Jump to content

  •  
Photo

The VERY CIVIL 2016 Presidential Election Discussion

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
325 replies to this topic

#41 Chef Posted 13 August 2015 - 02:58 PM

Chef

    The All-Knowing All-Seeing Beagle

  • Honorary Beagle

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,650 posts
  • Joined 29-February 08

And more democratic than our system

 for one i don't want democracy. i will choose what we were supposed to be and that is a republic of states in a weak federal union.

 

i do not want nor think a strong central government is a good idea. as i said before, there is a role for a federal but it is very very minor in my opinion. i do not want to be like a scandinavian country. i do not want to have the majority of my income seized for "programs" for the better good. i don't want to be limited shoebox minimal style homes and apartments. i don't want the government telling me what i can and can't do for (what i would call) the illusion of safe keeping.

 

here is an article from a VERY liberal magazine on the subject. http://www.newyorker...rthern-lights-4

 

i see your point and understand what and where you want the country to go. i just completely disagree and will never come around it.


Holding out hope that Mike sells.

  • Back to top

#42 ziggy Posted 13 August 2015 - 06:09 PM

ziggy

    Administrator

  • Administrators

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,399 posts
  • Joined 05-January 06

Chef,

 

In your opinion, When was the last time in our country's history where America was successfully functioning as a republic of states in a weak federal union?


  • Back to top

#43 buckets Posted 13 August 2015 - 07:11 PM

buckets

    The All-Knowing All-Seeing Beagle

  • Honorary Beagle

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,736 posts
  • Joined 27-June 15

 for one i don't want democracy. i will choose what we were supposed to be and that is a republic of states in a weak federal union.

 

i do not want nor think a strong central government is a good idea. as i said before, there is a role for a federal but it is very very minor in my opinion. i do not want to be like a scandinavian country. i do not want to have the majority of my income seized for "programs" for the better good. i don't want to be limited shoebox minimal style homes and apartments. i don't want the government telling me what i can and can't do for (what i would call) the illusion of safe keeping.

 

here is an article from a VERY liberal magazine on the subject. http://www.newyorker...rthern-lights-4

 

i see your point and understand what and where you want the country to go. i just completely disagree and will never come around it.

 

I think people are more similar than we realize but have different priorities based upon environment and what directly effects us. Scandinavian countries are more homogeneous so it would be difficult to replicate anyways and that's fine.

 

Whatever the case, government regulations (or non-regulations) nudge society in certain directions whether intended or not. Personally, I try to determine if a government program is in the public's best interest and it's long term economic impact. So for example, I completely disagree with how transportation funding is allocated in the US and I partially feel that way because it's economically unsustainable. Someone can say I have an idea of what society should be based upon my desire for mass transit and bicycle infrastructure, but in reality those are cheaper options than our current model of expanding highways largely unsupported by users. I prefer choice and a huge government nudge from the 1950's prevents that for most people at a significant cost to society.


#Chodidthemath
  • Back to top

#44 buckets Posted 13 August 2015 - 07:38 PM

buckets

    The All-Knowing All-Seeing Beagle

  • Honorary Beagle

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,736 posts
  • Joined 27-June 15
Let's use a socialist sports example: The Green Bay Packers. They are publicly owned and financed. They also happen to be prudently managed with an exceptionally good product. Most importantly their owners will never move them to Los Angeles.

Compare them to the other 90 or so major sports franchises owned by the super rich. They get to operate in an industry exempt from anti-trust laws sanctioned by politicians who also happen to receive large donations from said super rich owners. The owners get to keep the appreciating asset while cities are stuck with financing arenas. And if they don't like the arrangement, they can pack up and leave for a more desperate city represented by more desperate local politicians.

I'd prefer cities having the ability to purchase the team. It's socialism for sure but also the cheaper and fairer option.
#Chodidthemath
  • Back to top

#45 dnbman Posted 13 August 2015 - 07:54 PM

dnbman

    Existential Crisis Manager

  • Moderators

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,398 posts
  • Joined 25-June 07

 for one i don't want democracy. i will choose what we were supposed to be and that is a republic of states in a weak federal union.

 

i do not want nor think a strong central government is a good idea. as i said before, there is a role for a federal but it is very very minor in my opinion. i do not want to be like a scandinavian country. i do not want to have the majority of my income seized for "programs" for the better good. i don't want to be limited shoebox minimal style homes and apartments. i don't want the government telling me what i can and can't do for (what i would call) the illusion of safe keeping.

 

here is an article from a VERY liberal magazine on the subject. http://www.newyorker...rthern-lights-4

 

i see your point and understand what and where you want the country to go. i just completely disagree and will never come around it.

 

I'm not sure the New Yorker article helped your case. What did you draw from it?


Last Member: Nick Batum Fan Club

Professional Self-Loather

  • Back to top

#46 Chef Posted 14 August 2015 - 04:40 AM

Chef

    The All-Knowing All-Seeing Beagle

  • Honorary Beagle

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,650 posts
  • Joined 29-February 08

I'm not sure the New Yorker article helped your case. What did you draw from it?

 

i think it properly defined that the services are not all they are cracked up to be for the average user. that there is still an enormous gap between the elites and the common class of man. the elites can game the system, obtain favors and advantages and generally are exempt from the way the common man lives. yes the folks have some security built into their lives ie college paid, gov't pension, healthcare, place to live, but it is far from the panacea that it appears. often the services are less than what you would get if you went out and worked on your own. not only that but you traded large amounts of liberty for them. 

 

i guess i am the type of guy that would rather be dirt poor and have liberty to change my life than have security but little liberty. a pop-culture example: i would be hanging out with dennis leary in the sewers if this was demolition man.


Holding out hope that Mike sells.

  • Back to top

#47 Chef Posted 14 August 2015 - 04:43 AM

Chef

    The All-Knowing All-Seeing Beagle

  • Honorary Beagle

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,650 posts
  • Joined 29-February 08

Let's use a socialist sports example: The Green Bay Packers. They are publicly owned and financed. They also happen to be prudently managed with an exceptionally good product. Most importantly their owners will never move them to Los Angeles.

Compare them to the other 90 or so major sports franchises owned by the super rich. They get to operate in an industry exempt from anti-trust laws sanctioned by politicians who also happen to receive large donations from said super rich owners. The owners get to keep the appreciating asset while cities are stuck with financing arenas. And if they don't like the arrangement, they can pack up and leave for a more desperate city represented by more desperate local politicians.

I'd prefer cities having the ability to purchase the team. It's socialism for sure but also the cheaper and fairer option.

 

i would prefer little to no public financing for stadiums of sports teams OR if the people decided it was a good idea a lease like a mortgage. the team agrees to stay in said city for 15 years until the stadium is paid for OR they pay in full early if they want to move. the fact that cities foolishly vote and approve for the current deals is on them.


Holding out hope that Mike sells.

  • Back to top

#48 Adam42R Posted 14 August 2015 - 09:14 AM

Adam42R

    MKG's biggest fan

  • Honorary Beagle

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,380 posts
  • Joined 22-December 10

i would prefer little to no public financing for stadiums of sports teams OR if the people decided it was a good idea a lease like a mortgage. the team agrees to stay in said city for 15 years until the stadium is paid for OR they pay in full early if they want to move. the fact that cities foolishly vote and approve for the current deals is on them.


I don't know that all cities are equally foolish. To me, Charlotte has some of the more strategic thinking in the state where I find Greensboro historically to be its counter indicator. When some civic bodies vote to build a stadium or arena or dam or other public works project, it's not all about what direct revenue that brings in. Some may view the arena here as foolish but what are the collateral benefits of building here? It's what makes hosting other large events here that have nothing to do with sport, and that funds infrastructure improvement and that begets other ancillary improvements. In the end, one could argue that we have more breweries, better transportation options, higher home values, lower crime, better schooling options, more ped-friendly in general in uptown and the 3-5 mile radius of it because of strategic thinking. Thinking that is enormously unpopular with the voter at times. I trust my fellow man and women to be knowledgeable about what they care about, but often what isn't immediately in front of them isn't in that category.
Here comes McRoberts, the throw to Walker, it's in the aaaaaiiiiirrrr, YESSSSS! Bobcats win it! My my my, Kemba Walker. Steve Martin - Toronto 12/18/2013
  • Back to top

#49 buckets Posted 14 August 2015 - 09:15 AM

buckets

    The All-Knowing All-Seeing Beagle

  • Honorary Beagle

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,736 posts
  • Joined 27-June 15

i would prefer little to no public financing for stadiums of sports teams OR if the people decided it was a good idea a lease like a mortgage. the team agrees to stay in said city for 15 years until the stadium is paid for OR they pay in full early if they want to move. the fact that cities foolishly vote and approve for the current deals is on them.

 

Residents almost never get to vote on the scheme. It's rich owners negotiating with a handful of politicians who refuse to put the measure on referendum.


#Chodidthemath
  • Back to top

#50 Chef Posted 14 August 2015 - 09:21 AM

Chef

    The All-Knowing All-Seeing Beagle

  • Honorary Beagle

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,650 posts
  • Joined 29-February 08

I don't know that all cities are equally foolish. To me, Charlotte has some of the more strategic thinking in the state where I find Greensboro historically to be its counter indicator. When some civic bodies vote to build a stadium or arena or dam or other public works project, it's not all about what direct revenue that brings in. Some may view the arena here as foolish but what are the collateral benefits of building here? It's what makes hosting other large events here that have nothing to do with sport, and that funds infrastructure improvement and that begets other ancillary improvements. In the end, one could argue that we have more breweries, better transportation options, higher home values, lower crime, better schooling options, more ped-friendly in general in uptown and the 3-5 mile radius of it because of strategic thinking. Thinking that is enormously unpopular with the voter at times. I trust my fellow man and women to be knowledgeable about what they care about, but often what isn't immediately in front of them isn't in that category.

 

it's not the actual building of the stadium but that combined with allowing the league and owners easy outs. charlotte did a great job the second time around making it very difficult for the hornets to leave. yes, stadiums by in-large revitalize the immediate areas around them, it is when the team threatens to leave unless they pump a ton more money 5 years after they just renovated that destroys all the revitalization (if they end up leaving).


Holding out hope that Mike sells.

  • Back to top

#51 buckets Posted 14 August 2015 - 09:57 AM

buckets

    The All-Knowing All-Seeing Beagle

  • Honorary Beagle

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,736 posts
  • Joined 27-June 15

When some civic bodies vote to build a stadium or arena or dam or other public works project, it's not all about what direct revenue that brings in. Some may view the arena here as foolish but what are the collateral benefits of building here? It's what makes hosting other large events here that have nothing to do with sport, and that funds infrastructure improvement and that begets other ancillary improvements. In the end, one could argue that we have more breweries, better transportation options, higher home values, lower crime in uptown and the 3-5 mile radius of it because of strategic thinking. 

 

I'm a huge proponent of public investment as a city planning tool to shape land-use patterns. Done properly, either through direct investment or TIF financing, it can be smart economics. Like stated earlier mass transit, bicycle infrastructure, dense development with sidewalk retail, buried parking, elimination of parking minimums, start-ups loans, revitalization grants, etc... Clusters all tend to be good economics for a city core and help avoid costs elsewhere. At the most basic level the value of land to a city is the taxes it can charge per square foot.

 

Stadiums/arenas are different though. The infusion of funding is not the most efficient way and oftentimes at the expense of city cuts elsewhere. If a city used the approximately $300 million to $1 billion cost + financing as a TIF for private/public investment the return would be substantially higher. Since the city owns the structure they can't extract taxes and they don't earn income while it sits idle. I have yet to see research that says otherwise - people have disposable income and if the team moves they'll spend it elsewhere in local businesses with local employees. Players/owners of a sports team don't always live in the city so spend their money elsewhere in the offseason.

 

If the city is going to drop all that coin on a stadium/arena then they should also have the right to purchase the appreciating asset.


#Chodidthemath
  • Back to top

#52 InProblematique Posted 14 August 2015 - 11:17 AM

InProblematique

    Al's Questionable Shots Gave Me a Hangover

  • Honorary Beagle

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,892 posts
  • Joined 05-June 13
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

I'm a huge proponent of public investment as a city planning tool to shape land-use patterns. Done properly, either through direct investment or TIF financing, it can be smart economics. Like stated earlier mass transit, bicycle infrastructure, dense development with sidewalk retail, buried parking, elimination of parking minimums, start-ups loans, revitalization grants, etc... Clusters all tend to be good economics for a city core and help avoid costs elsewhere. At the most basic level the value of land to a city is the taxes it can charge per square foot.

 

Stadiums/arenas are different though. The infusion of funding is not the most efficient way and oftentimes at the expense of city cuts elsewhere. If a city used the approximately $300 million to $1 billion cost + financing as a TIF for private/public investment the return would be substantially higher. Since the city owns the structure they can't extract taxes and they don't earn income while it sits idle. I have yet to see research that says otherwise - people have disposable income and if the team moves they'll spend it elsewhere in local businesses with local employees. Players/owners of a sports team don't always live in the city so spend their money elsewhere in the offseason.

 

If the city is going to drop all that coin on a stadium/arena then they should also have the right to purchase the appreciating asset.

I actually recently read a study that put together a bunch of statistical models that seemed to concretely prove that new stadiums don't help local economy at all—I'll try to find it. 

 

I do know that Scott Walker just approved a tax plan to raise $250 million dollars to help build the new Bucks arena. This was, of course, after he cut $250 million from the public education budget. #seemslogical


Six Words/PP11

Posted Image
  • Back to top

#53 buckets Posted 14 August 2015 - 12:16 PM

buckets

    The All-Knowing All-Seeing Beagle

  • Honorary Beagle

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,736 posts
  • Joined 27-June 15

I actually recently read a study that put together a bunch of statistical models that seemed to concretely prove that new stadiums don't help local economy at all—I'll try to find it. 

 

I do know that Scott Walker just approved a tax plan to raise $250 million dollars to help build the new Bucks arena. This was, of course, after he cut $250 million from the public education budget. #seemslogical

 

What's sad is the $250 million (he tried for $300) cut is in addition to the $1.1 billion cut from 2011/12 effecting kindergarten through the University level. The flagship UW-Madison and the city itself are huge net contributors to state funding. But whatever. With that backdrop and other shenanigans, the Milwaukee Bucks arena deal was signed without public support but will cost taxpayers > $400 million. The hedgefund owners purchased the team last year for $450 million but could sell it for closer to $1 billion after their arena liability hurdle has been cleared..

 

Within 24 hours of Walker signing the arena deal, part-owner Wesley Edens' Fortress Hedge Fund reported a $3.4 billion asset gain in a single sub-prime investment, while another part-owner donated $150,000 to a pro-Walker super pac. Can't make this stuff up.

 

http://host.madison....d12db4d1af.html

 

http://www.forbes.co...ts-team-owners/


#Chodidthemath
  • Back to top

#54 Adam42R Posted 14 August 2015 - 12:25 PM

Adam42R

    MKG's biggest fan

  • Honorary Beagle

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,380 posts
  • Joined 22-December 10

I'm a huge proponent of public investment as a city planning tool to shape land-use patterns. Done properly, either through direct investment or TIF financing, it can be smart economics. Like stated earlier mass transit, bicycle infrastructure, dense development with sidewalk retail, buried parking, elimination of parking minimums, start-ups loans, revitalization grants, etc... Clusters all tend to be good economics for a city core and help avoid costs elsewhere. At the most basic level the value of land to a city is the taxes it can charge per square foot.

 

Stadiums/arenas are different though. The infusion of funding is not the most efficient way and oftentimes at the expense of city cuts elsewhere. If a city used the approximately $300 million to $1 billion cost + financing as a TIF for private/public investment the return would be substantially higher. Since the city owns the structure they can't extract taxes and they don't earn income while it sits idle. I have yet to see research that says otherwise - people have disposable income and if the team moves they'll spend it elsewhere in local businesses with local employees. Players/owners of a sports team don't always live in the city so spend their money elsewhere in the offseason.

 

If the city is going to drop all that coin on a stadium/arena then they should also have the right to purchase the appreciating asset.

 

http://charmeck.org/...g/arena faq.pdf

 

It is owned by the City yet operated by the Hornets. The CVRA (assume a line item of the City budget) runs operations.  Don't think this really falls into the category you guys are speaking of.  Beyond that, to me, this sort of civic investment is the "anchor" for which other private investment springs.  The planning aspect you speak to does not have a chance to be a tool if there is no secondary investment based off these initial large anchor projects that only massive companies and something like a city can provide.  And in the case of taking the risk of investment, that's usually reserved for a civic body rather than private industry.


Here comes McRoberts, the throw to Walker, it's in the aaaaaiiiiirrrr, YESSSSS! Bobcats win it! My my my, Kemba Walker. Steve Martin - Toronto 12/18/2013
  • Back to top

#55 buckets Posted 14 August 2015 - 12:26 PM

buckets

    The All-Knowing All-Seeing Beagle

  • Honorary Beagle

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,736 posts
  • Joined 27-June 15

Related: 2 hours north the community-owned Packers are still awesome. No one gives an ish about the Bucks


#Chodidthemath
  • Back to top

#56 buckets Posted 14 August 2015 - 01:14 PM

buckets

    The All-Knowing All-Seeing Beagle

  • Honorary Beagle

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,736 posts
  • Joined 27-June 15

http://charmeck.org/...g/arena faq.pdf

 

It is owned by the City yet operated by the Hornets. The CVRA (assume a line item of the City budget) runs operations.  Don't think this really falls into the category you guys are speaking of.  Beyond that, to me, this sort of civic investment is the "anchor" for which other private investment springs.  The planning aspect you speak to does not have a chance to be a tool if there is no secondary investment based off these initial large anchor projects that only massive companies and something like a city can provide.  And in the case of taking the risk of investment, that's usually reserved for a civic body rather than private industry.

 

 

It can spur activity but over the life of the arena Charlotte will be on the hook for over $500 million + the costs of building/demolishing The Coliseum. If the public used the $600 million inflation-adjusted dollars to spur downtown core private investment, that seed money would attract billions in private funds to shape the community in a more sustainable manner.

 

These downtown surface parking lots discourage walkability. They also make my eyes bleed. The seed money could have jumped mixed-use projects to encourage people to live and shop there 24/7. The increase in the tax base and reduced infrastructure costs would have provided generational economic advantages.

 

aerial.jpg


#Chodidthemath
  • Back to top

#57 buckets Posted 14 August 2015 - 01:29 PM

buckets

    The All-Knowing All-Seeing Beagle

  • Honorary Beagle

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,736 posts
  • Joined 27-June 15

Milwaukee is even worse though. It's an area famous for racial segregation and white flight, encouraged mostly by transportation policies. The State is cutting funding for mass transit while spending $2 billion on a single freeway interchange west of the city (not to mention a fancy arena). The State says the new arena will spur activity but they're adding commercial real estate to an area with a 23% vacancy rate. So it'll just shift where the activity happens

 

Photo of area just south of new Arena on Lake Michigan

 

Picture-7-11.png


#Chodidthemath
  • Back to top

#58 Adam42R Posted 14 August 2015 - 01:43 PM

Adam42R

    MKG's biggest fan

  • Honorary Beagle

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,380 posts
  • Joined 22-December 10

It can spur activity but over the life of the arena Charlotte will be on the hook for over $500 million + the costs of building/demolishing The Coliseum. If the public used the $600 million inflation-adjusted dollars to spur downtown core private investment, that seed money would attract billions in private funds to shape the community in a more sustainable manner.

 

These downtown surface parking lots discourage walkability. They also make my eyes bleed. The seed money could have jumped mixed-use projects to encourage people to live and shop there 24/7. The increase in the tax base and reduced infrastructure costs would have provided generational economic advantages.

 

aerial.jpg

 

Weeeeelll, you just made my point Mr. Photo Circa 2006 ...  If you were to stand about 30 floors up at Trade and Tryon today, you'd see massive build out North, South, East and West. You'd also see BB&T Ballpark (which ONLY makes sense following the TWC Arena being planted in downtown) and what could be a future 26,000 MLS soccer facility - all within 2 square miles of downtown, all accessible by light rail/trolley. 

 

Charlotte-Skyline2.jpg

 

Your eyes will bleed far less today and far far less by 2019.  The surface lots to the right of the arena in your picture are now office buildings and parking structures.  The surface lot even in this picture above that posted is now in process of being converted into a hotel and downtown park (two full blocks of downtown).

 

As for the what the "public" spends...

"The facility was paid for with two bond issues, backed by revenue from city tourist taxes. Bank of America, Duke Energy and Wachovia are underwriting $100 million in exchange for approximately $50 million from the sale of real estate downtown, where the venue is located. $16.8 million is coming from exclusive food and beverage rights, and there is a 3% seat tax at events in city arenas generating $15 million."

-- from http://law.marquette...tte-bobcats.pdf

 

 

and what the public spends on renovations...

"The money to support the renovations will come from revenue derived from rental car and hotel/motel taxes."

-- from http://charmeck.org/...g/arena faq.pdf

 

No sooner did I post this that I noticed in the paper the ground breaking for 615 South College and .... to alleviate another surface lot from 2006 .... 1 Brevard (

 

To me, there's so much right about what Charlotte is doing inside the city limits and especially within the inner radius, be it Urban Density, Historic Districts, Pedscape, Light Rail/Trolley, Bus service, etc ... I just don't buy the arguments that strategic minded cities do good works and benefit the public at large.  


Here comes McRoberts, the throw to Walker, it's in the aaaaaiiiiirrrr, YESSSSS! Bobcats win it! My my my, Kemba Walker. Steve Martin - Toronto 12/18/2013
  • Back to top

#59 Chef Posted 14 August 2015 - 02:12 PM

Chef

    The All-Knowing All-Seeing Beagle

  • Honorary Beagle

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,650 posts
  • Joined 29-February 08

Chef,

 

In your opinion, When was the last time in our country's history where America was successfully functioning as a republic of states in a weak federal union?

 

getting to this. i have to carefully think about what i want to say


Holding out hope that Mike sells.

  • Back to top

#60 InProblematique Posted 14 August 2015 - 02:13 PM

InProblematique

    Al's Questionable Shots Gave Me a Hangover

  • Honorary Beagle

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,892 posts
  • Joined 05-June 13
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Weeeeelll, you just made my point Mr. Photo Circa 2006 ...  If you were to stand about 30 floors up at Trade and Tryon today, you'd see massive build out North, South, East and West. You'd also see BB&T Ballpark (which ONLY makes sense following the TWC Arena being planted in downtown) and what could be a future 26,000 MLS soccer facility - all within 2 square miles of downtown, all accessible by light rail/trolley. 

 

Charlotte-Skyline2.jpg

 

Your eyes will bleed far less today and far far less by 2019.  The surface lots to the right of the arena in your picture are now office buildings and parking structures.  The surface lot even in this picture above that posted is now in process of being converted into a hotel and downtown park (two full blocks of downtown).

 

As for the what the "public" spends...

"The facility was paid for with two bond issues, backed by revenue from city tourist taxes. Bank of America, Duke Energy and Wachovia are underwriting $100 million in exchange for approximately $50 million from the sale of real estate downtown, where the venue is located. $16.8 million is coming from exclusive food and beverage rights, and there is a 3% seat tax at events in city arenas generating $15 million."

-- from http://law.marquette...tte-bobcats.pdf

 

 

and what the public spends on renovations...

"The money to support the renovations will come from revenue derived from rental car and hotel/motel taxes."

-- from http://charmeck.org/...g/arena faq.pdf

I agree. It's hard to argue with how Charlotte has gone about expanding its sports complexes. I doubt many other cities have put as much effort into trying to keep it as cheap as possible for the citizens of the city, while keeping everything relatively centralized and accessible by public transit.


Six Words/PP11

Posted Image
  • Back to top




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users