It was probably fitting that John Teets died amid the worst economic depression modern Phoenix has ever experienced. The retired head of Greyhound/Dial was the last of a breed that every competitive and livable city must have: A dynamic chief executive of a major local headquarters, passionately committed to the city, able to knock heads and write checks. I'll let Soleri take it from here:
As CEO of Dial, he was one of the last corporate titans who figured prominently in local affairs. He was a headknocker and socialite who helped make Phoenix more than just a branch-office backwater. I was living near Central & Palm Lane when the Dial building was built in 1990. It was part of Teets' stewardship ethic to make a big corporate statement close to but not in downtown. The original plan was to construct two towers, with one perpendicular to the other. As with so many real-estate dreams, this one was only partly realized. The result is a free-standing mountain of a building completely out of scale to its surroundings.
Teets spent lavishly on it but the tapestries he hung in the lobby, or the exquisite garden outside couldn't quite make up for the fact that it was another ostentatious project that seemed so much like the city it was built in: Isolated and strange.
He continues:
Then there was the restaurant he put not on the ground floor but on the second, thus removing any energy channel to Central Avenue. "Gabriel's" was sui generis, an upscale eatery that served Teets' favorite comfort food (meat loaf and mashed potatoes, e.g.). The wait staff wore kitschy vests and bow ties that Teets once saw in Italy and fell in love with. This odd chapter in fine dining lasted one year before closing.
Teets himself was a tough character, someone who liked to storm into his subordinates' office unannounced to deliver some corrective counsel. He drove himself hard as well. He would climb the stairs rather than ride the elevator to his office 250 feet up. I thought he'd live to be 100. In the end, Teets couldn't save Dial from financial analysts who found gold in its parts but not its whole. Dial and its spin-off Finova moved to Scottsdale while the remaining part, Viad, remained in place. After that, Teets faded from view. The stewardship class he symbolized was fast fading, too. The big local banks had been swallowed up and their CEOs toppled until it seemed Jerry Colangelo was the last of the giants.
Teets was not exactly brilliant but he made our hometown seem important and consequential at his — and our — peak. The history of Phoenix seemed like a Roman candle where movers and shakers would come and go but the arc was ever upward. That's changed now and Teets' death is a fitting memorial to a dream.
I remember when Greyhound relocated from Chicago to Phoenix in the late 1960s (a move completed in 1971). This was our first headquarters of a major national company, the kind of asset essential to a big city, bringing talent, capital and substantial civic heft. It seemed a validation of this modern, clean city and more such corporate bases from a declining Midwest would naturally follow. And naturally it would mean a vibrant, gleaming downtown and Central Corridor. When the Dial Tower were being planned, major skyscrapers were envisioned all along Central, and more likely to happen than the phantoms trotted out in the 2000s. I even wrote a column for the Cincinnati Enquirer in the early 1990s, trying to light a fire against local smugness, set in a future where Procter & Gamble had been acquired by Dial and its headquarters relocated to Phoenix. Of course none of these things happened. Phoenix failed to sustain any economic development strategy, even after the 1990 bust, depending instead on the old standby: Population growth and real estate. It failed to reinvent itself as the world economy was changing, including to the kind of financialized economy where Wall Street could single-handedly destroy Dial. Teets retired and the old stewards died off.
I would occasionally get notes from Teets when I returned to town and was a columnist at the Arizona Republic. They were always encouraging me in my efforts to save the city from what it had finally become, a vast Ponzi scheme waiting to collapse. And all were written in his irascible style. But he was out of the game by that point. His support meant nothing compared with the demands of the Real Estate Industrial Complex that I be fired. And even Teets, along with the Bimsons, Frank Snell, Gene Pulliam, et al, failed to understand what it would take to make Phoenix sustainable.
The old companies were bought up or died or, in the case of Arizona Public Service, shrank to insignificance. The rumps of Dial withdrew from stewardship. The next generation, epitomized by the carpetbagging Charlie Keating and Fife Symington, cared nothing for building a real city, only for the land schemes that brought on the ominous foreshadowing of the S&L recession. Jerry Colangelo tried, but he was just a sports mogul, usually dependent on other people's money. Now, nobody.
Teets' shade could be saying, "apres moi le deluge," but it is a drought. It will be a very long one.
Brutus is alive and killing.
Posted by: cal Lash | August 08, 2011 at 09:10 AM
Outstanding commentary from Soleri, and Jon, of course. I was a teenager and eventually, in my early 20s when Teets led Dial, so I'm familiar with his leadership. Still, it's fascinating to read about him from someone with an insider's perspective.
Thanks to you both.
Posted by: ChrisInDenver | August 08, 2011 at 09:12 AM
I had the pleasure of having lunch at Gabriel's once. The meal was excellent, but I thought it strange that it was on the second floor!
Posted by: eclecticdog | August 08, 2011 at 10:21 AM
No one's going to mention that the Dial Building was constructed in the shape of a bar of Dial soap? That's one of the great Phoenix architectural legends!
Posted by: Steve Weiss | August 08, 2011 at 11:38 AM
Well, Deputy county attorney Howard Schultz and I put one of Greyhounds book keepers in jail.
Posted by: cal Lash | August 08, 2011 at 11:58 AM
Pardonnez-moi, but in AZ it's Carl Hayden's shade who has the primary claim to "après moi, le déluge"; and with far, far more irony.
Posted by: Rate Crimes | August 08, 2011 at 12:12 PM
I was in Denver a couple of weeks ago and this topic, stewardship, weighed on me. I wish I had a better grounding in its current economic situation because I have many more questions than answers. Denver is, from virtually any comparative standpoint, a vastly better city than Phoenix. In the summer, the magic is palpable: bosky neighborhoods and parks, lovely old buildings, and a deep core of urbanity that supports bookstores, genuine diversity, and a significant wealth advantage.
The problem is that downtown now seems afflicted by the same issues we complain about here. The first thing I noticed was the unsettling number of vacant lots along Broadway and Lincoln. Land banking, perhaps? Then there's the sparse foot traffic on major streets like 17th St. And there's also the so-so nature of the retail sector that seems oriented mostly to tourists although there is, blessedly, some real-world commerce going on as well.
Denver's boom, like just about everywhere else, mostly shut down three years ago. It did leave some major new buildings downtown, including a Ritz Carlton, several condo towers, along with some new office construction, mostly near LoDo. What I didn't notice, however, was the energy I remember from the 1970s. Of course, back then there were major department stores, along with strong local banks, that emphatically stated downtown was Denver's hub.
Today, I can't honestly tell where Denver's heart is. Cherry Creek's busy traffic makes a strong claim. So does the Denver Tech Center with its many office and condo towers. Further south, the Park Meadows agglomeration is choked with traffic. I-25 itself is now a super-expressway with 12 lanes of traffic. Denver's light rail, by contrast, looks marooned in this tumult.
Something happened here that can probably teach us something about Phoenix. Local headquarters merged or left (I forget the details about Qwest and US West). Newspapers died and downsized. But the sense I came away with is that the economy itself no longer organizes itself here. Rather, it comes from some other place, maybe even from different continents. Denver is not its own master anymore. It is, for better or worse, simply a nice place enjoy and live in.
I was in Vancouver last week and the pattern clarified for me. That city is buzzing, alive, affluent, and expensive. If you see a construction crane in the sky, it's probable that there's yet another condo tower going up (Vancouver has the highest ratio of high rises to population of any city in the world). Downtown Vancouver is magnificent mostly because, like Seattle, it's the spectacular focal point of its impressive geography. Downtown Denver? Not nearly so much.
But Vancouver is not building office towers. Indeed, there's more outflow to the suburbs during the workday than inflow since it's cheaper to rent office space in the boring 'burbs. This is, less and less, the economic heartbeat of the region. It is, emphatically, the place to be if you're affluent or, like me, a tourist.
The stewards we once took for granted lived in a different world. You nurtured your city because in doing so, you nurtured your business. You weren't shamed into doing this by urbanists or business columnists. You did it because your empire had a defined geographic center.
That center no longer applies. Blame globalization or a weak economy if you will. We live in a world now where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Phoenix is stuck with its own bad bargain: a downtown without a focal point or even a strong business legacy. We have a few good restaurants, a couple of sports venues, some decent museums, etc., but we are not sexy. That's why we're so compulsively engaged in cosmetic surgery, from streetscapes to art installations not to mention inert plazas. It's all we can do.
Posted by: soleri | August 08, 2011 at 03:22 PM
About 2002 I worked in Boulder for a couple of months and the thing that struck me about Denver, was it had become a metropolitan area. The 'burbs and spread in all directions and the locals were putting up with CA-sized commutes. People in Fort Collins or Colorado Springs or the mountains would drive daily to the Denver area for work. The center had left Denver I think with the closing of its airport and the suburban cancer grew out to meet the new airport.
Posted by: eclecticdog | August 08, 2011 at 03:40 PM
Electricdog, the demographics of Denver are similar to our own. The huge immigration of recent decades came largely from Texas and California. These people want it all: big house, big cars, and mountain views. Fortunately, there was a real city in place before they got here, so at least liberals had a place for themselves besides Boulder. Today, those cities (including Aspen and some other ski towns) keep Colorado from sliding into the septic tank of right-wing craziness.
Because I lived there back in the '70s, I remember just how lovely the Front Range was. There was 60 miles of uninterrupted beauty between Colorado Springs and Denver. Today, it's down to 10 miles or so. The sprawl from Denver north to Fort Collins is equally dispiriting. And even on 1-70, the sprawl extends from Dillon to Rifle with only a few gaps here and there. If there was ever a state that desperately needed urban growth boundaries, this was it.
Posted by: soleri | August 08, 2011 at 04:27 PM
A while back, Jon did a great retrospective on the evolution (and glut disease) of Phoenix retail. Another interesting backward look might be some more profiling on the key movers within the Phoenix 40 . . who they represented and why their ilk disappeared . . like the Hohokam maybe?
Posted by: morecleanair | August 08, 2011 at 06:46 PM
soleri,
It's eclecticdog.
He only goes by Electricdog around the holidays when he walks around with Christmas lights on his body.
Posted by: azrebel | August 08, 2011 at 08:48 PM
Speaking of electric dogs dont forget the Martini tasting party at Urban Bean the evening of the 26 th
Posted by: cal Lash | August 09, 2011 at 08:18 AM
I worked in Denver at the "Rocky Mountain News" and lived downtown in the early 1990s. Soleri's report is disheartening. I haven't been to Denver since before the crash, and the takeover of Qwest by a MON-roe, Louisiana, company.
What I will say is that the city of Denver has built up enough critical mass of smart talent, civic stewardship, an impressive light-rail system and reinvestment in the city to survive. Phoenix has none of that.
Much of Colorado is crazy, especially down in "The Springs," with the combination of evangelicals (and some of their major organizations) and the military. Still, there's some balance. A Democrat is governor. Impossible in today's Arizona. Even Washington state is more purple than blue, so compelling is the right's narrative and superstitions, and the mindset of sprawl.
Sprawl has ruined all our states. So the question is how healthy is your core major city?
Posted by: Rogue Columnist | August 09, 2011 at 09:24 AM
Tombstone is solid. There is two trains every day and plenty of horses. See u at the corral. Wyatt
Posted by: cal lash | August 09, 2011 at 12:00 PM
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2011/08/09/phoenix-near-bottom-in-personal-income.html?ed=2011-08-09&s=article_du&ana=e_du_pub
Phoenix is near the bottom for personal income growth (#335). Maybe Baghdad Bob Robb can find the silver lining in all that. Also, housing prices are predicted to decline another 9% next year. Yay, Phoenix.
Denver, btw, is close to the top at #19.
The rich get richer....
Posted by: soleri | August 09, 2011 at 03:38 PM
The last comment appears a bit misleading (or at least it seemed so to me) because the rankings cited (335 and 19) are for different categories.
According to the bizjournal link, Denver is #19 in total personal income. Phoenix is #15 in total personal income.
Phoenix was a pathetic #335 in tpi growth. Denver did better, but it was #247 in growth.
The rich aren't getting richer. Sounds like Denver is closing the gap between itself and Phoenix.
Posted by: westbev | August 09, 2011 at 04:21 PM
westbev, thanks for the correction.
My sense about these stats is that they usually reward points for the wrong reasons. Until a few years ago, Phoenix was close to the top for growth in most if not all categories. Ditto, Denver. But growth only tells one part of the story and usually in a rather deceptive way. It often didn't explain the economic distribution, the public investment for future wealth creation, or some of the quantitative measures of "quality of life". I wrote Bob Robb back in 2007 after one of his obnoxiously boastful columns on the Phoenix/libertarian paradigm. I told him that the coming economic crisis would "brutally expose Arizona's economic weaknesses". Robb didn't answer, but then he doesn't write those columns for anyone but the cheerleaders and converts. Phoenix is an Applebee's kind of city. It's quantity over quality and noise over substance. We were happy to validate Joel Kotkin's viewpoint when the going was good. Now, we look around and wonder where all our friends went.
Posted by: soleri | August 09, 2011 at 05:23 PM
Rogue asks: "so how healthy is your core major city"?
Well, downtown Lehigh, AZ is doing just fine. We still have a four-way stop at our major intersection.
We're doing alot better than London.
I realize many of you will have to Google map Lehigh, but I guess it's time you city folk learn something other than how to live like canned sardines.
If God intended for people to live like ants, he wouldn't have invented acre lots.
cal, the wife and I were married in Tombstone next to the OK Corral, reception was at Big Nose Kate's saloon. Honeymoon in Bisbee at the Copper Queen. Don't get any better than that.
Posted by: azrebel | August 09, 2011 at 05:28 PM
Big spread on Teets in AZ Republic obit today.
AZ Rebel; The whiskey is still good at Big Nose Kates and the weed in the back lot aint bad either. For all you optimists out thar, Grover Norquist and them blackwater christians are just biting at the bit to have a riots here so they can participate in a good ole fashion peasant shoot.
Posted by: cal Lash | August 09, 2011 at 05:43 PM
Many of these income numbers can be highly misleading. Phoenix's numbers are distorted by the sheer size of the metro, and until lately, by population growth.
Metro median household income was $53,205 in 2009, ranking it 44th among 100 metro areas nationally. Denver was $59.032; No. 20. This is a much better indicator than personal income growth, but it's not surprising that Phoenix's was abysmal given the housing depression.
The deeper problem is that Phoenix consistently underperforms its competitive, similarly sized metros in incomes, wages, etc. In most cases, it does not have lower living costs, and certainly not for the holy gasoline to propel the "drive to qualify" lifestyle. There's no way to brightside this away. Not only is this a sign of hardship for individuals and lack of opportunity, it shows an economy that isn't prepared for the 21st century. Worse, such a huge metro area has high carrying costs (infrastructure needs, law enforcement, schools, etc.), but it lacks the means to pay for it.
Posted by: Rogue Columnist | August 09, 2011 at 05:45 PM
Per Paul Gilding former head of Greenpeace; "I have come to the conclusion that our human society and economy is now so large that we have passed our the limits of our planets capacity to support us."
Amen Bro,
Malthus
Posted by: cal Lash | August 09, 2011 at 05:50 PM
I maintain that it’s possible (note that I’m not saying probable) that Phoenix can become a world class city –or at least “nation-class”. There are many theories of urban hierarchy. Natural advantage, agglomeration, “booster”, central place, etc (William Cronon’s “Nature’s Metropolis” is the most accessible book on this topic for those with a strong interest, but want to stay away from academic journals)
Empirically – especially in 2011 - it’s not a necessity for a city to be in a stunning natural location like Vancouver or even an important transportation node to be an important city. It boils down to a pretty simple question: Do people want to live there?. Yes, dollars and cents play a role. Cost of living, economic opportunity matters. But, as Richard Florida suggests, good jobs – those that advance economic development – follow people, not the reverse. And people follow place. Intangible quality of life and desirability of a location, particularly for those empowered by their talents to have the luxury to choose, is the answer to this fundamental question.
Why Phoenix then? As Cal’s wisdom often suggests – the Sonoran is truly a national treasure. The challenge is, can we create a sense of place? A Sonoran urbanism, that leverages this advantage. Can we leverage our other assets. Can we capitalize on the world’s largest urban canal system (larger than Venice or Amsterdam). Can we capitalize on modern light rail system? Can we exploit “Phoenix Cool” and it’s Mid-Century Modernism. Can we create a “Latino Urbanism”, full of bright colors, Zocalos, outdoor vending, late nights, family park life and passive-solar adobe. Can we invent an urban-agrarianism that utilizes our unique flood irrigation infrastructure to flood the market with locally-grown intensive, organic agriculture? Can we invent a “punk-rock” economic development model? - one not dependent on fortune 500 headquarters or China, but that embraces our history of independence, risk taking and “fuck it” irreverent attitudes. Can we capitalize on our proximity to Mexico, instead of wasting our resources denying our geography. One answer is “we won’t”. But, that’s different than “we can’t”.
If you can indulge for a moment in long-range thinking, and a sense that humans can control their own destiny – you'll realize that this can be done.
Posted by: Phx Planner | August 09, 2011 at 07:41 PM
Well said Phx planner
Posted by: cal lash | August 09, 2011 at 08:21 PM
Re: Stewards, what about the ASU:
http://www.slate.com/id/2300739/
I'm not versed in the current university landscape, so is it any good?
Posted by: AWinter | August 09, 2011 at 08:37 PM
Phx Planner,
We can't. So we won't. Cause we can't.
So I'm sad.
Posted by: azrebel | August 09, 2011 at 08:48 PM
The Phoenix idealist/lover in me — which is very different from a Valley booster, con artist or defensive-ite — agrees with Phx Planner. I would add: Shade, trees and grass in certain districts, and quality density. It was terrible that we lost the cohesion of city/agriculture/desert. That was protection for the Sonoran Desert. Putting subdivisions into it will only hasten the day it becomes just another world desert, without the magic that those living now recall.
Posted by: Rogue Columnist | August 09, 2011 at 08:51 PM
Phx Planner, back in the late '80s, when The Arizona Republic was a good newspaper and Terry Goddard was mayor of Phoenix, there was something called the Futures Forum. It was put on by city government at Goddard's direction, and had as its goal a kind of urban charette process where citizens talked to each other about Phoenix and what they wanted its future to be like. It went on for a couple of weeks during which we "thought out loud" about specific ways to make this a more cohesive, attractive and dynamic city. I thought of that tonight reading your comment because one of the ideas offered dealt with the canals and how to improve them by integrating with the existing urban fabric. Goddard himself had suggested giving urban villages incentives to create more social identity. That never quite happened but most central Phoenix neighborhoods at least have names now, which helps give its residents some focus for their community efforts.
We've been at this a long time, needless to say. I wish we could claim success on most of these fronts but the challenges remain formidable. As much as I want to play God and rewrite Phoenix history, if only to conjure a counterfactual to existing reality, I have to think back on all our great ideas and why they never really bore fruit. That's why we chat compulsively about this place and why it seems snakebit to some of us. Phoenix has never wanted for energetic and creative types. But we need to account why they would come here and then leave exhausted after several years of banging their heads against the brick wall of Phoenix inertia. I have stopped counting the people I know who moved to Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, San Diego, and Denver simply because they didn't want to grow old trying to midwife something creative and urbane only to realize most people just wanted to be left alone.
Phoenix is demonstrably weaker than it was back then. We have fewer resources, fewer headknockers, a much larger underclass, a damaged and dysfunctional political system, and the sinking feeling that our best days are behind us. My feeling is that there are no grand initiatives ala ValTrans or Rio Salado that can leap from the drafting table to public debate. What we can do is dream small and nurture the few flowers that grow in our empty lots.
Given the enormity of growing economic crisis, along with Arizona's dizzying descent into the bottom tier of states and its well-deserved reputation for crankiness and meanness, what can we do realistically? This is a state that measures success by the amount of desert it paves over, not by how many saguaros it saves. We deny global warming, detest environmentalists, loathe Mexicans, and want to starve government to the breaking point.
The only faint glimmer of hope I can summon comes from the simple facts of birth and death. Old teabaggers are dying and being replaced by mostly non-Anglo youth. Still, the young are being denied the best education as the old seek to burn down the house in a fit of spite. If there's still a state worth fighting for in 10 years, I think Arizona might finally turn around. But the odds seem very long.
Posted by: soleri | August 09, 2011 at 09:53 PM
"good jobs – those that advance economic development – follow people, not the reverse."
Let's dispel this myth, forthwith. The dynamics of job growth are certainly not dichotomic, precursive, or even linear on only the single dimension of jobs-people.
Posted by: Rate Crimes | August 10, 2011 at 07:18 AM
"Can we capitalize on the world’s largest urban canal system (larger than Venice or Amsterdam)."
Perhaps, "larger", but with entirely different form, function, and constraints: evaporation being a significant constraint not shared by either Venice or Amsterdam. Then, imagine the downstream liabilities that would (literally) arise if canals were integrated into the urban sackcloth of Central Arizona. Phewww! As flat and lifeless as the Tempe Town Puddle. No thanks.
Posted by: Rate Crimes | August 10, 2011 at 07:28 AM
"Phoenix is an Applebee's kind of city." - soleri
In a nutshell.
Posted by: Rate Crimes | August 10, 2011 at 07:30 AM
"a kind of urban charette process where citizens talked to each other about Phoenix and what they wanted its future to be like."
I wonder, how many of these citizens were familiar with "A Pattern Language"?
Posted by: Rate Crimes | August 10, 2011 at 07:44 AM
"most central Phoenix neighborhoods at least have names now"
How were these names applied and how (well) do they correlate with identity? Did any identities arise organically? How do identities vary amongst neighborhoods on economic and social dimensions?
That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet
Posted by: Rate Crimes | August 10, 2011 at 07:53 AM
Rate Crimes; can you please broaden and simplify for this ole guy your thoughts on Jobs follow or don’t follow people. I am sorta caught up in the migration stuff in the book Moving Millions by Jeffery Kayes.
Jon, Correct me if I am wrong but I thought early (1900-1930) Phoenix business types planned on a upward Philadelphia type city not outward as Rosenzweigs and charter government boys , “zoning is where the money is” believed?
Posted by: cal Lash | August 10, 2011 at 09:05 AM
Rate Crimes, the names derive from the rather thin reeds of neighborhood location and origin. Willo's name, for example, derives from the two voting precincts in the neigbhorhood, Wilshire and Los Olivos. Coronado is more organic - it was called that when I was a child. Ditto, Garfield. Windsor Square was the original landowner's name for this 1940's exurban development.
Granted, it's not much but in a city that didn't evolve so much as explode, you'll take your identity any way you can find it.
Posted by: soleri | August 10, 2011 at 10:13 AM
Cal, Phoenix like every other town was centered on the railroad. Places such as Kenilworth and Willo flourished as streetcar neighborhoods. Some City Beautiful movement civic design happened, e.g. the Moreland and Portland parkways. The Depression killed bigger ambitions. Then, postwar, the car killed the city.
Posted by: Rogue Columnist | August 10, 2011 at 10:34 AM
Mary-vale came from John F. Long's wife Mary and from the veils that women in that area wear at funerals for the victims of nightly drive by shootings
Posted by: azrebel | August 10, 2011 at 10:37 AM
Ur a bad ole dude AZ rebel
how's bout a drink?
Bring Ur pistola
Posted by: cal lash | August 10, 2011 at 11:13 AM
Off topic, but catch Dylan Ratigan on our "bought Congress". He describes the hold that $pecial interest$ exert while we sleep.
http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/dylan-enough
Posted by: morecleanair | August 10, 2011 at 05:56 PM
I had to look up "charette" in the Free Dictionary. That's some mighty fancy writin'!
Posted by: eclecticdog | August 11, 2011 at 10:30 AM
You folks talk about "headknockers" regularly.
Why do people have to have their heads knocked to do the right thing?
Doesn't that raise a deeper question about human behavior?
Kind of makes you think the "herd" instinct of man must be overcome by force, whether that be good force or bad force.
Just wondering??
Posted by: azrebel | August 11, 2011 at 11:20 AM
Nice blog..keep it up ..i was searching for this a long back..The only faint glimmer of hope I can summon comes from the simple facts of birth and death. Old teabaggers are dying and being replaced by mostly non-Anglo youth.thanks for the great information..
Posted by: outdoor playground equipment | August 11, 2011 at 09:13 PM
@cal,
A specific type of job, "good jobs", was under consideration.
Phx Planner stated, "good jobs – those that advance economic development – follow people, not the reverse."
Such over-simplification does not serve to enhance understanding of the pertinent issues. The terms in this sentence are fuzzy. What is "economic development"? What can advance it? Should it be "advanced"? What people? What does "follow" mean here? Why must either one "follow" the other? What other factors might contribute or even predominate? etc., etc., etc.
Even if one makes broad assumptions in accepting the statement, I would argue that the idea of 'good jobs follow people' is neither informative nor correct.
Posted by: Rate Crimes | August 13, 2011 at 08:02 AM