Eye On Modesto

Thoughts and observations about Modesto and Stanislaus County

Archive for the category “Uncategorized”

Denny Jackman to Present Residential Urban Limit to Planning Commission

Tonight at 6:00 PM in the basement of 1010 10th St. Denny will be trying to get the Planning Commission to approve his RUL Measure for the Economic Development Committee in hopes of bringing it to the City Council in time to place it on the ballot in November.

 

The Chamber of Commerce has its own Pathway to Growth plan for Modesto.

 

The overreach on the Chambers plan is best appreciated when you place the two maps close together. Denny’s plan saves prime farmland and the Chamber’s uses it for planting driveways.

The thing to remember is every acre of prime farmland under production brings in $25,000 to Stanislaus County’s economy.  Homes cost us $3-5,000 per acre above and beyond the taxes they bring in.

 

 

A Letter to the StanCoG Policy Board

 

StanCOG Policy Board

Official seal of County of Stanislaus

Official seal of County of Stanislaus (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

1111 “I” Street, Suite 308

Modesto, CA

 

RE:  Public Comments on RHNA Low Income Housing Mandate, its process, formulas, and Sustainable City Plan under SB 375

 

 

Dear Policy Board Members,

 

It is very clear that StanCOG is the responsible agency for the ultimate design of this region’s “sustainable cities” as mandated by SB 375 – a vision that is NOT embraced by all California residents, usurps local government control over land use, violates residents’ private property rights under the CA Constitution, and is adding to our national debt.

 

Reducing greenhouse gases is a noble effort – but not an effort that should force what type of housing California residents chose to live in or how they believe is the best mode of transportation for them.  Not everyone will ride a bus, carpool, take BART or CalTrain to work or for personal pleasure.  Not everyone wants to live in “stack and pack” or “compact” housing.  If given choice, most people and families prefer to live in single family residences with space and privacy.  Not everyone is 20-30 years old with using up every minute of their personal time with socialization and going out.

 

SB 375 and HCD’ related housing element in which to force residents into close living quarters of “compact” housing as the “housing of the future” –  violates the very freedom of  “Choice” that are at the foundations and personal liberties of Californians and others in the United States, under constitutional protection.

 

The amount of 25,608 low income high density “compact” housing units being mandated by HCD and forced upon our County will cause several social and economic problems for Modesto and Stanislaus County.  To date, StanCOG is in violation of not properly informing the public that the “Valley Vision Plan” for our sustainable cities is based upon building this large amount of low income housing!  I have attended two organizational seminars put on by Valley Vision to the Farm Bureau and the City Council, and there was NO mention that this compact housing was filling the RHNA low income housing mandate.  StanCOG is guilty of misrepresentation of such housing to the public.  Therefore, all of the public presentations have mislead the public since there was never adequate explanation of the RHNA mandate as part of the sustainable city plan.

Accepting such high number of low income housing will only bring social problems to the City of Modesto and Stanislaus County as other counties will “transfer” their Section 8 recipients to Modesto – a more affordable area for subsidized funding and the transferor county will enjoy higher real estate taxed property (after they get rid of their excess low income residents.)  Being an “affordable” area attracts undesirable persons to our communities (bringing in more crime, social dependency which strains our hospitals, schools, housing, water, and utilities).  A city with a high degree of low income housing opportunities is not a city in which successful businesses want to relocate – no matter how much new commercial building is available.  Developers will always paint the rosiest and attractive picture of their grandeous projects.

 

Modesto and Stanislaus County struggles with a 22% increase in violent crime, a police force extremely inadequate to its population, hot temperatures which will require more water and electricity, a documented gang population of 5,000 members (the Bee had a full 3 page article on this matter), a higher proportion of convicted felons being transferred or released into our county – with an additional 1,000 expected by year’s end, and an unemployment rate of 20%.  Now tell me why do you think any mid size employer would want to bring their company and their best intellectual capital here?  Would these 30 year old’s ever want to leave the Bay Area?  The answer is clearly “NO.”

 

This self-appointed governing council does not have to take our cities and county down a road of subsidization – just to bring “dollars” into its coffers.  This is the easy way and not real city planning and strategy for everyone.

Many city councils and government departments are questioning HCD’s low income housing formulas because they do not want an oversupply of low income housing in their cities which will hurt economic opportunities, resident’s real estate values, and the social fabrics of their societies.  Several Bay Area cities are getting together to challenge HCD.

I encourage you to join this effort.  Be pro-active and talk with other councils.

 

Low income housing – now matter how modernized it appears to be, is nothing more than low income housing.  Housing does NOT bring economic growth to a city – it just brings more housing.  What is needed is REAL economic opportunities – and the right way to build  “sustainable cities” that offer “choice” for everyone – not just one income segment of society.   The foundation for economic prosperity is not a federal low income handout. It’s called “JOB CREATION”  – and I don’t mean temporary (construction) jobs.

 

 

 

Donna M. Minighini

Modesto resident

 

Encl:  2/22/13 Palo Alto online article about city council and others, rejecting HCDs numbers:

http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?story_id=28701

 

A  Public Records Request

April 4, 2013 via US mail/with return
receipt
Housing Community Development
Attn: Ms. Angela Freitas, Housing Director
1010 10th Street
Modesto, CA
Housing Authority of the County of Stanislaus
1701 Robertson Road,
Modesto, CA 95352
RE: Requesting disclosure of all addresses of privately owned or county owned
existing and future “affordable” or “low income housing”, “section 8” housing, and
“special needs” housing, and those involving “Neighborhood Stabilization Program”
(NSP or NSP2), or other grant funds, in Stanislaus County.
Dear Ms. Freitas, (HCD), and Housing Authority of the County of Stanislaus,
Under the “California Public Records Act”, Section 6250, et al, the federal “Freedom of Information Act”, and government transparency compliance, I would like to have access to records, as well as obtaining your assistance in receiving the following information:
1. EXISTING HOUSING:
a. To date, provide information as to what is the total number of housing units (townhomes, condominiums, apartments, or single family homes, (or other residential buildings) located in Stanislaus County, currently being “rented to” and/or servicing low income, affordable housing, and housing for “special needs” persons (homeless, severe mentally ill, chronic abuse, veterans, persons with HIV/AIDS, domestic violence, unaccompanied youth, emancipated foster and transition age youth, elderly, developmentally disabled, alcohol/drug additions)?
b. Provide information as to the street addresses of these existing units?
(These property units would be either owned by private owners or any city or
county agency.)
c. Provide information as to how much in NSP or NSP2 funds has been spent to date
on all existing, newly built and “rehabbed” affordable, low income, or special
needs housing?
TO: Housing Community Development/Angela Freitas, and Housing Authority of the County of Stanislaus/April 4, 2013/ Page 2 of 2
Provide information as to project name, number of units, and street address.
Provide information as to who were payments made to, and how much was paid
out for each project?
2. FUTURE PROJECTS OR UNITS (for low income, affordable housing, or special needs persons):
a. Provide information as to how many “units” will be built?
b. Provide information as to what type of construction will units or project be? (SFRs, townhomes, mixed use, apartments, or other building type.)
c. Provide information as to what is project/s name/s?
d. Provide information as to what is street location of project/s?
e. Provide information as to when is construction going to begin?
f. Provide information as to who is the developer/s and/or Non-profit agency involved in project/s?
g. If NSP or NSP2 funds, or other funding sources are involved, provide source
of funding for each project.
h. Provide information as to how much in NSP, NSP2, or other grant funds, will be allocated and spent on such future unit/s or project, and paid to whom?
Thank you for contacting me at 209-522-5390 or by email at pttrs457@aol.com to obtain the information in this request.
Donna Minighini
Modesto resident

 

“What’s on America’s Mind” with Emerson Drake

In a special one hour show we’re going to discuss the unprecedented land grab the Modesto Chamber of Commerce is

Français : Radio Contact 104.9 FM

Français : Radio Contact 104.9 FM (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

planning.  Some call it a license to steal others say it’s a gift to special interest groups. Do we need more money in politics? These and more so tune in at 6:30 PM Wednesday and find out the things you really  need to know.

104.9 FM Modesto our Flag Ship station

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/centralvalleyhornet/2013/05/16/whats-on-americas-mind-with-emerson-drake

MID’s Tom Van Groningen’s $110,000 Financial Conflict of Interest

By Emerson Drake

Modesto Irrigation District has been generous in giving away ratepayers money for many years.   Director Tom Van Groningen has voted to

Money

Money (Photo credit: 401(K) 2013)

give  the Stanislaus Economic Development and Workforce Alliance $110,000 dollars.  Starting suddenly  in 2008, they donated $20,000 a year for five consecutive years, and only cut back this year  (2013)  after the community and Director’s Larry Byrd, Nick Blom and Paul Warda fought back. We spoke to the Board several times prior to the last donation, pointing out the Alliance is a 501 C (6) which means they’re allowed to lobby and give their investors an IRS business deduction.  We also pointed out that the Alliance’s CEO Bill Bassett had blatantly lied to the Board to receive a larger donation.  I always wondered why Director Tom Van Groningen fought so hard to give away  MID’s money, well actually the ratepayer’s  money, that’s right, your money and mine,  to a private company who specializes in lobbying efforts.  Maybe  now we have the answer.

Here is the Public Records Request response which has the donations listed   Slegal13051013420 (1)

It appears Director Tom Van Groningen is not only on the Alliance’s Board of Directors, http://stanalliance.com/index-abt-brd.php his company, TVG Consulting which he’s the sole owner of, according to his linkedin page, is a member of and an investor in the Alliance.  http://www.linkedin.com/pub/tom-van-groningen/11/929/809  are investors  http://stanalliance.com/index-abt-invest.php

The problem as I see it is Alliance CEO  Bill Bassett has always said “the investors EXPECT a return on their investments” and the more investments the larger the return.  So if  Director Van Groningen donates MID’s Money he’s likely to see a larger return for HIMSELF and his company along with playing the big man to his buddies on the Alliance. Who knows, maybe that’s how he made the Board in the first place.

A conflict of interest…. It’s well know by now that Judy Sly protects, defends, and supports  MID Director Tom Van Groningen and MID’s secret lobbyist Mike Lynch, but why is she keeping this conflict of interest from the public?  Why did MID’s attorney Tim O’Laughlin allow the conflict to continue since 2008? Didn’t Tom file this investment (financial disclosure) in the Alliance with the state?

Are you as tired as we are of the Bee’s  Editorial Staff  hiding the facts from the public in order to protect their friends?  Could one of the reasons be because the Modesto Bee has donated $100,000 to the Alliance too?  Are you starting to understand why Judy Sly has kept her personal connection with MID’s secret lobbyists Mike Lynch, Mark Looker, Janice Keating, and Carol Whiteside  on the down low? Remember these four lobbyists received $125,500 from MID ratepayer funds while only invoicing them for $1,500 in 2012 all thanks to Director Tom Van Groningen.

The Chamber’s Pathways to Growth at the Monthly LCR Meeting

By Emerson Drake

I’ll expand on this discussion over the weekend but note the HUGE land grab around the Beckwith Dakota Triangle and the area next to Salida.  This acreage is without a doubt some of the best farmland in the world.  The area east of Modesto is PPP rated (piss poor pasture, this is actually the terminology used by farmers) so no problems there. Especially take note of the original size of the Beckwith Dakota triangle compared to their desired footprint.  A special thanks to Katherine Borges for the picture.

What’s on America’s Mind Wednesday at 6:30 PM

Topics include a conversation about the Modesto Chamber of Commerce “Pathways to Growth,” The Planning Commission,

Français : Radio Contact 104.9 FM

Français : Radio Contact 104.9 FM (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Mayor Marsh’s Town Hall meeting, the TIN CUP ordinance and what it means to you, The Board of Supervisors meeting, Modesto City Council stories, the Salida annexation, these and more so tune in at 6:30 PM Wednesday and find out the things you really  need to know.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/centralvalleyhornet/2013/05/09/whats-on-americas-mind-with-emerson-drake

Our Flag Ship Station 104.9 FM

The call-in number is (347)215-9414

 

Latino Community Roundtable Presents the Chambers “Pathways to Growth”

The Latino Community Roundtable is holding a meeting Thursday May 8, at MJC Campus West in the Mary Stuart Rogers

 

A montage I (Valente Q.C.) made with pictures ...

A montage I (Valente Q.C.) made with pictures that I took for the Infobox in the Modesto, California Article. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Building located at 2201 Blue Gum from 11:30-1:30.  It’s too late to purchase the catered lunch but seats will be provided to hear the Modesto Chamber of Commerce’s vision of the future called “Pathways to Growth” for Modesto and the surrounding communities.

 

Come and meet the Chamber’s lobbyists, Cecil Russell, Craig Lewis, and Steve Madison.

 

Remember the Chamber’s Motto: The best crops for farmland are driveways.

 

Formula for the TIN CUP Limits…Divide by Six and then Double It

By Emerson Drake

Recently, an Ordinance change passed several committee hearings and is being sent to the City Council  requesting a

English: Author: Carl Skaggs This image was ta...

English: Author: Carl Skaggs This image was taken by me on January 14, 2010 in Modesto, California I hereby relinquish all rights to this photo. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

new, lower  level of $1,000 campaign donation limit or  TIN CUP for Council races.  In 2005 when the Council decided to raise the limit from $1,000 to $3,000 the council races were city wide. On November 7th of 2007 the voters of Modesto approved breaking Modesto into six council districts.

Since the $3,000 limit was thought more than sufficient for races encompassing the entire city, dividing the 3,000 by 6 would make $500 a reasonable limit. But the thinking was to double the amount to $1,000  and no reasonable person should have a problem.  But we’re talking about politicians who are already in office.  The higher amount of $3,000 obviously benefits incumbents who, it could be argued,  have more influence to offer donors than first time candidates. What should be crystal clear to everyone?  The lower the campaign donation limits, the less influence special interest groups have on our politicians.

It’s about leveling the playing field

The suggested changes don’t stop anyone from donating whatever amounts they choose.  The only stipulation would be that the elected officials  would have to recuse themselves (not be involved in conversations or voting) on any item brought forward by someone who donated more than $1000.   This should be satisfactory to everyone.   We’ve discussed the amounts raised by candidates  and detailed how even large amounts ($37,000 by Cogdill) can be raised without exceeding the $1,000 mark from any donor.

The influence Modesto politicians have on county politics is tremendous.  Modesto’s population equals all of the other cities in Stanislaus County combined.  We are, unfortunately, the city whose council is most likely to ignore the wishes of the people, as was demonstrated by the Council regarding Denny Jackman’s RUL proposal.  Councilman Lopez declared the 65,974 votes received by measures A-E against extending the sewer trunk lines were because of what he termed “voter fatigue” instead of the obvious message sent by voters against SPRAWL.

I encourage anyone, regardless of where you live, to express yourselves in emails to the Mayor and Council and in letters to the editor. Letters@modbee.com, mayor@modestogov.com,  jgunderson@modestogov.com, dgeer@modestogov.com, dlopez@modestogov.com,  jmuratore@modestogov.com,  sburnside@modestogov.com and dcogdill@modestogov.cov

Everyone CAN make a difference, all you have to do is try.  The following is just a suggestion.  Speak from your heart.

Subject line: Level the Playing Field

Body:  I support the lower TIN CUP levels that were recommended by the Committee.

Letters to the editor require your name, address, and phone number.

Is the Proposed WOODGLEN Project Right for Modesto?

May 6, 2013

ghost subdivision

ghost subdivision (Photo credit: reallyboring)May 6, 2013

City of Modesto Planning Commission
(Sandra Lucas, Ted Brandvoid, Patricia Gillum, Chris Tyler, Steve Carter, Dennis Smith,
Marshall Riddle)
1010 10th Street, Modesto, CA
RE: STUDY SESSION for “Woodglen” development by Fitzpatrick Homes;
Requiring annexation of 72 acres of County Agricultural land to build
353 single family homes, 180 units of multi-family housing.
Dear City of Modesto Planning Commission Members,
As a public resident who lives in the unincorporated area of Modesto, nearby the
proposed site of the project (Bangs/Carver/Pelandale/Tully Road), this project would
involve the conversion (destruction of) agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes is
quite large, and would definitely cause several negative impacts for the surrounding area
and the city overall.
Before you approve any such development to proceed further, or give the developer
approval to present such an annexation to LAFCO for consideration, I would ask that
answers to the following concerns should be provided to the public:
1. The residential building of 533 homes in one project, to be built in 2013/2014 while the
recession is still, and is expected to continue in force for the next 5 years (for our area),
which Modesto is effected by still a high 20% unemployment rate, with no promise of
employer/s migration to our area, this excessive residential project is an example of
“urban sprawl” that is not sustainable in the next year or two years, and will further cause
economic damage to existing property owner’s equity and property values.
2. The 683 page “EIR Draft Document” does NOT provide support or mitigation actions
to justify to go forward with this project.
The entire report must be read in its entirety by anyone making decisions on this project.
Some concerns in regards to the content of this document include:
Several “Potentially Significant” negative impacts if this large residential
development were approved. Some, but not all, citations include:
Destruction of AG Land
“the proposed project site has historically been used for agricultural purposes and
is currently cultivated alfalfa and almonds.” (Almond crops are one of Stanislaus
County’s top crop categories and directly responsible to maintaining our
economy.)
TO: Stanislaus County Planning Commission, May 6, 2013 public letter, RE: STUDY
SESSION for “Woodglen” development by Fitzpatrick Homes, Page 2 of 5.
Rebuttal: The AG Element of the General Plan’s main goals are to protect
agricultural land – our #1 industry.
Air Quality and Transportation
“Implementation of the proposed project would result in pollutant emissions being
released into the atmosphere.”
“Implementation of the proposed Woodglen Specific Plan project will exacerbate
existing conditions at one intersection operating below the City’s minimum LOS
D with the addition of projected traffic and result in levels of service dropping
from LOS C to LOS E at one additional intersection.”
“Significant and unavoidable” transportation negative impacts will result from:
“Implementation of the proposed Woodglen Specific Plan project would result in
an incremental increase in delay that exceeds the daily thresholds at intersections
where LOS D is already exceeded.”
“Implementation of the proposed Woodglen Specific Plan project would result in
level of service dropping to an unacceptable level on one roadway segment and an
increase in volume-to-capacity ratio above the incremental threshold on two
roadway segments under near-term conditions.”
Rebuttal: This residential project is TOO BIG for the proposed area, and will
cause air pollution from 533 OR MORE resident automobiles owned by residents
trying to navigate out of the neighborhood. Modesto’s air quality is already at a
serious and extreme levels (caused by automobile emissions).
The project will also cause significant negative traffic slowdowns, hurting
existing residents who normally travel on the major streets of Standiford, Bangs,
Tully, Synder, Carver, and Prescott – to get home, to work, or for other needs.
This project does not meet greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction mandates under SB
375. Road widening or additional road lanes encouraging more cars does not
reduce GHG.
Who would actually pay for any road widening or additional lanes? I hope
taxpayer money would not be spent, nor would transportation improvement grant
funds be spent.
Any transportation costs should be paid by the developer!
TO: Stanislaus County Planning Commission, May 6, 2013 public letter, RE: STUDY SESSION for “Woodglen” development by Fitzpatrick Homes, Page 3 of 5.
The further destruction of farmland would most likely be involved just to accommodate the multiple road improvements required. What other farmland owners will be personally harmed by any eminent domain land takeovers?
Excessive Noise and Dust
The construction period which would last for several months to a year, two years, ??? would cause harm to nearby residents and such dust would travel and pollute the air to a larger surrounding diameter where more residents live, causing unknown and possible serious (lung) health effects.
Water Quality
Of serious concern is, “Implementation of the proposed Woodglen Specific Plan would increase the amount of impervious surface on the project site and the amount of urban runoff. In addition, construction activity could contribute to short-term discharges of waste and accelerated soil erosion and siltation. These things could degrade surface water quality.”
Rebuttal: The protection of surface water quality is an important human and agricultural need. Contaminated water will reach crops in which humans consume. Contaminated water is known to cause serious health issues, which include cancer (means eventual death).
“Implementation of the proposed project would expose people and structures to future ground shaking. The presence of sandy soils and groundwater creates the potential for unstable soil conditions and liquefaction. Furthermore, construction on the project site could contribute to soil erosion.”
Rebuttal: No development, or one that may serve a city’s future plans, should ever jeopardize the personal or property safety, or economic protection of surrounding property of existing owners and residents. Ground shaking and liquefaction of the ground is a serious situation and can cause economic and personal harm to residents in an undetermined radius surrounding the site. This area’s sandy soil presents very sensitive construction issues. Unknown earth damage could extend well beyond the site and is not warranted to support this project’s size. (The entire community of nearby Del Rio could be affected as it is also built on sandy soil due to its location to the Stanislaus River). There are no “mitigation” measures that are justifiable or can prevent harm to residents.
“Implementation of the proposed project would increase demand for police services in association with new residential development.”
TO: Stanislaus County Planning Commission, May 6, 2013 public letter, RE: STUDY SESSION for “Woodglen” development by Fitzpatrick Homes, Page 4 of 5.
Rebuttal: The City of Modesto and Stanislaus County are severely underserved with providing Modesto’s 206,000+ residents with proper police protection at large. Only twelve (12) patrol officers to date are out on patrol at any given time in the entire city. (Quote from Police Chief Ballantine on March 4, 2013). Only six (6) county patrol officers to date are out providing police services in the unincorporated areas of Stanislaus County. (Quote from Mayor Marsh in a Modesto Bee article dated May 5, 2013).
Until there are significant increases in city and county police patrols offering police protection and services at large, this development cannot go forward, adding another 533 units (with 1000+ more persons) to protect. Previous, existing, and new general plan policies state that NO new developments will go forward until proper public services are available.
What is meant by “the project includes development of an “infrastructure financing plan” ? What is being developed, when, and by whom? How much money? How realistic is achieving this? Who pays what, who gets what?
3. How is this 533 residential home development consistent with the General Plan and Land Use and Zoning?
Is this large project accepted by StanCOG to meet it’s “future growth and development” of a “sustainable city” under SB 375?
4. Are any of these homes or multi-unit buildings going to satisfy RHNA affordable housing numbers under the 2009-2014 Revised Housing Element Update?
If so, how many units will be set aside?
5. Are any of these homes or units going to be purchased by HCD or other government agencies with NSP or Housing Block funds, offering either subsidized rental housing or property sales to low income persons? If so, how many homes and units?
6. With Modesto experiencing insufficient water resources to date for its residents and farmers, (a variety of problematic issues) – where will the water needs for this project’s residents come from? Which agency would provide water and from what sources?
Will this additional water need cause any rate increases or supply loss to existing residents of Modesto or Stanislaus County unincorporated residents?
Existing legislation does NOT allow any future growth until adequate public services (such as water) are available.
7. How will the City of Modesto Police Department or the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department provide sufficient police protection at large to an increased population of 533
TO: Stanislaus County Planning Commission, May 6, 2013 public letter, RE: STUDY SESSION for “Woodglen” development by Fitzpatrick Homes, Page 5 of 5.
homes (which reasonably amounts to at least 1000 total persons (2 per household or the project as a whole), when existing police protection is at very severe levels (12 officers on patrol for a population of 206,000 approximately, (city services) and 6 officers for the unincorporated town areas (population unknown)?
The City or County currently is NOT paying for reasonable levels of protection at large for Modesto or Stanislaus County!
Existing legislation does NOT allow any future growth until adequate public services (such as police protection) are available.
I urge you to NOT vote in approval of this huge residential project at this time, which has has NO realistic “sustainability” or “demand” in our area at this time, or in the near future. This excessive project will cause multiple issues of serious harm to existing land owners and existing residents. Mitigated proposals hurt residents and would cause cumulative negative impacts to the city’s residents. Proper public service levels do not exist to warrant the project to stain existing services to the public.
Sincerely,
D. Minighini
Modesto unincorporated resident
Encls:
City of Modesto “2012 crime statistics” presented to City Council Safety & Communities Committee/Council Workshop Meeting on March 4, 2013
http://www.modestogov.com/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=535&doctype=AGENDA
“Re-Alignment” Update web article, May 3, 2013, re: more releases into communities
http://news.yahoo.com/california-prison-crowding-plan-still-falls-short-213707352.html
The Woodglen EIR Report: http://www.modestogov.com/ced/pdf/planning/projects/woodglen/Woodglen%20SP%20DEIR_FINAL.pdf

 

What’s On America’s Mind Wednesday at 6:30 PM

Topics include are developers taking over the City Council, RUL and what it means to you, the Salida MAC meeting

Radio RED 104.9 FM

Radio RED 104.9 FM (Photo credit: Mahdi Ayat.)

Supervisor Monteith’s obstructionism Ad Mitigation, the General Plan Amendment process, these and more so tune in at 6:30 PM Wednesday and find out the things you really  need to know.

104.9 FM Modesto our Flag Ship station

 

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/centralvalleyhornet/2013/05/02/whats-on-americas-mind-with-emerson-drake

Post Navigation