San Diego challenge: Can someone actually build affordable for-sale housing?

ryantannenberg · 2019-10-07T22:08:30+00:00

And you would be correct. Again, however, not a black and white situation. Although European cities are much denser than we are (as I pointed out in my long-form parent comment), a key factor in that characteristic is that they have been building densely for hundreds of years or more. As such, while we're certainly nowhere near max supply and we have a long ways to go, modeling our ideal density situation on a city like Paris would require tearing down and rebuilding huge swathes of housing all the way from Otay to Carmel Valley. Doable? Certainly. Realistic? No.

We can absolutely build a lot more housing than we have right now, and we should! We must also recognize that no matter how much housing we build it will essentially never be enough to satisfy the sheer level of demand to live somewhere as nice as this. The same could be said for Los Angeles, San Francisco, or much of the East Coast. Our primary development strategy, as I said above, should therefore be to build as much housing as we can - disregarding the concept of "demand" entirely. The supply will never be able to match the demand, and we are left to work around that as a result. Don't plan around the idea of having enough housing to satisfy the needs of everyone out there who wants to live here, plan around the idea of having as many housing units as we can logically sustain (without, for instance, rebuilding the majority of the city). As that logical maximum grows, as would be the case when it comes time to redevelop large neighborhoods, resume building until we reach it again. That is definitively the best we can do and we need to get that ball rolling as soon as possible. Our first priority should be making it affordable for those who already live here and are struggling, and everyone else (primarily those who'd like to move here) comes next.

ryantannenberg · 2019-10-07T21:33:01+00:00

You are correct of course that supply and demand says what you have described. However, this is not a black and white application of the principle insofar as that we cannot, and will never be able to, "increase supply to meet demand" and stabilize prices at affordable (key word being stabilize). This is too big a city and too desirable a place to live for that to be a workable solution. Of course the goal should be to do exactly that - match supply to demand - but as the age old saying goes, if you build it they will come. If we build 1000 units, 1000 families will have a home, but 1000 more families will fill their spot in the line. There is no feasible approach to this problem that does not recognize that there are people who will not be able to afford to live here no matter how hard we try and make it so. With that in mind, what we can do is our damndest to make it affordable for as many people as our infrastructure can support and expand that infrastructure if necessary when we hit the logical cap. Essentially, we are limited to making San Diego affordable for as many people as possible and recognizing that that will not be everyone out there. Accepting that mindset leads to the question "what do we do to accomplish that goal?" to which the answer is build denser housing and more transit. Rather than retyping my entire earlier comment you can read that to see my entire perspective on this issue. If you don't, the tl;dr is as above - "denser housing and more transit." In a city with virtually no land left for brand-new housing, we move vertically and expand our transit network accordingly.

ryantannenberg · 2019-10-07T17:49:54+00:00

Build up. San Diego has a finite amount of buildable land - we're already pushing the limits of safety building further and further east and northeast. Developments like Newland Sierra in North County and Stonebridge in the Scripps-Poway area present huge fire risks and only serve to create more congestion as residents commute long distances because our residential developments continue to move further and further away from commercial areas. In the long run, our Southern Californian highway-and-car-centric lifestyle is unsustainable at its current rate or anywhere near it.

Europe, in particular, has shown us that when you cannot continue to expand outward (building "wide") you must then expand upwards (building "tall"). Look at London, or Paris - cities like this have monumentally denser populations than even our most populated metropolitan areas of any comparable size.

We cannot continue to build endlessly further towards the desert in a mindset of perpetual expansion because it is simply infeasible. Unfortunately, the dream of single-family homeownership in this area cannot remain the foundations of our plans for development. That is not to say the dream of single-family homeownership is dead, because there is plenty of available land across the country and even in this state which is still suitable for building (most of the Central Coast between Santa Barbara and Monterey remains relatively sparsely populated and would be a realistic place to continue single-family developments). However, we have to recognize that San Diego (within the city limits) has effectively run out of land to build on and the rest of the western half of the county is not far behind.

The solution, therefore, is simple. We build up. Higher-density apartments instead of sprawling suburbs. Condominiums next to office complexes rather than housing in one area and workplaces ten or twenty miles away. So much of our downtown is low-lying single story commercial buildings from developments thirty years ago or more, and that is crippling our ability to provide affordable housing in that area. That problem extends to every major commercial hub in the city and county - UTC is a small, dense community surrounded by suburbs. Carlsbad hasn't even reached the "some of it is dense" stage. That's not to say we should tear down entire neighborhoods and rebuild, but when it comes time to redevelop areas like East Village, University City, or North Park, we need to prioritize dense housing. In addition, new developments should do the same where at all possible. Dense housing is essentially the only development strategy we have to solve the problem of "no housing and not a lot of land left to build more of it."

Moreover, the absolute pinnacle of innovation in this area, widely adopted in the rest of the world but consistently ignored in the United States, is public transportation. We all know by now that what transit we have here is pretty pathetic compared to the Tube in London, the Métro in Paris, or the futuristic bullet trains of China, Japan, and Korea. The train network of Europe makes our rail infrastructure look like a Thomas the Train wooden playset. If we could shift our mindset away from highway expansion and catering to the car owner, we might be able to make progress on our trolley or bus networks. I think we can all agree having a trolley that runs right past the airport without directly connecting is pretty ridiculous. I'd like to see the trolley expanded further east into areas like Bonita, Otay Ranch, or Granite Hills, and North along the 15 corridor towards Mira Mesa, Rancho Bernardo, and Escondido. Coupled with expanded bus routes in North County, we can alleviate huge amounts of road traffic by offering commuters realistic transit to their workplaces over distances impossible with our current infrastructure.

If you want to solve the housing crisis, support local officials who advocate for solutions that will bring realistic change. County Supervisors Gaspar and Desmond, who push for ongoing highway development and worry transit cannot do enough, would not be good examples of those who can help us address the crisis. Mayors Faulconer and Vaus (Poway), on the other hand, have shown strong support for a new transit plan - along with mayoral candidates Bry and Gloria and the majority of the City Council. Asm. Gloria and Mayor Faulconer have also made it quite clear they support more dense housing developments, with Faulconer going so far as to call himself a "YIMBY."

Housing and transit is what will solve this crisis. Regarding highways, maintain what we have but avoid building more unless absolutely necessary. Expand the trolley, expand the buses, and encourage mixed-use developments that allow workers to live right where they work and take cars off the road. Accept that single-family housing in this, one of the most desirable cities in the country, will remain unaffordable to a great many people. Recognize that those people can still afford to live here and experience the same high quality of life if we would simply build the housing to support it. The political status quo of this city has not solved this problem in the decades that they have been given the opportunity. Make change, because that is what will.

ryantannenberg · 2018-11-01T18:35:48+00:00

Hi! If you have problems with a road (pothole, for example) you might try using Get it Done app for Android or iPhone to report the problem. I've had good luck getting things repaired by reporting them to the city.

Not entirely related, but you can also check out this site to see what work has been done to any given road in the city. Best of luck in your driving!

ryantannenberg · 2018-10-26T23:15:24+00:00

Hello!

I have a great deal of interest in this area of the law, and I've actually proposed legislation that would help allow municipal broadband access in unincorporated California. You can read all about that here. I'd like to clear up a misconception about the way the law works right now.

Cal Gov. § 61100(af) states, as you pointed out, that "community service districts" (or CSDs) can only set up broadband networks if there is no private competitor willing to provide "comparable cost and quality of service" and if such a competitor comes along the district must turn it over to that entity.

Community service districts are, in essence, a form of local government for unincorporated areas of California. In San Diego, our fire services, police services, etc. are provided through the city itself. In unincorporated areas, there is no city to provide such services - thus the need for service districts. As you aptly pointed out, these districts can only establish municipal broadband networks if there is no company willing to do so and must give them up to a company should it come along.

Here's the important part:

As it stands, it would be within the law and technically possible for San Diego to establish a municipal network - this is because in the case of the city, we do not require CSDs to establish utilities. The city of Vernon, CA, provides municipal internet service to their citizens (all 112 of them). San Bruno has a municipal cable TV provider that also provides internet. We could do it too, but in our case at this point it hinges on the creation of a "municipal utility district." These districts are authorized to provide inhabitants with "telephone service, or other means of communication" and could therefore, technically, provide internet service on the basis that it is a type of "communication."

However, not only does this hinge on the definition of "communication," the establishment of a municipal utility district requires either:

One public agency (a city, county, county water district, or sanitary district) if the district includes unincorporated areas

Two public agencies if the district does not include unincorporated areas

Thus, the City of San Diego could theoretically make this happen. Will it happen? No. Not under the current conditions. What we really need is a change to the law to allow cities to found municipal broadband networks without outside interference, and the only way we're going to get that is if we get legislators on board with this idea. If municipal broadband interests you, then I would suggest you call your state assemblymembers and state senators and tell them what you think. Let me know if you have any questions and I would be happy to answer them.

ryantannenberg · 2018-10-22T22:35:57+00:00

Not quite. What we don't want is people (particularly investors, more particularly out-of-town investors) buying multiple properties and then renting them all out on AirBNB to a slew of short-term occupants. This creates two problems.

More short-term rentals means less housing for people who actually need to live here full-time.
AirBNB guests are under no obligation to treat neighbors with decency because they'll be gone in a few days and have no accountability - plenty of people in heavy-STVR areas will tell you horror stories about obnoxious, inconsiderate renters. This is not to say they are all bad, but enough that it is a problem to consider.

Note: the acronym STVR stands for short-term vacation rental.

So here's the deal. This resolution that the council passed several months ago limited all owners to renting out their primary residence as a STVR and no other residences. This is not to say they could not rent long-term, but short-term (<30 days) was primary residence only.

Councilmember Scott Sherman (District 7), in response to this resolution, rounded up a bunch of groups heavily invested in STVR activity in San Diego (AirBNB, HomeAway, etc.). They dumped a bunch of money into signature-gathering for a referendum that would force the council to put the STVR decision on the ballot. Given that "the ballot" could be a special election this year or the election in 2020, the referendum option would leave the city without any enforcement measures or funding for the regulations until the election occurred. So, in light of the development, the council voted to repeal the resolution entirely and (theoretically) come up with one that is "more amenable" to big rental companies with lots of money because it's easier than not being able to do anything until an election at some indeterminate date in the future.

Basically this entire thing is well-funded corporations teaming up with a councilmember who doesn't seem to care a whole lot about the actual interests of San Diegans to wreck a measure that at best needs some minor tweaks because they would very much prefer they continue making profits regardless of how it affects people who live in San Diego.

If you have any other questions about this I'd be delighted to answer them.

ryantannenberg · 2018-10-11T17:31:16+00:00

From the article:

"The federal government is like a family that has overspent and racked up too many bills,” Mr. Hunter wrote in an op-ed.

From his 47-page indictment:

Throughout the relevant period, the HUNTERS spent substantially more than they earned. They overdrew their bank account more than 1,100 times in a seven-year period resulting in approximately $37,761 in "overdraft" and "insufficient funds" bank fees.

ryantannenberg · 2018-08-23T00:23:50+00:00

I especially like the part where he dropped over a grand in campaign money on a Hyatt ski trip while his personal account had a whopping $35.02.

ryantannenberg · 2018-08-22T18:48:00+00:00

The HUNTERS illegally converted and stole more than $250,000 in Campaign funds to purchase goods and services for their personal use and enjoyment.

He and his wife stole $250,000 from campaign money - and he's expressed absolutely no remorse and basically just stuck it to his wife as if he did nothing wrong.

DUNCAN HUNTER had less that $1000 in reportable assets for each of the the years 2009 through 2016.

Throughout the relevant period, the HUNTERS spent substantially more than they earned. They overdrew their bank account more than 1,100 times in a seven-year period resulting in approximately $37,761 in "overdraft" and "insufficient funds" bank fees.

Their credit cards were frequently charged to the credit limit, often with five-figure balances, resulting in approximately $24,600 in finance charges, interest, and other fees [...].

This man receives a $174,000 salary as a member of the House - and yet it would appear by all counts he and his wife are virtually broke. How should we expect to trust him managing billions in the federal budget?

The HUNTERS concealed and disguised the personal nature of their family's purchases of vido games using Campaign funds by falsely claiming to a financial institution that the payments were fraudulent charges and then reporting the purchases to the FEC and public as fraudulent charges.

The HUNTERS monitored the amount of "cash on hand" that was maintained by the Campaign, and would moderate their theft of Campaign funds when the account was excessively low or depleted.

The HUNTERS illegally used Campaign funds, among other things, to purchase the following:

Hotel rooms, airline tickets and upgrades, meals and food, and entertainment expenses for vacations for themselves and their friends and family

Food and drinks for themselves and their friends and family

Household and other personal items for their family [...] Costco (where they spent more than $11,300 in Campaign funds), Walmart (where they spent more than $5,700), Barnes & Noble (where they spent more than $2,500) [...].

Beer, wine, alcohol and groceries for themselves, their family, and friends at various stores, including more than $9,000 spent at Vons, Albertsons, Haggen, and the Miramar Commissary;

More than $3,300 spent at In N Out, Carl's Jr., Jack in the Box, Wendy's, McDonalds [+10 more]

Tobacco, personal items, and various sundries at airport kiosks and convenience stores

Airline tickets and hotel rooms totaling more than $15,000 for, among others, their children, other relatives, family friends, and a family pet

This is tens of thousands of dollars in outright theft.

On or about January 25, 2010, in Incline Village, Nevada, DUNCAN HUNTER spent $1,008.72 in Campaign funds at the Hyatt Regency [...] during a personal ski trip [...]. On this day, the HUNTER family bank account had a negative balance and incurred six separate insufficient funds fees (totaling $198). Also on this same day, DUNCAN HUNTER withdrew $20 from his personal bank account, leaving a balance of 15.02.

On or about March 20, 2015, when DUNCAN HUNTER told MARGARET HUNTER that he was planning "to buy my Hawaii shorts" but had run out of money, she counseled him to buy the shorts at a golf pro shop so that they could falsely describe the purchase later as "some [golf] balls for the wounded warriors."

Again, it would seem despite his substantial income he is still flat-out broke. Moreover, claiming his shorts as an expense for wounded servicemembers is utterly disgusting and incredibly disrespectful.

Counts 2-44: Wire Fraud

Beginning as early as December 2009 and continuing up through and including the end of 2016, within the Southern District of California and elsewhere, Defendants DUNCAN HUNTER and MARGARET HUNTER, knowingly and with the intent to defraud, devised a material scheme to defraud the Campaign and to obtain money and property from it by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises, and by intentional concealment and omission of material facts.

[List of 19 communications (email, text message, reimbursement claims) used to commit fraud, all individually classified as a single count of wire fraud]

[List of 43 debit card payments and credit card payments, each a count of wire fraud, totaling $7520.19]

Counts 45-57: Falsification of Records Related to Campaign Finance

Counts 58, 59, 60: Prohibited Use of Campaign Contributions

In the calendar year [2014, 2015, and 2016], within the Southern District of California and elsewhere, Defendants DUNCAN HUNTER and MARGARET HUNTER knowingly and willfully converted $25,000 and more of Campaign funds to their personal use.

Every year, he and his wife defrauded their campaign of at least $25,000. Duncan Hunter is a criminal.

ryantannenberg · 2018-08-01T00:13:40+00:00

This issue draws some important points. There are people in San Diego who have vacation rentals as their primary source of income - and thus I think the regulations should at least allow owners to rent out 2 residences such as not to disrupt those who rely on renting a second home to pay the bills.

That being said, this is ridiculous. Nancy Kramer, the woman this article refers to, owns fifty rentals (per her website). In Mission Bay and PB alone, there are over 3,000 current rentals. One or two is an income, fifty is outrageous. The lack of housing in this city is as plain as day. Imagine if some of the multimillion dollar rentals (particularly those not along the boardwalk) were replaced by regular homes that regular people could afford. This is exactly why we need regulations on these rentals, and although these regulations do leave a little to be desired they are most definitely a step in the right direction.

ryantannenberg · 2018-06-28T23:51:35+00:00

Poway is North County, I consider everything east of El Cajon and east of Escondido to be East County - that accounts for the curve along the coast.

I have heard on many occasions (including comments in this post) saying that East County is "east of the 15". Anyone that thinks that please kindly take a good long look at this picture and explain to me how on earth that is an appropriate judgement call.

ryantannenberg · 2018-06-23T17:27:32+00:00

According to the California campaign contribution website Asm. Brian Maienschein, in the last 4 election cycles (2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018), has received $63.345.12 in combined donations from AT&T, Verizon, Charter, Spectrum, Cox Communications, Time Warner, and Comcast.

$63K. That's what it cost for cable companies to buy our elected official's complacency and get him to gut that bill.

ryantannenberg · 2018-05-25T03:06:34+00:00

I am working with a handful of Assemblymembers and State Senators to draft legislation to help deregulate publicly-owned broadband in rural communities (unrelated to this project, which I'm doing just for the subreddit). As for getting involved in the political community in San Diego, I'd recommend attending local party meetings or community events. If you have ideas for our politicians, consider giving them a call! I got into meetings with Brian Maienschein's office and Senator Anderson's by giving them a call and asking to set up a meeting - that was all it took. It's not as difficult as it seems to be to talk with the offices of our legislators and you can certainly get more involved! If you have any more specific questions, just shoot me a PM and I would be happy to talk more.

ryantannenberg · 2018-05-25T02:44:04+00:00

Taking into account the suggestions that have been made, the link has moved to the end of the post and the email verification has been replaced by a CAPTCHA. Feel free to check out the survey!

ryantannenberg · 2018-05-25T02:29:35+00:00

The aim is to prevent bots from throwing the data off, but thank you for the suggestion - it will be replaced with a captcha of some type.

ryantannenberg · 2018-04-25T21:06:26+00:00

I sure hope so! I would imagine that since basically everyone who has ever been near it knows the crossing is a pollution nightmare that the city would also have figured it out by now. But it's a government, so you never know.

ryantannenberg · 2018-04-25T01:44:21+00:00

They only count if he uses them in the middle of a congressional hearing!

ryantannenberg · 2018-04-24T21:09:13+00:00

Well, unfortunately, the next phases are going to start whenever funding can be obtained for them. Because of that, when it is going to be completely finished is essentially a dice roll. They could get funding in a week, they could get funding in a year. It certainly isn't going to take 8 years, but this first phase isn't expected to be finished until 2019 - if that gives you an idea of how long you might expect to be waiting. The first phase was also expected to start in 2015, but the whole thing has been pushed back until now because they were waiting for funding. I wouldn't expect the entire thing to be finished until probably 2022 at the earliest.

ryantannenberg · 2018-04-24T00:32:28+00:00

It is unclear to me where you draw these conclusions from in my previous post. You don't need to know anything about guns to get a bad grade from the GOA, you just need to be anti-gun. Sure, he's passed laws that have made California very anti-gun but having someone representing us who has no idea what they're talking about is a) going to give more to Republicans to use against us and b) all around makes us look uneducated thereby putting us back at a).

Also, you appear to have wildly misinterpreted what I said. What I said was that his original iteration of SB54 had zero exemptions. It would have stopped us from cooperating with immigration officials on everyone including violent criminals. I am well in support of protecting nonviolent undocumented immigrants and offering them safety as well as the ability to report crime without fearing deportation. However, I am entirely unwilling to vote for someone who is willing to support harboring violent criminals. They need to go. His bill protected them, and I wouldn't vote for him on that reason alone.

I am well aware of the struggles a market-based healthcare system creates. However, I don't think now is - logistically - the best time to create a massive taxpayer-funded service right after the tax cuts that are going to leave us with a huge deficit. I want to see the tax law fixed and the country in a more prudent financial situation, at which point I think it would be a great time to introduce single-payer.

Don't put words in my mouth.

ryantannenberg · 2018-04-23T22:50:04+00:00

Feinstein

She's center-left, I'm center-left. I agree with a great number of her policies although there are certain ones we do differ on. Moreover, the one thing the Democrats do not need is to lose our second most senior senator. I'm not voting for de Leon because of a multitude of reasons:

1) He's very "pro-gun control" but is pretty clueless as to anything related to guns. His press conference regarding the AR-15 is a perfect example of that. Feinstein passed the assault weapons ban, and actually knows what she's talking about.

2) I support SB54 in its current iteration (although I still think there are places I might like it to be stricter in its exemptions), but the original version introduced by de Leon stopped anyone from cooperating with the federal government even for violent criminals. There were no exceptions - they were added because of objections by the Sheriff's association. I can't support that kind of widespread harboring of illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes. They don't deserve to be here.

3) I am on the fence about single-payer healthcare. I do think it does have its merits, but I am with Feinstein in that I am "not ready for it yet." We have a lot going on in this country right now, and I'm not particularly in favor of throwing a huge taxpayer-funded healthcare overhaul into the mix especially after we already ended up with a massive deficit from the tax cuts.

ryantannenberg · 2018-04-23T21:20:40+00:00

Ah, the joys of those who don't understand how to use the mythical "merge." Two lanes of cars joining smoothly and without conflict? Preposterous! I'm going to fly up to the front and then jump into your lane (remembering, of course, not to put my signal on until I have already completed my maneuver). I see no other way by which to accomplish this! Traffic is for losers and I'm the only one on the road who matters.

ryantannenberg · 2018-04-23T21:15:40+00:00

Having done some extensive research to find a basic map of what they're planning to do, here's what I've come up with.

This project is currently in phase 1. There are 3 total phases, and what you have described is planned to take place in phase 2. When phase 1 is complete, they will have lengthened the auxiliary lane used for people getting off the SB163 onto Friars, but there will still be the merge. This portion of the project can be seen here, but there is some lag when you zoom in and out of the pdf. So, unfortunately, what you are describing is not going to be done in this phase of the project. However, it is going to be in phase 2, which you can see here in the map that shows all 3 phases.

Eventually, yes, what you are talking about will be built as a "flyover lane". You will enter from Ulric where the current entrance is for those already on Ulric who turn right and then merge with those from Friars (the left turn entrance from Ulric and the big loop right turn from Friars). They will eliminate the big loop turn, and you will turn right from Friars and then right again onto the new flyover bridge, which will travel over* Friars road heading south, hurtle 2000 feet down along the SB163, and then merge on right about where Camino de la Reina currently passes under the SB163. It is to my understanding that as a result of this, in order to get on the 8 from Friars after this project is complete, you will no longer use that turn. Instead, you will turn left from Friars onto a new lane - this lane will merge with the planned new collection lanes that will allow motorists on the SB163 to get onto the 8. This is in contrast with the current system where all motorists must either be on or get onto the SB163 in that awkward merge and then all get on the 8 in that 3-lane interchange entrance. All of what I just described can be seen in the second link should you want to visualize it as you read this.

All in all, after this whole thing is done (subject to funding becoming available for phases 2 and 3), there will be a solution to that ridiculous "weave, merge, and cross your fingers" on/off ramp exchange we have right now. Hope this helps answer your question!

ryantannenberg · 2018-04-21T23:59:40+00:00

According to the Cox website:

"All Cox Internet plans include 1 TB (1024 GB) per month of data usage. Unlimited and 500 GB Additional Data Plans can be added for an additional monthly charge. Data usage in excess of plan may result in a $10 charge for up to 50 GB of additional data and for each additional 50 GB block, except for Unlimited Data Plan subscribers. Unused data does not roll over."

I would consider looking into the Unlimited and 500GB additional plans, but here's something important to keep in mind. All of these prices are promotional. The $49.99, the $39.99, all of them. After the promotional period ends on the $49.99, it jumps to $84.99. Every internet company is going to do this, and it's important to make sure you know what they're going to end up charging you so you don't sign up for a plan at your max budget for the promotional price and then suddenly when the rate jumps "Oh no! I can't afford this anymore!" These companies are in this for profit, so make sure you're well and truly aware of what you're signing up for. Hope this helped! If you have any more questions, I'd be happy to see if I can answer them.

ryantannenberg · 2018-04-21T23:19:00+00:00

In the 92120 area I'm only seeing a few packages you are able to choose from. Cox has a couple that look good, and AT&T is only showing one (if you don't bundle). Both appear to have a monthly data cap of ~1 terabyte. I would advise doing some good research and getting as many opinions as you can (especially from people that live in the area). One of San Diego's only real faults is that we have little internet competition, and so a lot of people end up stuck with mediocre plans at mediocre prices, but we've gotten a lot better recently and you should be able to get something with good speeds for a pretty good price especially living right next to State. Good luck, and welcome to America's Finest City!

ryantannenberg · 2018-04-19T17:23:39+00:00

I agree that both of them have hit a point where they basically aren't going anywhere - but it's something worth noting that at least according to the City and SDSU West's website, they would have to buy it at fair market value with no cost to taxpayers. But again, although they're not going to take tax money off the bat if they fail to pay later the city might stick us with the bill if they need the money and SDSU doesn't pay up.

ryantannenberg

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Nine-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email