Superior carbon footprint for collecting trash
My earlier post on our trash hauling contract addresses Joe Holtzman’s observations on the pending 10 year, almost $100 million dollar, exclusive Agreement for the City of Mission Viejo. It is possible that this Contract could be awarded at the May 17th council meeting.
What follows is F. K. (Joe) Holtzman’s Analysis:
Waste Management Requested Exceptions to the Proposed Mission Viejo Waste Hauling Contract
Waste Management is the only proposer to request exceptions to the City’s Agreement. Below are the clauses of the contract from which Waste Management has requested relief.
Text in bold and italics reflect the “added exceptions” Waste Management has requested to the Proposed MV Collection Agreement. The entire clause is noted for context, but the changes are simple and the intent is obvious.
Rather than strike outs Sections 9.05 of Joe’s analysis reflects the original text followed by the requested changes as noted. Joe’s observations follow each exception:
5.07 MINIMUM RECYCLING REQUIREMENTS
#3 – If the state increases waste diversion requirements, or the City increases waste diversion requirements, Contractor may request and shall receive a rate adjustment for the additional waste diversion requirements services that may be required in accordance with Section 14.07 and the provisions of this Section will apply using the higher diversion rate.
Net Effect: These three simple words guarantee Waste Mgmt a rate increase. Who would want to live under the pesky requirement to prove a rate increase rather than simply demand one via the contract?
7.03.11 Commercial Bin Overflow
#1 – In the event, Contractor cannot successfully contact the Commercial Service Customer Management after three attempts, or cannot reach an agreement with such management regarding the change in service, Contractor shall advise the Contract Administrator, either by Fax or e-mail, of the details of the Commercial Solid Waste overages, and the attempts at communication with the Commercial Service Customer Management. The Contract Administrator shall respond to Contractor’s report and make a final written determination. Within five (5) Work Days of receipt of the Contract Administrator’s written determination, Contractor shall change the Collection Service in accordance with such written determination. Notwithstanding the above, Contractor is entitled to an appropriate change in Bin size, Collections frequency, or both, where there have been documented instances of overflows on three (3) or more occasions within any consecutive twelve (12) month period at a Commercial Premises.
Net Effect: This is a handy tool. Authority to impose on a business owner and they have no recourse per contract.
9.04.1 SFD Rate Adjustment Method
#5 — Step Five – Multiply the weighted percent change in maximum rates by the then existing maximum rates to calculate the rate change. Add the percentage of rate revenue otherwise indicated for a prior year rate adjustment but not implemented due to the 5% cap, provided that the percentage increase for any given Contract Year does not exceed 5%. Add the rate change to the existing maximum rates to determine the newly adjusted maximum rates.
Net Effect: Maximum rate increases to the homeowner via the accrual method. A very innovative tactic to achieve the maximum charge to the customer in any given year. Nice-I wish I could do that in some of my consulting contracts.
9.04.2 Bin Rate Rate Adjustment Method
#5 — Step Five – Multiply the weighted percent change in maximum rates by the then existing maximum rates to calculate the rate change. Add the rate change to the existing maximum rates to determine the newly adjusted maximum rates. Add the percentage of rate revenue otherwise indicated for a prior year rate adjustment but not implemented due to the 5% cap, provided that the percentage increase for any given Contract Year does not exceed 5%. Add the rate change to the existing maximum rates to determine the newly adjusted maximum rates.
Net Effect: This does the same thing to the businesses as to the homeowners (above). Why leave any money on the table I say. Don’t call it greed – call it equal treatment to all customers.
9.05 EXTRAORDINARY ADJUSTMENT Original text note: W/M deletion requests highlighted in bold
Original text. #4 — The City may request from the Contractor such further information as it deems necessary to fully evaluate the request and make its determination. City may request a copy of the Contractor’s annual financial statements in connection with the City’s review of Contractor’s rate adjustment request. City shall review the Contractor’s request and, in City’s sole judgment and absolute, unfettered discretion, make the final determination as to whether an adjustment to the maximum rates will be made, and, if an adjustment is permitted, the appropriate amount of the adjustment. City may consider increases or decreases in the Contractor’s total revenues and total cost of services when reviewing an extraordinary rate adjustment request.
W/M’s Requested text. #4 — The City may request from the Contractor such further information as it deems necessary to fully evaluate the request and make its determination. City may request a copy of the Contractor’s annual financial statements in connection with the City’s review of Contractor’s rate adjustment request. City shall review the Contractor’s request and, in City’s reasonable judgment, make the final determination as to whether an adjustment to the maximum rates will be made, and, if an adjustment is permitted, the appropriate amount of the adjustment.
Net Effect: Is this delete the sole or soul of city? Waste Mgmt shouldn’t have to argue with the city over rates. Just shift everything to a “reasonable test” where political patronage-called whatever– can do the advance work. Let’s just expediently dilute city authority, discretion and power to administer rate increases now before contract signing.
10.02.2 Inspection of Records
#1 — City shall have the right to inspect or review the payroll tax reports, specific documents or records required expressly or by inference pursuant to this Contract, or any other similar records or reports of Contractor or its Affiliates that City shall deem, in its sole discretion, (sole discretion replaced by the words reasonable judgement) reasonable judgment necessary to evaluate annual reports, compensation applications provided for in this Contract, and Contractor’s performance provided for in this Contract.
Net Effect: Waste Mgmt can’t afford to have the city asking for background on the corporation if there is a dispute. How can they function with city demands to poke around actually trying to administer the monopoly?
10.02.3 Retention of Records
#3 — Records and data required to be maintained that are not specifically directed to be retained that are, in the (sole opinion replaced by) reasonable judgment of the City, material to the determination of Contractor’s compensation or rates or to determine Contractor’s performance under this Contract, shall be retrieved by Contractor and made available to the City in a timely manner (which shall not exceed ten (10) Business Days unless Contractor obtains prior written approval from the City). When records and data are not retained or provided by the Contractor, the City may make reasonable assumptions regarding what information is contained in such records and data, and such assumption(s) shall be conclusive in whatever action the City takes.
Net Effect: Call this the “Tricky Dick” Nixon amendment. Is it not clear that some records have to disappear in order to receive “reasonable” treatment from the city in matters of rate setting? For Heaven’s sake – be reasonable.
12.01 INDEMNIFICATION
#1 — Contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless City, public officials, officers, directors, employees, agents and other contractors, from and against any and all claims, costs, losses and damages (including but not limited to all fees and charges of engineers, architects, attorneys and other professionals as well as all Court or other dispute resolution costs), liabilities, expenditures or causes of action of any kind (including negligent, reckless, willful or intentional acts or omissions of the Contractor, any subcontractor, any supplier, any person or organization directly or indirectly employed by any of them to perform or furnish any services or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable), arising from, relative to or caused by the performance of the services authorized or required by this Contract. This indemnity includes but is not limited to claims attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease or death and to injury or destruction of tangible property. Contractor agrees, at Contractor’s expense, after written notice from the City, to defend any action against the City that falls within the scope of this indemnity, Note: W/M requests that the following text be deleted (or the City, at the City’s option, may elect not to tender such defense and may elect instead to secure its own attorneys to defend any such action and the reasonable costs and expenses of such attorneys incurred in defending such action shall be payable by Contractor.) Additionally, if Contractor, after receipt of written notice from the City, fails to make any payment due under this Contract to the City, Contractor shall pay any reasonable attorneys’ fees or costs incurred by the City in securing any such payment from Contractor. Payment of any amount due pursuant to
the foregoing indemnity shall, after receipt of written notice by Contractor from the City that such amount is due, be made by Contractor prior to the City being required to pay same, or in the alternative, the City, at the City ‘s option, may make payment of an amount so due and Contractor shall promptly reimburse the City for same, together with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum simple interest from the date of receipt by Contractor of written notice from the City that such payment is due.
Net Effect: Plain and simple here: Waste Mgmt wants off the legal hook and relief from liability plus insulation from having to pay the city’s legal costs. Where is all the safety and integrity I heard about at the council meeting?
12.03 THE ACT INDEMNIFICATION AND GUARANTEE
#2 — Contractor warrants and represents that it is familiar with City’s waste characterization study as set forth in City’s Source Recovery and Recycling Element (SRRE), and that it has the ability to and will provide sufficient programs and services, consistent with the services and programs contemplated under this Contract, to ensure City will meet or exceed the diversion requirements (including, without limitation, amounts of Solid Waste to be diverted, time frames for diversion, and any other requirements) set forth in the Act.
Net Effect: God forbid that the city may ask for more services after granting the highest revenue franchise to Waste Mgmt. How “unreasonable” should the city be allowed to be on behalf of its residents? How uncivilized.
ITEMS OF NOTE:
This analysis is garnered from years of experience/training and contract analysis at MDC. Normally I would charge a client $15,500.00 for this service. I love my city so I do it as a service to the citizens!!!
There is no language proposed in the contract exceptions that outline unlimited financial commitment for public education and instruction to increase recycling for Sloan Vasquez to evaluate. Did Joe Sloan divine its value? This is duplicitous at best!!!
I question the representation in the Sloan Vasquez report that these contract exceptions are minor and not worthy of mention to the council. Where is our staff with regard to these demands? Is anyone watching the store? Ohhhh sorry there are no procurement folks like Holtzman with years of experience at MDC to ride herd here—
F. K. (Joe) Holtzman
Wow, what dizzying intellect and profound analysis! Be still my beating heart!! An intern could have provided the same level of thoughtful analysis, for a fraction of $15k. If that’s what you charged people you are one smooth con man! Don’t go patting yourself too hard on the back, Holtzman. Procurement and contracting isn’t rocket science. A basic secretary could do your job. If you want to brag, become a doctor or an actual rocket scientist.
Fonzi.
Hurry up. Medix Ambulance is at your front door.
You are clueless.
Mr. Holtzman, not to worry, I’m certain CRR’s PAC will take care of you! If you love the city so much, then why don’t you step up to the plate and run for office? To me you’re coming off as nothing more than a pawn for CRR, or at least as much as you say Sloan is for the city.
Doesn’t MacLean ever get tired of annoying everyone? Check out his comments today on Voice of OC – crazy, angry ranting. MacLean terrorized his own family members, beat up his kid and tried to strangle a man at UCI.
I hope Medix Ambulance has a strait jacket on hand.
Fonzi is MacLean.
While he called me a terrorist in his Voice of OC article we will still permit anyone to particiapte in the debate provided they follow our guidelines. For the record, we do monitor and take corrective action from time to time as evidenced by a few banned participants who simply cannot stop their abuses.
Orange Punch has virtually the same rules on their blog:
Orange Punch policy
“Keep it civil and stay on topic.
No profanity, vulgarity, racial slurs or personal attacks. “
Mindy Cho
If I ever entertained running I would take no money–nor need any money from anyone. My analysis stands–if you have something to offer please provide it.
Personal attacks may make you feel good–so go for it–but try and contribute something of value.
Joe, I have to agree with the immature level of your analysis here given that you point out that you charge people $15k for it. I am not saying that you probably could give a more thorough analysis if you were actually hired, but your claim here that you charge people over $15k for this analysis is silly. Your “analysis” injects alot of personal statements that shows your bias to promote CR&R or a predetermined opinion of Waste Management.
All in all, I am sure you are respected in your profession but your views on here are amateurish and comes across biased = not credible in the least.
Dear Fellow Bloggers:
Rather than challenge each other with links to cub reporters’ takes on things, might I suggest going to the documents on Mission Viejo’s website for May 17 Councilmeeting: http://dms.cityofmissionviejo.org/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=1541&doctype=AGENDA and for the May 3 Council Meeting:http://dms.cityofmissionviejo.org/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=1540&doctype=AGENDA. You will find the proposals and the facts.
When you do, you will see that Joe Holtzman is correct but for his acerbic and enjoyable humor. I find it odd that we all shop for low prices, but when a sacred cow like Waste Management is extracting millions out of our community, some of us turn a blind eye.
Are we not aware that CR&R removes the solid waste from the all the cities around Mission Viejo? Are those cities and thousands of people all fools too? Come on. The business of business is business and selecting the lowest cost provider is just orderly city business and shouldn’t be an emotional slug fest. Waste Management employees: Declare yourselves in this blogisphere.
M. Walsh
Might I see your analysis????.
I promote no one but the Mission Viejo rate payers pocket book–which may or may not be your interest also !!
If I might quote the famous bard–“To be a critic takes only five minutes–to be a creator takes a lifetime.”
Note: 40 years of experience and three degrees and many continuing education courses yield the fee structure that is also industry driven
Joe and Larry, would you agree that CR&R is either making more trips per city or else they are over filling their trucks to operate with that much less? My fear is that it is the latter. I think that some of us are looking at this on the macro level, meaning we can negotiate a better rate with W/M and continue working with a company that has served us well.
Please lets make sure that free trash bin cleaning is in the contract! At least every six months. Keep MV clean!
Pete,
How about a fair process, I don’t care if the winning company uses just 1 truck, IF they can do the job, to the specifications given to them, they should get the bid. Period. This stinks of “special Deals” and that is exactly the type of thing that get people mad as hell.
Joe- I don’t have to give an analysis since you didn’t really offer one either. And to your quote, your supposed analysis must have only taken you 5 minutes.
M. Walsh
So–please provide your analysis.
M. Walsh and Joe, would you two give it a rest. This whole issue is all about who knows who on the Council and it seems that the local company will get the contract. Let’s be real. It has nothing to do with who will do a better job (I don’t think it is EVER the lowest bidder in anything), but who can grease the palms better. Let’s face it, CRR is more local than Waste Management, therefore, will use local connections to get the contract. Let’s hope that our Council is a little better educated than all of the hoopla that is going on with this blog, and they vote experience, ethics, and service…or just stay the course.
Paige. Don’t leave. We need the traffic.
Missed you at the Marty Russo dedication today. That was my monthly happy post for Dave Leckness
Joe, CR&R’s bid reminds me of this quote from the Bard, “something is rotten in Denmark.”
CRR spend as much $$$ on lobbying as any of the others. And I too am suspect with the substantially cheaper bid. I think that if the city follows Paige’s suggestion, then CRR will not be the winning company. Let’s hope not.
OK, if you are all worried about CRR, how about the 3 OTHER bids that were lower then Waste Management?
Remember one thing, CRR and was cheapest but the bid specks asked for specific amount of trucks, containers, and labor hours. CRR proposed to use 20% less equipment therefore the rate is cheaper. If the bid is correct to the specks they wouldn’t be the cheapest. Athens is no where in the area and has a lot of issues. Go to stopathens.org to learn more. Waste Management prices are the highest. Ware Disposal does the neighboring city as well and was one of the lower bidders. I know some people on this blog have problems with ware. I know many companies using thier services and hear mainly good things. Plus I see them at many local events in the city in regards to recycling and other things and have never seen athens or CRR. thats my tske.
Paulie Shore (great username) – I have to agree with you. It is scary to think that so many people are promoting the lowest cost bidder when the fact of the matter is that they are proposing 20% less. I would rather make sure that all of my trash is handled properly and efficiently instead of taking a chance with a firm that would rather save a buck so it could get the contract.
Still waiting for M. Walsh analysis !!
Joe – give it a rest. Your analysis is not worth what CR&R would pick up if they got the contract. I never claimed to be an expert nor charge $15k for it. You did and the product you posted wasn’t worth 15 cents. Give it a rest.
To Mission Viejo Truth Teller. Why don’t you tell us what position with CRR you hold? It never ceases to amaze me how when someone supports something, they automatically have some vested interest in it. I’m not a WM employee and highly doubt that too many of their employees are sitting around blogging on this issue. Yourself, Joe and Larry will not accept that CRR is offering less all around – 20% less means less on service and safety. Ultimately, I care about Mission Viejo, not Orange or Dana Point or anywhere else. Why not stick with who we’re with, negotiate a better rate and increase in services that will best improve the environment and our city. To me it’s that simple.
OrangeCJan,
BS. Waste Management wants to keep ripping you off. I live in Santa Ana and they have been ripping us off for years.
I don’t think MV residents want to keep getting ripped off, not when CR&R can save them money and likely improve service.
OrangeCJan.
As someone whose corporation actually won contracts in which our pricing was higher than our competitor
I have personal experience in the value of customer service and support. However, as time went on our customers were being squeezed and we were forced to tighten our belts in order to keep the business.
What troubles me is that we have a consultant, Joe Sloan, and a gag order in place in which the council is prohibited from having any direct contact to question the potential bidders. If I am not mistaken, once the council selects a preferred vendor THAN we can conduct further negotiations. Are they kidding? Once you know that the business is yours do you truly believe that you are not in the drivers seat on limiting any cost reductions or deviations?
I’ve been doing researching regarding CR&R and it seems that residents of Orange County have issues with their services. There have been many complaints of dirty and unsanitary recycling centers, not having enough bins, not picking up…the list seems to go on. This makes me wonder if this why they are cheap? I’m a little concerned and I think we need to take these issues into consideration. If the OC isn’t happy with CR&R services then why do we want to take on the same burden?
Art Pedroza –
Are you serious? CR&R may be coming in cheap with their bid, but that is because they don’t provide nearly enough services effectively nor efficiently as larger haulers. Look at what is happening over in the city of Orange. Friends that I know over there say that they cannot stand their current trash company….which is CR&R. Not only that, when a company bids at 20% less, you are going to get 20% less from the company. Think about it this way, 20% less is done by a couple of ways: low balling employees (who happen to also live in the County) and skimping on service. Those employees who take a considerable pay cut (if they find a job after being laid off from their current trash hauler who loses the contract) and that relates to less payroll taxes to the county and less disposable income for them to spend on everyday purchases at local stores, which also pays taxes. This is just like a Wal-Mart Supercenter coming in and wiping out our small businesses. All the money that normally circulates within the community is slowly drained to extinction. OPEN YOUR EYES, PEOPLE. OFFERING TO DO SOMETHING FOR CHEAP MEANS YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR: CHEAP WORK.
Royer.
So your recommedation is to select the highest bidder?
Forget CR&R for the moment. What about the two other bidders who were lower than W/M?
Where should we draw the line on the percentage differential? 2%, 5% or 10%?
Will you make the same argument for each of these possibilities? This is not one bidder 25 % below the others with Ware and Athens pennies apart.
Art. Why don’t you worry about your schools in Santa Ana and stop cheerleading for a company you obviously know nothing about. I and clearly others do not share the same sentiment that we’re getting ripped-off.
OrangeCJan.
That’s one. Keep up the personal attacks and you will not be welcome on my future posts.
Art, maybe with CR&R’s poor bidding and bad safety violations in other parts, your company can get the work to consult CR&R since you own a Safety Consulting company…..hmmm….is that why you are a staunch supporter of CR&R? You know if they get the contract, their record on safety violations would warrant a consultant to advise them on how to be safe?
Mark.
Can you personally document poor safety violations? As this contract will be debated tomorrow it would be useful for the council to see proof of any allegation. And by proof I surely do not mean something in a local newspaper. When we were at court recently the Mission Viejo attorney refuted a Register story. The judge did not permit that article as evidence.
Mark. Do you live or own a business in Mission Viejo?
If not you must have an agenda that differs from those of us who are residents seeking first and foremost safe and timely removal of our trash. The cost is right up there as we consider which firm will perform that task.
Well, a quick inquiry on the OSHA website has CR&R with 3 violations at one of their facilities, one being serious. This was one inspection. CR&R was made to pay thousands and thousands of dollars for those fines. The facility was in Stanton. Also, I have no agenda unlike what appears the owners of this blog do. Both Larry and Art are hardfast on CR&R. Are they offering to pick up your trash first if they get the contract? In regards to the other bidders that you wrote, Larry, I think you hit the nail on the head. What about them? You, Joe, and Art seem like you are all about CR&R and anti-Waste Mgmt. It is pretty skeptic if you ask me.
Mark,
A Waste Management worker died in Nashville just this year.
http://www.newyorkinjurynews.com/2010/05/14/Nashville-workplace-fatality-Waste-Management-worker-killed-by-trash_201005143599.html
The accident is being reviewed by OSHA.
And another was killed in 2000, in Florida:
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=NEWS_RELEASES&p_id=350
And here is something even bigger – Waste Management got caught engaging in predatory pricing!
http://www.movementech.org/EBIC/pubs/wmx.html
This is a great article – complete with the whole history of Waste Management’s criminal activites and horrible safety record. Enjoy!
Art,
Seriously….how big is Waste Mgmt? Don’t you think that accidents would happen with a national, and probably one of the biggest, waste haulers around? For a little company comparably, CR&R looks like they are starting to get a bad rap. I can use Google also, and this was one of the first things that pops up:
CR&R worker killed:
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_crush13.434b0f2.html
Once again, Larry is asleep at the switch. You should go back to you soup before it gets cold old man. The city council can at any time open negotiations with any trash hauler it sees fit to do so. The council will hand down its list of demands and if Waste Management can’t or won’t meet those demands, then the city council can open negotiations with the next hauler, and then the next. The point of barring direct contact between individual council members and the haulers to prevent one council member from pissing in the pool by lobbying for the hauler who promises the biggest campaign contribution. So no, just because you’ve been selected to negotiate doesn’t put you in the drivers seat.
By the way, did you ever hear the old saying, “You get what you pay for.”? Don’t fall for the old low-ball bid gag. Just because it costs less doesn’t mean you get more for your money. Oh, I thought Holtzman would have thought about that already.
As someone who used to live in OC and a senior citizen, I’m in favor of keeping our contract with Waste Mgt. I had a really difficult time trying to get my senior discount with CR&R and in the end, wasn’t allowed to get it. I had issues with their customer service and it was really difficult to get them to do anything. When I moved here to MV, no questions asked…I got my discount applied and haven’t had a single issues. Customer was great and they donate to many organizations I support. From someone who knows…don’t make the mistake that OC did.
JP and others.
One advantage each of us have on the Juice is that we can all weigh in and discuss the pro’s and con’s of this pending contract.
The city, on the other hand, has a gag order in place. It’s amazing that none of the five council members were permitted to have any contact with the vendors of this the largest single contract they will ever vote on.
And for those who are attacking my latest remarks let me remind you to look a the two posts written by me. The first was based purely on the Sloan Vazquez recommendation which was W/M. I even pointed out that we would see a modest decrease.
The same people, who support W/M, did not add a single positive comment about that post but now attack me. Where were you?
It’s OK Fonzi, aka Lance MacLean, who was kicked out of office as mayor a few months ago. We carried you into office in 2002 and kicked you out in 2010. That’s fair.
Folks.We should be looking at all four bidders. However, only setting 20% toward the actual trash removal cost is by itself a low ball. It should be 40 percent. At that number it would be of interest to see a revised ranking.
Larry,
As a precursor, please tell me what post from OrangeCJan got a warning from you, because I have seen much worse from other posters who support your position (the Wide-load Wendy in regards to Wendy Buckman in a Measure D post immediately comes to mind) that got no similar warning. I think you are one of the most reasonable bloggers on the Juice, whether or not I agree with you, but please don’t become a hypocrite like the rest.
As for Mr. Holtzman’s analysis, some of his points I agree with, some I can’t speak to, but he is dead wrong on the indemnification analysis. The proposed language WM wants taken out will only take away the City’s right to retain its own attorneys to defend any action resulting from WM’s operations, but it will not, as Mr. Holtzman contends, take WM off the hook from liability or having to pay the City’s legal fees. Wm will still be responsible for all damages (which includes attorneys’ fees) for its actions. And yes, I am a 10+ year attorney so I have some experience in this arena to speak of, though I wouldn’t charge $15,000 for that advice.
Newbie.
I believe my warning to OrangeCJan was her comment about Art. At this time I really cannot devote time going back to the many comments received on the blog to find the one in question.
In the past I have told those who support my position not to engage in personal attacks.
As much as we appreciate your participation, to call my fellow bloggers hypocrites begs the question. Why do you come back if you disagree with our message?
And I await your feedback to meet and discuss your support of private property rights. lgpwr@aol.com
Larry,
You’re defending your fellow bloggers, and I respect that. But anyone who reads regularly on here knows that many of them espouse hypocritical opinions when it comes to whether or not you disagree with them. I have no doubt you’re very busy on here and you don’t have time to review every comment that is made; I just want to make sure you apply your rules evenly when they’re clearly violated as they were in the Measure D post that took personal shots at the weight of Ms. Buckman. As for why I come back if I disagree with your message, the answer is in the question. I don’t have the time or luxury of blogging, so the only way I can have my opinion heard on here is to respond with comments. I typically only respond to matters that I am interested in and informed about. And to clarify, as a strong conservative myself, I agree with many of your ideas Larry. Case in point, your passion for private property rights and eminent domain abuses. I, too, look forward to meeting and discussing that and other issues soon.