The Water Cooler – Should Private Land Owners Be Required To Allow Homeless Encampments If Their Land Is Empty Or Not In Use?

May 5, 2021 12:00 pm · 111 comments

The “Water Cooler” is a feature on Claycord.com where we ask you a question or provide a topic, and you talk about it.

The “Water Cooler” will be up Monday-Friday at noon.

Today’s question:

Concord City Councilman Edi Birsan asked this question in his most recent Pulse of Concord survey.

What’s your opinion on it?

QUESTION: Should private land owners be required to allow homeless encampments if their land is empty or not in use?

Talk about it.

Lazy One May 5, 2021 at 12:01 PM

NO!

Dr. Jellyfinger May 6, 2021 at 8:48 AM

” From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs ”

Karl Marx

Cath M May 5, 2021 at 12:06 PM

What a stupid question. What’s next? If you have an unused bedroom you have to take a tweaker into your home??? Ridiculous!!! Wake up America!!

badge1104 May 5, 2021 at 1:01 PM

Exactly, Cath M!
We’ve actually been worried about that… where the government would require people with extra bedrooms taken in homeless or migrants as our duty and sign of denial of our suposid white privilege.
If our government keeps moving towards the socialist direction I can see this coming.

Bluebird May 5, 2021 at 7:54 PM

Boarding people in your homes per the government: didn’t the British make the first settlers take in British soldiers and feed them? They also said the settlers couldn’t keep guns even to hunt for their food. Which led to a rebellion and the Revolutionary War.

So the government could take my land and use it as they want, but I would still be responsible to maintain and pay taxes on it. Which would lead to rebellions and civil war.

Ricardoh May 5, 2021 at 12:06 PM

You have to be kidding.

Pete V. May 5, 2021 at 12:07 PM

Asked and Compensated? Yes.
Required? Hell no.

Randy May 5, 2021 at 3:48 PM

+1

Nope May 6, 2021 at 12:38 AM

+2, bleeding hearts please feel free but otherwise a big NOPE

Concord74 May 5, 2021 at 12:12 PM

It is not a stupid question. The source is from stupids!!

And HELL NO!! These liberals and Demos can take them in with the conditions that the owners can not obtain funding to provide for these tweakers, etc and no tax credits!!

hill May 5, 2021 at 12:14 PM

No, because they won’t clean and fix all the environmental damages done to land that the public pays for. Why should private owners have to put up with the damage. If anyone has every cleaned a camp you would know they find tons of batteries just thrown into the dirt along with lots of environmental damaging things. Are owners going to be responsible for clean up, are they going to be fined for having trash and hazards? We have place we can do this, the only resone we would take public land is because its more convenient for the homless and government. Is the government going to be responsible if they need to do a soil test to sell and fine its unusable and have to pay to fix it? All this will do is hurt private owners and push the citizens away from owning property. Would you buy land knowing the government can put homless camps on it?

Gebertx May 5, 2021 at 12:15 PM

Ridiculous, Property Owners have rights, unless you’re a Socialist State … Wait CA is going there

Will May 5, 2021 at 12:20 PM

For God’s sakes, no. This is not communist Russia. At least not yet.

Simonpure May 5, 2021 at 12:24 PM

No way…the city can pay me quadruple what I paid and build whatever they want.

remember May 5, 2021 at 12:28 PM

as others have said HELL NO!

is this russia or china already?

Bob May 5, 2021 at 3:57 PM

Effectively, yes

Sandy G May 5, 2021 at 12:37 PM

Absolutely not!!!

Pookie May 5, 2021 at 12:38 PM

private land, period.

Anon May 5, 2021 at 12:41 PM

WHAT ABOUT THE NEIGHBORS???
Really sick of moving into a place and then the bait & switch happens.
No and NO.

Aunt Barbara May 5, 2021 at 12:43 PM

Gavin needs to house them in his mansion with a wall first

Chris May 5, 2021 at 12:45 PM

Yes and No.

Yes, if the land belongs to wealthy politicians such as Feinstein, Pelosi, and Newsom. Also included in this category would be the TECH oligarchs like Gates, Zuckerberg, and Bezos.
No, for most of the private individuals and non liberals because they know what kind of mess and chaos would ensue. Just look what the city of L.A. did. They are erecting these tiny houses for homeless. A journalist did a story about them showing these brand new units fenced in with trash already spread around the enclosure despite garbage bins in numerous locations.

Captain Bebops May 5, 2021 at 12:49 PM

Sounds like an Agenda 2030 thing. Coming soon to a town near you: Agenda 2030…. actually it is already here.

Anon May 5, 2021 at 2:28 PM

Yep, and most Mayors have Sold out.
Look for buzzwords such as: sustainable cities, smart cities etc.

Roz May 5, 2021 at 12:51 PM

NO!,…Empty or not, we pay the taxes on the land and use it as we please.
It hard enough, with the cleaning up from our neighbor(s) cats, using the garden & yard as their litter box.

Simonpure May 5, 2021 at 1:37 PM

You need a motion sensor that will turn on a sprinkler Roz

Bobfished May 5, 2021 at 12:55 PM

Hell no!
I would like to know where Edi Birsan lives. We can start with his home, move in some homeless, maybe some of the 76,000 inmates that are getting out can stay there. It’s always easier to give away others property!

ChampagneKitty May 5, 2021 at 2:17 PM

Edi has asked all sorts of questions of many different topics for years with his Pulse of Concord survey. He also sometimes asks members of the community for ideas on what questions to include in his ongoing survey. Why are you assuming that he is personally in favor of this idea?

Janus May 5, 2021 at 1:08 PM

No we are not a socialist society yet and private property owners still enjoy some measure of property rights in the United States.

Birsan’s toe in the water suggestion would be a gross overreach by government. The government may not seize private property for public use without just compensation to the landowner.

I don’t believe the 3rd Amendment has ever been adjudicated in Federal Court; however, the Amendment suggests that a landowner has a right of domestic privacy. That people are protected from governmental intrusion into their property be it for quartering of soldiers or homeless without the voluntary consent of the landowner.

In addition, the landowner still retains property rights as enumerated in the 5th and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution.

In addition the California Constitution also provides private property rights:

Article I – Section 1.

“All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”

Article I Section 19- “Private property may be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner….”

If Concord City Councilman Edi Birsan wants to seize private property for public use – then provide just compensation to the property owner(s) or ask for their VOLUNTARY permission to use their private property AND hold them harmless for the public use of their private property AND return the private property to the condition prior to its public use.

The Masked (and gloved) Poster May 5, 2021 at 1:12 PM

There could be a Constitutional issue with this.
The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows: “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Sam May 6, 2021 at 5:54 PM

Oh now you care about the constitution. Convenient. What about the rest of the constitution?

Snakekeeper May 5, 2021 at 1:13 PM

This is an example of the left being just as stupid as the right

Plinko May 5, 2021 at 1:15 PM

Lol!
I can’t believe concord folks are dumb enough to elect this fool. The election must have been rigged.

Pyrrhus May 5, 2021 at 1:16 PM

No, it should not be a private individuals responsibility to house the homeless. We pay taxes and it is the government’s job to supply the housing and more importantly the help to get people off drugs, psychiatric help, training, etc to make these people either productive members of society or to keep them from being a danger to others or themselves.

Antler May 6, 2021 at 5:19 AM

I completely agree.

karin May 5, 2021 at 1:19 PM

Why in the world should someone who paid for thier property and pays taxes each year be required to let others use and possibly abuse it with no chance of compensation? That sounds crazy to me. The state has tons of private property not being used, they do not
pay real estate tax on it, do not individually suffer if property abused- why dont they provide the land?

Bella May 5, 2021 at 1:23 PM

No. In fact, when visiting my mother and talking about the homes and land, I had briefly mentioned a concern of access, with Kattera building right behind our properties.

The Wizard May 5, 2021 at 1:31 PM

Did DeSaulnier ask you to ask this question. Hell No !

Edi Birsan May 5, 2021 at 1:35 PM

@ Bobfished: my address is 950 Alla Ave. EdiBirsan@gmail.com If you want to sit down and talk about something I will meet you at Peet’s at Oak Grove and Treat. Coffee is my treat. You can remain anonymous if you want.

I asked this question at the latest Pulse Of Concord survey:
Should private land owners be required to allow homeless encampments if their land is empty or not in use?

There were 611 responses:
Yes- 7%
No- 76%
Not sure 10%
Other responses: 7%

While the individual voters are unknown I do not mind sharing that I am in the 76% and you obviously do not know me.

Chicken Little May 5, 2021 at 3:09 PM

I’m amazed that ANYBODY thought it would be a good idea, much less 7% of the respondents. I guess they really do walk among us.

Janus May 5, 2021 at 4:08 PM

I’m confused on the purpose of a government official proposing a solution. Then asking their constitutions opinion about that proposed solution, knowing it is blatantly unconstitutional on its face.

Makes me wonder what your response would have been if survey was 76% yes instead of 7%?

Legal Eagle May 5, 2021 at 4:24 PM

Councilman,

While this makes for an interesting discussion for a constitutional law class, it’s not practical whatsoever. If you’re asking that private property owners turn over their real property interests for a public use, the city will be faced with a Kelo decision and have to pay compensation for a taking under the 5th Amendment. If you’re arguing that those actions are not a public use, then the city would most likely violate due process under the 14th Amendment. Feel free to consult the city attorney on this as well.

In light of the current housing climate, the council should be focusing on expanding opportunities for homeowners to construct ADUs and developing a master plan for expanding affordable housing options in the naval weapons station area.

ChuckStir May 5, 2021 at 5:20 PM

The 7% that said yes dont own land.

Cyn May 5, 2021 at 7:18 PM

@Edi Birsan
Curious as to why you even asked that question. Would you please clarify?

Anonymous May 6, 2021 at 1:50 PM

That someone in government would even ask that question is extremely troubling.

Sherman May 6, 2021 at 2:34 PM

Posing the question…in the way that it was worded…provides another statistic: 100% of the people believe you are either A) championing this nonsense B) pandering to a marxist/socialist fringe C) incredibly ignorant of personal property rights D) based upon your own objection, …displaying signs of dementia.

Same May 5, 2021 at 1:38 PM

I got dibs on Birsan’s bathroom and car when he isn’t using it!

TrailerTalk May 5, 2021 at 1:38 PM

NO, that is socialism. Government stealing for their own agenda? This isn’t Venezuela, yet

Dorothy May 5, 2021 at 1:47 PM

If they want to take over private land, in use or not, they should buy it first. There are laws that allow that. Then they could do whatever with it. But no level of government should “require” private land be used as they dictate. The owner of private land is paying taxes (aka their salary’s) on the private land.

Gititogether May 5, 2021 at 1:48 PM

“WHAT…an Idiot!” (royalty pmt on the way Hermione Granger)

Comrade birsan clearly ignorant that America & Americans have a Bill of Rights as well as States rights which defend against trespassing on personal property….Idiot (worth a redux)

inmotion May 5, 2021 at 1:49 PM

No free grazers!
but if there’s money involved, l’ll listen.

2Tibetans May 5, 2021 at 1:57 PM

Democrat here. Answer: absolutely NOT.

Snakekeeper May 5, 2021 at 2:02 PM

proof the left is just as out of touch as the right

hanne jeppesen May 5, 2021 at 9:43 PM

I don’t see this as a left or right issue. I’m liberal, although not on all issues, and not as liberal as some want to make me out to be.

I think if someone bought a house or land or both, they should have the right to decide who lives on their property. I don’t see it working in towns around here, lots too small, even if someone wanted to, it would still be a problem, neighbors would object if there were loud noises, and as someone else brought up what about garbage etc. What accommodation’s would the homeless person have, a tent? out in the country if someone had a lot of land might work, but under no circumstances should it be “required”, by state, county or federal authorities.

Dawg May 5, 2021 at 2:03 PM

Not in the land of the free. Why would such a ridiculous question even pop into Mr. Birsan’s head?

Cyn May 5, 2021 at 7:16 PM

@Dawg
Was wondering the same thing, so I think I’ll ask him.

Well Folks May 6, 2021 at 3:44 PM

Dawg & Cyn

Edi has been endlessly harassed by 2 local homeless “advocates” (neither has a degree in social work or psychology so they intervene with no training or real intervention skills) about “forcing” property owners of large lots to have homeless camp out in said lots.
One way to show the so called advocates how ridiculous they are getting is to pose the question to the public & publish the responses. Pretty much falls under Critical Thinking 101
Side note – these “advicates” also will slam average citizens, the city & county about doing more, but again they have no training in the psychology of the issue or financial issues of dealing with the problem of homelessness.

Anonymous May 5, 2021 at 2:07 PM

NO!!!!!

Property rights have been almost sacrosanct our entire history, eminent domain notwithstanding.

The state would tell us what to do with our land and charge us property taxes on that same land?

I don’t think so. If they want to lease a parcel at the going rate, I’m fine with that. But it should be entirely up to the owner.

We are not yet a totalitarian Communist nation, but we are quickly getting there thanks to Xiden and the Democrats.

RANDOM TASK May 5, 2021 at 2:12 PM

wait what

is this a serious question ???

try that in kentucky see what it gets you

Anonymous May 5, 2021 at 4:44 PM

I suspect a lesson in Kentucky windage.

Stealthy Mama May 5, 2021 at 2:13 PM

Nope! I bought that land and it is mine. While it is still my land, I prefer to keep it well maintained and free from being a pile of garbage. The homeless tend not to clean up after themselves.

DD May 5, 2021 at 2:36 PM

Sure! Let’s start with this City Councilman’s backyard as a test. Just when you thought this state could not get any more insane……

RANDOM TASK May 5, 2021 at 2:41 PM

absolutely

errr watch out for the land mines and trip wires and claymores

oh and drone strikes and hot oil drop and punji sticks

razor wire pitts

but by all mean let the government take my land for their created problem

notice how they dont ask to put illegals on your land because they house them in affordable low income housing that we pay for with our taxes…
why do you think politicians are always crying for more low income housing

its not for american citizens to use

while the rich white dem politicians put american citizens to the streets

how stupid can you be to ask this question mr beerstand

not sure if you were a loser and a backstabber to americans before

but for damm sure know now …….

or was that a punch line
as to why dem politicians think they can smack americans like hogs

cant wait for a sjw marxist komi dem voter to support this
with equity and lazy theories of us being racist and bullies and supporting trumpology

again try that crap in kentucky

Wesley Mouch May 5, 2021 at 2:45 PM

The homeless are being used by the left as a de facto “army” to force unwanted changes on our homes and communities.

Our wonderful Founding Fathers very wisely penned the Third Amendment to protect American citizens:

“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

Our private property rights trump those of the leftist’s desire to force their edicts on American citizens.

The left will eventually attempt to use the homeless like FDR used the “Bonus Army” in 1932 to create new bureaucracies.

Be Ready.

Natalie May 5, 2021 at 3:49 PM

The Bonus Army were WWI veterans who wanted to cash their government certificates early, because they were financially suffering due to the great depression . FDR didn’t use the Bonus Army. They protested against FDR, and FDR didn’t agree to their demands. Instead he promised them jobs through the Conservation Corps.

The Bonus Army protests also raised awareness of veterans issues, so years later in 1944 the government passed the GI Bill.

nytemuvr May 5, 2021 at 5:36 PM

@Natalie….And the omniscient Natalie paraphrases Wikipedia again!….what would we do without her?

Natalie May 5, 2021 at 8:45 PM

@nytemuvr: There’s more ways to learn something than Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article on the Bonus Army isn’t wrong anyway, so even if that had been my primary source, it wouldn’t have been an inaccurate source. Knowing how to look up information isn’t omniscience.

To Do List May 5, 2021 at 9:55 PM

I think Mr. Mouch’s point is being lost over an unimportant Wikipedia article. The homeless seem to be a powerful and emotional symbol for resource misallocation with the groups near Civic Center and Market providing a contrast to the Salesforce tower in the distance. And it is a threat. It is not a place you feel safe and the remaining retail places commonly have guards at the door. One purpose of the growing number of homeless may be to increase political pressure for resource redistribution. Has the number really increased just due to government incompetence, or by design.

Cat'sMeow May 5, 2021 at 2:49 PM

Finally. The MacMansions, and accompanying environs, will be put to good use. Waving. 👋🏻👋🏻👋🏻

The Mamba May 5, 2021 at 2:57 PM

I’m going to give that not only a no,. but a resounding F no.

Natalie May 5, 2021 at 3:26 PM

The city can’t force a land owner into a contract to host a homeless camp, RV camp or a tiny house camp. The question is pointless.

The city can use eminent domain to take property with fair financial compensation. The city can also fine people who own properties that are being unused.

Randy May 5, 2021 at 3:51 PM

…. no way…. but given how things are going with the current leadership in place in Cali I’m scared it could become a reality

Silva May 5, 2021 at 4:27 PM

Sounds like it’s a resounding no.

ConcordMike May 5, 2021 at 4:27 PM

Not with the cities, counties and state having multitudes of vacant land and buildings. Land ownership and home ownership is what this country is best known for. That’s why many people come to this country, the dream of owning your own home and a piece of the American Dream.

Bruce May 5, 2021 at 5:11 PM

HELL NO

Pony May 5, 2021 at 5:19 PM

NO. This is even dumber than the Tiny Homes idea.

Ancient Mariner May 5, 2021 at 5:30 PM

I foresee a day when every front yard will have at least a couple of homeless tents in it.

Original G May 5, 2021 at 5:37 PM

Let pelosi and newsom show us by their magnanimous example.

nytemuvr May 5, 2021 at 5:40 PM
Silva May 5, 2021 at 7:47 PM

🙂

Bob May 5, 2021 at 5:51 PM

I think in order to qualify for political position there should be a common sense test. Obviously at this point such a test is not available. Check out Petaluma’s Bathtub Art.. If I remember, the Spirit Poles were also a fantastic Public Art exhibit.

Rolling Wheels May 5, 2021 at 6:19 PM

No,No, and Hell No

Justifiable languor May 5, 2021 at 6:48 PM

Only wealthy democrats and democratic politicians should be required to share quarters with the homeless. Bonus. They should be able to offer a last dose to drug addicts.

Burnbabyburn May 5, 2021 at 6:52 PM

It’s like asking, if a person has money that they earned in a savings account, and they are not using it, should some lazy, worthless p.o.s. be allowed to use it? The answer is simple. Hell no!!!

Tsa May 5, 2021 at 9:21 PM

NEVER!!!

George May 5, 2021 at 9:25 PM

Absolutely NO! Why is this question even asked?

Willis May 5, 2021 at 9:59 PM

I’m sure this is something that has been discussed by the government, who loves dumping their responsibilities on the citizens. For example, they take part of your property by force to install a sidewalk, then make the property owner responsible for the repair and maintenance of the sidewalk.

Edi Birsan May 5, 2021 at 11:45 PM

The origin of the question, like many in the survey over the years, are from people themselves. I try to make them neutral. This was actually a topic that came up when homeless encampments were moved out of empty lots downtown and elsewhere.

If you wish to get involved in the topics and questions on the Pulse of Concord surveys, write to me…one thing though: please use your real name and we can meet and talk about things: EdiBirsan@gmail.com

Ilovepopcorn May 6, 2021 at 12:14 AM

It’s almost like the same scenario as those women in Oakland (the single women with kids) decided that it’s their right to live in a vacant home and these women were homeless! No it is not. I disagree with this entitlement that the homeless people have. It is crazy.

MovingOutOfCA May 6, 2021 at 12:24 AM

Absolutely NOT! Ridiculous!

DaveT May 6, 2021 at 12:28 AM

No. Where does this question even come from? Seems purposely inflammatory.

jose May 6, 2021 at 4:59 AM

As usual, the democrat liberals are putting the cart before the horse. They want to get rid of any new gasoline powered new vehicles in a few yrs and don’t have enough electricity to power up battery powered ones.
I think the LA area already makes it possible to add a ‘mother in law’ home aka ‘shed house’ in an empty corner of your yard.
Now they want us to allow ‘homeless’ future democrat voters aka illegal immigrants the same. Where did you think they were going to put all the people rushing into our country?

Antler May 6, 2021 at 5:30 AM

Pease read Councilman Birsan’s reply to the first accusation (and continuing ones) leveled against him.

I always take Edi’s “Pulse of Concord” surveys. He invites people to submit their own suggestions for the next survey. He asks MANY questions and gives a whole list of possible answers from which people can choose. You may also add a comment re explaining or expanding your answer to any question.

The wordings of the questions themselves DO NOT express his personal opinion one way or the other.

chuckie the troll May 6, 2021 at 7:37 AM

This is one of those questions guaranteed to trigger people. Why? because it is something the far-Left would institute in a minute, if they could get away with it. BTW- can you imagine the cleanup costs after they leave?

I’d like to suggest that we begin a ‘pilot project’ for this concept. Let people camp out at properties owned by Nancy Pelosi, Gavin bin Lyin’, Zuckerberg, etc…Let the Big Libs experience real life.

bdml May 6, 2021 at 8:23 AM

How is this even a question…HELL NO

What if May 6, 2021 at 8:50 AM

What if abandoned schools were turn into areas for the homeless. Lots of space, government owned so government liability, fields to put up tents for those who don’t want to live inside. Charity could use cafeteria to serve food.

Dawg May 6, 2021 at 4:22 PM

There’s no such thing as government owned, government liability. It’s tax payer owned, tax payer liability.

sam Malone May 6, 2021 at 8:56 AM

Hell no! Let’s start with Joe Bin Lyin, Heels Up Harris, Newsolini, Pelosi, Diane F., OAC, Breed, Libby, Becton, Birsan and the rest of their liberal entitlement leftists friends and have them open up their property and holdings to the homeless.

This is so wrong. I pay taxes and more than my share and now this crap keeps escalating. People are darn tired of these ridiculous change in how we have to cow tow to some fools idea that no one has to work and what is mine now is all yours. I am no one’s slave. If you have two hands and feet, work like the rest of us to get somewhere in life despite any and all obstacles we had to overcome.

You try to take what is mine you are in for a serious battle and I am sure many others would say the same thing but we are silenced by the leftist media and told we are the wrong color to have a right to say anything.

Wake up you fools who voted these idiots in at all levels of government. They tell you one thing and then do a compete 360. Are you happy now???

Recall Newsom to start with.

Caskydiver May 6, 2021 at 9:10 AM

No! Private is just that…private. The govt has no right to tell anyone what they should do with their personal property.

Ilovepopcorn May 6, 2021 at 6:42 PM

Yes you are correct!

Reekorizzo May 6, 2021 at 9:25 AM

Hmmm….they say there’s no such thing as a stupid question…….weird

Rollo Tomasi May 6, 2021 at 12:04 PM

At the end of a lecture, some of my college professors proclaimed that there’s no such thing as a stupid question. This proves them wrong, regardless of who is asking the question.

Anew May 6, 2021 at 1:42 PM

Biden’s open borders policies means California is being flooded with new Democrat voters. They have to live somewhere.

Otis Campbell May 6, 2021 at 2:01 PM

I don’t want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member – Grouch Marx

theunforgiven May 6, 2021 at 3:53 PM

OK… Let them all camp around Seno’s multimillion dollar home up on that hill by Clayton. See how he likes it first.

Sam May 6, 2021 at 6:04 PM

What? Is he supporting this? Or do you just hate people who have more than you?

Rollo Tomasi May 6, 2021 at 8:07 PM

Did Seeno come out in favor of such a proposal? If not, why would you bring that up?

Gary Benton May 6, 2021 at 6:04 PM

no

Kentucky Derby May 6, 2021 at 10:31 PM

Rollo missed his calling as an editor. He’s been editing people for years. If I had any weight to lose…

J May 7, 2021 at 9:28 AM

Edi Birsan should know that the Fifth Amendment prohibits government from taking private property without just compensation. Crazy concept.

The Professor May 7, 2021 at 12:19 PM

The short answer is HELL NO!!!

I’m kinda curious where Jojo stands on this issue. He hasn’t piped up yet about this. Also curious where Natalie stand. I only saw her retorts to other posts, not whether or not she thinks this a good idea.

I can’t fault Edi for asking the question. Sometimes you gotta ask a really stupid question to gauge the direction of the wind. I can only hope that a 76% negative reaction will squelch the political weenies’ potential overreach.

Finally, why not use the Navel Weapons Station for the homeless? Because the developers are licking their chops at a huge payday, as well as the City of Concord who see huge potential tax revenues. Money talks.

Kevin Cothran May 9, 2021 at 3:48 PM

the answer to that question is no!!! No every time it is asked. but if an owner works it to gain personally then thats their right.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: