Local Election and Propositions

by Jack

The following candidates are my best picks for Chico City Council.  None of the three are perfect, but considering who might get elected if they don’t, I’ll go with these:

  • Andrew Coolidge
  • Matt Gallaway
  • Kasey Reynolds

After reviewing the ballot measures and a forum on the issues, here is how I am voting…and keep in mind Tina might have a slightly different take, this is just the way I see it.

PROP 1
Housing Bonds

NO – It’s just more socialism and they are proposing it as a Vets Housing program, which is on partially true.  The biggest share, or $1.5 billion, would go toward the construction and rehabilitation of permanent and transitional rental housing and apartments (aka future ghettos)  for California households who earn of up to 60 percent of the area median income (about $41,000 in the Los Angeles metro area).

The second biggest portion of the $3 billion, about $150 million, would be earmarked for cities, counties, transit agencies, and developers to build higher density housing near transit stations.

 The idealistic socialists would love to have low end welfare and wage earners (and eventually all of us) living in high rises close to the subways so we can do away with evil cars.     

PROP 2

Amends Mental Health Services Act

NO – Same as above, more ridiculous utopian BS.  The State of CA created the problem that they want us to solve by throwing money at it.

CA has created a major problem with too many entitlements and look what happened.  It’s no wonder we’ve become a magnet for the nation’s mentally ill and unemployables.  Now we’re supposed to take care of these expensive problem-people from many other states?   No thanks.  CA handling of the homeless situation has been nothing short of a disaster – instead we should do a cutback in services and substitute that with “free” bus tickets out of state for those who don’t like it.

PROP 3
Water Bond

NO -  Been there done that.

PROP 4
Construction bonds

NO  – We’ve passed enough of these.  Only people behind are unions.

PROP 5
Property Tax Requirement Changes

YES – Will help stimulate real estate market.  The real estate money will generate tax revenue and help us keep the state in the black.

PROP 6
Repeal the Gas Tax

YES ABSOLUTELY – this tax is hurting the poorest among us, what were the democrats thinking?

A YES vote on Prop 6 will repeal the new $52 billion gas and car taxes. We support Prop 6.

PROP 7
Permanent Daylight Savings Time

Indifferent – Doesn’t matter that much one way or the other

PROP 8
Regulation of Dialysis Clinics

NO -  Flawed, very flawed.

PROP 10
Rent Control –

NO -  Once again the State tries to ratchet up socialism.  These liberals just can’t help it,  they are desperately trying to defy the law of supply and demand and overturn capitalism in favor of un-workable socialism.    BIG NO.  I want these bums out of my wallet!

PROP 11
Ambulance Employee Rules

YES – These professionals are woefully under-paid.  Typically they make around $16 an hour.  That’s about what a clerk makes in the bay area.  Yet they are highly trained, tested, licensed and must meet the strictest of standards!   Typically they work 12 hour shifts and are on call the entire time.   Giving them an hour pay for being called out while on a break is not much, but its a step in the right direction.

PROP 12
Farm Animal Confinement -  I’m all for the humane treatment of animals. I don’t think this prop is asking too much.  They need living space to turn around or lay down.  The chicken industry is where most of the problems stem and that’s basically why we have a Prop 12.

NO

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Local Election and Propositions

  1. Pie Guevara says:

    Thanks for the recommendations. I concur that for Chico City Council Galloway, Reynolds and Coolidge are people I can vote for, but why not Jon Scott instead of one of the others?

    The following are excerpts from an ER article covering a debate —

    On a question of whether they would support new taxes, only Coolidge, Gallaway and Scott were clearly opposed.

    Scott … repeatedly hammered on the need for pension reform.

    The law [sit/lie ordinance] expired Jan. 1, 2016, but the police have asked the council to reinstate it. Reynolds, Gallaway and Scott supported bringing the law back.

    Coolidge supported restoring the law [sit/lie ordinance] as part of a package that would include the Simplicity Village tiny house project. HUH? Coolidge wants to invite more bums to Chico? Simplicity Village would be a huge magnet.

    I would like to see more Post Scripts authors and followers give their views on Galloway, Reynolds, Coolidge and Scott. (Where is Bruce Sessions when we need him? Bless you Bruce, you were a positive force in this world.)

  2. Paul says:

    I’m voting for Jon Scott, the only person brave enough to do anything about the pension situation. (He also will not tolerate all the transient nonsense.)

    And if no one does anything about the pensions, you’re going to get more tax increases. Sorensen is already trying to float a bond measure and Ory wants a sales tax increase.

    And if either or both of these measures pass it still won’t solve the pension problems and the politicians will be back for more tax increases.

  3. Peggy says:

    Thanks for doing this Jack. I agreed with most of your recommendations.

    For those interested I looked up the judges and found only one who rated on the conservative side of the scale. I vote yes for Carol Corrigan. The others had no rating listed and were all appointed by Brown. One way back in 1979.

    Our courts are too important now that Dems want judges to create our laws.

    https://ballotpedia.org/Carol_Corrigan

  4. Tina says:

    Jack a no vote on prop 3, the so-called “watershed” bill is a wise move.

    This bill is supported by CA farmers and John Cox but it’s deceiving. Those who believe, as I do, that California needs to address water shortage problems (highest priority) will be disappointed to learn that the bulk of the money will be spent from an environmental perspective…as if this state hasn’t done enough of that.

    Our water needs should stand alone in (urgent) legislation!

    Information at Ballotpedia is helpful and contains the following on how the money would be spent:

    The largest amount of bond revenue—$2.355 billion—would go toward conservancies and state parks to restore and protect watershed lands and nonprofits and local agencies for river parkways. The measure would also allocate $640 million to groundwater sustainability agencies to implement their plans and $500 million for public water system infrastructure improvements to meet safe drinking water standards, including the treatment of contaminants, or ensure affordable drinking water. The ballot initiative would require that $1.398 billion be spent on projects benefiting what the state defines as disadvantaged communities and an additional $2.637 billion be prioritized for disadvantaged communities.[3] California defines disadvantaged communities as communities with an annual median household income less than 80 percent of the statewide annual median household income. With a median household income of $63,783 in 2017, according to the U.S. Census Burea, 80 percent was $51,026.[4] The measure would distribute bond revenue as follows:[1] (click on link “show” to see distribution specifics)

    The mismanagement of taxpayer dollars is at the bottom of everything that’s killing this once great state. Californians have provided more than enough money for the things that are a top priority for all of us. Instead money is wasted on bullet trains to nowhere and similar frivolities. It galls me that California farmers are sucked into supporting this bill because of their dire need when the bulk of the money will be spent on recreational and environmental projects.

  5. J. Soden says:

    Interesting to see what Initiatives are on the ballot. And those that are NOT constitutional amendments in Taxifornia an be tweaked or screwed up by the Lunkhead Legislature.
    In Nevada – where I’m registered to vote – ballot initiatives have to pass in two consecutive elections before being implemented . . . . . .
    I’d like to see state constitutional amendments requiring a vote on ALL spending over $100,000 and requiring voter approval on ALL new taxes/fees and subsequent increases since that’s ab0ut the only way to get $pending under control.

  6. Libby says:

    So, Jack, did you actually read any source material in forming these recommendations? … or are you just doing like you’re told, like always? I mean … there’s prudent, and then there is stingy. According to the budget analyst’s office, if we pass all of the bond props, the state’s service on it’s debt will still be under 5% of revenue. Quite reasonable, as long as revenues don’t drop … so maybe we won’t pass all of them. My recommendations are as follows:

    PROP 1 – Housing Bonds – You: NO

    Me: Also no; we can’t have everything all at once, and the crisis being what it is, there’s lots in the works already.

    PROP 2 – Amends Mental Health Services Act – You: NO

    Me: Initially, I was not impressed. They want to take services monies and spend it on housing, but the very most fundamental portion of treatment is getting the sick folk off the street, so I’ll go for it. I just hope I don’t have to hear about some private sector contractor being profligate with the money … that does piss me off.

    PROP 3 – Water Bond – You: NO – Been there done that.

    Me: Yes. Grampa … what’s the matter with you? A sound water storage and delivery system is fundamental to your great-grandkids good health.

    PROP 4 – Construction bonds – You: NO

    Me: Yes. And you mis-characterize this, you dishonest so-and-so. What we have here are “private” children’s hospitals around the state … coming to the state with hat in hand, for upgrade money. They can have it.

    PROP 5 – Property Tax Requirement Changes – You: YES

    Me: No. And again … I don’t think you read any source materials, you are just parroting the anti-tax crowd. First, the whole scheme is too complicated. Second, this whole business of a “mover’s penalty” is bunk. It’s a tax. You want to repeal the tax … repeal the tax. But this smacks of wealthy tax finagling, and I ain’t going for it.

    PROP 6 – Repeal the Gas Tax – You: YES

    Me: No. Period. (And did you hear about Juanita and her husband going around pulling up “NO on 6” signs … what a hoot !)

    PROP 7 – Permanent Daylight Savings Time – You: Indifferent

    Me: Too

    PROP 8 – Regulation of Dialysis Clinics – You: NO – Flawed, very flawed.

    Me: Flawed? … possibly, but I’m going with a Yes … for somewhat irrational reasons. Down here, DaVita is just everywhere, always in very poor neighborhoods, looking very seedy. I don’t hold with profiteering nursing homes or profiteering dialysis clinics. It’s just wrong. And I have no objection to making an example of DaVita. It will discourage the other capitalists. Medical care is a public enterprise.

    PROP 10 – Rent Control You: NO

    Me: Yes. Again, out of pure class-ridden resentment. Those commercials I’ve been seeing make me very angry. I mean … they are so baldly infuriating. I gotta listen to some triple-dipping pensioner crab because we are out to stop her from 1) gouging her tenant, or 2) keeping rental properties off the market entirely; and 3) just generally being a selfish pig. Boo-Hoo.

    PROP 11 – Ambulance Employee Rules – You: YES

    Me: Yes. Though I am intrigued by your ostensibly pro-labor stance, when, in fact, this will make it very difficult for emergency services types to file wage and hour suits against their employers. That’s not pro-labor at all.
    However, it is pro-emergency services. If you can’t accept that you may have to work though lunch on a regular basis, you don’t get into this line of work.

    PROP 12 – Farm Animal Confinement – You: NO

    Me: It’s so hard to know. Should we set a good example and risk producers leaving the state? I think, Yes. Elections are all about what kind of society do we want to have … not what society is easiest, cheapest, and greediest.

    • Paul says:

      PROP 6 – Repeal the Gas Tax – You: YES

      Me: No. Period. (And did you hear about Juanita and her husband going around pulling up “NO on 6” signs … what a hoot !)

      A big cheer for Juanita and her husband!!!

      Unlike you, at least she’s smart enough to know when she’s being ripped-off by corrupt, lying politicians, bureaucrats and lobbyists.

      And my understanding is those signs were illegally posted and I bet you fully approve of that!

      • Tina says:

        Hey Paul, why are you voting no on repeal of gas tax increase? Our readers want to know your thinking on these measures. It seems odd that your characterize a measure that would allow you to keep more money in your own pocket as a rip off by “corrupt, lying politicians, bureaucrats and lobbyists.”

      • Pie Guevara says:

        It is no longer hard to believe that there are more than a few idiots in this state. Tina, there is no rationalizing this abject lunacy. Some folks are just plain brain-dead.

    • Pie Guevara says:

      IT’S ALIVE!

      I fear you have confused the good people who write this blog (and others who frequent it) with persons who give a crap what you think about anything FrankenLippy. Heck, I doubt if anyone here would give a hoot if you dropped dead. Of course I would miss you. I dearly miss Quentin Colgan, but you have managed to fill his shoes in the horrid, laughable sociopathic lunatic department (now that Chris is pretty much gone.) Take care of yourself, dear heart because I doubt anyone would even walk across the street to reanimate you.

      • Libby says:

        Well I know you’d rather be left alone in your echo chamber, Pie, … but that ain’t a healthy attitude.

        You should thank me for giving you new things to think about.

        • Pie Guevara says:

          NO SO! I place a high value on your contributions here, ZombieLippy. Your ghoulish, mindless, idiotic, vitriolic contributions are an absolute delight! Keep up the good work!

    • J. Soden says:

      Easy decision. Just ask Lippy for her recommendations and then vote the opposite!

    • Tina says:

      “…just hope I don’t have to hear about some private sector contractor being profligate with the money … that does piss me off.”

      Apparently you honestly believe the state government that spends your taxes, and has put your state deep in debt, isn’t profligate, a decidedly curious belief. Strong evidence suggests that our states leaders have wasted and misspent billions of dollars:

      CA Political Review. “Waste. Fraud, and mismanagement…”

      CA Political Review, “…Hit the Pause Button on High Speed Rail” (

      Howard Jarvis Tax Association, “People Believe Government Wastes Money because it Does”…”Despite the explosion of taxing and spending, our roads are ranked among the worst. Although education spending has nearly doubled on a per capita basis since 1970, the US Chamber of Commerce Foundation gave our state an “F” for effectiveness per dollar spent.”

      Daily Signal, “Incompetence, Mismanagement Plague California’s Obamacare Insurance Exchange”

      The American Thinker, “Blue-state pension plans ‘jeopardized’ by virtue-signalling investments in social causes”

      California’s $350[-]billion state pension system, [CalPERS], has its own set of confusing divestment initiatives. Last month the American Council for Capital Formation [ACCF] warned that [CalPERS] “has demonstrated a troubling pattern of investments in social and political causes that are truly jeopardizing the retirement fund.” Of the system’s nine worst[] performing funds, the report says that four focused on renewable energy.

      Kessler’s column links to an ACCF column and report, both authored by Tim Doyle, on California’s troubled pension system, which highlight several disturbing trends:

      “Rather than focusing on getting the fund back on firm financial footing, CalPERS’s management is making questionable investments of pensioners’ money into social and political causes that are not yielding acceptable returns[.]”

      “Over the past decade, CalPERS returned 4.4 percent,” compared with “the public pension average over that time of 5.7 percent.” On a fund of “roughly $300 billion” (p. 8 of the ACCF report), the cost of California’s questionable investment decisions runs into the billions.

      “Unrealistic actuarial assumptions … have drastically underestimated the pension’s unfunded liabilities, decreasing the urgency for the board to focus on returns while sheltering those individuals from the scrutiny of taxpayers that a much larger unfunded number would cause.”

      The ACCF report (pp. 9-14) details the “poor results” of CalPERS’s investments over the past decade in five solar panel companies, including two Chinese companies on which the pension fund lost 50% or more on its investments.

      The poor results on activist investments are not surprising, given that “[t]he overwhelming majority of those who sit on CalPERS’s [b]oard of [d]irectors have little to no financial or portfolio management experience, but ironically many have political backgrounds” (emphasis added).

      Perhaps most galling of all, the ACCF report reviews (p. 23) the personal investments of “the fund’s [c]hief [i]nvestment [o]fficer and at least two other senior executives” and finds that “none had any personal capital allocated to any environment-focused funds or equities” (emphasis original).

      CalPERS spent more than $1 billion on fees to investment advis[e]rs, hedge funds[,] and private equity in 2017. These three people had access to $1 billion[‘s] worth of investment advice and chose to steer clear of the type of investments they direct pensioners’ money into.

      The CalPERS fund managers are activists with other people’s money but not with their own.

      California taxpayers are on the hook for these underfunded pensions. The state also irresponsibly cooks the books to downplay fiscal problems.

      How do you square your thinking with reality?

    • Pie Guevara says:

      Re FrankenLippy’s “Yes. Again, out of pure class-ridden resentment. Those commercials I’ve been seeing make me very angry.”

      Oh yeah, I always vote in a manner consistent with reaction to or influence of some political advertisement. (That was facetious and applied irony, FrankenLippy, in case it went over your head.)

      Do you have any idea of how stupid you sound here? No, of course not. I would recommend that you listen to yourself every now and then, but then I know it would not make any difference. You go ghoul!

  7. Pie Guevara says:

    After some more research and consultation I am filling out my mail-in ballot along with Jack for —
    Andrew Coolidge
    Matt Gallaway
    Kasey Reynolds

    This City Council election is crucial. If the council is dominated by the left Chico will be screwed again. Mark Sorensen (and others) have advised me that —
    1) Coolidge has a chance
    2) Jon Scott is not running a full campaign and so will likely not garner enough votes to win.

    To put conservatives on the council winning is, of course, everything. We have had split vote spoilers in the past. Not again! Therefore I am tonight voting for Coolidge, Gallaway and Reynolds. I encourage others to do the same. If the council goes back to a far left Democrat dominated cabal, Chico is screwed again.

  8. Peggy says:

    Remember this when you vote.

    What number qualifies for an invasion? 7,000 this time, 20,000 next, 50, 000 every time after?

    Must watch video.
    http://www.gingrichproductions.com/2018/10/the-caravan-attack-on-america/

  9. Peggy says:

    Here’s a voter guide for Calif. judges. My ballot is already in the mail, but I got them right.

    https://judgevoterguide.com/?fbclid=IwAR3GUIqaD5aGINCRKcN88-WseqQ2yHEbk41Ae3LDSneSHu6JTY8hS9vBu6c

  10. Libby says:

    Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear …

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/23/business/kelly-johnston-soros-campbell/index.html

    Seems that Trump Derangement Syndrome is a non-partisan ailment. Peggy, aren’t you glad that you don’t work someplace you can be sacked from?

    • Pie Guevara says:

      A CNN link? HAH! What reasonable person relies on those stooges? (Actually, I do watch them from time to time just to check in on the asinine crap machine of the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party. MSLSD is good too.)

      As for TDS, there are two forms, YOU dear LippyFromTheBlackLagoon, and Trumpkins. There are no Trumpkins in Post Scripts but there are Trump supporters. There is a difference, not that you have the intellect nor inclination to see it.

      To meet a real TDS Trumpkin you need Twitter, Zippy. Get an account, join your fellow TDS friends and enemies and troll there for awhile. Twitter was made for trolls like you.

    • Tina says:

      Life is so easy when you just make it up as you go along.

    • Peggy says:

      Too funny Libs! You mean the “Failing CNN,” really?!!!! No wonder you are so misinformed. You rely on a self identified news stations that leaves out more news than it reports.

      You, your party and CNN will soon only exist in someone’s memory and history books, just like the Whig party of our past. Your party is self-destructing Libs and will leave few to mourn the absence of it’s hateful platform which you enjoy replicating here on Post Script.

      What will you do Libs without a party of hate to worship?

  11. Tina says:

    Regarding Prop 12, Ballotpedia:

    A yes vote supports this initiative to: establish minimum space requirements based on square feet for calves raised for veal, breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens and ban the sale of (a) veal from calves, (b) pork from breeding pigs, and (c) eggs from hens when the animals are confined to areas below minimum square-feet requirements.

    A no vote opposes this initiative, thus: keeping in place minimum space requirements based on animal movement—not square feet—for calves raised for veal, breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens and continuing to ban the sale of shelled eggs from hens—but not liquid eggs from hens, veal from calves, or pork from breeding pigs—that are confined to areas not meeting space requirements based on animal movement standards.

    Overview – Proposition 12 sets the Humane Society, in support of the initiative, against the Humane Farming Association, PETA, and the Friends of Animals, in opposition to the initiative.[6] The Association of California Egg Farmers (ACEF) and National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) are also opposed to Proposition 12, arguing that the required changes would increase food prices and create meat and egg shortages.[7][8][9] However, none of the agriculture-related trade associations, such as ACEF and NPPC, formed a political action committee (PAC) to oppose Proposition 12, leaving the conflict as one between animal welfare PACs.

    Prevent Cruelty California, a ballot measure committee, is leading the campaign in support of Proposition 12. The Humane Society launched the campaign committee, which had raised $6.12 million. The largest contributor to the committee was the Humane Society, which provided $2.12 million in cash and in-kind services … (read on)

    This isn’t new legislation; it is an amendment to Prop 2. Now tell me what this means: “Proposition 12 of 2018, unlike Proposition 2, would prohibit the confinement of calves raised for veal, breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens in areas below a specific number of square feet, rather than restrictions based on animal behavior and movement.”

    In 2008 Prop 2 was passed to fix the “animal cruelty” problem. Now conditions established by Prop 2 are deemed not good enough. Farmers have already spent money to meet the Prop 2 conditions. Now they are being asked to spend more money to fix the problem again. Considering the goal of at least one of the supporting groups, to get people to stop eating meat/eggs, this push to now further control the number of sq feet per animal sounds a lot like harassment and future harassment in the form of lawsuits. The farmers I know care about animals as much as the next guy and has the experience to know what is best for the animals they raise.

    The following in the measure makes sense:

    Proposition 12 would make the California Department of Food and Agriculture and the California Department of Public Health responsible for the measure’s implementation. Violations of the initiative would be considered misdemeanors, with fines up to $1,000.[1] Proposition 2 (2008) did not authorize a state department to enforce the confinement restrictions. Therefore, local law enforcement agencies were made de facto responsible for enforcing Proposition 2’s size restrictions.[5]

    But why wasn’t it part of the original bill?

    And then there’s the cost to the public:

    Potential decrease in state and local tax revenues from farm businesses, likely not to exceed the low millions of dollars annually. Potential state costs ranging up to ten million dollars annually to enforce the measure.

    Scroll down at the site for statements by opponents and supporters.

    This measure comes under the heading of mismanagement and waste of taxpayer money.

  12. Post Scripts says:

    Libby, you accuse me of being dishonest in opposing Prop 4? You do realize that this is exactly the League of Women Voters decided? They recommend a NO on 4 vote. You are in opposition to your girls…I find that ironic.

    • Libby says:

      I get the principle. But in practice, Childrens’ in Oakland, Shriners, Packard … they already get most of their revenue from the fed and state. And these are not “for profit” operations either. So unless we want to shut them down and build public (and I can here you spit … all these miles away), we are obliged to maintain what we got.

      I could also get really nasty and remark that when those “private endowment” types, flush with their recent tax breaks, simply refuse to pony up … we ALWAYS wind up taking up the slack.

      • Tina says:

        “So unless we want to shut them down and build public…”

        By public you mean government.

        But government has no money.

        It takes money from the working public by force, often whether the person or family can really afford it or not! Since the money is from government there is no accountability and the cost for healthcare goes UP.

        The endowment funds that sustain charitable hospitals (AND universities) comes from the interest generated through investment of the endowment, which can never be touched. Endowment funds are voluntarily contributed, usually by wealthy donors who know they can afford it and actually enjoy being philanthropists.

        It’ s a much more preferable system, don’t you think?

        And if these very wealthy nonprofits had to rely on charity alone (rather than Medical…or pell grants in the case of universities) the price tag for medical treatment (and college) would come down.

        Stanford’s endowment is/was $24.7 billion according to one site…University of California System — $9.78 Billion (Dont know the year but in this decade)

    • Pie Guevara says:

      Lippy is nuts. A frustrated lunatic left-wing troll who cannot be taken seriously.

  13. Pie Guevara says:

    OH…MY…GOD! I voted for a Rat!

    I voted for an extreme left wing progressive lunatic radical Rat! Those who have not voted for this Rat should do the same!

    Why? Have I lost my mind? Am I encouraging you to lose your minds too?

    No, Kevin de León (Rat Party) is the only candidate up against the horrid old hag from hell, Dianne Feinstein, and he is worse than her. A total progressive loon in the mold of Bill Ayers and Saul Alinsky. (I actually admire that Alinsky dirt bag, but I won’t go into that now.)

    Kevin de León doesn’t have an ice cube’s chance in hell, but you never know, lighting may strike. Nevertheless, he would lead the Rats farther into the disease of the progressive radical lunatic left which I believe a large and growing number of American citizen voters are fed up with.

    A vote Kevin de León is a vote for quickening the self destruction of a party gone completely insane, although Dianne is doing a pretty good job of that herself.

  14. Me says:

    Been awhile, but from time to time I come by to check out the ole neighborhood.

    Looks like the dumber seems to be dumber, and the adults are still trying to get through to the addled ones with brains of mush.

    This may not be right, and I may be wrong, but I may be right.

    Hey, maybe it’s a lunatic you are all looking for.

    That being said, When I come by to read the comments to posts on PS, I am often reminded of my very young childhood years when I was about 8 or 9. Just before my older brothers and sisters began leaving the nest. It was a time when the ones entering their teens were seldom around but always grouchy.

    Well, as I said everyone was home, and everyone had a reason to argue and not get along with another. Everyone has their own opinions, and it really never took long to find out who was wrong. In the future those who were proved wrong knew to never ever go there again. We all owned it because we all knew each other well.

    I see the same liberals here defending the same old tired lies that have been proved wrong time and time again. Well, other than my brother Gene, who would fit right in for California.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *