 What he has going for him is that we can get 66% of the vote and lose. I think the only, the last point that I'd like to make on the waterfront is what I hope will not happen, and I think we're overcoming, is I hope that the opposition or that some of the opposition doesn't come from the same old opposition for the sake of opposition, I think that Peter is referring to. And philosophically, people are more than entitled to have different points of view. Some people, for example, think the whole thing should be impossible. We have no objection to that. What I hope will not happen is that the opposition will develop because it will be seen that if this is developed, this will be something, a success for the Sanders administration. Therefore, anything that is good for the Sanders administration must be automatically opposed. I think there's some of that. But I think what is very exciting is that I think we have a lot of tried positive support on this. And most people are willing to go forward and say, hey, forget the credit. We don't need the credit for failure. We don't need the credit. Democrats don't need the credit. Let's go forward with all three political factions moving forward. What about the criticism that it's asking the city's taxpayers to forego tax revenues and those to subsidize an enclave for the rich? Well, I mean, what am I telling you? I mean, you can say, what's the criticism? Why are you having 20-story buildings on the waterfront? We're not. All right. A, we reject the fact that it's an enclave for the rich, and I think I've given you the reasons why. Second of all, you're not foregoing what you otherwise would not have. Now, in fact, if you had a situation, you are building public amenities. I think most people in the city of Berlin can understand that if you're talking about building a bicycle path, a community boat house, and parks, it costs money. Now, how do you build that without public money? One way to do it would simply be to raise taxes. Right now. I mean, that's an conventional way. We raised a three-quarters of a million dollars to build a bike path last year. That's a totally reasonable way. We choose not to do that. We choose to raise the revenue by taking the tax money generated by the new developer. So we don't accept, basically, that argument. We think, given no federal money, given no state money to build these public amenities, this kind of open waterfront for the people without having to raise taxes. And five years now, the line beginning to bring in substantial sums of money for the people of the city is a real coup. And I think Peter Clavel deserves a lot of credit, and his office deserves a lot of credit for having negotiated this agreement. And again, I want to point this out. Nothing that anybody does in government is ever perfect. Some of you will recall that virtually every Board of Aldermen's meeting that we discussed this issue, I stopped and I would say to every member of the Board of Aldermen, if you have a better idea on how to build public amenities for the people of Burlington without raising taxes, please, let's hear it. Let's understand your idea. We have not heard any better idea. This is the best idea that has been brought forward. We are operating without federal money. We're going to do something that's beautiful. We're not going to be able to, we're not going to have to raise taxes. I think that that's quite a achievement. As a result, on the other hand, I heard on the radio somebody referring to us as having suffered a smashing defeat. And what I would just like to say that in general, if I could continue to get 54% of the vote for the rest of my political future, I would not be too unhappy. The fact of the matter is that I believe every other community except the city of Burlington, maybe with one exception, 54% of the vote guarantees you a victory in Burlington. As everybody knows, we've got to get two-thirds of the vote on a budget. We did not do that. We knew from the very beginning that would be a tough struggle. We disappointed that we didn't get it. In all honesty, I feel that having come forward with a program to develop a waterfront that people from all walks of life could enjoy without raising property taxes, and that's the point that you're in. It's easy for everybody to say, let's have a people-oriented waterfront, but what's not so easy to say is, how do you do that with the dealing with various expensive land, and you know that you don't want to raise property taxes because people simply can't afford more property taxes? And that was the point that we were in for a variety of reasons. We didn't get the two-thirds of the vote. We disappointed that we thanked the many people who supported us on this. We're very gratified by the amount of try-cons of the Democratic Progressive support that we had on it. And for all people who remain concerned about the waterfront, our view is that that piece of property in the city of Burlington still really supports the most important area yet to be developed, and we will do everything in our power to prevent it from being developed in a way that people will not be able to enjoy and support a piece of real amount of important, ugly amount. I intend to be speaking with Olden, perhaps the rarer of the people who've been following the project, and see where we go from here. You know, my own feeling is that we missed a pretty good opportunity. We'll just have to be vigilant and do the best that we can in the future. So once again, we thank all people who supported us. The second point that I want to make, and it deals with the waterfront, but it goes beyond the waterfront. Of course, in many respects, if we forget about the plain political opposition, which existed, and obviously any time you go forward with any idea of a certain amount of just plain old, petty political opposition, what is very interesting about the debate that took place is that people said, it ain't good enough. We want something better. And that is an absolutely legitimate concern. The problem that we have had on the waterfront, and will continue to happen on virtually every program that this city goes forward with, whether it's in education, whether it's in police protection, whether it's in a dozen different areas of concern for people, is that it is very hard to come up with types of alternatives that we want given the tremendous financial restrictions that the city of Berlin and virtually every other city in power in the state of Vermont is able to function on them. You know, people in the past have criticized me and my administration for talking about federal issues. Why do you waste your time on federal issues? And of course, the bottom line is that so long as the federal government continues to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on the military, much of it on unnecessary wasteful programs, so long as the federal government continues to give gigantic tax breaks to the rich and the corporations, and then suddenly understanding, gee whiz, we have a big deficit, and then it's a response to the deficit crisis cuts program that working people need, that the poor people need, that the elderly need, that the cities in town need. So long as that process goes on, let me tell you, not only will Berlin concern, not only will every other city in town or state of Vermont suffer, but virtually every community, except the most wealthy, throughout this country will continue to suffer. So the dilemma is not the problem is not, gee, we want something better. Unfortunately, too often we're going to have to say, this is the best that we can do without having to raise property taxes and drive poor people out of the homes that they own, or create situations where rents go off the wall. So the answer, the questions will not be framed in necessarily what's the best, but what can a city under serious financial constraints actually provide to the people. And that takes us again to the area that we will see increasingly this city involved in, and that is the role of state government relating to the cities in town of Vermont and to the city of Berlin. In not too many months from now, we expect the school board will be coming forward with a need to raise revenue from the tax pays. And our position is that the members of the Burlington delegation to the Vermont state legislature, the senators, Chittenden County senators, should tell the governor and the legislature that they will support no tax increases, they will support no increase in state aid education unless there is a new formula which deals fairly with the city of Burlington. It is totally the uncomprehension that this city continues to expend hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars which go to state aid education and we get virtually nothing back from Montpelio. That has got to be changed and I hope that all of the Democrats and Republicans who represent our community both in the county and in the city of Burlington will stand firm on that issue. But once again, unless there is not substantial help in a whole variety of ways from state government. For example, we go back to the old project. The project could have been a more attractive project in retrospect. If the state had said, well, we're willing to put a state park on the waterfront of Burlington. We are willing to have a statewide museum in the Green Mountain Power Building so that the local property tax payers would not have to subsidize that. Now in truth, this is not a criticism of this legislature or this governor. That has been done to think programs like that have not been developed in the past. But I think whether it's the landfill, whether it's the waterfront, whether it's education, whether it's a dozen of the programs, with the fact that the federal government is turning its back on cities and towns, the state of Vermont is going to have to take a much more active approach to dealing with the communities. Can you tell us, Mayor, if there's anything specifically you have in mind for the waterfront's future? I know last night you mentioned this about going back to the drawing board and all this sort of thing. You mentioned today talking with Alden. Alden says that they're not going to be the major developer down there anymore. Alden may be right. I think I do have some ideas and some of us do, but I think it would be pretty much right. I mean, again, I just want to emphasize that in the opposition, it's interesting to hear the opposition, to hear some people who are very, very upset that they're not going to generate immediate tax revenue for the schools and for the city. If you follow that larger to its real conclusion, what some of those people are saying is, hey, we don't really care what's down there. Let's get some construction down there. Let's get some building down there so we can generate some immediate tax revenue. I personally never support that proposal. On the other hand, there are people who, at the same time, are talking about what's revenue coming from down there, are saying let's have it all as a public park. That also does not make a lot of sense to me. The dilemma, again, is how you have mixed development, how you can do without raising the regressive property tax, and how you can have the kind of activities down there that people from all walks of life can enjoy. And anyone who thinks that developing that program is so simple is very, very mistaken. We hear from critics who say, why don't you have moderate-income housing on the waterfront? There's nobody who would like to have moderate-income housing on that waterfront more than I. And this administration is working day and night to provide moderate-income housing in the city and we're having some success. We're talking about over 200 units of moderate-income housing being built. But historically, everybody who knows anything about this understands moderate-income housing and low-income housing, senior citizen housing, has been built with federal substance. And if the federal government turns its back on communities, it is very, very difficult to do. Would it be fair to say that your ideas do not involve any kind of property tax increase or any bonding at all? Let me not comment specifically on that. I think what we thought, what we went into, as people said to us, we don't like tax incremental financing. We are problems with it. And they're right. Tax incremental financing is not the world's greatest approach. No one denies that. In our feeling, what we said then and what we repeat now, if we had gone forward to the people and said we need three, four million dollars for a general bond issue in order to buy property on the waterfront to convert it to public use, do you think we would have won that? I don't think not only would we not have gotten the 54% that we got yesterday. I doubt if you would have gotten 25% or 30%. It does not forget that the people of Burlington suffered rather terribly as a result of state mandated reappraising. They were hit very, very hard. And I do not believe that there's any way in God's heart that the people of Burlington would have voted 66% for a geo bond issue to buy property on the waterfront and have their property taxes raised substantially. I just don't believe that. That's why we came up with the tax incremental financing. Understanding the true limitations of that program, the negative, but feeling that that was better than going through with a property tax increase. So Bob, you'll forgive me right now. I think I'll have something more to say probably in a week or so. But at this point, I have nothing definitive to say as to how we'll go forward. Other than this, my view remains that I will not allow development. I will do everything that I personally can do not to allow development down there which is going to take away that access that the people of the city and their children and grandchildren are entitled to have. Stuart, that's a good question. Maybe tomorrow, maybe 10 years. I honestly don't know the answer. I'll be snooping around the next week, talking to people, seeing what we can learn. I think what we said before the election, what we say after the election, is that we see two possibilities develop. One is no development. And between you and me, I would rather have no development down there than unacceptable development. And that may be the future scenario, no development. Okay, so that's the one. The second scenario that frightens me to tell you the truth is the possibility of all of us selling off piece by piece of its 12 acres and you have some condos over here, you have some retail development over here, and you have this over there and that over there, and you have nothing for the people. That's the negative, that's the frightening future that we do everything that we can to control. But once again, the bottom line so far as I see is that public access, public parts require public money. You don't get it from the feds, you don't get it from the state, you're going to have to get it global. And if people can't afford to take increased property taxes for that, you really have some difficult problems. Will you be talking with Alden or any other developers that encourage Alden to restart up their plan at all? Let me first talk to Alden. I read the papers today and I haven't talked to Mr. Flynn since that. Just get an assessment as to where they are and what options they see for the future. Do you see any possibility of them coming back? If the state of Vermont does not substantially increase its role in providing services to public documents, it should do to avoid a... as recently as two hours ago, the governor once again made it very clear to the state that there should be no position to pick up that path even if it's the face of Graham Barton and the tax bill and so forth. What's going to happen? I mean, in real terms, that real people can understand. Well, I think you're going to see a very bitter conflict between state government, municipalities, working people, people concerned about education all over the state. That's what you're going to see. It is not good enough. We understand, we really do, that the governor and the legislature also have their share of problems. We do understand that. But we think they have a variety of options by which they can progressively go out and raise revenue. We don't. And if all that they can say to us is, go out and raise the property tax support if you want to pay for your police or fire services or you want to pay to educate your kids, that is not an intelligent, public spirited response that a governor or the legislature should have. I once again point out that if the state of Vermont had the guts to decouple the guts to bring back the tax rate that it was before raven lowing taxes for rich people and corporations within the state of Vermont, we're talking about raising tens and tens and tens of millions of dollars in a way that which would allow working people and elderly and poor people not to have to pay more taxes. That's not an economic question. It's a political question. It's a question of guts. Do they have the guts to do that? Or are they going to ask working people to be paying more and more property taxes what suffered the loss of services? We understand what the government's position is. We understand what the position is of many members of the legislature. We now enforce along with, I think, many other municipal officials who oppose that. But not asking you what kind of fight the politicians were going to be able to ask me what is the average person who want to have to deal with that? Well, it's too early for us to comment on that right now. I think what you're looking at is one of two things. Well, maybe one of three things. You're looking at, obviously, if you don't raise additional revenues, you're losing a million dollars of revenue share. You're looking at a cut in services. That's one thing. Number two, you're looking at the possibility of local property taxes to replace the loss of revenue share. And number three, what I think is the most viable alternative that we have city-wide is the creation of an alternative for the property tax. And as you know, I put together a committee of business people who are working with city-efficient members of the Water Board. We held our first meeting. And I think what people in the business community understand that the degree that there is a loss of services within Burlington, they will suffer as a result. And I think the first meeting was a positive meeting. I hope that within a couple of weeks we'll have some concrete resolutions coming out of that committee for all terms of the conversation. Mr. Sanders, getting back to the Water Board, this, when you break it down by rewards, it won a two-to-one majority award six considered a more optimal reward and went down to the strongest of its defeats in World War II and World War III. If you're considering a win for government, how do you see that support and lack of support affecting your race? And I have another question after that. Mark, you'll excuse me. I don't want to get into once again the race for government. We're just dealing, you know, I've dealt with the waterfront issue, which to me is the extraordinary importance of the road. But let me deal with your question as best as I can. I would answer it by saying if you want to know a blatant political answer, as to how progressives are doing in the city of Berlin, I would say that after four and a half years of rather bitter struggles and fights and elections, that probably today, in my honest opinion, we are stronger than we have ever been before. I spent a lot of time in the Water Free and I was at the polling place yesterday for a number of hours at work and talked to many people and talked to many people. Working-class people said, Bernie, I am voting against this bond issue. And they told me why. They're concerned about increased property taxes. They're concerned about revenue not coming into the schools. They're concerned about the problems of objectification. Their concerns are legitimate concerns by not having many doors in the wards doing free. My feeling is that people there understand this administration is trying at the very difficult circumstances as hard as it can to protect the interests of working people and low income people. And the proposal that we came up with was a good proposal. People for reasonable reasons said, no, I can't support you on that proposal. Needless to say, we would have loved to have gotten 66% of the votes in every ward in the city. We didn't. I think that the people understand we're trying our best on this issue for a variety of reasons, some of which I guess they indicated they chose not to support us. Politically in the city, I'm feeling quite different.