Prince George council just signed a contract to pay a consulting company $313,720 to conduct a core services review. With a population of 80,000 (somewhere between the “actual” population and the “population served”), this amounts to roughly $3.90 per person. How does that compare to other cities that have done a core review. Here’s a rough round-up. Populations are roughly based on what I find from census and the cities.
| City | Population | Core review cost | Core review cost per person | |
| Toronto | 2,615,060 | $1,000,000 (no source, widely cited) | $0.38 | |
| Mission | 36,426 | $100,000 [or less] (source) | $2.74 | |
| Penticton | 32,877 | $70,000 (source) | $2.13 | |
| Regina | 193,100 |
|
$1.55 |
I know White Rock also did one, and Oliver is about to have one, but I couldn’t find any primary sources talking about cost.
It’s also worth pointing out as Chris Leboe does that “I suppose you need to compare the scopes of work before you can compare fairly… Population alone might not be fair.” This is true. Maybe this core review will be much more in-depth and get more value per dollar than any of the others. But it’s worth having this benchmark to make comparisons.
As always, if you have better numbers or more accurate comparisons to be making, feel free to chime in. This is just a rough document done in my spare time, nothing “official”.
At AVC.com last week, there was a discussion around “Where do you get your news?” A lot of the discussion was how in the age of the internet (mostly Facebook and Twitter), people expect news to find them rather than for them to go seek it out.
That’s telling for people (like me!) who trade in the ability to get people to pay attention to the information we put out there. Radio is a kettle of fish somewhat separate from print, but we’re still competing for attention in a crowded atmosphere and can’t expect people to just seek us out.
But I wanted to touch on how I get my news. Since my value to listeners/audience is based on filtering through stories and getting out ahead of them, I can’t wait for the news to come to me– I have to find it, preferably where no one else is looking. Here’s a rough idea of how I parse news on a typical day.
It’s kind of a lot to parse, and I know I’m far from typical. If I didn’t work in current events, I know I wouldn’t be as across all this stuff. I’m not sure what I would and wouldn’t be using if I wasn’t doing this. Probably all of it, just not as often.
In light of the 30th anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Frank Peebles has a nice article in the Prince George Citizen today outlining a couple of key charter cases with links to northern B.C. There’s links to the allowance of Sikh turbans as part of the RCMP uniform, and then there’s same-sex marriage. One of the first same-sex marriages to be allowed in the country was here in Prince George. It’s telling to read the words of Theresa Healey on what the Charter means to her:
“It is not just a philosophical beacon of hope that we can be better than we are, it is a pragmatic tool to ensure those who are trapped by ignorance that the power they might want to wield against the less popular – like gays, First Nations, women, the poor, immigrants i.e. most of us – isn’t actually legal.”
Full article here.
Under the headline “P.G. to Hire Puppy Police”, Opinion250 writes:
“The City of Prince George, which recently dismantled its environmental services division, let go 9 employees and announced 19 other vacant positions would not be filled, has posted a call for applications for one of two part time positions as a “ Dog License Canvasser””
The comments section is full of people scratching their heads over why the city is spending money on this, THIS, of all things! Meanwhile, I’m seeing comments on Facebook upset that bylaw officers will be going door-to-door to take away unlicensed dogs or fine people who have “restricted breeds.”
While the merits of having restricted breeds or even a dog licencing program can and have been debated elsewhere, I think it’s only fair to make a couple of clarifications based on conversations I’ve had with Guy Gusdal, manager of bylaw services, as well as representatives from the union. Any errors are my own, not theirs.
1. The money thing
The optics of making hires of this sort, especially when jobs have just been lost, may be questionable. But the expectation for these positions is that they will, very directly and measurably, pay for themselves.
They get $17.24 an hour, but their work is “irregular part-time.” What this means is they only work as much and as long as they continue to bring cash in.
This has been experimented in the past. To start with, the two hires get a list of people who have paid for a dog licence in the past, but have not yet purchased one this year. They then contact them and ask if they’d like to do it this year. For the most part, it’s hoped that these are the sorts of people that intend to get the licence, but haven’t gotten around to it yet (just like they haven’t made it to the dentist). They will also go door-to-door and canvass at strategically chosen homes and neighbourhoods. Again, only so long as they are paying their own way.
Gusdal wasn’t able to provide me with exact numbers, but he says there are easily thousands of dollars in uncollected fees out there.
The union, for its part, thinks it’s a great opportunity for a student to do some summer work and make money for the city and themselves at the same time.
2. The bylaws and breeds thing
These are canvassers. Not enforcement officers. The focus of their job is not to find people they think are breaking rules and come down hard on them. This is more like the idea of having a kiosk in the mall educating people about the usefulness of having a dog licence and asking if they’d like to sign up– only instead of a kiosk, they’re going door-to-door. 250 outlines the difficulty these canvassers would have in actually enforcing anything. They’re correct. And the city isn’t expecting enforcement. Just outreach, and, hopefully, a bit more money.
I just went through the process of interviewing candidates for the station manager job at CFUR Radio. It was a pretty extensive question line touching on lots of different areas, and we got a diversity of answers on most questions. But there was one question that had an identical answer every time.
When asked how they organize multiple projects with multiple deadlines and plan each day every person answered: Google Calendar. On their computer, and more importantly on their phone.
The funny thing is, the process they then described is the exact same one I have. You have meeting or a deadline, you add it to your calendar. You then sync it to your phone, so you’ll get an alert on there. And, if necessary, set it up so you get an email sent to you in advance.
Google Calendar has been a boon to me. I use it for my personal life as well as my professional. I don’t think my set up is particularly unique, but I figured I’d share it anyways.
I have three main calendars.
For recurring events, like paying bills, or non-scheduled tasks (like write up a draft budget) I tend to use Remember the Milk as a “to-do” list. But I use its Google Calendar apps, so it’s on there, as well. All in all, it’s a huge boon to me in terms of organizing my life, and from the sounds of things, I’m not alone.
I’m interested if you have any tricks or calendars you find particularly useful, as well.
Mayor Shari Green calls it “a dream come true.”
MLAs Pat Bell and Shirley Bond say it’s the day Prince George came of age and the beginning of a renaissance, respectively.
Elsewhere, anonymous commenters suggest the developers must be smoking pot.
That’s early reaction to a $40 million hotel/condo unit expected to move in around the corner from where I work downtown.
Here are some of the facts, as provided from a news release distributed at the event:
There will also be 150 hotel rooms, an in-house restaurant, shops, spa, gym, and underground parking. Construction could begin as early as this summer. It’s going up across from the Prince George Public Library, in the old RCMP building site.
To understand the full scope of this, understand: this is unheard of Prince George. For years, housing has been centre stage of many discussions about how to fix an at-best flawed downtown. In a 2009 article about revitalization projects across the province, Tyee writer Christine McLaren explained the situation thusly:
“A typical resource town, like many in B.C., Prince George grew rapidly in the 1960s and 1970s with the opening of several pulp mills. The city doubled in size each decade, and responded to the growth by spreading out rather than up. It was a decision that Dan Milburn, Manager of Long Range Planning for the City of Prince George says shaped the face of the downtown core from there on in.
‘A large suburban type land use pattern developed, and hence the desire for the creation of suburban malls, which initially tried to almost mirror the downtown in look and function,” Milburn explains. “Since that time, we’ve seen more growth in commercial space outside the downtown than in the downtown.’
Not only that, but while the housing market exploded through the rest of the province, land in Prince George remained cheap and plentiful, making single family homes financially obtainable for most residents. With little demand for cheaper apartments or townhouses, almost zero housing exists in the downtown core today.”
This is true. So much so that for the most part, discussion around getting people to live downtown has focused on cheap places for students or building seniors homes in the vicinity. This is something else altogether.
The Price of Luxury
$800,000. That’s the price for a twelfth-storey suite. You’ll get a view of the city (including, I’m told, the river), access to a pool, gym and spa, and private parking. So would you buy?
Immediate Twitter reaction:
“Bahahaaa no….”
“nope! Sounds to expensive for PG”
“Who is going to pay $800k to live downtown, or even $300k?”
Too bad. It’s already sold.
So what if you have eight-hundred grand and are looking for property of equal value? I just put a search in for residential properties in Prince George priced $800,000 and above. Unless you’re looking for a multi-acre property including a barn out in the country, there’s nothing. At seven-hundred grand, you get three multi-storey properties on the outskirts of the city, the cheapest of which has six beds, four baths, and what looks to be three garages. At $350,000 (the cheapest condo price), you’re still looking at at least three beds and three baths, often more, with (random grab) 2620 square feet of floor space, not to mention the yards.
These are not low-income seniors populating these condos. These are not students.
These are going to people who could live anywhere in the city. They could be in the country, in the Crescents, College Heights– heck, they could probably buy my top five choices for houses when I was looking, all in one go. In other words, these are not people who have to live downtown, they’re going to be people who want to live downtown.
Sift through comments on this story and you’ll find there are plenty of people who don’t believe those sorts of people even exist.
The Ghost of Ghia
Maybe it’s because they’ve been down this road before. Jason Morris brought up the subject of the last time something of this magnitude was proposed. In the fall of 2005 architect Yves Ghia announced the Metropolis Project. From the archives of Opinion250:
“He calls it Metropolis “3” and he plans to build it on the parking lot that stretches from Quebec Street to Dominion along Second Avenue. Yes, it is the stretch that runs along the back of the Columbus Hotel…
His vision has student oriented apartments (65 of them) on the second floor above 30,000 square feet of retail space. Parking for the units will be provided by the City through the use of the parkade.”
You can still find the model for this project, along with a photo-op with ex-mayor Colin Kinsley in the “news” section of Ghia’s site, but as the commenters on Opinion250 today will point out, this hasn’t exactly panned out.
So there are ghosts to get past for this project. The idea of high-end living downtown has been a point of discussion, studies, and proposals for decades, with little to actually show for it. A couple of blocks away, a well-intentioned model for more modest condominiums on Seventh Avenue have been spinning their wheels for at least two years. On the more ambitious end of things, in 1967 it was fully expected that downtown highrises would be serviced by monorail.
Something to Prove
So there’s something to prove with this project. Though it may not be as ambitious as Centrum Prince George or Metropolis 3, it is ambitious nonetheless. This is not an all-encompassing project aimed at transforming downtown in one swoop. It’s an early piece in a checkerboard of properties and proposals being juggled by the city, the province, and private enterprise. A Wood Innovation Centre was announced when Gordon Campbell was still a popular premier, but today there’s little to show for it except the destruction of the PG Hotel (announcements, as always, are imminent). The Ramada and the Keg have made big bets on George Street, but a chorus of people are declaring the return of pay parking downtown will undo any and all progress that’s been made in recent years. But this latest proposal is something else.
Units are being sold. Sold fast, even. Construction should start in a matter of months. If all goes well, visitors could be staying in the hotel when they come for the 2015 Games. So, for now, this is no pie-in-the-sky project. This is something with buyers, timelines, and firm(ish) completion dates.
This will be a game changer. If it succeeds, it will prove something in the city has shifted. That people are willing to live in or near downtown Prince George, and what’s more, they’re willing to pay top dollar to do so. If demand is high, maybe it will kickstart other projects. Property values surrounding could see increases, too.
There’s pitfalls. The VLA, Prince George’s “poor” neighbourhood is close. Will it see benefits? Will the low-income people in nearby units be forced out into other neighbourhoods? Will the single-family houses with yards and fences currently inhabited by most of the middle class be drained inwards, leaving ghost neighbourhoods in their wake?
Will the shops and restaurant in the unit steal customers away from those small businesses doing OK along 3rd and 4th? Or if more business is attracted in, will the locals be forced out as higher-end retailers come along with a better offer?
What about roads? Every morning I see the closest thing to a traffic jam this city has smack-dab beside where this building with over 100 employees, 30 permanent residents, and 150 hotel guests will now be placed. How will traffic flow be adjusted to accomodate this? Can transit step up to the plate?
Those are questions beyond my capability to answer and, I should say, I don’t really expect anyone, from the developers to planners to council to answer them. This is the nature of cities. You never know how big projects will play out.
The bigger question, I think, is what if it fails? This is the opening shot. If this succeeds, others may follow suit. If it falls on its face, how many will back away?
So this will be a game-changer. Succeed or fail, the stage is being set.
What are you willing to bet?
Recently, I wound up in the system failure portion of Hyperbole’s and a Half “Level of Responsibility” graph. I was dropping responsibilities at home and in my role as a volunteer. I’ve been there before and I can get out, but this time was more difficult than in the past (I think irregular sleeping patterns were hindering). You wouldn’t think that one sentence would help fix it, but it did. That sentence is “It’s not a priority.” This trick went semiviral after appearing in a Wall Street Journal article by Laura Vanderkam:
Instead of saying “I don’t have time” try saying “it’s not a priority,” and see how that feels. Often, that’s a perfectly adequate explanation. I have time to iron my sheets, I just don’t want to. But other things are harder. Try it: “I’m not going to edit your résumé, sweetie, because it’s not a priority.” “I don’t go to the doctor because my health is not a priority.” If these phrases don’t sit well, that’s the point. Changing our language reminds us that time is a choice. If we don’t like how we’re spending an hour, we can choose differently.
I’ve been doing this for a few weeks now, and it works beautifully. “I don’t have time to exercise” versus “exercising is not a priority.” “I don’t have time to go over a retirement plan” verus “my retirement plan is not a priority.” Even “I don’t have time to just sit and think for a few minutes” versus “sitting and thinking for a few a minutes” is not a priority. And then taking things you apparently do have time for since you’re doing them and asking yourself if they’re a priority. The unimportant things still creep up, but it’s easier to fight them this way.
(via lifehacker)
I played Monopoly when I was a kid. And it always seemed to take forever and boil down to sheer tedium near the end. This is probably partly because I had a short attention span, but also because I was playing it wrong. As pointed out by the Campaign For Real Monopoly, I didn’t know this rule:
“BUYING PROPERTY…Whenever you land on an unowned property you may buy that property from the Bank at its printed price. You receive the Title Deed card showing ownership; place it face up in front of you.
If you do not wish to buy the property, the Banker sells it at auction to the highest bidder. The buyer pays the Bank the amount of the bid in cash and receives the Title Deed card for that property. Any player, including the one who declined the option to buy it at the printed price, may bid. Bidding may start at any price.”
And that’s not all. There’s of course free parking, the landing on of which should not result in you getting extra cash (artificially inflating the amount of money in the game). Everyone knows that one. Marco Arment has some other house rules that he says makes the game better, as well as this one often missed real rule:
“double rent for properties that are part of a monopoly but have no houses”
Ultimately, everything that makes the game better is about speeding it up (by reducing the amount of outside money coming in and speeding up the rate at which people have to pay each other). I’ve played using some of these new (or, rather, old) rules, and it did go a lot faster and make it more fun. I do, however, enjoy the ability to wheel-and-deal on a variety of things, including mergers of certain assets and free rent. It makes the game longer, but it adds to the strategy. It’s probably one of those things that needs to be established before play starts.
Earlier, I posted about downtown parking costs and suggested that the city might have actually been making money off of downtown parking. Here’s what I wrote:
“Bad debt refers to tickets that have been issued but not paid. This is not money the city had and then spent. Instead, it is money the city could have but doesn’t because people aren’t paying their tickets. I would argue that this is an opportunity cost, rather than an actual cost.
So let’s get rid of money that never falls into city hands and talk only about real money. This would be the money that the city spends on downtown parking, and the money that the city makes from downtown parking. People who don’t pay their tickets are not a real cost, but an opportunity cost, and so are not factored in here.
After doing this, the net revenue of downtown parking in 2007 rises from $80,054 to $139,011 ($80,054 + $58,967). But perhaps more significantly, the net revenue of the downtown parking program in 2011 changes from a loss of $81,193 to a profit of $23,232 ([-$81,193] + $104,425). Free parking is still not generating as much money as paid parking, but it’s no longer costing the city money– at least not real money, just money that it could be making that it isn’t otherwise. “
I was wrong. As pointed out in the comments section:
“The “cost” of bad debts (in most accounting procedures) accounts for money that was recorded as revenue, but will never be received. While it may not be *this* year’s revenue that is now a “bad debt”, it was, at some point, recorded as money that had been earned (revenue), but will not be showing up in the bank account.
Therefore, in order for the books to balance, it must be “removed” from the system as an expense.”
Costs:
***CORRECTION: This post incorrectly assumes that ‘uncollected debt’ has never been counted as revenue by the city, whereas in reality it has previously been calculated as profit and therefore must be taken out later as a loss. Originally, I added those corrections to this post so it would be seen. Those corrections are now struck out, and a more detailed version of the corrections are available here. Otherwise, I have preserved this post in its original form**)
Note: This post should be taken with a grain of salt, because I don’t have it verified by anyone. It’s just my read of some of the numbers. Corrections, to my math or my grasp of economics, are encouraged. Read carefully and if you see errors, please let me know– information at the bottom of the post.
I’m delving a bit further into the staff report to Prince George mayor and council regarding the on-street parking pilot project (you can, too– it’s right here). For the last two years parking downtown has been free for up to two hours, after which you get a fine for overstaying. At the last council meeting, Prince George councilors voted to return to a system where everyone parking downtown has to pay an upfront fee, such as parking metres.
One of the primary reasons councilors cited for this move was the costs. The report compares revenues and expenses for each year from 2007 to 2011 but notes “[t]he best comparison of revenue and expenses of Pay Parking versus Free Parking occurs when the 2007 figures are compared with the 2011 figures, as these figure are likely most representative of the true revenues and costs of each respective system”
So we can look to 2007 (paid parking)and see downtown parking generated $80,054. We then look to 2011 (free parking) and see a net loss of $81,193. On the surface, pay parking downtown makes the city close to $80,000 a year, free parking costs it $80,000 a year. Council members definitely read it this way.
Brian Skakun:
“This is not free parking. It’s costing the city.”
“By switching to free parking it cost the city between $160,000 to $190,000.”
But here’s where my first-year economics courses come in handy. There’s two types of costs being talked about here- actual costs and opportunity costs. “Actual costs” refer to real costs– ie actual money spent on something. And then there’s “opportunity costs”– which refers not to actual money spent, but benefits that are sacrificed when you choose one option over another. Take a look at the revenue and expense table used here.
In the “expenses” column of the free vs paid parking downtown there are two items: labour and benefits, and bad debt. Labour and benefits refers to actual costs. Real money is spent on having city staff walk around downtown, monitor parking, and hand out tickets. This is money the city has and could spend elsewhere, but needs to spend on having staff ticket people. Bad debt refers to tickets that have been issued but not paid. This is not money the city had and then spent. Instead, it is money the city could have but doesn’t because people aren’t paying their tickets. I would argue that this is an opportunity cost, rather than an actual cost.
So let’s get rid of money that never falls into city hands and talk only about real money. This would be the money that the city spends on downtown parking, and the money that the city makes from downtown parking. People who don’t pay their tickets are not a real cost, but an opportunity cost, and so are not factored in here.
After doing this, the net revenue of downtown parking in 2007 rises from $80,054 to $139,011 ($80,054 + $58,967). But perhaps more significantly, the net revenue of the downtown parking program in 2011 changes from a loss of $81,193 to a profit of $23,232 ([-$81,193] + $104,425). Free parking is still not generating as much money as paid parking, but it’s no longer costing the city money– at least not real money, just money that it could be making that it isn’t otherwise. When Brian Skakun says “it’s costing the city,” he doesn’t mean the city is spending more money on parking enforcement than it’s generating from tickets, he means the city isn’t making as much money as it could be. When Cameron Stolz says free parking cost the city up to $190,000, he means there’s up to $190,000 the city could be making that it isn’t, not that free parking actually forced the city to spend $190,000 extra dollars.1 When you start putting things in those terms, you can say that by not charging people an extra dollar a year to live here, it costs the city $80,000 annually or that it costs the city money not to have toll roads.
There’s a lot of other factors at play when it comes to charging for parking. Is there a shortage of parking spots downtown that needs to be managed somehow? Are there too many cars driving through the city core and pay parking is a way to encourage biking and transit? Any of these can be legitimate reasons to introduce pay parking. Heck, simply looking for a way to generate more money for the city is legitimate, as long as you’re willing to go ahead and say that’s what you’re doing.
But I wonder if the conversation shifts from “free parking downtown is costing the city money” to “we’re already making money off of downtown parking through ticketing people who stay for more than two hours, but we’d like to make more money by charging everyone who parks there for any length of time” if we’d see a change of heart.
—
For a full correction, see here.
EDIT(April 4): In the comments, KrisB adds the following insight:
“I think you’re missing something by taking out the “bad debts”.
The “cost” of bad debts (in most accounting procedures) accounts for money that was recorded as revenue, but will never be received. While it may not be *this* year’s revenue that is now a “bad debt”, it was, at some point, recorded as money that had been earned (revenue), but will not be showing up in the bank account.
Therefore, in order for the books to balance, it must be “removed” from the system as an expense.”
That is an important point, and one that pretty much deflates everything I’ve said. If the bad debt has been recorded as revenue already, it has to be removed if the tickets are unpaid. That said– and again I may be wrong– if there was no bad debt (ie if there was a more effective system of forcing people to pay their tickets), the city would be running a profit? So maybe instead of going after everyone parking downtown, there should be a more effective means of going after those who don’t pay? Which may of course just cost more money than it’s worth.
Of everything I’ve read about the Conservative budget, the most interesting is Andrew Coyne’s column putting things into some context:
“Be under no illusion about this: the five years of “austerity” on which we are now embarked will be, after inflation, adjusting for population growth, the five biggest spending years in the history of the country — other than the last three.
All that the Tories are proposing to do is to roll back some of the increased spending that they themselves introduced. The public service from which the Tories pledge to trim 19,000 employees is the same one to which they added more than 30,000.”
Last night, the Junos, ostensibly the Canadian version of the Grammy, took place. And as an advocate for the great music this country has I have to weigh in on Michael Buble’s win. For a Christmas album.
There’s a lot of head–scratching going on over this one for those who don’t follow the ins and outs of these awards, but unfortunately plenty of others saw this coming. Laura Kane, writing for the Tyee, explains:
“Sell a lot of records.
That is, if you want to be nominated for Album of the Year or International Album of the Year. Those categories are entirely determined by sales figures. This explains why so many albums featuring Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer keep making the cut.”
That’s it. Unlike most other music awards, which are based on a combination of sales and artistry (to varying effectiveness), the “Album of the Year” award goes to… whoever sells the most.
Which is fine. You could argue that whatever sells the most SHOULD be album of the year. But I really wish the awards would be more upfront about it, instead of making out like it’s some big surprise, after tabulating votes of judges and critics really weighing whether Bieber’s of Buble’s version of “White Chrismas” more effectively pushed our idea of what “art” could be. Because to an outside observer, be they in Canada or abroad, it’s all too easy to look and scoff “Canadian music? The best they can do is Buble crooning Christmas tunes,” and then ignore all the great, unheralded stuff coming out. It’s a detriment to the entire Canadian music scene, because it gives those not already converted to the greatness of it to just continue ignoring it.
The Prince George Free Press has an interesting take on city council’s decision to bring back pay parking downtown:
“Council’s decision to possibly bring back parking meters is purely a business decision. The bottom line has been negatively impacted by the removal of parking meters, so “bring ‘em back.”
It flies in the face of the “open for business” mantra of the current council and the increased focus of improving downtown, which has had a real impact over the past few years.
It was the business community that pushed, and pushed hard, for the elimination of parking meters. The rationale behind not having parking meters in 2007 hasn’t changed. All that has changed is the fact that council is scrambling to cut costs and/or increase revenue so that drives all decisions.”
Ad nauseam
twitter
tumblr
linkedin
facebook
flickr
medium
instagram
google +
foursquare
quora
pinboard
* Views expressed in this blog are my personal opinion, and do not reflect the views of any of my
employers,
clients,
or pets.
Full Disclaimer→
Original content is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 Canada License.
For more information visit https://andrewkurjata.ca/copyright.
Powered by WordPress using a modified version of the DePo Skinny Theme.
April 26 2012 | ∞
As it happened.
Day 1, aftermath.
Day 2, aftermath.
I’m glad I wasn’t in the blast, obviously. I’ve worked in a mill. I have plenty of friends who have or do. My brother was doing shutdown across the river at another mill when this happened. My dad was called out as a first responder as it happened. My mom works in the burn unit of the hospital. She’ll be helping survivors in the months to come. I’ve just been compiling stories. But man. Completely embedding yourself in something like this, all day, every day. It takes a toll.
I don’t want to overplay it. I can take a breath, leave the room. I didn’t see it happen. I didn’t smell burning hair or see flesh hanging off of anyone. My family isn’t hurt, unemployed, or dead as a result. My city, though affected, isn’t going to shut down.
But it’s still going to take some time to process. And I’m pretty far removed from this.
I can’t even imagine what it’s like for those who were there. I have no words for them. Just… good luck. Good luck.
Filed under: Best Of, personal | Discussion