Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Slick Vik

Limits to Growth

Recommended Posts

If you can find a way to create a mountain range or huge body of water to surround Houston then we will be able to combat sprawl. Until then, it's going to keep happening.

Or growth limits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or growth limits

 

Why would you impose artificial growth limits? They don't work, and aren't needed. When growth limits are imposed, people end up paying far more for less housing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you impose artificial growth limits? They don't work, and aren't needed. When growth limits are imposed, people end up paying far more for less housing.

Portland says hello.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Portland says hello.

I don't think you want to argue that growth limits in Portland have kept house prices lower than without the limits. Especially for single family homes that families like to live in. You know, with a yard, good schools nearby, and so on. I've never seen anything about Portland that makes it an attractive place to live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you want to argue that growth limits in Portland have kept house prices lower than without the limits. Especially for single family homes that families like to live in. You know, with a yard, good schools nearby, and so on. I've never seen anything about Portland that makes it an attractive place to live.

I'm not arguing that growth limits have helped keep house prices lower, but they have made Portland a dynamic and attractive place to live, that's undeniable.

I think there's a generational gap in your thinking. The young people now don't care so much about a yard, and with gentrification schools should improve naturally with population shifts.

Edited by Slick Vik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These stats may mean nothing, but a quick look shows that the median income/house price for Portland is $68,100/$257,000, while Houston is $68,100/$164,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These stats may mean nothing, but a quick look shows that the median income/house price for Portland is $68,100/$257,000, while Houston is $68,100/$164,000.

 

That means that Portland is great...for certain income brackets.  Artificially limiting growth will eventually lead to a city where the middle class is squeezed out (a la San Francisco).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That means that Portland is great...for certain income brackets. Artificially limiting growth will eventually lead to a city where the middle class is squeezed out (a la San Francisco).

Higher demand = more people want to live there because of higher quality of life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell us how you really feel

 

Portland's a great town to visit, but in my visits it's seemed to be 90% pasty white people and 10% asian.  Not diverse enough for my taste.  Of course, that could just be the demographics of the people who can afford to live and hangout in downtown Portland.

 

Higher demand = more people want to live there because of higher quality of life

 

Higher demand and less available housing = middle class squeezed out.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's a generational gap in your thinking. The young people now don't care so much about a yard, and with gentrification schools should improve naturally with population shifts.

 

Every generation thinks it's "different".  Yet a surprisingly high number of your generation will develop a taste for more space at less cost with a yard, too.  At best they'll demand the amenities and employment be moved out to where they live in the suburbs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every generation thinks it's "different". Yet a surprisingly high number of your generation will develop a taste for more space at less cost with a yard, too. At best they'll demand the amenities and employment be moved out to where they live in the suburbs.

Out of the people I know under 30, less then 5% live in suburbs, including people married with kids. People are sick of commuting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Portland's a great town to visit, but in my visits it's seemed to be 90% pasty white people and 10% asian. Not diverse enough for my taste. Of course, that could just be the demographics of the people who can afford to live and hangout in downtown Portland.

Higher demand and less available housing = middle class squeezed out.

So you support the fair housing act be implemented fully, which requires a percentage of affordable housing in all cities?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of the people I know under 30, less then 5% live in suburbs, including people married with kids.

Unedited quote left with emphasis added, no further comment.

On the highway itself (wrote this down, but didn't post somehow), I think it makes 290 very different looking (that area wasn't even limited access a decade ago!), it's a shame about that burial site, but it doesn't really encourage sprawl as that area was sprawling fast before.

So you support the fair housing act be implemented fully, which requires a percentage of affordable housing in all cities?

Believe or not, The Woodlands does have affordable housing included in the master plan designed by the late George Mitchell (a lengthy article on Mitchell and The Woodlands from 1994 is displayed in a physics building named after him at TAMU). Based on your other thoughts on the way cities should be, you seem like you would be the person to say you like cities but really want master planned communities, provided that they're higher density with residential above retail (and I'm not the first to suggest this).

Edited by IronTiger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every generation thinks it's "different". Yet a surprisingly high number of your generation will develop a taste for more space at less cost with a yard, too. At best they'll demand the amenities and employment be moved out to where they live in the suburbs.

I'm not so sure about that... The world is changing.

I really hope your wrong about that last part. I'm all for employment and amenities close to home, but suburbs are not a sustainable life style. If the people want to be close to employment and amenities they should stop being so stubborn and MOVE to where the employment and amenities are. Not try to force those things to move to the burbs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to live in a teeming metropolis with people squeezed into tiny hovels all around you, great... go for it!

 

A large portion of American society DOESN'T want that.

 

It's one of the great things about being American, we can all find somewhere we like and can afford. Personally, I wouldn't shed a tear at all if "downtown" disappeared tomorrow, since it holds zero interest for me, but I know others love it and I have no issue with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of the people I know under 30, less then 5% live in suburbs, including people married with kids. People are sick of commuting.

 

And that's exactly why 8 out of every 10 home sales occurs outside the loop...oh, wait a minute...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you support the fair housing act be implemented fully, which requires a percentage of affordable housing in all cities?

 

Is that aimed at middle class families?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure about that... The world is changing.

I really hope your wrong about that last part. I'm all for employment and amenities close to home, but suburbs are not a sustainable life style. If the people want to be close to employment and amenities they should stop being so stubborn and MOVE to where the employment and amenities are. Not try to force those things to move to the burbs.

 

People tend to move where they can afford the housing.  That's increasingly not inside the loop or even near it.  Those people also include decision makers who might find they can buy a much larger house and piece of land futher out than they can in the central core of the city.  The Woodlands, for instance, has some very pricy homes, far outside the reach of middle class workers.  Who's buying those?  Business owners.  Once they're out in the suburbs it's not a hard decsion to move the workplace as well.  Plus, it's cheaper to buy or build facilities on the outskirts rather than inside the loop.  That's driving a trend to distribute employment outwards.  It really all comes down to economics and you may need to experience the middle class squeeze yourself to really apreciate what drives peoples decisions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unedited quote left with emphasis added, no further comment.

On the highway itself (wrote this down, but didn't post somehow), I think it makes 290 very different looking (that area wasn't even limited access a decade ago!), it's a shame about that burial site, but it doesn't really encourage sprawl as that area was sprawling fast before.

Believe or not, The Woodlands does have affordable housing included in the master plan designed by the late George Mitchell (a lengthy article on Mitchell and The Woodlands from 1994 is displayed in a physics building named after him at TAMU). Based on your other thoughts on the way cities should be, you seem like you would be the person to say you like cities but really want master planned communities, provided that they're higher density with residential above retail (and I'm not the first to suggest this).

1. Has the woodlands incorporated this?

2. I know a lot of people.

3. Zoning is a master planned community? Way to twist words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's exactly why 8 out of every 10 home sales occurs outside the loop...oh, wait a minute...

Because they are cheap. Low quality of life is the reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People tend to move where they can afford the housing. That's increasingly not inside the loop or even near it. Those people also include decision makers who might find they can buy a much larger house and piece of land futher out than they can in the central core of the city. The Woodlands, for instance, has some very pricy homes, far outside the reach of middle class workers. Who's buying those? Business owners. Once they're out in the suburbs it's not a hard decsion to move the workplace as well. Plus, it's cheaper to buy or build facilities on the outskirts rather than inside the loop. That's driving a trend to distribute employment outwards. It really all comes down to economics and you may need to experience the middle class squeeze yourself to really apreciate what drives peoples decisions.

There are plenty of affordable areas in the loop as well but many people are simply afraid of poor people particularly those without white skin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think you have the right to tell me, or anybody else how or where we should live? Why are you so important that you get to decide these things for everyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Has the woodlands incorporated this?

2. I know a lot of people.

3. Zoning is a master planned community? Way to twist words.

Well, the article was from a 1994 issue of A&M Magazine, by which time The Woodlands had acquired places to work (no longer a bedroom community), had a few high-profile crimes, and so forth. George Mitchell even stated in said article that he wanted to The Woodlands to have a similar diversity makeup as Houston (and interestingly, in the mid-1990s, The Woodlands was slightly whiter than it is today). Now, do I know exactly where the affordable housing is? No, because I'm not too familiar with The Woodlands, but I'm guessing you aren't either.

As for "knowing a lot of people", you missed the point of well, your point. If you surround yourself with well-off (not exactly "rich", but enough with an income and a decent apartment) people who live in the city, vote liberal, etc. you're going to get a different viewpoint than the population as a whole.

As for "zoning is a master planned community", I never said that zoning was like a master planned community (who's twisting words here, again?), but you seem to have a viewpoint on the way things ought to be...all walkable, affordable housing in the area, high density, no surface lots, etc. You have a criteria built out in your mind, perhaps inspired by what you've seen in Europe or other places, and everything is doing it "wrong", from "Midtown shouldn't have surface lots at all" to "The suburbs ought to burn in hell" (I know you didn't say that last part, I'm just dramatizing things here). What you really WANT is an urban, master-planned community (New Urbanism, in fact) but would never admit to that fact as it would sound too commercialized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are plenty of affordable areas in the loop as well but many people are simply afraid of poor people particularly those without white skin.

 

Those affordable areas generally have smaller lots and old houses in various states of repair. Schools are an issue as well. And, the risk of ebing a property crime victim is much higher when you have the best stuff in the neighborhood.

 

We seriously considered buying 4 houses on the Near North Side (think Collingsworth and Hardy), tearing them down and building a single house in the middle. we gave up on that when we found a house we like on a large lot near the Heights.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because they are cheap. Low quality of life is the reason.

 

I'm afraid quality of life is a subjective measure and thus varys from person to person.  You may not like it but people have opinions of things that vary from your own.

 

Unfortunately, not everyone has the resources you have available and thus would be forced into an apartment, a house too small for their needs, a school distirct that gets poor marks and/or a high crime area in order to afford someting not in the suburbs.  Not surprisingly, many jump at the chance to get a decent sized house with a yard in a good school district.  Put yourself in someone else's shoes for a change.

 

There are plenty of affordable areas in the loop as well but many people are simply afraid of poor people particularly those without white skin.

 

Believe it or not, quite a few suburbanites in this city are not white.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to live in a teeming metropolis with people squeezed into tiny hovels all around you, great... go for it!

 

A large portion of American society DOESN'T want that.

 

It's one of the great things about being American, we can all find somewhere we like and can afford. Personally, I wouldn't shed a tear at all if "downtown" disappeared tomorrow, since it holds zero interest for me, but I know others love it and I have no issue with that.

 

Personally, I'd like to see downtown be mostly residential with the employment centers on the outskirts.  Then inside the loop would be a place to live and play and the commuting could be distributed out

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to live in a teeming metropolis with people squeezed into tiny hovels all around you, great... go for it!

A large portion of American society DOESN'T want that.

It's one of the great things about being American, we can all find somewhere we like and can afford. Personally, I wouldn't shed a tear at all if "downtown" disappeared tomorrow, since it holds zero interest for me, but I know others love it and I have no issue with that.

Sorry, I don't mean to offend you, but people with that type of thinking need to go **** themselves.. This world cannot sustain the "American lifestyle".. If everyone lived that way we would be deprived of our resources, be living in a wasteland, the world would be a terrible place for our future generations.. Environmental science should be a mandatory class for all students.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I don't mean to offend you, but people with that type of thinking need to go **** themselves.. This world cannot sustain the "American lifestyle".. If everyone lived that way we would be deprived of our resources, be living in a wasteland, the world would be a terrible place for our future generations.. Environmental science should be a mandatory class for all students.

 

Tell you what then, big shooter. You sell all your stuff, stop eating anything that you haven't grown yourself, stop using ANY resources that you haven't created... then I'll listen to you. Until then, kindly follow your own instructions and take some reality classes. No offense intended.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I don't mean to offend you, but people with that type of thinking need to go **** themselves.. This world cannot sustain the "American lifestyle".. If everyone lived that way we would be deprived of our resources, be living in a wasteland, the world would be a terrible place for our future generations.. Environmental science should be a mandatory class for all students.

 

Calm down a bit.  First of all, it's doubtful that everyone in the world will be able or may even want to live the "American lifestyle".  Even in America not everyone lives that way.  As resources become scarcer, prices go up and innovation and adaptation occurrs.  Been that way for all of human history.  Fair or not, wealthier nations are going to have more resource intensive lifestyles and less wealthy nations are going to have to make do.  Thats true now, that's been true in the past, and that will continue to be true in the future.  In a few hundred years, a pittance of time in both historical and geological senses, human population growth will hit it's zenith and then start to decline.  I'm quite sure that our resources and ingenuity will suffice until that happens.  Some people may not get to live the "American lifestyle" in the meantime, but that's just how it goes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I don't mean to offend you, but people with that type of thinking need to go **** themselves.. This world cannot sustain the "American lifestyle".. If everyone lived that way we would be deprived of our resources, be living in a wasteland, the world would be a terrible place for our future generations.. Environmental science should be a mandatory class for all students.

 

Are you saying we should all live in hovels, cheek to jowl, like some nightmare from 17th century London? Back to the days where life was short and brutish? Or, perhaps you would like the Stalinist model better, where the bathroom and kitchen are down the hall, but no one uses much in the way of resources, because there aren't any allocated to the masses.

 

Lots of us have actually taken environmental science courses. Sadly, many of them are taught by agenda toting professors whose goal is to force their way of thinking on everyone else, even when it's not reality based.

 

Edited by Ross

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Lots of us have actually taken environmental science courses. Sadly, many of them are taught by agenda toting professors whose goal is to force their way of thinking on everyone else, even when it's not reality based.

 

 

Indeed, during my time at Baylor in the mid-eighties an environmental science major friend of mine told me that in 20 or 30 years life as we knew it would come to a screeching halt due to overpopulation, pollution and lack of resources.  Here we are, almost 30 years later and life is much the same.

 

"Life in the wide world goes on much as it has this past Age, full of its own comings and goings" - Gandalf, "The Fellowship of the Rings"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, during my time at Baylor in the mid-eighties an environmental science major friend of mine told me that in 20 or 30 years life as we knew it would come to a screeching halt due to overpopulation, pollution and lack of resources.  Here we are, almost 30 years later and life is much the same.

 

"Life in the wide world goes on much as it has this past Age, full of its own comings and goings" - Gandalf, "The Fellowship of the Rings"

 

 

I would argue that life is far better, if slightly less predictable. Our vehicles are better built, pollute less, use less fuel, and are safer, our air is cleaner, our water is cleaner, we produce food surpluses on a regular basis, etc. I commented to a friend recently that I used to spend an inordinate amount of time maintaining my car. These days, I spens almost no time on vehicle maintenance.

 

And, on the topic, our roads are far better engineered and built.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying we should all live in hovels, cheek to jowl, like some nightmare from 17th century London? Back to the days where life was short and brutish? Or, perhaps you would like the Stalinist model better, where the bathroom and kitchen are down the hall, but no one uses much in the way of resources, because there aren't any allocated to the masses.

Lots of us have actually taken environmental science courses. Sadly, many of them are taught by agenda toting professors whose goal is to force their way of thinking on everyone else, even when it's not reality based.

Sprawl and suburbia are simply not sustainable. The america dream of owning a house with a big yard and garage is BS, propaganda from those who had in interest in seeing that reality go forward. Most people would be better off in apartments financially but we tempt them into living in houses with American dream mantras and easy access to loans. Similar to engagement rings needing to be diamonds, all marketing.

Well, the article was from a 1994 issue of A&M Magazine, by which time The Woodlands had acquired places to work (no longer a bedroom community), had a few high-profile crimes, and so forth. George Mitchell even stated in said article that he wanted to The Woodlands to have a similar diversity makeup as Houston (and interestingly, in the mid-1990s, The Woodlands was slightly whiter than it is today). Now, do I know exactly where the affordable housing is? No, because I'm not too familiar with The Woodlands, but I'm guessing you aren't either.

As for "knowing a lot of people", you missed the point of well, your point. If you surround yourself with well-off (not exactly "rich", but enough with an income and a decent apartment) people who live in the city, vote liberal, etc. you're going to get a different viewpoint than the population as a whole.

As for "zoning is a master planned community", I never said that zoning was like a master planned community (who's twisting words here, again?), but you seem to have a viewpoint on the way things ought to be...all walkable, affordable housing in the area, high density, no surface lots, etc. You have a criteria built out in your mind, perhaps inspired by what you've seen in Europe or other places, and everything is doing it "wrong", from "Midtown shouldn't have surface lots at all" to "The suburbs ought to burn in hell" (I know you didn't say that last part, I'm just dramatizing things here). What you really WANT is an urban, master-planned community (New Urbanism, in fact) but would never admit to that fact as it would sound too commercialized.

I worked in the woodlands for a couple of years, don't recall ever seeing affordable housing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would argue that life is far better, if slightly less predictable. Our vehicles are better built, pollute less, use less fuel, and are safer, our air is cleaner, our water is cleaner, we produce food surpluses on a regular basis, etc. I commented to a friend recently that I used to spend an inordinate amount of time maintaining my car. These days, I spens almost no time on vehicle maintenance.

 

And, on the topic, our roads are far better engineered and built.

 

 

And it's pretty cool to have another option from the west side of town to Austin.  More choices in transit.  Gotta love that.  Going to try it out tomorrow.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those affordable areas generally have smaller lots and old houses in various states of repair. Schools are an issue as well. And, the risk of ebing a property crime victim is much higher when you have the best stuff in the neighborhood.

We seriously considered buying 4 houses on the Near North Side (think Collingsworth and Hardy), tearing them down and building a single house in the middle. we gave up on that when we found a house we like on a large lot near the Heights.

How about New York where there is rent stabilization?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, sorry.. ive been dealing with too many ignorant people today and finally had to let it out. 
agreed some environmental science classes are flawed and the teachers can be biased, though ive taken multiple environmental science classes from grade schools to prestigious universities..
there was a simulation program that showed that if everyone lived like us, it would require about 6 earths to sustain that life style...
and of course im using up resources, we are all slaves to the corporate/modern world.. but that doesnt mean you have to go out and live your life style to the point its so extravagant that your diminishing other peoples lives. i guess im just considerate of others and want the world to be a decent place to live for my descendants.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I'd like to see downtown be mostly residential with the employment centers on the outskirts. Then inside the loop would be a place to live and play and the commuting could be distributed out

Why should employment centers be on the outskirts?

Calm down a bit. First of all, it's doubtful that everyone in the world will be able or may even want to live the "American lifestyle". Even in America not everyone lives that way. As resources become scarcer, prices go up and innovation and adaptation occurrs. Been that way for all of human history. Fair or not, wealthier nations are going to have more resource intensive lifestyles and less wealthy nations are going to have to make do. Thats true now, that's been true in the past, and that will continue to be true in the future. In a few hundred years, a pittance of time in both historical and geological senses, human population growth will hit it's zenith and then start to decline. I'm quite sure that our resources and ingenuity will suffice until that happens. Some people may not get to live the "American lifestyle" in the meantime, but that's just how it goes.

So basically screw the rest of the world we will continue to drain the world's resources for our enjoyment because we can

Indeed, during my time at Baylor in the mid-eighties an environmental science major friend of mine told me that in 20 or 30 years life as we knew it would come to a screeching halt due to overpopulation, pollution and lack of resources. Here we are, almost 30 years later and life is much the same.

"Life in the wide world goes on much as it has this past Age, full of its own comings and goings" - Gandalf, "The Fellowship of the Rings"

Overpopulation is the biggest global problem at the moment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would argue that life is far better, if slightly less predictable. Our vehicles are better built, pollute less, use less fuel, and are safer, our air is cleaner, our water is cleaner, we produce food surpluses on a regular basis, etc. I commented to a friend recently that I used to spend an inordinate amount of time maintaining my car. These days, I spens almost no time on vehicle maintenance.

And, on the topic, our roads are far better engineered and built.

There are more vehicles worldwide = more pollution

Food surpluses? Tell that to east Africa

Water supplies are becoming contaminated domestically due to fracking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should employment centers be on the outskirts?

So basically screw the rest of the world we will continue to drain the world's resources for our enjoyment because we can

Overpopulation is the biggest global problem at the moment

 

Overpopulation is a non-problem, or at best a localized, temporary problem.  Long term, as economies mature the birthrate dips to below replacement.  That's been documented back as far as the Roman Empire.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should employment centers be on the outskirts?

So basically screw the rest of the world we will continue to drain the world's resources for our enjoyment because we can

 

 

Employment centers should be moved to where the people are choosing to live.  Less cross town traffic and fewer commute miles that way.

 

I could say this is really the way the world has always worked, but perhaps you should also do your part by jet-setting less.

 

Edited by august948

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Rent Control Is the Real New York Scandal"

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB122126309241530485

So it's not good to help the middle class stay in dynamic areas? You can't have it both ways

Overpopulation is a non-problem, or at best a localized, temporary problem. Long term, as economies mature the birthrate dips to below replacement. That's been documented back as far as the Roman Empire.

You're absolutely delusional. The population is seven billion and growing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's not good to help the middle class stay in dynamic areas? You can't have it both ways

 

Read the article.  It's not benefiting the middle class in NYC.  That's why they are fleeing (or being pushed out) to places like Houston.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Employment centers should be moved to where the people are choosing to live. Less cross town traffic and fewer commute miles that way.

I could say this is really the way the world has always worked, but perhaps you should also do your part by jet-setting less.

Major companies tend to be in city centers. They aren't going to all move to suburbs. Some will but most won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the article. It's not benefiting the middle class in NYC. That's why they are fleeing (or being pushed out) to places like Houston.

I don't interpret it that way, sorry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are more vehicles worldwide = more pollution

Food surpluses? Tell that to east Africa

Water supplies are becoming contaminated domestically due to fracking

 

Lack of food in East Africa is a transportation issue, not a food issue.. Besides, most of the famines in that part of the world are due to political upheaval, and the subsequent flight of refugees to safer locations

 

You are utterly clueless about fracking and its impact on water supplies. Are you still getting all of your information on the topic from the fictional Gasland movies?

 

How do you expect people in developing countries to get around? Walk? They do that now. That's why there's little mobility , except for a very motivated few. When I worked in Africa, the goal of every one of our employees was to save enough money to buy a car, increasing their independence, and making it possible to live a better life.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...