I'm running for Mayor...

[Majin]

...in about 10-15 years.

I REALLY think we need totally new leadership in this city... a new mayor and completely new council members for sure. I truly believe that the current "leaders" in this city are not leading at all... at least not in the direction we should be heading in. For all the differences we forumers have, I think we can all agree on that. Great opportunities such as the Arena and K street have been delayed to eternity under the current leadership.

This is not a joke. I seriously think I am going to be running for mayor in about 10-15 years or so (I'm too young right now and just started my career). I plan on coming in with a pre-made plan with sweeping changes across the board that’s going to be ready to be put in place the day I get elected (if I do get elected, that is). My plan is going to be focused on results, not talk, which is going to be the focus of my campaign.

I'm going to be developing my grand plan for the city over the next few years as I watch the current failures and
success, and I would like you guys to help out with it. Here is what I am thinking so far:

1. City Consolidation -
I know this has been mentioned here a few times but Sacramento should consolidate all the county land into the borough system (priority) and slowly incorporate the already incorporated suburbs into this system. There should be no more "county of Sacramento" land at all (arden, south sac, etc), but one central metropolitan government for all of the boroughs with representatives from each area. This would bring the entire metropolitan region into one government that is for the advancement of the entire metropolitan area instead of region against region
fighting indecisiveness. The arena issues comes to mind. It would also give the region more power to get big projects done instead of the city of Sacramento trying to get things done ALONE that would benefit the entire metro (again, the Arena).

2. Project Approval Process.
The Matrix isn't enough, seriously. We need to get some more stuff on the books that cuts the time from conception to ground breaking. This means getting rid of all the unnecessary checks and balances that shouldn't exist in the first place. Design and Review board, multiple city council approvals, historic preservation reviews, etc, all of that needs to be done with. If the project meets zoning requirements, has an EIR that's
been reviewed, it should be a go, no questions asked. All low-income requirements should be completely done with, even ones that ask for city subsidies (which I admit will be required to keep momentum going in slow markets like we are experiencing now). Giving complete control to developers to build what the market is demanding at the time will result in more projects getting built. If there’s a market for low income apartments/condos downtown, and the process is painless, there will (eventually) be a developer to fill that demand.

3. Density/TOD Requirements
There will need to be a serious tightening on density requirements as way too many projects get a free pass on density and TOD (65th and Folsom comes to mind). Any housing project within 15 miles of downtown will have a minimum density requirement no questions asked, no free passes, dont pass go and dont collect $200, period. Zero tolerance on 65th and Folsom type developments (4 units on how many sqft???). Any development near a LRT station will have an increased density requirement and any development inside the CDB will have a minimum density requirement.

4. Expand central city transit system -
Hopefully in 10-15 years the streetcar system would of been active for a long time now and the LRT DNA line would be completed, but if not better transit for the central city area would get improved to the point where you could literally get anywhere in the central city without the use of a car in a timely manner. LRT stops will be reduced to something more reasonable like 5 minutes. In this area I could probably use some more help on what else could be done to make our current central city transit more appealing and user friendly, perhaps an extensive streetcar network?

That’s all for now, I'll come up with more things for my platform later.

[ozone]

You have my vote. I like your platform.

[innov8]

Boy Majin, you’ve said some crazy things before, but this has got to be the
craziest. Are you sure you want to do it… you know, with the pay cut and everything?

[Majin]

You have my vote. I like your platform.

Thanks! I hope you're still around in 10-15 years to vote for me!

[arod74]

As long as you don't go cutting down all the trees downtown that drop crap on your car, you have another vote here. :tup:

[Majin]

Boy Majin, you’ve said some crazy things before, but this has got to be the
craziest. Are you sure you want to do it… you know, with the pay cut and everything?

I know it's crazy... but I am 100% sure. Thats why I want to work on my career for 10-15 years to get a decent amount of experience and more education (working on my masters as we speak). I'm sure by then I'll be ready for a significant pay cut in exchange for doing some real good in this city.

[wburg]

Damn, you don't want to be mayor, you want to be king of Sacramento! I don't think anyone has had that much executive power in the region since John Sutter. I'm not sure whether to laugh, cry, or make my own plans to run against you (I've considered city council runs before--I'd just be a very, very dark horse.)

1. Mayors can't just decide to annex land: there is a state political process, via a LAFCO, to annex land outside the city. It isn't simple, because annexing land around a city isn't simple. For starters, Sacramento County might have something to say about the whole deal.

2. Low-income housing hasn't been economically feasible as new construction since the 1930s. The only way to do it would be to instruct building inspectors to ignore labor laws and building codes, which are state and federal laws, not something a mayor has power over. Are you even familiar with how EIRs and the development process work? Many projects don't require EIRs, and the current process of review is far easier than doing a full EIR (part of the current process is often a CEQA exemption, explaining why an EIR isn't needed.) And city boards, the organizations you want to eliminate, are the ones who determine if a project meets zoning ordinances. Without them, who decides what meets code and what doesn't? Who reviews the EIR? Some toady in the planning department who will get fired if he doesn't approve everything that comes across his desk, I suppose, or will you just wield your own "APPROVED" rubber stamp?

3. This jumps right in the path of your last requirement. You want to totally free the hands of developers, but then you want minimum density requirements that are apparently denser than a multi-story TOD? Not to mention that "15 miles from downtown" means everything currently in the city of Sacramento. Make up your mind: do you want to let developers build what they want (for the most part, single-family suburbs) or enforce your idea of minimum density, even though it isn't economically feasible in most of the territory you're describing? Creating homes that most Sacramentans can't afford means that you will, effectively, be encouraging homelessness because most people won't be able to afford in the brave new Sacramento you want to build--so more of them will be sleeping on the street. You may decide that putting them in jail is then a great solution, but then you'd find out that jailing the homeless is more expensive than providing subsidized housing.

4. You'll have to go pretty far before you find a bigger streetcar fan than me, but all this LRT and streetcar stuff costs money. How do you plan on paying for it? Five-minute headways (I assume that's what you meant by "five-minute stops," rather than having the trains stop for 5 minutes at each station) for Light Rail is a tall order, you'd need to add more parallel tracks, triple rolling stock and crews, and enhance signaling, to get a system that would be far and away beyond what LRV systems are designed to do. 5-10 minute headways on a streetcar system are possible and desirable. Getting them run universally throughout a city the size of Sacramento, though--that's a tough order. Streetcar systems have their limitations, one of which is that it becomes less economically feasible to develop streetcar lines on the periphery of a large city than in the core. You can set up smaller feeder systems, which also means more overhead due to redundancy, throughout a system to offset this, but you still need to figure out a way to pay for it. Like it or not, cars have their role in a city.

[BrianSac]

...in about 10-15 years.

I REALLY think we need totally new leadership in this city... a new mayor and completely new council members for sure. I truly believe that the current "leaders" in this city are not leading at all... at least not in the direction we should be heading in. For all the differences we forumers have, I think we can all agree on that. Great opportunities such as the Arena and K street have been delayed to eternity under the current leadership.

This is not a joke. I seriously think I am going to be running for mayor in about 10-15 years or so (I'm too young right now and just started my career). I plan on coming in with a pre-made plan with sweeping changes across the board that’s going to be ready to be put in place the day I get elected (if I do get elected, that is). My plan is going to be focused on results, not talk, which is going to be the focus of my campaign.

I'm going to be developing my grand plan for the city over the next few years as I watch the current failures and
success, and I would like you guys to help out with it. Here is what I am thinking so far:

1. City Consolidation -
I know this has been mentioned here a few times but Sacramento should consolidate all the county land into the borough system (priority) and slowly incorporate the already incorporated suburbs into this system. There should be no more "county of Sacramento" land at all (arden, south sac, etc), but one central metropolitan government for all of the boroughs with representatives from each area. This would bring the entire metropolitan region into one government that is for the advancement of the entire metropolitan area instead of region against region
fighting indecisiveness. The arena issues comes to mind. It would also give the region more power to get big projects done instead of the city of Sacramento trying to get things done ALONE that would benefit the entire metro (again, the Arena).

2. Project Approval Process.
The Matrix isn't enough, seriously. We need to get some more stuff on the books that cuts the time from conception to ground breaking. This means getting rid of all the unnecessary checks and balances that shouldn't exist in the first place. Design and Review board, multiple city council approvals, historic preservation reviews, etc, all of that needs to be done with. If the project meets zoning requirements, has an EIR that's
been reviewed, it should be a go, no questions asked. All low-income requirements should be completely done with, even ones that ask for city subsidies (which I admit will be required to keep momentum going in slow markets like we are experiencing now). Giving complete control to developers to build what the market is demanding at the time will result in more projects getting built. If there’s a market for low income apartments/condos downtown, and the process is painless, there will (eventually) be a developer to fill that demand.

3. Density/TOD Requirements
There will need to be a serious tightening on density requirements as way too many projects get a free pass on density and TOD (65th and Folsom comes to mind). Any housing project within 15 miles of downtown will have a minimum density requirement no questions asked, no free passes, dont pass go and dont collect $200, period. Zero tolerance on 65th and Folsom type developments (4 units on how many sqft???). Any development near a LRT station will have an increased density requirement and any development inside the CDB will have a minimum density requirement.

4. Expand central city transit system -
Hopefully in 10-15 years the streetcar system would of been active for a long time now and the LRT DNA line would be completed, but if not better transit for the central city area would get improved to the point where you could literally get anywhere in the central city without the use of a car in a timely manner. LRT stops will be reduced to something more reasonable like 5 minutes. In this area I could probably use some more help on what else could be done to make our current central city transit more appealing and user friendly, perhaps an extensive streetcar network?

That’s all for now, I'll come up with more things for my platform later.

majin, I'll vote for you any day over steinberg!

wburg, you have offered a lot to this forum but Sacramento needs a dynamic leader. If your up to the challenge, I'd think about it.

[creamcityleo79]

While I respect you, Majin, and think that you probably have some good ideas. I remember you saying more than once that you hate trees and that you think skyscrapers should be everywhere! I think I'll write-in urbanencounter (if he ever comes back from Chicago!).

[wburg]

majin, I'll vote for you any day over steinberg!

wburg, you have offered a lot to this forum but Sacramento needs a dynamic leader. If your up to the challenge, I'd think about it.

I have considered it before, at least running for city council. My personal "pet platform item" would be an ordinance instructing the Chief of Police to issue CCW permits on a shall-issue basis, as an anti-crime measure. I have a feeling that it would go over like a lead balloon, but you never know.

[Majin]

Damn, you don't want to be mayor, you want to be king of Sacramento!
You're right I do want to be king, but I'll settle for Mayor.
I don't think anyone has had that much executive power in the region since John Sutter. I'm not sure whether to laugh, cry, or make my own plans to run against you
(I've considered city council runs before--I'd just be a very, very dark horse.)
It's not about having total power over the region, its about having a intricate plan and the political will follow it through. That is something I will bring to the table that the current
leadership lacks.
1. Mayors can't just decide to annex land: there is a state political process, via a LAFCO, to annex land outside the city. It isn't simple, because annexing land
around a city isn't simple. For starters, Sacramento County might have something to say about the whole deal.
It should be quite obvious that I know Mayors can't just decide to annex land, so I have no idea why you are telling me this. There has been tons of annexes in Sacramento's history, and I
plan to bring the annexation to end all annexations to the region to the table for the whole metro to consider, the one that unites Sacramento once and for all. It will take a ton of
planning, campaigning, time, money, and resources. Will it be a difficult process? Will there be internal and external resistance? Of course, but I plan follow through with my
goals for a united Sacramento.
2. Low-income housing hasn't been economically feasible as new construction since the 1930s. The only way to do it would be to instruct building inspectors to ignore
labor laws and building codes, which are state and federal laws, not something a mayor has power over.
I will admit I am no expert in the feasibility of low income housing in todays market (I will be the first to admit I have A LOT to learn before I actually run for Mayor - but i'm giving
myself 10-15 years so I'll have plenty of time to learn), but I find it hard to believe the market for low income housing can't be filled without requiring new projects to have a certain
percentage of low income units. Maybe its not viable in new, moderate to high income buildings like 800J, 1801L, etc, but there are still plenty of older apartment buildings outside the
central city that people can rent for $600 a month. I have nothing against builders wanting to have low-income units and getting a city subsity (if its a quality project), but REQUIRING
it just deters builders from building anything.
Are you even familiar with how EIRs and the development process work? Many projects don't require EIRs, and the current process of review is far easier than doing a
full EIR (part of the current process is often a CEQA exemption, explaining why an EIR isn't needed.) And city boards, the organizations you want to eliminate, are the ones who determine
if a project meets zoning ordinances. Without them, who decides what meets code and what doesn't? Who reviews the EIR? Some toady in the planning department who will get fired if he
doesn't approve everything that comes across his desk, I suppose, or will you just wield your own "APPROVED" rubber stamp?
Again, no I am not completely familiar with the EIR process (but honestly - how many people on this board are?), but this is something I plan to look into in great detail. I actually
don't plan on touching the EIR process since this is something that is state controlled (IIRC?), but plan on cutting the fat on the number of city/neighborhood approvals thats projects
have to go through. Yes, there should be some kind of committee to review zoning requirements, but that should be where it ends (besides the EIR of course). Design and Review boards,
neighborhood associations, and things of that nature should be optional by the developer. Baring something completely ridiculous, if the developer wants to spend the money, they should be
able to do what they want with the land they own (again, meeting EIR and zoning requirements).

3. This jumps right in the path of your last requirement. You want to totally free the hands of developers, but then you want minimum density requirements that are
apparently denser than a multi-story TOD? Not to mention that "15 miles from downtown" means everything currently in the city of Sacramento. Make up your mind: do you want to let
developers build what they want (for the most part, single-family suburbs) or enforce your idea of minimum density, even though it isn't economically feasible in most of the territory
you're describing? Creating homes that most Sacramentans can't afford means that you will, effectively, be encouraging homelessness because most people won't be able to afford in the
brave new Sacramento you want to build--so more of them will be sleeping on the street. You may decide that putting them in jail is then a great solution, but then you'd find out that
jailing the homeless is more expensive than providing subsidized housing.

Not sure why you take my statement to the extreme and say I contradict myself when I don't. All I said is there will be minimum density requirements focused on TOD within a 15 mile radius
of downtown. Minimum density with TOD could mean something like the community they are currently building in Rancho Cordova (single family townhomes with retail in walking distance). It
would also mean something like L street lofts or fremont mews. Where are you going with creating homes that most Sacramentans can't afford? Builders will build what Sacramentans can
afford, so the market will take care of itself. Putting a minimum density requirement in place instead of the free for all North Natomas is right now will only shape communities (even
ones comprised of only lower cost single family homes like in Rancho Cordova) in a liveable, econmically viable fashion. What exactly is the downside of this?
4. You'll have to go pretty far before you find a bigger streetcar fan than me, but all this LRT and streetcar stuff costs money. How do you plan on paying for it?
Five-minute headways (I assume that's what you meant by "five-minute stops," rather than having the trains stop for 5 minutes at each station) for Light Rail is a tall order, you'd need
to add more parallel tracks, triple rolling stock and crews, and enhance signaling, to get a system that would be far and away beyond what LRV systems are designed to do. 5-10 minute
headways on a streetcar system are possible and desirable. Getting them run universally throughout a city the size of Sacramento, though--that's a tough order. Streetcar systems have
their limitations, one of which is that it becomes less economically feasible to develop streetcar lines on the periphery of a large city than in the core. You can set up smaller feeder
systems, which also means more overhead due to redundancy, throughout a system to offset this, but you still need to figure out a way to pay for it. Like it or not, cars have their role
in a city.
What I meant by 5 minute stops is the train stopping at each station every 5 minutes instead of the current 15 minutes. Where will the money come from? Lobbying for state/ferderal
transportation funds. The difference is there will already be concrete plans in place with the drive to make it happen. Doesn't make a difference you say? Recall Sacramento losing its
transportation funds for an intermodal station due to not having any concrete plans on how it was going to spend the money. Currently look how much drive West Sac has for a street car
line vs Sac... well if we had real leadership here we'd me much farther along in that front then we currently are now.

[Majin]

Sorry for the mulitple post, SSP was bugged

[Majin]

Sorry for the mulitple post, SSP was bugged

[wburg]

It's not about having total power over the region, its about having a intricate plan and the political will follow it through. That is something I will bring to the table that the current
leadership lacks.

"the political will to follow it through" typically means either massive private backing or a gang of thugs to beat up the opposition, or both. If you just mean you're really determined, be advised that determination is typically not enough to get things done.


It should be quite obvious that I know Mayors can't just decide to annex land, so I have no idea why you are telling me this. There has been tons of annexes in Sacramento's history, and I
plan to bring the annexation to end all annexations to the region to the table for the whole metro to consider, the one that unites Sacramento once and for all. It will take a ton of
planning, campaigning, time, money, and resources. Will it be a difficult process? Will there be internal and external resistance? Of course, but I plan follow through with my
goals for a united Sacramento.

You might give some thought to funding sources in all this planning, as you haven't identified any and you seem to have a lot of things you want to spend money on. Government funding isn't a never-ending cash fountain. Energy spent pursuing government funding (or private investment, or local exactions) is energy you won't have for pursuing your projects.


I will admit I am no expert in the feasibility of low income housing in todays market (I will be the first to admit I have A LOT to learn before I actually run for Mayor - but i'm giving
myself 10-15 years so I'll have plenty of time to learn), but I find it hard to believe the market for low income housing can't be filled without requiring new projects to have a certain
percentage of low income units. Maybe its not viable in new, moderate to high income buildings like 800J, 1801L, etc, but there are still plenty of older apartment buildings outside the
central city that people can rent for $600 a month. I have nothing against builders wanting to have low-income units and getting a city subsity (if its a quality project), but REQUIRING
it just deters builders from building anything.

If the market for low-income housing was something that developers found easy to fill, there wouldn't have been a drive to require them to build some percentage of low-income housing. Keep in mind that "low-income" requirements mean that only 15% of the housing has to be affordable to 40% of the population: the remaining 85% of housing is affordable to 60% of the population. This means that there will always be an undersupply of housing for those in the lower 40% of incomes. The requirement came from the fact that developers weren't building ANY low-income housing--and, as a result, people who can't afford housing become homeless. More low-income housing means fewer people sleeping on the street, fewer commuters on the freeways, and fewer largely-vacant "high-end" apartment buildings.

I'll repeat: Market-rate housing has been too expensive for low-income population, not just recently, but since the 1930s. Whoever can solve this problem will make a mint--in the meantime, the 15% requirement is something like a stopgap.


Again, no I am not completely familiar with the EIR process (but honestly - how many people on this board are?), but this is something I plan to look into in great detail. I actually
don't plan on touching the EIR process since this is something that is state controlled (IIRC?), but plan on cutting the fat on the number of city/neighborhood approvals thats projects
have to go through. Yes, there should be some kind of committee to review zoning requirements, but that should be where it ends (besides the EIR of course). Design and Review boards,
neighborhood associations, and things of that nature should be optional by the developer. Baring something completely ridiculous, if the developer wants to spend the money, they should be
able to do what they want with the land they own (again, meeting EIR and zoning requirements).

I highly recommend that you sign up for the city's Planning Academy. It's a great way to learn the basics of the city's planning process, and so far one City Councilmember (Kevin McCarty) started his career in local politics after attending the class. One thing you will learn is that most projects do *not* require an EIR, and that the reason for many of these boards is to winnow out the completely ridiculous, as well as to determine what does and does not need an EIR. It might help to have a bit more understanding of how the planning process works before making suggestions about how to change it. It will also introduce you to some of the reasons why public participation in the planning process is a good thing, despite your desire to save city government from democracy.

Incidentally, the impression I get is that at least a few people have a pretty good idea of how EIRs work: there are a couple of developers and planners on this board, who deal with such things. My experience with them is limited, but what I learned in the Planning Academy and doing activism has taught me a bit about them.

One book I can recommend, that will teach you a lot: A Guide to California Planning by William Fulton. It explains a lot of this stuff from a state perspective.


Not sure why you take my statement to the extreme and say I contradict myself when I don't. All I said is there will be minimum density requirements focused on TOD within a 15 mile radius
of downtown.

What you said was this:

Any housing project within 15 miles of downtown will have a minimum density requirement no questions asked.
You also specified that the 65th Street light rail station TOD wasn't dense enough, even though it is four stories tall for the most part and about 50-60 dua (going off memory here.) The way I interpreted it is that everything in the city should be denser than that, at a minimum. If you only meant around light-rail stations, I stand corrected.

But, to repeat, first you said "developers should have a free hand" and then you said "developments should be at least X dense." So you contradicted yourself: if the developer wants to build single-family tract homes, and you don't want them to, you aren't allowing business the free hand you promised you would provide.


What I meant by 5 minute stops is the train stopping at each station every 5 minutes instead of the current 15 minutes. Where will the money come from? Lobbying for state/ferderal
transportation funds. The difference is there will already be concrete plans in place with the drive to make it happen. Doesn't make a difference you say? Recall Sacramento losing its
transportation funds for an intermodal station due to not having any concrete plans on how it was going to spend the money. Currently look how much drive West Sac has for a street car
line vs Sac... well if we had real leadership here we'd me much farther along in that front then we currently are now.

What you mean by "5 minute stops" is that you want 5 minute headways: a "headway" is the amount of time between trains on a commuter transit system. If you want 5 minute headways for Light Rail, that means you have to triple the number of trains, which means tripling the budget for rolling stock as well as tripling your expenses for crews, since you'd need three times as many operators. You would also dramatically increase maintenance and overhead costs, since you'd need more passing tracks, more sophisticated signal systems, and more maintenance of way to keep the tracks in good repair. You'd also end up with a drop in revenues, since a lot of those five-minute trains (especially the ones during off-peak hours) will be emptier than they are now.

5 minute headways for a regional LRV/heavy-rail commuter system is fairly impractical, and nobody does it. 5 minute headways for an inter-city streetcar or subway is a good figure to shoot for. Why? LRVs aren't streetcars. They are used for getting commuters to and from work, or getting in between cities or distant parts of cities. Streetcars are intended for getting around inside a city or neighborhood, and are much better suited to short headways, because they are far cheaper to run and better suited to impulse trips and short hops.

State and federal transit funds are not the eternal cornucopia you seem to think they are. State public-transit funds just got savaged, so much that RT is cutting the weekday Route 143 fake-trolley runs through the central city, and several other routes. Federal funding is profoundly difficult to get, and the main reason why the DNA route isn't built yet isn't wishy-washiness on the part of our city government but the difficulty in getting the federal government to cough up the dough.

Re West Sacramento: Part of why they are having success is that they *ARE NOT* pursuing state or federal funds. They're keeping the system locally funded and will pay a lot less than the LRV-based system costs. And so far the West Sac/Sacramento streetcar line is just a feasibility study: we can celebrate over its success when the first car goes over the Tower Bridge, but it hasn't happened yet.

Running a city requires far more than "political will." You can't get through on positive thinking alone, no matter how much Norman Vincent Peale of "The Secret" you read. Politics is sometimes called "the art of the possible," and often you have to make decisions and compromises based on the resources available. It also means educating yourself as to how things get done before you decide how they should be done.

Hell, maybe you should hire me as your campaign advisor. Or maybe I should be charging you consulting fees for all this free advice!

[Cynikal]

I would turn that around wburg. Why don't you hire him as an assistant when you run. I think it would be a nice touch to have someone with historical knowledge on council. What district would you be running for?

[wburg]

cynikal: I'd be too worried about Majin pulling a coup d'etat in my office! Currently I try to add to the council's historical knowledge by showing up to Council meetings and talking about history issues, or at least by encouraging them to read my books (I'd put a smiley here if I used smileys.) And I probably want to finish my own education before I make a run: I just started grad school, which will limit my availability for such things, and I'm already thinking about going for a doctorate when I get done with that. So give me about five years...

[wburg]

grr! double post!

[Cynikal]

Drop me a PM next time you are attending a council meeting. I'll walk downstairs and say hi.

[reggiesquared]

NoNewArena_ at 7:00 AM PST Wednesday, November 21, 2007 wrote:

She has no vision!

Fargo has absolutely ZERO vision for what she wants to do in this city. We need a strong leader that will lead us forward. My man Majin, you need to step forward now!


-- looks like a NNA spoofer haha...

[TowerDistrict]

NoNewArena_ at 7:00 AM PST Wednesday, November 21, 2007 wrote:

She has no vision!

Fargo has absolutely ZERO vision for what she wants to do in this city. We need a strong leader that will lead us forward. My man Majin, you need to step forward now!


-- looks like a NNA spoofer haha...

wtf.. hahaha!

[Majin]

NoNewArena_ at 7:00 AM PST Wednesday, November 21, 2007 wrote:

She has no vision!

Fargo has absolutely ZERO vision for what she wants to do in this city. We need a strong leader that will lead us forward. My man Majin, you need to step forward now!


-- looks like a NNA spoofer haha...

Sorry man I REALLY wish I could right now, I really do. But in all honesty there is zero chance of anybdoy taking me seriously right now because of my age alone. I would need a good 10-15 years on me for age and experience (for career/development/politics) before I can mount a reasonable compaign.

[creamcityleo79]

wtf.. hahaha!

Seriously! I wouldn't want that idiot on my side!

[reggiesquared]

Seriously! I wouldn't want that idiot on my side!

looks like someone spoofed it by adding an underscore to the end "NoNewArena_" the original numb nuts is "NoNewArena". I wonder who the majin/nna spoofer is? Anyone on this board?