LGBT icon evicted, leaving town, blasting Wiener

The man who made this movie is gone from San Francisco

Documentary filmmaker and longtime queer community activist and leader David Weissman is leaving San Francisco -- because he and three other tenants of his place on Oak Street have been evicted under the Ellis Act. These evictions are happening all over town; it's a disaster. Weissman isn't going quietly, though; he's penned a sharp letter to Sup. Scott Weiner that's making the rounds in tenant and LGBT circles and creating enough controversy that Wiener has put out a long response.

Weissman told me the rash of Ellis Act evictions is horrifying, particularly when seniors are involved. "So many people who have lived through the AIDS epidemic are now finding themselves unwanted and adrift," he said. "There have always been two competing visions of San Francisco, and the one that's ascendant now says that people who can own property and make a lot of money will make this a better city. But I've always believed that what makes this city great are the creative types who don't always have a lot of money."

Read his letter to Wiener and the supervisor's response after the jump. (UPDATE: It's worth noting what Weissman posted below, that he is not becoming homeless and spends half his time in Portland, where he will no doubt now live. He won't be a San Franciscan any more. He writes: "Thanks to everyone for your kind words of support. The letter was intended to bring attention to the larger issues at stake, that most renters in SF are in serious and increasing risk of Ellis Act eviction. As most of you know, my own situation is unusual, in that I've been living back and forth between SF and Portland since 2004, with the full knowledge of my benevolent late landlords. I will always be a San Franciscan in my heart, and am trying to find ways to maintain some kind of base there."

Dear Supervisor Weiner:

We've met a few times. I'm the producer of the documentaries We Were Here and The Cockettes, both of which chronicle the history of Gay San Francisco. I've been a San Franciscan since 1976. In 1979 I was on the campaign staff of Prop R, a rent-control initiative that didn't pass, but which pushed the Board of Supervisors to pass the significantly weaker Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Law. I subsequently became a Legislative Aide to Supervisor Harry Britt. I worked a couple of campaigns with Dick Pabich and Jim Rivaldo, and also worked closely with Bill Kraus -- heroic leaders whose names I hope are familiar to you.

I am being forced out of my apartment that I've rented since 1986 due to the Ellis Act. This will end my 37-year residency in San Francisco. I must say that I find your policies regarding housing in San Francisco -- your consistent bias toward home ownership at the expense of tenants and affordability, to be dismaying, and an affront to the legacy of Harvey Milk. In my own situation, it has been extremely clear that the limitations on condo conversion provided somewhat of an impediment to the immediate eviction of everyone in my building (all gay, 3 out of 4 of us are seniors), motivating the landlord to at least pay us to leave rather than just evict us at very minimal cost to him. But even this is appalling -- your efforts should be toward further combating the effects of the Ellis Act, rather than contributing to the tsunami of evictions that is destroying the fabric of our City. No buyout can compensate for the loss of our homes.

I don’t doubt that you have good intentions, and that you have done some good things as Supervisor. Though you didn’t live here in the worst of the AIDS years, I assume you’ve been somewhat impacted by that history. But for those of us who elected Harvey Milk, who fought the Briggs Initiative and Anita Bryant, who created this amazing gay community centered around Castro Street, and then who fought for our lives and the lives of our brothers through two decades of AIDS deaths... having a gay supervisor promoting policies that are forcing so many of our generation out of our homes and out of the City to which we have given so much is heartbreaking.

Wiener's response, posted on Facebook:

Hi David. Yes, we have met several times, and I’ve always been a huge admirer of your work. You’re an icon in our community. “We Were Here” is one of the best and most moving films I’ve ever seen.

Your email is deeply distressing to me. It’s awful that the Ellis Act was used to evict you and the other tenants out of your building. I don’t support the Ellis Act and I publicly supported Mark Leno’s (unfortunately unsuccessful) legislation to restrict its use. Back in the 90s, when I was a new lawyer, I defended numerous tenants against the wave of evictions at the time, both Ellis Act and Owner-Move-In evictions, and it was as heartbreaking then as it is now. I’m truly sorry that this happened to you and sorry for the City that you now are leaving. I would be more than interested in helping you find a place in San Francisco that you can afford. Please let me know if you want my help in that effort. I’m at your disposal.

It took me a day to respond to this email, because it’s a challenging response to write. Something terrible happened to you. You have every right to be angry and frustrated that so many great years in San Francisco, building our community, may come to an end this way. (I truly hope that we can avoid that, of course.) But, I do need to respond to some things that you said in your email about me. I hate to have to respond -– since what happened to you was so awful -– but I don’t think that your comments about me, which you’ve now disseminated publicly, are fair or accurate. It’s not accurate to describe my policy bent as having a “consistent bias toward home ownership at the expense of tenants and affordability.” I know you disagree with my legislation to provide one-time relief to owner-occupied TICs that are at risk of foreclosure, and I’ll get to that in a bit. I’m not sure how much you know about my public positions and votes over a decade on housing issues, but I’ll describe them for you. While I do support helping people achieve home ownership –- and I don’t in any way run away from that -- I’ve supported just about every pro-tenant measure that’s appeared on the ballot, including measures that my predecessor and Mayor Newsom opposed (that’s not a criticism of my predecessor or Mayor Newsom, both of whom I strongly supported, but we had a difference of opinion). I supported Prop B, which required disclosure to prospective condo purchasers of the unit’s eviction history. That went on the ballot after the Mayor vetoed it, and I supported it. I supported Prop H, which increased relocation payments to tenants in no-fault evictions. That went on the ballot after the Mayor vetoed it, and I supported it. I supported Prop M, which banned and created penalties for harassment of tenants. That went on the ballot after the Mayor vetoed it, and I supported it. And, as noted, I supported Mark Leno’s effort to restrict the application of the Ellis Act. I also supported limiting or banning condo conversion for units that were made vacant through use of the Ellis Act.

As a member of the Board of Supervisors I’ve continued my work supporting tenants. I authored and passed legislation banning universities (including Academy of Arts University) from converting rent-controlled apartment buildings into student dorms. That was a huge win for tenants, and I pushed it through against intense opposition. I authored and passed the Good Samaritan Ordinance, which was supported by tenants groups and which provides affordable temporary apartments for tenants who are displaced by disasters.

Now, let’s talk about my work around affordable housing. I was one of the people who negotiated the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, Prop C, which appeared on last November’s ballot and won. I campaigned for it passionately. It will generate $1.5 billion for affordable housing in coming decades. I’ve been closely involved with the 55 Laguna project, which will create quite a bit of affordable housing, including affordable housing for LGBT seniors. I’ve supported every transition-age youth housing project that’s come to the board, all of which have been controversial. I’ve publicly begged Larkin Street to create more youth housing in the Castro.

I stand by my record on housing policy, including support for tenants and for creation of affordable housing. Your perception of my overall record simply isn’t accurate.

As for my TIC legislation, I respect your opposition to it, but I don’t think it’s fair to state that by helping struggling TIC owners stay in their homes –- and helping them avoid foreclosure -– I’m forcing gay people from their homes. David, you and I don’t know each other well, but if you got to know me, you’d know that I’ve spent my entire adult life (which has been more years than you might think) fighting for the LGBT community. Whether playing a key role in building the LGBT community center, fighting my neighbors on Collingwood Street when they tried to get rid of LYRIC, leading the charge to restore HIV funding cuts in our city budget, to helping get transgender people health coverage under Healthy San Francisco, or sponsoring the legislation that created the LGBT senior task force, support for my brothers and sisters in this community has been at the core of everything I do.

The TIC legislation is not what its opponents have painted it to be. I’ve posted a full explanation of the legislation here.
This legislation provides one-time relief to TIC owners in owner-occupied TICs that are in the condo lottery. San Francisco law restricts or prohibits condo conversion for buildings that have had Ellis Act or other bad eviction history. This legislation sticks by those restrictions. These TIC owners are in serious trouble. They purchased thinking they’d be able to convert in 5-7 years. It’s now looking like 15-20 years. That’s 15-20 years on a group mortgage –- where if one owner defaults everyone defaults -– paying double the interest rate of other homeowners, and being unable to refinance even if you’re about to experience a balloon payment on the mortgage. If we don’t help these TIC owners, we’re going to see a wave of foreclosures and people losing their homes. While I fully understand the opposition to condo conversion, I guess my question is whether allowing these homeowners to go into foreclosure is a good thing for the city. I don’t think it is. This is a one-time and discrete piece of legislation designed to help a group of San Francisco residents -– primarily long-time residents -– who are in serious trouble.

These TIC owners aren’t aliens who landed here and snapped up units. Almost every TIC owner I’ve ever met is a first-time homeowner who rented for years (often renting for a lot of years) and then scraped together a down payment to be able to purchase a place. They’re middle class, since if they were wealthy they’d be able to buy more than a TIC. Many are people who’ve lived here for a very long time –- 15, 20 years or longer. Many are gay. These are San Franciscans just like you and I are. They, too, are part of the fabric of our city. I don’t think it’s anti-tenant, anti-gay, or anti-anything to provide them with some help by letting them condo convert their units so that they can have housing stability.

It’s estimated that 85% of these TIC units are owner-occupied. And for the very small number of tenants who live in these buildings, the legislation mandates that they receive lifetime leases with full rent and eviction controls. Again, 85% of the units are occupied by their owners.

David, I regret having to respond to you like this. That’s pretty much the last thing I want to do with someone who’s going through something as traumatic as what you’re experiencing. But, since you made a pretty bald public assertion about what I stand for and who I advocate for, I thought it necessary to respond.


...says Marcos from the comfort of his CONDO in the Mission.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 6:25 pm

Yes, the condo we paid a premium on so that there were no evictions in its history and there was a sound financial footing from which we now have a very stable and low interest long term mortgage. We never even considered a TIC, we're not crazy. The only other choice was a Live Work Loft, and we decided to eat rice and beans to sacrifice for another year and go for the Edwardian.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 03, 2013 @ 8:57 am


I love that when you talk about housing its "we" but all the stories of your escapades are about "you"

Posted by Erick Brooks on Feb. 03, 2013 @ 10:29 am

I did not buy our condo myself.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 03, 2013 @ 10:41 am

So its a marriage of money then? very progressive.

Why dont we hear his steam stories?

Posted by Erick Brooks on Feb. 03, 2013 @ 11:13 am

Our LEGAL and eviction-free condo that converted without having to go through the pesky lottery and without having to be a member of a TIC commune, yeah, that one.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 12:43 pm

It is sad what's happened here because someone lost their longtime home and that's always awful. But instead of blaming Wiener the writer should instead look at the overall mentality to new development in San Francisco. Our city is someplace a lot of people want to live but we're building next-to-no new housing to accommodate both existing and new residents. The result is what happens when any resource scarcity develops and housing is a resource. This problem requires a holistic approach to solve it. So far most members of the Board are interested in defending entrenched interests and mouthing platitudes which aren't helping anyone.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 3:22 pm

tenant activists who went so far that Jim Ellis felt it necessary to allow landlords who were losing money a way out and path to bail?

SF is an economic powerhouse and a desirable place to live. Not everyone can afford that and some natural turnover isn't the worse thing for a city that needs to grow and progress.

Posted by anon on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 3:56 pm

As was made abundantly clear at Tuesday's hearing, TIC owners are STEALING a very valuable asset from San Francisco's future - its pool of long-term rent-controlled housing units so that future generations can come to the city one day to explore and prosper in a very stimulating environment without being forced to move at a later date when a landlord decides they want way more money for the housing unit than was originally agreed. A bank doesn't get to tell a homeowner they have to pay a larger mortgage just because the property has greatly increased in value; neither should a landlord be able to do the same to a residing San Francisco tenant. There's no shame telling bottom-feeding landlords to take their economic exploitation elsewhere because San Francisco is a no-fault "Eviction Free Zone."

Every landlord knows the rent control rules. The rules have been around for decades. A landlord can easily sell their investment property if they don't like the rules. If they live in one of the units (not many do) they can afford to sell the building, including their vacant unit after they sell, and move to a comparable unit or single-family home and be free of being a landlord, which is one of the lowest forms of economic exploiters anyway since landlords only win when someone else loses (higher rent charged to a tenant, eviction of tenants without cause, reduction of maintenance services, etc.)

The most important thing that Wiener, Farrell, and Sullivan of Plan C have done is keep the debate focused on the poor landlord and the poor TIC converter, when instead we should be discussing why the government favors landlords over tenants in the first place, with all of the tax subsidies and power given to the landlords while tenants are mere pawns in the real estate exploitation process. First it was the HOT proposal 10 years ago. Then Prop R. Now this. It's become an incessant drumbeat to destroy San Francisco's most affordable long-term housing stock so that future landlords will have free reign to charge as much rent as the market can bear, tenant residents be damned.

Housing should be a right with real protections, not an investment scheme where tenants are fodder for the riches that can be made converting San Franciso's long-term affordable rent-control housing stock.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 7:49 pm

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Posted by Another Guest on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 8:06 pm

Wiener was supported by the Real Estate Industrial Complex and by homeowners when he ran for supervisor. Part of his campaign included criminalizing homelessness with the Sit Lie (Prop L) proposition. He campaigned for Prop L and then came up with another version of sit-lie for the Warner and Milk Plazas. I think it's quite clear to any objective person where Wiener really stands and what his intentions really are, despite any perfumed words from him to the contrary.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 3:24 pm

district constituents, gay and straight, landlord and tenant, owner and renter, rich and poor.

Your criticism of him is that he is not one-sided and it is precisely his independence that I like about him.

Posted by anon on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 3:51 pm

A couple quick clarifications.... My intent was not to BLAST Supervisor Wiener, who my letter acknowledges as someone who I trust has good intentions, and who has done good work. My intent not to focus on my own situation, but to give voice to an issue of increasing urgency that is not being adequately addressed.

And in the interest of transparency, I want to add something that I posted on Facebook today: "Thanks to everyone for your kind words of support. The letter was intended to bring attention to the larger issues at stake, that most renters in SF are in serious and increasing risk of Ellis Act eviction. As most of you know, my own situation is unusual, in that I've been living back and forth between SF and Portland since 2004, with the full knowledge of my benevolent late landlords. I will always be a San Franciscan in my heart, and am trying to find ways to maintain some kind of base there."

Posted by David Weissman on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 3:33 pm

not also true that you have enjoyed a subsidized rent in SF for a very long time, and through at least two previous booms when this might just as easily have happened to you?

And, moreover, is it not also true that you must have known that the more your rent was out of sync with reality, the greater the probability that your landlord would eventually be an idiot not to Ellis your building?

Tenants who pay a rent that provides a decent ROI typically do not get Ellis'ed. I have to believe that you have had a good deal for a very long time and, as the saying goes, nothing is forever, you know?

Portland is a fine town.

Posted by anon on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 3:50 pm

into their apartment? How does the ROI change if the rents rise through allowable rent increases but the landlord's costs (mortgage, taxes) remain fixed. The issue isn't reduced ROI, but hunger for profit through sale and/or conversion.

Concern troll.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 4:08 pm

That's a moot question.

All I know is this. If a property investor gets a fair ROI then he or she would never Ellis a building because that is a doomsday solution. It is far more profitable for a SF LL to keep renting if and only if his ROI is plausible.

Ellis evictions happen only in buildings with artificially low rents because of rent control. Such evictions are the logical and inevitable result of any confiscatory policy like rent control.

Posted by anon on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 4:25 pm

has to move because of change and progress.

Concern troll.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 4:37 pm

do know that the destiny of this city probably does not ultimately depend on whether any one particular individual is allowed to retain their subsidized rent having enjoyed that already for decades.

Posted by anon on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 4:44 pm

One death is a tragedy, a million a stastic, eh?

Posted by marcos on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 6:17 pm

Ask me if I really think that is a tragedy commensurate with world hunger.

Posted by anon on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 8:04 am

Why are you here, ruining the discussion?

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 8:12 am
Posted by anon on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 8:22 am

does. You must have written 30 - 40 since 7 AM this morning, inhibiting reasonable conversation. Bullying does not equal discussion.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 8:32 am

Why the intolerance of differing viewpoints?

Posted by anon on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 9:05 am

So you support putting kids through the trauma of moving?

Posted by marcos on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 8:16 am

As a kid, we moved several times.

Posted by anon on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 8:21 am

Involuntarily because of eviction?

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 8:33 am

child is somehow intrinsically a bad thing. I disagree.

Posted by anon on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 9:06 am

Judging from your comments, you have a neoliberal mindset, which means you couldn't give a flying f*ck about world hunger either...not when it lines the pockets of rapacious financial predators like yourself (or their apologists).

Posted by Bakunin on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 2:03 pm

Judging from your comments, you have a neoliberal world view, which means you couldn't give a flying f*ck about world hunger...not when it lines the pockets of rapacious financial predators like yourself.

Posted by Bakunin on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 2:24 pm

bearing on whether public policy should be such that nobody ever at any time or place has to ever maybe be a tad inconvenienced.

Sounds like this dude has had a good run but right now he's not fiscally suited for this city.

Life marches on.

Posted by anon on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 4:48 pm

Forcing someone to move to Portland is a human right violation!

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly, Persistent on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 10:35 pm

Because it sorta changes the situation. But it's still unfortunate you've lost your home.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 4:34 pm

Once again, as he does so regularly when caught in another of his actions that cause great harm to the less well-heeled and less socially conforming in San Francisco, Scott Wiener is long on self-congratulation and fake sympathy for the victims of his ill-considered policies. What Wiener never addresses--and the primary point David Weissman so eloquently establishes--is that through his TIC legislation, encouraging the reduction of affordable rental housing, San Francisco less and less becomes a place where people can afford to come not so they can become financial "successes" but to live a life that is creative or to seek a new life, away from one where they have been treated often with intolerance or even hate. To Scott Wiener, San Francisco is a place where these people are unwanted and it is inconceivable that Wiener is not cognizant of the consequences of his actions.

Posted by Alan Collins on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 3:56 pm

eligible for condo coversion under current or envisaged law.

So allowing a one-time lottery bypass will have zero effect on any current tenant.

The biggest threat of eviction for a current tenant is if their rent is too low.

Posted by anon on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 4:09 pm

Thanks for your brave response, "anon," but it was irrelevant to the comment I made but certainly relevant to your obvious agenda.

Posted by Alan Collins on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 5:24 pm

not evict a single tenant nor lead to the eviction of a single tenant.

Regardless of whether it happens or not, any tenant paying an absurdly low rent in Sf is vulnerable to an Ellis eviction.

Posted by anon on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 5:33 pm

Why does Wiener feel it is so important to help TIC owners, who bought into a very risky deal while he remains deaf to evictions of renters.

If he honestly cares about renters let's see him do something for them. He talks about representing everyone but he has time and time again worked against renters. He's a lying worm.

Posted by Viper on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 4:11 pm

Why should he favor renters over owners, gays over straights, or any group over any other group?

He wasn't elected to engage in class warfare but to be balanced, fair and indepenent.

Posted by anon on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 4:29 pm

This is not a Scott Weiner/David Weissman (me) issue. As you can see in my letter I have been active in housing issues in SF since the 70s. Already back then, tenants fought against condo conversion because it was depleting the stock of affordable rental housing and leading to wholesale evictions. Condo conversions were limited many years ago, and the real estate industry came up with TICs as a means of circumventing the limits on condos. I've always thought TICs were problematic on many levels, but many people purchased them and have had varying degrees of satisfaction.

I'm not entirely sure what the particular crisis is that TIC owners are facing, but the current situation must be seen in the context of why these situations evolved over time. There is undeniably a lack of housing here that is creating pressures on everyone. I feel very strongly that the push for condo conversion and TIC conversion has had a very negative impact on SFs renters. This may not be everyone's issue. It is one that I care about deeply. In the Haight, where I've lived since 1978, a very large number of the multi unit buildings are no longer rental, and it has hugely altered the feeling of the neighborhood. Some people think that's a good thing, and I think that different world view may be part of why Scott and I see things differently. Some people think SF would be better if we were all property owners with high paying jobs. That's not my view.

Posted by David Weissman on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 4:58 pm

Times change and things move on. San Francisco has been changing forever and will continue to. Those who want to freeze it in time and preserve it as some type of hopeless hippie Colonial Williamsburg theme park are misguided.

The Greek philosopher Heraclitus said that "you cannot step into the same river twice", meaning that while the name of the river remains the same, everything else about it changes with time.

If you have been here for 45 years, you have had a good inning. In all good conscience, if the city has moved on, should you not do the same? nobody else owes you anything and certainly not to subsidize your rent.

Posted by anon on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 5:09 pm

David's right about that - so has the United States. The influx of wealthier, more upwardly mobile workers has changed the face of the city forever. Although it's not unlike the Gold Rush or any of the other stages San Francisco has gone through - like massive numbers of gay men moving to the Castro and driving up property values there.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 5:16 pm

the world stops to accomodate one's limitations and slowness.

But acceptance of change is perhaps the ultimate and healthy acknowledgment of ageing.

Posted by anon on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 5:24 pm

When was it that Weissman bought his home in Portland? Anyone know?

Posted by Mason on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 5:49 pm

Just because somebody owns a home in Portland is no reason for them to be denied a rent-controlled apartment in San Francisco!

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly, Persistent on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 10:47 pm

main home. Many tenants break the law, hogging a rental home in SF as a pied a terre.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 12:22 pm

One of the resident trolls up above wrote this:

"The influx of wealthier, more upwardly mobile workers has changed the face of the city forever."

Because you spend all waking hours on this site, you don't get out and see what's going on in the real world, but in the Castro for example, there are many, many closed store-fronts. And those still open often have no customers when I walk by. Diesel (Castro/Market) just closed, for example. So I'm not sure WHERE exactly all of these "wealthier more upwardly mobile workers" are that you're going on about nor where they are spending their loads of money they supposedly have. Apparently it's not being spent around here. And considering this:

Are Families Leaving San Francisco?
March 9, 2012
Is San Francisco becoming a child-free zone? According to the Chronicle, that may just be the case. The newspaper reported today that last year, a family with an annual income of $111,000 could afford less than a quarter of the homes for sale in the city.

Families leaving SF: It's housing costs, stupid
Bay Guardian
March 9, 2012
City officials continue to wring their hands over why families are leaving the city, and I'm sure there are a number of factors, but I can tell you that from the people I know -- families who live in the city or want to live in the city -- it's all about the cost of housing.

(Personally, I've observed that we seem to be awash with children in the Castro and Upper Market area. No shortage whatsoever.)

Posted by Guest on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 6:07 pm

You used hundreds of words to say just that. Sorry it's difficult for you. One of the great things about the United States is the ability to move when and where you want. You should consider that as a solution. BTW - Diesel is out of date - no one but people from Hayward wear Diesel anymore. Perhaps you need to get out more.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 6:47 pm

One thing we can rely on is that whatever pontification we are subjected to in conjuction with the constant barrage of obnoxious troll-holery, it will no doubt be in error.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 10:56 pm

Good riddance, David Weissman, we can only hope and pray you won't go back on your word about your leaving town for good!

Posted by Guest on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 6:35 pm