Share
2,929
Life MemberLife Member
2,929

PostMay 31, 2009#276

Doug wrote:McKee wants to take Maggie O'Brien's?



So much for his commitment to existing businesses. And look at what he wants to take on the North Side! Fehlig Brothers? Churches and Church Parking lots? Who put this list together? A random search in a database?
Reasonable Guess: 2000 Market Street, the site of Maggie O'Brien's, is also the home to the Bricklayers Union, Local #1. For many unions' health & welfare pension funds, diversified portfolios are maintained, including stocks, bonds, commoditites, alternatives, and real estate. It would be prudent for such an organization to own the building in which they work, but I can't confirm this specifically from my databases on local institutions.



I bet Bricklayers Local #1 is interested in proactively working with McKee, as will be multiple other unions around StL. For such a large, long-term, and fully extensive reconstruction, expect much union support. Many unions have proactively invested in local construction projects, partially for investment and partially to source jobs for their members, such as the Carpenters District Council working proactively for the reconstruction of the Brown Building into lofts.



Perhaps the inclusion of the Maggie O'Brien's building is part of negotiations between the Bricklayers and McKee's interests; perhaps not. Whether so or not, however, I do see this entire project being a harbinger for jobs sourced to local organized labor. For a project that will involve tens of thousands of union workers being employed, we can expect to see the Unions coming out in strong favor of its fruition.
2,772
Life MemberLife Member
2,772

PostMay 31, 2009#277

MattnSTL wrote:^He lives in Old North.


Oh, do you know him? Tell him 80% of St Louisans who see the video think he's a total DB.
6,775
Life MemberLife Member
6,775

PostMay 31, 2009#278

JuiceInDogtown wrote:
MattnSTL wrote:^He lives in Old North.


Oh, do you know him? Tell him 80% of St Louisans who see the video think he's a total DB.


99.9%
2,772
Life MemberLife Member
2,772

PostJun 01, 2009#279

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
JuiceInDogtown wrote:
MattnSTL wrote:^He lives in Old North.


Oh, do you know him? Tell him 80% of St Louisans who see the video think he's a total DB.


99.9%


Unfortunately I had to give him the benefit of the doubt for the few morons that clapped for childish tirade.
346
Full MemberFull Member
346

PostJun 01, 2009#280

I Like how he had to mention that there were a bunch of "white" guys plotting to Fuc* over north St. Louis again. Somebody should tell him to shut his white ass up. Always gotta be racial doesn't it.
6,662
AdministratorAdministrator
6,662

PostJun 01, 2009#281

Nope, don't know him, just know of him. I likely have met him at some point, but I don't recall any particular occasion. But if you were actually paying attention to anything, you would know he has posted here multiple times. And most St. Louisans likely know nothing about the outburst, because it was not televised, only youtubed.



But his outburst is not the point of any discussions about the merits of this project. You and the others should know that, but it is easier to attack an outburst than to think critically about the merits and flaws of McKee's plan.
216
Junior MemberJunior Member
216

PostJun 01, 2009#282

[quote="But his outburst is not the point of any discussions about the merits of this project. You and the others should know that, but it is easier to attack an outburst than to think critically about the merits and flaws of McKee's plan.[/quote]





Precisely. The most vitriol being spewed lately is from the uneducated sheep that choose to attack a distraction rather than reading what has actually been written. The sheep seem an awful lot like the same sheep that were so gung-ho in 2003 before Bush's invasion of Iraq, yelling things like "kick their ass, take their gas!", and similar moronic garbage, only to end up finally seeing the near total corruption that they were warned of prior to the invasion, and after multiple billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives were wasted.



I said it before, and I'll say it again... it is clear that those who have been vocally skeptical and irrepressibly suspicious of McKee have been offering the most substantive things to this ongoing discussion, and the sheep have been offering little more than pith. Ignorance is astonishing, but we'll simply have to keep making the most cogent argument about demanding what these neighborhoods deserve, until the sheep stop moving as a herd and finally think critically about what is taking place.
10K
AdministratorAdministrator
10K

PostJun 01, 2009#283

MattnSTL wrote:But if you were actually paying attention to anything, you would know he has posted here multiple times.


And all this time I thought reddragon lived in Plaza Square!
1,517
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,517

PostJun 01, 2009#284

Personally, I don't think public meetings should take place in churches, especially when said meetings are covering controversial topics.



Emotions run high, and if the pastor is going to blush if someone gets angry to the point of outburst, it's not an appropriate location for a meeting.



I, for one, do not feel comfortable being subjected to prayer at a public meeting. I also do not appreciate feeling as if I have to censor myself because I am in someone else's church. Just being honest.



The outburst was disrespectful to say the least, but perhaps McKee has earned those feelings. Where else can one vent to Mr. McKee himself?
549
Senior MemberSenior Member
549

PostJun 01, 2009#285

^ Agreed. It seemed odd to me, surely there was somewhere else the meeting (and future events) could be held.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostJun 01, 2009#286

john w. wrote:I said it before, and I'll say it again... it is clear that those who have been vocally skeptical and irrepressibly suspicious of McKee have been offering the most substantive things to this ongoing discussion, and the sheep have been offering little more than pith. Ignorance is astonishing, but we'll simply have to keep making the most cogent argument about demanding what these neighborhoods deserve, until the sheep stop moving as a herd and finally think critically about what is taking place.


Really? I feel as though I have not seen a substantive argument against the NorthSide project. If you allow me to paraphrase, what I've heard/read is:



Against:

Paul McKee's just trying to make money.

White people are taking black people's land.

Paul McKee can't be trusted so the project shouldn't happen.

Paul McKee will fail because the project is too big.

Public money should not be given on this scale.



Those are opinions or points, but not substantive "things". For those against this development I have yet to see one substantive word of a viable alternative, or alternatively any statement that the status quo in North St. Louis is OK. Replicating ONSL by 100 is not a substantive argument.



Maybe I've missed something, could someone post a coherent, "substantive" argument against the NorthSide development? I start from a viewpoint that North St. Louis is in need of substantial, wide-spread investment. I believe that the City needs to attract a substantial number of jobs and residents. I have not seen any proposal other than McKee's that has the potential to do either.



(For the record, I was actually somewhat offended, well "offended" may not be the right word, but I really disliked the statement by the member (preacher) of the church. It was simply grand-standing and bombastic itself. He wouldn't let it die until he received applause as well.)
216
Junior MemberJunior Member
216

PostJun 01, 2009#287

The substantive offerings I'm referring to are the very detailed accounts of the actions to date of McKee, and I think you know that. Your list above simply does not account for the voluminous work done by the individuals that have educated so many about McKee. Your list above seems, once again, to dismiss McKee and his actions (the collateral damage and shady operation) and attempts only to compress whole argumentative points into single statements. I suppose I could do the same for the opposing viewpoint, but it would be equally unfair. The shear scope of this project is unbelievably expansive, and because of that many like myself cannot simply accept that giving away so much bargaining power up front, for so little evidence of quality redevelopment, is a good idea. I'm rather surprised that you would find this situation acceptable, as there is no reason to insist that any hope for north St. Louis lies in such a broad-sweeping redevelopment area under the control of one individual. Those that remain suspicious have already shown ample evidence of McKee's method of operation. Now it's up to the rest to show some successful precedent of a project of this scope, and why the past actions of McKee don't compute.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostJun 01, 2009#288

Yes, the past transgressions of Paul McKee have been well documented. I don't dismiss either that work or past actions. I don't know what else to say other than I acknowledge what has happened. However, I don't know what retribution should be sought. I disagree with those who say that the project shouldn't move forward because of what's happened in the past.



You ask "the rest to show some successful precedent of a project of this scope." Well, I submit that Winghaven and North Park are huge developments that have been successful - for what they are. Not to mention McKee's involvement with the Chinese air cargo efforts, his work of Chair of BJC and successful efforts to retain Mastercard. I'm not sure who else one could turn to in St. Louis that would have more experience. The fact is that NorthSide is a redevelopment on a unique scale. I don't believe there is a developer that has done something quite like this, though I'm not willing to say that it just shouldn't be done as a result. And, again, I am aware of the past actions of McKee and I have stated, and continue to state, that measures should be taken to project owner-occupants in North St. Louis and that individuals and small businesses should be supported in their own efforts by historic tax credits, etc.



Look, you seem to restate much of my above list. Some people who oppose the project think it's just too big, some people just don't trust McKee . . . what am I missing? I believe that opponents need to either defend the status quo or come up with another way to potentially attract thousands of jobs and residents to the City AND rebuild the worst of our infrastructure. What I see from opponents is a listing of grievances and doubt that the vision will be achieved.



I think that the scope of the project fits the scope of the problem.
1,044
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,044

PostJun 01, 2009#289

There have been other projects of substantial scale done in St. Louis by individual developers. West Port by J White company, Chesterfield (1500 acres) by Sachs and Earth City/Corporate Woods/RiverPort by a couple of developers including Dale Perkinson and Duke Realty. Unfortunately these were all done in areas of relatively little existing private ownership and so added to the sprawl we are forced to live with today. For someone to come in put up a large quantity of money along with risking personal attacks to his reputation by not taking the easy developmental route is a pretty un-St. Louis way of thinking. That individual should be given the benefit of the doubt and hailed as a hero, not a villain. Back in the early 60's one of St. Louis's prominent developers (whose name escapes me) vied to build a new office tower along the future Arch Grounds. Unfortunately he was denied the request because of some back room politicking and instead he took his plans to a relatively sleepy suburb of Clayton where he was warmly welcomed. In turn the developer built that cities first true office tower (the Pierre Laclede Center #1) which was soon followed by many others along with an exodus of corporate offices that filled them. Looking back its been wondered if he hadn't been scorned by the cities "powers that be" perhaps Clayton would not have become the rival to downtown that it has.
3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostJun 01, 2009#290

Neither North Park or Winghaven are finished. Winghaven has many "Future Site of ____" signs. North Park isn't even close. It was supposed to have a MetroLink stop on the south side of I70. UMSL North does not connect to ESI's HQ. He does not do residential, has no one lined up, and has demolished a lot of buildings. He wants many more according to the TIF proposal.



He has no "thousands of jobs" committed. He never brought in new jobs with ESI or Mastercard. This was simply subsidized regional shifting of existing employers. We're supposed to just believe him on this China deal? Look at what the relocation of GM to Wentzville and how that affected North St. Louis. Now it's regionally acceptable for the inverse to occur? And who will these "thousands of jobs" employ? Existing residents, or perhaps that's why they must be removed as they're in the way.



Will McKee bring these new jobs to North St. Louis, North Park, Winghaven, or Downtown with the interchange section of his project? We already have regional office vacancies.



This is all smoke and mirrors. He's asking us to fund a fantasy with the only concrete results thus far being the annihilation of historic neighborhoods, the marginalization and relocation of minorities, all for the invisible man behind the curtain who hands out jobs by the hundreds.
216
Junior MemberJunior Member
216

PostJun 01, 2009#291

Grover wrote:Yes, the past transgressions of Paul McKee have been well documented. I don't dismiss either that work or past actions. I don't know what else to say other than I acknowledge what has happened. However, I don't know what retribution should be sought. I disagree with those who say that the project shouldn't move forward because of what's happened in the past.



You ask "the rest to show some successful precedent of a project of this scope." Well, I submit that Winghaven and North Park are huge developments that have been successful - for what they are.


In no way do these projects compare to the scope of the NorthSide, unless there is some sort of proportional scale used for comparison that I'm unaware of. I'd describe Winghaven as an embarrassment, and a dismal example of what new urbanism could and should be, and God forbid anything like that atrocity ever be built in north city with the generous assistance of public money. The retribution that should be sought is the enforceable promise from McKee that he will produce results agreeable to the community (through any all all public hearing and elected official review that it can be subject to), and in a timeframe that is suitable to the creation of jobs and commerce in the redevelopment area as inferred by his 'vision' (or development rights will be transferred to another), and that strong protections are given to irreplaceable historic buildings in a number that ensures the character of these neighborhoods is not lost to the impetus of mass, engulfing renewal. It wouldn't hurt for McKee to explain his reasoning behind the apparently senseless demolition of so many historic buildings in north city, including the assemblage at St. Louis Avenue and Glasgow Avenue, and the entire block of Wright. This explanation would go a long way in helping the suspicious to understand why his methods thus far, insidious as they've been, are somehow rationale, if that is at all possible. He should try. The result of his actions thus far have been to create a strong opposition to him. This couldn't possibly have been his intended standing with the public, so he should absolutely experience retribution and make restitution through future reparative action. Those convicted of criminal misdemeanors and sentenced to community service, to make reparations, conduct not only acts of self-redemption but also public improvement. It is in this manner that McKee should experience some balanced retribution. It would be a clear signal that he understands the sensitivity of neighborhoods, and that there are actual human beings living in them.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostJun 01, 2009#292

john w. wrote:In no way do these projects compare to the scope of the NorthSide, unless there is some sort of proportional scale used for comparison that I'm unaware of.


Then I submit that no developer anywhere would satisfy your criteria.


john w. wrote:I'd describe Winghaven as an embarrassment, and a dismal example of what new urbanism could and should be, and God forbid anything like that atrocity ever be built in north city with the generous assistance of public money.


John, no one with any official authority or even minimal input into this project has said anything about a Winghaven in North St. Louis. In fact, those who has made a public statement about the project have explicitly stated that Winghaven will not work in the City and all available plans show that the project will be MORE urban in form than what currently exists. The street grid in some places will actually be returned!


john w. wrote:The retribution that should be sought is the enforceable promise from McKee that he will produce results agreeable to the community (through any all all public hearing and elected official review that it can be subject to), and in a timeframe that is suitable to the creation of jobs and commerce in the redevelopment area as inferred by his 'vision' (or development rights will be transferred to another), and that strong protections are given to irreplaceable historic buildings in a number that ensures the character of these neighborhoods is not lost to the impetus of mass, engulfing renewal.


Agreed, though we may differ on just how far "agreeable to the community" goes. Sometimes "the community" can kill a worthwhile project.


john w. wrote:It wouldn't hurt for McKee to explain his reasoning behind the apparently senseless demolition of so many historic buildings in north city, including the assemblage at St. Louis Avenue and Glasgow Avenue, and the entire block of Wright. This explanation would go a long way in helping the suspicious to understand why his methods thus far, insidious as they've been, are somehow rationale, if that is at all possible. He should try.


I think you're right, but doubt that he has an explanation that would satisfy his detractors. Whether he has a good explanation or not many will choose not to believe him. Obviously there's a political equation being played out here. McKee would like to work with as clean a slate as possible and needs enough political support to do so.


john w. wrote:The result of his actions thus far have been to create a strong opposition to him.


I think that there's some debate as to how strong the opposition is to this project, whether in the blogosphere or among North St. Louis residents and businesses.


john w. wrote:This couldn't possibly have been his intended standing with the public, so he should absolutely experience retribution and make restitution through future reparative action. Those convicted of criminal misdemeanors and sentenced to community service, to make reparations, conduct not only acts of self-redemption but also public improvement. It is in this manner that McKee should experience some balanced retribution. It would be a clear signal that he understands the sensitivity of neighborhoods, and that there are actual human beings living in them.


So McKee should conduct himself as if he's been "convicted of criminal misdemeanors and sentenced to community service"? Sorry, but not until he's actually been convicted of something.

PostJun 01, 2009#293

Doug wrote:Neither North Park or Winghaven are finished. Winghaven has many "Future Site of ____" signs. North Park isn't even close. It was supposed to have a MetroLink stop on the south side of I70. UMSL North does not connect to ESI's HQ. He does not do residential, has no one lined up, and has demolished a lot of buildings. He wants many more according to the TIF proposal.



He has no "thousands of jobs" committed. He never brought in new jobs with ESI or Mastercard. This was simply subsidized regional shifting of existing employers. We're supposed to just believe him on this China deal? Look at what the relocation of GM to Wentzville and how that affected North St. Louis. Now it's regionally acceptable for the inverse to occur? And who will these "thousands of jobs" employ? Existing residents, or perhaps that's why they must be removed as they're in the way.



Will McKee bring these new jobs to North St. Louis, North Park, Winghaven, or Downtown with the interchange section of his project? We already have regional office vacancies.



This is all smoke and mirrors. He's asking us to fund a fantasy with the only concrete results thus far being the annihilation of historic neighborhoods, the marginalization and relocation of minorities, all for the invisible man behind the curtain who hands out jobs by the hundreds.


Doug, I think that you're setting the bar so high as to simply define away ANY possible project. So at this stage you're demanding that McKee have residential developers lined up and thousands of jobs committed? That's not realistic no matter who the developer may be.



Regarding the Chinese cargo hub - it's certainly far from a sure deal, but McKee's been heavily involved in the process that has seen millions of dollars invested by Missouri and China. At this point it's a real possibility.



Ideally we wouldn't be shifting jobs around the region, but I believe moving jobs closer to the urban core is positive for the environment and for the regional economy.
50
New MemberNew Member
50

PostJun 02, 2009#294

Grover wrote:


Doug, I think that you're setting the bar so high as to simply define away ANY possible project. So at this stage you're demanding that McKee have residential developers lined up and thousands of jobs committed? That's not realistic no matter who the developer may be.



Regarding the Chinese cargo hub - it's certainly far from a sure deal, but McKee's been heavily involved in the process that has seen millions of dollars invested by Missouri and China. At this point it's a real possibility.



Ideally we wouldn't be shifting jobs around the region, but I believe moving jobs closer to the urban core is positive for the environment and for the regional economy.


If anything happens with the Chinese, it will go straight to NorthPark first, because that is the closest, and McKee has the most on the line in terms of money, not to mention the whole area is empty save for 3 buildings.



Also, his order of development is too in his favor. He starts with Downtown west, a place that doesn't need him what so ever, and then proceeds to the MRB, which will be prime for development anyway.... and finally works his way north. I would feel a lot better about this whole thing if he started at his proposed job center at Parnell and Natural Bridge (or any area that was actually "NorthSide"). There is too much potential for the whole thing to leave us high and dry.
3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostJun 02, 2009#295

Grover wrote:
Doug, I think that you're setting the bar so high as to simply define away ANY possible project. So at this stage you're demanding that McKee have residential developers lined up and thousands of jobs committed? That's not realistic no matter who the developer may be.



Regarding the Chinese cargo hub - it's certainly far from a sure deal, but McKee's been heavily involved in the process that has seen millions of dollars invested by Missouri and China. At this point it's a real possibility.



Ideally we wouldn't be shifting jobs around the region, but I believe moving jobs closer to the urban core is positive for the environment and for the regional economy.


No, I'm not. Dlck Gregory Place, a community effort involving the Greater Ville Neighborhood Preservation Commission, RHCDA, EM Harris, amongst other players, provides a stellar most recent example of projects we need.



We've seen hundreds of "real possibilities" in St. Louis. We shouldn't pay until it's a done deal. It was also possible for St. Louis Centre, BPV, Bottleworks, Chouteau's Pond, Skyhouse, Mercantile Exchange, etc., to occur. The City is on the hook for St. Louis Center, supporting a developer we thought was a rockstar, when he really was a house of cards. We're on the hook if this 2000 acre project fails, especially after he's done clear cutting the area.



If you believe moving jobs to the core is a good idea, then how do you feel about displacing residents out of North St. Louis, supplanting them with others? How do you feel about spatial mismatch and the fact that these displaced residents won't be able to walk to McKee's job campuses, from whatever inner ring suburb they probably end up, which is great because a lot of people don't have a car?



You ignore McKee's existing projects. They're abject failures when speaking from both urban public policy and design. His tract record of worthwhile projects does not include the ones which he cites as examples while we have other developers, who actually do residential, rebuilding historic North Side city blocks.



These projects like Wagoner Place and Crown Village should receive some of the funding allocated towards McKee's subsidy. These longtime Ville residents have seen the decline and are working internally to redress it. Yet they don't receive some specially tailored incentives, even though they've shown the capacity to actually make a turnaround happen. McKee has proven nothing but the ability to let his buildings get rustled and allow the Clemens to fall apart.



At the May 21st meeting McKee said "impossible" regarding securing the Clemens. <b>He can allegedly BRING COMPANIES FROM CHINA, but he can't secure our historic buildings</b>? And he should have many hundreds more? Why?



Explain that! It's like saying Nixon had no ability to tie his shoes.



He's a crook and he should be in jail, not receiving our finite public resources. We have others who work hard daily and get nothing like this amount of support. That's unethical no matter how it's framed politically.
216
Junior MemberJunior Member
216

PostJun 02, 2009#296

"You don't give a $400 million TIF (the rumored amount) for a development project that has a broad idea, but no specifics. This plan has the potential to work and be fairly urban,but we risk giving away all of our bargaining chips up front. This is a project that has a high bust potential, and at this point, no other financing besides government subsidies."



...I just keep coming back to this, and wondering why so many are so willing to just throw so much money and development control at such an immeasurably huge unknown. The quote is from MattnSTL from another similar thread.

PostJun 02, 2009#297

Grover wrote:
john w. wrote:In no way do these projects compare to the scope of the NorthSide, unless there is some sort of proportional scale used for comparison that I'm unaware of.


Then I submit that no developer anywhere would satisfy your criteria.





Exactly. No S I N G L E developer will satisfy my criteria. Haven't I said that now about 10,000,000 times already? Have you not read that?


john w. wrote:I'd describe Winghaven as an embarrassment, and a dismal example of what new urbanism could and should be, and God forbid anything like that atrocity ever be built in north city with the generous assistance of public money.


John, no one with any official authority or even minimal input into this project has said anything about a Winghaven in North St. Louis. In fact, those who has made a public statement about the project have explicitly stated that Winghaven will not work in the City and all available plans show that the project will be MORE urban in form than what currently exists. The street grid in some places will actually be returned!





That's not the point. The point is that McKee's past results have been crap, everyone knows they're crap, and these are the projects that are cited as comparable examples of land development success!!??!! McKee has NO BASIS of comparative example for developing existing urban land, and his most recent large projects (dwarfed by NorthSide, BTW) have been terrible. Anything else?
941
Super MemberSuper Member
941

PostJun 02, 2009#298

ecoabsence wrote:By the way, the McEagle TIF application is online:

http://www.eco-absence.org/x/McKeeTIF_small.pdf


Before anyone continues to comment on this topic, I would recommend they peruse this document.



Interesting factoids I gleaned from the. pdf:

1) The actual proposed dollars associated with this project are ~$8B.

2) Per Exhibit C, Sources and Uses of Funding, 46.34% of the ~$8B is to be used for rehabilitation costs of EXISTING BUILDINGS versus a mere 2% of the ~$8B to be used for New Building Costs

3) Roughly 44% of the proposed redevelopment area is VACANT LAND (Holy sh*t!)

4) Per page 7, "the developer has explored bank financing with over 20 financial institutions, potential financiers, and tax credits and other government programs prior to submitting this [TIF] Statement....The developer has also explored joint venture opportunities with 10 developers for the commercial office space, retail and residential components of the Projects."

5) The aforementioned financiers are not willing to participate in the project without the TIF, per page 7.

6) Per page 6, 85% of the TIF would be invested in public infrastructure

7) Per page 2, the proposed development contains 1,112 acres of land, 1501 acres of land if one includes rights-of-way. Winghaven and NorthPark combined contain 1750 acres of redevelopment, per page 7.

8`) Exhibit D lists EVERY SINGLE PROPERTY or PARCEL needed for Proposed Redevelopment; the ratio of public owned vs private owned land is absolutely staggering.



This document should help some of the detractors out there understand the careful planning of this project.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostJun 02, 2009#299

john w. wrote:Exactly. No S I N G L E developer will satisfy my criteria. Haven't I said that now about 10,000,000 times already? Have you not read that?


No. Not 10,000,000 times. :D Anyway, I happen to think that dividing the project among developers has as many, if not more, pitfalls than a single developer.


john w. wrote:That's not the point. The point is that McKee's past results have been crap, everyone knows they're crap, and these are the projects that are cited as comparable examples of land development success!!??!! McKee has NO BASIS of comparative example for developing existing urban land, and his most recent large projects (dwarfed by NorthSide, BTW) have been terrible. Anything else?


I think that Winghaven is generally what it was supposed to be. It's added a substantial amount of tax base to O'Fallon and many of the people living there are happy with it. Not everyone thinks that Winghaven and NorthPark are crap. You seem to think so because they're not "urban" enough for your tastes. I think McKee has successfully built a suburban development in suburbia, has put together a successful warehouse and office development in an area where it makes sense to have warehouses and some offices. The plan for NorthSide IS urban. Again, you can simply say that you don't believe the plan if you like.
216
Junior MemberJunior Member
216

PostJun 02, 2009#300

...and I think I've said that enough, haven't I?
Read more posts (27 remaining)
Share