Jump to content

Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.


HeyHatch

Walmart at Yale & I-10: For or Against  

160 members have voted

  1. 1. Q1: Regarding the proposed WalMart at Yale and I-10:

    • I live within a 3 mile radius (as the crow flies) and am FOR this Walmart
      41
    • I live within a 3 mile radius (as the crow flies) and am AGAINST this Walmart
      54
    • I live outside a 3 mile radius (as the crow flies) and am FOR this Walmart
      30
    • I live outside a 3 mile radius (as the crow flies) and am AGAINST this Walmart
      26
    • Undecided
      9
  2. 2. Q2: If/when this proposed WalMart is built at Yale & I-10

    • I am FOR this WalMart and will shop at this WalMart
      45
    • I am FOR this WalMart but will not shop at this WalMart
      23
    • I am AGAINST this WalMart but will shop at this WalMart
      7
    • I am AGAINST this WalMart and will not shop at this WalMart
      72
    • Undecided
      13
  3. 3. Q3: WalMart in general

    • I am Pro-Walmart
      16
    • I am Anti-Walmart
      63
    • I don't care either way
      72
    • Undecided
      9

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

And another nugget from the "final" 380 agreement. By ordinance, 380 agreements must be limited to 10 years. The City even noted this in its power point presentation to the community. Yet, the 380 agreement has no limit on its term. The City is obligated to keep handing over ad valorem and sales taxes until every dollar is repaid.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

s3mh, did you start another HAIF login as J008 just so you could put +1 on all of your posts? Or are they a real-life ABO lackey of yours?

Nope. And isn't it interesting how you have nothing substantive to say after I have posted very troubling information about the 380 agreement.

And another fun fact: 380 agreements must be limited to 10 years per City ordinance. The Ainbinder 380 agreement has no limit!!! The City has to refund ad valorem and sales tax until all amounts have been paid in full. But I guess you care more about whether someone is approving of my posts on a message board than whether the City is being fleeced by the developer and Walmart.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreement on architecture is virtually non-existent. Developer only has to "endeavor" to build in style of the heights.

Who cares if this is done in the style of the "heights" its not located in the heights!

The rest of the garbage I don't really care about, the amount of money being given to the developer, if you can even call it giving, is negligible. $360,000 is a drop in the proverbial bucket.

The road improvement is needed in that area, whether or not there are addittional car trips over that stretch. Its bumpy as all get out. All of Yale is.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. And isn't it interesting how you have nothing substantive to say after I have posted very troubling information about the 380 agreement.

And another fun fact: 380 agreements must be limited to 10 years per City ordinance. The Ainbinder 380 agreement has no limit!!! The City has to refund ad valorem and sales tax until all amounts have been paid in full. But I guess you care more about whether someone is approving of my posts on a message board than whether the City is being fleeced by the developer and Walmart.

What you post is not interesting. It is slightly amusing in that you put so much angst and effort toward opposing something that is going to happen no matter what you think or do, and will have zero negative effects on you once it is inevitably built. You are trying so hard to live up to this ABO image that is one of the things I hate most about my neighborhood. You are not special, and this isn't some kind of moral outrage that warrants the elite anti-everythings busting aneurysms all over the place.

The city has decided that this project is beneficial to its citizens, so it has put a stake in it. Fine by me.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

s3mh, did you start another HAIF login as J008 just so you could put +1 on all of your posts? Or are they a real-life ABO lackey of yours?

No I simply agree with s3mh's conclusions. The more information that comes out about the 380 the worse deal it seems it is for taxpayers. There are few negotiators who wind up with a good deal and are opposite walmart and walmart interests. s3mh's posts seem to confirm that is the case here too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you post is not interesting. It is slightly amusing in that you put so much angst and effort toward opposing something that is going to happen no matter what you think or do, and will have zero negative effects on you once it is inevitably built. You are trying so hard to live up to this ABO image that is one of the things I hate most about my neighborhood. You are not special, and this isn't some kind of moral outrage that warrants the elite anti-everythings busting aneurysms all over the place.

The city has decided that this project is beneficial to its citizens, so it has put a stake in it. Fine by me.

Translation, this stuff is over my head, so I will just call you names.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. And isn't it interesting how you have nothing substantive to say after I have posted very troubling information about the 380 agreement.

I think it would be interesting if you had included some actual factual numbers, rather than unsubstantiated rumor...

Most of the road and drainage improvements are for the benefit of the development and Walmart (mostly). If they leave the drainage and roads as is, they would not be able to get the permits they want because the existing roadways cannot support the additional traffic. Thus, those improvements are to make it possible for Walmart and the developers to build, not to make the neighborhood nicer.

PLEASE CITE REFERENCES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

seriously.

I mean, it is VERY clear at this point that the project will go on with or without the 380, to me, that means that the drainage and roads CAN support it without the additional 6 million investment.

If you have FACTUAL data to back up your writing, PLEASE refer us to the credible non-biased data!

How difficult can that be? Obviously, it is very difficult, because you can't.

Edited by samagon
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be interesting if you had included some actual factual numbers, rather than unsubstantiated rumor...

PLEASE CITE REFERENCES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

seriously.

I mean, it is VERY clear at this point that the project will go on with or without the 380, to me, that means that the drainage and roads CAN support it without the additional 6 million investment.

If you have FACTUAL data to back up your writing, PLEASE refer us to the credible non-biased data!

How difficult can that be? Obviously, it is very difficult, because you can't.

Good point. That is what is completely wrong with this process. The developer has not submitting a single permit application for approval. The developer has not even submitted a traffic study yet. So, given that no one actually knows what the developer will submit, you are right. We don't know what infrastructure improvements will or won't be needed. The developer basically gets everything done up front for free by tax payers before anyone actually looks to see what is needed.

But, there are some things that are pretty obvious without having final plans. The developer is obligated to do .5 acre feet for each acre of new impervious cover. Looking at aerial photography, about half of the site were dirt pipe yards. The finished product will be mostly impervious cover. So, it is not an unfair guestimate that the development will add 7-8 acres of impervious cover (20 acre lot). That means at least 3.5 acre feet of storm water detention. The 380 agreement already obligates the tax payers to pay for 7 acre feet. So they are making sure the developer is covered. So there.

Now, WHAT DATA DO YOU HAVE THAT THE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE CAN SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT??? Do you have any credible no-biased data? Good thing you aren't in City government.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the road and drainage improvements are for the benefit of the development and Walmart (mostly). If they leave the drainage and roads as is, they would not be able to get the permits they want because the existing roadways cannot support the additional traffic. Thus, those improvements are to make it possible for Walmart and the developers to build, not to make the neighborhood nicer.

This is untrue. A 4 lane road can handle well in excess of the existing AND projected traffic, even the inflated numbers given by Walmart opponents. Yale near 610 handles 20,000 vehicles per day already. Studemont handles nearly 30,000 vehicles per day. To claim a 10,000 vehicle per day road cannot handle anticipated Walmart traffic is quite simply, a lie.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Developer's of greenfield locations are obligated to do .5 acre feet for each acre of new impervious cover. Looking at aerial photography...

Sorry to cut you off, but I made an edit to what you said to make it more accurate. This particular project is brownfield, meaning it has already been developed, and so what you say may have absolutely no bearing at all on what is required based on what was previously on that site.

Your method of study is very unscientific. the city has already come to an agreement for the site. Regardless of how in depth their study of the site was, I am very confident that is was more in depth than looking at a single aerial photograph. Even if they just drove around the site and looked out the window it would be more scientific than looking at aerial photos from google maps, or even flyover maps from some other source. Hell, even google street view would be better (you ought to do that yourself, you'd see that your aerial photograph is not an accurate representation at all).

Do you have any historical information regarding what was built there, and how much of the surface was covered in buildings, or non-permeable surface?

edit: Have you even driven by there yourself to look with your own eyes to see what is there, or what isn't there?

The finished product will be mostly impervious cover...

Again, I cut you off, and for that I'm sorry.

First, we are completely hypothetical at this point, as you have no proof other than your 'aerial photo' taken god knows when, and with no other data to back it up, so I'm just going to play along that the site is greenfield, in order to again show that there isn't any credibility to your statement. The reality is though, that the city has access to drawings and information regarding exactly what was contained on that site.

Have you seen Walmart's complete plan? Where is it? Do they have the blueprints for the parking and building structure online somewhere that I can see for my own eyes what you have obviously seen for you to be able to state with such certainty?

I mean, it seems to me like you are just providing what you think is going to happen as fact.

How do you know that the parking won't be done with permeable pavement? that's just one possibility. And you cannot say that it will or won't.

Now, WHAT DATA DO YOU HAVE THAT THE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE CAN SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT??? Do you have any credible no-biased data? Good thing you aren't in City government.

Good thing you aren't either. I mean, using one single aerial photograph as factual data to support your claim, when that only shows a snapshot of one moment in time, the more I think about that, the more I laugh. Why don't you go and check the city archives to see what was built on there and how much was covered in pavement, and how much was covered in buildings, I'm POSITIVE you'd find much more accurate data than what is provided by some random aerial photograph.

In addition, what information regarding the roadways do you have other than a Walmart may bring as many as 10k cars a day?

Do you think the city doesn't know the maximum capacity of all streets involved?

When is the last time they did a traffic study on those roads?

What was the data then, what was the data from the previous traffic study to that one?

What change in traffic rates can be observed between the two?

That is the kind of credible information I am asking you to present, not just anecdotal evidence based on some aerial photograph that looks like the ground may be dirt and grass, and any complete lack of information on any other topics, but you know by golly that it is going to have a negative impact and that nothing has been studied to date!

as far as asking me for data, I'm not the one making claims and expecting them to be accepted as fact.

Edited by samagon
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to cut you off, but I made an edit to what you said to make it more accurate. This particular project is brownfield, meaning it has already been developed, and so what you say may have absolutely no bearing at all on what is required based on what was previously on that site.

Your method of study is very unscientific. the city has already come to an agreement for the site. Regardless of how in depth their study of the site was, I am very confident that is was more in depth than looking at a single aerial photograph. Even if they just drove around the site and looked out the window it would be more scientific than looking at aerial photos from google maps, or even flyover maps from some other source. Hell, even google street view would be better (you ought to do that yourself, you'd see that your aerial photograph is not an accurate representation at all).

Do you have any historical information regarding what was built there, and how much of the surface was covered in buildings, or non-permeable surface?

Again, I cut you off, and for that I'm sorry.

First, we are completely hypothetical at this point, as you have no proof other than your 'aerial photo' taken god knows when, and with no other data to back it up, so I'm just going to play along that the site is greenfield, in order to again show that there isn't any credibility to your statement. The reality is though, that the city has access to drawings and information regarding exactly what was contained on that site.

Have you seen Walmart's complete plan? Where is it? Do they have the blueprints for the parking and building structure online somewhere that I can see for my own eyes what you have obviously seen for you to be able to state with such certainty?

I mean, it seems to me like you are just providing what you think is going to happen as fact.

How do you know that the parking won't be done with permeable pavement? that's just one possibility. And you cannot say that it will or won't.

Good thing you aren't either. I mean, using one single aerial photograph as factual data to support your claim, when that only shows a snapshot of one moment in time, the more I think about that, the more I laugh. Why don't you go and check the city archives to see what was built on there and how much was covered in pavement, and how much was covered in buildings, I'm POSITIVE you'd find much more accurate data than what is provided by some random aerial photograph.

In addition, what information regarding the roadways do you have other than a Walmart may bring as many as 10k extra cars a day?

Do you think the city doesn't know the maximum capacity of all streets involved?

When is the last time they did a traffic study on those roads?

What was the data then, what was the data from the previous traffic study to that one?

What change in traffic rates can be observed between the two?

That is the kind of credible information I am asking you to present, not just anecdotal evidence based on some aerial photograph that looks like the ground may be dirt and grass, and any complete lack of information on any other topics, but you know by golly that it is going to have a negative impact and that nothing has been studied to date!

Wrong. Look at the City's development manual, Chap 9. I have even heard CM Costello talk about this. The developer is required to do additional onsite detention for increased impervious cover. They get credit for the previous drainage infrastructure, but if they increase impervious cover, they have to comply with the dentention requirements. Why else would the City be willing to pay for 7 acre feet of detention in the 380 agreement?

The developer did attach a "conceptual" plan to the 380 agreement. The entire site is pretty much impervious except for a few strips here and there. And, again, the point is why do a 380 agreement when you do not even know for certain what the developer is going to do?

The developer hasn't submitted a traffic study. The City has been doing counts too. But based on existing info, Yale had a count of 10k in 2006, the standard for a suburban Walmart, according to the Traffic Engineer's manual is 10k. Yale is rated to handle 26k. Add in additional traffic from the feeder and update the Yale count to reflect growth on Washington since 2006, and you will probably max out Yale with the development. The City will not let a developer max out a roadway. They require mitigation. That is why the city is doing the 380 agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. Look at the City's development manual, Chap 9. I have even heard CM Costello talk about this. The developer is required to do additional onsite detention for increased impervious cover. They get credit for the previous drainage infrastructure, but if they increase impervious cover, they have to comply with the dentention requirements. Why else would the City be willing to pay for 7 acre feet of detention in the 380 agreement?

The developer did attach a "conceptual" plan to the 380 agreement. The entire site is pretty much impervious except for a few strips here and there. And, again, the point is why do a 380 agreement when you do not even know for certain what the developer is going to do?

The developer hasn't submitted a traffic study. The City has been doing counts too. But based on existing info, Yale had a count of 10k in 2006, the standard for a suburban Walmart, according to the Traffic Engineer's manual is 10k. Yale is rated to handle 26k. Add in additional traffic from the feeder and update the Yale count to reflect growth on Washington since 2006, and you will probably max out Yale with the development. The City will not let a developer max out a roadway. They require mitigation. That is why the city is doing the 380 agreement.

You may not be aware of this, but there is such a thing as water retention/detention under impervious cover - its called box culverts. The office I work at, the entirety of the concrete parking lot is actually a retention area. When it rains the water is all collected through the storm grates, and is held under the parking lot until the ditches recede. Once the water level in the ditches is below the large metal flap gates (flood event is over) the flap gates automatically open under the pressure of the water built up in the parking lot retention area and is then drained off to the stream.

For all you know the entire parking lot is one giant retention pond that is retaining far more water than is necessary, and they are getting paid by the city to capture water so as to mitigate some other development down stream. The fact is that you have no idea what type of retention they are doing, you just saw a picture on the internet and jumped to a conclusion.

You constantly jump to conclusions without data. If I were a car dealer, I would love to sell you a car!

Edited by Marksmu
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Add in additional traffic from the feeder and update the Yale count to reflect growth on Washington since 2006, and you will probably max out Yale with the development. The City will not let a developer max out a roadway. They require mitigation. That is why the city is doing the 380 agreement.

s3mh, this type of post is exactly why most everyone here (except j008, of course) thinks you are full of crap. You just make up stuff all the time. Here you say "you will probably max out Yale" but have no facts to back it up. You are then able to magically tell us how the city operates with regard to granting permits.

I think I'll join that other poster in celebrating the new Walmart when it gets built, just to rub it in!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. Look at the City's development manual, Chap 9. I have even heard CM Costello talk about this. The developer is required to do additional onsite detention for increased impervious cover. They get credit for the previous drainage infrastructure, but if they increase impervious cover, they have to comply with the dentention requirements. Why else would the City be willing to pay for 7 acre feet of detention in the 380 agreement?

I don't know, and based on what you have presented for factual reference, I don't think you know either.

The developer did attach a "conceptual" plan to the 380 agreement. The entire site is pretty much impervious except for a few strips here and there. And, again, the point is why do a 380 agreement when you do not even know for certain what the developer is going to do?

I didn't see the conceptual plan attached to the 380 linked in this thread, can you re-link directly to the conceptual? Does this conceptual plan go into such detail as to show that the parking lot doesn't contain any underground retention as was stated in an above post?

The developer hasn't submitted a traffic study. The City has been doing counts too. But based on existing info, Yale had a count of 10k in 2006, the standard for a suburban Walmart, according to the Traffic Engineer's manual is 10k. Yale is rated to handle 26k. Add in additional traffic from the feeder and update the Yale count to reflect growth on Washington since 2006, and you will probably max out Yale with the development. The City will not let a developer max out a roadway. They require mitigation. That is why the city is doing the 380 agreement.

Is this information available online? Is the traffic added from the feeder included in this proposed study, or is it just what you think will happen?

Again, I'm pretty certain that since it has been stated multiple times by people that are more involved in this project than you or I, that the project is going forward regardless of the 380, I find your statement of why the 380 is happening hard to trust.

again, you're making lots of claims to back up your other claims, some reference good sources (whether that data is indeed in that resource is something else), some just seem to be more of the same, it appears to be assumptions and making things up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I e-mailed the mayor and asked for an explanation for the discrepancy between what she said about "interest free" and what I read in the proposed 380 agreement. I received the following response from the mayor via e-mail from Madeleine Appel, Deputy Chief of Staff:

Under the 380 agreement the City can pay off the reimbursement within three years with no interest, and that is our goal. After three years the interest applies.

Sincerely,

Annise D. Parker

Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But based on existing info, Yale had a count of 10k in 2006, the standard for a suburban Walmart, according to the Traffic Engineer's manual is 10k. Yale is rated to handle 26k. Add in additional traffic from the feeder and update the Yale count to reflect growth on Washington since 2006, and you will probably max out Yale with the development. The City will not let a developer max out a roadway. They require mitigation. That is why the city is doing the 380 agreement.

Based on the traffic counts that your own anti-Walmart group commissioned, traffic on Yale is slightly lower today than several years ago, at 10,000 vehicles per day. Additionally, the 10,000 vehicles per day that you claim Walmart will bring is based on a 200,000 square foot Supercenter. This store is proposed at 152,000. So, using YOUR figures, 10,000 current vehicles plus 10,000 new vehicles (probably more like 8,000 vehicles) equals no more than 20,000 vehicles per day on a 26,000 vehicle street. This is equal to traffic on north Yale, and LESS than Studewood.

This store will not max out capacity on Yale.

As for the 380, I have no problem with the City using tools at its disposal to get the infrastructure improved quicker. Those who oppose infrastructure improvements as a way to oppose new development have their priorities skewed. Living in a 90 year old house does not obligate me to drive on 90 year old roads.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I copied this response from Mayor Parker to an anti-Walmart protester. It pretty well sums up the Mayor's position (and I suspect most of Council).

Dear Ms. Jones:

Thank you for sharing your thoughts regarding the Koehler Street development

with me.

...Ainbinder is going to develop the Koehler Street site, and the City has no legal

basis for preventing that development as long as it meets the City’s ordinances and

building codes; we cannot create an ordinance after the fact. Additionally, there is

no legal basis for telling the developer with whom he can or cannot enter into a

lease agreement.

I support economic development in Houston, and I believe that this development

will have a positive impact overall on the City’s economy. The issue is making

that development as neighborhood friendly a possible, and the 380 agreement is

our tool for accomplishing that.

Sincerely,

Annise D. Parker

Mayor

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I copied this response from Mayor Parker to an anti-Walmart protester. It pretty well sums up the Mayor's position (and I suspect most of Council).

see, this is what I just don't get.

people like s3mh just continue to ignore statements that are made over and over and over and over again by high ranking city officials saying that this project is going to happen with or without the 380.

rather than getting on board and doing something productive for the community by speaking into the ear of our Mayor, who has made several attempts to get feedback from the community of how this project can be made better, all they do is bury their heads in the sand and continue to deny the possibility that they soon will be a neighbor of walmart.

Come on s3mh and others, get yourself out of the hole, and try to make this development better by making reasonable suggestions, what a waste of time on your part.

If for some reason this development doesn't use the 380 and the walmart ends up looking like this (crappy gif and everything):

walmart.gif

I'll fly a hot air baloon over Heights and drop leaflets with examples of the type of involvement shown from members of this community as the reason walmart didn't work with the community to make the development more attractive, and 'fit in'.

Edited by samagon
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting piece in the Chron from the point of view of some of the proposed Walmart's neighbors who actually want the Walmart.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/falkenberg/7199516.html

I've been through that neightborhood many times, and shopped for rocks at SJS a few times too. Finally somebody else went over there, because Walmart protestors certainly haven't.

Esta cita es muy buena: "Los blancos," he said, shaking his head. "I don't know what their problem is."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

see, this is what I just don't get.

people like s3mh just continue to ignore statements that are made over and over and over and over again by high ranking city officials saying that this project is going to happen with or without the 380.

rather than getting on board and doing something productive for the community by speaking into the ear of our Mayor, who has made several attempts to get feedback from the community of how this project can be made better, all they do is bury their heads in the sand and continue to deny the possibility that they soon will be a neighbor of walmart.

Come on s3mh and others, get yourself out of the hole, and try to make this development better by making reasonable suggestions, what a waste of time on your part.

If for some reason this development doesn't use the 380 and the walmart ends up looking like this (crappy gif and everything):

walmart.gif

I'll fly a hot air baloon over Heights and drop leaflets with examples of the type of involvement shown from members of this community as the reason walmart didn't work with the community to make the development more attractive, and 'fit in'.

Actually, people have made piles of suggestions. They were all ignored. Even what the developer said he was going to do at a public meeting did not even make it into the 380 agreement. All the 380 agreement requires onsite is that the developer try to construct in the style of the Heights. That is it. The developer is not required to put any trees on site, not required to build any walkways on the property, not required to keep any particular building configuration, and not even required to do anything other than build 75k sq ft of retail with an anchor. The developer is free to do whatever he wants, unless you really think the City is going to file suit to enforce the requirement that the developer "endeavor" to build in the style of the Heights.

This whole meme about community input and the 380 agreement being a tool to get the developer to make concessions has been a bunch of PR bull to try to get people to think that this is going to be good for the community. In the actual agreement, tax payers put as much money into the so-called "community improvements" as the developer gets in onsite storm water detention. And the developer doesn't have to do anything onsite. NOTHING. Not even what he said he was going to do in a public meeting!!!

This 380 agreement is simply an accounting trick to push the cost of public infrastructure improvements on to future City budgets. This makes the Mayor look good and leaves a budget mess for whoever is her successor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, people have made piles of suggestions. They were all ignored. Even what the developer said he was going to do at a public meeting did not even make it into the 380 agreement. All the 380 agreement requires onsite is that the developer try to construct in the style of the Heights. That is it. The developer is not required to put any trees on site, not required to build any walkways on the property, not required to keep any particular building configuration, and not even required to do anything other than build 75k sq ft of retail with an anchor. The developer is free to do whatever he wants, unless you really think the City is going to file suit to enforce the requirement that the developer "endeavor" to build in the style of the Heights.

This whole meme about community input and the 380 agreement being a tool to get the developer to make concessions has been a bunch of PR bull to try to get people to think that this is going to be good for the community. In the actual agreement, tax payers put as much money into the so-called "community improvements" as the developer gets in onsite storm water detention. And the developer doesn't have to do anything onsite. NOTHING. Not even what he said he was going to do in a public meeting!!!

This 380 agreement is simply an accounting trick to push the cost of public infrastructure improvements on to future City budgets. This makes the Mayor look good and leaves a budget mess for whoever is her successor.

Your story changes more than my hypercolor shirt did in 1987.

Enjoy living next to walmart, I'll enjoy shopping there.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...