voiceofsandiego.org: Opinion... New City Hall: Wrong Project, Wrong Priority
an independent nonprofit |
March to 1,000 Members: 991 so far. Contribute today.

New City Hall: Wrong Project, Wrong Priority

By Carl DeMaio



Monday, July 28, 2008 | What's wrong with this picture? The city of San Diego is still in its worse financial crisis in its history, faces billions in debt for pension and retiree healthcare obligations, is $900 million behind on maintenance of public infrastructure, and only 37 percent of our city's roads are rated in "acceptable" condition by national benchmarks.

So what are city leaders poised to do? Build a new City Hall!

Carl DeMaio

This week the city of San Diego released designs from two competing developers proposing the construction of a new civic complex -- complete with new offices for the mayor and City Council and 700,000 square feet of office space for city workers. A private developer would be given development rights to a portion of the civic complex in exchange for building (and then renting to the city) a new City Hall.

Project backers are making the bold claim that the entire project will actually end up saving the city money in the long run.

While I have long been a champion of public-private partnerships, I have serious reservations about proceeding forward with a new City Hall.

Not only do I question the financial assumptions being used to make the claim that the project "saves money," but I strongly believe our top priorities in infrastructure investment should be repairing streets and improving public safety facilities and equipment. In short, I fear that a new City Hall is the wrong project at the wrong time.

The project explicitly assumes long-term "cost avoidance" savings to justify the financial projections. Translation: the city is taking a "stop me before I spend" approach to projecting cost savings on this project.

Let me put this approach to financial forecasting in everyday terms:

Your spouse wants to buy a brand new house. To convince you it is actually financially advantageous, your spouse gives you a list of improvements to remodel your current house. Your spouse then projects an increase in the family and presumes a need for more storage space. Your spouse therefore adds a rental unit to the forecast.

At the same time, you are financially in over your head as it is -- your car is broken, your kids do not have money for college, and you face massive credit card debt. Do you make the leap, buy the house, and hope the financial savings materialize? Or do you question your spouses' assumptions, raise the need to fund other priorities first, and suggest alternatives?

Let's take a closer look at the financial assumptions being made by project backers.

First, the project assumes a staggering $125 million price tag to renovate the existing City Hall complex. Anyone who has visited City Hall will readily admit the building is in sad shape. No doubt some of these improvements need to be made to extend the life of the facility, but the list of repairs and improvements is loaded up like a Christmas tree. Certainly we do not have to make all of the proposed renovations, and as such the $125 million figure ought to be questioned before being blindly accepted in any project financial assessment.

The second element of purported financial savings comes in the form of "lease savings" projected over the next 50 years.

The city currently leases $13.5 million worth of office space in commercial buildings -- leases that expire in the next four years and may be subject to rent increases. The project presumes not only the base $13.5 million but hefty escalators to inflate the cost of not building a new City Hall.

However, there are several problems with that rationale. First, a recent study indicates that the city currently uses 30 percent more space downtown than it actually needs. The city currently rents 1 million square feet when it could get by on 700,000 square feet.

Second, the long-term financial forecast assumes a 0.6 percent increase in the size of the city workforce annually. At a time when the city faces a structural budget deficit, we need to be cutting the size of the city workforce, not expanding it.

The city recently committed to managed competition -- wherein we can reduce the size of the city workforce. An added benefit of managed competition is in many cases it shifts the financial responsibility for providing offices for staff to contractors who win the competitions for city functions.

Instead of debating the design of a new City Hall to house a large city workforce, let's get aggressive with cutting back the size of the city workforce today, and in four years, we may be ready to actually give up those leases that are slated to expire.

Finally, the city ought to consider harnessing the potential of all of its office space across the city and redeploying some staff outside of downtown. Take the criminal division of the city attorney's office for example. How about locating them in the new court complex being planned? Or how about co-locating our criminal division with the district attorney's criminal division to not only save office space, but encourage mentorship and coordination between the two law enforcement entities.

Like other cities across the nation, we need to embrace new thinking about how and where we deploy our city workforce. Let's get city workers closer to the citizen and into front-line service positions, rather in a big centralized building downtown.

Switching gears from the financial assumptions, I question the appropriateness of making a new City Hall a priority when we are so far behind on community infrastructure. The city ought to be looking at all of its assets to generate resources to fund street repairs and public safety infrastructure in our neighborhoods.

Not only is community infrastructure lost in this discussion, but the city bureaucracy's handling of this project -- and several other high profile projects -- demonstrates they lack a global view to asset management. We have one group working on a new downtown library. We have another group proposing expanding the convention center. Yet another group is starting to talk about the Sports Arena. And of course we have a whole team working on this new City Hall project.

Yet no one is talking to each other to see how to leverage these existing assets to not only achieve some of the individual project objectives, but free up resources to invest in community infrastructure. We need a global and strategic view -- and it is my hope that the questions I am raising on the new City Hall will get that kind of creative thinking going.

The city taxpayers have been burned in the past on rosy financial projections. Instead of taking its time to conduct adequate financial reviews, the city is slated to approve this project in the next 75 days -- yes, 75 days.

What's worse, the outgoing City Council scheduled to vote on the project in November -- the same City Council that has dropped the ball on so many financial issues during the past eight years. The questions surrounding this project require more time to review the financial assumptions as well as time to explore more creative alternatives. That job should be left to the incoming City Council.

While raising questions on the proposed new City Hall may upset some who want to see quick action on what they consider a magnificent revitalization project around the civic complex, I ran on a platform of being the taxpayers' watchdog and asking tough questions. That is exactly what I am going to do on this and other high-risk projects: ask tough questions, challenge assumptions, and hopefully produce a better and more financially responsible outcome for the taxpayers.

Carl DeMaio was elected to the San Diego City Council on June 3, 2008 and assumes office in December. You can e-mail him at carl@carldemaio.com. Or set the tone of the debate with a letter to the editor.




47 Comments so far on this story...

DeMaio nails this one 100%. The city is broke and can't afford this project.

Posted by Amen! | reply to this comment
July 27, 2008 10:10 pm

Quite frankly I believe that you all live in some sort of dream world. Hell, I would rather you buld a stadium for the Chargers. At least it would bring in some revenue instead of just being another drain of the tax payers money. You folks do not deserve a new city hall...you have not earned it. You all should probably just be fired. New elected officials who give a crap about us tax payers would be a refreshing change.

Posted by Jim | reply to this comment
July 27, 2008 10:14 pm

Carl lets add other facts to your commentary. The City is spending $35 million on its NEW computers system referred to as "OneSD". This wondrous megasystem will take over hundreds of function handled by people. I'd equate it to the automobile industry when robots took over mundane task with more efficiency and, more importantly, no salary or benefits. In other words the City “should” be downsizing its human resources pool. The Mayor says he’s working on “Managed Competition”. This “should” also reduce its HR pool. Notice I said “should”. While it’s true we will need “NEW” folks to manage OneSD and Managed Competition, ultimately the City should see a workforce reduction of 33% of its general employees, thus a substantial reduction in the space needed.

Posted by JustWondering | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 7:01 am

Has anyone inquired regarding the status of onesd?

Posted by Joe | reply to this comment
August 15, 2009 6:45 am

Who is this person? Where did he come from? What are his qualifications? Sure, could say the same thing about me, but you see, I am not going to be serving and representing all the people of San Diego on the City Council. Perhaps, we should publicly vet all our political candidates before they are placed into their political offices. A New City Hall? How are we going to pay for all this, borrow MORE money? Guess if it has works for George and Arnold, it can work for San Diego as well. Borrow and Spend, the ‘real American’ way.

Posted by Carl DeMaio? | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 7:03 am

Thank you. :) DeMaio is right.

Posted by Jeffrey | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 7:09 am

Carl- Thank you for your never ending energy to fix our city. There is one thing people can relate to and it is a public servants' tireless efforts to reform a place with a troubled past. We are on the right track to getting our city in the black, however ideas like this will sink our hopes. The issue you bring up is not just important, but dire to the survival of our great city. If we have no money then our city will suffer. If we have no people our city will suffer. And if you build a new city hall when your city is running in the red, your city will suffer. Keep fighting for us Carl. May you be our eyes and ears in the confines of City Hall. Great piece by the way.

Posted by Our Region Reader | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 7:11 am

Thank-you Carl for this keen observation that you make with empirical evidence and research; clearly you are not—at this point—simply rubber-stamping the Mayor’s plan for a new City Hall.

Posted by castanedacomm@cox.net | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 7:11 am

Carl is so right. However Jim, building a stadium for the Chargers is not quite the alternative I was looking for. The city is controlled by the developers and now that we need the sewers, streets, and water pipes attended to, our illustrious city government springs into action and decides a new city hall is going to fix it all. Carl, now It's up to you to spring into action and try to put a stop to this idiotic activity that has plagued this city for far to long. San Diego is on its knees from corruption that still reigns supreme. Greed has consumed its very core and the pension debacle still goes unchecked. Carl, its up to you, Donna and Mike to salvage what's left of what use to be "America's Finest City." A new city hall? indeed.

Posted by FedUp | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 7:12 am

Jim, " New elected officials who give a crap about us tax payers would be a refreshing change." I believe you are completely right. I think Carl DeMaio is showing the first step in that change. Thank you Carl! I hope more newly elected officals will take the same steps.

Posted by LoveSD | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 7:13 am

In my mind - I seem to have projected on to this poor man the guilt, responsibility, and sins - I feel all the past and present pro-business, pro-density, pro-redevelopment, and pro-deficit sending politicians are guilty of. He may yet show that he is not just another rubber stamp for removing equity out of our neighborhoods and supporting development/redevelo at all costs. How knows, we may yet see that he will not follow the same pro-business expansion that has already brought San Diego to its knees. I am sorry for projecting onto this poor man what I believe those who appear to have supported him may desire him to do - once he is on our city council. As he may yet decide to represent and safeguard those some 80% of people living in San Diego who can’t afford what is called an affordable home, it is not fair to support or not support him until well after his actions show the true mantel of his resolve.

Posted by Sorry | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 7:31 am

I have two HUGE pot hole right in front of my house that have been there for about a year. FIX MY STREET BEFORE YOU BUILD YOURSELF A NEW MULTI MILLION DOLLAR OFFICE!!!...please

Posted by Pot Holes | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 7:39 am

Finally.... a politician who's willing to call bullsh*t. If I was up to my neck in debt the last thing I would think about is buying a new home. Thats government for you!

Posted by IN DEBT UP TO MY NECK | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 7:43 am

Wow. This is really coming from someone elected to the Council? For real??? Its great to see such a change of pace from the usual mindset of "spend, spend, tax & spend" from our elected officials. I'm glad someone's jumping on this issue because Carl is right, we definitely do NOT need a new City Hall right this minute. Unfortunately this city is in financial dire straits and what should be done first is cutting the waste and shutting out the corruption. GO CARL! We'll all be watching!

Posted by ChangeIsGood | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 7:48 am

Be careful Carl you're starting to make sense. Unfortunetly I can't give you a pat on the back like the other bloggers until I see your vote. Your words will probably not be well accepted with Manchester and his developer buddies. You remember them don't you? the same guys that spent a great deal of money on Republican candidates like you. So I'll wait until I see your vote before I jump on your band wagon.

Posted by BenEfit | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 7:53 am

Downtown has a 14% vacancy ratio.The City can write their own ticket with the landlords.I would forecast rent decreases, not increases.The City's assumptions are way off. There is an advantage to renting,namely that the landlord pays property tax. Back to the drawing board.

Posted by mel | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 8:04 am

Fiscal responsibility, coupled with common sense and creative solutions. Thank you, Carl, for reminding me how a TRUE conservative is supposed to operate. Please keep it up.

Posted by How Refreshing | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 8:12 am

The Mayor has people to work the numbers so they always prove what he wants them to prove. So does the Council And so does Mr. DeMaio, who is not as perfect as he would like to think, and does have an agenda he doesn't always reveal, as do all politicians. The problem is to see through the statistical fog and find the truth. Yes, the City needs a new City Hall, but will it really bring about the revitalization that is promised by it for the downtown? Will it really have neutral impact on the General Fund. Why does all of that sound familiar? Oh, that was the same sales pitch for the new main library, and see how that project is just racing along with faked numbers, and elusive fund raising goals. Who do I trust? These days, no one, really.

Posted by Leanne1 | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 8:22 am

De Maio is 100 percent correct. City hall is a run down old building but now is not the time to incur new debt. I think we need to also consider virtual offices in the future. As technology continues to advance, the need to house thousands of white collar drones and their secretaries diminishes.

Posted by Dukestir Wilkes | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 8:31 am

Carl, you are right, as usual (and BenEfit? Well, as usual, he likes to beat his head against the wall. How's that working out for you, Ben?). This is the reason why you, CARL DEMAIO, should be the next council president. With April Boling and Phil Thalheimer at your side, maybe something will get done at city hall. At the very least, the crazy ideas that usually are foisted on the citizens without any forethought will be given a thorough airing in the public light and, with luck, stopped. Another project that falls right into the same category as the nonsense of a new city hall is FONZie's favorite, the San Diego "Central" Library and Homeless Day Care Center. Please see that this craziness is also stopped. Has no one currently in city hall ever heard of austerity?

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 9:17 am

VOSD has done the community a real service by publishing the commentaries on a new city hall and the UTC expansion in the same issue. Carl DeMaio and Deborah Knight both get beneath the surface PR blather on these development projects. It is always the same M.O.: presume the need for a development project, then jigger the numbers to support a deal that trades off development rights for some perceived, but unsubstantiated gain for the money-starved City. Up until now I have thought that most of the intellectual horsepower in this town was concentrated with the citizen activists like Knight who are derided as NIMBYs by no-nothings and ignored by most of the Council Members and the Mayor. Perhaps Mr. DeMaio along with the newly elected Council members will raise the level of Council debate from the current mouthing of buzzwords to serious analysis.

Posted by clp | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 9:57 am

VOSD has done the community a real service by publishing the commentaries on a new city hall and the UTC expansion in the same issue. Carl DeMaio and Deborah Knight both get beneath the surface PR blather on these development projects. It is always the same M.O.: presume the need for a development project, then jigger the numbers to support a deal that trades off development rights for some perceived, but unsubstantiated gain for the money-starved City. Up until now I have thought that most of the intellectual horsepower in this town was concentrated with the citizen activists like Knight who are derided as NIMBYs by no-nothings and ignored by most of the Council Members and the Mayor. Perhaps Mr. DeMaio along with the newly elected Council members will raise the level of Council debate from the current mouthing of buzzwords to serious analysis.

Posted by clp | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 9:57 am

Of course every elected official has an agenda. Every person has an agenda. There is no such thing as someone that is unbiased. On this one, it is clear that Carl's "agenda" is in line with the agenda of about 90% of taxpayers in our city. I don't care the reasons behind his agenda as long as the stuff he pushes on the council is 90% in line with normal folks like you and I. It looks like he'll be breath of fresh air on the council. They have been way too out of touch for too long.

Posted by Re: Leanne1 | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 9:57 am

We need to focus on expanding the Convention Center as a top priority or we will lose Comic-Con and others to Los Angeles and Las Vegas in the near future. Let's remodel the existing City Hall building and recycle it, renovate the Civic Theatre for our outstanding Opera and tear down Golden Hall and build a new City Hall building there. A complete razing of the entire site makes no sense in our current fiscal environment. The City should also focus on keeping the Chargers at the Qualcomm site as we have already invested over $500 million on the trolley to SDSU; a new development there could factor in faculty / student housing in its design element.

Posted by Edward Mracek | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 10:12 am

Hey Carl, you better start looking for cover. This honest, forthright, approach isn't going to sit very well with the borrow and spend Republicans that enrich themselves from public monies. Aren't you even going to give their shell game accounting a chance? Please keep up the good works. We have had enough of council reps. being turned within months of being elected to office.

Posted by Dale Peterson | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 10:30 am

My thoughts are identical to Carl's. Why are they EVEN THINKING about this boondoggle at THIS POINT IN TIME????? Carl, please AS YOUR #1 PRIORITY, dump the 3%@50 pension scam as soon as you can. It is a budget buster.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 10:42 am

Carl, I like you generally, and usually agree with you. But you are thinking small here. There is no doubt we need a new City Hall - no doubt whatsoever. A leader must find a way to build one. Get with the Mayor on this, and get it done.

Posted by Ronald Truman | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 11:50 am

Well put, Carl! Keep on fighting for us.. You're the right man at the right time!!!!

Posted by Benny | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 11:52 am

Thank you Carl for weighing in. Building a new City Hall now is not fiscally responsible.

Posted by La Playa Heritage | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 12:02 pm

Mr. DeMaio is not new to the City. He has been influencing City policy through his "think tank" for several years. You can fall in love with the new politician on the block, if you like. It's always easy to talk a good game before you actually are in the hot seat of making decisions. I will wait to see what he actually does when he has to back words with action, when his agenda is more clearly revealed instead of being some propaganda verbiage to gather popular support. People change when they are in office. We've seen them. I remember Toni Atkins talking a good game when she was trying to get elected....it lasted until she got swore in and then she forgot some of those fine promises she made. As for the Chargers, zero money should be given to millionaires...they have enough City resources already.

Posted by Leanne1 | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 12:10 pm

I like Carl DeMaio already. Right now, we need a fully staffed police department, not a brand new city hall. Let's get our priorities straight.

Posted by akj | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 12:43 pm

What's great is that Carl has plenty of money... he can't be bought by developers.

Posted by What's Great | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 1:06 pm

It is just words people, he has done nothing but talk so far. Wait until he votes a few times..., before you set him up as your next God.

Posted by Gregory | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 2:08 pm

Carl's article is excellent. To rush into this monument-building escapade is lunacy -- S.O.P. at city hall. Since 2001, our city's population growth has all but stopped. With managed competition, our need for city office space will be reduced. With the economic downturn, office rents are stable or dropping. Other alternatives for the city hall area need to be considered. For instance, how about SELLING off or leasing the money-losing Golden Hall property to those evil developers, and bringing in a slug of much needed cash for the city?

Posted by Richard Rider | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 3:24 pm

The cynic in me says the reason this Council waited eight years to approve the new City hall on their literally last days in office is because they know it is such a boondoggle. A City Hall has been talked about since at least the late-80s under Maureen O'Conner. Every few years it gets scant attention and tossed aside. Now Peters, Atkins, Maienschein, and Madaffer want to approve this on their way out the door. Has Mayor Sanders taken a position? Why isn't the City assessing dispersing office space to lower cost office markets. MWWD did this cost effectively. Carl is on-target. Glad to see he will be on the new Council. Now he needs April and Phil to bring reform and free Sanders to implement managed competition.

Posted by SWD | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 3:39 pm

Carl, Too bad you are not already on the council, as this repetitive lack of fiscal priorities and planning is beyond frustrating... We/they have mortgaged our kids future and stuff like this extends that to their kids. We have no real leadership anymore, just politicians trying to please everyone and then get re-elected - and thus ineffective local government for years. For some of you waiting to see what Carl does, versus says - you already have that, what he has already DONE in his watch-dog days before getting elected - and he will continue to do that! I've seen Carl's 10-point plan and it's right on, as we all "really" need someone to do the right thing, apply some critical thinking to the local government and I know he will deliver!

Posted by Mike Davis | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 7:22 pm

I'd have to agree with Carl. Perhaps the City of San Diego shouldn't have been foolish to leave the County Adminisration Center years ago. Waterfront property, with a public park on the way. To some, leaving that location years ago, was the start of their silly decisions.

Posted by Rebecca | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 7:44 pm

how about our old sewers? it will cost millions for repairs and hundreds of millions to replace them.

Posted by craig | reply to this comment
July 29, 2008 9:43 pm

Q: What do you have your campaign staff do if you win in the primary? A: Post, post & repost. We love you Carl. You are so dreamy!

Posted by Not Carl | reply to this comment
July 30, 2008 3:15 pm

Not Carl, nice to see that someone out there can see through all the saliva. I wonder if his staff is getting $5 per posting kickback? I can’t wait for all of you Carl lovers to start choking on their words when Carl shows his true colors; another shill for the status quo. Egor, you need to read my posting before commenting, I actually liked what Carl wrote but I don’t believe he will follow through. You’re easily deceived, probably part of your old age. Those of you like Egor who are blind followers of Carl should proceed with caution. Carl is indebted to too many Republican contributors (AKA Developers) who in the end will pull his strings and Carl will not follow through. This is called RHETORIC for those of you who have never heard it before.

Posted by BenEfit | reply to this comment
July 30, 2008 10:11 pm

to the post above, have you considered the concept that DeMaio has a lot of support? To listen to your sour grapes spin, you'd have us beieve that the 67% of the vote DeMaio got in his race (highest ever in history of SD elections in primary), that only DeMaio's staffers support him, right? Bull... Get over it unions. The winds of change are a blowin! Your rides on the taxpayer-funded gravy train are coming to an end.

Posted by cold dose of reality | reply to this comment
July 31, 2008 9:06 am

Carl, is hell bent on managed competition but has no idea, what that means. In this city, it means big contracts for the good ole boys club, shabby work, more contracts to fix the 1st ones that wont work, then years later realizing that we need "quality workers" like the ones we let go. Shame on anyone that can't see Carl's lame insight on this. Now as far as a new city hall. We need that like we need snow plows in balboa park!

Posted by screwindecityworkers | reply to this comment
August 1, 2008 7:29 am

One interesting aspect in the many posts above is that it is obvious that essentially all the panicky attackers of DeMaio are city employees. The battle lines are clearly drawn. It is particularly amusing in that these critics agree with Carl's article, so all they can say in response is "he doesn't mean it." Lame.

Posted by Richard Rider | reply to this comment
August 2, 2008 9:11 am

cold dose, you must be his chief-of-staff, you sure know how to spin election results. His only challenger entered the race 3 months from the primary, your boy Carl has been knocking on doors for over a year. His challenger was expected to only get 3% of the vote and received 33%. Once the locals started to hear the truth about your dishonest candidate the tide turned quickly, just not fast enough. Remember folks, the man who is going to fix city hall is the same person who stated under oath on 12/2/05 that he was a resident of Arlington Virgina to avoid a lawsuit locally. Cold dose, you're the one who needs a reality check. But you're probably going to say the unions forged those court documents. See for yourself link

Posted by BenEfit | reply to this comment
August 2, 2008 12:39 pm

BenEfit, you certainly have chosen an appropriate moniker. You and your city coworkers monitor these message boards to post your propaganda justifying your pay and BenEfits. Retired firefighter George George was "expected to get only 3% of the vote" against DeMaio? Name for me ANY two-way nonpartisan race where the challenger got less than 10% of the vote. Bet you can't. You make this absurd claim because you are covering up the pathetic 33% George vote total. And this total came in spite of your unions spending big bucks to smear Carl. You smeared Carl because your candidate had zero to offer except higher taxes. Can you name a two way race between non-incumbents where the well funded loser lost by a bigger amount?

Posted by Richard Rider | reply to this comment
August 5, 2008 6:11 am

Will you cut your own Council staff, Carl? Will you even answer this question? This non-city employee wants to know.

Posted by cutyourownstaffCarl | reply to this comment
August 6, 2008 3:14 pm

DeMaio must be on to something if the unions are spending THIS much time attacking him. I guess they don't read election results... he beat them with Props B and C in 2006, beat them in his Council race in 2008, and helped force a pension compromise even before entering office. Yep, now it makes sense why they hate him so much. Go carl!!! Keep it up and we just might get our city back on track!

Posted by Union Tactics Fail | reply to this comment
August 6, 2008 3:50 pm


Reader feedback
  • Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
  • Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
  • Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.
Post a comment
Name:
Email:
Comments:
Current Word Count: Verification Code
b18d2ad



MOST POPULAR STORIES:


Copyright © 2009 voiceofsandiego.org. All Rights Reserved.