PROP 207
Jo Clute
josepi at doitnow.com
Tue Sep 12 10:52:37 PDT 2006
Katie,
I think what you are describing is a "Turducken"
A chicken stuffed in a duck stuffed in a turkey
also been referred to as a "franken-duck",
:-)
----- Original Message -----
From: <ktoneal at cox.net>
To: <central-city-discuss at gcna.info>
Cc: "Jo Clute" <josepi at doitnow.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 7:13 AM
Subject: Re: PROP 207
>I just got a chance to read these threads and realized my opinion was
>requested on this. After over 20 years of voting in Arizona, I guess I've
>earned the right to throw in my 2 cents.
>
> Here's my rule of thumb when voting on Arizona propositions.
>
> If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck and looks like a duck, then it
> is proabably a duck.
> If it walks like a chicken, crows like a rooster, and looks like a turkey,
> It's probably some group of people somewhere trying to trick the Arizona
> voter into something they really don't want.
>
> I'm voting no.
>
> Kt
>
> ---- Jo Clute <josepi at doitnow.com> wrote:
>> Michelle, I found this piece on prop 207 and I am under the impression
>> that this is the actual text to the proposed amendment. Is this
>> accurate? Most of the info I read on it, are interpretations or
>> opinions of the outcomes but RARELY does anyone refer back to the
>> actual-ver batum language used in the amendment. that is where I get
>> confused.
>>
>> I am a fanatic about property rights-more especially my very own :-). A
>> takings appeal is a very important right if you feel the government is
>> "taking" value form your property"
>>
>> If you look at the referenced situations below, I remember reading about
>> these situations in the newspaper and thinking wow, the gov sure is
>> expanding their definition of "public use" and now condos are public use?
>>
>> what text in this amendment specifically is bad and what is the basis, in
>> your opinion :-)
>>
>>
>> (and I'll call ya later, too:-)
>>
>> fritz? what is your call on this?
>>
>> wayne?
>>
>> katie?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> AN INITIATIVE MEASURE
>>
>> AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 8, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING ARTICLE
>> 2.1;
>>
>> RELATING TO THE PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT.
>>
>> Be it enacted by the People of the State of Arizona:
>>
>> Section 1. Short title
>>
>> This act may be cited as the "Private Property Rights Protection Act".
>>
>> Sec. 2. Findings and declarations
>>
>> A. The people of Arizona find and declare:
>>
>> 1. Article 2, section 17 of our State Constitution declares in no
>> uncertain terms that private property shall
>>
>> not be taken for private use.
>>
>> 2. Our Constitution further provides that no person shall be deprived of
>> property without due process of
>>
>> law.
>>
>> 3. Finally, our Constitution does not permit property to be taken or
>> damaged without just compensation
>>
>> having first been made.
>>
>> 4. Notwithstanding these clear constitutional rights, the state and
>> municipal governments of Arizona
>>
>> consistently encroach on the rights of private citizens to own and use
>> their property, requiring the people of this
>>
>> State to seek redress in our state and federal courts which have not
>> always adequately protected private property
>>
>> rights as demanded by the State and Federal Constitutions. For example:
>>
>> (a) A recent United States Supreme Court ruling, Kelo v. City of New
>> London, allowed a city to exercise
>>
>> its power of eminent domain to take a citizen's home for the purpose of
>> transferring control of the land to a private
>>
>> commercial developer.
>>
>> (b) The City of Mesa used eminent domain to acquire and bulldoze homes
>> for a redevelopment project that
>>
>> included a hotel and water park. After the developer's financing fell
>> through the project was abandoned and the
>>
>> property left vacant.
>>
>> (c) The City of Mesa filed condemnation actions against Randy Bailey, to
>> take his family-owned brake
>>
>> shop, and Patrick Dennis, to take his auto-body shop, so that local
>> business owners could relocate and expand a
>>
>> hardware store and an appliance store.
>>
>> (d) The City of Tempe instituted an eminent domain action to condemn the
>> home of Kenneth and Mary
>>
>> Ann Pillow in order to transfer their property to a private developer who
>> planned to build upscale townhomes.
>>
>> (e) The City of Chandler filed a condemnation action against a fast food
>> restaurant in order to replace the
>>
>> fast-food restaurant with upscale dining and retail uses.
>>
>> (f) In the wake of the Kelo ruling, the City of Tempe recently sought to
>> condemn property in an industrial
>>
>> park in order to make way for an enormous retail shopping mall.
>>
>> (g) The City of Tempe told the owners of an Apache Boulevard bowling
>> alley that the City intended to
>>
>> condemn their property and specifically instructed them not to make
>> further improvements to the land. Heeding
>>
>> Tempe's advice, the owners made no further improvements and ultimately
>> lost bowling league contracts and went
>>
>> out of business. The Arizona Court of Appeals refused the owners' request
>> for just compensation.
>>
>> (h) Courts have also allowed state and local governments to impose
>> significant prohibitions and restrictions
>>
>> on the use of private property without compensating the owner for the
>> economic loss of value to that property.
>>
>> 5. For home owners in designated slum or blighted areas, the compensation
>> received when a primary
>>
>> residence is seized is not truly just as required by our state
>> constitution.
>>
>> 6. Furthermore, even when property is taken for a valid public use, the
>> judicial processes available to
>>
>> property owners to obtain just compensation are burdensome, costly and
>> unfair.
>>
>> B. Having made the above findings, the people of Arizona declare that all
>> property rights are fundamental
>>
>> rights and that all people have inalienable rights including the right to
>> acquire, possess, control and protect property.
>>
>> Therefore the citizens of the State of Arizona hereby adopt the Private
>> Property Rights Protection Act to ensure that
>>
>> Arizona citizens do not lose their home or property or lose the value of
>> their home or property without just
>>
>> compensation. Whenever state and local governments take or diminish the
>> value of private property, it is the intent
>>
>> of this act that the owner will receive just compensation, either by
>> negotiation or by an efficient and fair judicial
>>
>> process.
>>
>> Sec. 3. Title 12, chapter 8, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by
>> adding article 2.1, to read:
>>
>> Article 2.1. PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT
>>
>> 12-1131. PROPERTY MAY BE TAKEN ONLY FOR PUBLIC USE CONSISTENT WITH THIS
>>
>> ARTICLE
>>
>> EMINENT DOMAIN MAY BE EXERCISED ONLY IF THE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN IS
>>
>> AUTHORIZED BY THIS STATE, WHETHER BY STATUTE OR OTHERWISE, AND FOR A
>> PUBLIC USE AS
>>
>> DEFINED BY THIS ARTICLE.
>>
>> 12-1132. BURDEN OF PROOF
>>
>> A. IN ALL EMINENT DOMAIN ACTIONS THE JUDICIARY SHALL COMPLY WITH THE
>> STATE
>>
>> CONSTITUTION'S MANDATE THAT WHENEVER AN ATTEMPT IS MADE TO TAKE PRIVATE
>>
>> PROPERTY FOR A USE ALLEGED TO BE PUBLIC, THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
>> CONTEMPLATED
>>
>> USE BE REALLY PUBLIC SHALL BE A JUDICIAL QUESTION, AND DETERMINED AS SUCH
>> WITHOUT
>>
>> REGARD TO ANY LEGISLATIVE ASSERTION THAT THE USE IS PUBLIC.
>>
>> B. IN ANY EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SLUM CLEARANCE AND
>>
>> REDEVELOPMENT, THIS STATE OR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE SHALL
>> ESTABLISH
>>
>> BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT EACH PARCEL IS NECESSARY TO
>> ELIMINATE A
>>
>> DIRECT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY CAUSED BY THE PROPERTY IN ITS
>> CURRENT
>>
>> CONDITION, INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES THAT ARE BEYOND REPAIR OR
>> UNFIT
>>
>> FOR HUMAN HABITATION OR USE, OR TO ACQUIRE ABANDONED PROPERTY AND THAT NO
>>
>> REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE TO CONDEMNATION EXISTS.
>>
>> 12-1133. JUST COMPENSATION; SLUM CLEARANCE AND REDEVELOPMENT
>>
>> IN ANY EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SLUM CLEARANCE AND
>>
>> REDEVELOPMENT, IF PRIVATE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S
>> PRINCIPAL
>>
>> RESIDENCE IS TAKEN, THE OCCUPANTS SHALL BE PROVIDED A COMPARABLE
>> REPLACEMENT
>>
>> DWELLING THAT IS DECENT, SAFE, AND SANITARY AS DEFINED IN THE STATE AND
>> FEDERAL
>>
>> RELOCATION LAWS, SECTION 11-961 ET SEQ. AND 42 USC 4601 ET SEQ., AND THE
>> REGULATIONS
>>
>> PROMULGATED THEREUNDER. AT THE OWNER'S ELECTION, IF MONETARY COMPENSATION
>> IS
>>
>> DESIRED IN LIEU OF A REPLACEMENT DWELLING, THE AMOUNT OF JUST
>> COMPENSATION THAT
>>
>> IS MADE AND DETERMINED FOR THAT TAKING SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN THE SUM OF
>> MONEY
>>
>> THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO PURCHASE A COMPARABLE REPLACEMENT DWELLING
>> THAT IS
>>
>> DECENT, SAFE, AND SANITARY AS DEFINED IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL RELOCATION
>> LAWS
>>
>> AND REGULATIONS.
>>
>> 12-1134. DIMINUTION IN VALUE; JUST COMPENSATION
>>
>> A. IF THE EXISTING RIGHTS TO USE, DIVIDE, SELL OR POSSESS PRIVATE REAL
>> PROPERTY
>>
>> ARE REDUCED BY THE ENACTMENT OR APPLICABILITY OF ANY LAND USE LAW ENACTED
>> AFTER
>>
>> THE DATE THE PROPERTY IS TRANSFERRED TO THE OWNER AND SUCH ACTION REDUCES
>> THE
>>
>> FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY THE OWNER IS ENTITLED TO JUST
>> COMPENSATION
>>
>> FROM THIS STATE OR THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ENACTED
>> THE LAND
>>
>> USE LAW.
>>
>> B. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO LAND USE LAWS THAT:
>>
>> 1. LIMIT OR PROHIBIT A USE OR DIVISION OF REAL PROPERTY FOR THE
>> PROTECTION OF
>>
>> THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH AND SAFETY, INCLUDING RULES AND REGULATIONS RELATING
>> TO FIRE
>>
>> AND BUILDING CODES, HEALTH AND SANITATION, TRANSPORTATION OR TRAFFIC
>> CONTROL,
>>
>> SOLID OR HAZARDOUS WASTE, AND POLLUTION CONTROL;
>>
>> 2. LIMIT OR PROHIBIT THE USE OR DIVISION OF REAL PROPERTY COMMONLY AND
>>
>> HISTORICALLY RECOGNIZED AS A PUBLIC NUISANCE UNDER COMMON LAW;
>>
>> 3. ARE REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW;
>>
>> 4. LIMIT OR PROHIBIT THE USE OR DIVISION OF A PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
>>
>> HOUSING SEX OFFENDERS, SELLING ILLEGAL DRUGS, LIQUOR CONTROL, OR
>> PORNOGRAPHY,
>>
>> OBSCENITY, NUDE OR TOPLESS DANCING, AND OTHER ADULT ORIENTED BUSINESSES
>> IF THE
>>
>> LAND USE LAWS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THIS STATE AND THE
>> UNITED
>>
>> STATES;
>>
>> 5. ESTABLISH LOCATIONS FOR UTILITY FACILITIES;
>>
>> 6. DO NOT DIRECTLY REGULATE AN OWNER'S LAND; OR
>>
>> 7. WERE ENACTED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION.
>>
>> C. THIS STATE OR THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ENACTED THE
>> LAND
>>
>> USE LAW HAS THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING THAT THE LAND USE LAW IS EXEMPT
>>
>> PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION B.
>>
>> D. THE OWNER SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO FIRST SUBMIT A LAND USE APPLICATION
>> TO
>>
>> REMOVE, MODIFY, VARY OR OTHERWISE ALTER THE APPLICATION OF THE LAND USE
>> LAW TO
>>
>> THE OWNER'S PROPERTY AS A PREREQUISITE TO DEMANDING OR RECEIVING JUST
>>
>> COMPENSATION PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION.
>>
>> E. IF A LAND USE LAW CONTINUES TO APPLY TO PRIVATE REAL PROPERTY MORE
>> THAN
>>
>> NINETY DAYS AFTER THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY MAKES A WRITTEN DEMAND IN A
>> SPECIFIC
>>
>> AMOUNT FOR JUST COMPENSATION TO THIS STATE OR THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISION
>> OF THIS
>>
>> STATE THAT ENACTED THE LAND USE LAW, THE OWNER HAS A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
>> JUST
>>
>> COMPENSATION IN A COURT IN THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED,
>> UNLESS
>>
>> THIS STATE OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE AND THE OWNER REACH AN
>>
>> AGREEMENT ON THE AMOUNT OF JUST COMPENSATION TO BE PAID, OR UNLESS THIS
>> STATE OR
>>
>> POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE AMENDS, REPEALS, OR ISSUES TO THE
>> LANDOWNER A
>>
>> BINDING WAIVER OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAND USE LAW ON THE OWNER'S SPECIFIC
>> PARCEL.
>>
>> F. ANY DEMAND FOR LANDOWNER RELIEF OR ANY WAIVER THAT IS GRANTED IN LIEU
>> OF
>>
>> COMPENSATION RUNS WITH THE LAND.
>>
>> G. AN ACTION FOR JUST COMPENSATION BASED ON DIMINUTION IN VALUE MUST BE
>>
>> MADE OR FOREVER BARRED WITHIN THREE YEARS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
>> LAND USE
>>
>> LAW, OR OF THE FIRST DATE THE REDUCTION OF THE EXISTING RIGHTS TO USE,
>> DIVIDE, SELL OR
>>
>> POSSESS PROPERTY APPLIES TO THE OWNER'S PARCEL, WHICHEVER IS LATER.
>>
>> H. THE REMEDY CREATED BY THIS SECTION IS IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER REMEDY
>>
>> THAT IS PROVIDED BY THE LAWS AND CONSTITUTION OF THIS STATE OR THE UNITED
>> STATES
>>
>> AND IS NOT INTENDED TO MODIFY OR REPLACE ANY OTHER REMEDY.
>>
>> I. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION PROHIBITS THIS STATE OR ANY POLITICAL
>> SUBDIVISION OF
>>
>> THIS STATE FROM REACHING AN AGREEMENT WITH A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER TO
>> WAIVE A
>>
>> CLAIM FOR DIMINUTION IN VALUE REGARDING ANY PROPOSED ACTION BY THIS STATE
>> OR A
>>
>> POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE OR ACTION REQUESTED BY THE PROPERTY
>> OWNER.
>>
>> 12-1135. ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
>>
>> A. A PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT LIABLE TO THIS STATE OR ANY POLITICAL
>> SUBDIVISION
>>
>> OF THIS STATE FOR ATTORNEY FEES OR COSTS IN ANY EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION OR
>> IN ANY
>>
>> ACTION FOR DIMINUTION IN VALUE.
>>
>> B. A PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE AWARDED REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS AND
>>
>> EXPENSES IN EVERY EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION IN WHICH THE TAKING IS FOUND TO
>> BE NOT FOR
>>
>> A PUBLIC USE.
>>
>> C. IN ANY EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SLUM CLEARANCE AND
>>
>> REDEVELOPMENT, A PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE AWARDED REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES
>> IN
>>
>> EVERY CASE IN WHICH THE FINAL AMOUNT OFFERED BY THE MUNICIPALITY WAS LESS
>> THAN
>>
>> THE AMOUNT ASCERTAINED BY A JURY OR THE COURT IF A JURY IS WAIVED BY THE
>> PROPERTY
>>
>> OWNER.
>>
>> D. A PREVAILING PLAINTIFF IN AN ACTION FOR JUST COMPENSATION THAT IS
>> BASED ON
>>
>> DIMINUTION IN VALUE PURSUANT TO SECTION 12-1134 MAY BE AWARDED COSTS,
>> EXPENSES
>>
>> AND REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES.
>>
>> 12-1136. DEFINITIONS
>>
>> IN THIS ARTICLE, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES:
>>
>> 1. "FAIR MARKET VALUE" MEANS THE MOST LIKELY PRICE ESTIMATED IN TERMS OF
>>
>> MONEY WHICH THE LAND WOULD BRING IF EXPOSED FOR SALE IN THE OPEN MARKET,
>> WITH
>>
>> REASONABLE TIME ALLOWED IN WHICH TO FIND A PURCHASER, BUYING WITH
>> KNOWLEDGE OF
>>
>> ALL THE USES AND PURPOSES TO WHICH IT IS ADAPTED AND FOR WHICH IT IS
>> CAPABLE.
>>
>> 2. "JUST COMPENSATION" FOR PURPOSES OF AN ACTION FOR DIMINUTION IN VALUE
>>
>> MEANS THE SUM OF MONEY THAT IS EQUAL TO THE REDUCTION IN FAIR MARKET
>> VALUE OF THE
>>
>> PROPERTY RESULTING FROM THE ENACTMENT OF THE LAND USE LAW AS OF THE DATE
>> OF
>>
>> ENACTMENT OF THE LAND USE LAW.
>>
>> 3. "LAND USE LAW" MEANS ANY STATUTE, RULE, ORDINANCE, RESOLUTION OR LAW
>>
>> ENACTED BY THIS STATE OR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT
>> REGULATES THE
>>
>> USE OR DIVISION OF LAND OR ANY INTEREST IN LAND OR THAT REGULATES
>> ACCEPTED
>>
>> FARMING OR FORESTRY PRACTICES.
>>
>> 4. "OWNER" MEANS THE HOLDER OF FEE TITLE TO THE SUBJECT REAL PROPERTY.
>>
>> 5. "PUBLIC USE":
>>
>> (a) MEANS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
>>
>> (i) THE POSSESSION, OCCUPATION, AND ENJOYMENT OF THE LAND BY THE GENERAL
>>
>> PUBLIC, OR BY PUBLIC AGENCIES;
>>
>> (ii) THE USE OF LAND FOR THE CREATION OR FUNCTIONING OF UTILITIES;
>>
>> (iii) THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY TO ELIMINATE A DIRECT THREAT TO PUBLIC
>>
>> HEALTH OR SAFETY CAUSED BY THE PROPERTY IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION,
>> INCLUDING THE
>>
>> REMOVAL OF A STRUCTURE THAT IS BEYOND REPAIR OR UNFIT FOR HUMAN
>> HABITATION OR
>>
>> USE; OR
>>
>> (iv) THE ACQUISITION OF ABANDONED PROPERTY.
>>
>> (b) DOES NOT INCLUDE THE PUBLIC BENEFITS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
>> INCLUDING
>>
>> AN INCREASE IN TAX BASE, TAX REVENUES, EMPLOYMENT OR GENERAL ECONOMIC
>> HEALTH.
>>
>> 6. "TAKEN" AND "TAKING" MEAN THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OR USE FROM A
>>
>> PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER TO THIS STATE OR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
>> STATE OR TO
>>
>> ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THIS STATE OR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
>> STATE.
>>
>> 12-1137. APPLICABILITY
>>
>> IF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THIS ARTICLE AND ANY OTHER LAW ARISES, THIS ARTICLE
>>
>> CONTROLS.
>>
>> 12-1138. SEVERABILITY
>>
>> IF ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT OR ITS APPLICATION TO ANY PERSON OR
>> CIRCUMSTANCE
>>
>> IS HELD INVALID THAT INVALIDITY DOES NOT AFFECT OTHER PROVISIONS OR
>> APPLICATIONS OF
>>
>> THE ACT THAT CAN BE GIVEN EFFECT WITHOUT THE INVALID PROVISION OR
>> APPLICATION, AND
>>
>> TO THIS END THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT ARE SEVERABLE.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Michelle Steinberg
>> To: central-city-discuss at gcna.info
>> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 11:26 AM
>> Subject: Re: PROP 207
>>
>>
>> http://www.noprop207.org/index.htm
>> http://www.hopeforarizona.com/
>>
>> these are the two websites re: Prop 207
>>
>> In my opinion, MJ is right in her assessment
>>
>> VOTE today to change the world tomorrow.
>> REGISTER AND VOTE!!
>> www.servicearizona.com
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Jo Clute
>> To: central-city-discuss at gcna.info
>> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 12:31 AM
>> Subject: PROP 207
>>
>>
>> Can someone PLEASE.....explain prop 207 to me or give me their
>> opinions, I am so confused on this topic and how this prop is written.
>>
>> I am extremely PRO personal property rights but I have also heard
>> that this prop is pro personal rights cloaked in darkness.
>>
>> Anywone??
>>
>> This is suppossed to be a heated topic coming up with the election.
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> --Note--
>> By replying to this email, you will be sending to the entire list.
>> Be sure to change the recipient of the email if you do not want to
>> post
>> to the central-city-discuss list.
>>
>> --Disclaimer--
>> The messages exchanged on this list in no way reflect the official
>> position of the Greater Coronado Neighborhood association. This
>> e-mail
>> list is maintained by an outside source, with no financial tie, or
>> editorial directive from the Greater Coronado Neighborhood
>> Association.
>>
>> To maintain your subscription, visit http://www.gcna.info/list
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> --Note--
>> By replying to this email, you will be sending to the entire list.
>> Be sure to change the recipient of the email if you do not want to post
>> to the central-city-discuss list.
>>
>> --Disclaimer--
>> The messages exchanged on this list in no way reflect the official
>> position of the Greater Coronado Neighborhood association. This e-mail
>> list is maintained by an outside source, with no financial tie, or
>> editorial directive from the Greater Coronado Neighborhood Association.
>>
>> To maintain your subscription, visit http://www.gcna.info/list
>
>
More information about the central-city-discuss
mailing list