LGBT icon evicted, leaving town, blasting Wiener

|
(301)
The man who made this movie is gone from San Francisco

Documentary filmmaker and longtime queer community activist and leader David Weissman is leaving San Francisco -- because he and three other tenants of his place on Oak Street have been evicted under the Ellis Act. These evictions are happening all over town; it's a disaster. Weissman isn't going quietly, though; he's penned a sharp letter to Sup. Scott Weiner that's making the rounds in tenant and LGBT circles and creating enough controversy that Wiener has put out a long response.

Weissman told me the rash of Ellis Act evictions is horrifying, particularly when seniors are involved. "So many people who have lived through the AIDS epidemic are now finding themselves unwanted and adrift," he said. "There have always been two competing visions of San Francisco, and the one that's ascendant now says that people who can own property and make a lot of money will make this a better city. But I've always believed that what makes this city great are the creative types who don't always have a lot of money."

Read his letter to Wiener and the supervisor's response after the jump. (UPDATE: It's worth noting what Weissman posted below, that he is not becoming homeless and spends half his time in Portland, where he will no doubt now live. He won't be a San Franciscan any more. He writes: "Thanks to everyone for your kind words of support. The letter was intended to bring attention to the larger issues at stake, that most renters in SF are in serious and increasing risk of Ellis Act eviction. As most of you know, my own situation is unusual, in that I've been living back and forth between SF and Portland since 2004, with the full knowledge of my benevolent late landlords. I will always be a San Franciscan in my heart, and am trying to find ways to maintain some kind of base there."

Dear Supervisor Weiner:

We've met a few times. I'm the producer of the documentaries We Were Here and The Cockettes, both of which chronicle the history of Gay San Francisco. I've been a San Franciscan since 1976. In 1979 I was on the campaign staff of Prop R, a rent-control initiative that didn't pass, but which pushed the Board of Supervisors to pass the significantly weaker Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Law. I subsequently became a Legislative Aide to Supervisor Harry Britt. I worked a couple of campaigns with Dick Pabich and Jim Rivaldo, and also worked closely with Bill Kraus -- heroic leaders whose names I hope are familiar to you.

I am being forced out of my apartment that I've rented since 1986 due to the Ellis Act. This will end my 37-year residency in San Francisco. I must say that I find your policies regarding housing in San Francisco -- your consistent bias toward home ownership at the expense of tenants and affordability, to be dismaying, and an affront to the legacy of Harvey Milk. In my own situation, it has been extremely clear that the limitations on condo conversion provided somewhat of an impediment to the immediate eviction of everyone in my building (all gay, 3 out of 4 of us are seniors), motivating the landlord to at least pay us to leave rather than just evict us at very minimal cost to him. But even this is appalling -- your efforts should be toward further combating the effects of the Ellis Act, rather than contributing to the tsunami of evictions that is destroying the fabric of our City. No buyout can compensate for the loss of our homes.

I don’t doubt that you have good intentions, and that you have done some good things as Supervisor. Though you didn’t live here in the worst of the AIDS years, I assume you’ve been somewhat impacted by that history. But for those of us who elected Harvey Milk, who fought the Briggs Initiative and Anita Bryant, who created this amazing gay community centered around Castro Street, and then who fought for our lives and the lives of our brothers through two decades of AIDS deaths... having a gay supervisor promoting policies that are forcing so many of our generation out of our homes and out of the City to which we have given so much is heartbreaking.

Wiener's response, posted on Facebook:

Hi David. Yes, we have met several times, and I’ve always been a huge admirer of your work. You’re an icon in our community. “We Were Here” is one of the best and most moving films I’ve ever seen.

Your email is deeply distressing to me. It’s awful that the Ellis Act was used to evict you and the other tenants out of your building. I don’t support the Ellis Act and I publicly supported Mark Leno’s (unfortunately unsuccessful) legislation to restrict its use. Back in the 90s, when I was a new lawyer, I defended numerous tenants against the wave of evictions at the time, both Ellis Act and Owner-Move-In evictions, and it was as heartbreaking then as it is now. I’m truly sorry that this happened to you and sorry for the City that you now are leaving. I would be more than interested in helping you find a place in San Francisco that you can afford. Please let me know if you want my help in that effort. I’m at your disposal.

It took me a day to respond to this email, because it’s a challenging response to write. Something terrible happened to you. You have every right to be angry and frustrated that so many great years in San Francisco, building our community, may come to an end this way. (I truly hope that we can avoid that, of course.) But, I do need to respond to some things that you said in your email about me. I hate to have to respond -– since what happened to you was so awful -– but I don’t think that your comments about me, which you’ve now disseminated publicly, are fair or accurate. It’s not accurate to describe my policy bent as having a “consistent bias toward home ownership at the expense of tenants and affordability.” I know you disagree with my legislation to provide one-time relief to owner-occupied TICs that are at risk of foreclosure, and I’ll get to that in a bit. I’m not sure how much you know about my public positions and votes over a decade on housing issues, but I’ll describe them for you. While I do support helping people achieve home ownership –- and I don’t in any way run away from that -- I’ve supported just about every pro-tenant measure that’s appeared on the ballot, including measures that my predecessor and Mayor Newsom opposed (that’s not a criticism of my predecessor or Mayor Newsom, both of whom I strongly supported, but we had a difference of opinion). I supported Prop B, which required disclosure to prospective condo purchasers of the unit’s eviction history. That went on the ballot after the Mayor vetoed it, and I supported it. I supported Prop H, which increased relocation payments to tenants in no-fault evictions. That went on the ballot after the Mayor vetoed it, and I supported it. I supported Prop M, which banned and created penalties for harassment of tenants. That went on the ballot after the Mayor vetoed it, and I supported it. And, as noted, I supported Mark Leno’s effort to restrict the application of the Ellis Act. I also supported limiting or banning condo conversion for units that were made vacant through use of the Ellis Act.

As a member of the Board of Supervisors I’ve continued my work supporting tenants. I authored and passed legislation banning universities (including Academy of Arts University) from converting rent-controlled apartment buildings into student dorms. That was a huge win for tenants, and I pushed it through against intense opposition. I authored and passed the Good Samaritan Ordinance, which was supported by tenants groups and which provides affordable temporary apartments for tenants who are displaced by disasters.

Now, let’s talk about my work around affordable housing. I was one of the people who negotiated the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, Prop C, which appeared on last November’s ballot and won. I campaigned for it passionately. It will generate $1.5 billion for affordable housing in coming decades. I’ve been closely involved with the 55 Laguna project, which will create quite a bit of affordable housing, including affordable housing for LGBT seniors. I’ve supported every transition-age youth housing project that’s come to the board, all of which have been controversial. I’ve publicly begged Larkin Street to create more youth housing in the Castro.

I stand by my record on housing policy, including support for tenants and for creation of affordable housing. Your perception of my overall record simply isn’t accurate.

As for my TIC legislation, I respect your opposition to it, but I don’t think it’s fair to state that by helping struggling TIC owners stay in their homes –- and helping them avoid foreclosure -– I’m forcing gay people from their homes. David, you and I don’t know each other well, but if you got to know me, you’d know that I’ve spent my entire adult life (which has been more years than you might think) fighting for the LGBT community. Whether playing a key role in building the LGBT community center, fighting my neighbors on Collingwood Street when they tried to get rid of LYRIC, leading the charge to restore HIV funding cuts in our city budget, to helping get transgender people health coverage under Healthy San Francisco, or sponsoring the legislation that created the LGBT senior task force, support for my brothers and sisters in this community has been at the core of everything I do.

The TIC legislation is not what its opponents have painted it to be. I’ve posted a full explanation of the legislation here.
This legislation provides one-time relief to TIC owners in owner-occupied TICs that are in the condo lottery. San Francisco law restricts or prohibits condo conversion for buildings that have had Ellis Act or other bad eviction history. This legislation sticks by those restrictions. These TIC owners are in serious trouble. They purchased thinking they’d be able to convert in 5-7 years. It’s now looking like 15-20 years. That’s 15-20 years on a group mortgage –- where if one owner defaults everyone defaults -– paying double the interest rate of other homeowners, and being unable to refinance even if you’re about to experience a balloon payment on the mortgage. If we don’t help these TIC owners, we’re going to see a wave of foreclosures and people losing their homes. While I fully understand the opposition to condo conversion, I guess my question is whether allowing these homeowners to go into foreclosure is a good thing for the city. I don’t think it is. This is a one-time and discrete piece of legislation designed to help a group of San Francisco residents -– primarily long-time residents -– who are in serious trouble.

These TIC owners aren’t aliens who landed here and snapped up units. Almost every TIC owner I’ve ever met is a first-time homeowner who rented for years (often renting for a lot of years) and then scraped together a down payment to be able to purchase a place. They’re middle class, since if they were wealthy they’d be able to buy more than a TIC. Many are people who’ve lived here for a very long time –- 15, 20 years or longer. Many are gay. These are San Franciscans just like you and I are. They, too, are part of the fabric of our city. I don’t think it’s anti-tenant, anti-gay, or anti-anything to provide them with some help by letting them condo convert their units so that they can have housing stability.

It’s estimated that 85% of these TIC units are owner-occupied. And for the very small number of tenants who live in these buildings, the legislation mandates that they receive lifetime leases with full rent and eviction controls. Again, 85% of the units are occupied by their owners.

David, I regret having to respond to you like this. That’s pretty much the last thing I want to do with someone who’s going through something as traumatic as what you’re experiencing. But, since you made a pretty bald public assertion about what I stand for and who I advocate for, I thought it necessary to respond.

Comments

The alleged problem is illusory.

Posted by anon on Feb. 10, 2013 @ 8:31 am

affordable apartment in a city one has called home for many years.

Posted by Eddie on Feb. 02, 2013 @ 4:31 pm

and somehow magically expecting that the landlord won't get sick of enabling and Ellis the place, depriving future tenants of a home.

Pure selfishness. And the fact that he had another home and so wasn't even entitled to rent control makes his case unworthy of your misguided compassion.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 02, 2013 @ 4:47 pm

of your zealotry, false as it may be.

Posted by Eddie on Feb. 02, 2013 @ 5:07 pm

And owning a nice house in Portland, while simultaneously demanding a rent-controlled apartment is San Francisco, isn't pure selfishness?

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly, Persistent on Feb. 02, 2013 @ 5:34 pm

Charging market rate rent is not "pure selfishness?"

Posted by marcos on Feb. 02, 2013 @ 6:08 pm

It is distortions in the market place that causes problems.

And yes, it was selfish for this guy to claim the benefit of rent control in SF when he had a permanent home elsewhere. It's also illegal.

It may also have been illegal to sublet his places.

This guy sounds like a sleezeball.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 03, 2013 @ 1:01 pm

Pure selfishness! There is no such thing as an undistorted market. you want markets that are distorted to your benefit and oppose markets that are distorted to your detriment.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 03, 2013 @ 1:24 pm

Introduce legislative price controls and the outcome is distorted. It's not complicated to understand.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 03, 2013 @ 2:38 pm

Rent control is no subsidy, it is a market regulation. Subsidy implies transfer of resources from one party to another. Rent control does not involve the transfer of real resources, rather of hypothetical resources that don't exist, hence no subsidy.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 02, 2013 @ 5:18 pm

on someone whose intellectual abilities are less than Nim's.

http://www.project-nim.com/

Posted by Eddie on Feb. 02, 2013 @ 5:30 pm

part of the rent of the TT only because the law compels him to do so. If rent control required direct subsidies funded by extra taxes, voters would never support it.

Of course, eventually landlords get sick of subsidizing their tenants and leeches like this guy get Ellis'ed. It's called justice.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 03, 2013 @ 1:03 pm

The LL pays nothing, the LL is subject to price controls, there is no subsidy.

The subsidy in housing is in tax policy where perpetual depreciation and repairs can all be written off of taxes.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 03, 2013 @ 1:23 pm

should receive and what he actually receives. Assuming annual rent increases each year of 60% of CPI, that subsidy will widen every year until the gap is so egregious and distrotive than the building must be Ellis'ed.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 03, 2013 @ 2:39 pm

discredited, false statement? Anyone who has been reading these comments has seen it already and can judge for him or herself. Most readers aren't as slow as you.

Posted by Eddie on Feb. 03, 2013 @ 3:07 pm

worth, then your payment is being subsidized.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 03, 2013 @ 4:36 pm

Slow learning repetitive troll.

Ayn Rand died for your sins, not for mine.

Posted by Eddie on Feb. 03, 2013 @ 5:45 pm

worth, then I am subsidizing you. Eventually, I Ellis your ass.

The article bemoaned an eviction that was inevitable given the amount fo time this leech has sucked on his landlord's involuntary teat.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 03, 2013 @ 6:25 pm

Nobody is compelling you to sell anything. If you choose to get into the LL bidness in San Francisco, then you are participating in a regulated market.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 03, 2013 @ 7:23 pm

Because the law says that a landlord cannot be compelled to rent out a property at a subsidy if he wishes not to do so.

I'm so glad you understand.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 04, 2013 @ 7:33 am

is not compulsion.

Two things.

One, I'll repeat that the fact that you invent new definitions for words underscores how detached from reality you and your ideology are.

Second, perhaps you were weaned too early or bottle-fed, stunting your development and creating an irrational, angry person.

Posted by Eddie on Feb. 03, 2013 @ 7:24 pm

Ellis act i.e. that nothing compels a landlord to rent out units that are rent controlled.

What part of that are you disagreeing with?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 04, 2013 @ 1:22 pm

This is the troll phenomenon to which I referred earlier. Comments that there is no coercion to purchase or rent an apartment that one owns are translated into a rationale for the Ellis Act which allows landlords who have decided to rent a unit to change their mind and evict.

If the LL wanted to get back into the rental business after an Ellis Act eviction, then there are all sorts of restorative hoops that the LL must jump through.

Can't wait to see how this post is hijacked by trollasaurus.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 04, 2013 @ 2:06 pm

You said that no LL is compelled to be in the rental business. This is true, and the State has acknowledged that by providing landlords with a path out. That is important because otherwise a LL can be condemned to renting units at a loss, which is contrary to public policy.

The real point is that the owner of a property has a fundamental right to use that building in whichever way suits him. Rent control potentially impinges on that right by restricting rents and evictions, meansing that a tenant can be a life sentence.

Ellis levels the playing field, as we both have explicitly acknowledged.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 04, 2013 @ 2:38 pm

Ellis does not level the playing field if conversion is difficult as it is a stretch to say that there is a reasonable chance that renting at current market rate would ever result in a loss.

You don't need to invoke the Ellis Act to not rent an apartment.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 04, 2013 @ 6:10 pm

a tenant who is uneconomic to keep but who rent control prevents you from evicting any other way.

There is no waya round the simple, undeniable fact that an investor in RE is entitled to optimize his ROI to be commensurate with the returns he could get from other assets.

Insofar as a SF rental doesn't provide that required ROI due to arbitary regulations, then it is inevitable that capital will flee that particular market, and that the universe of rental housing will contract via Ellis or other means.

Rent control harms tenants by making it much more likely that their landlord will cease the business and change the use of the building to something with a higher ROI.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 04, 2013 @ 6:35 pm

Trolling along...

Posted by marcos on Feb. 04, 2013 @ 7:11 pm

does not "compel" property owners to stay in the rental business, and provides the Ellis Act as relief.

Very perceptive of you to acknowledge and accept that, as many progressives struggle to be that enlightened and accepting.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 04, 2013 @ 7:25 pm

Only an idiot would stay out of the SF rental market these days if they had inventory.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 04, 2013 @ 7:38 pm

moronic tenants when they could Ellis and make a windfall profit on converting to TIC.

It's obvious that you have never owned a building in SF.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 04, 2013 @ 8:27 pm

So Mr, Weissman was able to use the money he saved by having a rent-controlled apartment in SF to purchase a home in Portland OR. And then he complains when he loses the pied a terre he sub-lets to others when residing in another city. And we are supposed to feel bad for this "awful" thing that happened to him? Sickening!

Posted by Guest on Feb. 03, 2013 @ 7:30 pm

over-developed sense of entitlement.

Would SFBG featured him if he was a "straight icon"? Should being gay somehow make him immune from eviction?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 04, 2013 @ 7:31 am

I know that new housing is planned and being built but not enough to lower the costs, the price of living here is just getting higher and higher. You got many persons wanting to live in the city either to rent of buy. You also have a small number of people that live here for the reason they have money.

I have nothing against money or the people that make it.

The only think I have is? We aren't building enough space, David mostly like got pushed out due to the fact that people want to own a place. We got low income service workers, long time residents that moved here in the 80's or I should say before Dot.com.1.0. Last time I lived in the city, you could find a rental near downtown for under 600.00 dollars a month.

The future of San Francisco? Where are you day to day regular workers going to live, long time residents of 1.0 or 2.0 booms? What will happen in the next boom or booms? Guess you server, worker, even you taxi driver will have to come in from Central Valley.

Posted by Garrett on Feb. 05, 2013 @ 1:19 pm

build it in high towers, but of course the NIMBY's don't want that.

So NIMBY's are in direct opposition to those who want more affordable housing.

But not everyone can afford to live in SF. Oakland is much cheaper and not far away - maybe 10 minutes.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 05, 2013 @ 1:50 pm

Of course we should not build those crappy, cheap, inexpensive housing towers. What do you think this is, Manhattan?

Posted by marcos on Feb. 05, 2013 @ 3:21 pm

The people who care will be the people who could have afforded those homes, had they been built, but who instead are driven out of SF to Oakland, Richmond, Stockton or beyond.

Not that you care about those people, of course. As long as you have yours. And your shitty little condo would be worth less if there was any serious home building in SF. So, naturally, you oppose that.

NIMBY'ism is the enemy of affordable housing. The left splinters, yet again.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 05, 2013 @ 3:35 pm

I guess you're right- all the rent-controlled units will be occupied by aging LGBT icons who own real estate out of town and sublet their apartments to politically correct part-time artists, teachers and activists, who prefer not to pass their time earning money like the people you are talking about..

Posted by Guest on Feb. 05, 2013 @ 1:58 pm

rent controlled unit even though they become wealthy and successful. Who wouldn't want a pied a terre in town and also a retreat in the mountains, on the beach or in the country somewhere?

There's no problem with people having two homes but there is a problem with giving breaks to them like a controlled rent. The law forbids that but, if they are careful, their LL won't find out and nor will the IRS.

Of course, subletting violates most leases but there have been cases of RC tenants using BnB to make a profit on their unit, while the landlord cannot capture that added revenue.

When an arbitary, convoluted system like rent control takes hold, all kinds of distortions and anomalies take place. But it's not solving any of the real problems - it's just rampant opportunism. Weissman is no different; he just got found out. These games all end with an Ellis eviction.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 05, 2013 @ 2:24 pm

There is no problem whatsoever so long as everyone's abiding by the law. Problem?

Much of the economy is arbitrary and convoluted. How about we start to end convolution and arbitrariness at the top and see how that goes? Problem?

Posted by marcos on Feb. 05, 2013 @ 3:20 pm

terms like "arbitary" and "convoluted" mean. But typically such terms apply when a law is no misguided and unfair, that massive loopholes and complexities arise that go far beyond what was ever intended by the original framers of the law.

So while some controls to limit rents might have seemed like a reasonable idea in 1979, did anyone really envisage back then things like tenants subletting or BnB'ing, tenants buying a home but clinging to their RC place, Ellis evictions, TIC's and a generation of desparate tenants refusing to leave even though they really want to?

The law of unintended consequences rarely was so perfectly expressed than in the excesses and exceptions we are seeing in SF.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 05, 2013 @ 3:32 pm

Prop 13 decreased property taxes by assessing property values at their 1975 value and restricted annual increases of assessed value of real property to an inflation factor, not to exceed 2% per year. It also prohibited reassessment of a new base year value except for (a) change in ownership or (b) completion of new construction.

The statutory 2% maximum annual increase in assessed value has, on average, under-paced the consumer price index since the adoption of Proposition 13 until now (2011).
This leaves governments with dwindling purchasing power from the statutory maximum levy on any particular parcel that government can recover only when prices rise slower than levies, or when the property is reassessed at a higher value.
Large real estate bubbles tend to increase property tax revenues, while the collapse of bubbles places downward pressure on them. The net effect on any single owner of any single property depends largely upon the market conditions prevailing at the time of assessment and/or reassessment(s) and the length of time between assessments.
It can be argued that Proposition 13 contributes to an inefficient housing market because it provides disincentives for selling property in favor of remaining at the current property and modifying or transferring to family members to avoid a new, higher assessment. Therefore, causing an increase in home prices due to a a shortage of housing stock.
So why is a subsidy for property owners OK? Rent control for tenants, not OK?
Just a thought.

Posted by GuestSJG on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 12:20 pm
duh

Want to have stability? Buy your own home.

Long term tenants have probably lived through 2 or 3 market cycles, which means homes were very likely to be affordable to them 2 or 3 times.

They missed out. Their problem.

(place your "ownership is theft" rant here:)

Posted by Guest on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 11:54 am

Always was winners and losers; always will be.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 12:19 pm

Imp Troll.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 12:33 pm

The whole rent control/TIC argument in San Francisco is ridiculous. A majority of voters (renters) have consistently over the years voted away the rights of a minority (85% of SF Landlords are small time mom and pops who own one or two buildings, usually for their retirement). The majority of voters have taken away the rights of a minority (property owners), the rights to control your property. Often we have owners foregoing maintenance and having to sell anyway. It's a farce.

It reminds me of the states that vote against my right to marry, when frankly, they don't know a damned thing about my relationship or life and are voting out of ignorance.

Renters don't know a damn thing about property ownership. They are ignorant of these TIC owners, and they vote away their rights. It's pathetic. The Board of Supes are constantly changing the rules, which is why little if any major investors risk spending money on building rentals--they can't take the risk that after they build, the Board or the voters won't turn around and outlaw their right to make a profit.

Weiner is dead on, totally right, in his response.

Finally, I am ALL FOR rent control. Some control is needed. But the idea that a millionaire can have his rent stay low for perpetuity, or that anybody has a lifetime right to cheap rent is ludicrous.

In Amsterdam, rent control is capped at five years. Landlords are allow to bring their rent to market rates every five years. Five years is long enough for a renter to adjust his life. We could do that. We could also make every renter who wants rent control be independently qualified by the City. Prove you earn less than $100k, and you get rent control. The rich don't deserve a small property owner to subsidize their cheap rent. Finally, the City should charge owners a tax that could subsidize artists, and creative types who need subsidized housing. Better yet, get serious about building large high rise affordable housing for people, put it near BART, and call it a day. Get the cheap rent you deserve, but not in a small Victorian, or deluxe grand house.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 08, 2013 @ 6:47 am

It is not "tyranny" unless the group is an oppressed minority. Owning a rental property in San Francisco might not be a walk in the park all of the time--it is most of the time--but it hardly qualifies as oppression.

Not getting absolutely everything you want on your terms is not oppression unless you're hopelessly narcissistic and selfish.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 08, 2013 @ 7:01 am

their actually behavior. Ellis'ing a building is qutie dilutive of the inherent value of a property, because of the restrictions it imposes. So for an owner to Ellis a building it can only be because that owner despairs of the property ever being viable.

Eventually a LL either Ellis's himself. Or gets sick of the hassle and sells to someone who immediately Ellis's because it is the only way to get a decent return on the property.

Rental buildings in SF that are subject to RC probably would never sell except for the possiblity of exiting the rental business. There is nothing the city can do about it because it is all State law, except for one thing - allow LL's a better return. No LL will Ellis if he can get a decent ROI but right now that isn't possible.

The other problem is that Tt's in SF get very aggressive. So even if you making a decent return, eventually you just get sick of all the abuse and entitlement, and want to level the playing field with the only tool that is left - Ellis.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 08, 2013 @ 7:34 am

Are you suggesting that San Francisco craft its economic and housing policy to accommodate irrational actors?

Posted by marcos on Feb. 08, 2013 @ 7:37 am
Posted by Guest on Feb. 08, 2013 @ 10:40 am

readers will agree with your fantasy based "free market" propaganda just because you post it incessantly here.

Posted by Eddie on Feb. 08, 2013 @ 1:12 pm