Mayor Naheed Nenshi's efforts to legalize secondary suites in all city neighbourhoods is meeting stiff opposition.
Four months into his job as Calgary mayor, Naheed Nenshi may have hit his first wall.
The key plank of his election campaign — Better Idea No. 1, as he called it — to allow secondary suites in all residential neighbourhoods is on the ropes. And part of the mayor’s proposal likely wouldn’t hold water in court.
Under the city’s current bylaws, homeowners who want secondary suites in single-family neighbourhoods have to go through an onerous and costly land-use-change process.
Nenshi, along with the backing of a city administration report and a handful of aldermen, is proposing the city allow secondary suites in all residential areas provided they meet safety codes, have on-site parking for tenants and the homeowner lives in the home.
But the mayor of Victoria, where a similar bylaw was introduced in 2007, says his city didn’t force landlords to live in their rented homes because they were told by lawyers that such a requirement wouldn’t survive a legal challenge.
“We looked at that… but our basic understanding is that under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms you can’t do that,” says Mayor Dean Fortin. “It’s discriminating.”
Nenshi disagrees with that legal interpretation, saying the owner-occupancy rule couldn’t be challenged under the charter. “The real question is whether we have the authority under the Municipal Government Act to do it,” he says. “We have a letter from the minister suggesting he believes we do.”
Nenshi believes the “tens of thousands” of Calgarians now living in illegal suites will be safer under his proposed bylaw. “They are devoid of the protections the rest of us enjoy,” he says.
It’s estimated the city has between 10,000 and 40,000 illegal secondary suites — many not meeting costly safety or health codes. Currently, if a tenant living in an illegal suite complains to the city, bylaw officers have only one option: Shut down the suite and evict the tenant.
“If the landlord is abusing them, if the smoke detector doesn’t work, if there’s mould or mice, these people have no recourse,” Nenshi says. “I don’t think that’s morally or ethically correct.”
For several weeks, Nenshi’s office has been busy using social media — Twitter, Facebook and YouTube — to bolster support of the proposed bylaw.
But Nenshi’s proposal could be in for a rough ride when the motion goes before city council on March 7. Five aldermen, including Ray Jones, Gord Lowe, Dale Hodges, Peter Demong and Andre Chabot, oppose the idea.
Ald. Diane Colley-Urquhart has publicly said there’s little support for the idea in her ward (she did not return several calls from Fast Forward Weekly to confirm how she plans to vote).
Aldermen John Mar and Shane Keating are applying for secondary suites for their properties, which creates conflict of interest and prevents them from casting a vote, according to the Alberta Municipal Government Act.
Sitting on the fence are Ald. Jim Stevenson (who sounds like he’s leaning towards a “no” vote), and rookie Ald. Richard Pootmans, who says a strong majority of his constituents are against it.
Five council members, including Nenshi, plan to vote in favour of the bylaw — which may not be enough support to pass it.
Aldermen opposed to the proposal say it won’t make secondary suites safer nor will it solve the affordable housing shortage, but it will create a myriad of on-street parking problems. And some critics say it is a slap in the face to homeowners who purposely bought into the single-family lifestyle.
“I bought my house with a certain expectation and if you want to change that expectation I think you should consult with me first, or consult with the community as a whole and come to a conclusion,” says Ald. Gord Lowe.
Ald. Andre Chabot calls the proposal “the most ludicrous idea” he’s ever heard of. The city should streamline the current process to encourage people to turn their illegal suites into legal ones, says Chabot, adding that allowing suites everywhere would only promote sprawl.
“It boggles my mind why somebody would want to look at doing something that is 180 degrees from what the land-use bylaw says,” he says. “This is basically just slapping people in the face.”
Yet, several other North American cites, including Edmonton, Vancouver and Victoria, allow secondary suites in all residential areas and have seen little, if any, doom-and-gloom scenarios pan out.
Victoria mayor Fortin says that fears that secondary suites would change the nature and character of a neighbourhood haven’t proved true in his city. “Truthfully it actually preserves them,” he says. “Houses as they get knocked down are turned into duplexes, fourplexes or apartments.”
Calgary Ald. Brian Pincott, who supports Nenshi’s proposal, says secondary suites are not the cure-all to the shortage of affordable housing, nor are they the harbinger of doom to single-family communities.
“For those who think that it is the solution around affordable housing and increasing density in established neighbourhoods ,they’re wrong, it’s not going to happen,” he says. “For those who think their communities are going to be overrun, they’re also wrong — they are a piece of the puzzle.”
Since Edmonton began allowing secondary suites in residential neighbourhoods in 2007, it sees about 100 new suite applications a year, says Pincott.
Even if Calgary saw five times that number it would be the equivalent of building seven new suites in each of Calgary’s communities each year — hardly noticeable, says Pincott. “You’re not going to notice seven secondary suites in your community,” he adds.
Shamon Kureshi, president of Hope Street Property Management, says secondary suites can increase the value of a property, give renters safer housing options and likely won’t create a parking nightmare.
“Let’s just look at this logically,” he says. “The basic demographic that rents basement suites are 19-year-old students who came in here out of Nanton, Alberta. They don’t have cars. There would be some increase in traffic within any given neighbourhood, but it’s not significant.”
Comments: 31
Jeremy Klaszus wrote:
on Mar 3rd, 2011 at 8:01am Report Abuse
Tisin wrote:
That's possibly the only logical argument I've heard against secondary suites.
As an aside, if anyone would like to write their aldermen, contact info can be found at http://on.fb.me/suiteyyccontact. And if you want more information, check out http://www.facebook.com/suiteyyc
on Mar 3rd, 2011 at 9:24am Report Abuse
Lindsey Wallis wrote:
And... If we are so concerned about everyone relying on cars then why are we allowing developers to build huge, sprawling, single family communities in the first place? If every new community was built with a higher density and a transit friendly vision this wouldn't be a problem.
on Mar 3rd, 2011 at 10:18am Report Abuse
tshowell wrote:
"If you start pushing population out into suburban the communities you’re adding more congestion whether it’s on the public transportation system or on the road map. The right way to do it is putting it where it makes sense, where it’s going to have the least impact on the city’s transportation network."
So as Tisin noted, Chabot seems to be suggesting the city instead increase density near transit corridors.
But it's a red herring argument in my opinion.
Just look at Edmonton, which has seen about 300 applications since it approved a similar motion three years ago. I'd find it hard to believe Edmonton's roads and transit system have been severely impacted with such an incremental increase. And I don't think Calgary's would either.
on Mar 3rd, 2011 at 10:27am Report Abuse
cowtowndave wrote:
First, I don't think this qualifies as a conflict of interest. I would agree that they can't vote on their specific applications, when they are heard, but that is far different from voting on a blanket, city-wide policy. I would argue that they might benefit from this vote to about the same extent that they benefit from voting on the budget each year (whether property taxes go up or not).
Second, if it really is a conflict, I think they should withdraw their applications until this vote is taken because it is literally their sworn duty to put the interests of their constituents before their own personal interests. I would only relent on this point if the reasons for their applications are extraordinary family member in immediate need, for example).
Once again, great job done by FFWD on covering local politics. Keep up the good work!
on Mar 3rd, 2011 at 1:35pm Report Abuse
Agent666 wrote:
Liberalising zoning regulations accomplishes two things for Nenshi's campaign donors. First of all, there are a lot of large-scale owners (REITs and individuals) who rent out illegal suites. Secondly, weakening zoning and the need for 'red tape' like community approval is a foot in the door to infill developers to build multi-family units in neighborhoods with imputiny. This is the real agenda behind Nenshi's rabbid enthusiasm for legalising secondary suites.
Currently, the City is doing a very poor job of enforcing health, safety and code standards for LEGAL suites, with everything from mouse infestations to non-functioning heating going on for months. Just how does Nenshi propose to police THOUSANDS of new suites, and how much will the army of inspectors, bureaucrats, support staff and capital (office space, vehicles) cost? Nenshi has kept silent on this issue.
And this isn't 1951, when few people owned a car. The secondary suite on my street has lead to complete parking congestion. Pretending that secondary suite-dwellers won't own cars (or, at most, own ONE) and catch transit is ignoring the reality of 21st Century urban life. Nenshi's hair-brained 'compromise' of requiring the owners to live in their rental property is essentially unenforceable, along with parking rules.
Densifying Calgary will not solve the single threat to the metro region: not urban sprawl (though this IS a serious problem), but water consumption. Only a population cap would address that, but our local, Provincial and Federal politicians are too gutless and industry-dominated to do anything of the sort. Plan-It is also far from an 'anti-developer' document--rather, it favours one type of development (infilling, including of inner city greenspaces) over land annexation.
Most seriously, R1 homeowners won't take this lying down. Contrary to the spin of Nenshi and the Chamber of Commerce, the presence of secondary suites drives down the value of adjacent homes. Since homeowners bought R1 homes, in R1-zoned neighborhoods, grounds exist for a massive class-action suit against the City. Along with voters' anger, this isn't something Councillors are likely enthusiastic about facing.
on Mar 3rd, 2011 at 2:44pm Report Abuse
tshowell wrote:
I agree that the aldermen having to opt out of this vote is ridiculous. However, under the MGA (an outdated, toothless piece of legislation IMHO) aldermen Mar and Keating have little choice but to step out of the room when this comes up in council on Monday.
If those two aldermen had opposing votes it wouldn't make any difference, they'd just cancel each other out. But I'm assuming since both are applying to build secondary suites that they'd both vote in favour — so Nenshi just lost two crucial votes.
It's also unfortunate that 100s of thousands of Calgarians won't be represented because of this COI.
on Mar 3rd, 2011 at 2:59pm Report Abuse
tshowell wrote:
The rental rate in Calgary isn't even close to 50 per cent, much closer to 4 per cent.
However, you are correct in that there is a ton of condos on the market, but that doesn't do a lick of good for people who can't yet afford to buy in Calgary's over-priced housing market (i.e. students, young couples) and are stuck renting.
Class-action suit? You have to be joking. The city doesn't sign agreements with homeowners stating their precious neighbourhoods won't change. Get real.
on Mar 3rd, 2011 at 3:16pm Report Abuse
cowtowndave wrote:
on Mar 3rd, 2011 at 4:05pm Report Abuse
dog dog wrote:
A) Why the hell should students and young couples be able to buy a residence?
B) Check MLS. There's tons of stuff that's not every expensive right now.
By over-priced, do you mean that's it's too expensive for _you_, or what?
Anyhow, the main problem with this whole SS bullshit is that it's going to be totally irrelevant. The City already has a defacto "don't ask, don't tell" policy, so they're not going to stop anyone from building an illegal suite, and yet they're hardly popping up. They're not as ubiquitous as everyone thinks.
Also, aren't most communities near c-train stations already R-2? Especially the ones that are more inner city?
on Mar 3rd, 2011 at 4:48pm Report Abuse
dog dog wrote:
Although Agent666 is five shades of crazy, he is right about the water limit. Calgary's going to be lucky to have two million residents due to it.
on Mar 3rd, 2011 at 4:50pm Report Abuse
Agent666 wrote:
One proposal, quickly rejected by Nenshi, was to zone all NEW house developments as R2. Yet Nenshi and his corporate supporters are pushing hard for R2 redesignation of OLDER neighborhoods. Simply put, a blanket R2 designation facilitates the redevelopment of properties for infills and condos, without fear of 'red tape' and 'NIMBYism.'
The comment about class action suits wasn't my idea. People fuious about having their neighborhoods rezoned (despite the Chamber of Commerce propaganda, this is NOT a selling feature) have threatened legal action, since their homes' and communities' R1--NOT R2--status were conditions of sale. Your snarky, armchair-technocrat comment about 'precious neighborhoods' is symptomatic of a paternalistic 'progressive' culture with nothing but contempt for either property rights, or local democracy. The point is that these homeowners bought property in certain communities, with the expectation that the homes and communities were R1, low-density areas. This is an implied contract with the City, WHICH HOMEOWNERS SUPPORT WITH THEIR TAX DOLLARS.
There is a glut of even low-income rental housing on the market. People prefer living in detatched homes with yards, leaving an overhand of apartments and condos. The situation is so acute that there are several aborted highrise and condo projects sitting as eyesores in the city. And the young secondary suite-dweller without a car, who relies on transit, is a fiction--something you could see on the street in front of my house: trucks, cars, even a trailer with dirt bikes from the secondary suite next door.
The arrogance of Nenshi is truly amazing, and not just limited to the secondary suite issue. Only after being elected, he conveniently mentioned that he advocated the so-called 'penny tax'; this despite being in favour of it for the FOUR YEARS since David Miller came up with the idea. And smart growthers, working for condo and highrise developers, keep pretending that density, water meters and low-flush toilets will save us in the face of finite water supplies. There are already far too many people living in Southern Alberta, and--with another so-called 'dust bowl' in store--we're up a very dry sh!t's creek.
on Mar 4th, 2011 at 1:33pm Report Abuse
tshowell wrote:
A) I was referring to Agent666's comment that Calgary's condo/rental vacancy rate is up to 50 per cent vacancy rate. While the condo market is indeed quite open it doesn't help renters, such as students and young couples. So more affordable rentals are needed; though I'm not convinced adding secondary suites will do that.
B) Actually, my wife and I have been actively looking for a place to buy for months now. You're correct in that there is a lot on the market that isn't very expensive, but many are in terrible shape.
We've seen condos and homes, some not even 5 years old, with leaking roofs, water damage, mold, unsafe wiring, and overall poor workmanship. (Don't get me started on $500-$600/month condo fees.)
And by overpriced, I mean overpriced — period. Don't believe me? Here:
Calgary Herald: List prices on Calgary homes too high: expert http://bit.ly/eozCMN
Last year, the Economist's survey of global house prices found Canadian homes were overpriced by 23.9 per cent: http://econ.st/aQqFFA
on Mar 5th, 2011 at 12:16pm Report Abuse
early-bird wrote:
(So, "secondary suites promotes sprawl" is quite a less intelligent theory. _Because secondary will take one less land for one more family.)
on Mar 5th, 2011 at 7:55pm Report Abuse
early-bird wrote:
on Mar 5th, 2011 at 8:26pm Report Abuse
Agent666 wrote:
http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Nenshi+fires+shot+secondary+suite+opponents/4380756/story.html#comments#comments#comments
In summary: Nenshi had a pollster WHICH DONATED $5,000 TO HIS CAMPAIGN conduct a 'scientific' survey of Calgarians' views on secondary suites, with the $40,000 cost billed to the University of Calgary Students' Union...after which he complained that Calgary's community associations--which oppose blanket secondary suite legalization--aren't legitimate representatives of Calgarians, and are as out of touch with reality as flat-earthers.
Tell me who's the nutbar, here.
on Mar 5th, 2011 at 10:50pm Report Abuse
Ron wrote:
Most people, most of the time, live in the cheapest housing they can get. The $ they don't have to spend on a "roof" they can apply to myriad other aspects of life.
Also, most people only use transit to go somewhere if it is cheaper than driving (and parking) a vehicle. In this, Calgary Transit hurts itself with its high prices. (You can travel around Munich, or Hamburg Germany for a fraction of the cost of C.T.)
I don't want a huge influx of people on my street and, if it came, I would move elsewhere. Lawsuits ARE likely, as the proposal amounts to a breach of promise. Whether the suits succeed or not is irrelevant. They would take a lot of time and $ to fight, and would scar the city's reputation for decades.
on Mar 6th, 2011 at 1:23pm Report Abuse
early-bird wrote:
Can we sue the City if the ring-road is put on (as demanding increasing?) It wasn't there before!!!!
"Scar the city's reputation", Depend on your stance point. 75% of Calgary think it's the right thing to do for keeping roofs on top of every single citizen/Not a child should be left outside in this kind of deadly cold climate. We are blessed if the Representatives really wanty to work for the sake of the majority citizens, the sake of a sucessful city rather than just to make sure they will get re-elect next time around. Anyway, it's fair to return favour to those who are fighting hard for us. Get out and vote on the next election everyone!!!!
on Mar 6th, 2011 at 5:53pm Report Abuse
Agent666 wrote:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KadkkdPDRp_7iAk_9IO8LYt--_-ORb3ZuUZFvvBDYk0/mobilebasic?pli=1&hl=en
The STUDENTS' UNION paying up to $40,000, for a poll commissioned by a politician to lobby his colleagues, with his friends/donors as contractors?! It doesn't stink worse than this, folks. Really, heads should roll at the SU, for pissing away students' money on a lobbying favour for Nenshi. I'm sure, say, CJSW would be a better thing to spent the money on.
Since houses were sold in what was zoned R1 communities, changing this status could entitle property owners to sue the City. They may not win, but a long and politically-ugly, costly court battle could be in store. Nenshi's 'compromise' of requiring owners to live in the homes is both unenforceable, and subject to a Charter challenge.
And, please--quit pretending this is about affordable housing for low-income Calgarians. The Chamber of Commerce and Fraser Institute aren't getting behind secondary suite issue out of some compassion for the downtrodden. This is all about eroding zoning restrictions and other 'red tape,' in order to make it easier for infillers to redevelop older communities into high-density ones, even over the objections of 'NIMBY' community residents.
Nenshi's arrogant dismissal of community associations, while touting his nepotistic, Students' Union-funded poll as 'scientific' and authoritative, shows utter contempt for the electorate. No surprise, since this is the guy who wanted to sweep the whole Louise Station mess under the rug, rather than "go down a rabbit hole."
on Mar 6th, 2011 at 9:44pm Report Abuse
early-bird wrote:
He is proving he dare to take challenge and make things work for the majority and dare to stand up for what he is strongly believe in.
Bronconnier is my another favorite mayor, who understands the need to up date law and policy to meet new society's challenge and demanding. Too bad! the attack from vicious criticism discouraged him. Still he brought up this city to its much higher level of successful compare to where it was.
Keep your spirit high Nenshi, we are behind you. Thanks for your hard try "bringing this city to where it should be".
Nenshi for the next mayoral election!!!!
When people start to report untrue information, such as the comment by agent666 (...quit pretending this is about affordable housing for low-income Calgarians: If it not affordable, who will want to share their home with others? Who will want to live in the basement? But the average and minimum earning would not help them to pay for their own apartment as the current rent for these are out of their reaches. ---> If they are not allowed to rent a basement suit, their only and one way is heading to the street!!! Their "landlords" as well mostly by now could not afford to pay for mortgage will join the homeless army too!!!! Did you hear about the tents city in US. People took part on this life were officers, contractors, teachers, businessmen/women....etc. All kind of people who used to think they are safe from any situation.
So, if the criticism getting ugly, plug your ears, quit listening to them, is the best way to keep the good things that suppose to come to your life.
on Mar 7th, 2011 at 12:32am Report Abuse
Agent666 wrote:
Are you SURE you're not a member of Nenshi's campaign staff?
on Mar 7th, 2011 at 1:29pm Report Abuse
dog dog wrote:
I'd say the vacancy rate of condos is around 50%. That seems about right. Note that he's not talking about rental vacancy, he's talking about vacant units including ones for sale. There's a lot of empty stuff downtown, for instance.
I will also say that a 4% rental vacancy rate is quite high. When I was looking for an apartment in 1996, the vacancy rate was 0.5% (actually, I think it was 0.1%, but whatever). That means that there's _twenty times_ more units for rent than when I was looking.
"B) Actually, my wife and I have been actively looking for a place to buy for months now. You're correct in that there is a lot on the market that isn't very expensive, but many are in terrible shape.
We've seen condos and homes, some not even 5 years old, with leaking roofs, water damage, mold, unsafe wiring, and overall poor workmanship. (Don't get me started on $500-$600/month condo fees.)
And by overpriced, I mean overpriced — period. Don't believe me? Here:
Calgary Herald: List prices on Calgary homes too high: expert http://bit.ly/eozCMN
Last year, the Economist's survey of global house prices found Canadian homes were overpriced by 23.9 per cent: http://econ.st/aQqFFA"
Oh man. What a train wreck.
1) If you're convinced that homes are overpriced, then you shouldn't buy right now. The fact that you're looking and _that you're ready to spend_ means that housing _isn't_ overpriced. Supply has met demand, right? You're just trying to find the right place, and you're certainly not asserting that there's _nothing_ available for you.
You complaining about shit housing is a red herring. Shit housing is always for sale. I'll even give you a tip: They might be on sale because they're shitty!
Why the hell are you even looking at that stuff? Your realtor is supposed to weed out the junk.
And, if you find something that suits your needs, put in an offer with a price you think is fair. You might be surprised...
2) In regards to the CH article, they assert that prices are too high, and then say that prices won't correct themselves. So, if they're too high, how's it going to be fixed? Magic?
2) In regards to The Economist article, you're taking a national number, really based on nothing (do you even understand how The Economist got those numbers?) and extended to Calgary's situation, even though you have no reason to.
Here's the "problem" with Calgary:
- Calgary has a substantial number of property owners that have no mortgage. These people then leverage their equity to purchase a second property.
- Calgary has a substantial number of property owners that have a relatively small mortgage (like me).
- Calgary has a very high median wage, which means that you're in competition with people that make far more than you.
- The price of oil is really, really high. Calgary's economy is based on oil and gas, and even though the price of natural gas is in the shitter the oil companies are picking up workers who lost their jobs working for gas companies. These people make a shitton of money. The average engineer's salary is now above $100K. And believe me, I know than an experienced 'geer makes far, far more than that.
And, believe it or not, house prices in Calgary actually _have_ dropped over the last while, but not as severely as people thought.
on Mar 7th, 2011 at 1:38pm Report Abuse
dog dog wrote:
on Mar 7th, 2011 at 1:39pm Report Abuse
early-bird wrote:
on Mar 7th, 2011 at 2:43pm Report Abuse
Agent666 wrote:
What's killing the condo market isn't just the fact that most people prefer detatched homes with yards, but the paucity of parking. New Urbanist fantasies of people eschewing cars for walking, cycling and mass transit are a hopeless delusion, and no amount of social engineering will change this. This is also why the core is so dead--costly parking: why shop downtown, when you can go to the same stores in a suburban mall and get free parking? And even most RENTERS in the 21st Century have AT LEAST one vehicle, as do the owners...and any guests who come by. The secondary suite next to me is a parking disaster for this reason. The facts remain that A. Calgarians--including newcomers--love their cars, and B. in terms of quality of life, water consumption AND parking, Calgary can't accommodate either more population growth, OR densification.
The real tragedy was that people used to live downtown, from what's now the Stampede grounds expansion area, to near the skateboard park. For the Le Corbusieroids, the problem was that people living downtown in detatched homes with private yards, gardens and garages didn't fit their vision of apartment and condo-dwelling, transit-dependant New Feudalism. Thus, heritage homes and buildings were torn down and the land rezoned for sun-blocking highrises that people don't want to live in. And whether or not it was actually desireable, or even sustainable for Calgary to grow to a million people was never even open to debate.
on Mar 8th, 2011 at 2:49pm Report Abuse
early-bird wrote:
The best solution to increase population for supporting the much higher expense that required by the new big city (maintenance and operations) without tearing down heritage homes is SECONDARY SUITES, where people can still enjoy the green shade and sun light without paying all their paychecks to their shelters and with this scheme, population increasing potential could go up to double. Parking concern? All street parking will turn to monthly renting parking. If people don't need car much, ride public transit then. Water concern? One giant water treatment work so many times more efficient than a smaller one. Bring people to one big spot such as Calgary is one way for energy and resource saving. And that also opens door for smoother industries operations, as Calgary experienced so many times in the past, after attracted businesses to come, they bounce right back because wages are inadequate with living expenes, which chased away their workers and led to unoperatable businesses for them.
Alberta is a huge source of revenue for the country. Calgary is one main one for the province. It has to be successful, anything that needs to be done for bringing it up has to be done. ....Small town Calgary is the past...
on Mar 8th, 2011 at 7:11pm Report Abuse
early-bird wrote:
2 monthly, 1 hourly rental stalls alternately?
on Mar 8th, 2011 at 7:58pm Report Abuse
Ron wrote:
Judging by the way the City desperately fights in the courts to keep its badly-flawed "Park Plus" regimen in operation, it will be apt to spend a huge amount on the 2nd suites issue. The reported news of the City being in numerous and protracted court proceedings against its own citizens over such an emotion-laden issue will surely be detrimental to the Calgary's reputation. And, like it or not and justified or not, that reputation is already not very good.
on Mar 13th, 2011 at 2:14pm Report Abuse
early-bird wrote:
on Mar 13th, 2011 at 6:58pm Report Abuse
Agent666 wrote:
After the secondary suite fiasco (and comparing his opponents, including community associations, to flat-earthers), Nenshi is toast in the next election. That Zinc (a Nenshi donor) poll, paid for by the SU, was another blow to Barney's credibility. And, when the Louise Station deal explodes into a full-blown, Provincially-investigated scandal, everybody will remember that Nenshi didn't want to "go down a rabbit hole" and clear up the matter.
on Mar 13th, 2011 at 8:51pm Report Abuse
early-bird wrote:
on Mar 15th, 2011 at 10:57pm Report Abuse
Post comment: (Login or Register)