Too many words, sorry. Make your argument in 2 paragraphs, or don't bother.

Too late anyway, already voted yes. The Stranger's timing here is very suspicious, as always.
I distrust the City Council more than almost anyone else in Seattle. But I am also voting yes. Why? This guest editorial gives it away in the fourth paragraph from the bottom. Their surface complaint is about a Council nobody likes. But their true concern is all about taxes. The MPD allows the Council to raise it without a public vote. That is an extremely good thing, especially given that this allows Seattle one way to get around Tim Eyman's strangling of the city budget. Vote YES.
Agreed @2. These are the "concerns" of a bunch of anti-tax zealots from Laurelhurst and Queen Anne.
Remember, in addition to paranoid, these folks are also liars…

This is not a scam to build an arena. It's a chance to undo some of the damage that was inflicted when I-747 was reinstated.

If the City Council wanted to blow public money they have a lot easier ways of doing it than this. Not to mention the public outrage, lawsuits, etc, that would occur.

The current levy system is inefficient, empowers the wrong people, and has starved our parks of money. Fuck it.
These folks are not telling the truth. A bunch of Republican astroturfers trying to screw Seattle by cutting funds for parks and community centers.

Don't buy the shit stew they're selling. Vote YES on Prop 1.
I dunno that I'd call Kate Martin an anti-tax zealot or Republican astroturfer. She's against Prop. 1 as well. Unless your intent is to unfairly smear people who like to retain some oversight on parks expenditures, in which case, I guess you know what your'e doing.
Jesus, Slog, why would you give these crackpots a voice? They are blatantly lying to voters in their mailers, and they're continuing to do it here with their "traditional levy process" bullshit. There is no traditional levy process! The first parks levy wasn't until 2000. Hell, lid lifts weren't even a thing until the 1970s because there was no lid to lift! This is nothing more than an effort to turn our Eyman-induced revenue shortfall into the new normal.

You're giving these lying anti-park, anti-tax, anti-government cranks more credibility than they deserve. What's next, equal space for the Tea Party?

Just sayin'.
Well, I don't live in Laurelhurst OR Queen Anne and I'm voting no.

People are making this about "do you trust the City Council?" I don't trust ANY City Council that is in the position of being able to decide if they - now a Parks Board - would ever vote to dissolve that group. I don't buy it for a minute. I don't like handing any elected official new power without hearing why this is necessary or is better. I have not heard that argument.

I get that levies are tiresome and maintenance isn't getting done (see Seattle Schools levies, ditto) but swinging all the way from levies and oversight to full-out power over parks by the City Council, - I'm saying no.
@8 the justification for giving them this power is to get around the Tim Eyman limit. It is no different than power they already have with B&O, sales taxes, commercial parking taxes, and so on. We need to smash the Eyman anti-tax system everywhere we can. If it means an MPD run by the City Council, so be it.
The "lack of oversight" argument is bullshit on its face. We elect our city council members to do their jobs. This just adds parks funding to their job descriptions. Don't like how they manage this, or anything else? Vote 'em out.
We have limited levy capacity and it's better spent on other items than continually renewing funding for public amenities that will become even more crucial to consistently maintain and improve as our city grows.
This is such a silly argument. "Don't allow elected officials to make decisions!" That's the way a democracy works. It's really just window dressing for the real issue, which is that those elected representatives would be able to raise taxes to pay for shit. They're accountable in an election. Duh. Like the Founding Fathers intended and all that.

Then there's the straight up LIE from the Against campaign's mailer that "your property taxes would increase by 20%!" I'm sick of people who want shit (they SAY they're for the parks...) but don't want to pay for it. Unless they're lying about being for the parks, too. Which they probably are.
I'm voting yes, and hopefully will one day get the chance to vote on a Library district in the near future.
I'm voting NO on Prop 1. I'm a long-time Democrat who cast my first vote for JFK in 1960. I'm concerned with taxes, sure, because I live on a fixed income, but it's not the doubling of the parks tax which concerns me, so much as the insulation of the MPD Board of Directors (and City Council, sitting ex officio in that role), from "the inconvenient public." Parks has made some positive changes in terms of listening to the citizens in the 12 years I've been a pro-Parks activist. This "Seattle Park District" has the potential to undo them all. Without the bite of the vote, I fear more behind-the-scenes deals, more "cooked" citizen committees, the usual face-saving tip-of-the-hat to a public process, while giving away the store to the downtown Waterfront Park, to the privately-run Zoo (hey, it's public when it comes to needing our tax dollars, but private, when it comes to responding to public disclosure requests), to unwanted sports arenas, etc.

Sorry to have to participate in a string in which the majority of comments are so vitriolic. "Reasonable people can disagree"--Let's remember that.
@13--There is no statute authorizing a library district in Seattle with independent taxing authority, so it won't happen. (If I'm wrong, please cite the RCW.)
Funny, if this is such a power grab from the executive, why are the current and 5 former Mayors supporting this measure? Because it's not. It is a way to finally fund our parks and take care of the existing infrastructure, like buildings, tree canopy, parkland, period. Levies will not provide the funding needed to support the park system residents want. That's why there are 75 organizations endorsing the measure. Vote Yes for Prop 1.
@12 "They're accountable in an election." No they are not: The Council sitting as Park District Commission is insulated from decisions that will be made by a Council appointed/approved committee (and the Parks Commission, same story). It is highly unlikely that specific Park District decisions are going to lead to removal of council members in four year election cycles.

Worse, the Mayor will have no legal authority to veto Council actions as the Park District Commission. We're supposed to have a "strong mayor" city government; the MPD changes that balance for the Park District revenue stream. Accountability is significantly weakened with an MPD.
And yes, it does concern me that if this thing passes, City Council can quadruple the parks tax without going back to the electorate. Voting YES is voting to make yourself, as a voter, irrelevant, so far as future parks issues and taxes are concerned.

Why is a major change in City governance being pushed so hard for the low turn-out August ballot? Perhaps in the hopes that no one will be paying much attention?

The bulk of the support for the PRO side is coming from organizations with financial ties to the Parks Department and/or the City of Seattle. Is it cynical to suspect they want to sweeten their own pots?

Look, democracy does not work without the involvement, the vigilance, of the citizens. It doesn't work to allow the electeds to "do their own thing," therefore just trusting them to do the right thing.

And we can just vote out offending Council members? They'll have done the damage, whether or not a serious challenger comes forward. This MPD issue is damage enough. If it passes, they could all be voted out as an expression of our displeasure, and we'd still have the damn MPD. (Finally, some vitriol, from a mousy bookworm ... moi)

Try running for public office--it ain't easy. The current guys have the tremendous advantages of incumbency, name recognition, campaign coffers filled with contributions from the self-same organizations which support the MPD.

So let's not give away our right to vote on parks levies. VOTE NO.

@14: you are the definition if a "crackpot".
@19: you are definition of a fine debater.

Don't forget everybody: people with different opinions than yours on the proper role of government are "liars" and "crackpots" and, let's see, what else, Goldy...? Oh, yes, "cranks" (surprised it wasn't "fucking cranks").
@17 We threw out a mayor over a snowstorm. If the MPD did something horrific to the parks I have no doubt they'd be sent packing.
I'm voting yes in part because I don't want to have to vote on every little fucking thing. Like park maintenance. That's what elected officials are for. Let them do their job. If they do a shitty job, we can vote them out. But don't clutter my fucking ballot with a dozen damned levies for necessary basic infrastructure every goddamned year.
@2: I hate the City Council even more than you do (Tim Burgess once kicked sand in my face), but I still voted Yes.
When I saw the League of Women Voters recommendation a NO vote, I was glad to have their company. Bad governance is always a bad idea. I suppose that this idea and the one they have in store for us in November are perhaps the swansongs of a City Council that stands a very fair chance of being reconstituted next year; a city council that seems to have not taken a clue from last November that the citizens said they actually want more to say not less. Galvanizing my position are the pricey mailers (and now there's been 4!!!) from the proponents without a peep about what the vote is actually about. The puppies and turtles and kids are cute, but that's not what the vote is about. Nor is the vote about whether you like parks or not. Nor is the vote about who cares to pay taxes to support parks. The vote is about governance and whether we want to set up a separate taxing district corporation that is insulated from the voters to such an extent that it actually cannot be dissolved by the voters. If that doesn't spell NO, I don't know what would. The voters can't end it. Ever. Enough said.

Just more anti tax psychobabble by people who wish we lived in a fascist state where parks were empty of all but the rich

you're all stoned.

Yes, this opinion piece is dumb, and off-target for a stoned, younger crowd. And their flyer is dumb, too. But there are still reasons to not vote for an MPD at this time.

For some of us that are voting NO, the larger concern is the CURRENT lack of accountability at Parks and how that carries on with the MPD.

Parks has never been audited (to determine how to make them more efficient). Seattle is already at the top nationally for parks funding per capita and parks staff per capita. Parks can't clean the bathrooms at Green Lake but we can pay the top 25 employees all over $100K/year and give them raises totaling over a quarter million dollars over the last two years.

And the so-called $287M backlog appears to be at least slightly inflated (good luck getting a Stranger 'reporter' to look into that) with many items not really a near-term issue.

So throwing money at the department isn't necessarily the solution. And General Fund revenues are going up so we are not likely in the near term to have to worry about cutting departments' funding and will have more for Parks.

MPD oversight and audit claims are also somewhat suspect. Look at how the "citizens committee" recommending this was hand-picked with no public review and represented largely beneficiaries of increased funding (no wonder they recommended it - and continue to show up in comments threads touting the benefits, or fund the YES side, such as the Aquarium and Zoo have).

The new "Oversight Committee" will include Parks Board members which has on it now Tom Tierney, the man responsible for displacing 560 families of the Yesler Terrace community and selling off the land for development (can anyone say Vulcan). And Parks already has a bad track record regarding turning over Parks land (such as kicking artists out of Building 11 a few years ago with the idea of putting in a Virginia Mason medical facility instead). Remember the MPD would have the authority to raise revenues through commercialization of the parks.

Council already does a crappy job overseeing this department, and as the MPD Board, wouldn't likely do much better.

But AFTER Parks is cleaned up , and with a separately elected MPD Board (who would be FULL TIME overseeing the department), THEN give them more money. Because we really aren't taxed enough for things like parks, transit and education.

Finally for those saying that this is all wealthy homeowners saying "no", here is uber-lefty (and underpaid) EAT THE STATE publisher Geov Parrish telling us why to vote NO:
If an MPD is such a great thing for Seattle, why was there no civic conversation before putting it on the ballot? Why no public forums, not even one, where voters could learn about MPDs, and then ask questions and get answers?

At all the public meetings and public hearings, citizens were tightly restricted to two minutes each, and if their comments were in the form of questions, those questions were never answered.

In Seattle, we know how to do community outreach -- agencies and advocates explain what they want to do, they listen to questions from the public, and they answer those questions. This is Community Engagement 101 stuff, nothing mysterious about it. But for reasons I cannot fathom, the folks behind this MPD just refused do it. The process stank, and that has reinforced my No vote.
funny how all the people voting YES are the ones who pay the LEAST.

typical progressives: make other people pay for shit you want.

and Goldy - you should spend more time trying to figure out how to PAY YOUR FUCKING BILLS, and less time calling others "crackpots" just for disagreeing with you, you damned freeloader.

@25 You're wrong; the MPD is actually a mechanism explicitly designed to disempower "all but the rich" by setting up a revenue stream that is insulated from democratic process. Either at the polls or at the Council.
The opponents of Prop 1 are not against funding for parks. They are against funding them with a park district that can increase property taxes four times what we are now paying and spend the money any way they want with no citizen control.

The opponents of Prop 1 represent all the people who attended the 3 public meetings to give input on how the parks should be funded. The majority of them voted for a $50 million levy. The parks advisory committee, which was appointed by City Council member Sally Bagshaw, ignored that fact because City Council wants the parks to be funded by a park district so they can use the levy money for other projects, like the pre-school program and the waterfront park.

If you would do little research, you would find that the majority of organizations endorsing Prop 1 are members of the Parks Foundation, receive money from the Parks Foundation or will benefit financially if Prop passes, especially, the zoo, aquarium and Forterra, big donors to Prop 1. Former Mayor Royer is on the Waterfront park committee.
Here's all you need to know about the Metropolitan Parks District. It is the brainchild of downtown waterfront development promoter Gerald Johnson.

Why is the Stranger so excited to turn over our parks to a downtown developer?

From his Linked In site:

Gerry currently serves on the boards of the Seattle Parks Foundation, the Downtown Seattle Association and the Friends of Waterfront Seattle. He also serves on the Seattle Central Waterfront Committee advising the Mayor and City Council. The proposed central waterfront project, designed by renowned architect James Corner, will transform the relationship of the Seattle Central Business District with its historic waterfront following demolition of the Alaskan Way Viaduct in 2016. On the Central Waterfront Committee, he co‑chairs its Finance and Partnerships Subcommittee.
@21-- Sally Bagshaw was a main promoter of the Building 11 fiasco (look it up). I don't see her running in fear of being turned out because of it.
@31 yes, the Downtown Waterfront Park is an elephant in the room.

Since it appears that a downtown LID (local improvement district) to pay for this mega-million parks spending spree (floating swimming pools, misters, etc) is unlikely (quel surprise, downtown property owners against taxes), why not get everyone else to pay for it.

In fact, there is a lot of crossover between the "citizens" committee recommending the MPD and the Waterfront folks.

The MPD already has $4M/year in maintenance for the waterfront park in the plan. That could clean up a lot of bathrooms throughout the system...
You keep using these words "democratic" and "unilateral". I don't think they mean what you think they mean.

The City Council's decisions are democratic. They face the wrath of the voters. All the more so with districts now. A levy is just as "unilateral" as a parks district; the mayor can't veto a levy.

One particular difference is when the city council members are running for office their campaigns are more accountable than these weird astro turf groups of questionable funding who come out of the woodwork to manipulate voters. Like Our Parks Forever.
>> The traditional levy process allows us a periodic vote on the collection of taxes and the allocation of funds to specified projects and programs. It provides a definitive dollar amount. It states the applicable duration of time for the tax.

Why is that a good thing? Frankly, it is crap. It is the type of crap that leads us to vote, over and over, on basic school funding. Now we vote on issues that most of us want, or at least every representative wants. There is a reason why our founders wanted a republic, not a democracy -- the public doesn't have time to bother with the details of a democracy. They are ignorant of the issues, and will vote for schools, police, and yes, parks, but short change things like public health care, and we will all suffer as a result. Let the representatives allocate the money as they see fit. If you don't like it, run for office on an "enough already for funding parks" platform. Good luck with that.
Bend over and get ready to be reamed like some young buck fresh in from Iowa in Cal Anderson at 2am you just slipped $50. Prop 1 is going down by 10 points. I'll bet a testicle on that.
"weird astro turf groups of questionable funding"?

You mean like the League of Women Voters and the Metro Democratic Club? And me, and the others commenting here who have a long history of progressive politics?

Please put your broad brush away and argue the merits.

And BTW, the Mayor can veto a levy ordinance to try to keep it off the ballot.
@35 Levies should not be used for "basic school funding" and other operational (e.g. regular maintenance items). They should be used for large ticket items that need to be paid for over a period of years (4, 6, 12).

Part of the issue with the so-called backlog is it is a mish-mash of low-level maintenance items deferred (paint this, widen that trail, etc) and larger long term items perhaps best left to levies. Here is part of the base problem - Parks really has no system for keeping track of all that.

What has not been scrutinized is what goes where and how and when to fund it, and instead the general notion of a system grossly underfunded has been framed by those selling the MPD.

So possibly we will move to a MPD system where maybe we will still need levies in the future to do large projects and we will have just increased operational monies to a Parks Department that is already arguably top-shelf from a funding standpoint but can't seem to clean the toilets.

Now maybe you are ok with that, but some folks are interested in better governance, not just throwing more money at a problem (think Bertha. and like Bertha, with an MPD we can't back out).

Of course, maybe you just can't be bothered with all that. But to date Council and many MPD supporters seem to be of that mind...

No one will know what the Council does if this is voted in, and therefore no one will know to vote them out. There is no public oversight. There will be a community "advisory" group, but it won't have any power. Once this is in place, the Council -- however it is constituted at any given time -- can simply use the money for anything they consider to be "parks". They won't have to ask the public, and they won't have to report to the public.

That, to put it mildly, is not good.
I'd rather have those evil public officials vote on basic services, instead of this insanely silly and wasteful system of voting on every freaking nickel and dime proposal. And since this is Seattle, there will be public scrutiny, since we will debate everything into an early grave! Does anyone else think those 1900 Seattle City Council mustachioed members look a little shady?
So how come there were 16 Council members in May 1900, but only 9 now? (I swear I think the guy with the full beard was on the #24 bus on the way home from work)
@41 take a look at the different forms our city council has taken over the years. You will see how the new district system will fail.
Goldy @ 7: goddamn I miss you on Slog.
Proposed MPD for Seattle Parks a fiscal scam by our city council. An ILA with itself which can be changed at whim. Seattle residents will be helpless as state RCW gives such a MPD incrediblel taxing power. Oversight a joke.
Slog --

Thanks for giving the No side a voice here. It's the best advertising the Yes side could hope for. Their whole argument boils down to "Not enough process!" Bullshit.

I'm voting Yes to circumvent Eyman's cash-starving of valuable public assets.
Just so you understand, you vote for Prop 1 and you are voting for rent increase.

That may or may not be a good idea depending on your POV.

But it is fact.

Prop 1 = higher rents.
I was on the fence, but thanks to this, I'm voting YES on Prop 1. This was the most hilarious editorial I've ever read here.

Someone created a bunch of Slog sockpuppet aliases to pretend to be a "mass" of No On 1 voters. So embarrassing. So hilarious.

A levy is "sustainable" because Seattleites love their parks and have always voted to support parks' levies (and have expressed willingness to do so in the future).

Many "safeguards" are guaranteed in a levy that are not inherent in an MPD.

Most importantly---------

A levy will include a specific list of projects that will be funded and citizens will be assured that there will be a balanced representation of neighborhood projects.

Neighborhoods will know that money that should go to their needs will not be diverted to the "pet projects" favored by wealthy, well-connected supporters of City Council/MPD Board members i.e. the elaborate waterfront park that will cost approximately $500 million dollars to construct.

City Council-acting as the MPD Board-is not obligated ( by mandate) to fund any specific projects. They will decide-after our August 5th election-how our taxes will be appropriated.

Remember the MPD is a state chartered, PERMANENT taxing authority that can never be dissolved by voters. The MPD is not mandated to observe Seattle's charters and ordinances. It does not have to abide by Seattle's Initiative 42 which ensures that our City doesn't sell any of our parks property. The MPD may sell parks and parks property if it feels the sale will financially benefit the parks system. The general public doesn't have influence to prevent the sale, for example, of a beloved, neighborhood park.

Furthermore, taxes will be PERMANENT and will be raised without any further vote. Your "Yes" vote in Prop. 1's MPD gives the City Council/MPD Board permission to raise your parks', property taxes up to 75 cents per $1,000 of assessed valuation. (CITIZENS NOW PAY 19 CENTS PER $1,000 OF ASSESSED VALUE FOR OUR CURRENT PARKS LEVY.)
So---parks' property taxes may quadruple with an MPD.

You can still love our almost 500 wonderful parks and be concerned about the huge tax increase you may incur!

Most of the most vocal opponents of an MPD are people-like myself-who have been involved in parks' policies, procedures, and projects and have had many ways available that have allowed us (average citizens) to influence decisions about Seattle's parks.

An MPD will -virtually-exclude meaningful participation by average citizens and will eliminate many resources that allowed people to advocate for neighborhood projects.



Vote "NO" on Prop. 1's MPD.

Be assured, if Prop 1 for the MPD fails-next week-City Council will put a levy on an upcoming ballot.
@12 "Don't allow elected officials to make decisions!" No one said this but if it makes your own narrative work, fine.

@27 "If an MPD is such a great thing for Seattle, why was there no civic conversation before putting it on the ballot? Why no public forums, not even one, where voters could learn about MPDs, and then ask questions and get answers? "

Great questions.

And sorry, but voting no doesn't mean you don't care about parks. That's just BS. We care about protecting them as well as maintaining them.
I don't get why funding the waterfront is being used by these people as an argument against the mpd. The waterfront is the most exciting thing the city has going. Hell yes I want a swimming pool barge and misters and world class design. What I'm hearing here is that anti-tax activists think that keeping the levy system offers the public a chance to hamstring any potential for this city to dream big and make cool shit happen, so that people who have very short range vision and no concept of the awesome potential of great public projects can keep a few more dollars in their pockets. This are people who need to do a little traveling to see the innovation and pride being fostered in cities around the world by people empowered to make something awesome.
How old are you?
Goldy's working to highlight that the "No" campaign's robocalls started using a spam 911 caller ID to trick voters into answering the phone. That's not a sign of good faith. Or of confidence in your position. And it's against the law.……
3 months ago my usually well informed friends had neither heard of or had an opinion concerning an MPD. But at a City Council meetings Sally Bagshaw thanked her cohorts for their "two years" of effort on crafting this park proposal. Where were the voices of us "little people" during all that deliberation?

The stealth that went into the planning and the support of the "downtown crowd" makes me wary of this MPD. How will small parks and natural areas fare under the aegis of this plan if voted in? It will be a great temptation to put the funds in vanity projects and pay for them by granting concessions galore.

If the Prop 1 folks weren't so worried about the public debate this election would not have been so sneaky. Vote NO
@50 typical selfish priorities. you'd rather have the city spend money on a floating swimming pool. I'd rather have the city spend money helping the homeless and disadvantaged.

@51 well, i can see how some dolts could be confused that 206-911-9111 is "911" and "tricked" into answering the phone, and certainly that was a dumb choice of a spoofing number, but the statute says "Prohibit any person or entity from transmitting misleading or inaccurate caller ID information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value." Seems a stretch here...
3 months ago my usually well informed friends had neither heard of or had an opinion concerning an MPD. But at a City Council meetings Sally Bagshaw thanked her cohorts for their "two years" of effort on crafting this park proposal. Where were the voices of us "little people" during all that deliberation?

The stealth that went into the planning and the support of the "downtown crowd" makes me wary of this MPD. How will small parks and natural areas fare under the aegis of this plan if voted in? It will be a great temptation to put the funds in vanity projects and pay for them by granting concessions galore.

If the Prop 1 folks weren't so worried about the public debate this election would not have been so sneaky. Vote NO
The Seattle Police Department must be thrilled with all of the false 911 calls generated by people that didn't realize what that spoofed number actually was, and who tried to call back to complain.

@54 - Do you really think that the votes that they are lying to obtain are not 'something of value'? They sure are spending a lot of money to get something valueless, then.

If they are willing to break the law and lie about who they really are (false Caller ID), why do they think you should trust them when they spew the rest of their incorrect crap?

For those interested, here is the FCC page for filing complaints about false Caller ID:

Note that you may also file a complaint if they robo-dialed your cellphone with their garbage, and you had not given them specific prior permission to do so. While political calls are mostly exempt from the federal Do Not Call registry, robo-dialing cellphones remains completely illegal and can subject them to a $1500 fine, per call, for every call they placed to forbidden cellphones.

Since they only called on my VOIP/landline, I only filed one complaint.
As a former Parks employee, I can tell you that the levy system is what makes the department hard to account for. Levy money goes in for specific needed improvements and programs. When that levy money comes to an end, the department scrambles to reorganize itself to save programs that our a priority that were funded by a levy program. A main example of this was the Late Night program and community center teen programs being smashed together and leaving both with fewer resources. MPD will smooth this out and allow the dept to maintain funding for priorities and smooth things out. No more herky jerky funding issues. I vote YES.
So many Parks MPD supporters just want Parks to be off the levy calendar. Not sure they care about Parks or heavy lifting required to get City Council to pay attention already. I am surprised Stranger allowed this to appear in paper. I guess you gotta give the old hippies (that's Carol Fisher and many others) a little respect. The typical Stranger reader is finding their true progressive North, but Parks isn't exactly a transportation or Rideshare issue. These are what matters to the new Seattle instead, or so Stranger EB thinks?. Ever had to save a Park in a pressure cooked city? Get ready to learn how...bc the land skirmish is afoot. NO ON PROP1. It makes it harder to hold them accountable, now or in 100 years...
@55 Sally has been working in a bubble. She gets hr info from lobbyists and ppl from the progressive elite position. She is about Moderation, no direct action. Sally is nt even on the council committee for parks. But she's all over it anyway. Bc she has been chosen to be the soft face of business intertwined in park operations. And her handlers love her. She is not a truly progressive, public servant. She is a hardworking good girl who does not make up her own mind. This debate is shocking to her. No one told her she'd have to face activism. Poor Sally. I think she'll retire.
We hope she'll retire.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.