Zoning changes spark anger - Coeur d'Alene Press: Local News

Zoning changes spark anger

Citizen group fights new county land use code

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Saturday, June 30, 2012 12:00 am

COEUR d'ALENE - A collection of Kootenai County residents are rallying against the ongoing rewrite of county development and zoning laws, which some fear is reaching overregulation and infringement of personal property rights.

"We are concerned with all regulations that seek to restrict growth and prosperity," stated Jennifer Locke, Hayden resident and member of Concerned Citizens for Kootenai County, which she called a leaderless collection of grassroots individuals.

County officials, as well as the consulting firm assisting in the rewrite, insist there is simply misinformation about the process and the actual impacts that new standards will have.

"It seems the government is giving rights, but that's not true. They're just setting boundaries," said Todd Messenger of Kendig Keast Collaborative, LLC, the consulting firm helping write the Unified Land Use Code.

The concerned citizens group recently distributed flyers about a public workshop on the ULUC, with warnings of residents' property rights at stake.

With the help of other community members, Locke said, the group has also set up the website www.kcrights.com, which includes a petition to halt the ULUC.

"Our goal is to inform the citizens of Kootenai County about the facts the consultant (KKC) has not shared," Locke stated in an e-mail.

The new ordinances in the ULUC are intended to implement the county's new Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2010, guiding future development in the region.

The new laws will affect all things regarding land use and building, including structure setbacks, building heights and what is allowed in certain zones.

The ULUC only applies to unincorporated county property. The ULUC doesn't impact residents of cities.

When asked which new ULUC standards citizens are irked about, Locke stated, "All of them."

A chief concern is that property owners have not been included in a ULUC advisory committee, she wrote, comprised of local special interests.

"Every special interest group has had a say except property owners," Locke contended.

She also dubbed a new ULUC standard "un-American" that establishes all property uses as illegal, except those the county specifies as legal.

Locke also noted a common fear that KKC will direct growth into a uniform aesthetic that "will destroy our unique character."

Brent Regan, president of Regan Designs, has also spoken out about the ULUC.

He objects to the code's establishment of a new zoning district for clusters of already existing homes. The Established Neighborhood district, previously the Neighborhood Conservation district, will make older nonconforming lots and buildings suddenly conforming with new laws, to expedite modifying or rebuilding those homes.

"They've simplified it by making it more complicated," Regan said of creating a new zone with sub districts. "They're trying to fix regulation with more regulation."

He also derided the county only allowing land uses it specifies.

"Imagine if Congress passed a law that said all human activity is illegal, unless it's permitted," he said.

He believes most details in the code are not necessary to specify, anyway, he said.

"Just the sheer volume of the restrictions is unnecessary," he said, citing setback and height requirements. "If I am 10 feet or 12 feet from the property line, does that really matter?"

Messenger said property owners have been included in the process, and not just through public workshops over the past two years.

Most of the advisory group members are local property owners, he pointed out.

"It's a pretty balanced group of folks, in my view," Messenger said.

KKC is intent on a code preserving the county's rural and unique landscape, Messenger said, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan.

"We want to create something that's consistent with that," he said.

He acknowledged that the ULUC does specify which land uses are legal in each county zone.

But that only applies to primary uses, he said, like whether a commercial or residential use is allowed.

For instance, the draft online specifies that a livestock farm is only permitted on public resource and working lands zones. A town home is only permitted on residential zones.

A sexually-oriented retail establishment can only run as a limited-administrative use on an industrial zone.

Basic, everyday activities that property owners conduct on their properties, like gardening, parties and barbecues, aren't affected by the code, he said.

"When we talk about what's allowed and what's not, we're talking about things like a commercial enterprise that's there all the time," Messenger said. "Not everything people do is a (land) use. People's concern about it extending into every aspect of a person's life is simply not the way it will be administered."

Folks can propose new uses, he said, which the county can apply to already existing zones.

The new zoning district Regan cited will simplify the remodeling process for owners of older homes, Messenger added.

The district will allow such owners to pursue structure changes by meeting with county staff instead of going through a hearing process, he said.

"We think the Established Neighborhood district is a really good thing for people who own homes in Kootenai County," Messenger said.

The state legislature requires the county establish setbacks and building heights, he added.

The next ULUC public workshop will be set sometime in September, county staff said.

Messenger said he expects the first ULUC draft to be complete in the next four to six weeks.

The public can already comment on the available draft at www.kccode.com now, he said, or wait to comment when the entire draft is available.

KKC will respond to all comments, he said.

"We want to do our very best to reflect this very important balance of the appropriate role of government," Messenger said. "But we're also writing rules about what does it mean to be a good neighbor, with respect to use and development of land in Kootenai County."

More about

More about

More about

  • Discuss

Welcome to the discussion.


  • Avy posted at 7:23 am on Tue, Oct 16, 2012.

    Avy Posts: 17

    I have a question that I hope someone can assist me with. I am conducting a study using court cases and came across a problem where certain cases have multiple victims.

    Office Cubicles

  • JoeIdaho posted at 11:10 pm on Wed, Jul 4, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    rational hit the nail direclty on the head:
    According to LIBERALS like whynot, us Idahoans are just stupid. Here's where we're REALLY stupid:
    When we ALLOW our local government to be overcome by MORONIC californiaesque laws.

  • the floorist posted at 9:29 am on Tue, Jul 3, 2012.

    the floorist Posts: 331

    "...I say get rid of it and the consulting firm that brought it!..." Mr. Alexander

    Miller Stauffer probably recommended that firm...lol

    "Inclined", reminded me of a book by Will Durant, "The Story of Philosophy", which is an historical review of humanity's efforts to harness unequivocal knowledge, and in due course the ultimate plateau, human control. The book begins with Plato's perfect Greek and finishes with John Dewey's moral principles. Interesting read...

    To stay on topic though; covenants are no different than what I'm discovering about this ULUC...

    ...and also...urban sprawl has already incorporated a great deal of rural privacy and the rural residents are basically being encroached upon, thus it becomes easy to factor in the 90/10 estimate within Kootenai County...

    It's gettin' kinda' like ol' Tombstone, AZ. around these parts...lol..."...We're not sayin' you can't own a gun, what we're sayin' is you can't carry a gun in town..." Well...town is a lot closer than it used to be...

  • rationaldiscussionplz posted at 7:41 am on Sun, Jul 1, 2012.

    rationaldiscussionplz Posts: 266

    Oh yes, that's it exactly, Why Not. Those of us who are concerned about the one-size-fits-all approach to planning, quotas on based on a one-size-fits-all plan for "sustainable development" and "smart growth" we're all just little Idahoans with no experience in the big, scary world and we're fearful of what change would bring to us. Obviously.

    After all, that's exactly what brought us the external developer who is guiding the commissioners through the whole process. We don't know what's best for ourselves. Apparently out of the nearly 140,000 people who live in Kootenai County, not one person was qualified to assist with land use codes. So it was absolutely vital for the commissioners to bring in an out-of-state consultant and pay that consultant hundreds of thousands of dollars to bring us all the sustainable development we would never ask for.

    Now we country bumpkins who don't look beyond our state's borders don't know much. 'Scuse me while I pop in some more chew. But what we do know is that this is directly connected to Agenda 21 and the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. The codes being proposed are meant to attain a population that is 90% contained in the cities and 10% of people living in rural areas. The outside consultant who has no ties to this community said as much at the meeting. The proposed codes are chock full of fun concepts like "vegetation density" and grading requirements. All designed for our own good, of course. We country bumpkins don't know what's best for us after all. That's the point of Agenda 21 and ICLEI--to institute these changes locally, to bring conformity at a community level.

    I *like* Kootenai County. I don't think our current growth pattern is "unsustainable" at all. So what if people can own private property and do more-or-less what they want to with what they own. Is it really that bad? How does Jane, who lives in the country on 50 acres, building a shed on her property affect Joe who lives in an apartment in Coeur d'Alene? Under the ULUC proposals, private property owners aren't allowed to do anything whatsoever with their property unless it is specifically designated as allowable under the code. Does that seem right? Shouldn't it be very much the opposite if private property rights are to be upheld? Isn't it a private property owner's right to do anything he or she wants to do with that property except for certain things that are specifically disallowed?

    I know I'm just another rube, a hillbilly, a local yokel who is scared of change and doesn't know what's best (only an outside community planning consultant knows best, obviously). But I am not going to sit back and be quiet about this. I'm not a property owner. Far from it. But I'll do my best to keep property owners' rights intact. This particular little country mouse is not a fan of the 90-10 population "ideal." I've seen what happens when you pack more people into cities. It's not pretty no matter how many bike lanes and roundabouts you put in. Crime increases, traffic congestion increases, jobs become even more scarce and the sense of individualism is depressed. Everyone suffers. That's not fear, that's reality. The proposed land use codes are a terrible idea.

    Long story short, am I responding to the ULUC proposals from fear? No. Fear comes from ignorance. Property owners and those who support private property rights are responding from the basis of knowledge. Knowledge about what happens when you make it more difficult for private property owners to use their land, and knowledge of what happens when you make it prohibitively expensive or impractical for them to live outside of the cities.

  • Why Not posted at 7:08 am on Sun, Jul 1, 2012.

    Why Not Posts: 4822

    Yo Joe, not from Kali sorry, maybe you need to bone up on the Idaho Timber law buddy.

  • JoeIdaho posted at 6:05 am on Sun, Jul 1, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    Here's "whynot":
    "when someone gets approval to carve up 32300sqft into three lots on a road with 1/2acre lots, then attempts to bulldoze 25 year old arborvitae and spruce growing on a utility easement bordering your propert"
    "whynot doesn't OWN ANY of the property where the old trees he loves so much are being bulldozed. He doesn't want someone else doing anythign to THEIR land; he feels the need to CONTROL what others do on THEIR land. Control FREAK, very Californiaesque. Take it back there, whynot.

    OUTSTANDING post, inclined. Well thought out & written.

    "spuds", man you really know how to add to a conversation. (Not)

  • inclined posted at 2:34 am on Sun, Jul 1, 2012.

    inclined Posts: 681

    This is much bigger than one short article can describe. “some fear is reaching overregulation and infringement of personal property rights…We are concerned with all regulations that seek to restrict growth and prosperity." And, what do the officals, and consulting firm say? They insist there is simply misinformation about the process and the actual impacts that new standards will have.

    To understand Urban Renewal, and ULUC, you have to go back to the beginning. Here are some links.

    http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US2/REF/cre-dre.html What Are the 'American Creed' and the 'American Dream'?
    Within the context of American Studies, “American Creed' can be defined as a deeply-held implicit belief in equality of opportunity in American life; specifically in 'equal opportunity before the law.” Establishment of the Term 'American Dream' in 1931 by James Truslow Adams
    The term 'American Dream' was first used by James Truslow Adams in his 1931 book The Epic of America (see Library of Congress 'background essay' on What Is the American Dream?), according to Adams.

    An American Dilemma: A Review by Ralph Ellison 1944 “GUNNAR MYRDAL’S An American Dilemma is not an easy book for an American Negro to review…reminding him that it is necessary in our democracy for a European scientist to affirm the American Negro’s humanity.”

    Gunnar Myrdal was a Swede, a Socialist. This study was essentially on how to do with the blacks in this country, under the weight and in front of war. It was to prepare this country to lead the world out of the onslaught of Fascism. In other words, to take care of racial obstinacy in our own back yard while Hitler was eventually to murder six million Jews. The title of the book, An American Dilemma, refers to the moral contradiction of a nation torn between allegiance to its highest ideals and awareness of the base realities of racial discrepancies. There is the hype of this book, written by intellectuals and loved by book reviewers, but there is, as well, the truth.

    When the book first appeared An American Dilemma was called "the most penetrating and important book on contemporary American civilizations by Robert S. Lynd; "One of the best political commentaries on American life that has ever been written" in The American Political Science Review; and a book with "a novelty and a courage seldom found in American discussions either of our total society or of the part which the Negro plays in it"

    Earlier, in the 1930’s the more evident design of the URD, or as it was still known as the National Housing Act, would be urban renewal in the form of ethnic cleansing, and not just of blacks, but of Catholics, and Irish, and Italians and yes, Germans, right here in the USA. Another book, first published in 1913, then redone in 1930, Behaviorism, by Watson, was about social experimentation. It was about the mastery of people, the manipulating of people, and that because, human nature is changeable, and since we were not ready for the same solutions as Hitler’s fascist regime, there was to socially engineer people to think and act and according to manipulation.

    You must look at Truman and his National Housing Act 1949. And who was Truman reading? An American Dilemna, by Gunnar Myrdal. The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy, Volume 2 Transaction Publishers, 1944.

    What happened in NYC as a result of Mr. Truman’s National Housing Act? The Housing Act gave power to a man, the commissioner, a Mr. Robert Moses. He, a Democrat, dolled out the power, in contracts, of eminent domain, to political cronies, phony front organization, to tear down whole divisions of neighborhoods to build “planned communities”, for health and happiness to reign, declaring said neighborhoods, slums. The government gave, through the commissioner, the power to hand pick friends, companies, for favors. Being poor didn’t mean a bad life, but, that’s not the way the social engineers saw it. This is what the URD was, and still is, social engineering. It is a land control that means there is an elite that knows how to plan, build, promote, sell, to make us a fine city. O, it seems innocuous, but, they take. That’s what happened all those years ago. They took homes away from people because they were an embarrassment to the front page of advertising and promotion, to the world. This spring is poisonous and, it’s here, and we are trying to deal with the bad water.

    This consultant firms makes it sound[with support from our enabling Commissioners], as though it were only remedy. If it were only understood. They have no connection to the past. They have only inoffensive, pallid, hardly resourceful, monotonously necessary ideas to determine, and control. You might think, well, we are sixty years down the road, come on. Blacks certainly do not figure into all this anymore. I will tell you what I found.

    There was another book, by the same name, Behaviorism, authored by a man named by B.F.Skinner. This man, took the extreme liberty of transferring his experience and theories of psychology and social behavior of rats directly to human beings. He had an experiment to bring up his daughter in a “Skinner Box”. Unbelievable. True. But we are not so far removed in the plans of this regime to take care of us, in it’s Affordable Health Care program, from natal(those that make it), to old age(those that aren’t given comfort pills and helped to slip off) D.amn if it’s not the truth. This is the control, these are the sentiments, the Petri dish, the bacteria farm, from which grew the ideas of the URD, social control and practical social change. That, because of disinterested minions, dumbed down grovelers, ethnic and racial inferiors, programs were put in place, and are still here(except in the failed state of California where they canceled the URD’s out). Mexico is a drug state. Mexico has more than a figuratively poisoned well. But, the poison of the well of the URD, ULUC in CA was part of the failing in that state, and neither is that figurative. And there is more.

  • SPUDIO posted at 10:18 pm on Sat, Jun 30, 2012.

    SPUDIO Posts: 101

    Miss your nap today joeboy! I hear there is a flock of flying saucers tonight, better get some much needed rest!

  • Why Not posted at 8:10 pm on Sat, Jun 30, 2012.

    Why Not Posts: 4822

    This has been an interesting study, understanding why some folks have their baggies in a knot about the County ULUC. The headline “sparks anger” says a lot, Brent Reagan is a very intelligent person, but he tends to approach everything as winner takes all and that’s not necessarily a good agenda when community issues involve wide and varied opinions and ideals. I have mine and you have yours, great now we have to find common ground and it seems to me that is what the County and KKC have been attempting to do.

    Reading between the lines, it seems that people are most disturbed about Neighborhood Conservation distinction. This proposal includes: first that non conforming properties with structures would automatically become conforming, that’s a good thing for owners. Second, uniform subdivision rules for future development, but what does this really mean? To the best of my ability and albeit a cursory review of the plan, this means clear and enforcable minimum standards thus assuring that there are no “unfair burdens” on neighboring property owners. Great, we don’t want to start any Hatfield and McCoy feuds, people get hurt.

    The other factor here is the references to UN Agenda 21 (KCCPR website), a non-binding, voluntary plan signed by the United States in 1992. There is an element in this country that sees black helicopters and is sure that we are becoming the UN States of America. I don’t subscribe to this conspiracy mindset, but I do travel often to some of the most overbuilt and under planned cities in the world, places where the water will make you sick and millions live in shanty towns without any services. It’s not pretty, the smell is sickening and gut wrenching poverty is surrounded by fabulous opulence. Agenda 21 isn’t about Kootenai County or even about America. It’s about, helping places like: Lagos, Jakarta, Quito and Rio. Fixing poisoned land and helping to bring basic living standards to hundreds of millions of people. What’s bad about this and what’s so bad about the ULUC? It is intended to help, not hinder property owners, but some apparently are driven by fear.

  • Why Not posted at 7:48 pm on Sat, Jun 30, 2012.

    Why Not Posts: 4822

    @ Will – when someone gets approval to carve up 32300sqft into three lots on a road with 1/2acre lots, then attempts to bulldoze 25 year old arborvitae and spruce growing on a utility easement bordering your property.

  • JoeIdaho posted at 7:13 pm on Sat, Jun 30, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    I'm an "inconsiderate pig", huh whynot?
    And why is that?
    Because I believe in property rights and you are a red communist?
    Simple answer:
    You wouldn't understand.
    ALL about controlling other peoples property.
    Liberals are Communists.

  • rationaldiscussionplz posted at 12:36 pm on Sat, Jun 30, 2012.

    rationaldiscussionplz Posts: 266

    That is correct, Michael. I believe the exact numbers in Kootenai County are 29% rural, 71% incorporated. The out-of-state consultant they have planning this thing is writing it to get his ideal picture of "sustainable growth" by ensure those numbers move to 10% rural, 90% incorporated. This is going to be accomplished by making life as difficult as possible for those living outside the city, including clamping down on water rights, using excessive easements, and not having true grandfathering of existing structures. Want to build a toolshed on your private property? Great! Just file these forms...oh! And are your existing structures built according to the strict new county code? (For your own good and the good of sustainable development, of course) No? Well, lucky for you we have some more permit forms right over here, 'cause if you want to make any modification to your existing property you'll need to modify everything on your property to bring it into compliance with new codes. Fantastic.

    I also heard that part of the new code includes "occupancy" limits. Which IMHO would interfere with normal events. Let's say you have a wedding venue on 10 acres somewhere out in Kootenai County. In that area where they assign an occupancy limit of three people per acre of your land. That means even though you're hosting weddings, you have to limit attendance (including staff) to less than 30 people in order to successfully comply with the proposed code.

    This is nothing but a plan to hunker people in cities and restrict private property rights. But what do the county commissioners care? Only 29% of people in the county right now see themselves as being affected. The city residents themselves won't notice much of a change until 19% of Kootenai County's residents are forced to relocate into the cities because they're no longer able to bear/afford the burdens of the restrictions on people living in rural areas. Every property owner in Kootenai County should be deeply concerned over this usurpation of their property rights. Every city resident should be concerned, because they'll eventually see greater demand on city resources, greater traffic congestion and other negative side effects caused by forcing county residents into the cities. This new code is a terrible idea all around.

  • Michael Alexander posted at 11:53 am on Sat, Jun 30, 2012.

    Michael Alexander Posts: 93

    I would ask him what he would like to see in terms of percentages for growth and development in the city versus the rural areas. I believe, and don't quote me on this, that we are about 30% rural and 70% city in this county. I was not at the earlier meetings on Monday or Tuesday, but I did hear that he would like to see that number closer to 10% rural and 90% city.
    They say that they don’t have to abide Idaho law as revised in 1995. The consulting firm says that they are free to restrict property rights and uses as long as it does has not exceeded the legal threshold for a 5th Amendment "Taking". This interpretation goes far beyond the restrictions enacted in 1995.
    Why did the commissioners spend 300k on this consulting firm’s idiotic plan, when I just heard that the sheriff’s department is asking the federal government to help pay for a couple more deputies? Should we not spend more money on relevant expenditures, as oppose to studies to find out our citizens do not like their local government? I could have done that for a whole lot less than 300k!
    So what it seems like from my understanding is that, this plan is to tell you not what you cannot do, but what you can. If the plan says you can, that is fine, but if it is not in the plan, you cannot do it. So you want to build a dog house, but the plan does not state you can, than it can't be built. Sounds like property "rights" are not really rights in this plan. I say get rid of it and the consulting firm that brought it!

  • Keven Johnson posted at 10:20 am on Sat, Jun 30, 2012.

    Keven Johnson Posts: 1387

    This is not a local plan by local people; this is straight from the U.N. 's "Agenda 21" plan from 20 or so years ago to get people out of rural areas and clumped into cities.

    Google "Agenda 21"; it is not "conspiracy theory" , it is absolutely real and verifiable, and the ULUC is part of it.

    If we are to have a plan for growth for Kootenai County, it should be a plan that the people that live here create and vote on; not something from the United Nations.

  • 3Cheers posted at 9:16 am on Sat, Jun 30, 2012.

    3Cheers Posts: 423

    How many of the advisory board members live in the incorporated areas of the county? Who are they?They should not be on the board.
    I foresee a new system in the Republican primary, where a candidate has to receive 50%+ of the vote, via a runoff if necessary, to win.

  • will-- posted at 9:14 am on Sat, Jun 30, 2012.

    will-- Posts: 1002

    "Tell me; "whynot", WHY do I need to be "concerned" with someone else's property?"

    Just look to Bonner county for the answer. Do you want a unsightly truck farm next to you?

  • ancientemplar posted at 8:48 am on Sat, Jun 30, 2012.

    ancientemplar Posts: 1261

    If you live in the unincorporated portion of the county you do have a reason for concern. This is being run by outsiders. They even will legislate what type of landscaping you will be able to use on your specific size lot. This community will resemble every other bland governmental regulated community . It'll be a cookie cutter appearance resulting from what the out-of-state consultant brings to the table.

    I have been to almost every advisory committee meeting , sometimes the only non-participating observer, and there is no spokesperson speaking first and foremost for the concerns of the property owners. So don't think because the advisory group speaks as property owners first because they are there to represent their agenda issues first,(ei: environmentalists KEA, developers, real estate brokerage, engineers, planners, bureaucrats,) The position paper is written prior to the meetings and the agenda and goals are establish by the moderator and any discussion are of minuscule impact.

  • Why Not posted at 7:54 am on Sat, Jun 30, 2012.

    Why Not Posts: 4822

    Well Joe that’s because you are obviously an inconsiderate pig. I also own acreage in Athol where I have a shop and where a neighbor was hosting regular public horse events on weekends. I could care less about what she was doing, but many neighbors did because they felt it was restricting their Private Property. Joe, inconsiderate morons like you are why we have all these ridiculous laws.

  • JoeIdaho posted at 5:46 am on Sat, Jun 30, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    Listen to "whynot" and you see WHY and HOW liberals feel the NEED to control what other people do n their own PRIVATE LAND.
    If you want to see your property rights disappear, listen to people like whynot; and watch instead of act when your local gestapo government works HARD to "control" whathappens on each parcel of land.
    Kootenai County is now BY FAR the most restrictive county in North Idaho, PURELY because of the Californians that came here & have affected local government with their CALIFORNIA ways.

    Whynot says:
    "Code is intended to protect you from others who are unconcerned with your property"
    Tell me; "whynot", WHY do I need to be "concerned" with someone else's property?

    "and from people with more financial means who might try to build a convenience store next to your cherished investment"
    IF someone wants to build a convenience store next my "cherished property", it means that (A) the land its;ef is already on a heavily travelled roadway and (B) it's zoned COMMERCIAL.
    You, though; you need MORE LAWS....

    "Sure they also limit your ability to do what you want on your own property"
    And WHY dow we need this, "whynot"? WHY do we need to FURTHER restrict my use of MY property?

    "but that is part of the compromise of living in close quarters"
    I guess "close quarters" means 20 acre parcel, huh "whynot"?

    "I would love a forty foot shop on my property, but I can assure you that my neighbors categorically do not"
    And I can assure you that if I owned your property that the shop would go in if I wanted it, not if my neighbors didn't.
    See, when I own something, that makes it MINE. When YOU own somethign, it makes it "community property", and you have EVERY RIGHT to give away YOUR rights, but NOT mine.

  • Why Not posted at 5:14 am on Sat, Jun 30, 2012.

    Why Not Posts: 4822

    There is always reason to worry about government overreach, but there are reasons to respect and to support comprehensive code as well, it a compromise for living among others. Code is intended to protect you from others who are unconcerned with your property and from people with more financial means who might try to build a convenience store next to your cherished investment. Sure they also limit your ability to do what you want on your own property, but that is part of the compromise of living in close quarters. I would love a forty foot shop on my property, but I can assure you that my neighbors categorically do not.

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
Not you?||
Logout|My Dashboard