Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 171

Thread: Housing Mistakes

  1. #31
    Member Peter McGurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    87
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by az_gila View Post
    Are there any tower blocks left in Liverpool that are not privately owned?
    Good question. Over the water??

    Ownership, in one form or another, seems to be the key. Whether it's actual freehold or leasehold or renting, if the place doesn't 'belong' to you, more or less permanently, why bother with a lick of paint here or there (some would say)?

    My parents bought 'our' house in the right-to-buy in the 80s. But before that it was always 'theirs' even though they paid rent to council for thirty years before hand.


    .

  2. #32
    Senior Member az_gila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    603

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter McGurk View Post
    ....
    My parents bought 'our' house in the right-to-buy in the 80s. But before that it was always 'theirs' even though they paid rent to council for thirty years before hand.


    .
    Yes, but there seems to be a difference between a house and a flat with large common areas that don't "belong" to you.

    I too have rented a house on Los Angeles in the past and painted it inside to suit us.

    It was sort of funny, the landlady came around to raise our rent $50 per month (it was in the 70's......) because her "taxes went up" - when I found out her taxes went up less than 1$ per month (public record) and she saw how we had improved it - she left the rent the same...

  3. #33
    Re-member Ged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Here, there & everywhere.
    Posts
    7,197

    Default

    Nevertheless, I feel the council had something to answer for in the clear design fault of the piggeries that were of no fault of the people who witheld their rent. It was felt there would be an avalanche of copycat cases so it was nipped in the bud. To say it was only the council's obligation to maintain or repair what was a bad job in the first place is a bit of a raw deal with those who were not hooligans or louts and who were just trying to live their lives in a not too fit for purpose habitat.
    www.inacityliving.piczo.com/

    Updated weekly with old and new pics.

  4. #34
    Senior Member wsteve55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Crosby
    Posts
    2,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doris Mousdale View Post
    Perhaps if there was a penalty rate imposed on buildings left to rot in the hope of getting a demolition permit things might look a little different. There should be time limit on leaving buildings derilict with the council stepping in to keep the buildings viable with a charge on the owners equity in the building.
    On the otherhand the experiments that have failed was it the housing or the housed that were the problem. I don't reall any Cornish fishing villages with "criminal rat runs" going through them a few smugglers coves, yes, but most are very desirable places to live.
    Same with tower blocks how come they turned into such a heap of crud in such a short time- in terms of property life span, when in other countries around the world they are accepted as inner city housing. If those tower blocks were privatised dwellings would they still be habitable or even proved to be a good investment?
    It's a pet hate of mine,to see any building left to to deteriorate,and agree there should be some sort of legal timescale set for it's vacancy! One of the reasons that's been suggested to me for this happening is,that when house owners die intestate,the property goes to the Crown,who then add it to the list of same,and that's it! (can anyone confirm this?)
    As for tower blocks,after renovation,some blocks on Netherfield rd.sold quickly enough,some prospective buyers queuing overnight! There are now,another 2 blocks nearing completion,(Candia,and Crete, towers.) but I've not heard how well they're selling,yet!
    As has been mentioned,there were some tenants who didn't appreciate the(any?)accomodation,and unfortunately,that's all it takes to ruin any block/estate/street,the majority tending to suffer in silence!

  5. #35
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wsteve55 View Post
    It's a pet hate of mine,to see any building left to to deteriorate,and agree there should be some sort of legal timescale set for it's vacancy!
    Look at Harrisburg in the USA - a victim of the Rust belt decline. Ugly, vacant properties were cleared up by imposing Land Valuation Tax. You pay only on the value of the land not the bricks on top (the building). If empty you still pay the same as if the building is occupied, as the building has no bearing on the tax, only the land under. Speculators cannot leave buildings empty as they are taxed the full amount. Most vacant buildings were brought back to use. Harrisburg is great success story and copied by many in mainly PA, USA.

    Liverpool tried to get LVT with the LibDems to clear up the eyesores in the city. Advisors from the USA came over. Whitehall stopped the lot. The Welsh have just debated LVT in the Assembly - it is gaining ground in the UK with even top Financial Times economists such as Martin Wolf and Sir Sam Brittan falling in behind it.

    http://<a href="http://www.youtube.c...go_QoB6OvE</a>

    The first 10 minutes above is a great explanation of LVT.


    Below, largely the transcript. Note the words:
    discourages speculative land holding.
    encourages active use of land, creating more job opportunities and wealth



    A Land Value Tax for Wales
    LTV is a tax which would be levied on the annual rental value of specific pieces of land, where the value is determined by different usages, for example, agricultural and industrial land. It is, of course, an alternative to existing forms of taxation, not an addition to them. At its most radical, a LVT would allow for the abolition of Council Tax, Business Rates and Stamp Duty Land Tax, by introducing a levy on the annual rental value of every site in Wales including all residential, commercial and farming land, as well as privately owned estates. Moreover, LVT is a progressive tax. Council Tax is regressive because it imposes a lower burden on the rich than on the poor – and also a lower burden on rich places than poor places. LVT reverses that proposition.
    The basic idea behind a Land Value Tax is that the supply of land is fixed. As Mark Twain said, when advising people to buy land, they aren't making it any more. As a result, it is inherently scarce. Its price reflects three things: its scarcity value; the value of improvements made by the landowner; and the value of improvements made by other people, especially the public sector. In modern conditions the first and third of these almost entirely swamp the second. Therefore it is right and fair that value created not by the landowner but (mostly) by national and local government should be taxed.
    To give just one practical example: It has been calculated that the Jubilee Line extension to Stratford has raised property values around the stations by £10 billion. If only a small part of this windfall had been taxed, it would have paid for the extension very easily. And, at the same time, while those who benefit from big increases in land values as a result of such development pay more, those whose sites have suffered (such as, for example, housing close to railway tracks which may decline in value because of noise or vibration) would pay less – a form of automatic compensation without any complicated appeals system. In just the same way an LVT could easily pay for many other much-needed infrastructure schemes.
    What, then, are the main practical advantages of a LVT?
    First and foremost, such a tax would be tricky for even the rich to avoid. It's hard to hide land or move it offshore to avoid getting taxed.
    For economists such as the OECD's, who advocate a LVT, there are two other big advantages: land taxes (they argue) increase long-term stability and growth by fostering more productive use of capital; and they stabilise government finances by bringing in revenue efficiently and quickly.
    So, a LTV is:

    • cheap to collect
    • difficult to evade
    • discourages speculative land holding
    • encourages active use of land, creating more job opportunities and wealth and, here in Wales, we already have, in TAN 6, `One Planet Development', a policy approach which is sympathetic to land value principles.


    Is it, then, a practical, political possibility? Well, I don't want to underestimate the problems of tackling taxation, especially in an economic downturn. And the experience of the poll tax remains one which has scarred the collective memory of tax change in the property field.
    Nevertheless, a LVT has an impressive economic and social pedigree. Lib Dem supporters have included both Vince Cable and Chris Huhne. For Labour, Andy Burnham made it a centre piece of his campaign for Labour leadership, describing it as an idea so old-Labour it can be traced back to Thomas Paine. It is the official policy of the Green Party in Scotland where research carried out late in 2010 suggested that a land value tax of 3.16p per pound would generate enough cash to replace council tax and the uniform business rate, while leaving 75% of Scottish households better off in the process.
    But LVT is not simply a policy of the radical left. Free-market capitalists and mainstream economists, such as Martin Wolf and Samuel Brittan, have both argued the case in favour. And, indeed, on the right of the political spectrum, a LVT has gained new traction in relation to problems in Greece. Put simply, it is quite difficult to move an Athens mansion off-shore (or, indeed, one in Belgravia) in order to avoid taxation.
    And here in Wales LVT is also an idea with a strong lineage. Inside the Labour Party, the idea was first seriously advanced by Keir Hardy, in his 1906 Manifesto to the people of Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare. Here is what he said:
    'The slums remain, overcrowding continues whilst the land goes to waste. Shopkeepers and traders are overburdened with rates and taxation whilst the increasing land values that should relieve the ratepayer
    go to people who have not earned them.'
    Three years later, a Land Value Tax was intended to be the centre piece of Lloyd George's `People's Budget' of 1909, but was defeated by the vested interests of the House of Lords and property owners in the House of Commons. Now, in the era of devolution, there may be a chance for their uncompleted work to be brought to a conclusion in Wales.
    Of course, it may be that the current settlement will not make it easy for such a reform to be introduced in the immediate future; but the whole future of responsibility for taxation is very much a matter of current debate. I hope that, by raising this matter, it can be brought to the attention of the Silk Commission so that it can include a consideration, if not of land value tax itself, then at least of the case for providing the National Assembly with powers to reform taxation in Wales, in this way, should it choose to do so.
    Because here, the part of the United Kingdom with the longest tradition of radicalism, we have no difficulty in understanding the notion that land is `common wealth' – that land is a resource in common. As a result of being fixed and fundamental, it should belong to the people; and those who have the privilege of ownership should pay something back for that privilege, through a Land Value Tax. Once this is understood and agreed, the serious work of detailed investigation of its pros and cons and its practical implementation here in Wales can begin.


    http://commissionondevolutioninwales.independent.gov.uk/files/2012/02/Mark-Drakeford-AM-English.pdf


    This is very encouraging. Vince Cable is attempting to get a wealth tax implemented at Whitehall, which is another good sign. Tax wealth not income.
    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool
    becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no
    longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the
    tourist. Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in
    canals to view its modern museum describing
    how it once was?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

  6. #36
    Senior Member lindylou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wsteve55 View Post
    there were some tenants who didn't appreciate the(any?)accomodation,and unfortunately,that's all it takes to ruin any block/estate/street,the majority tending to suffer in silence!
    Yes, you could put some people in a palace and they would still turn it into a tip.
    I've seen it happen with 'garden houses' - the garden ends up like a dirt patch and full of litter and upturned wheelie bins etc - I pass houses like this almost every day. Even if you can't keep a nice garden, you could at least keep it simple. It doesn't take much effort to pick up the litter around your garden - it's nothing to do with being poor or downtrodden - it's purely a don't care attitude.
    This attitude is what pulls areas down so much.
    I can't understand anyone not wanting to live in a pleasant environment. You can make your own little patch reasonably pleasant even if it's only temporary.
    Even if things are not good through no fault of your own, you can make the best of what you have until things improve, or your own circumstances improve. Being clean and tidy is a start.


  7. #37
    Member Peter McGurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    87
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ged View Post
    Nevertheless, I feel the council had something to answer for in the clear design fault of the piggeries that were of no fault of the people who witheld their rent. It was felt there would be an avalanche of copycat cases so it was nipped in the bud. To say it was only the council's obligation to maintain or repair what was a bad job in the first place is a bit of a raw deal with those who were not hooligans or louts and who were just trying to live their lives in a not too fit for purpose habitat.
    As I said, so much for the law... by which I mean judges judge based on evidence presented - the lawyers didn't present the culpability of the design. Perhaps they knew it wouldn't be worthwhile.

    Because in fact the only design fault discussed was the tendency of the cisterns to overflow and the position of the pipes. There is no reason for an emergency stair to be gloriously well-lit (and it's extravagant with 'our' money to do so). It is not a design fault. Nor are lifts that are broken by repeated vandalism - no doubt for a bit of a laugh.

    In the face of such extremes of vandalism the pipes may have been hardly worth bothering with or rather, easily dealt with - normally. But no doubt council were under such financial pressure dealing with the vandalism. If there's no money left in the pot after dealing with lifts, it would not have been a reasonable consideration.

    As the House of Lords said, it's not unreasonable to take into account the available funds to maintain the building (and/or fix defects). In short - you gets what you pays for.


    Quote Originally Posted by wsteve55 View Post
    As has been mentioned,there were some tenants who didn't appreciate the(any?)accomodation,and unfortunately,that's all it takes to ruin any block/estate/street,the majority tending to suffer in silence!
    I would certainly not have suffered in silence in such circumstances but I would have been ripping into the dipsticks ****ing in the lifts rather than the council.

  8. #38
    Senior Member chasevans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    anfield
    Age
    72
    Posts
    248
    Blog Entries
    2

    Lightbulb View on Radcliffe

    Getting back to the Radcliffe estate. I knew one family who lived there and can verify it suffered from dampness when first built. In a short time the damp became mold. I can't say if this was down to the architect's design or cheap construction methods. On a dark night this estate looked forbidding. It might have looked futuristic on the architect's drawing board but- an old cliche- "Would the architect ever live there?"
    Thanks to Ged, Waterways, Lindylou and Pete,the guy who started this thread.
    Chas

  9. #39
    Re-member Ged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Here, there & everywhere.
    Posts
    7,197

    Default

    I have a pet hate for flat roof and so called designer zany shaped roofs that are never going to dispose of rainwater like is needed. You're right in that the architects would never live in these, just try to make selfish personal statements and let some poor other buggers be the guinea pigs.
    www.inacityliving.piczo.com/

    Updated weekly with old and new pics.

  10. #40
    Senior Member chasevans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    anfield
    Age
    72
    Posts
    248
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Well said, Ged.
    Chas

  11. #41
    Senior Member az_gila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    603

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Ged View Post
    I have a pet hate for flat roof and so called designer zany shaped roofs that are never going to dispose of rainwater like is needed. You're right in that the architects would never live in these, just try to make selfish personal statements and let some poor other buggers be the guinea pigs.
    Same goes for the city/urban planners or whatever they call themselves now.

    They follow the world-wide trend of forcing the population into denser housing and to be near "transportation hubs" - but if you ever meet one, ask them where they live. I have done this locally to two of our county planners and they both live in our little town 20 miles outside Tucson, and also drive into work every day...


    My English ex-roomate from the 70's now lectures in Urban Planning in Canada - does he live in one of these green urban utopias that is the now trendy design? -- No he lives on one acre on a small island in the St. lawrence Seaway with a view of Quebec...

    People like different living arrangements, but the planners seem to prefer one version that they say is "good for us". They should just plan a mix...

  12. #42
    Member Peter McGurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    87
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Waterways View Post
    'The slums remain, overcrowding continues whilst the land goes to waste. Shopkeepers and traders are overburdened with rates and taxation whilst the increasing land values that should relieve the ratepayer go to people who have not earned them.

    ‘Because here, the part of the United Kingdom with the longest tradition of radicalism, we have no difficulty in understanding the notion that land is `common wealth' – that land is a resource in common.’

    Well this may be true for Wales but it certainly isn’t a common tradition in England, much as anyone may wish it otherwise.

    In England at least there is a rather more rounded view of the issue, or rather it’s place at the heart of a state run by capital. In England’s book, wealth creates prosperity and jobs for all. Indeed the creation of wealth is fundamental to the liberal notion of prosperity for all.

    If you are anti-capitalist well fine, argue your corner but don’t hide behind social(ist) idealism as the only alternative for the common good. Widespread wealth is for the common good.

    This city especially needs wealth-creators - we should not be turning them away with a wealth tax cloaked as a Land Value Tax and we don’t. Not that it would particularly work as wealth tax in any event.

    There was a time when property owners smashed toilets to render empty properties unusable and untaxable. Why? Because there was no market for them. They were empty. No-one keeps property empty where there’s a more economically viable market for it - even ‘arry Hyams (of Centrepoint fame) even as a land-bank. A land-bank simply indicates lack of opportunity, or a lack of potential customers.

    ***

    Business rates and income tax go in part to fund infrastructure. That is, the money that builds CrossRail is pre-taxed from the rates and taxes of the better off. The beneficiaries are the people in general that that infrastructure serves (in helping create greater wealth, prosperity and employment). Is it reasonable for these wealth creators, the risk takers, be taxed again for taking that risk?

    At a real and immediate level, there’s gorgeous period properties in Everton, for example, rotting away - not for want of investment but for want of anyone who can afford to occupy them and pay builders, decorators, plumbers, electricians and shopkeepers ie., the common man to service them. We need wealth.

    ---------- Post added at 05:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:03 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ged View Post
    I have a pet hate for flat roof and so called designer zany shaped roofs that are never going to dispose of rainwater like is needed. You're right in that the architects would never live in these, just try to make selfish personal statements and let some poor other buggers be the guinea pigs.
    Well as an architect, I'm not having that am I?

    There's a bizillion buildings with flat roofs and 'zany' shapes that are all perfectly waterproof. There's many that aren't. Some buildings are built well. Others aren't. Some buildings are maintained. Others aren't. There are almost as many reason for building failure as they are building failures.

    But one thing is certain. If it's the architect's fault he will pay for it. There's not many architects can go bust at the drop of a hat to avoid litigation and many who carry the can for others involved who do.

  13. #43
    Re-member Ged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Here, there & everywhere.
    Posts
    7,197

    Default

    All I know is, at a residential level, every bod with more money than sense (it seems) that appears on Grand designs with some wacky idea that looks to me like it'll fail at the first downpour does so every time.
    www.inacityliving.piczo.com/

    Updated weekly with old and new pics.

  14. #44
    Senior Member Rhoobarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Liverpool
    Age
    50
    Posts
    71

    Default

    I don't really have anything to add other than what a great thread, really enjoyed reading it.
    I wouldn't give Satan a snowball's chance in hell against a woman's ego, man. He'd rule the Earth for a day. A week later we'd see Satan out cuttin' the lawn.

  15. #45
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter McGurk View Post
    Well this may be true for Wales but it certainly isn’t a common tradition in England, much as anyone may wish it otherwise.

    In England at least there is a rather more rounded view of the issue, or rather it’s place at the heart of a state run by capital. In England’s book, wealth creates prosperity and jobs for all. Indeed the creation of wealth is fundamental to the liberal notion of prosperity for all.
    But in England most of the wealth ends up in the hands of the top few percent.

    If you are anti-capitalist well fine, argue your corner but don’t hide behind social(ist) idealism as the only alternative for the common good. Widespread wealth is for the common good.
    You are very confused. I am a free-marketeer. I never mentioned socialism, you did. The current system is systemically flawed, hence two world-wide crashed in 80 years. As Gillian Tett, the assistant editor of the Financial Times said, changing a few bad apples will not put it all right. The system we use is fundamentally flawed. It can be put right by the Single Tax, Land Value tax - no Income Tax, no Council Tax, no VAT, etc. The average man would be far better off and enterprise promoted. No expensive tax accountant bills for small businesses, no expensive to process VAT and other such nonsense enterprise restricting taxes. More time to devote to enterprise activities.

    This city especially needs wealth-creators - we should not be turning them away with a wealth tax cloaked as a Land Value Tax and we don’t. Not that it would particularly work as wealth tax in any event.
    Land Value Taxes create wealth, it promotes it, especially when income tax is reduced or eliminated, as in Hong Kong. All implementations around the world have done sop. We tax a man's labour via income tax. This is retrograde, as it prevents enterprise. It makes him poorer taking a part of his income at source - income tax was a temporary tax to fund the Napoleonic wars which Tory Land owners got made permanent to push taxes from their lands onto the people. Currently wealth laying idle is not taxed. We tax the fruits of the the labours of those who need least to be taxed - the wealth creators. That is why most wealth of a society ends up in the hands of the top few percent.

    There was a time when property owners smashed toilets to render empty properties unusable and untaxable. Why? Because there was no market for them. They were empty. No-one keeps property empty where there’s a more economically viable market for it - even ‘arry Hyams (of Centrepoint fame) even as a land-bank. A land-bank simply indicates lack of opportunity, or a lack of potential customers.
    Hyman's paid little to no tax on Centre Point in London. At 3/4 finished he turned the contractors off site. He paid no taxes as the building was not being used. The price of land was spiraling, so he left it and got rich in his sleep as the land prices rose - as did those adjacent to the Jubilee Line which they never paid for. Yesterdays London Evening Standard had an article on house/land prices rising dramatically around Crossrail stations - these people never paid for CrossRail, yet they walk off with massive windfalls, we all paid for it with our taxes. In fact the Welsh MP was slightly wrong. The Jubilee Line extension costed £3.4bn while land value rose by 14bn around the line

    Property owners, speculators to be more precise, smashed their properties to render them untaxabale to take advantage of land prices rising. Back to clearing up derelict buildings....Land Value Tax prevents that as many US cities have demonstrated. Liverpool needs it badly.

    Business rates and income tax go in part to fund infrastructure.
    Land Value Tax is the perfect method of funding growth creating infrastructure. Hong Kong built a metro from the taxation of land only. Crossrail was paid for out of UK taxes. The taxes of a man in Cornwall also paid for it. Land Value Tax would mean those who benefit from the rail line would pay for it - via Land Value Tax reclaimed from the land the rail line increased in value.

    Community created economic growth soaks into the land and crystalizes as land values - that is where land values come from, this is economics. Land Value Tax merely reclaims that growth and puts it back into the cycle to fund the infrastructure that aided the creation in the first place. Currently the cycle is cut and a giant sluice takes away that wealth in the form of windfalls in the land market - socially created wealth is privatized. It needs to be 180 degrees the the way. Socially created wealth socialized and privately created wealth privatized. Get it?

    At a real and immediate level, there’s gorgeous period properties in Everton, for example, rotting away - not for want of investment but for want of anyone who can afford to occupy them and pay builders, decorators, plumbers, electricians and shopkeepers ie., the common man to service them. We need wealth.
    The owners of the Everton properties still make money on the land under the decaying bricks. If they paid tax on the value of the land the homes would be renovated or sold off to someone who could renovate. Or fall into the hands of the city who could sell it off or do something with it. Currently they pay zero tax.
    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool
    becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no
    longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the
    tourist. Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in
    canals to view its modern museum describing
    how it once was?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Terraced Housing In Liverpool
    By Bob Edwards in forum Bob Edwards' Liverpool Picture Book
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-05-2013, 09:15 AM
  2. Court Housing in Liverpool
    By Bob Edwards in forum Bob Edwards' Liverpool Picture Book
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-01-2012, 11:41 AM
  3. Eldon Grove Housing
    By Kev in forum Buildings and Structures
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 08-14-2011, 11:31 PM
  4. Insanitary Housing Images
    By Kev in forum In My Liverpool Home
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-07-2009, 02:37 PM
  5. cathedral &housing
    By gregs dad in forum Buildings and Structures
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-09-2007, 08:34 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •