Blogging Bayport Alameda

August 14, 2014

Ouch

Filed under: Alameda, City Council, Election, School — Tags: — Lauren Do @ 6:04 am

Filed under: things that are going to hurt, yesterday the teachers union, AEA, released via the larger California Teachers Association (CTA) a press release which said that they are not considering a dual endorsement as Trish Spencer has suggested to the CSEA rep that they are fully backing Marie Gilmore for Mayor and are disappointed with Trish Spencer not living up to her commitments given how much money and manpower they funneled into her re-election campaign.

Here’s the full text of the press release:

Alameda Education Association Re-iterates its Support for Re-election of Mayor Marie Gillmore

ALAMEDA – The Alameda Education Association (AEA) reiterates its support for the re-election of Mayor Marie Gilmore, who has been a strong advocate for public education and teachers in Alameda.

The Association, which represents 540 teachers, counselors and nurses in the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD), is extremely disappointed by the decision of school Trustee Trish Herrera Spencer to campaign for mayor instead of focusing on the responsibilities of her current elected position. Alameda educators expect Spencer to fulfill her obligation to Alameda students and community and serve the remainder of her term on the School Board. Our members invested heavily in Spencer 2012, and worked tirelessly on her campaign for reelection to the School Board.

Trustee Spencer’s commitment is needed during this pivotal time while AUSD searches for a new superintendent, plans for implementing a possible school facilities bond and prepares for labor negotiations with its teachers and staff. Audrey Hyman, President of AEA, stated “We believe that at this critical time Trustee Spencer’s focus should be on improving Alameda’s public education opportunities rather than seeking higher office.”

Also, interestingly enough Trish Spencer has removed two posts from her Facebook page both announcing her Mayoral run.   One of those posts had the disappointed responses from the CSEA rep which has now been purged.  Fortunately, I took screen shots for posterity:

tslabor tslabor2

So much for being “open” and “transparent.”  :)

It’s going to be a hairy campaign if AEA decides that this will not be the end of their finger wagging at Trish Spencer over her decision to not fulfill her commitment to the School Board.

About these ads

57 Comments »

  1. Dear AEA,

    We told you so.

    XOXOXOXO,

    Alamedans who pay attention

    Comment by Oh the Irony! — August 14, 2014 @ 7:28 am

  2. She didn’t think to check with the union first? This promises to be a campaign of Gillittian ineptitude.

    Comment by BC — August 14, 2014 @ 8:17 am

  3. So in essence the Unions whether we are talking about:
    Police Dept.
    Fire Dept.
    Teachers.
    City Employees.
    these decide who will be elected to better serve them at our expenses in a City they do not leaven in .
    And you call yourself democrats!

    As a side note how many pedophile are employed by the ASUD .
    How many Firefighters have a criminal record .
    How many Police Officers have a criminal record.
    -The answer is none because you cannot have a criminal record at any of these positions .

    Sound and definitely look like the Teamster Union era is back in full force , the MAFIA not far behind .

    I really do not care about who does run or not , none of them since Chuck Corica have made any difference for this City .
    we as a society should at least not trash them 3 month before the elections , We will one day or another pay for it .

    Comment by Dave P . — August 14, 2014 @ 9:33 am

  4. “…and are disappointed with Trish Spencer not living up to her commitments given how much money and manpower they funneled into her re-election campaign.”
    Why didn’t we hear:
    “…and are disappointed with Rob Bonta not living up to his commitments given how much money & manpower they funneled into his election campaign”.

    My question for anyone who thinks like Cindy Zecher: Why did Labor encourage Bonta over Abel Guillen (D), who ran for the same Assembly seat & had more political experience?

    Comment by vigi — August 14, 2014 @ 9:55 am

  5. This is so funny. What a bunch of hypocrites. Politics as usual. Sorry, Trish. “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

    Comment by Denise Shelton — August 14, 2014 @ 10:44 am

  6. Except for the fact that Trish Spencer gladly and happily accepted $14000 worth of help from AEA in the 2012 election. Between the lines reading is that promises were probably exchanged for that help and now Trish Spencer isn’t living up to her end of the bargain.

    It’s fine for Trish Spencer to thumb her nose now, but she’s going to have to deal with the consequences.

    Comment by Lauren Do — August 14, 2014 @ 10:47 am

  7. It is really time to get money and unions out of politics. As far as I can see, neither encourages candidates who run to serve the people.

    Comment by Nancy Hird — August 14, 2014 @ 11:10 am

  8. Comment by dave — August 14, 2014 @ 11:12 am

  9. So I guess it truly is “Pay to Play” with the teachers union. Truly disgusting.
    “Between the lines reading….” Revolting. Where are the morals here?

    #4 and #5 are correct.

    Take the money out of campaigns. Cancel all smearing, all push polls, all lies, and see who wins.

    Comment by A Neighbor — August 14, 2014 @ 11:13 am

  10. #8 is a bad edit, sorry, supposed to be just from 8:50 to 9:00 with the line:

    “This country is going to the dogs. Used to be when you bought a politician, the SOB stayed bought.”

    Comment by dave — August 14, 2014 @ 11:16 am

  11. Dave, what’s the name of that movie, I wanna watch it.

    Comment by John P. — August 14, 2014 @ 12:05 pm

  12. never mind, I got it.

    Comment by John P. — August 14, 2014 @ 12:07 pm

  13. Do you want politicians to self-fund their campaigns like Pat Bail? That means only the wealthy like Huffington, Perot or Meg Whitman can afford to run for statewide office.

    Comment by BarbaraK — August 14, 2014 @ 12:21 pm

  14. In his ballot statement, Jim Oddie says, “We need to continue providing excellent schools….” Stewart Chen says in his ballot statement, “Together, I believe we can continue this progress in the coming years and achieve significant results in local job creation, recreational opportunities, the quality of our schools….”

    People running for city council claiming they will help the schools when they have no special expertise in school matters and the position has no purview over schools is considered normal. But someone with years of experience in school board matters running for mayor is considered suspect? Even more suspect than people jumping from the Hospital Board to city council?

    Many people say they moved to Alameda because of the schools, not because we have a hospital (that had to be taken over by the county), or because we have a good fire department, or lots of jobs. If Spencer is supposed to “stay in her place,” then Lena Tam, Stewart Chen, and Rob Bonta should have stayed in their place on the Hospital Board until they got the district in financial shape.

    Comment by Richard Bangert — August 14, 2014 @ 1:51 pm

  15. When the campaign “literature” starts deluging us….look to see who sponsored it…who paid for it…..what group is behind it….ask who is funding each and every candidates campaign.. When your phone rings with someone taking a poll–ask who is funding that poll.

    #14 is correct.

    Comment by A Neighbor — August 14, 2014 @ 2:08 pm

  16. If by “years of experience in school board matters” you meant “years of experience voting no on school board matters” that’s closer to an accurate reflection of Trish Spencer’s time on the School Board.

    Comment by Lauren Do — August 14, 2014 @ 2:54 pm

  17. #13 – I do not recall the year or all of the specifics, but there was a time, not too long ago, when city council members voted to adopt a voluntary ceiling on campaign funding to take effect the following January after elections. The reason for putting off the implementation was because some of the council members had already spent money on their campaigns and they would be over the limit for that election.Instead of sticking to the plan to reform elections, the newly seated council spent their time and energies tossing out the city manager. Remember all that drama? Seemed like a smokescreen at the time and some of the same elected officials are still seated. The reform has not been revisited and I think it should. (Of course, at this point, money has already been spent for elections 2014 so we would not see it taking effect until after November.)

    Comment by Nancy Hird — August 14, 2014 @ 4:28 pm

  18. Nonsense, Nancy. You’re really suggesting that firing that awful city manager (whose employment history should have scared off any prospective employer) was to provide cover for not implementing a campaign-spending ceiling? That’s a Howard-worthy conspiracy theory. Campaign-contribution limits that don’t land us with only wealthy politicians would be good. But the voters aren’t fools. SunCal failed to get Prop B passed, and all Pat Bail’s money couldn’t manage to manage to get people to ignore her views.

    Comment by BC — August 14, 2014 @ 4:45 pm

  19. If money doesn’t matter, why do the unions write those checks?

    Comment by Trish in '14 -- A plan so crazy it just might work — August 14, 2014 @ 4:46 pm

  20. Because they think it matters. My point is, it doesn’t always work. But it does sometimes, which is why public funding of elections is a good idea. That way, you remove the outsized influence of the firemen’s union, property developers and bigoted small-town plutocrats. People like Nancy seem to object to the influence of money rather selectively, being more upset by the funding of a council they dislike (forming a council of the vigilant) than they were by previous spending sprees..

    Comment by BC — August 14, 2014 @ 6:25 pm

  21. Let each and every candidate tell us upfront and before absentee ballots go out—–who funded their campaigns (individuals? unions? groups?) and the dollar amounts.

    For negative “literature” slamming any candidate, look closely to see who funded it and who sent it and from where.

    Comment by A Neighbor — August 14, 2014 @ 6:54 pm

  22. Trying to think of a movie that reflects the voting for the current Mayoral Race

    Produced by Robert Downey Sr, Most likely before your time

    Comment by frank M — August 14, 2014 @ 6:54 pm

  23. That’s what campaign disclosures are for: available here

    Comment by Lauren Do — August 14, 2014 @ 6:58 pm

  24. The campaign disclosure forms are filed regularly by all candidates and can be publically accessed. However, most people don’t know that. The League of Women Voters of Alameda is working on a proposal to get more frequent posting of the contributions and expenditures than is currently required by law, and to have them posted in a format more easily accessed by the public. Watch for our continuing work on campaign finance reform in the Fall and Winter.

    Comment by Kate Quick — August 14, 2014 @ 11:22 pm

  25. The filings come late in the campaign.
    Therefore, as the candidates speak at “Candidates’ Nights” or “Candidates’ Forums” or the Rotary, or the Lions, or whatever group they’re speaking at–
    Let each and every candidate tell us who they are being funded by
    In addition, ask who and where the negative “literature” is coming from.
    Not difficult to ask, but candidates may be reluctant to answer.

    Comment by A Neighbor — August 15, 2014 @ 7:50 am

  26. Absentee ballots are sent out, at most, 29 days before the election date. The next filing is due on October 6 are you suggesting that a month before the election before absentee ballots are even distributed is too late for people who are interested in learning where the money comes from to look at these forms?

    Comment by Lauren Do — August 15, 2014 @ 8:26 am

  27. Just to clarify. Early voting can begin on October 6th. Filing for campaign activity for the period July 1 to September 30 is due October 6th. A second filing for campaign activity between October 1 to October 18th is due October 23rd.

    Filing within 24 hours is required if a contribution of $1,000 or more in the aggregate is received from a single source for the period August 6 to November 3. Filing also required if a contribution of $1,000 or more is made in the aggregate to another candidate or measure being voted upon November 4, 2014, or to a political party committee.

    The recipient of a non-monetary contribution of $1,000 or more must file a Form 497 report within 48 hours from the time the contribution is received.

    Comment by Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonAUSD) — August 15, 2014 @ 10:11 am

  28. #26 I am saying this:

    Each and every candidate owes it to the voting public to verbally state who (individuals, developers, unions, professional groups, etc….) funds them, and in what amounts, when speaking at each and every organized campaign event.
    Starting the minute they begin campaigning.
    Dollar amounts as noted in #26 should be noted and followed. Starting the minute a candidate begins campaigning.
    You could say I do not like the “pay to play” model in politics.

    Comment by A Neighbor — August 15, 2014 @ 1:55 pm

  29. For the record, I will not be accepting campaign contributions for my 2014 campaign.

    BTW, if you are interested in reading the candidate statements that will be appear in the voter guide for the Mayor, City Council and School Board you can go here:

    http://www.mikemcmahon.info/election14.htm#ccstatements

    Comment by Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonAUSD) — August 15, 2014 @ 2:33 pm

  30. 7, 13: If you dislike union money (which is gathered from working people with more average incomes), how do you feel about the corporate and right-wing domination of political campaigns and outside “independent” groups who now own candidates and elections in the USA, including Alameda? (Remember Suncal’s disgusting $500,000-plus expenditures on the City Council and mayoral races in 2010?)

    Conservative rich people–who have the uppermost 1/10 of 1% of incomes in the USA–like the Koch brothers far outspend unions on elections nationwide, but I do not see much opposition here to the equally evil and more dominant far-right conservative superrich billionaires who are buying many more politicians than the unions do.

    If you are going to oppose having too much money in politic$, please be more fair and balanced in representing who is buying the elections.

    Comment by Jon Spangler — August 16, 2014 @ 11:56 am

  31. #30 For right now, each of us can actually think locally and act locally.
    We deserve to know who finances each and every local candidate.

    So let’s start locally, right here and now, August 2014 heading into the November 2014 election.

    Comment by A Neighbor — August 16, 2014 @ 12:33 pm

  32. #30 – I feel the same about union money and big business money.

    Comment by Nancy Hird — August 16, 2014 @ 12:37 pm

  33. #32: and rich people self-financing a la Bail too?

    Comment by BC — August 16, 2014 @ 12:58 pm

  34. Absolutely no logic to the Union’s position. Besides Bonta? What about when NY Senator Hillary Clinton ran for president? Did NEA make a call? Just an attack dog with no teeth and part of “ugly Alameda” which promises to lurk throughout this campaign. How about talking about issues, instead of extraneous matters? isn’t this the same union which tried to manipulate themselves into an appointed position on the school board and put Neil Tam in a sweetheart deal as superintendent? Hardly the high moral ground…

    Comment by Clueless — August 16, 2014 @ 1:18 pm

  35. I don’t have as much a problem with self financing and I don’t think of Pat Bail as “rich”. ( I don’t believe she is on the level as the Koch brothers, if you want to use them as an example.) That being said, I have no idea what her tax return looks like, do you?

    Comment by Nancy Hird — August 16, 2014 @ 1:24 pm

  36. @30 = Funny thing about the Koch Brothers: Their candidate is not in the White House. Their candidates do not run the Senate. I have never understood why liberals make such a big fuss how much money the far-right spends in politics since it doesn’t seem to buy any real influence, especially in the True Blue state of California. Self-funded candidates like Meg Whitman lose. However, Union funded candidates almost always win. Influence is only real when it wins an election or passes a law.

    What about all that Silicon Valley $$$ [California = Democrats ATM] backing progressive causes, Mr. “Fair & balanced” Spangler? And political contributions from “Non-Profits” like Kaiser Permanente [your health care premiums at work] ?http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/kaiser-permanente/a9106d630fb6417fb2b69971b0f152fe

    Comment by vigi — August 16, 2014 @ 2:48 pm

  37. 36 total BS. If right wing money had no effect there would be a real unadulterated liberal in the White House right now. Plus if nothing else Koch Bros. influence is on keeping Red States Red, Back pressure against the blue tide who are forced to take union money etc. Rupert Murdick has no influence at all, right? what were 50 media groups are down to 5 and counting. Obama hasn’t thwarted the Keystone Pipeline yet and may not. Whose influence is that? Keep believing what you need to believe vigi, but the truth is right there for people without an agenda to see. That’s right, I don’t have an agenda beyond seeing elections free of the influence of money, but I agree with Jon in terms of degree. Locally the fire department and teachers don’t look so good, but compared to the raiders on Wall Street who looted the pension investments and walk free, I don’t think the average rank and file are exactly criminal and the scale of their greed pales.

    And Nancy Hird, you can’t have it both ways. Pat Bail trying to buy her election was raw, venal and anti-democratic. No different than union money. It’s not about the personal motive, it’s about the principle. Level playing fields. Pat didn’t get it either and thought spending all that doe was self sacrifice and honorable, I’m sure. too bad for her.

    Comment by MI — August 16, 2014 @ 6:05 pm

  38. Nancy, no, I don’t want to use the Koch bros’ wealth as a comparison to Bail’s; suggesting such a comparison is either stupid or disingenuous. It’s spending relative to the typical amounts spent on Alameda races that matters. Pat Bail is no Meg Whitman, but that isn’t the point. Whitman was trying to buy the state and Bail merely the city: it’s a difference of scale. I get the strong feeling that it’s people you disagree with spending money that bothers you, not the spending itself. If it’s a good old-school Alamedan, you’re fine with it. How about leveling the playing field with public funding or a $100 per person (candidate included) donation cap?

    Comment by BC — August 16, 2014 @ 9:10 pm

  39. #38 Well, it’s mid August. The next election is in about twelve weeks. No changes will be made in campaign funding requirements for this election.

    The best we can do is to ask each and every candidate who is financing their campaigns, and hope they answer honestly. We can be alert and ask who pays for smear campaign literature, ads and polls.
    For this election, think locally, act locally. End the “pay to play” theme in Alameda.

    Comment by A Neighbor — August 16, 2014 @ 9:22 pm

  40. 30

    Spangler:

    How do you feel about the IAFF, whose members’ income are more than double average Alamedans’ and whose retirement income are several fold, owning the politics at our city hall? They are rather explicitly taking “working peoples’ money with more average incomes” from taxpayers.

    The teachers’ situation is very different and more confused. Their incomes fall much closer to average, indeed below average for degreed professionals. AEA isn’t screwing the public, it’s screwing its own membership. Teachers are paying approx. 2% of their income to their “representatives” who provide them with lower than average salaries, even by teacher standards, health benefits worse than a basic Kaiser plan, and dysfunctional leadership that does little more than embarrass itself and harm its membership’s position. AEA’s leadership is no less parasitic than IAFF, it just sucks a different host.

    Our daily lives here in A-town are affected far more by these local parasites than by the right wingers you caterwaul about. Perhaps you should focus on the parasites right in front of you instead of the ones Lena tells you to target.

    Comment by dave — August 17, 2014 @ 8:37 am

  41. For you political junkies here is a NYT article on why running for office is a soul sucking experience on the national level: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/17/magazine/memo-to-self-do-not-run-for-office.html

    Comment by Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonAUSD) — August 17, 2014 @ 11:09 am

  42. 40. Amen, Amen! and from your insight who will you be voting for and how will that change the things you are complaining about? The need for change is systemic, local to national. I’m more concerned about Citizen’s United effect than IAFF. I’m just remembering seeing an article headline this week which I forgot to read. Probably in the Chronicle. I inferred that it was an example of firefighters giving a little for their own long term preservation. Did anybody see it? My search turned up this one from last year. http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/The-myths-behind-public-employee-pension-reform-4885998.php

    Comment by MI — August 17, 2014 @ 11:56 am

  43. I’m still trying to figure out how Trish will fight for public education as Mayor — while voting “No” for practically everything that came before her on the school board — including the hiring of the new superintendent.

    I’m also trying to figure out what is her legacy as she leaves the School Board? What are her accomplishments? And most important, what skills did she learn while on the school board that makes her feel she can lead?

    Comment by Karen Bey — August 17, 2014 @ 5:15 pm

  44. Karen, Trish would not be able to fight for public education as Mayor, but yes she could find so many more things to vote no on. She will have no legacy when she leaves the school board, hopefully after her term is complete. People like her don’t learn because they don’t listen. You cannot lead when you cannot get along with your colleagues. I’m sorry to say this but the AEA made a huge mistake when they supported her, now they are going to pay the price for that error.

    Comment by John P. — August 17, 2014 @ 7:22 pm

  45. Trish was on the right side of a number of issues that rankled voters: Vital’s compensation bump, the administrative office move, and the debris fence. The times she voted “no” on other issues probably did not register because the issues were of less interest to the general public. Although I wholeheartedly agree with her no votes on these issues, I’m not convinced she’d make a good mayor. It will probably be a case of the devil you know come Election Day for most.

    Comment by Denise Shelton — August 18, 2014 @ 12:21 pm

  46. A broken clock is right twice a day. If you vote no on everything your bound to be right sometimes.

    Comment by John P. — August 18, 2014 @ 1:58 pm

  47. Losing the endorsement of AEA is like losing Bernie Madoff as your financial Advisor…..How could this hurt after watching the the Jerry Springer Cheer leading club at School Board Meetings….It’s all about the kids..

    Comment by It's all about the kids and all other fairy tales — August 18, 2014 @ 3:56 pm

  48. How can it have been right on the administrative office move to have said, in essence, “This move makes some people angry, so disregard what the engineers say and just leave people in an unsafe building where we now know their lives are at risk?”

    The public reports at the time showed that there was no other usable space in the school district where the office could have moved and that any place, including Alameda Point, would have been at least as expensive as where they went.

    Of course, many don’t like the fence. It cost around $200K, which isn’t cheap but also isn’t close the “million dollar fence” that various people kept calling it to serve their political agendas. Maybe an uglier, less safe chain link fence would’ve been a bit cheaper, but would that have been worth the slight savings? No one ever came up with any real alternative to moving the office to leased space and putting some kind of strong fence around the old building, unless you consider doing nothing and putting many people’s safety at risk a real alternative.

    Repeating the talking point that the move of the administrative offices was a waste of money doesn’t make it true. That was an unfortunate situation without any simple solution. The way it worked out was the least bad alternative and really the only responsible way to go. Move on and pick another issue.

    Comment by Right Side? — August 18, 2014 @ 3:57 pm

  49. Is everyone who was so sure the fence at Alameda High was a waste of $200K still really sure about that? Maybe it makes some sense not to have students and grown ups right next to unsafe old buildings when heavy stuff falls off during earthquakes. http://www.rgj.com/picture-gallery/news/2014/08/24/cracked-buildings-other-napa-earthquake-damage/14527585/

    Comment by Right Side? — August 24, 2014 @ 12:16 pm

  50. 51. people who have said the fence is unnecessary can go bark at the moon. I think the price tag may be legitimate gripe. It sometimes seems like a glorified construction fence. I think the lagging ( courses of horizontal boards) is meant to retain large chunks of stuff that want to bounce laterally when they hit the ground, but the majority of the fence is standard cyclone fence, which would stop bricks. Even though the posts are I-beams sunk in four feet of concrete, the mesh fencing runs on street side of the posts ( not the impact side) and is only attached with loops of the same gauge wire. It’s a weakest link sort of thing. Since it was designed by people with engineering degrees I don’t want to be too presumptuous or critical, but look at the issues with the Bay Bridge.

    regarding 50. if one was inclined toward mistrust of administration one could conclude that the finding was rigged, in that the priority was to keep the district offices all in one location without regard to whether there was a practical way to disperse them. It’s true that the space at City Hall West building was not “ready to go”, but my impression was the burden was on detractors to prove there were practical options and they didn’t have the AUSD budget at their disposal to vet options. I’m not arguing one way or the other, just playing devil’s advocate on this one because I don’t have enough information to be definitive. But my personal opinion about KV’s M.O. was that once she got a notion, she was pretty good at getting what she wanted (my way of the highway). I’ve heard a lot of generalities from both sides on this, but don’t recall a detailed spread sheet which did side by side comparisons of a series of options, but maybe that is exactly what the district DID do. I do recall that staff did a presentation which covered various contingencies to some extent, but there is often so much half cocked BS flying around that it takes quite a lot of energy to maintain fact.

    Comment by MI — August 24, 2014 @ 1:39 pm

  51. Let’s all move to a Liquefaction Zone…..Makes sense to me.

    This map shows the liquefaction hazard in the communities of Alameda…..Wonder where the New Office is located.

    http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/nca/alameda/

    Comment by Makes Sense to Me — August 24, 2014 @ 4:10 pm

  52. A number of the buildings that had severe damage in the Napa quake had been retrofitted.

    Comment by frank M — August 24, 2014 @ 6:08 pm

  53. The architects who prepared the Facilities Master Plan did the seismic renovation at the historic Napa High School which appears to have help up since it is being used as a evacuation site for Napa residents.

    Comment by Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonAUSD) — August 24, 2014 @ 8:14 pm

  54. the piers for the seismic moment frame at Wood which is on fill, are 70 feet deep. 53. I agree that we have problems, but if you have serious concern maybe you should more entirely from Alameda.I’ve seen other maps which indicate the historic island may not behave as well as on that map, i.e. the percentage of sand in our soil makes it more susceptible to liquefaction than other alluvial soils. I hope that is wrong, but judging by Napa if Hayward has 7.1 the entire Bay Area will be years in recovery and lots of people are going to die. I worked on our roof this week and could see the neighborhood clearly. Almost every house has a chimney which is going to collapse.

    Comment by MI — August 25, 2014 @ 8:45 am

  55. Frank, retrofit is a relative term. Any brick building which has those square external metal plates had had the floor joists bolted to the facade or vise versa, but without a moment frame it doesn’t mean much. Even a moment frame will not keep a building from having a brick facade peal off into the street, it just prevents catastrophic collapse. The upgrades are about humans surviving, not the buildings themselves.

    Comment by MI — August 25, 2014 @ 8:52 am


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Say what you want

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Theme: Silver is the New Black. Get a free blog at WordPress.com

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 832 other followers