Jump to content

The Pointe At Bayou Bend: Affordable Housing At 800 Middle St.


BeerNut

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Avossos said:

 

It is a pretty cool concept. I like the idea... Doesn't have to be a big percentage at all... 5% or 10% of new buildings are rent controlled or whatever. I wouldn't think those units would be as 'nice' or premier in any way; but it makes for a diverse area.

That's what one would think but it's not how it plays out 99% of the time with the selection process being extremely un-transparent. I can't believe this is still an idea in 2020, especially in a place as affordable as Houston. There are large one bedrooms going for 800 in some areas like woodland heights which are expensive. 

 

Btw it starts with this idea and then people start demanding that they be equal units or otherwise they are demeaning to the people inside them. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Avossos said:

 

It is a pretty cool concept. I like the idea... Doesn't have to be a big percentage at all... 5% or 10% of new buildings are rent controlled or whatever. I wouldn't think those units would be as 'nice' or premier in any way; but it makes for a diverse area.

 

San Francisco is not a place to be emulated. Besides, its not really necessary in Houston. Houston has the most affordable housing of any big city in the country, partly due to our free market principles. No need to undermine them with an idea that has never actually worked in practice and doesn't actually lower housing costs.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Big E said:

 

San Francisco is not a place to be emulated. Besides, its not really necessary in Houston. Houston has the most affordable housing of any big city in the country, partly due to our free market principles. No need to undermine them with an idea that has never actually worked in practice and doesn't actually lower housing costs.

 

Its not even a bad idea on the face of it. Would it be great to have a better mix of different kinds of people living together, sure. History has proven that one of the best ways of lessening or at least dampening inequality of any kind is to find ways for those at the bottom to access ways to climb to the top. Lower income people with at least some access to higher income people would give them more opportunities to interact with each other. People with higher means who have more contact with those of lower income will gain more empathy to help those in need which will then help lower income gain more access/opportunity to get more means for themselves. While this is something we should do, how should we approach it? In nearly every instance when a top-down solution has been proposed to eradicate inequality, all it does is make it worse because it ends up feeling forced which only brings resentment instead of empathy. Plus with any top-down proposal the question that has to always be asked is who makes that decision? Even more important, can the person proposing the idea make a promise that this will always be carried out in good faith or ones who are benevolent instead malevolence? Thats a promise nobody can ever make. These ideas always have the veneer of being good ideas because they only solve surface level issues, but never deeper issues. You also can't solve something like inequality by some hypothetical number. The best we can ever hope for is to at least keep the level of inequality tolerable or as low as possible. The free market is best equipped to do that because only the best ideas float to the top in a free market. Notice I said best, and not some hypothetical perfect ideal.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's a rose-colored perception of the free market, but the larger problem with mandating a percentage of otherwise market-rate housing meet some definition of affordability is that, by definition, that will never produce enough affordable housing. The numbers are flipped - there are far more people who need affordable/workforce housing than there are people who can afford market-rate housing (until it naturally decreases in cost.) It is, at best, a bandaid. It's not really a solution.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Texasota said:

I think that's a rose-colored perception of the free market, but the larger problem with mandating a percentage of otherwise market-rate housing meet some definition of affordability is that, by definition, that will never produce enough affordable housing. The numbers are flipped - there are far more people who need affordable/workforce housing than there are people who can afford market-rate housing (until it naturally decreases in cost.) It is, at best, a bandaid. It's not really a solution.

 

There is no such thing as "rose-colored perception of the free market". That is merely your opinion not a statement of fact. You are free to like or not like the facts because its ok to have your own opinion. However, by placing your opinion/perception as a modifier to the term free market means that you asking the free market to put you and your opinion as a priority, and that is not how the free market operates. The free market is absent of personal opinion because its not something, in of itself, that is mere opinion, but is rather an observation of the real world and how market forces act in an environment where the free exchange of labor exists. Its not our opinion that matters in how it operates, but instead what we do with those facts or reality. In the same manner, it would be like I reacted to the fact that, everyone dies at some point, by saying that this fact in my opinion is a "grim perception of death". There is no "grim perception of death". There is just death because that is reality. Me saying "grim perception" is just my opinion that holds no sway over death because the fact that "everyone dies at some point" is an observation of fact about reality, not something that is mere opinion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, iah77 said:

That's what one would think but it's not how it plays out 99% of the time with the selection process being extremely un-transparent. I can't believe this is still an idea in 2020, especially in a place as affordable as Houston. There are large one bedrooms going for 800 in some areas like woodland heights which are expensive. 

 

Btw it starts with this idea and then people start demanding that they be equal units or otherwise they are demeaning to the people inside them. 

 

how does the selection process happen now?

 

it's not a suggestion to change the process of selecting the right resident, it's a suggestion that all housing have accommodations for the people who already qualify.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Luminare said:

 

There is no such thing as "rose-colored perception of the free market". That is merely your opinion not a statement of fact. You are free to like or not like the facts because its ok to have your own opinion. However, by placing your opinion/perception as a modifier to the term free market means that you asking the free market to put you and your opinion as a priority, and that is not how the free market operates. The free market is absent of personal opinion because its not something, in of itself, that is mere opinion, but is rather an observation of the real world and how market forces act in an environment where the free exchange of labor exists. Its not our opinion that matters in how it operates, but instead what we do with those facts or reality. In the same manner, it would be like I reacted to the fact that, everyone dies at some point, by saying that this fact in my opinion is a "grim perception of death". There is no "grim perception of death". There is just death because that is reality. Me saying "grim perception" is just my opinion that holds no sway over death because the fact that "everyone dies at some point" is an observation of fact about reality, not something that is mere opinion.

 

You do realize that the "free market", even absent government regulation, is ultimately a collection of actions and responses taken by individual humans and businesses, and therefore just as susceptible to human error as everything else in the world, right?

 

The market *can* self-correct for errors over time, but that's not instantaneous and bad things can happen during that correction period.

 

Also, the market really only values one thing - profit. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, but that means that there are lots of problems that it's just not well adapted to addressing. 

 

Edited by Texasota
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and it's not like we live in a truly free market anyway.

 

there are incentives to build in specific areas, there are restrictions on how big you can build based on traffic pasterns, there are parking requirements.

 

regarding making some form of regulation about percentage of every apartment offering low income, at the end of the day, bad implementations of good ideas shouldn't result in never trying to fix the problems and make it work. it's still (in principle) a good idea. it is said that Edison had 1000 unsuccessful attempts at inventing the light bulb before actually hitting on the solution. 

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

55 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Source?  (It seems highly unlikely)

I know, this is literally one of the craziest things I've ever heard on here. Literally a place with one of the highest purchasing power indexes in the United States needs more free stuff for people with iphones and nice cars. People here have clearly never seen what real poverty looks like in a global context  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was definitely hyperbole  - it would have been better if I had said that something like a 10% affordability requirement would come woefully short of meeting the demand. The city's affordable housing waitlist as it stands is *years* right now. 

 

It is also absolutely true that Houston's housing costs are still far lower than places like DC, San Francisco, Vancouver, or New York. There most market rate housing absolutely is outside of the range of affordability for the average household.

 

For reference, here's the Texas Tribune's take on housing cost increases in the state: https://www.texastribune.org/2020/01/31/texas-renters-struggle-find-affordable-housing-2020-harvard-report/

 

As someone who doesn't live in Houston anymore, I sometimes forget that, even though the city is a lot more expensive than I remember it being, it's still a lot more affordable than the last few places I've lived. 

 

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

8 hours ago, Texasota said:

 

You do realize that the "free market", even absent government regulation, is ultimately a collection of actions and responses taken by individual humans and businesses, and therefore just as susceptible to human error as everything else in the world, right?

 

The market *can* self-correct for errors over time, but that's not instantaneous and bad things can happen during that correction period.

 

Also, the market really only values one thing - profit. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, but that means that there are lots of problems that it's just not well adapted to addressing. 

 

 

The market "does" correct itself over time. Its not a static thing and its not something being dictated to from top to bottom. Its an organic thing that is more apt to change with reality than any other method of allocating resources because its actually based on the supply and demand of said resources. From that standpoint, a truly free market is never really wrong, because it is based on an objective reality, just like an accurate population pyramid isn't wrong. But the free market can be distorted, by various means, the most common being bad government policy.

 

8 hours ago, samagon said:

and it's not like we live in a truly free market anyway.

 

there are incentives to build in specific areas, there are restrictions on how big you can build based on traffic pasterns, there are parking requirements.

 

regarding making some form of regulation about percentage of every apartment offering low income, at the end of the day, bad implementations of good ideas shouldn't result in never trying to fix the problems and make it work. it's still (in principle) a good idea. it is said that Edison had 1000 unsuccessful attempts at inventing the light bulb before actually hitting on the solution. 

 

Houston has the freest market you will ever find, at least in the area of housing and development. Meanwhile, the San Francisco Bay Area has one of the most distorted, controlled markets you will ever find and the differences are stark. We still live in a free market, with the free exchange of goods and services, it just isn't a laissez faire market. 

 

A lot of ideas sound good on paper. Socialism and communism sound good to some people on paper. Pyramid schemes sound good to people on paper. Its that pesky real world application that lays waste to the best laid plans. Some ideas have no good implementation because the very idea is fundamentally flawed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/12/2020 at 3:23 AM, Big E said:

 

San Francisco is not a place to be emulated. Besides, its not really necessary in Houston. Houston has the most affordable housing of any big city in the country, partly due to our free market principles. No need to undermine them with an idea that has never actually worked in practice and doesn't actually lower housing costs.

 

Even if we have the most, it doesn't mean that there is enough or that it's distributed evenly.

 

On 5/11/2020 at 4:43 PM, iah77 said:

That's what one would think but it's not how it plays out 99% of the time with the selection process being extremely un-transparent. I can't believe this is still an idea in 2020, especially in a place as affordable as Houston. There are large one bedrooms going for 800 in some areas like woodland heights which are expensive. 

 

Btw it starts with this idea and then people start demanding that they be equal units or otherwise they are demeaning to the people inside them. 

 

19 hours ago, iah77 said:

I know, this is literally one of the craziest things I've ever heard on here. Literally a place with one of the highest purchasing power indexes in the United States needs more free stuff for people with iphones and nice cars. People here have clearly never seen what real poverty looks like in a global context  

 

20 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Source?  (It seems highly unlikely)

 

I would encourage all of you to read the new Affordable Housing and Sustainable Transportation report that was published by LINK Houston and the Kinder Institute last week.

 

https://kinder.rice.edu/urbanedge/2020/05/05/affordable-housing-and-sustainable-transportation-houston

 

Full report is on this site: https://kinder.rice.edu/research/where-affordable-housing-and-transportation-meet-houston

 

TLDR is that large swathes of census blocks across the city do not have adequate access to affordable housing. Most of the East End actually does.

 

L1Ddory.png

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Interestingly, the locations of the affordable housing project being discussed here are in the areas marked as having good transportation but low supply of affordable housing.  Seems like a perfect location.

 

I actually asked about them a little about this in regards to the projects that Houston city council approved recently. They said that HHA uses some transportation data, but it's not nearly this granular. Part of the reason they did this study was to develop tools to provide to people like HHA and other organizations to help make smarter investments. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, wilcal said:

 

I actually asked about them a little about this in regards to the projects that Houston city council approved recently. They said that HHA uses some transportation data, but it's not nearly this granular. Part of the reason they did this study was to develop tools to provide to people like HHA and other organizations to help make smarter investments. 

 

 

 

If so, it sounds as if HHA may have stumbled into a good location.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Interestingly, the locations of the affordable housing project being discussed here are in the areas marked as having good transportation but low supply of affordable housing.  Seems like a perfect location.

I believe you appear to have overlooked the downtown, Washington Avenue, Montrose, River Oaks, Rice Village, Rice Military, Heights, Woodland Heights and Galleria areas.... Or that the larger of the two projects is in an oversupplied "blue" zone. HTH

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/12/2020 at 9:28 PM, Big E said:

 

Houston has the freest market you will ever find, at least in the area of housing and development. Meanwhile, the San Francisco Bay Area has one of the most distorted, controlled markets you will ever find and the differences are stark. We still live in a free market, with the free exchange of goods and services, it just isn't a laissez faire market. 

 

A lot of ideas sound good on paper. Socialism and communism sound good to some people on paper. Pyramid schemes sound good to people on paper. Its that pesky real world application that lays waste to the best laid plans. Some ideas have no good implementation because the very idea is fundamentally flawed.

 

it certainly is one of the freest markets as far as regulations, but that doesn't mean it isn't devoid of regulations. we have our fair share of regulations. some of them are good, some of them are bad.

 

are we sure it is a bad idea, or is it maybe a good idea that has been poorly implemented (and maybe it's implemented well enough, but is impacted by other factors) in the places that have been referenced as proof that it is bad? all I've seen so far are people saying it's a bad idea because cost of living in NYC and SF are super high. well, those places have some geographical limitations that cause the cost of living to suck. Houston's geographic limitations are not really existent, so that's not a thing for us. those other locations have other forces working on cost of living that Houston would not be limited by.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/12/2020 at 9:28 PM, Big E said:

 

The market "does" correct itself over time. Its not a static thing and its not something being dictated to from top to bottom. Its an organic thing that is more apt to change with reality than any other method of allocating resources because its actually based on the supply and demand of said resources. From that standpoint, a truly free market is never really wrong, because it is based on an objective reality, just like an accurate population pyramid isn't wrong. But the free market can be distorted, by various means, the most common being bad government policy.

 

There are some rather convincing arguments that there is no such thing as a "truly free market," and that what we call "free markets" are based on a very considerable amount of constraint. Almost all human societies, if left to themselves, will create some form of protectionism. In the industrial revolution, governments employed considerable coercive powers to create "free markets" and strip away local protections at the behest of industrialists and bankers. These free markets are no more objectively real and quite a bit less natural (if we view "natural" as "what has existed in most human societies over time") than the world of local protections that came before. See Karl Polanyi's work.

 

 

Edited by H-Town Man
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, samagon said:

 

it certainly is one of the freest markets as far as regulations, but that doesn't mean it isn't devoid of regulations. we have our fair share of regulations. some of them are good, some of them are bad.

 

are we sure it is a bad idea, or is it maybe a good idea that has been poorly implemented (and maybe it's implemented well enough, but is impacted by other factors) in the places that have been referenced as proof that it is bad? all I've seen so far are people saying it's a bad idea because cost of living in NYC and SF are super high. well, those places have some geographical limitations that cause the cost of living to suck. Houston's geographic limitations are not really existent, so that's not a thing for us. those other locations have other forces working on cost of living that Houston would not be limited by.

 

When poorly implemented every time you try it, it should tell you something. Similar arguments have been made for both Communism and Socialism ("REAL communism has been tried yet"), and it falls flat every time its made.

 

As for NYC and SF, yes, there are geographic limitations for them... as there are for Houston as well (a swampy, forested region and lake to the east, as well as a bay to the Southeast), but "affordable" housing has only exacerbated their housing crisis, not helped them. They limit the amount of market based housing, further raising rents and home costs, and discourage otherwise viable building projects. At this point in SF, there is more "affordable" (read "subsidized", because that's what it is) housing available than market rate housing, and nobody can afford a house except the rich.

 

What actually makes housing affordable is encouraging the increase of the housing supply, which cities often artificially constrain with prohibitive planning and permitting processes (which often give undue influence to NIMBYs and community interests that oppose any kind of development), unreasonable land use regulations (such as decades old zoning laws), and other broken regulations like rent control (SF is also infamous for all three of these things: did you know that around half of SF is actually zoned for single family housing). Houston isn't just cheaper than New York and SF, its cheaper to live here than many other major cities in America, including other Sunbelt Cities like Dallas, with only San Antonio being more affordable (SA commonly appears in lists of the most affordable cities to live in the United States). However, Houston, if it had adopted the policies of other northern cities could very easily have become more expensive to live in.

 

13 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

There are some rather convincing arguments that there is no such thing as a "truly free market," and that what we call "free markets" are based on a very considerable amount of constraint. Almost all human societies, if left to themselves, will create some form of protectionism. In the industrial revolution, governments employed considerable coercive powers to create "free markets" and strip away local protections at the behest of industrialists and bankers. These free markets are no more objectively real and quite a bit less natural (if we view "natural" as "what has existed in most human societies over time") than the world of local protections that came before. See Karl Polanyi's work.

 

 

 

The idea that a "truly free market" has never been tried is actually a common argument among libertarians, classical liberals, minarchists, and anarcho-capitalists as well. They argue that a truly free, liberal system has never actually been attempted, though other methods of organizing labor, commerce, and government have, to mixed success, so people should try their way to see if it works.

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

7 hours ago, Big E said:

 

When poorly implemented every time you try it, it should tell you something. Similar arguments have been made for both Communism and Socialism ("REAL communism has been tried yet"), and it falls flat every time its made.

 

As for NYC and SF, yes, there are geographic limitations for them... as there are for Houston as well (a swampy, forested region and lake to the east, as well as a bay to the Southeast), but "affordable" housing has only exacerbated their housing crisis, not helped them. They limit the amount of market based housing, further raising rents and home costs, and discourage otherwise viable building projects. At this point in SF, there is more "affordable" (read "subsidized", because that's what it is) housing available than market rate housing, and nobody can afford a house except the rich.

 

What actually makes housing affordable is encouraging the increase of the housing supply, which cities often artificially constrain with prohibitive planning and permitting processes (which often give undue influence to NIMBYs and community interests that oppose any kind of development), unreasonable land use regulations (such as decades old zoning laws), and other broken regulations like rent control (SF is also infamous for all three of these things: did you know that around half of SF is actually zoned for single family housing). Houston isn't just cheaper than New York and SF, its cheaper to live here than many other major cities in America, including other Sunbelt Cities like Dallas, with only San Antonio being more affordable (SA commonly appears in lists of the most affordable cities to live in the United States). However, Houston, if it had adopted the policies of other northern cities could very easily have become more expensive to live in.

 

 

The idea that a "truly free market" has never been tried is actually a common argument among libertarians, classical liberals, minarchists, and anarcho-capitalists as well. They argue that a truly free, liberal system has never actually been attempted, though other methods of organizing labor, commerce, and government have, to mixed success, so people should try their way to see if it works.

 

But to the extent that markets have become more "free," it has been based on coercion and does not resemble a natural state of human affairs. That's Polanyi's argument. Britain forcing China to engage in trade and the U.S. forcing Japan to open up at gunpoint are not "free."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

 

But to the extent that markets have become more "free," it has been based on coercion and does not resemble a natural state of human affairs. That's Polanyi's argument. Britain forcing China to engage in trade and the U.S. forcing Japan to open up at gunpoint are not "free."

 

And most libertarians would tell you that they aren't examples of a "free market" and weren't motivated by the countries desiring such. However, America forcibly opening Japan did more good for Japan in the long run than if Japan had remained a closed, backward feudal society. It was that opening that forced Japan to modernize. Britain was primarily motivated by imperialist, mercantilism based ambitions in its operations in China, not "free market" ambitions in any real sense of the word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Big E said:

 

And most libertarians would tell you that they aren't examples of a "free market" and weren't motivated by the countries desiring such. However, America forcibly opening Japan did more good for Japan in the long run than if Japan had remained a closed, backward feudal society. It was that opening that forced Japan to modernize. Britain was primarily motivated by imperialist, mercantilism based ambitions in its operations in China, not "free market" ambitions in any real sense of the word.

 

They might not have been perfect examples of "free markets," but almost anyone who favors market freedom and economic liberalism would say that those were moves in the direction of more "freedom." And the point that Polanyi makes is that most of the historic changes that we describe as moves toward "market freedom" were coercive measures done by governments against the wishes of local people. Britain certainly was motivated by economic interests and was cheered by "free trade" proponents. I am agnostic as to whether Japan benefitted in the long run; it has nothing to do with the point I'm making.

 

Your argument, by the way, is sort of like a Marxist saying "Well all those historical examples you give were not true examples of communism; no one has ever tried true communism."

Edited by H-Town Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/16/2020 at 9:31 AM, H-Town Man said:

 

They might not have been perfect examples of "free markets," but almost anyone who favors market freedom and economic liberalism would say that those were moves in the direction of more "freedom." And the point that Polanyi makes is that most of the historic changes that we describe as moves toward "market freedom" were coercive measures done by governments against the wishes of local people. Britain certainly was motivated by economic interests and was cheered by "free trade" proponents. I am agnostic as to whether Japan benefitted in the long run; it has nothing to do with the point I'm making.

 

Your argument, by the way, is sort of like a Marxist saying "Well all those historical examples you give were not true examples of communism; no one has ever tried true communism."

 

Depends on how you understand free markets. People will say they moved toward more economic freedom, because they opened up feudal, closed societies to modern trade. Coercive? Yes. In the same way that imperialism was also coercive. But such coercion has been the norm for the entirety of history. It just took a slightly different form in these instances to what it usually is, which is direct conquest. And ultimately, it did open markets up to world wide trade, which is why free trade proponents of the time period cheered it. But you will find no proponents of free trade cheering those on today, and such coercive actions aren't really necessary in a modern context.

 

Polanyi's point is not that different from those made by classical liberals and their descendants: coercive methods of organizing the economy were the norm throughout history, and truly free trade and economic liberalism have never been implemented in any real form, and actually represent a truly revolutionary form of organizing labor and the economy different from others in the past. Where he differs from them is that he saw a socialist society as an inevitable result. Keep in mind that Polanyi himself was of the socialist belief system and his wife was at one point a communist.

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

22 hours ago, Big E said:

 

Depends on how you understand free markets. People will say they moved toward more economic freedom, because they opened up feudal, closed societies to modern trade. Coercive? Yes. In the same way that imperialism was also coercive. But such coercion has been the norm for the entirety of history. It just took a slightly different form in these instances to what it usually is, which is direct conquest. And ultimately, it did open markets up world wide trade, which is why free trade proponents of the time period cheered it. But you will find no proponents of free trade cheering those on today, and such coercive actions aren't really necessary in a modern context.

 

Polanyi's point is not that different from those made by classical liberals and their descendants: coercive methods of organizing the economy were the norm throughout history, and truly free trade and economic liberalism have never been implemented in any real form, and actually represent a truly revolutionary form of organizing labor and the economy different from others in the past. Where he differs from them is that he saw a socialist society as an inevitable result. Keep in mind that Polanyi himself was of the socialist belief system and his wife was at one point a communist.

 

Polanyi's point was that local protections had existed throughout history, and the removal of local protections in the industrial era to create "free markets" was unnatural. Too easy to characterize him as simply a socialist; what he wanted was the return of a patchwork of local systems and controls, not economies imposed by central governments (whether of the Leftist, communist kind, or the Rightist, "free market" kind).

 

To bring this back to Houston, the analogy to zoning would be that neighborhoods should have some control over what is built in them - since that is the norm for cities and villages throughout history. One would have trouble finding many cities in history that said, "anyone can build what he wants wherever he has land." To Polanyi, the "free market" in development is unnatural; local protections are natural.

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...