TIC legislation is a rent control issue

We're in the most expensive city in the country, and we can't afford another 2,000 condo conversions

|
(177)

OPINION If legislation introduced by Supervisors Scott Wiener and Mark Farrell passes the Board of Supervisors next month, up to 2,000 tenancies in common will be allowed to bypass the lottery process and convert to condominiums.

Add those to the nearly 6,000 conversions that have occurred from 2001-2011 (according to stats from the Department of Public Works), and you have a sizable chunk of rent-controlled units that will have been yanked from our housing stock in the past decade or so in a city that can't afford to lose rental units, especially those that preserve affordability while tenants live in them. TICs are still under rent control; condos lose it when they're sold.

Which makes the Wiener and Farrell legislation a rent-control issue. Not to mention a really bad idea at a really bad moment in time.

San Francisco's perennial housing crisis can't possibly get worse. Rents are the highest in the country — and still rising. The average rent in the city these days is $3,000. The vacancy rate is low.

Ellis Act evictions, a tool for creating TICs by allowing a landlord or speculator to circumvent just-cause eviction protections, are on the upswing. They're not as high as they were at the height of the dot-com boom of the late 90s, but, considering that these days many landlords and speculators threaten tenants with Ellis or buy them out rather than do the dirty deed, the number of folks displaced for TICs is higher than what is recorded at the Rent Board. Some tenants have actually received letters from new landlords with two checkboxes — one for Ellis and the other for a buyout. Take your pick, which way do you want to be tossed out and possibly left homeless?

The folks being displaced are from every district and represent the diversity about which we always brag: longterm, generally low-income seniors, disabled people, people with AIDS, families, and people of color. And they're less likely to find other apartments they can afford.

Wiener claims that buildings where there are evictions will not be eligible for conversion, but many of the TICs currently in the lottery, which will be eligible for conversion under the Wiener/Farrell legislation, were created by evictions. Almost 20 percent of the units in the pipeline were formed before legislation was put into place to restrict conversions if tenants are ousted. How many of the other 80 percent are the result of threats and buyouts, de facto evictions? Or were entered into the lottery even when they shouldn't have been?

Brian Basinger, founder of the AIDS Housing Alliance, was evicted from his apartment for a TIC, yet his place was converted to a condo, despite the fact that he's a protected tenant.

Allowing as many as 2,000 conversions not only diminishes the rent-controlled housing stock, but it also jacks up rents. Not to mention it gives speculators incentive to do more Ellis evictions or buyouts -- after all, though Wiener and Farrell say this is a one-time only deal, once Pandora's box is opened, it's going to be hard to keep it shut. I think landlords and speculators know that.

The Housing Element of the City's General Plan, adopted in 2009, instructs officials to "preserve rental units, especially rent controlled units, to meet the City's affordable housing needs."

This legislation won't preserve rent-controlled units. It's a bad fit for our city.

Tommi Avicolli Mecca, who's worked for the Housing Rights Committee for 13 years, is a longtime queer tenants right/affordable housing advocate.

Comments

Wow "TIC buyers are economic bottom-feeders"...if you had ever attempted to go through the ardous application process and and actually complete the conversion process (inspections, corrections, updates, surveryors, new maps, a $10k fee to just submit the conversion package, etc. you would not call it 'punching a ticket' and you would understand that there is no easy $100-$300k increase in value, and it is NOT easy.

Greedy speculators can make money more easily in other areas.
TIC conversion is not for the faint of heart.
Most are RENTERS and long time residents like me that opted to scrimp and save and go the TIC route and eventully, to get converted to condo for legal, TITLE, and loan reasons...not to be greedy speculators preying on the weak and poor.

You're way out of touch my friend.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 1:36 pm

new rental housing ever got built to replace what is lost.

But of course leftists like Tommi also oppose new development.

Posted by anon on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 2:02 pm

You had an option like everyone else - buy a condo or something else you could afford, or to speculate with a TIC and win the TIC/condo lottery, destroying affordable rent-controlled housing in the process.

You chose greed. Supervisors Wiener and Farrell, along with Mayor Lee and Sheriff Mirkarimi also support the TIC specualtors and the greediest among us, including you. They, and you, believe that you're entitled to personally profit from San Francisco's rent-controlled, affordable housing, everyone else be damned.

TIC speculation is easy money, but it PERMANENTLY destroys affordable housing. Take your lame excuses and false pride somewhere else, where exploiting others and profiting while the community loses is exalted, like the websites for the Chamber, or SPUR, or Urban Land Institute, or the local Realtors. None of those groups care about the braoder community either (other than superficial soundbites), only the personal greed of their members. You'll fit right in.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 2:23 pm

You want to deprive most tenants of the only opportunity they will ever have in SF of becoming a homeowner.

How do you sleep at night?

Posted by anon on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 2:36 pm

you forget that values of TIC's can go down as well as up, so there is definitely a chance that a TIC owner can end up losing money on the deal (I know this from personal experience).

and where is your outrage that this measure is going to raise $20-25M for... affordable housing, without a single person being evicted for it?

Posted by guest on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 2:57 pm

Pssht. What a joke. It never gets built. We get a piddly 20% of a building to share with the 80% market rate and then you must apply to get in. Or its a niche building of elderly, section 8 and the average person making 40k has no chance of getting a slot.

And then we hear the sad trickle down excuses that if you build luxury housing the people will move into them and free up their 3 bedroom apts to families, except that we don't have vacancy control so that family can't afford that newly market rated 3 bedroom.

Posted by Sigmarlin on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 3:54 pm
Posted by anon on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 3:58 pm

Are you saying tenants are parasites and bottom-feeders?

Posted by anon on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 2:14 pm

The SFTU should STFU

Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 10:09 am

Once you buy a TIC, you literally are stuck with that unit, even if life circumstances require you to move to different city. Because once you move out and rent out your unit, it decreases your eligibility to win the condo lottery. THAT is one of the problems that decreases number of rental units. I'm surprised that no one talks about this issue.

Also, with this law being that is being proposed, once your TIC unit becomes condo, your tenant will have a lifetime rent control. So this Tommi guy is obviously didn't read anything before he writes. Poor, not-so-smart guy. You should ask for refunds from the school if you ever attended one.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 1:19 pm

Laissez faire (neoliberal) capitalism run amok.

Posted by Awayneramsey on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 1:56 pm

So the only issue here is how long it takes to condo

Posted by anon on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 2:06 pm

Laissez faire (neoliberal) capitalism run amok.

Posted by Awayneramsey on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 1:57 pm

I own a unit in a three unit TIC. All owners live in the TIC and we are all planning on living there for a while. We are just trying to pay a fair mortgage rate equivalent to every other home owner.

I hear arguments that this is only good for investors but thats false. This is good for the city bringing in $20-$25 million in tax revenue. This is good for families like mine who can save a lot of money and spend it in the community, on repairs and everything else I spend my 45 hour a week job wages on.

Speculators will not be making money from this one time exception. You have to currently be in the condo conversion lottery which means you had to have bought a TIC 3-4 years ago. Unless an investor had the foresight to look four years in advance for this possible opportunity, they aren't the ones making money.

You can't kick someone out if you do convert. In fact if you do convert and there are tenants in the building then they still have life time rent control. This whole thing about kicking people out is not true. Also if you have evicted someone from your building then you are not eligible to be in the condo lottery. Tommi's comment that "Many of the condos are in the lottery because of eviction" is a complete lie.

Please read the legislation and decide for yourself. Tommi's writing is based on anti "the man" emotion and not on fact.

Sincerely,
Not an investor just a regular TIC owner

Posted by Guest on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 2:19 pm

TIC owners when they at the very bottom of the ladder when it comes to homeowners?

They could attack speculators or developers or landlords but, no, instead, they attack any tenant who wants to no longer be a tenant.

Posted by anon on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 2:35 pm

TIC buyers had dozens of other purchase options both inside and outside the city limits. They voluntarily chose to destroy SF's rent-controlled housing, the city's most affordable housing stock to the broadest range of current and future residents, and make a nice payoff on the conversion process. "The City Family" adores these TIC converters since they hasten the time when anyone not a millionaire (besides the tiny percent of residents who can quality for an affordable housing program) will no longer be welcomed in the city except as a toursit to spend their tourist dollars.

I'd ask how a TIC converter can sleep at night knowing they are destroying affordable housing in the city they supposedly care about, but I've learned long ago that economic exploiters don't care about the community or the rest of us. Greed. Greed. Greed. Me. Me. Me. The mantra of the economic elites, including TIC condo converters and their politician enablers.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 2:59 pm

SF Housing Politics according to the SFTU-

If you're a tenant renting a unit, it's yours to keep.
If you thought you might like to own it, you're and elitist creep.

If you've lived in San Francisco as a renter for ten years, that's great.
If you thought you might save up to own, you become the subject of hate.

If you're gay, disabled or sick and rent a unit, the Tenants Union is there for you.
If you're gay, disabled or sick renter and seek to own a TIC, the Tenants Union abandons you.

Rent control makes it so that if you rent a unit, you can stay.
If you (said renter) want to own that very same unit, tough shit, go away.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 4:50 pm

You bought a housing unit and now want to convert to condo, destroying rent-controlled housing in the process. You're taking a housing unit that was once affordable to more than 50% of the population and making it so only the very wealthy will be able to either buy or rent it the unit in the future since it won't be protected from high rent increases.

You are destroying a community asset, an affordable housing unit. You will profit from your greed while the rest of the current and future community suffers.

We've heard all the lame excuses: "I'm a good person." "I volunteer." "I give to charity." "I'm special because my parents told me I was very special." "I'm entitiled, just because."

But most importantly, you're a destroyer of affordable rent-controlled housing, and you're greedy, and you're personally destroying the economic fabric of the city when you convert to a condo.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 2:47 pm

of several thousand a year for all kinds of reasons, but nearly all of those reasons are related to the fact that rent control compels a property owner to a sub-optimal rate of return.

What else would you expect, when you seek to subsidize rents by dinging the very person who provides you with housing.

I hate to tell you this but the best chance of having plentiful rental housing in SF is the abolishment of rent control. And it will happen as the demographics of SF gradually change. You are on the worng side of history.

Posted by anon on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 3:05 pm

Oh boo hoo, landlords. you take our wages and pay back your loans. You write off your mortgage interest and property taxes, repair costs even the gas to come fix our leaky faucets. And then there is depreciation...the biggest tax scam around which says a buildings useful life should be deducted over 10 years although we all know that buildings have a longer life than that and each new owner can start depreciating fresh.

If a building is filled with RC tenants its price is going to reflect that and it will be cheaper to buy. Why should people who pay their rent on time and for a long time be punished because the owner wants to renegotiate a price they were initially fine with? Their expenses should be going down as their mortgage is paid off (by the tenants) so what is all this whining about?

Posted by Sigmarlin on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 4:09 pm

If you freely choose to pay someone else's mortgage, that's your problem.

Posted by anon on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 4:38 pm

Building depreciation is more like 30 years, not 10.

Will landords sometimes cheat by underallocating the purchase price to the land value since it can't be depreciated? Yes, that happens all the time. More of the price that gets allocated to the building can be used as write-offs to reduce other taxes.

The real fraud is that real estate gets its value from the community, not from the owner. Yet, it's the nominal owner who collects all of the gain. Collectively landords have made billions from SF real estate over the past few decades. But if each of them was replaced randomly with someone who didn't even know what a landlord was, the billions would have instead gone to the know-nothing group. It's the SF community that creates the real estate wealth in the first place, not the nominal "owners."

By giving phony depreciation deductions like you mention to the landlord class (especially when property is almost always appreciating over time!), plus the interest write-offs, and the tax-free withdrawls of cash from the property, and low (or no!) capital gain tax, real estate speculation dwarfs all other get-rich-quick occupations in the US other than investment banking or being the next tech wunderkind.

At least for the past few hundred years, during every 15-30 year real estate cycle there are tens of thousands of smart (or lucky) property speculators who become multi-millionaires when real estate is rising high. But when the party's over, there are always hundreds of thousands left partly destitute who bought at the wrong time and didn't leave enough cash left over to weather the inevitable down times until the next go-round of easy money, low interest rates, and low downpayments.

Another fraud on the American public is that economists and politicians have been eyeing the home mortgage deduction for repeal or reform, but they never mention these much more egregious tax subsidy write-offs given to the wealthiest people among us, the millionaire landlords and property speculators. When these billion dollar tax write-offs are finally repealed, and when exisiting homeowners are prohibited from purchasing 2nd homes in any areas with less than 10 % vacancy, and when the capital gain tax rate is increased to over 50% on all property sales other than a personal residence, then the property market will become a bit more balanced for the people who live and work there.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 6:04 pm

A LL can depreciate the cost basis of his property over 27 years.

However, when he sells at a profit that depreciation is recaptrued and taxed as ordinary income.

Property has always been a decent investment in a growing nation like ours, but hs been a terrible investment in declining countries like Japan. IOW, it comes with risk, and the profits are merely compensation for taking that risk.

If no investors took any risk, there would be no rental housing. How would that help? Profit is necessary.

Posted by anon on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 6:18 pm

A $1 deduction today is worth about 50 cents in 10 years. Thus, you get $1 from the government but ony have to pay back a far less amount in the future, if at all, since there are lots of ways to avoid "recapture."

Regardless, asset depreciation is a concept some anal accountants came up with one day to help fairly value investments, not as a tax loophole worth billions to the landlord class.

The orignal builder already got a full deduction for all of the costs building a new structure. There's no reason for subsequent landlords to keep taking tax deductions writing off investments in the same property over and over again.

The vast majority of houses and apartment buildings in SF were built for $10-50,000. It's senseless to allow these same buildings to be bought 40 years later for $5 million, only to be written off against other income, thus reducing taxes for the most wealthy among us.

Landlords will survive without needing phony depreciaton deductions, interest write-offs, and low capital gain taxes.

Society doesn't need private landlords. The non-profit model is far superior since the housing unit stays tax-exempt even when the non-profit owner changes, and the risk of speculation and displacement are greatly reduced. The private market may be better for building new housing consistent with zoning guidelines, but outlawing private landlords other than small in-law apartments, or granny flats, or rooms in houses would help cure much of what has long ailed the once US economic giant.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 6:57 pm

Get a loan and set up a co-operative. The law allows for that now, and some people do it. What are you waiting for? Instead of whining here, get out and do something to help?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 6:50 am

Excellent advice.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 10:11 am

Why don't they raise funds to build housing co-operatives and land trusts, rather than whine about what other people or the government should do for them without any effort on their part?

If you want to help the poor, there are many ways. Those who sincerely want to help, volunteer. Those who are too lazy to do that, become "activists".

Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 1:17 pm

The non-profit housing you are describing is offered by the San Francisco Housing Authority. Go live in one of their housing projects and then let us know how much better a non-profit housing model is for you...the mediocrity of your thoughts will store nicely there.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 27, 2013 @ 3:05 am

If residential real estate gains were taxed at 50%, no one will take their precious time on this planet to build or create your fantasy of "get it for less" affordable housing stock born out of higher taxation. Do you want to work for free too.

It is scarcity through land use restrictions that have the biggest impact on affordable housing, especially in San Francisco.

Your economic scenario would force everyone to either be homeless or have to build their own home. There would be no government or economic incentive to make rental housing available for those who cannot or will not build their own home.

Depreciation enables owners to spread out or delay the tax burden that would otherwise consume or destroy the economic incentive and the human will to attempt to maintain or provide housing for others. Everyone should be compensated for their efforts, not just renters. This is not phony accounting, it is a delicately complicated politically calculated way to balance economic reward to the individual and economic reward to the State for the Common Good.

There is plenty of affordable housing out there, they are likely not where you want to live?

Ownership of real estate is an attempt at hedging inflation and minimizing the monetary loss of wealth or minimizing the loss of purchasing power that happens when holding or storing wealth in currency, like the US Dollars.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 27, 2013 @ 4:12 am

If residential real estate gains were taxed at 50%, no one will take their precious time on this planet to build or create your fantasy of "get it for less" affordable housing stock born out of higher taxation. Do you want to work for free too.

It is scarcity through land use restrictions that have the biggest impact on affordable housing, especially in San Francisco.

Your economic scenario would force everyone to either be homeless or have to build their own home. There would be no government or economic incentive to make rental housing available for those who cannot or will not build their own home.

Depreciation enables owners to spread out or delay the tax burden that would otherwise consume or destroy the economic incentive and the human will to attempt to maintain or provide housing for others. Everyone should be compensated for their efforts, not just renters. This is not phony accounting, it is a delicately complicated politically calculated way to balance economic reward to the individual and economic reward to the State for the Common Good.

There is plenty of affordable housing out there, they are likely not where you want to live?

Ownership of real estate is an attempt at hedging inflation and minimizing the monetary loss of wealth or minimizing the loss of purchasing power that happens when holding or storing wealth in currency, like the US Dollars.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 27, 2013 @ 4:22 am

Inflation and scarcity is the enemy of affordable housing for renters and owners. The fact that their is an artificial border called San Francisco begs inflation and scarcity for the finite amount of land within this boundary.

But then in the 1970's San Francisco tenants wanted to get out of paying for inflation by passing it onto the owners. This selfish and unilateral political tactic has created great economic risks and uncertainty for tenants, owners and developers which is the destroyer of incentives to create or provide housing in San Francisco. And when Tenants believe they have a right to cheap housing above all other housing options, this also destroys the balance of supply and demand that inhibits the pace of creating more housing or housing density to maintain affordability for All who wish to live in San Francisco.

Rent Control is set at 60% of annual CPI, which means the Rent Board is telling owners they must offset 40% of the annual inflation for tenants for every year the tenant remains in their apartment, compound this over many years and you can clearly see why rent control is bad Arithmetic that does not support rental housing, but works to feed tenant greed and rental housing hoarding.

We all know this CPI number is manipulated and does not reflect real inflation, (especially when you factor in the rising costs of Contractors and SF government employee wages and benefits over the same period that feed the inflation cycle in San Francisco). So when a tenant stays for a long time, they eventually pay far less than the economic costs to provide or maintain that housing. How is that fair to current or new owners or renters that come after them into this housing market? The longtime tenants get a huge discount and owners and newcomer owners and newcomer renters have to pay up to subsidize this Tenant Ponzi Scheme to play out.

This is a situation that is not fair for anyone, it becomes owner servitude in favor of instilling greed in low rent tenants who hoard their apartments and avoid paying their fair share of the inflation. When economics of substitution and downsizing are prevented from allowing the rental housing to turn over naturally with life choices or the cycle of life, these restriction cause scarcity of all available housing. The more unilateral restrictions applied by government to preserve affordable housing only makes all housing that much more scarce. This unilateral imbalance restricts and destroys Incentives, except for those who already have housing to encourage them to hoard it and hold onto it for less.

You make San Francisco affordable when you End Rent Control and Let the Planning Department Approve Housing, both for owner-occupied and rental.

Rent control has successfully caused all housing in San Francisco to become unaffordable for the benefit of those renters who pioneered rent control in San Francisco. Let's give a great big Thank You to the low rent freeloaders for their sins of passing their housing costs and risk onto the rest of us!!!

Housing in San Francisco is a privilege, a want, not a right or a need. No one needs to live in San Francisco. All that live in San Francisco want to live in San Francisco.

FYI, Depreciation on real estate is 27.5 years. When the property is sold, the depreciated amount is taxed at a higher tax rate than the capital gain tax, it is taxed as ordinary income. So while long time San Francisco tenants get to escape inflation and taxation on their discounted rent, owners get to pay more income tax and the costs to maintain the housing for a tenant's life estate than what owners are paid in rent by a long time rent controlled tenant. The current economics of government controls on housing in San Francisco are unsustainable and the cause of great economic dysfunction in the real economy of SF.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 27, 2013 @ 2:51 am

is experiencing hyperinflation, not natural price rises in line with other goods and services.

Are you offering to increase your mortgage payments to the bank because the value of your property is increasing? I didn't think so, freeloader.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 27, 2013 @ 8:15 am

It is not selfish when rent control's beneficiary tenants vastly outnumber the landlords.

Does anyone really have any models at hand which support the claim that "the magic of the marketplace" will result in rents corresponding more with wages than with cheap interest rates?

So long as the Fed is goosing the housing market by subsidizing banks' mortgages losses with free money, housing prices will be buoyed.

Of course not, this is all economic argument by the waving of the hands and appeal to authorities that have been proven wrong over and again.

The moment that the Fed begins to "mop up" that "liquidity," housing prices will tumble along with the market and the pools of venture capital.

Of course the $16,000,000,000,000.00 (trillion with a tee) that the Fed has given to banksters to cover their bad real estate bets has no bearing on the ongoing economic viability of the real estate industry as currently constituted.

No, no, let's blame the tenants for all that's wrong with housing.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 27, 2013 @ 9:15 am

and so has the effect both of driving up rents at the margin and suppresing new supply.

The result is that those who have been squatting on the same rental for a decade or more get a subsidy, while those new to town or who are forced to move get shafted.

Housing should be subsidized, if at all, by genuine needs and not by seniority. Rent control is the Prop 13 of rentals.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 27, 2013 @ 10:52 am

I suggest you get a dictionary. I agree that people who must move because of landlord greed are getting shafted.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 27, 2013 @ 12:16 pm

A tenant who wants to move but stays just because he would lose a rent subsidy is, to all intents and purposing "squatting".

Posted by Guest on Jan. 28, 2013 @ 12:08 pm

Now we can refer to any homeowner who is benefiting from a Prop 13 tax shield as a squatter too! And corporations who do the same -- as surely they are more numerous and with a longer (potentially infinite!) lifespan: squatters.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 28, 2013 @ 12:40 pm

for any case where the occupant of a house wants to move but doesn't simply because of distortions and subsidies that result from public policy.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 28, 2013 @ 12:46 pm

care? Squatters!

Still, doesn't all this liberality with respect to the use of the word cheapen it for when you mean to refer to those who try to gain ownership of a property without payments to the owners?

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 28, 2013 @ 1:00 pm

while a new rental doesn't come with a subsidized rent.

I fail to see how a rent-controlled tenant is trying to "gain ownership". They are certainly not paying the full cost of their home though.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 28, 2013 @ 2:40 pm

are low-paying, often part time, without health insurance.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 28, 2013 @ 2:56 pm

start out with, and so that isn't an impediment for job mobility.

Posted by anonymous on Jan. 28, 2013 @ 3:19 pm

you have expanded into making up new definitions of words. That would be similar to me defining you as smart because the one idea that is trapped in your brain is preventing others from entering it.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 28, 2013 @ 2:58 pm

full cost of that property. As such, someone who clings to a crappy rent-controlled apartment for decades can reasonably be said to be squatting on it.

And then they wonder why they get Ellis'ed.

Posted by anonymous on Jan. 28, 2013 @ 3:21 pm

apartments are paying more than the full cost of that property. Isn't that the point of being in the landlord business? To make a profit?

I see that idea hasn't budged from clogging your brain.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 28, 2013 @ 3:41 pm

justifies the investment, risk and work involved.

And if that were true, we would not see so many Ellis Act evictions.

Posted by anonymous on Jan. 28, 2013 @ 4:51 pm

or you are not. To you, it doesn't apply to property owners who are bad at business or made a bad bet. Cry me a fucking river. Greedy troll.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 28, 2013 @ 11:53 pm

to support your newly created definition of "squatting."

Here's another use of the word with which you might be comfortable since it applies to you: "You don't know squat!!!"

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 28, 2013 @ 3:57 pm

who allows no dissent, and fights until the last drop of blood to stave off any entry from the finer-thoughts surrounding it. Any intent to portray such a willful ignorance in film would require someone with the aesthetic impulses of a Sam Peckinpah to do the story justice.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 28, 2013 @ 3:25 pm
Posted by anonymous on Jan. 28, 2013 @ 4:48 pm