Jump to content

Gov. Cuomo’s executive budget includes hidden $65M cut in MTA funds


GojiMet86

Recommended Posts

The problem with the above is that by nature, cities are self perpetuating. By concentrating population and economic activity into a small area, efficiencies and economies of scale can be realised, to say nothing of the creation of economic dynamism. Growing small towns is a nice idea, but as you say, look at microeconomics. They don't work out. It's just less efficient. Instead of trying to change things because we can't deal with this reality, we should work with it, building better cities with more efficient transport that can handle exponentially growing volumes. The problem with America is that we think like ^^^. In a capitalist society, there are winners and losers. Cities won. Towns lost. That's the way it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


What population loss? Upstate is shrinking, but the NYC area is growing.

 

Read the sentence before that. It specificially says NYS...

...de Blasio has been spending City money like no tomorrow, so the State's MTA cuts are not surprising.

 

What?

You read what you wanted to. My point was that NYS (upstate) is suffering. The city is doing well by contrast. Cuomo represents ALL of NY, not just NYC, and therefore has to think about upstate too when appropriating funds to the (MTA), so no, the cuts don't surprise me, and furthermore, with the way de Blasio is spending we may see cuts to spending on transit (i.e. funding that the city appropriates to the (MTA)). Hopefully it's clear now. I mixed a few ideas together (typing on a cell phone) that perhaps confused some people with selective reading.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the above is that by nature, cities are self perpetuating. By concentrating population and economic activity into a small area, efficiencies and economies of scale can be realised, to say nothing of the creation of economic dynamism. Growing small towns is a nice idea, but as you say, look at microeconomics. They don't work out. It's just less efficient. Instead of trying to change things because we can't deal with this reality, we should work with it, building better cities with more efficient transport that can handle exponentially growing volumes. The problem with America is that we think like ^^^. In a capitalist society, there are winners and losers. Cities won. Towns lost. That's the way it is.

 

No, not true at all. Towns can grow and become cities. Go back 100 years and look in a history book at what the Bronx and Queens used to look like and tell me it resembles anything like today.

 

Instead of turning our "cities" into overpopulated rat holes with failing infrastructure and chronic decay, we should be leaving them alone and turning our towns into future cities and building jobs around them which attracts people to spread out. They will also become more efficient cities as they grow because they are not burdened by previous construction which was built inefficiently, as much of older cities like NYC are.

 

On a smaller scale, NYC's urban planners knew this in the 1900's, which is why they built subway into vast stretches of relatively uninhabited land. Because cramming everybody into Manhattan south of 42nd Street really wasn't working. Well cramming everyone into the 5 boroughs isn't working. It's high time the state, and the country, did more to increase the appeal of other areas, because our cities are failing. They lack the infrastructure to keep up with overdensity.

 

This is not a "city vs country" and "make fun of the dumb hicks" liberal argument. This is a rational, non-partisan take on population density and its negative impacts, and offers a real alternative to it. All the talk about efficiency, but you ignore the billions of dollars that are lost in cities every year sitting in traffic, waiting for delayed trains, standing in line for amusements, nonproductivity because of being late to work, etc. Cities are no more or less efficient than rural areas, the only difference is cities generate more tax revenue but they also require more tax revenue to provide infrastructure, social services, etc. where rural areas don't need any of that.

 

This trend will continue unless some degree of the following changes begin to be implemented:

-No more increases to NYC population density

-Upgrade NYC infrastructure as much as possible to meet existing demands (it's way behind)

-Promote and grow other areas in both state and country, so everyone stops insisting on moving HERE, San Francisco, LA, Chicago, Boston.... driving the cost of living skywards in these cities with no end in sight and displacing people, all in the name of increasing density to the point that in another 20 years we'll be talking about public health and safety hazards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, not true at all. Towns can grow and become cities. Go back 100 years and look in a history book at what the Bronx and Queens used to look like and tell me it resembles anything like today.

 

Instead of turning our "cities" into overpopulated rat holes with failing infrastructure and chronic decay, we should be leaving them alone and turning our towns into future cities and building jobs around them which attracts people to spread out. They will also become more efficient cities as they grow because they are not burdened by previous construction which was built inefficiently, as much of older cities like NYC are.

 

On a smaller scale, NYC's urban planners knew this in the 1900's, which is why they built subway into vast stretches of relatively uninhabited land. Because cramming everybody into Manhattan south of 42nd Street really wasn't working. Well cramming everyone into the 5 boroughs isn't working. It's high time the state, and the country, did more to increase the appeal of other areas, because our cities are failing. They lack the infrastructure to keep up with overdensity.

 

This is not a "city vs country" and "make fun of the dumb hicks" liberal argument. This is a rational, non-partisan take on population density and its negative impacts, and offers a real alternative to it. All the talk about efficiency, but you ignore the billions of dollars that are lost in cities every year sitting in traffic, waiting for delayed trains, standing in line for amusements, nonproductivity because of being late to work, etc. Cities are no more or less efficient than rural areas, the only difference is cities generate more tax revenue but they also require more tax revenue to provide infrastructure, social services, etc. where rural areas don't need any of that.

 

This trend will continue unless some degree of the following changes begin to be implemented:

-No more increases to NYC population density

-Upgrade NYC infrastructure as much as possible to meet existing demands (it's way behind)

-Promote and grow other areas in both state and country, so everyone stops insisting on moving HERE, San Francisco, LA, Chicago, Boston.... driving the cost of living skywards in these cities with no end in sight and displacing people, all in the name of increasing density to the point that in another 20 years we'll be talking about public health and safety hazards

You also need tax breaks. We're being taxed to death here and the only thing being talked about is why isn't the (MTA) getting money? Well it sure as hell shouldn't fall on the back of the taxpayers. We already pay enough. The money is there but is being spent on other things and while everyone focuses on what the State isn't doing, the City wants wants wants and isn't allocating what it should be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You also need tax breaks. We're being taxed to death here and the only thing being talked about is why isn't the (MTA) getting money? Well it sure as hell shouldn't fall on the back of the taxpayers. We already pay enough. The money is there but is being spent on other things and while everyone focuses on what the State isn't doing, the City wants wants wants and isn't allocating what it should be.

 

The City is actually paying a higher portion of the current Capital Plan than historically required to (the state, city, and MTA traditionally went a third-third-third until Mario Cuomo and Pataki started cutting contributions). As for the State, the state promised its share of the money, and then put in its budget language that said it wouldn't actually hand it over until the MTA exhausted its bonding capacity.

 

If Cuomo wants to waltz around talking about how he got wi-fi, the Second Avenue Subway on time, and all the great improvements he's supposedly made, he needs to take responsibility for when this particular state agency is screwing up. He is the boss, and the buck stops with him. De Blasio has literally nothing to do with the MTA, hence the proposals for city controlled ferries and the BQX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The City is actually paying a higher portion of the current Capital Plan than historically required to (the state, city, and MTA traditionally went a third-third-third until Mario Cuomo and Pataki started cutting contributions). As for the State, the state promised its share of the money, and then put in its budget language that said it wouldn't actually hand it over until the MTA exhausted its bonding capacity.

 

If Cuomo wants to waltz around talking about how he got wi-fi, the Second Avenue Subway on time, and all the great improvements he's supposedly made, he needs to take responsibility for when this particular state agency is screwing up. He is the boss, and the buck stops with him. De Blasio has literally nothing to do with the MTA, hence the proposals for city controlled ferries and the BQX.

Oh please.  The city wants more services from the (MTA) but isn't putting up the money for such services.  For example, they want reduced fares for city residents for the MNRR and the LIRR but where's the money? So what the city allocated more funding than necessary.  Look at the tax revenue coming in.  Additionally, it is de Blasio who is calling for more affordable housing which will inevitably put even more strain on the transit system, so yes, the city should be putting up even more funding than what they are based on the two aforementioned examples alone.  He has had a big hand in the developers going to town and building non-stop with little thought about the repercussions.  

 

The city is swimming in cash right now and they should be putting up more funding for more transit across the board instead of overpaying city employees (de Blasio is responsible for that too).  I don't blame the state for putting in such language because the state doesn't have infinite funds and they also can't give the city everything while shunning upstate.  Additionally we can't continue to spend 1 billion dollars per subway station.  Completely out of touch with reality.  Aside from that, the tax base up there is already eroding due to a lack of investment and over taxation, which puts more pressure on tax revenues and services coming from the city.  Cuomo said when he came into office that we have to reduce taxation.  It's killing business overall.  I concur with his assessment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me. Was PANY/NJ were apart of the (MTA) in the 80's and early 90's?? and if so anything to those days don't need to be repeated. Honestly, the city needs to take care of its own transportation structure. Bad enough, (MTA) is not even branched out to Central and Western New York.

 

I feel that the (MTA) can possibly make a good market further upstate past Poughkeepsie and Newburgh if the right resources are there, also politicians that can make sense so that Upstate and Downstate can all benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me. Was PANY/NJ were apart of the (MTA) in the 80's and early 90's?? and if so anything to those days don't need to be repeated. Honestly, the city needs to take care of its own transportation structure. Bad enough, (MTA) is not even branched out to Central and Western New York.

 

I feel that the (MTA) can possibly make a good market further upstate past Poughkeepsie and Newburgh if the right resources are there, also politicians that can make sense so that Upstate and Downstate can all benefit.

 

 

Nope! PANYNJ always has and probably always will be its own separate thing, transcending classical governmental boundaries, and screwing the city all the while. I think the P part especially would be hard to integrate in any joining. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh please. The city wants more services from the (MTA) but isn't putting up the money for such services. For example, they want reduced fares for city residents for the MNRR and the LIRR but where's the money? So what the city allocated more funding than necessary. Look at the tax revenue coming in. Additionally, it is de Blasio who is calling for more affordable housing which will inevitably put even more strain on the transit system, so yes, the city should be putting up even more funding than what they are based on the two aforementioned examples alone. He has had a big hand in the developers going to town and building non-stop with little thought about the repercussions.

 

The city is swimming in cash right now and they should be putting up more funding for more transit across the board instead of overpaying city employees (de Blasio is responsible for that too). I don't blame the state for putting in such language because the state doesn't have infinite funds and they also can't give the city everything while shunning upstate. Additionally we can't continue to spend 1 billion dollars per subway station. Completely out of touch with reality. Aside from that, the tax base up there is already eroding due to a lack of investment and over taxation, which puts more pressure on tax revenues and services coming from the city. Cuomo said when he came into office that we have to reduce taxation. It's killing business overall. I concur with his assessment.

The biggest problem I have with Cuomo is that HE takes credit for all the good things that happens at the (MTA) and disappears when something bad happens. That makes me think that he is just someone that only care about himself and his political ambitions and not the city nor the state.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest problem I have with Cuomo is that HE takes credit for all the good things that happens at the (MTA) and disappears when something bad happens. That makes me think that he is just someone that only care about himself and his political ambitions and not the city nor the state.

He's certainly better than de Blasio.  De Blasio has to be one of the worst mayors we've ever had.  If you talk about self-centered politicians, de Blasio's picture should be in the dictionary next to the word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's certainly better than de Blasio.  De Blasio has to be one of the worst mayors we've ever had.  If you talk about self-centered politicians, de Blasio's picture should be in the dictionary next to the word.

He only wins by virtue of being a right-wing extremist. There is no value that he offers as a mayor besides his posturing as an anti-white, anti-rich, pro-LGBT, pro-feminism. All the great buzzwords that win an election but are otherwise of no substance to the common working man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He only wins by virtue of being a right-wing extremist. There is no value that he offers as a mayor besides his posturing as an anti-white, anti-rich, pro-LGBT, pro-feminism. All the great buzzwords that win an election but are otherwise of no substance to the common working man.

Remember when he ran as a progressive candidate "for the people"? What a joke...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of them are corrupt liars who only care about their own political brand and rewarding their backers.

 

This city has been selling out to developers, looking the other way (and even giving them tax breaks) as they build mega skyscrapers that drive up the cost of living and price people out, as long as "5% of the units are affordable" so they can jusify it to the poor, who frankly aren't smart enough to catch onto the con game.

 

Cuomo is content to take credit for the MTA's successes while starving it and robbing its dedicated funding (which is why lockbox legislation can't go through), and when he promises money, it's mostly in the form of authorizing it to borrow money through and from his criminal friends on Wall Street who make money originating, and collecting the coupon, on tax free municipal MTA bonds. And rather than let the MTA do more work in house, everything is always contractors, who are always over budget and late, and cost more than in house workers.

 

But fares go up, and it's "my" fault for getting a puny 2.5% raise with givebacks that strike at the heart of the labor movement.

 

Politicians are scum. And while you are all out here arguing about who's liberal or conservative, what bathroom someone should piss in, whether gays should be allowed to "marry", "union", or "none of the above", what we can do to cut down on carbon emissions or other pollutions, whether or not it's OK to discriminate against the mentally ill from getting gun permits, if the words "under God" belong in the pledge of allegiance...and all the other really stupid shit both sides argue about...politicians are robbing you blind, raising the cost of living, manipulating the statistics to make it look like they aren't, and selling you out to their financial backers in big business who want to own you by holding your debt.

 

The best way to win is to throw up the middle finger to them and get OUT of debt, but most people don't. Show of hands...how many people went out and bought cards, candy, stuffed animals, and all sorts of other red heart shaped crap yesterday because it's "Valentine's Day"? How many of you have women (or men) in your life that expect money to be spent on them? But yet, if you're really in a happy and healthy relationship, do you really need to waste money on all that crap? Couldn't you just write a sweet note, go watch a sunset together, or make a nice meal at home??? I could put it up here right now....February 16 is Friendship Day. Buy a friend a Friendship Day T-shirt, and if I was an ad on television, half of you would probably do it.

 

So when a politician takes a shit on your head, and tells you it's shampoo, and to wash your hair with it, it's no surprise that 3/4 of the adult population in America, much of which is supposedly educated, believes it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cuomo represents ALL of NY, not just NYC, and therefore has to think about upstate too when appropriating funds to the (MTA), so no, the cuts don't surprise me, and furthermore, with the way de Blasio is spending we may see cuts to spending on transit (i.e. funding that the city appropriates to the (MTA)). 

 

This is not well-informed. de Blasio has been incredibly conservative with the budget surplus the city has, preferring to save money for the future and work out contracts now than throw it onto the next person. Your facts are wrong. Furthermore, Cuomo has introduced massive pet project after massive pet project (do you think any of the airport redesigns and trains were at all necessary compared to the subway system) in the city region, so your claim this is a state money issue is also wrong. Further cementing how wrong your point is, because the city generates so much money in tax dollars for the whole state, the best thing the governor could do is invest in city transit to allow the economic center of the whole state to function more smoothly. 

 

 

I think Cuomo has done a good job overall.  He's the governor for all of NY, not just NYC, and therefore has to think about upstate as well, which is suffering tremendously.  

 

Spending money on airport decorations and the Tappan Zee does not fix it.

 

He's certainly better than de Blasio.  De Blasio has to be one of the worst mayors we've ever had.  If you talk about self-centered politicians, de Blasio's picture should be in the dictionary next to the word.

 
None of Cuomo's major projects have been at all successful (Buffalo revitalization, Tappan Zee, education reform), so it's difficult to understand how you measure his success. Furthermore, you're welcome to your opinion, but it happens to be a misinformed one. It is really hard to figure out how the mayor with the lowest crime in history, the successful introduction of universal pre-K, the creation and preservation of massive amounts of affordable housing, the freezing of rents for stabilized apartments, the actual effort to tackle homelessness by shelters and mental health programs, and the successful signing of all major city contracts while preserving a massive surplus is 'one of the worst we've ever had.' You may dislike him, but your statement is objectively ahistorical and misinformed.

 

Yes, but NYS is truly in terrible shape. Population loss due to a lack of jobs and increasing taxes... NYC is doing better in comparison, but de Blasio has been spending like no tomorrow, so the potential cuts to the (MTA)'s budget don't surprise me. We need to be prudent fiscally because the good ol' days may not be here much longer. All it takes is for Wall Street to have a bad year, or tourism to take a nose dive and that tax base isn't so big. Tech isn't doing that great either here, and we know how bad things are in Europe along with the strong U.S. dollar. It will be an interesting year. The tourists are still coming, but they may not be as plentiful...

 

de Blasio has not been 'spending like no tomorrow.' Even if he were, with city money, a cut in state funding to the MTA would have nothing to do with it. Nothing you're saying makes any sense whatsoever. You're just rambling on with these completely unrelated things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not well-informed. de Blasio has been incredibly conservative with the budget surplus the city has, preferring to save money for the future and work out contracts now than throw it onto the next person. Your facts are wrong. Furthermore, Cuomo has introduced massive pet project after massive pet project (do you think any of the airport redesigns and trains were at all necessary compared to the subway system) in the city region, so your claim this is a state money issue is also wrong. Further cementing how wrong your point is, because the city generates so much money in tax dollars for the whole state, the best thing the governor could do is invest in city transit to allow the economic center of the whole state to function more smoothly. 

 

 

 

Spending money on airport decorations and the Tappan Zee does not fix it.

 

 

de Blasio has not been 'spending like no tomorrow.' Even if he were, with city money, a cut in state funding to the MTA would have nothing to do with it. Nothing you're saying makes any sense whatsoever. You're just rambling on with these completely unrelated things. 

No my facts are pretty accurate and there are various sources out there to prove them accordingly.

 

 

Mayor de Blasio’s carefree spending these last three years may be about to bite him (and the city) in the backside — as the local economy seems to be winding down.

“Last August I reported the economy had gone from a sprint to a jog,” says city Comptroller Scott Stringer in his latest economic update. Now, it has “slowed to a walk. After years of steady growth, we’re beginning to see real signs of an economic slowdown.”

Stringer cited weakening: a yearly rate of 1.8 percent in the last quarter of 2016, down from 2.8 percent the quarter before. Payroll jobs fell at an annual 1.2 percent rate, with losses in almost every sector. Commercial leasing activity and venture-capital investment also saw dial-backs.

All this as hourly earnings failed to keep up with inflation and joblessness ticked up to 5.6 percent (though Stringer says part of that is workers returning to the labor market).

“There are causes for concern,” he said, “and we need to be prepared.”

Trouble is, de Blasio hasn’t been preparing. Just the opposite: Since becoming mayor, he has grown the budget 18 percent (i.e., more than three times inflation) — handing out fat pay hikes to the municipal unions and taking the head count of city employees to an all-time high.

He’s been able to do that only because a robust local economy has thrown off enough tax revenue to keep City Hall afloat. Those days may now be over.

Source: http://nypost.com/2017/02/12/de-blasios-carefree-spending-is-coming-back-to-bite-him-and-nyc/

 

Hell just what de Blasio's been spending alone in hotels to house homeless people for the night is absurd.  

 

How you can call Cuomo's projects "pet projects" is a joke.  La Guardia airport is like a third world country. Those "redesigns" are a must, not a luxury to keep NYC relative.  A world class city needs world class airports.  We also need new rolling stock, so I welcome the new trains as well for our subways. You on the other hand think that buses that are over 15 years old are "great" because of their "historic" presence, but that couldn't be any further from the truth. Thanks to Cuomo, the acceleration of retiring those dinosaurs is happening.

 

 

It is really hard to figure out how the mayor with the lowest crime in history, the successful introduction of universal pre-K, the creation and preservation of massive amounts of affordable housing, the freezing of rents for stabilized apartments, the actual effort to tackle homelessness by shelters and mental health programs, and the successful signing of all major city contracts while preserving a massive surplus is 'one of the worst we've ever had.' You may dislike him, but your statement is objectively ahistorical and misinformed.

 

Oh yeah... "Massive" amounts of affordable housing with record homelessness... 

It is really hard to figure out how the mayor with the lowest crime in history, the successful introduction of universal pre-K, the creation and preservation of massive amounts of affordable housing, the freezing of rents for stabilized apartments, the actual effort to tackle homelessness by shelters and mental health programs, and the successful signing of all major city contracts while preserving a massive surplus is 'one of the worst we've ever had.' You may dislike him, but your statement is objectively ahistorical and misinformed.

 

Oh yeah... "Massive" amounts of affordable housing with record homelessness... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 My point was that NYS (upstate) is suffering. The city is doing well by contrast. Cuomo represents ALL of NY, not just NYC, and therefore has to think about upstate too when appropriating funds to the (MTA), so no, the cuts don't surprise me, and furthermore, with the way de Blasio is spending we may see cuts to spending on transit (i.e. funding that the city appropriates to the (MTA)). Hopefully it's clear now. I mixed a few ideas together (typing on a cell phone) that perhaps confused some people with selective reading.

 

Cuomo could put more money into the (MTA) Capital Program for bus and railcar purchases. The upstate factories employ upstate residents and use suppliers from across the whole state.

 

As for Cuomo-vs.-DiBlasio, the problem is that the city owns the actual system infrastructure but a state agency operates it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Hell just what de Blasio's been spending alone in hotels to house homeless people for the night is absurd.  

 

 

 

 

Oh yeah... "Massive" amounts of affordable housing with record homelessness... 

 

I agree the homeless population increased tremondously under De Blasio. And those homeless shelters are placed in middle class neighborhood, such as Elmhurst and Glendale. That is crazy. But Cuomo ain't no saint. He created pet projects that are a waste of taxpayers money only to advance his political goal (LGA Airtrain) and take credit on a project he didn't even care about till the last few days (SAS) and now hes cutting funds secretly, in hopes that no one would notice. This guy Cuomo couldn't care less about anyone in the state (Buffalo, Albany or NYC) only himself and his presidential ambition

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree the homeless population increased tremondously under De Blasio. And those homeless shelters are placed in middle class neighborhood, such as Elmhurst and Glendale. That is crazy. But Cuomo ain't no saint. He created pet projects that are a waste of taxpayers money only to advance his political goal (LGA Airtrain) and take credit on a project he didn't even care about till the last few days (SAS) and now hes cutting funds secretly, in hopes that no one would notice. This guy Cuomo couldn't care less about anyone in the state (Buffalo, Albany or NYC) only himself and his presidential ambition

 

LGA airtrain is an epic waste of money. who wants to go to willet's point just to backtrack to LGA? not only that it will add to the already overburdened 7 line in terms of ridership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LGA airtrain is an epic waste of money. who wants to go to willet's point just to backtrack to LGA? not only that it will add to the already overburdened 7 line in terms of ridership.

That I agree.  The Governor seems to want to appease a small number of people with that or thinks tourists will use the LIRR to Willets Point to get the AirTrain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Backtrack"? I take it you mean as opposed to a "more direct" route via Astoria or Jackson Heights extensions.

Looking at the map, it's not really as much of a difference as it seems. You're thinking "coming into LGA from the west is more direct; coming from the east is 'backtracking'", but Willets Point is not really that out of the way to the east, it's more going due north and hanging west, down the Grand Central. 

From Jackson Heights (or Woodside), you're slightly west of due south of the airport, but they're not going to cut through the neighborhood, so it would go along the BQE, which is also "backtracking" west a bit, and going around the residential area.

Astoria is likely the worst, actually, as you're going all the way northwest, like slightly north of the airport and then going due east (in some ways, like taking the two right angled sides of a right triangle, instead of the more direct hypotenuse; Queens has two grids at an angle, so it's easy to misjudge what's the most direct path), and up the multi-stop Astoria line (whether you extend it, or make it a connection, and there's no parallel commuter line as an alternative), and would still disturb some residential areas.

 

So I think a simple Willets Point, up the Grand Central, and right into LGA is actually the quickest (and simplest to build) route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest problem I have with Cuomo is that HE takes credit for all the good things that happens at the (MTA) and disappears when something bad happens. That makes me think that he is just someone that only care about himself and his political ambitions and not the city nor the state.

Sad, but true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well what options are there to LaGuardia that would be cheaper than what's on the table (from an infrastructure standpoint)?

 

As much as the pearl clutching crowd hates it, the bus is actually not a terrible solution for the area. Since he's reconstructing the airport from the ground up, he could reasonably provide a two-way, east west bus-only road so that M60 could say, travel to Flushing after going to LGA.

 

Yes, buses are slightly worse, but should we really be spending billions of dollars to make a few business travelers happy rather than helping actual commuters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.