After 34 years in office, you'd think an incumbent would have more than a couple of laurels to rest on. But here's another recent Stone piece:
My response to this? See previous post. Too lazy to click? Very well: *after* 2003, Stone not only was on the bandwagon for an aldermanic raise, he led the charge.
This and Thillens are the only two things I have *ever* heard in defense of Stone. And both are open to criticism. I want to know what objective, verifiable, undisputed benefit Stone has created for us. What else does the man have to show for 34 years in office and over $100,000 in salary for each of many of those years? What has our tax money gotten us?
Concerned consumers want to know.