Piedmont resident thinks financial oversight and accountability are still missing –

Yes, I appreciate the high level of city services that Piedmont provides, and I’m willing to pay for them.  And yes, it is a fact that complex public works projects often have unforeseen problems that must be solved.

Clearly, the Undergrounding fiasco showed that the City’s management team failed to solve the problems, which cost Piedmont taxpayers millions.  But, what has been learned from this failure?  > Click to read more…

Letter from Member of the Municipal Tax Review Committee on Measure Y –

The refrain will be heard repeatedly over the coming weeks: It’s a renewal, not a new tax, only $9 per week and necessary to maintain vital services. In truth, the parcel tax is unnecessary, wasteful and has nothing to do with funding essential services.
Despite what is stated in the ballot argument for Measure Y, the proposition does not even have the unanimous support of the City Council.  > Click to read more…

A letter from a member of the Municipal Tax Review Committee on whether vital City services will be cut – 

The wasteful spending of the Piedmont City Council in the last 4 years is indefensible so the proponents of extending the “Municipal Services Tax” (Measure Y on the November ballot) have retreated to their last refuge: predictions that defeat of the tax will reduce “vital services.” Other than claiming that paramedic services will be reduced (a ridiculous idea since nobody, but nobody, would entertain such a cut), their definition of “vital services” is utterly vague.  > Click to read more…

Leaders Explain Their Position on One Policy of the National Boy Scouts of America –

Why We Participate in Scouting

September 19, 2012

Over the summer the Boy Scouts of America reaffirmed its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding gay members and leaders.  As we understand the policy, it provides that while the BSA does not proactively inquire about the sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, it does not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals and who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.  As expected this announcement generated quite a bit of national media attention and resulted in a lot of questions and soul searching from scouts, scout parents and the community at large – not just in Piedmont but in towns across the country.

As individuals and long-time scout leaders, we each have thought long and hard about the BSA policy and are uncomfortable with the implication that by remaining in scouts we are somehow endorsing it.  Quite the opposite is true.  We would like all children and parents to feel > Click to read more…

A Letter Points Out the 16 Municipal Tax Review Committee (MTRC) Recommendations to the Piedmont Post –

To the Editor of the Piedmont Post

Dear Sir,

Not having heard from you, I was pleased to see that you not only printed my letter, but took the time to add an editor’s note disputing its accuracy – the first such note I’ve seen in any newspaper in my 46 years.

Since your note indicates that you were unable to find the 16 unanimous MTRC recommendations I referred to by searching the City website, may I direct you to pp. 6-8 of the MTRC report, which can be found on the City website at http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/govern/staffreports/09-06-11/mtrc.pdf.  > Click to read more…

The following letter was sent to the City Council and PCA Editors:

We find it extraordinary the City would go to such dramatic lengths to alter the minutes for the September 4 comments by Mr. Grote [City Administrator] to Ryan Gilbert’s Open Forum comments concerning the misstatement of Council unanimously endorsing the Measure Y Parcel Tax. > Click to read more…

A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE FORUM-

At the Sept. 4th City Council meeting, I asked to make a comment during the Open Forum, a proceeding required by the California Brown Act. I expressed my belief, shared by one or more staff, that the proposed Parcel Tax (Measure Y) faced failure, primarily because enough residents lacked confidence in the Council’s ability to manage the City’s finances properly.

My perception was that the Council’s actions lacked both sufficient transparency and independent review in the underground fiasco, Blair Park and other matters, resulting in substantial financial losses to the City.

Before I could propose a partial remedy, namely that the City should immediately retain an outside advisor for all employee contracts rather than relying on the City Administrator, Councilman McBain interrupted to state that what I had to say was not “City Business”, but rather part of a political campaign, and thus should not be allowed.

The Mayor deferred to the City Attorney who opined that it certainly was within the scope of City Business and should therefore be allowed. Mr. McBain stated his sole motive was to seek “clarification”. The Council offered no substantive comment.

Mr. McBain, your stated wish not to infringe on the First Amendment is laudable. But you tried to use your position to do just that.

Piedmont citizens should be encouraged to address their concerns to the Council, without prior restraint, and without the patently partisan and astonishing attempt to deny public comment. Mr. McBain, what part of City finances do you think fails to constitute City Business?

Do you truly believe that any citizen, irrespective of political beliefs or streets on which they live, should be subject to an obstructionist request for “clarification”? Was this truly your motivation?

So, if you were contemplating apologizing, apologize to the citizens of Piedmont instead. You should do it. They deserve it.

Aaron Salloway, Piedmont Resident

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

Comparison to other cities indicates high Piedmont costs –

Backers of Measure Y try to scare voters into supporting the parcel tax by claiming that loss of the tax threatens critical public safety services, especially the fire department. So it’s worth asking the question, “How do Piedmont fire department staffing and costs compare with similar small, affluentcities?” Not favorably, is the short answer.

In its report to the Council last year, MTRC prepared summary budget comparisons with several cities. We have updated the information to currently available budgets. For fire protection, the comparable cities (those with their own fire departments, not consolidated with other jurisdictions) were Larkspur, Mill Valley, San Marino, Sausalito and Albany (fire chief shared with Piedmont).

Piedmont’s population is 10,667, compared to an average of 12,622 for the other cities. The most striking comparisons between our fire department and those of the other cities are as follows:

To summarize the links between the different bits of data, Piedmont is almost 20% smaller than the average of the other cities, yet its fire department has 26% more staff. As a result, fire protection in Piedmont costs 53% more per dwelling than the average, and the ratio of houses protected to fire department employees in Piedmont is only half of the other cities. The surplus cost for fire protection in Piedmont is nearly equal to the amount of revenue raised by the parcel tax.

The fire department in Piedmont has two central functions: fire fighting and ambulance/paramedic services. The ambulance portion of the budget is about a quarter of the cost of each shift, and responding quickly to paramedic calls is one of the city’s highest priority services. However, in a city that experiences, on average, about one house fire per year, it is reasonable to question the premium paid for our overall fire department size.

The city of Albany, with whom we share a fire chief, has almost twice Piedmont’s population and number of dwellings, and a larger area. Yet its fire budget is 15% less than Piedmont’s and the personnel count on a regular fire shift is 25% smaller. The comparisons are striking and deserve detailed examination by our City Council.

For more information on the parcel tax issue, go to www.NoOnMeasureY.com.

Michael Rancer, Chair of Piedmont’s 2011 Municipal Tax Review Committee

Editors Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

Bicycle Master Plan, Complete Streets Policy and Pedestrian Master Plan Outlined for Piedmont –

The following letter was sent to PCA:

Dear Members of the Planning Commission and City Council,

We, the undersigned, are writing to express our interest in participating in the development of Piedmont’s Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) and related efforts and to share some of our initial thoughts and expectations about the process. Several of us are members of Piedmont Connect’s Alternative Transportation working group. Most of us bicycle in or through Piedmont regularly. We are very pleased that Piedmont is undertaking these efforts, and we welcome the opportunity to comment.

Communications: Please add all of the undersigned to the email notification list for the Bicycle Master Plan. Duncan Watry and Tim Rood are both happy to respond to inquiries on behalf of the group, which stays in contact via email.

Scope of Work: We understand from staff reports that the funding for the BMP is in the approved FY 2012-13 budget and that a proposal has been obtained from Barry Miller, whose fine work on Piedmont’s General Plan we very much appreciate. We would appreciate the opportunity for public review and comment on the proposed scope of work for the bike plan and related efforts, before a contract is executed.

New Measure B Funding Criteria: As you are aware, in 2011 the Alameda County Transportation Commission and MTC adopted new requirements that apply to the approximately $350,000 annually in Measure B funds that Piedmont receives from Alameda County, as well as Measure F funding, Vehicle License Fee offset funds, and the proposed Measure B increase on the November 2012 ballot. Recipient cities are now required to have adopted a Complete Streets policy by January 31, 2013 and to have adopted a pedestrian (or combined bike/pedestrian) master plan by Dec. 31, 2015. These efforts (discussed later in this letter) are closely related to the bicycle master plan process and should be coordinated.

We understand that a joint City Council/Planning Commission session, scheduled for September 18, will address the issue of expanding the consultant’s scope of work to include development of a Complete Streets policy and pedestrian/Safe Routes to Schools plan in addition to the bike plan. We look forward to participating in the public discussion of coordinating these important and necessary efforts.

Public Process: From discussions with you, we understand that the Council may choose not to appoint a formal Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) due to expense considerations, and that public input for the bicycle plan may occur primarily through Planning Commission hearings. With or without a BAC, we believe that bringing about community acceptance of the bicycle plan will require a robust and inclusive public input process, including one or more dedicated public meetings (ideally televised on KCOM) and perhaps an online survey as well. The process should include multiple avenues for input from bicyclists of all ages and capabilities, as well as from residents, particularly those who live along the proposed routes. If the consultant proposal does not include this level of community participation, we urge that it be amended.

Bicycle Plan Statutory Requirements: We understand that California law requires bicycle plans prepared by local jurisdictions to include eleven distinct components in order to qualify for funding from the State Bicycle Lane Account (BLA) under the California Bicycle Transportation Act. We expect Piedmont’s BMP to include these components. See Appendix A for a list of these components and our comments and recommendations.

Policy Context: We note that preparing a bicycle master plan is called for as a near-term priority in Piedmont’s General Plan and Climate Action Plan (CAP). We expect the BMP scope of work to reflect the policies of these documents as well as other applicable laws.
General Plan: : We expect the Bicycle Plan to implement the relevant policies of Piedmont’s adopted General Plan, which states that “[b]icycle travel provides a way to reduce vehicle emissions, promote public health, meet recreational needs, manage congestion, and reduce parking demand.” See Appendix B for other relevant General Plan policies.

Climate Action Plan: We expect the Bicycle Plan to implement the relevant policies of Piedmont’s adopted Climate Action Plan (see Appendix C), including a target of a combined bicycle and pedestrian mode share of 5% of commute trips by 2020 (Climate Action Plan Implementation Measure TL-1.1).

Specific Bicycle Issues to Be Addressed: We anticipate that the BMP process will provide an opportunity for public discussion of the following:

Bicycle Network: We believe it is important to plan for the phased and prioritized implementation of a citywide network of bicycle facilities that connects with Oakland’s bikeway network. We also believe it is very important for residents along the proposed bike routes to be included in the public discussion.

The bike routes depicted in General Plan Figure 4.5 are described as “a starting point for discussion.” We have discussed several ideas for fine-tuning and augmenting the proposed bike routes depicted in the General Plan. We believe it is important for the network to include bike routes that serve all of Piedmont’s public schools and major parks, and that connect to Oakland routes linking Piedmont to major destinations, such as shopping districts and BART stations. We believe bike routes serving Wildwood School, Dracena Park and Hampton Field should be added to the proposed network. Bike route connections to the Lakeshore and Montclair shopping districts may also be appropriate.

Specific Routes: Grand Avenue, Park Boulevard and portions of Moraga Avenue are all currently unimproved and dangerous bicycle routes, which our group has discussed extensively. We believe there are design solutions that could improve pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular safety while making bicycling and walking more pleasant and reducing speeding. These solutions should be investigated for at least preliminary feasibility as part of the BMP process and its implementation. We have spoken with Jason Patton, Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Manager at the City of Oakland, who assured us that he and his staff are looking forward to collaborating with Piedmont staff and citizens on bicycle planning issues across municipal boundaries.

Bike Parking: We believe that one way to encourage biking for regular transportation in Piedmont would be to provide more visible and useful bike parking locations, particularly in and around the Civic Center and at the schools.

Evolving Design Guidance for Bikeways: Best practices and standards for bicycle facilities are fast evolving, and multiple sets of standards are currently in circulation. Several urban designers and planners in our group are familiar with the evolving state of best practices and are eager to share ideas and design concepts, as well as nearby examples of the successful introduction of innovative facility designs.

Measureable Goals: The CAP sets a target of a combined bicycle and pedestrian mode share of 5% of commute trips by 2020. We believe the BMP should include a measurable goal for bicycle mode share and a process for monitoring progress toward this goal.
Prioritization: We believe the BMP should identify short, medium and long-term priorities.

Pavement Condition: One of the most important outcomes of the BMP and Complete Streets Policy should be to make designated bicycle routes a high priority for repaving to improve bicycle safety. For example, we note that the current pavement condition on Magnolia Avenue, a proposed bicycle route and important route to schools, is far worse than that of other streets, such as Highland Avenue, which are proposed for repaving this year while Magnolia is not.

Complete Streets Policy We understand that you anticipate that ACTC will distribute a model Complete Streets policy or ordinance to jurisdictions later this year. As we recently saw with the community and Council reaction to the proposed Bay-Friendly Landscape Ordinance, model ordinances may not always reflect Piedmont’s unique conditions. We believe the BMP process presents an ideal opportunity to develop and refine Complete Streets policies that are appropriate for Piedmont and to lay important groundwork in rolling these concepts out to the community.

We expect Piedmont’s Complete Streets policy or ordinance to comply with the requirements of the Complete Streets Act of 2008 (Appendix D) and hope that it will include the ten elements of a comprehensive complete streets policy recommended by the National Complete Streets Coalition (see Appendix E).

Pedestrian Master Plan Similar to the bicycle plan, a pedestrian master plan for Piedmont will help to focus pedestrian improvements along highly used routes and set out a community-supported, prioritized vision for future pedestrian improvements. We encourage the consideration of a combined pedestrian/bicycle master plan to ensure that the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists are coordinated.

Safe Routes to Schools With so many Piedmont students already walking to school, and the potential to make bicycling to school a safer and more comfortable option in keeping with Piedmont’s policy goals, we believe it is important to coordinate pedestrian and bicycle improvements, including traffic calming measures, around our schools with the larger bicycle and pedestrian master planning processes. We understand that a comprehensive approach to planning for Safe Routes to School could make Piedmont eligible for additional funding for pedestrian and bicycle improvements and traffic calming measures, as well as raising awareness of traffic issues, physical fitness, and safety in our school community.

The Safe Routes to Schools Alameda County Partnership is funded in part by Measure B and includes the Alameda County Public Health Department, Cycles of Change, and many other local agencies and organizations, led by TransForm, a non-profit organization. The partnership is currently reaching tens of thousands of students at more than 60 Alameda County public elementary schools. We understand that the Piedmont Unified School District, through its 2009 Green Initiatives Action Plan, has already committed to working with the City of Piedmont to cooperate on the development of Safe Routes to School in Piedmont We encourage the City of Piedmont to actively collaborate with PUSD and to work with non-profit and agency partners to pursue funding opportunities and further this process.

Thank you for your attention, and we look forward to working with you on the Bicycle Master Plan and related efforts.

Sincerely,

Jasmin Ansar
Lynne Bosche
Dave Campbell (Program Manager, East Bay Bicycle Coalition)
Adam Carr
Scott Donahue
Eric W. Downing
Kurt Fleischer
Tom Gandesbery
Len Gilbert
Ryan Gilbert
Katherine Heater
Eric Hsia
Ve and Arthur Hsieh
Kristin Hull
Tammi, Andrew, Clare and Grant Keating
Garrett Keating (Piedmont City Council member)
Christopher Kidd (Board member, California Bicycle Coalition)
Thomas Kronemeyer
Kimberly Moses
Margaret Ovenden
Debbie Pfeiffer
Tim Rood
Hussein Saffouri (President, Berkeley Bicycle Club)
Hope and Larry Salzer
Rick Schiller
Peter M. Sherris
Michael Singer
Terry and Rob Smith
Susan Southworth
Roger Sparks
Sinan Subuncuoglu
Alice Sung
Maryann Tucker
Jukka Valkonen (Chair, Piedmont Park Commission)
Tom Walters
Winifred Walters
Mark Ward
Duncan Watry
Anne Weinberger
Karen Westmont
Keira Williams
Tracey Woodruff
Affiliations are shown for identification purposes only.

Appendix A. Comments on Bicycle Plan Statutory Requirements:

a. Estimated Number of Existing and Proposed Bicycle Commuters Recommendation: We note that existing figures should be available from 2010 Census data. Comparisons to other nearby cities would be helpful to provide context.

b. Land Use and Population Density (map and description) Recommendation: These could be incorporated from Piedmont’s General Plan by reference

c. Existing and Proposed Bikeways (map and description). Comment: We note that the route network depicted in General Plan Figure 4.5 is described a “starting point for discussion” and look forward to participating in that discussion along with other Piedmonters and interested parties.

d. Existing and Proposed End-of-Trip Bicycle Parking Facilities (map and description). Recommendation: The BMP should include standards for the development of bicycle parking and outline potential locations for these facilities.

e. Existing and Proposed Bicycle Transport and Parking Facilities for Transportation Connections (map and description). Recommendation: This should include standards for bicycle parking near Piedmont’s bus stops and casual carpool pick-ups.

f. Existing and Proposed Shower Facilities (map and description)

Recommendation: While this provision may not be applicable to Piedmont given the lack of large employers, it could be applicable to City employees. We note that City-owned showers are available in the Piedmont Community Pool locker rooms.

g. Bicycle Safety and Education Programs (description) Comment: We note that such programs are currently offered by the Boy Scouts and East Bay Bicycle Coalition.

h. Citizen and Community Participation Comment: As noted above, we expect and encourage the City to provide multiple avenues for public participation in this effort.

i. Consistency with Long-Range Transportation, Air Quality and Energy Plans

j. Project Descriptions and Priority Listings

k. Past Expenditures and Future Financial Needs Description

Appendix B. Relevant Piedmont General Plan Policies
The following General Plan policies relate to bicycle planning:

Policy 10.4: Bike Routes Accommodate bicycles where feasible on Piedmont streets. Recognize that most streets are not wide enough to accommodate dedicated bike lanes, but that the designation of some streets as “bike routes” (as depicted on the City of Oakland’s Bicycle Plan) could improve connectivity to Oakland and link Piedmont to nearby destinations, including shopping districts, Downtown Oakland, and BART.

Policy 10.5: Bicycle Infrastructure Expand the “infrastructure” necessary to accommodate bicycle travel, including bike racks in parks, at schools, and at public buildings, and adequate space for bicycle storage in residential garages.

Action 10.D: Safe Routes to School Work collaboratively with the Piedmont Unified School District to determine the feasibility of a Safe Routes to School program. Pursue grant funding to initiate such a program and offset local costs.

Action 10.E: Bicycle Plan Contingent on the availability of funding and staff, develop a bike plan which incorporates the route alignments shown in Figure 4.5; outlines safety, maintenance, and education programs; and identifies capital improvements to encourage bicycling in Piedmont. Pursue grant funding and consider use of Measure B funds to prepare and implement such a plan.

Appendix C. Piedmont Climate Action Plan Policies
Relevant CAP policies include the following:
– TL 1.1 Expand bicycling & pedestrian infrastructure
– TL 1.2 Install bike racks
– TL 3.4 Work with schools to improve/expand walking, Safe Routes to School and trip reduction programs
– TL 3.5 Public education re reducing motor vehicle-related greenhouse gas emissions

Measure TL 1.1 calls for the preparation and adoption of a Bicycle Master Plan that coordinates with City of Oakland bicycle planning initiatives and sets a target of a combined bicycle and pedestrian mode share of 5% of commute trips by 2020. The measure reads as follows:
“Improving pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure will help reduce GHG emissions, enhance mobility for all ages and abilities, and increase the health and fitness of Piedmont residents. To achieve these multiple benefits, the City will work to improve the community’s pedestrian and bicycle network. Improvements will be made to increase pedestrian, and cyclist safety.

“Proposed pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure improvements will be based on street types and existing characteristics. Pedestrian infrastructure improvements will consist of additional cross‐walks, sidewalk cuts, and traffic calming elements. Bicycle infrastructure improvements will include development of new cycletracks, Class II bike lanes, and addition of signs to improve cyclist safety. Streets with higher traffic volumes will include cycletracks or Class II bike lanes. Lower volume residential streets will be subject to minor improvements, such as signs and traffic calming features.”
The CAP also recommendations for installing bike racks at bus stops and carpool pick-up sites.

Appendix D. Complete Streets Act of 2008
The California Complete Streets Act (Assembly Bill 1358) was signed into law in September 2008. It requires that local jurisdictions modify their general plans as follows:
“(A) Commencing January 1, 2011, upon any substantial revision of the circulation element, the legislative body shall modify the circulation element to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of the streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan.
(B) For the purposes of this paragraph, “users of streets, roads, and highways” means bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, users of public transportation, and seniors.”
Appendix E. Elements of a Comprehensive Complete Streets Policy
The National Complete Streets Coalition has identified ten elements of a comprehensive complete streets policy, which we support:
– Includes a vision for how and why the community wants to complete its streets
– Specifies that ‘all users’ includes pedestrians, bicyclists and transit passengers of all ages and abilities, as well as trucks, buses and automobiles.
– Applies to both new and retrofit projects, including design, planning, maintenance, and operations, for the entire right of way.
– Makes any exceptions specific and sets a clear procedure that requires high-level approval of exceptions.
– Encourages street connectivity and aims to create a comprehensive, integrated, connected network for all modes.
– Is adoptable by all agencies to cover all roads.
– Directs the use of the latest and best design criteria and guidelines while recognizing the need for flexibility in balancing user needs.
– Directs that complete streets solutions will complement the context of the community.
– Establishes performance standards with measurable outcomes.
– Includes specific next steps for implementation of the policy.

Editors’ Note: The opinions expressed are those of the signers and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

The following letter was sent to the Piedmont Civic Association:

When voters read the argument in favor of Piedmont’s Measure Y parcel tax, they’ll see the usual points from city leaders desperately seeking to pass a tax, and a significant misrepresentation.

Mayor Chiang and Councilman Wieler were authorized by their council colleagues to write the ballot argument – a move necessary to ensure compliance with the Brown Act and electoral code.

Despite all their caution, the Mayor and Councilman seemingly couldn’t help themselves from embellishing a very important fact, in order to strengthen their argument. Chiang and Wieler wrote that the “City Council unanimously supports renewal” of the tax. This is the important concluding message to the proponents’ argument. If true, this conclusion would send voters a strong message of support, an overwhelming endorsement, from their elected leaders for this tax.

The statement is not true. It’s an absolute misrepresentation of the facts. The City Council never voted to support the tax. Council voted to place the tax on the ballot, to allow voters to make a decision. Ballot placement is not an endorsement of the tax.

The Council also authorized the Mayor and second member to sign arguments relating to the Measure. The Council passed no resolution endorsing the tax.

Furthermore, at least one Council member, Garret Keating, was always clear that he only supported placing the measure on the ballot so that the voters of Piedmont could make a decision for themselves. He reiterated his neutrality on September 4th.

As soon as the argument was filed, we alerted City Administrator Geoff Grote, City Clerk John Tulloch, the Mayor, and Council members to the misrepresentation. The City Attorney was also aware of the correspondence. Despite all the outside pleas to have the offending language removed, staff and Council have refused to correct the misrepresentations.

At the September 4th City Council meeting this issue was raised during Open Forum. Administrator Grote, Mayor Chiang and Councilman Wieler publicly acknowledged the misrepresentation. Councilman Wieler apologized directly to Councilman Keating.

When asked directly to act to correct the misrepresentation Mr. Grote stated the City will take no action and declared that any resident could go to Court to correct the matter.

A city administration that prides itself on its partnership with residents is now blatantly disregarding that important relationship by refusing to correct the public ballot material misstatements. The City could have easily petitioned the Superior Court to correct to the misrepresentation. The City Attorney could have drafted and filed the writ at minimum cost to the City. There would have been no opposition, and a more truthful argument would be printed and sent to all Piedmont voters.

Instead, the City, which has never been afraid to litigate, is suddenly coy. Mr. Grote suggested that any voter can petition the court to correct the misrepresentation. Why place the burden and the responsibility of correction of the City generated rebuttal misstatement on the voters?  The City has ample time to restore transparency and honesty to the November election. It’s the only decent thing to do.

Ryan Gilbert, Member Municipal Tax Advisory Committee and co-signatory
to the ballot argument against Measure Y, www.NoOnMeasureY.com

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.