AT&T drops plan for cell tower at Palo Alto church

Company to withdraw application after St. Albert the Great Church ends negotiations over proposed tower

AT&T has abandoned its plan to install a cell tower at St. Albert the Great Church in Palo Alto's Crescent Park neighborhood after the church withdrew from the proposal, AT&T and church officials said.

The church informed the company Monday that it no longer wants to serve as the site of a 50-foot cell tower -- a project that has galvanized opposition from neighbors around the church. While Palo Alto Planning Director Curtis Williams gave the proposal for 1095 Channing Ave. the city's tentative approval, residents appealed the decision, prompting the city to schedule public hearings on the subject.

But the church's decision to withdraw from its negotiations with AT&T effectively kills the project before the hearings had even begun. The Rev. Matthew Stanley said the church decided to withdraw the application because of feedback from the neighborhood. He estimated that about two thirds of the residents near the church said they opposed the project, citing concerns about health effects and aesthetic impacts.

"We originally accepted the offer because we thought it would be a good thing to do to provide our neighbors with cell phone coverage," Stanley said. "But ultimately, the neighborhood didn't think it was a good idea."

Many of the arguments from the opponents, he said, were driven by emotion rather than logic. But the church ultimately decided that withdrawing the application is the best thing to do for the long-term "peace of the neighborhood."

"I think logic and reason did not prevail in the overall process," Stanley said.

AT&T spokesman Lane Kasselman said the church's decision means the company would have to find other sites in the city for cell infrastructure. The company has consistently maintained that the new infrastructure is needed to meet the city's growing wireless-communication demand.

"Our customers' needs haven't changed so we'll continue to look for locations," Kasselman.

AT&T said in a statement that it is "hopeful that we'll be able to find alternative solutions for the hundreds of supporters that need wireless coverage in the area.

"We're disappointed by the decision of St. Albert's to withdraw from negotiations for new infrastructure which would have brought increased wireless network coverage and capacity to area customers," the statement said.

Planning Director Curtis Williams said the company notified the city on Monday about the church's decision to end its negotiations. Williams said AT&T officials notified the city that they would be sending a letter in the coming days to formally withdraw the application.

The proposal suffered a setback earlier this month when the city's Architectural Review Board panned the proposed design of the cell tower and asked the company to revise its plan and return with more information. Kasselman said the application withdrawal had nothing to do with any city decision.

The Channing Avenue proposal is one of several AT&T applications that have been going through the city's pipeline in recent months. The City Council last month approved a plan by AT&T to install wi-fi antennas on the balcony of Hotel President on University Avenue. The approval came despite opposition from the building residents, some of whom argued that the installation and maintenance of the new devices would intrude on their privacy.

Williams told the council earlier this month that the city expects more applications in the coming months. City officials are planning to hold a study session to review existing regulations and address the community's concerns about the new infrastructure.


Posted by Midtown resident, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 19, 2011 at 9:47 am

NIMBY strikes again. Everyone complains about the poor AT&T service in Palo Alto, but when they try to add a cell tower no one wants it near their house. Sometimes I wonder about this city....

Posted by thug tactics, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 19, 2011 at 9:51 am

NIMBYs win again. The Palo Alto way.

Posted by Elizabeth, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 19, 2011 at 10:18 am

Too bad. I thought we'd finally get a clear, direct line to God. " )

Posted by Sandy, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 19, 2011 at 10:27 am

Did someone actually take a poll of residents in the neighborhood, or are the church, the city, and AT&T just listening to the noisiest (and possibly the most selfish) of the NIMBYs???

Posted by redundant, a resident of Woodside
on Apr 19, 2011 at 10:29 am

"noisiest (and possibly the most selfish) of the NIMBYs"

Well done! Bravo! The rare triple redundancy!

noisy selfish nimby!

Posted by paneighbor, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 19, 2011 at 10:34 am

Oh, wireless service...
Where art thou? Stuart's Tru Love has
pulled the plug on us...

Posted by St. Albert Neighbor, a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 19, 2011 at 10:34 am

Can I get an AT&T tower installed on my lot? What is the process for approaching AT&T to volunteer? I have a Palo Alto Utility easement on my property already, as well as a telephone pole. Might as well stick a cell tower there too.

Posted by Agree with Midtown Resident, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 19, 2011 at 10:46 am

I heartily agree with first poster Midtown Resident and I too wonder about this place...

Everyone is quick to complain about the problems but even quicker to cry out against any solutions.

It is no wonder Google chose to pass up Palo Alto for a less dysfunctional midwest town.

Posted by Shocking decision, a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 19, 2011 at 10:52 am

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by It's your own fault, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 19, 2011 at 10:56 am

Those few noisy NIMBYS win again. For all the people that WANTED this project, why did you stay home, being quiet?

It's your own fault. You could complain about this to your friends. But it's likely the call will be dropped, mid-conversation.

Posted by Concerned Resident, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 19, 2011 at 11:02 am

Palo Alto should be featured in a modern day version of Gulliver's Travels. How can we be looked upon as the top of the tech pyramid with people like Stuart and Tru Love (still cannot believe that's a real name and not a satirical one from a novel)bringing down the towers of progress?

Posted by Way neighbor, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Apr 19, 2011 at 11:03 am

Why not put a cell phone tower up at Cubberley? Or on the Caltrain line in South Palo Alto? Or on library or Fire station locations? Why can't this be accomplished on city, county, or state property?

Posted by svatoid, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Apr 19, 2011 at 11:25 am

Not a surprising outcome--people in Palo Alto know how to work the system so that the NIMBY minority triumph over the needs of the majority in the city. Pitch a hissy fit, make false claims (radiation danger, decreased property values), yell and scream some more, threaten the city etc. WE have seen it many times before--the Alma Plaza fiasco is one example.
Too bad the church caved into these selfish individuals and their bogus claims. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by Scott Jenson, a resident of Triple El
on Apr 19, 2011 at 11:37 am

It's worse than NIMBY, it's luddite crackpot-ism. Let's *do* something about it! Someone already proposed a site for another antenna. If so, please go forward and let us know so we can support you when you put your petition forward. This won't change unless we get as supportive as the crackpots are agressive.

Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto
on Apr 19, 2011 at 11:52 am

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by Jim, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 19, 2011 at 11:54 am

Stephen Stuart whats your recommendation?

I think the city should still break ties with you. I would rather pay higher tax for the "free internet" that you offered the city, than have you manipulate the church, residents and the modernization of this city.

I wouldn't want your karma as the thoughts of your action will not be positive as we experience dropped calls

Posted by Nearby neighbor, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 19, 2011 at 12:04 pm

I am so sorry that the church caved in to pressure from a few irrational neighbors. I would sincerely doubt that 2/3 opposed the tower. I know we would have been very happy to have it. I'd like to see the church reconsider their decision.

Neighbors, I know we're all unhappy and even angry with this decision, but I suggest that our arguments would be stronger without making fun of those involved and denigrating them. Let's use our own logic and reason instead of taking mean swipes at people.

Posted by PA-Needs-Excellent-Cell-Phone-Coverage, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 19, 2011 at 12:08 pm

It's time to change the Charter so that the residents can recall Board&Commission Members. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Cell phones have become critical communications infrastructure. The City needs to recognize that, and acknowledge the need for the best cell phone coverage available.

It's sad that AT&T has decided to withdraw its plans for a tower at this location. However, there are other locations, so hopefully it has other sites in mind for this, and other towers in PA.

Hopefully WiMax/LTE will be making the scene soon.

Posted by AT&T wins, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 19, 2011 at 12:13 pm

Of course, this is a PR coup for AT&T. Next time some consumer survey rates AT&T as the worst cellular company in the USA, they can just blame the NIMBYs and people will still buy iphones.

Posted by No to 80 antennas, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 19, 2011 at 12:15 pm

My guess is that AT&T backed out of this. However, just wait they are planning to put 80 antennas on top of utility polls and light fixtures throughout the City. If you thought a fake tower on top of a church was ugly just wait 'till 40 of those antennas go up in north Palo Alto. You haven't seen ugly yet!!!

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 19, 2011 at 1:18 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Since when has anyone noticed pole top equipment?

Posted by PA-Needs-Excellent-Cell-Phone-Coverage, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 19, 2011 at 1:44 pm

> VSince when has anyone noticed pole top equipment?

Google's Free WiFi system in Mountain View is facilitated by on-pole transceivers. They were obvious the first week that they were installed, but they are invisible now.

Posted by John Baum, a resident of Triple El
on Apr 19, 2011 at 1:55 pm

Recently Verizon added a cell phone antenna to one already installed by another provider in the cross on the First Congregational Church, Louis Road at Embarcadero. Service improved markedly. At our house we were pleased.

Now I find myself wondering why it is that some neighborhoods are permitted success in blocking the installation of further improved cell phone service in Palo Alto? If the arguments they put forth apply in their neighborhoods, why shouldn't they apply city-wide. Why shouldn't we appeal to the City Council to require the removal of all cell phone antennas within our city limits? Why shouldn't we take a further step and ban the use of cell phones within our city limits.

I look forward to the debate that will take the birth-place of Silicon Valley back to the mid 20th century. From my perspective, the burden is on those who recently blocked the St. Albert the Great antenna, those who years ago blocked on at the Crossroads Church on Middlefield in Midtown, and others I've long forgotten, to use their recently acquired skills to carry the torch to ban cell phone service everywhere in Palo Alto.

Let's make Palo Alto safe in all its neighborhoods, not just in a select few.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 19, 2011 at 2:33 pm

Let's wait and see how poor reception affects house prices in Palo Alto. After all, who wants to buy a house where they can't use their phone?

Posted by palo alto mom, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 19, 2011 at 2:38 pm

In Palo Alto - he who yells the loudest wins - from blocking grocery stores, to blocking cell antennas to getting an unfair choice program passed in our schools. In defense of SAG Church, Tru Love lives across the street and has plastered her home with comments about the cell tower, if my immediate neighbor was that vocal and adamant, I would probably cave also, even though she had no legal grounds for protesting (and the reality is that better cell cover increases not decreases your property value...)

The City should come up with a comprehensive guideline for cell towers and stick to it. The top of utility poles makes perfect sense, they are ugly already and we are used to ignoring them...

Posted by Bob, a resident of Barron Park
on Apr 19, 2011 at 3:02 pm

Too bad the Weekly aided and abetted the lead noisy selfish NIMBY by writing an article about them a while back. Such a shame.

Posted by Bob, a resident of Barron Park
on Apr 19, 2011 at 3:12 pm

And the thing that's most galling is that Stuart has earned his living through technology and is a man of science! He should know better!
Of course, everyone knows that RF waves interfere with the navigation of Fairies, which are very important to Love (see the the article about their house in the Weekly, "Better Late than Never," posted 4/16/10)

"Next to the front door is a 1/10 replica -- a fairy door to offer the house protection and good luck, Love says. Other fairy doors appear throughout the house, and a bough doorknocker acquired in Dublin, hark back to Love's Irish roots."

Posted by JA3+, a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 19, 2011 at 3:17 pm

As a long-time AT&T subscriber and Crescent Park resident, I sincerely had hoped the City would deny the appeal.

I now hope AT&T soon applies for additional permits for pole-top transceivers; the more, the better, in my opinion. Tight spacing likely reduces the need for transmission power; and low power has some benefits.

Adequate cell tower coverage will reduce the need for AT&T cell phones -- including the iPhone -- to operate transceivers at relatively high power levels; reducing such power clearly has some benefits, including some perhaps to users' health.

Finally, with the latest news here, I now wish and hope the City severs all remaining relationship(s), if any, with Stephen Stuart and the related non-profit.

Posted by RadioGuy, a resident of Barron Park
on Apr 19, 2011 at 5:13 pm

RadioGuy is a registered user.

AT&T's "Web Link" (Web Link) website has picture of a proposed DAS installation. Click on the "What does a DAS look like?" link on that page to see a picture.

These are the same Tyco (originally ADC) devices that McNeal Wireless used in their survey in the Palo Alto area last fall. At the time, McNeal Wireless put one of these units at the height of a utility pole with a bucket truck. Runners drove around the area evaluating the signal and recording their results.

Several have commented in this and other threads that DAS allows lower power operation of personal wireless devices. That is certainly true. However most standards, such as IEEE C95.1, specify MPE (maximum permissible exposure) that also includes the length of time in the radio frequency field. Thus even if the power is lower, if you talk longer or live directly under one of these devices, your exposure could actually be greater than living some distance from a standard cell tower.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 19, 2011 at 5:19 pm

What's the status of the proposed tower at the Little League Ball Park? Have the NIMBYs won there too?

For such an educated city of technology whiz kids, we have more of our fair share of stick in the muds!

Posted by mutti, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 19, 2011 at 6:38 pm

We're still working to keep the Little League ballpark tower. There are about 4 very, very vocal opponents, but the rest of the neighborhood will welcome it. There is already an artificial tree tower at Achieve School, just south of Mitchell Park library, and that fat flag pole at the fire station on East Meadow at Middlefield is a Sprint tower. So one more in the neighborhood shouldn't make any difference.

On the house price thing -- friends recently sold their house on south Bryant and had to disclose in the listing that there is no ATT service inside the house. In PA that's a worse problem than an 'almost invisible' tower. Which will lower the house price?

Posted by disclosures, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 19, 2011 at 7:20 pm

If you live across the street from an ugly cell phone tower, do you have to disclose that when selling your house? Or are home buyers expected to scope out the neighborhood on their own?

Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto
on Apr 19, 2011 at 7:26 pm

Yep, Shallow Alto at its finest. Such a bummer that "Stu Love" got their way - very medieval that anti-science superstition won - ironically, involving a church whose actions were way more reasonable than the alleged man of science driving this drama.

Posted by iphony, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 19, 2011 at 8:18 pm

Would be pretty ironic if Steve Jobs doesn't get AT&T service in his own house. Maybe that's why he finally switched to Verizon?

Posted by Rev. Matthew D. Stanley, a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 19, 2011 at 8:52 pm

For the record, in regards to AT&T's "disappointment" with St. Albert the Great's decision to withdraw...First, the January neighborhood meeting was a disaster. I don't know how much AT&T paid that public relations firm, but they did a horrible job and from that moment on things never got better. Second, in spite of all the efforts St. Albert the Great did to try and overcome AT&T's disastrous efforts to reach out to our neighbors, not once did they offer us a dollar more in rent to reward us for all of the work we did for them.

Posted by NIMBY, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 19, 2011 at 10:44 pm

To all you iPhone owning crabs who don't care for your cell reception, quit crabbing and work your own deal with ATT. You can get a 50-foot monolith in your very own backyard and bask in the radiofrequency glow 24/7. Guess what--you can make a tidy profit on the rent, too.

To Rev. Stanley: So it was all about the money, wasn't it...

Posted by money talks, a resident of South of Midtown
on Apr 19, 2011 at 11:03 pm

well well well. seems like not only the NIMBY's win but so does the city of palo alto. they will continue to get FREE FREE FREE internet service in government offices. Hmmmm wonder what Stuart said to the city and the church to make them support no tower. Probably something like: City, you pay for your own internet. find it in your budget to do that. Church, you will not get my donations for future expansion, outreach, etc. etc. etc. This game is being played at the Federal level and local level. Money talks. Wouldn't suprise me if Palo Alto was the only city ATT had to have public meetings to explain what was to take place. Guess the church will get more money from stuart than from ATT tower fees. So sad. So very sad.

Posted by Oh God !!, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 20, 2011 at 12:42 am

AT&T could not get closer to God
Got could not tolerate radiation
God found the antennas ugly
God likes touchy feely, not wireless
God loves Stuart
God cannot speak wireless-ly


Posted by resident, a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 20, 2011 at 8:06 am

If people now complaining had attended any of the meetings associaed with this cell tower application they would have seen hundreds of people objecting to the cell tower; this was not just the cause of a few people in proximity to the church.

AT&T did not adequately answer resident's concerns but rather brushed them off; AT&T's staff were like the "expert" dismissing the "ignorant". Except very smart and well educated people attended the meeting; they were were honestly seeking information. I think most really made their minds up after the meeting.

From my pespective, i have been concerned about the growing body of scientific research which raise concerns re the potiential health effects of cell phones and wireless installations. Longitudinal studies are being conducted which will provide additional information, but not for several years. Cell phone use /wireless installations are being compared to smoking, which for years was deemed safe despite growing concerns.

Cell/wireless use has exploded and I fail to see how streaming media or many iphone functions are necessary to public health or community safety; rather they are a personal choice.

Most of the residents I met while going door to door did not want the cell tower, did not want their children or grandchildern exposed to electromagnification and realized the tower technology was out dated; improved reception could be obtained by other methods including by contacting AT&T and requsting an AT&T 3 G MicroCell which "improves your wireless experience at home".

Offers for these MicroCells were mailed to select AT&T customers, if you did not receive an offer, perhaps you can go to the AT&T store on El Camino Real before May 31 and request your MicroCell.

Residents also wanted answers and learned that not all of the 9 panels on the tower would be used by AT&T but would be rented out, also AT&T indicated this would be the 1st tower not the only tower on the Church property.

IF AT&T had been more informtive rather than so arrogrant and dismissive, discussed particulars about the project and provided answers, the results may have been different. AT&T would not even confirm that they had contacted Verizon or other carriers regarding renting space on other installations.

In the vacumn of information, dissent rose and stopped the project. I applaud Fr Matt for listening to resdents and acting on their concerns. I have been told that the majority in the church who discussed the project were also against the Tower.

What residents are now requesting is for the City Council to declare a moratorium on new wirelss applications & installations and review their policies against those of other cities. The hard work has been done by Burbank and can be referenced to provide a comprehensive and equittable policy which can guide the city forward with responsible wireless installations.

Residents also expressed an overwhelming concern for the unrepresented school children, asked questions regarding a decrease in property values, were concered about a tax exempt institution entering into a commercial venture and took exception to the sheer ugliness of the proposed installation. Also concerns were voiced regarding exposure to hazardous chemicals and noise 2nd to construction and maintenance; these concerns all seeem very reasonable to me.

AT&T outside council at the ARB meeting indicated 17 other AT&T projects have been withdrawn; i think that pattern of residents objecting to AT&T "buying" their way into a neighborhood should be noted by the City Council and mandate a moratorium and review of current policy.

Let's move forward in a poitive fashion with a responsible policy.

I would urge all to stop attacking a few people, become educated on the topic and attend city council meetings. The request for a review and revision of the current wireless policy will stop pitting neighbor against neighbor and serve all residents with current technology and full coverage.

thank you

Posted by JA3+, a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 20, 2011 at 8:38 am

"...most standards, such as IEEE C95.1, specify MPE (maximum permissible exposure) that also includes the length of time in the radio frequency field. Thus even if the power is lower, if you talk longer or live directly under one of these devices, your exposure could actually be greater than living some distance from a standard cell tower."

The logic here is fundamentally flawed; a comparison is valid when all variables save one are the same; here, the comparison includes a change in call length or a change in location (or both).

If call length remains the same and user location remains the same, then this much is true: better cell tower coverage will lower the end-user's MPE.

Absent a change in any other variable, better cell tower coverage is clearly better for the health of the end user.

Posted by cell phone user, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 20, 2011 at 3:55 pm

I've seen the signs across from the Little League Park. Where can I go to put up a "please put a cell tower in my neighborhood" sign?

Posted by Improve Wireless Coverage, a resident of University South
on Apr 21, 2011 at 9:19 am

Would you like to host a cell site on your property?
Know of another good location for a cell site?

If you have ideas or suggestions, please email Randy Okamura of AT&T,

Also, you can receive updates on AT&T's work and make your voice heard through the website:

Posted by Crescent Park Dad, a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 21, 2011 at 11:22 am

An alternative solution - ATT should put the tower in Pardee Park. They can install one of the fake tree towers (they actually look pretty good). Problem solved and the city gets the rental income.

Posted by cross the street, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 21, 2011 at 12:29 pm

I hope ATT can now install the antenna right in a Light post right in front of the church and in front of that house owned by that silver spoon who owns the Internet to the city!

Posted by Tower supporter, a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Apr 21, 2011 at 12:36 pm

I attended the church cell tower meeting. There were not "hundreds" of people speaking out against this project. There were an equal amount of supporters to those that objected to the tower being built.

To me, the people objecting had the weakest arguments, and mostly based on fear & conjecture. I went to the meeting to learn, having no opinion one way or the other as to this particular tower, except for wanting better cell phone reception, in general.

But the most impressive supporters to me were the retired scientist that said there is more risk in using a cell phone itself, rather than from anything transmitted from the tower, and the neighbor that came from New York who described communications after 9/11.

I felt AT&T did a good job of explaining the mechanics of how the tower works. They answered all the questions (in spite of being almost heckled by one person that objected) and offered to be contacted, should anyone have more questions after the meeting.

Factoring in what all of them said, if I were asked to choose after the meeting, and even now, I'd vote to support the church tower.

Palo Alto wants to bill itself as a state of the art city, but a handful of people want it to remain behind the times. Both are fine ways to go. There is no "right" way.

But residents cannot have both ways at the same time. It's either a state of the art city *or* a backwards, low-key & old-fashioned city.
I'm disappointed that this proposal is off the table, and the project was derailed as a result of a handful of vocal opponents.

Posted by HUTCH 7.62, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 21, 2011 at 10:12 pm

Why not one of the pro cell tower people stand up and have one installed in their backyard. I'm sure AT&T would give you some kind of royalty payments.

With all the Nimbys running around PA these days one would think this place is Marin or Novato

Posted by TooBad, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 21, 2011 at 11:07 pm

It would have been nice to have the antenna; seemed logical on the church tower..

Posted by MrEdOfCourse, a resident of Crescent Park
on May 12, 2011 at 4:33 pm

I live a couple of blocks away. I would've *loved* to have had the tower there. Great reception, totally invisible, high speed, what's not to love unless you believe in EMF voodoo. I wish they would've put this on a ballot to let everyone decide and not just listen to the NIMBY crazies. I wonder how many of them have cell phones?

Posted by palo alto mom, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 13, 2011 at 8:12 am

I find it ironic that the people behind this protest have succeeded - only after threatening the City with cutting of its internet access - have left town and are selling their home.

If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Touring the Southern California “Ivies:” Pomona and Cal Tech
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 5 comments | 3,018 views

Couples: Parallel Play or Interactive Play?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,324 views

Just say no
By Jessica T | 6 comments | 1,242 views

SJSU Center for Steinbeck Studies to Honor Author Khaled Hosseini on Weds Sept 10
By Nick Taylor | 0 comments | 768 views

Candidate Kickoff Events: Public, not just for supporters
By Douglas Moran | 2 comments | 176 views