site or park. | |
| Cori O'Toole | 5/29/2017 10:39:01 AM |
| Hello, As a father of two, who lives in the Newland subdivision and who bought a home predicated partially on the possibility of a school going in on 92nd, I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rezone the lot on 92nd Avenue and C Street. This rezoning would dramatically reduce the neighborhood's access and comfort level. This rezoning to I-2 would enable a heaving equipment contractor to single-handedly alter the access, amount of community space and increase the noise level of the surrounding area. This proposed rezoning would also, essentially box the subdivision in on all 4 sides with higher speed roadways. As is, there is no possible access to the site entrance without travelling down Vernon Street, which the contractor is not permitted to do so. I have already personally witnessed the contractor dump trucks speeding down Vernon, unpermitted. I was also told by my neighbor that one of the dump truck drivers yelled at and mocked him while the neighbor was monitoring their movements. If this is the level of respect that the contractor is going to show the neighborhood, then I am deeply alarmed that the Planning and Zoning Commission would entertain the proposal. The neighborhood doesn't need to lose any more green spaces. This rezoning would do away with a much needed buffer between development and the adjoining homes in the area. Please consider the overall changes that this proposal would have while making your decision. Thank you Cori O'Toole | |
| David Brandt | 5/28/2017 12:23:11 PM |
| It's simple, C street was built with federal dollars under limited access. The meridian at 92 and C St. Is to limit access and may not be changed to allow industrial vehicles to drive into this parcel. Rezoning by city still keeps Ridge Equipment from the property legally by city weight constrictions on any road by this parcel. Game Over | |
| Koko Mikel | 5/28/2017 3:57:24 AM |
| I live on 92nd Ave. across from the property where Ridge Heavy Equipment Contractor Inc. owns and has already clear cut the area which is mostly Type B Significantly Constrained Wetland. I strongly oppose Ridge Heavy Equipment Contractor's petition re. Rezoning the strip along side of 92nd Ave. which is R-2 to I-2 Heavy Industry. I would like to ask Planning and Zoning committee to deny its petition of rezoning for the reasons as follow: Facts: 1. In 1997 the previous owner of the property petitioned the same petition of rezoning to gain an access to 92nd. but MOA assembly denied the request as he had already an access and there was no reason to rezone. 2. According to MOA ordinance it is illegal for any heavy equipment vehicle to use the residential streets. Ridge Heavy Equipment Contractor, Inc. has been using residential streets 92nd Ave. and Vernon St. as well as 88th Ave. with the heavy equipment vehicles when they clear cut the property. The large heavy equipment vehicles cannot enter the afore mentioned property from C St. directly via 92nd as there is a median on 92nd Ave. hence they have to take a route via Dimond, Arctic, 88th, and Vernon to enter 92nd. in order to go into the property. 3. As of 4/25/17 according to Shane McCoy, Chief of Corps of Engineers the way Ridge Heavy Equipment Contractor cleared the type B wetland is under investigation. Ridge Heavy Equipment Contractor Inc. is going to remove the tree stumps but destroying the root systems in type B wetland is prohibited by Wetland Management Act. 4. The part of property is mostly Significantly Constrained Wetland and lesser part is Unconstrained. The latter lesser part is wider along 92nd and significantly very narrow at the south end of the property which forms an elongated triangle shape. However the owner cleared the area of a large rectangle (almost half of the cleared area consisting of Unconstrained and half of which intruding the Significantly Constrained area.) Concerns: 1. SAFETY: a. The 92nd Ave. is the only access to the bike path along side of C St. and south of Dimond which often used by bicyclists. There are many families with small children use this access and I am concerned about the heavy equipment traffic might cause some safety issues. b. Even now it is not so easy to go into 92nd from our driveways so I am concerned about the effect of the traffic of heavy equipment vehicles might cause further inconvenience to the residents along side of 92nd and Vernon. 2. INCONVENIENCE & NUISANCE: a. Noise level: Since they cleared cut the area we can hear the increase of the noise of C St. traffics as well as the effects of the bright street lights. b. How about the noise/air quality of the heavy equipment vehecles to our environment. c. Illegal use of residential streets according to City Ordinance Besides 92nd Ave., Vernon, and 88th are not wide enough for heavy equipment vehicle use. 3. Environmental Issues: a. Noises and air quality caused by traffics and warming up the vehicles especially in winter b. By clear cutting the area the effects on the natural environments and wild life we enjoyed such as bald eagles which raised their offsprings and were frequent in the area last decade, ducks nesting and raising ducklings in the water retained in the area, coyotes, foxes, snowshoe hares, owls and hawks, moose, and even occasional black bear are immense. | |
| Karen Hanna | 5/24/2017 5:24:18 PM |
| I'm a homeowner with 20+ years of living in this neighborhood. I just recently found out that the owner for the parcel of land on the corner of C St & 92nd has submitted a request to have that it rezoned for commercial and or industrial use. In the 20 years that I've lived in that area we've seen a lot of changes: The clearing of spruce trees where C st crosses over Dimond up to O'Malley. Lots of traffic noise because of the Cst extension. Lots of traffic on Vernon because of the Cst extension. 92nd has homes on it, with a residential street not equipped to handle commercial traffic coming and going from it. We had a sign up in that area for the last 10 years letting us know that a School would be built in the area. What happened, it's NOT going to be built after all? If the plan is to build a School there at some point having an industrial shop built there doesn't make sense from a safety stand point. Please, please do not approve the rezoning of that parcel of land! Regards, Karen Hanna | |
| Jeff Schmitz | 5/24/2017 12:10:50 PM |
| While I write this comment as a private citizen it should be noted that I presently serve on the Taku Campbell Community Council. That Council has in fact weighed in on this Case with a Resolution opposing the Rezone. I very strongly oppose the proposed rezone in Case 2017-070 based on the following points: 1. It leaps ~ 24, plus or minus, zoning levels literally from one side of a residential street to the other. (CHAPTER 21.04: ZONING DISTRICTS , Page106) This obscenely violates an anchor tenet of good, healthy community design first brought to my attention by Sheila Selkregg, Assembly member and Municipal Planner some 22 years ago in a Community Council seminar. That tenet was the classified use transition zone, where Business, Industrial, Commercial, etc zoning did not occur abruptly adjacent to Residential, rather it occurred incrementally. As Ms Selkregg pointed out, the rampant violation of that concept was obvious throughout Anchorage and was a major factor in dysfunctional community health, financial impact and quality of life. Indeed, she hit that nail squarely on the head of my own experience as a first time homeowner. My newly constructed house had only a utility easement separating it from a heavy, salvaged scrap metal industrial lot. It included scrapped, open top, water filled asphalt trailers. Initially, the lot was solidly treed in Birch abutting the easement and hid the industrial scrap graveyard. Plans were made to develop the lot and build on it, resulting in the tree buffer being clear cut. The neighborhood kids suddenly had a new hazard zone to play in. Wonderful. The financing fell through and the lot remained the horror it had been. I sold the house at a loss. 1(a) The application's Approval Criteria (AMC 21.03.160E) narrative is not only, to put it charitably, highly "spun" but contradicts itself within the section. Example: The "Properties to the North are variously referred to as R-5, Low Density (Item 4) and High Density (Item7) Further, the subject property zoning is arguably far more consistent with that of the immediately adjacent property and neighborhoods than that of the uses significantly further East. The petitioners package indicates a lot zoned for a School Site immediately to the West. Contrarily, one has to cross C Street to the East to find both Industrial lots and activity. The character of that industrial area is entirely at odds with ALL those West of C Street. To jump from R-5 to I-2 is nuts. If ANY rezoning were to be appropriate it would be to a much more compatible, sequential impact type! 1(b) In Item (1) The response to this requirement is at best twisted. The only significant beneficiary here is Ridge Equipment, those impacted are everyone and anything else. It flunks the laugh test, 1(c) In Item (5) a central issue is sidestepped and thereby ignored, ie the purpose and status of 92 Avenue. 1(d) In Items (2) and (8) The petitioner cites BOTH Current 1980 and Proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan (Draft) Zoning, using '2040 to justify and suit his narrative. In (2) in particular, LUP 9.1 is stretched/blurred to include Uses well to the East of C Street while ignoring those directly across 92n Ave to the North. How is that appropriate? 2. This rezone has been attempted at least once in the past, Case # 1997-022. That Rezone Request was properly denied. 3. The current run by the owner at Rezoning this property has been disingenuous on multiple levels. At the May Taku Campbell Community Council the Surveyor representing Ridge Equipment was highly evasive and opaque in response to future plans for the property. Several Council area residents noted this was at odds with a previous oral presentation at the Bayshore Klatt Community Council. 4. At the worst, this proposed rezone would be a straight ticket to a nightmare. At the least it's an incremental step to a goal that is being actively obscured. The notion of the money expended thus far to merely "clean up" zoning contradictions is ludicrous. Filing fees of $2600 and the charges incurred to Boutet Corp among others are not just loose change. There is nothing that holds any expectation that the area characteristics would be honored, preserved or even given lip service. The concept of a buffer strip is just that - a concept. Trees die, sometimes naturally, sometimes encouraged. Given the perceptions to date it will ultimately not exist. 5. The expectation is that Ridge Equipment would develop this property as an equipment yard and utilize it at the I-2 level. The street access is not at that grade, the neighborhood literally across the residential classified street would have heavy truck traffic and the property would become a kid magnet. Add to that noise and visual impacts and you have the recipe for a declining neighborhood. Both in community health and property value. The tax base takes a hit to make the whole proposal even more toxic. In summary, I don't know on what planet this proposal could possibly pass at face value as a candidate for approval. It flunks on policy, redface and laugh test levels. There are endless, known faults in it that all have plausible, if not likely adverse scenarios that neither the Municipality nor the neighborhood have the resources to address. Nor should they have to. And the expectation is that this is the developers best face, best behavior and puts the best spin on a dubious proposal. What could possibly go wrong from here? Jeff Schmitz | |