The two defining votes of 2012

hospital left, condos right

The Board of Supervisors will be facing two votes in the next couple of months that will define this board, establish the extent of the mayor's political clout -- and potentially play a decisive role in the political futures of several board members.

Oh: They'll also have a lasting impact on the future of this city.

I'm talking about 8 Washington and CPMC -- one of them the most important vote on housing policy to come along in years, the other a profound decision that will change the face of the city and alter the health-care infrastructure for decades to come.

Both projects have cleared the Planning Commission, as expected. Neither can go forward without approval from a majority of the supervisors. And there will be intense downtown lobbying on both of them.

The 8 Washington project would create what developer Simon Snellgrove calls the most expensive condos ever built in San Francisco. A piece of waterfront property would become a gated community for the very, very rich, many of whom won't even live here most of the time. If it's approved, the economy won't collapse, neighborhoods won't be destroyed -- but it will make a powerful statement about the city's housing policy. The message: We build housing for the 1 percent. We are a city that caters only to one very tiny group of people. We are willing to let the needs of the few drive our policy over the needs of the many.

Face it: There is no shortage of housing for the people who will buy Snellgrove's condos. There's a severe shortage of housing for most of the people who actually work in San Francisco. And the city's housing policy is so scewed up that it's making things worse. That's the message of 8 Washington.

Then there's CPMC. California Pacific Medical Center wants to put a snazzy state-of-the art new medical center on Van Ness, which is all well and good. But the giant nonprofit Sutter Health, which operates CPMC, has been openly hostile to some of the city's demands (for housing, transit and other environmental mitigiation) and the proposal that Mayor Ed Lee has signed off on is way out of balance. There's not anything even close to a reasonable link between jobs and housing -- which will impact the entire city. You bring in a lot of new workers and don't help build enough housing for them and everyone's rent goes up.

CPMC also wants to radically downsize St. Luke's Hospital, the only full-service facility on the south side of town except for the overcrowded and overloaded SF General. Health care for a sizable part of the city will suffer.

This is a very big deal, and the Chamber of Commerce is pushing hard for the supes to approve it. A lot of labor and the entire affordable housing community is against it.

So put those two votes in front of a board where the progressive majority has been very shaky of late -- and where Lee will be working hard to line up six votes -- and you've got potential political dynamite. Supervisor John Avalos told me he has serious concerns about both projects. Sup. David Campos told me he feels the same way. Sup Eric Mar is unlikely to vote for 8 Washington and unlikely to oppose the health-care workers and the progressive leaders who want to block the CPMC deal and make Sutter come back with a better offer, but some elements of labor are pushing hard for 8 Washington and Mar is up for re-election in one of the city's swing districts.

Sup. David Chiu is against 8 Washington. I've called Sups. Jane Kim and Christina Olague (who was not a fan of the project when she was on the Planning Commission) but they haven't gotten back to me. Olague is running for re-election this fall in the city's most progressive district, one that's right on the edge of the CPMC project site; Kim's district is on the other edge.

You can't really count to six on either of these projects without getting Chiu and/or Kim and/or Olague. Chiu has no progressive opposition, but if he supports the CPMC deal, someone may decide to challenge him. If Olague supports either project, it will give her opponents plenty of fodder for the fall campaign (John Rizzo, who is running against her, told me he opposes both). If Olague opposes the two projects, it's going to be much harder for anyone to run against her from the left since she will have demonstrated that she can stand up the mayor on tough issues.

I'll let you know if I hear more.





will also be critical. Extremely critical especially to Eric Mar - and he knows it.

Posted by Troll II on Apr. 27, 2012 @ 4:07 pm

Greate post. Keep posting such kind of info
on your site. Im really impressed by it.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about dog racing.

Posted by dog fan on May. 07, 2012 @ 6:56 pm
Posted by Ralf on Jul. 01, 2012 @ 9:04 am

Ridiculous. Love the veiled threat to Chiu if he doesn't vote how you tell him to. I wonder if Bruce is counted in the 1% - how about when he sells the guardian building? Do as I say, not as I do. Right ?

Posted by Greg on Apr. 27, 2012 @ 8:38 pm

I haven't been able to confirm the profile of the SFBG real estate buyer that commenters are posting in this thread.


Isn't our goal to work to evolve the system to NOT just sell to the highest bidder, but to also consider the intensions of the buyer? Wouldn't it have been a better strategy to sell to someone who could then develop outside the constraints of the highest market price? (Affordable housing, Non-profit business space, Artist Studios, etc etc.)

Posted by Progressive Lost on Apr. 30, 2012 @ 9:31 am

So what, developers want to build expensive condos on prime real estate. Shocker. Gee, why don't we build a bunch of low income housing down there and just flush the tax dollars down the drain?

As for CPMC. Mi think what the city is doing is shameful. We are basically shaking down a non profit that needs to build a new hospiTal due to the new earthquake regs. We already got they to commit to new housing but we want more. Because of course the cathedral hill site is doing oh so much as a spot for occupy to sit in. As for the argument on st. Lukes, please, the new hospital will be less than 4 miles away. And general is still in the vicinity. Get over it.

Posted by D. native on Apr. 27, 2012 @ 10:30 pm

The poor non-profit makes $150m a year tax free money. You're worried about tax payer dollars and you argue that SF General is close by, but that's more of your tax payer dollars going into CPMC's pocket as they downsize St. Lukes and low income folks in the southeastern neighborhoods have to go to SF General.

The seismic argument is terrible because they could have just rebuilt on the sites they have and the City wouldn't have been able to shake anyone down, but they are doing a whole new project and trying to use the 'earthquake regs' as a way to quickly push through something that still has some flaws.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 28, 2012 @ 9:46 am

"why don't we build a bunch of low income housing down there and just flush the tax dollars down the drain?"

That's easy to explain. Tim doesn't care about the money that the wealthy bring to the city, he only cares about the social engineering that we could do with it.

See? It's actually quite simple.

Posted by Troll on Apr. 28, 2012 @ 12:34 pm

>"but it will make a powerful statement about the city's housing policy. The message: We build housing for the 1 percent. We are a city that caters only to one very tiny group of people. We are willing to let the needs of the few drive our policy over the needs of the many."

Maybe it would help if I point that that the 'powerful message' exists only in the mind of the SFBG and nowhere else. The rest of us see a piece of prime waterfront real estate and understand that, if housing goes there that it will be expensive. We understand something about economic realities. The concept of BMR housing being built on one of the most desirable plots in the country is a non starter. It's called 'reality' and most people outside of the SFBG can understand that.

BTW, gated community?? Right now there is LITERALLY a 15 foot high wall around the site. 8 Washington would be considerably more open. It is amazing what the SFBG refuses to see because of their rabid devotion to dogmatic policy.

Posted by Troll on Apr. 28, 2012 @ 6:45 am

You write another tired article about how we need to stop this city from catering to the very rich and the evils of real estate speculators...

And you just sold your building, for a cool 28% profit, after using government money to finance it, and you sold it to a fucking *real estate investment firm*, that specializes in gentrification throughout the City.


Posted by Readerface on Apr. 28, 2012 @ 12:01 pm

Real estate speculators writing about the evils of real estate speculators.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 28, 2012 @ 3:29 pm

The Guardian has never walked the talk and we all know that. From Bruce busting the newsroom union in the 70s to him selling the Guardian to an out-of-state conglomerate to raking in the bucks from real estate speculation - they've always let their actions speak louder than their words.

It's a fatal chink in the progressive armor and they know that. God forbid they actually practiced what they preach - then we'd have to take them seriously.

Posted by Troll II on Apr. 28, 2012 @ 6:50 pm

So progressives such as Bruce and Jean who put in DECADES of hard work running the Bay Guardian and fought the good fight for DECADES can't sell their building to the highest bidder??? And they can't because they are progressives???

Gee what other restrictions do you want to put on progressives? Should progressives not be able to buy a stock low and sell it high because that may result in a profit - and you're going nuts over B & J making "a cool 28% profit" - HOW DARE PROGRESSIVES MAKE $ FOR THEMSELVES!!!

Get a fucking life loser. They can sell the building to whoever they want - the sale of the building is not going to affect City policy unlike the issues the BG takes positions on like 8 Washingon and the hospital at Geary and Van Ness.

You want progressives to stay poor so they have no power. You're the hypocrite since you want one set of rules for those with power (make all the profit you want - even to the pt of making govt powerless to stop acts that are detrimental to society at large) while saying those fighting the powerbrokers can't use any of those rules (how dare they make "a cool 28% profit").


Posted by Guest on Apr. 29, 2012 @ 11:15 am

Let me make sure I understand this...someone who owns property in this city is free to sell it to the highest bidder UNLESS the SFBG designates it as a policy issue.

I just want to be sure that I understand the rules that we must live by, as determined by our overlords the Progressive Movement and their house organ, the SFBG.

Remember, in a democracy like ours the majority rules, except if 20% of the people are Progressive in which case the 20% rules.

Okay, does that make me any less of a loser?

Posted by Troll on Apr. 29, 2012 @ 12:05 pm

Maybe if you were to stop watching Rupert Murdoch's sad excuse for tv, an idiotic rightwing propaganda channel (Faux TV), you might make some sense once in a while.

Since your whole premise is that Bruce and Jean shouldn't be able to sell their property to a willing buyer because this is hypocrisy according to you, why don't you give examples of where the BG said a seller of property couldn't sell it to the highest bidder. I missed the editorial so maybe, if you can't provide the link, you can provide the details of one or more editorials that demonstrates B & J being hypocrits for selling their property to a willing buyer.

As for your first sentence ("Let me make sure I understand this ..."), so that's how you read the post you're responding to??? Are you blind such that you don't see words that are there or is it that you see words that aren't there? For that's not what the post said. Now of course the likely explanation for your mistake is that you can see and understand just fine but that you want to purposely distort what was written in the post you're responding to.

So to prove to everyone here that you're not an idiotic with a single-digit IQ (or play one here), why don't you quote from that post that would show the writer of that post said that sellers of property can sell their property to the highest bidder unless the BG designates it as a policy issue.

Unless you can show that, you're either someone with severe reading comprehension problems or choose to act as if you had such problems so that you can play the "let's distort the meaning and try to score some propaganda points."

Okay show it. Quote the exact words from the post in showing it. If you don't respond to the exact quote and only the exact quote (not your rightwing, idiotic distortion), then it's fair to call you a single-digit IQ idiot even if you're just pretending to be one.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 29, 2012 @ 2:55 pm

>"why don't you give examples of where the BG said a seller of property couldn't sell it to the highest bidder."

Yes, in this article. It says that the Port of San Francisco can't sell the 8 Washington property to Snellgrove.

Do you want to tell me again about MY reading comprehension ability? I understand your frustration. Stick with it, you'll get there!

Posted by Troll on Apr. 29, 2012 @ 5:55 pm
Posted by Sambo on Apr. 29, 2012 @ 6:23 pm

So you are actually going on record as equating a public agency selling property to a private party selling property??? Of course that's absurd since there's a huge difference a private party and a govt agency. For BG owners to be hypocrits, you'd have to show where they advocated that a private party couldn't sell it to the highest bidder since ** THEY ARE A PRIVATE PARTY AND THE PORT OF SF IS A PUBLIC GOVERNMENT AGENCY. ***

I'm putting that in caps because apparently you think ignoring the enormous diff betw the two allows one to pretend there's no diff. The net's a wonderful thing to learn what those differences are so get at it (unless you're just playing being that ignorant).

So until you can find where they advocated that a PRIVATE PARTY - for that is what is req'd for the hypocrite charge to have any basis since THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE - could not sell a building to a private party, you got nothing and you're left to using the old trick conservatives play which is to play stupid and hope their opponent falls for the stupidity and thus win the argument.

The only buyers of that argument are other conservatives who really are stupid - like that Sambo dummy who didn't realize you were playing the stupid card and showed himself to actually BE stupid by treating it as a legit argument (proving he's clueless that there's huge diffs betw private parties and government agencies and thus a complete case of apples and oranges).

I see also you've also failed to back up your statement: "Let me make sure I understand this...someone who owns property in this city is free to sell it to the highest bidder UNLESS the SFBG designates it as a policy issue" when I asked you to quote me showing that's what I said. Good move - you lost on that one too and you knew it.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 29, 2012 @ 9:31 pm

Now that I think about it, Tim and the SFBG have never criticized or opposed anyone trying to sell a property to developers or developing it themselves.

I had thought that Tim had come out against 555 Washington ( and the Examiner building ( but I was wrong, neither event ever happened!

The SFBG always supports the rights of property owners to maximize the value of their property, just as they have now done with their own property.

Thanks for correcting me!!!

Posted by Troll on Apr. 30, 2012 @ 7:09 am

Owned again!

Posted by Sambo on Apr. 30, 2012 @ 7:58 am

Troll, your partner in stupidity (Matlock) tried that link already. Apparently dummies think alike. You might want to ACTUALLY READ what you post and see IF IT REALLY IS EVIDENCE the BG is advocating a private partner can't sell to the highest bidder. That was the basis of the hypocrisy charge remember??? Are U having trouble staying on topic???

That link is about a corp wanting to BUILD a building NOT SELL a building. Surely that shouldn't be too confusing to those brain cells of yours but I guess it is.

I'm not gonna try the second link because if you get it so wrong on the first, I'm not gonna waste my time on the second. Next time, post the link then quote from it so I can see if those brain cells of yours figured out the meaning of the word "sell" as in a PRIVATE PARTY selling a building where the BG said they shouldn't be able to.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2012 @ 10:54 am

...should be a good therapist. Seriously, what is all the interest in my brain cells just because you don't agree with me? You're thinking that I must be deficient because I don't see things the same way that you do? I do feel sorry for you but only to a certain extent. Get some help! You don't have to be pathetic your whole life, you can improve!

Posted by Troll on Apr. 30, 2012 @ 11:43 am

The Guardian has a long history telling people that they are too greedy and what they can do with their property.

Now they are selling to a developer, when luxury condos or dot com-ers move into that space, the remnants of the Guardian will be complaining about others doing it.

Posted by Matlock on Apr. 29, 2012 @ 6:33 pm

It may be laughable to you but THE FACT IS you couldn't find an example where the BG advocated that a PRIVATE party should not be able to sell their property to the highest bidder for that property.

Did you read that link you provided? Are you new at this internet thing because it appears you've made a big mistake - unless you really think the BG advocating a public agency (the Planning Commsn) to take a particular action (and nothing about selling a building but about construction of a building) is equivalent to a PRIVATE party selling their building to the highest bidder.

Are you and the troll guy the same one? Because both of you apparently can't figure out the diff betw a public govt agency and a private party. But even he didn't confuse "selling a building" and "building a building" like you did.

Instead of posting irrelevant links, find a link where the BG advocated that a PRIVATE party couldn't sell their bldg to the highest bidder - the OP called the BG hypocrites and you are agreeing with him so one of you fools need to find the example of where they advocated that that shouldn't be done while doing it themselves.

Can you do it? If you can, do it and stop posting irrelevant links that make you come off like you stayed in the boxing game a little too long.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 29, 2012 @ 10:32 pm

Nice deflection.

The Guardian is happy for property to change hands, it is when those people want to use that property that they freak out.

The Guardian has sold to a developer who is going to do it's best dot com or condo that shit out of that place.

Posted by Matlock on Apr. 30, 2012 @ 12:19 am

Like, really? Seriously? Placing a cap on profit, *particularly* when it comes to real estate, has been a key element of the Guardian's platform for pretty much ever. And especially over the past 10 years.

Good lord - now we have to show YOU proof? No, search archives for 35 seconds, lazy ass.

Now what makes this all so egregious is the company they sold out to. Clearly you don't understand what Union Property Capital is about. They are quite possibly the polar opposite of everything SFBG claims to stand for. I work in the industry - I know them very well - and they will bulldoze your shitty rent controlled apartment if it means an additional four dollars on their annual balance sheet.

This IS a legendary sell out.

Posted by Longtime Lurker on Apr. 29, 2012 @ 9:25 pm

You may not like the fact that UPC bought it but to blame Bruce B and Jean D for the state of the real estate industry is absurd. The editorials and stories the BG put out were and are about public policy. Apparently what you want is for govt to put more limits on what UPC could do with the property - just the kinds of stuff the BG wrote about and advocated for.

It's ironic that all the ppl here who jump on the BG as being this "socialist, commie" newspaper (they don't use those exact words - at least most of the time - but the meanings of their words are pretty much exactly that) are just OUTRAGED and SHOCKED that BB & JD don't take a vow of poverty and sell it for a loss to an entity that is approved by all the BG critics.

Fact of the matter is any private party has the right to look out for their financial interests. Cities don't get "saved" or bettered at the level of an individual RE transaction - whether it's BB & JD or anyone else.

No, cities get saved by PUBLIC POLICY that applies to ALL real estate transactions - you know the thing BB & JD and the BG spoke out about for almost 50 years - and got attacked constantly by the big money interests who didn't want a media outlet advocating such things AND attacked here constantly BY THE SAME PEOPLE for those same reasons who now attack them for taking an action in THEIR PRIVATE LIFES that makes financial sense to them.

Their critics (the only ones on this fuckin MB) are too much - they hate the BG folks for being "socialists" (because they advocate for policies beneficial to the vast majority) and then attack them for looking after themselves like anyone else would in their private lives (it's only them that's supposed to take the vow of poverty). If their critics had any clue, they'd EITHER agree with them in their public policy recommendations or else they'd STFU because by hitting them for their public policy recs while attacking them for "the big 28% profit" (over a 10 yr period) - they are advocating really one thing, they should not have the same freedom as anyone else. Only the rich should be able to do certain RE transactions and the critics of the rich, must stay poor.

As for this particular sale, you apparently wanted them to sell the bldg for a loss (or a loss rel to what they could get) but there's no reason to think the buyer wouldn't turn around and sell the bldg to UPC for a quick profit. Again, you expect them to "save the world" apparently via this ONE transaction - they can't - like I said, that needs to be done via PUBLIC POLICY. And they've been the ones advocating for those good public policies for 50 years.

And their "big profit" was 28% over 10 years - which is a financial loss assuming an annual inflation rate of 3% which is probably about right considering what the price of oil and gas has done in that time period (and the world runs on oil and gas).

Instead of attacking BB & JD and the BG - which is all you commentators fucking do - you should thank them for being a media voice that advocated PUBLIC POLICIES that benefitted the vast majority of ppl for almost 50 years. THAT'S WHERE IT MATTERS.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 29, 2012 @ 11:33 pm

benefit the vast majority.

Keep in mind the Guardian mindset loses elections consistently and fail when it comes to propositions on a regular basis.

It is interesting that you howl about how dumb everyone is, while claiming to speak for the people, and yet where it counts, you lose at the ballot box.


One long free association rant on your part mixed with your other Guardhouse lawyer-ring posts, comical.

Posted by Matlock on Apr. 30, 2012 @ 12:33 am

Someone wrote: "And you just sold your building, for a cool 28% profit, after using government money to finance it, and you sold it to a fucking *real estate investment firm*, that specializes in gentrification throughout the City. Pigs. "

Tim (who wrote this article) just sold the BG building? I know the building was recently sold, but I didn't know Tim owned the BG building to sell it. It's not his building to sell. I thought Bruce and Jean (the owners) sold it. Tim, who wrote this article, had no ownership in the building (to my knowledge). I would guess that Tim and Steven had little say in the matter (not being owners), other than the sale of the building and the sale of the BG would be a way for you two (Tim and Steven) to keep your jobs and the BG going. Therefore, you have to go along with this deal despite all the negatives (like who the deal is with for the sale of the building) or you have to find yourselves another job. Which is it going to be? And THESE days finding another job? Check out all the *minimum wage* jobs on craigslist in SF. Who can afford to live here on a minimum wage job? Even if they moved out of the City (like the trolls like to encourage, the trolls whine: "if you can't afford to live here then move."). The trolls' lives are so simple and so black and white. Even with commuting into the City and living in the suburbs, the commute alone would eat up a big part of that minimum wage salary, if one can call it a "salary." It's more like a stipend. Back to the BG sale, I suspect they did what they had to do. It's like me being on AT&T for Internet service. I can't stand AT&T or Comcast, but since I want Internet access I have to be on one or the other, so I'm on AT&T. I have no other choices, and I haven't heard that the choices/offers were pouring in for Bruce and Jean either.

As for 8 Washington and CPMC, these days I won't be at all surprised if the Board approves both.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 28, 2012 @ 8:16 pm

Tim didn't sell the building, nut sack. But he's one of the last directly employed by the man who did (Bruce fired everyone else... notice the staff is a little smaller/more cult like/less talented?). He is also one of the last *on the fucking planet* defending him. Read the press releases - not my job to do it for you. Start with the business times, move on from there. Tim gushes over Bruce, it's gross.

And your right on one thing - 8 Washington and CPMC - the board will approve them both.

Welcome to irrelevance Progressive SF.

Posted by Readerface on Apr. 28, 2012 @ 10:07 pm

So you do admit that you were wrong when you previously wrote, "you just sold your building" (referring to Tim as "you," since he wrote the article), when it wasn't Tim at all who sold the building. From all the many press releases I had read (using Google), I had read nothing about that. I began to wonder just where you were getting your (erroneous) information. I followed the stories very closely with press releases and articles as they were published. I try to be accurate; you don't, it seems. You operate more on emotion.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 28, 2012 @ 11:02 pm

I'm pretty sure the "you" referred to the SFBG, not Tim directly. Notice how the post started with "you guys"? Jesus christ. I think the original poster is aware Tim himself wasn't the sole owner of the building, but is a key player in the organization that was.

Don't worry about semantics, worry about the SFBG's shitty, gross behavior.

And (maybe) you should tone it down with parenthesis on (practically) every sentence (that'd be nice).

Posted by Readerface on Apr. 29, 2012 @ 9:43 am

Can't wait until the Examiner starts muzzling Tim, and the Guardian starts running articles denouncing rent control.

It will be fun to watch!

Posted by Guest on Apr. 29, 2012 @ 1:13 pm

Notice how he now gets instantly sidetracked on any real estate topic because of the hypocritical sale of the SFBG asset? In his heart, he knows it's over.

Posted by Guest on May. 01, 2012 @ 9:39 am

Tim shouldn't be muzzled, nor should anyone in an open society! When a child keeps demanding that the grown ups give him his "fair share" of candy instead of spending their money on stupid, boring grown up stuff, the best thing to do is ignore them until they shut up. The city doesn't need a progressive martyr, when from the majority of the comments I see on Mr. Redmond's articles, it sounds like his attitude toward market rate housing is losing out in the free marketplace of ideas!

Posted by myklValentine on May. 01, 2012 @ 1:09 pm

8 Washington is not a particularly important issue to most San Franciscans. Some condos will replace some private tennis courts. No impact really, on anyone who doesn't belong to the expensive tennis club or own an expensive condo at Golden Gateway.

The CPMC reconstruction is a much bigger deal. Really CPMC can't rebuild in the same locations without closing down needed hospital beds, so the new location makes sense. And St. Luke's is 2/3 empty on average, so it makes sense to build it smaller, but 70 beds is probably too small. How much the hospital should pay the city is a good question. I don't think a yes or no vote here is a litmus test on whether a supervisor is progressive.

I hope the sale of the SFBG results in better journalism-- there are lots of more important issues-- addressing homelessness, balancing the city's budget, finding ways to keep people of all incomes in the city, improving the schools.

Posted by Dan on May. 03, 2012 @ 10:39 pm

Just for the record, for the uninformed commenter above (one of many): The building at 135 Mississippi can't become luxury condos. It's not zoned residential. Right now, the building houses a newspaper (the Bay Guardian) and a dot-com tenant (, which has about half of the usable space). I don't know what the new owners will do, but it seems likely it will have about the same use, since there's not much demand for industrial space right now and it's a pretty good office location.

I have never said you can't sell private property for a profit. I have advocated for higher transfer taxes on sales over $5 million -- which Bruce and Jean also suported, although it meant they had to fork over more money on this deal. I'm a big supporter of land-trust housing and I support the notion of anti-speculation taxes on quick flips that drive up housing costs. Not applicable here, we were in the building for almost 10 years.

8 Wash and 555, like so many other land-use battles, are not about the sale of a building but about the use of the land.


Posted by tim on May. 04, 2012 @ 3:51 pm

calm down kids. The Bay Guardian is just a piece of a chain empire, and the people working there are tenant farmers in print. They will last maybe a year, and as they continue to Not Make Any Money for the Corporate Bosses, it'll be shut down. So calm down. This is likely the last election year you will be hearing from them. So who cares what they believe? It's not like they do any original reporting beyond what they can squeeze out of some pitiful interns and bottom of the barrel freelancers.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 2:28 pm