Not in My Backyard!

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
I've talked a lot on the show about the scourge
that is SEQUA, the California Environmental Quality Act, and what
a massive burden, what a massive impediment it is to
new construction, to actually building anything anywhere in California. That
it's basically the California Environmental Quality Act, which is a

(00:23):
Ronald Reagan governor Ronald Reagan era law that basically requires
some kind of environmental impact review for any new development
that's happening, whether it's new housing development, new business development,
new industrial development, et cetera. And it allows anyone that

(00:45):
the kind of unique aspect of SEQUA is that it's
not just a process of you're gonna build something, You
submit an environmental impact report to the state, the state
reviews it with certain criteria, they approve it, or they
don't approve it. You have a certain kind of appeal procedures,

(01:06):
blah blah blah, and that's it. No third parties are
able to sue to stop the development of some project
utilizing sequel, some outside, unrelated third party group has standing

(01:30):
to file a lawsuit. And the idea being basically it's
this innovation to the normal American legal doctrines surrounding standing
standing as a sort of bedrock legal principle. Who's allowed
to sue for stuff? Usually you're only allowed to sue
for something if you suffer some kind of tangible harm,

(01:54):
or you yourself are directly impacted, you have your rights limited,
or whatever it is. You have to beat you yourself
through a fairly direct chain of causality, have to be
able to make that claim. With environmental harms, the thought
is that, well, environmental harms are kind of harder to prove.

(02:17):
It's kind of harder to prove a direct chain of
causality between you know, the pollution coming from this factory
and then your kid having asthma, and you know who
exactly is going to speak up on behalf of the
fishies and the birdies and the butterflies, which again would

(02:39):
indicate to me that's a role for the state. The
state is the one who should be representing the birds
and the fishies and the butterflies and an environmental whatever
kind of environmental review is happening for new development, should
I think ideally be in the hands of the state.
Have the state just give a yes or a no.
But that's not what Seku does. The state has to
give a yes or no, and any random Yahoo can

(03:04):
fly in and stop your project with a lawsuit. That
is exactly what's happening in West Fresno, where a massive
new proposed costco way out on West Herndon Avenue. Herndon

(03:27):
Avenue west of the ninety nine was or no, no,
not quite, not quite west of ninety nine east still
east of the ninety nine, but basically at Herndon in
ninety nine there was a plan for putting a big
new costco there. It would be the biggest costco in
the whole Fresno area. And a lot of stuff is

(03:48):
being built up in that sort of Herndon in ninety
nine area. There's a lot of new retail, a lot
of new stuff growing up out in that area Avenue
in Riverside Drive. It was going to be a two
hundred and nineteen thousand square foot costco. However, a judge

(04:11):
invalidated the approvals for a proposed costco in northwest Fresno,
siding with an environmental group that argued the city did
not properly assess the project's impacts. Presno County Superior Court
Judge Jonathan Skiles ruled in favor of the Herndon Riverside
Coalition for Responsible Planning and Development. The Herndon Riverside Coalition

(04:37):
for Responsible Planning and Development. Hmm, that's an interesting plaintiff.
So did this nonprofit purely just come into existence purely
to stop this costco. With some more digging, I've found
out a little bit about it. It appears that this

(05:01):
is a non incorporated so it's not an actual corporation entity.
One of the people who seems heavily involved in it
is this guy named Daniel Brannick. Daniel Brannick was briefly
on some kind of city planning commission. He has had
comments in the Fresno Beez Fresno land for some stories

(05:25):
back in like twenty eighteen about different stuff about this
area of Fresno and environmental review issues relating to this
part of West Fresno around or west of the ninety nine.
According to I don't want to put the guy on blast,
but looks like I think this is him LinkedIn page.

(05:47):
He's a senior environmental planner at the California Department of
Toxic Substances Control. Okay, so this guy works in environmental stuff.
I think he was. He was a planner for the
Fresno County Public Works and Planning Department for two years,
so his legal career has kind of been sort of

(06:12):
circling around issues relating to environmental stuff. Now he's not
the attorney representing this group. The attorney representing this group
is this guy, Babak Nafisi, who has been seemingly has
been a fairly prominent environmental lawyer who has done a

(06:34):
lot of seque based litigation. He did some seque based litigation.
I think it was in Tilarry County. I believe it
was against the City of Visalia and where he was. He's
represented groups like the Sierra Club and things like that.
So this is clearly there's clearly some kind of larger

(06:59):
environment mental push here happening. And I mean, I don't know,
maybe this is just I don't know who this is.
This Brannick himself, Is it Brannick and a group of
other people? Is this I'm a little surprised that other
left wing nonprofit groups aren't. Maybe they are involved, and

(07:21):
it's just sort of more under the rug. For example,
Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, that's kind of the
that's what they do is they file sequel lawsuits to
stop stuff. But this is the you know, this is
the ridiculous thing with sequel, This random group is stopping

(07:45):
what would be millions and millions of dollars worth of
planning and investment and development and purchas. Like why do
businesses not want to set up shop in California? Why
do businesses not want to build in California? Why do
businesses not want to invest in California? What? Why do
we have this, you know, slowing down, this artificial hindrance

(08:06):
on our economy. It's because of crap like this, Crap
like this that would never fly in Texas. In Texas,
if there's an environmental review, you do the review. If
it passes the review, you start building. Not We spent
gazillions of dollars doing an environmental review. That's the thing.
The City of Fresno did an environmental review. They went

(08:29):
over it. They the City of Fresno was working with
Costco to do the environmental review. Because City of Fresno
was like, yes, we would really like, we would genuinely
really like to get this Costco built. They'll provide groceries
and sustain you know, real estate development out here, it'll

(08:52):
provide business, it'll drive the economy, Like, this is a
good thing. We want this COSTCO here. So the city
worked on it. In the city. This was part of
the city had put together this massive environmental impact report
for different parts of the city to help new business

(09:13):
comply with SEQUA. Because basically, this is the problem. The
kind of environmental impact review that you have to do
per the terms of SEQUA is so large and so
onerous and so difficult that that is a huge cost.
So what the City of Fresno tried to do was

(09:34):
do a kind of city wide environmental impact reviews such that, Okay,
this area is zoned for this area that's undeveloped right now,
we want it to be zoned for industrial. So this
is our environmental impact report assessment for what industrial would be.
So they do a lot of the legwork. Then when
a business wants to come and set up and invest

(09:54):
and buy the property and develop it, city of Fresno
has already done a lot of the work, and then
this new business can piggyback off of it. Well, this
ruling throws that out the window for Costco and basically

(10:17):
this is another blow to the idea of the City
of Fresno being able to use its city wide environmental
impact study, it'll render the city's work useless and be
this massive hindrance city wide for the new for development
of new businesses in the area. So it's it's just

(10:46):
another just kick to the nuts for the city and
the people in opposition to it just seems sort of ridict.
Costco is now like, well, okay, we can't do this,
so Costco has to reassess its options. Costco opened its

(11:08):
West Shaw location near Highway ninety nine in nineteen eighty five.
It wants to construct a bigger location on West Herndon
and Riverside Drive. The new location would feature the usual
retail building and gas station, but also a car wash
and a last mile warehouse within the retail building. The
city council approved the project, including the environmental report, in

(11:29):
April of twenty twenty four. The process took four years,
so this ruling by this judge is throwing out four
years of work on the part of the city. The
city's report also considered at least two alternate sites along
Veterans Boulevard, which was yet to be expanded when Costco
applied for the project At Riverside Drive and at Bullard Avenue,

(11:51):
neither was deemed feasible. And yet the plaintiff in this
case is Daniel Brannick in his group, they have the
gall to sort of be like, I mean, I guess
here's my thought here. What place can a Costco go

(12:22):
that's not gonna have whatever bad environmental impact do you
think it's going to have here? That's what I want
to understand. Like basically Brannick and his attorney Babach Nefici.

(12:44):
I don't know if I'm pronouncing that right. They're quoted
after they had the court hearing. This was back, this
was about a month ago. They had the court hearing
on this issue. Nofici has this quote. He says, there's
no specific agenda like anti Costco or pro target or anything.

(13:05):
It's just holding the government accountable office, he said. Brandick
said he is not against a retail location where Costco
wants to build. Oh well, I'm glad this one person
is deciding the entire fate of the city of Fresno.
I don't want this to be framed as a nimby thing.
Brannick said, well, clearly it is. You don't want it there,

(13:30):
how could it not be framed as a nimby thing.
Nimby which stands for not in my backyard, Like, of
course it's a nimby thing. And this is the weird,
the weird sort of ideological dilemma that so many on

(13:51):
the left find themselves in, is to be nimby or
not be nimby. When we return, I'm going to explain
that whole dynamic because I think the left it sort
of agonizes over this because on the one hand, they
want to be viewed as being helpful to the poor.
On the other hand, they embrace a lot of policies

(14:11):
that make it really hard for poor people to find
a place to live. That's next on the John Girardi Show,
a Fresno judge is ruled that the four years of
environmental impact work that the city of Fresno did to
help with Costco establishing a new store basically move their

(14:32):
existing West Fresno store over to Herndon and Riverside, just
just right near the ninety nine. Basically, no good, no good.
Why Because it seems that one group sort of spearheaded
by a local lawyer who works for the California Department

(14:54):
of Toxic substances control I think works for I don't know.
That's according to a LinkedIn page file lawsuit to stop
Costco from building. Now. The person in question this guy
Daniel Brannick, who seems to be I don't know if

(15:16):
he's the only person or one, maybe the main person
behind this organization that is suing to stop the new COSTCO,
which is called what is it, the Herndon Riverside Coalition,
The Herndon Riverside Coalition for Responsible Planning and Development, which

(15:36):
is such a ridiculous ad hoc if it is an
organization at all, it's not an incorporated nonprofit organization. Herndon
and Riverside is the is where the new COSTCO is
going to be. So it's not like this is a
region of President or something, Herndon and Riverside Development. Clearly,
this was an entity started purely for the sake of

(15:57):
stopping this COSTCO from starting. Now. He had this quote
in a news story from GV Wire about a month ago,
where Brannick said, well, I don't want this to be
framed as a nimby thing. And this is the true

(16:19):
dilemma in which liberals find themselves. Is nimb to be
or not to be nimb or not nimb, that is
the question. So what is nimby? You may ask, what
does that mean? Not in my backyard, That's what it means.
It's an acronym nimby, nimbi, and it's a critical label

(16:44):
ascribed to people who in California in particular about other
parts of the country also who will say theoretically that
they support more housing, more construction, more development, more and
especially this is true with mule to unit dwellings for
lower income people. We need more housing because lower income

(17:04):
people can't afford a home, But not in my backyard.
And this is most often expressed by people in California
who have very high property values in whatever place they live,
who will actively try to stop, actively thwart the construction

(17:26):
of new homes because of some thought that lower income
housing near their house will lower their property values, either
by bringing people of a lower socioeconomic background to their
neighborhood or go bringing more crime or more traffic, or
do something that makes their home not as nice. And

(17:48):
if everyone has this attitude of well, yeah, new housing
is great, but not in my backyard, then it really
lessens the pool of where you can build new housing.
And it has this bad impact state wide that where
are we supposed to build? Okay, So that is the
nimbi idea, And you can see how such an attitude

(18:10):
is appealing at first glance to liberals. Liberals don't like
rich people. Liberals like to present like to sort of
portray themselves as the heroic saviors of the little guy,
the heroic saviors of the poor, of the lower income communities,
blah blah blah, of communities of color suffering under the

(18:31):
oppressive thumb of some ritual white lady who doesn't want
an apartment complex near her house because she doesn't want
her property value to go down. All right, so liberals,
No liberal wants to be a nimby. However, liberals also

(18:52):
hate the environmental impact of essentially any human endeavor and
have reaponized sequa the California Environmental Quality Act to stop
all kinds of things because of the alleged adverse environmental impact.
Humans have to do stuff, and liberals just don't really
like humans doing stuff because humans doing stuff involves often

(19:17):
humans driving to places, and cars cause pollution. Ergo, they
block things from getting started. Also, labor unions would like
to construct those things. And would like to be paid extremely,

(19:38):
extremely extremely high wages, higher than is the average in
other parts of the country, and that will also tend
to hold things up as far as construction by making
construction costs that much higher. And Liberals want to support
big labor. So you have this weird thing, the California
NIMBI who both wants to try to lecture people against

(20:02):
stopping new construction again with the the specter, the vision,
the idea of the evil Orange County dwelling platinum blonde,
you know, two hundred dollars haircut rich lady working with

(20:25):
getting her husband's law firm to file a sequel lawsuit
to stop an apartment complex from being built, you know,
a quarter mile away from their house. That's their idea
of what stops new housing in California. And what they
don't realize is no, it's California environmental law that stops
all this. It's the same body of environmental laws that

(20:47):
the rich, grumpy lady from Orange County who doesn't want
an apartment complex because she's afraid she's going to get
stabbed by someone who lives in the apartment complex in
some wildly misplaced fear a lady from Orange County is
utilizing the same environmental wacko lawsuit, the same environmental laws

(21:08):
as the environmentalist who wants to call himself a Nimby
who's suing to stop I don't know a costco or
the most ridiculous sequel lawsuit. I bring it up every
time I talk about sequel. Was this left wing nonprofit
in Fresno, Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, which sued
to stop a zero emissions hydrogen power plant from being

(21:29):
built in Pixley. Why because truck traffic, truck traffic in Pixley,
the whole town is less than half a mile away
from the ninety nine, About eight hundred thousand trucks drive
through Pixley every single day. For trucks stopping at a
power plant to drop off, I guess whatever the raw
materials are needed for liquid nitrogen liquid hydrogen, I guess

(21:52):
four trucks stopping is going to make an environmental impact.
So this is the problem with Nimby's, or with environmentalists
who want to pretend like they're not Nimby's, is that
they also don't want stuff to be built in states

(22:13):
that just don't have those kinds of environmental laws. They
just build tons of housing, And this whole nimby issue
isn't really an issue being a nimby versus not being
a nimby. It's just not really much of an issue
in Texas. Why because they just build constantly, tons and

(22:33):
tons of stuff. The Dallas Fort Worth area of Texas
alone is building more housing units per year than the
entire state of California. That's the level of growth that

(22:54):
Texas is experiencing, and the lack of regulation is allowing
so much much more construction happen to a point that
no one makes these nimby not nimby arguments. They just
have a better context overall for construction, such that yes,

(23:15):
lower income people can't afford to buy a house because
we're building an apartment complex. We're building new houses, we're
building single unit dwellings, we're building multi unit dwells. We're
building like crazy. Why Because in Texas, it doesn't take
four years to do an environmental impact review and then
construction something that takes two years to constructing California, it
takes one year to construct in Texas, so far less

(23:36):
of an outlay of costs, the loans you have to
get on the front end, don't have to be as great.
Construction costs, labor costs, everything is cheaper. So this is
the very practical TANGI. These are some of the practical,
tangible reasons how California law, California regulation stop us from

(23:58):
building stuff to the point where you know, one random
assortment of people can sue to stop like a five
year long process to build a new costco, just to
build a new costco. These are all the insane hurdles
that have to be jumped when we return. A shocking
story coming out of the FBI's efforts to surveil traditionalist

(24:22):
Catholics under the Biden administration, a priest was spied upon
by the FBI. That's next on the John Jardy Show.
Some of you all may have remembered the Biden administration
in its wild effort to root out white nationalist terrorism,
which it deemed to be the number one terrorist threat
to America. White supremacist terrorism the number one threat to America, Okay,

(24:51):
which doesn't even accurately like even if you think January
sixth was the worst thing that ever happened in the
singular most devastating attack on democracy, that's ever happened. It
wasn't even really a white supremacist thing. I mean, you
can say it was bad, but also acknowledged, well, it

(25:11):
wasn't really about whiteness. It was just like a pro
It was like a pro Trump thing that got out
of hand. It was a pro Trump thing, though it
wasn't really like a white supremacist thing anyway. Merrick Garland
and all these people were parroting this right, So white
supremacist terrorism, this is the great threat facing the country.
As part of that, the FBI's field office in Richmond,

(25:36):
Virginia produced a memo highlighting traditionalist Catholic groups as being
a locust of white supremacist activity and specifically singled out

(25:58):
this these particular kinds of Catholics. Now, there are certain
kinds of Catholics, including some that are sort of quasi
not quite fully schismatic, kind of quasi schismatic and irregular
situations who are sort of very very attached to the
old Latin mass, which I myself am very attached to,
but I'm not part of this group. It's this group
called the Society of Saint Pius the Tenth. So they

(26:21):
have a bunch of priests over the world, and a
decent number of priests and parishes who operate in the
United States. You can. I have my disagreements with them
about many things. They're not terrorists, that's ridiculous. Are many
people who go to their churches, probably very fervent Trump supporters,

(26:41):
I have absolutely no doubt. But the idea of them
being terrorists is ridiculous, And the idea of singling them
out I think flies squarely in the face of one
hundred years of American jurispruins regarding the First Amendment, that
it's specifically singling out this group of people for negative
tree on account of their religion. It's wild, wildly inappropriate

(27:06):
that the FBI Field office in Richmond did this. If
they had done the same thing with a mosque, it
would have been without, by the way, any sort of
real predicate of crimes or anything. Not Like we have
evidence that the priests at that this church was organizing

(27:29):
conspiratorial meetings to plan out, you know, pipe bomb raids
against a federal courthouse, or you know that they they're
assembling Molotov cocktails in the church basement. No, there was
nothing like that. It was just these people seem like
right wing nut jobs, and they go to this church,
so we're gonna focus on this church as a possible

(27:51):
terrorist threat or this group of Catholics is a possible
terrorist threat, which is ridiculous. Now the FBI under Chris Ray,
once word of this got out during the Biden administration,
FBI Director Chris Ray really tried to stamp it down.

(28:13):
Said no, no, no, no no, it was just this
one field office in Richmond sent a memo, issued this memo,
and no one else fault, no one acted on it.
I'm sorry that it happened. It was bad, and by
where we're dealing with the problem, and it's inappropriate, but
it's okay. Reminds me of Leslie Nielsen from one of
the naked gun moving movies where the building is completely

(28:33):
exploding behind him and he goes, that's okay, move along.
Nothing to see here, nothing to see here. And over
the last year or so, now that we have you know,
leadership at the FBI that is much more willing to
divulge some of the bad things that were happening at
the FBI under prior you know administrations. Under Chris Ray,

(28:59):
it appears that was not one percent accurate. One might.
Some are saying maybe he wasn't even one hundred percent truthful.
I'm not sure if they're saying he lied or if
he was, she was just wrong. Okay. About the reach
of this Richmond area memo, a news story has come

(29:24):
out the FBI began surveilling a Catholic priest in twenty
twenty three after the clergyman refused to divulge details about
a recently arrested parishioner who was converting to Catholicism and
seeking spiritual guidance. The FBI's Richmond Field Office, the same

(29:49):
branch responsible for producing an anti Catholic memo that was
quickly retracted, tracked the priest's movements and coordinated with several
other FBI offices and a foreign law enforcement agency a
foreign law enforcement agency to gather intelligence on the clergyman

(30:09):
and his priestly organization. According to a new House Judiciary
Committee report obtained by National Review. This is James Lynch
writing for National Review. This new information demonstrates that the
FBI not only used its federal law enforcement resources to
surveil certain Catholic Americans, but it also used these resources
to investigate a clergy member. The report asserts, from information

(30:32):
made available to the committee, there appeared to be no
legitimate law enforcement purpose for investigating this priest. This new
information suggests that the FBI's religious liberty abuses were more
widespread than the FBI initially admitted and led the public
to believe. The FBI has declined to comment. On January fourth,
twenty twenty three, an FBI employee from the Richmond Field office.

(30:53):
From the Richmond office told colleagues about how the priest
quote became very uncomfortable and started in coherently stuttering end
quote when the agents began asking him specific questions about
one of his parishioners, including whether the man who had
recently been arrested had quote desires and plans to commit violence.

(31:15):
The priest responded by insisting that he had to speak
with the church hierarchy and its attorneys before speaking further
with the FBI. Yeah, that seems like a completely reasonable
response on the part of the priest, especially if this
guy came to you know, well, let me continue. It's
unclear why the parishioner initially attracted the FBI's attention. The

(31:37):
report does not include any information about the parishioner's criminal history.
The FBI agent asserted that this is the crazy part.
The FBI agent asserted that priest penitent privilege did not
apply because the subject of the FBI's investigation had yet
to be baptized and had not finished the conversion process.

(32:00):
All right, this is ridiculous. Anyway, the story goes on.
Two days later, the Richmond Field office employees exchanged emails
with colleagues from Louisville about their attempt to interview the
priest and plan investigation into him. It's unclear what role
of the Louisville office played. FBI Richmond employees began examining

(32:22):
the priests or nation history and affiliation with the Society
of Saint Piece at tenth, the traditionalist priestly fraternity that
held an irregular canonical standard status in the Catholic Church.
FBI Richmond's office sought to lurk with work with Louisville
and London law enforcement to gather more intel about the SSPX,
the Society Saint Pie of tenth and this priest. Richmond

(32:45):
employees were aware of the priest's plans to attend a
video conference in the UK and wanted to plan a
meeting with London Police's counter Terrorism Division to see if
they had more information about the society Saint Pies A
tenth and this priest. This is wild, all right, So
I'm let me just talk about the priest penitent privilege

(33:06):
just real quick. Actually, I'm gonna hit this when we returned.
Let me when we return I'm gonna explain how insane
it is that the FBI thought that they could go
after this guy, go after this priest on the grounds
that well, the priest penitent privilege doesn't apply here, and

(33:26):
what that privilege is in American law, and how it's
actually under attack in various ways. Next on the John
Groardi Show, this interesting story the FBI, it was revealed,
spied on a Catholic priest the FBI's Richmond Field office,
which is the same field office that produced this memo
during the Biden years about traditionalist Catholic groups as a

(33:50):
possible hotbed for white supremacist terrorism or some some kind
of you know, terroristic criminal activity, which was after it
became public sized was roundly condemned and Chris Ray, the
FBI director at the time, so oh no, it's okay,
nothing to see here, we're not those one office did
one regrettable memo, but that's it. Well, we're getting more

(34:12):
info because cash Ptel gave a ton of documents over
to the House in the Senate that actually it was
worse than that, and that it wasn't just the Richmond office,
and it seems like it was said to be a
much larger thing. That Chris Ray may have not exactly
led Congress the right way when he discussed it before Congress.

(34:38):
And one of the things, specifically, a priest from this
traditionalist group, the city Saint Pius the tenth, was surveiled,
tailed spied on by the FBI, and the FBI claimed
that they asked him about this parishoner who had been arrested.
The priest started stuttering and got scared and said he
needed to talk with his church authorities and with their

(35:01):
attorneys first before he could talk with the FBI, which
makes complete sense. The FBI at the time, their position
was that the priest penitent privilege didn't apply because this
person was converting to Catholicism, hadn't been fully converted yet,
had not been baptized, so it didn't apply, all right,

(35:21):
So let me explain how ridiculous. That is what is
the priest penitent privilege. The priest penitent privilege is an
evidentiary privilege. Basically, it says that we're not going to compel.
We're not going to compel the admission of evidence from

(35:43):
a priest penitent conversation. The classic example of a situation
where we're not going to compel testimony is a Catholic
priest is sitting on a Saturday afternoon hearing confessions. A
guy goes to the priest for confession and confesses, Father,

(36:03):
I robbed a liquor store. The police go to the
priest and say, hey, did so and so rob a
liquor store. The priest says, I'm not testifying about anything
any of my parishioners have ever said in confession. I
invoke the priest penitent privilege, so clergy can't be compelled
to say what they hear in the confessional. That's the

(36:28):
classic example. But that paradigm, that evidentiary privilege, that privilege
against compelled testimony is maybe a better way to put it.
It doesn't only apply to Catholic priests. It applies to
basically any kind of religious community where you have a
one on one conversation for counseling or faith related purposes

(36:54):
between a member of the clergy and some lay person.
The fact that this so Catholic priests will have this
evidentiary principle, not just for someone who approaches them in
the sacrament of confession. That's the kind of the prototype example.
But also if you went to your priest and said, hey, father,

(37:17):
I need to talk with you about my marriage. Can
can we sit in your office and just talk privately.
If it's just the two of you and you're in
his office privately and you're seeking counsel or guidance from him,
the privilege holds there too. And I don't think it
actually matters that someone hasn't formally been baptized yet because

(37:41):
of the flexibility of the priest pendent in privilege. It's
not just for priests and just for their baptized faithful
who are going to the sacrament of confession. No, someone
who's a catechuman in the Catholic Church, like someone who's
in the process of becoming baptized, No, I think they
would be protected by that privilege just as well. So

(38:03):
this is a wild abuse by the FBI, and I
really hope more light is shed on this and if
heads need to roll, then heads need to roll. That
will do it for the John Gardy Show. See you
next time on Power Talk