Custom Search

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

St. Paul hires new chief of safety, inspection

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.

32 Comments:

Anonymous Pioneer Press said...

Pioneer Press

Posted: 09/28/2010 12:01:00 AM CDT


A Minneapolis licensing official has been tapped to head St. Paul's licensing operations.

Ricardo Cervantes, deputy director for Minneapolis Licenses and Consumer Services, will become director of St. Paul's Department of Safety and Inspections on Nov. 1, St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman is expected to announce today.

Cervantes will succeed Bob Kessler, who is retiring after a number of years with the city, including at least four as head of the department. The agency oversees an array of compliance issues, from elevator inspections to unkempt homes and vacant houses.

Cervantes, a graduate of St. Paul's Harding High School, started with the city of Minneapolis in 1990 as a housing inspector and worked his way up, including in a stint managing the city's Problem Properties Unit. Coleman is expected to cite Cervantes' experience as a major factor in his choice.

Cervantes' salary will be $117,000 a year. Kessler earned $120,500 last year.

11:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow - someone from the Minneapolis licensing office.... watch out for rental licensing and the City getting real tough now. Looks like the landlords easy days are over.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

3:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck, St.Pauls plate is full right now with all the legal bullshit so if I were Cervantes and the Mayor, I would really watch who's feet they think they are going be stepping on these days because landlords are fed up.

I think Cervantes ought to be thinking about cleaning house and getting on the side of investors who might line up and help get into some of these vacant properties.

The cities days of getting tough are getting old. At least as far as their arbitrary enforcement and mafia type tactics are concerned.



Jeff Matiatos

6:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"St. Paul hires new chief of safety, inspection"

Is that like hiring a new chief of KAOS?

2:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love it!
Now we can really punish these owners of property that are falling apart and full of welfare people.

7:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who likes poor people or blacks. Get rid of em.

7:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob Kessler, get him out before the new constrution on the w. side of st.paul starts
The Bridges Site

8:03 AM  
Anonymous Lennies Claim v. Kessler_Essling said...

Perhaps all of us Hanging Tough4Truth>> Kessler already RETIRED years ago "taking" his Pension plus $120 thous=200 hundred thousand a year pay. Read Lennie's Claim against the City_____ anyone must start filing these claimshttp://www.scribd.com/upload-document#files
READ ALL COMMENTS AND MAKE YOUR OWN


Cheeseheaed The Connection is the Criminal RICO Acts by the City of St. Paul DSI Employee's Bob Kessler and Joel Essling in their "Patterened Enterprise" of Theft,Trespass,Treason for their pecunairy gain.

You do not get our Channel 18 City Cable, if you watched the Publishd TV City Council Meetings you would vomit as the Heinous Repugnant Acts by Council President Kathy Lantry aka Mrs Joseph Fleishacker.

10:27 AM  
Anonymous Les lucht said...

It will be war for the city of St.Paul. I told robert H. Today that I will not let no fire inspector on my properties . I am try of all lies and the bull shit.

That the city gives me. He said that is how you read the decides from the 8th cir. And the Morrison vs Sax decides.

You need a lawyer. Just take me to jail. I will take you federal court too.

5:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can I buy your property when they take your ass to jail?

8:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The majority of landlords are good and you know it Chuck. If anyone is discriminated against it's the landlords. The city of St Paul needs to change their policies and start working with the landlords instead of working against them.
Are there city programs that provide low interest loans to existing owners to fix up some of these properties so they can meet the code expectation of Fire and Safety? The banks don't want to loan on these properties right now.
It's easier it seems, for the city to punish the landlords than to punish the tenants for the tenant misbehavior. Are we suppose to stalk our tenants to watch their every move. If they come back okay on the applicant screening, we have to rent to them or we are accused of discrimination and get sued. Let's start citing and fining tenants for their bad behavior instead of always punishing the landlords by picking on them and stealing their properties.
Rental properties are expensive to own and maintain. I resent your comments.
"Wow - someone from the Minneapolis licensing office.... watch out for rental licensing and the City getting real tough now. Looks like the landlords easy days are over."
Easy days Chuck? Easy days as a landlord were back in the 80's. Get with the times Chuck. If you were required to have your personal home inspected to the standard that the city inspects rental homes, you would probably be out of compliance. So would most of the homeowners in St Paul. Try making a profit in the rental business these days. The city of St Paul has overbuilt the housing market in this town to point where the rent prices have been forced down and on top of that, it's nearly impossible to refill vacancies right away. Some of these houses sit empty for months at a time at a grave loss of profit for the landlord. Then the city jumps in and charges a vacant building fee costing the owner more expense. Another problem is that now that the code inspections have been ramped up,they hired inspectors who aren't well versed in the code. These inspectors are ordering some unneccessary repairs. Where is the expertise with Fire and Safety when they don't understand the code? They are wasting our time! Not even going to go into the size of the windows issue. How many people take the appeal to straighten this one out?
Code inspection should be about ensuring safe housing but has turned into a circus of buiding up fees for St Paul. We should be entitled to have inspectors that can interpret the code.
How many vacant homes are there in St Paul. Yet the city keeps on building new ones which in turns hurts existing landlords and neighborhoods. It seems the city is working against us in every way they can come up with.

11:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you were required to have your personal home inspected to the standard that the city inspects rental homes, you would probably be out of compliance.

Your private home is not a business venture for profit. That's like saying your kitchen at home MUST be up to the code standards that restaurants have to comply by. Or, your vehicle must be up to standards that are put upon car rental agencies. Its a false analogy.

The government has role to ensure that each business is operating fairly and safely with its consumers. People elect a government for oversight. That's why the courts are not privately ran.

You have an interest in making a profit out of your investment, the government's interest must be with the people who utilize that business. That's how its been since 1620. And, yes, I can give you an example of government overseeing commerce over the last 390 years.

You don't like the rules/ordinances of the city, take your business (rental property) to North Oaks or Edina. You'll find a lot more rules there- you'll also find many of these St Paul landlords living there too.


Eric

3:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric, you appear to have the Chuck mentality. You assume that most St Paul landlords are making a bundle off of their properties. If that's true than why have so many of St Paul's rental properties been in foreclosure in the past few years? Do you think a landlord would just walk away from a profitable business? There seems to be sympathy for the owner occupied homeowner when his home goes into foreclosure but when the landlord is losing his property he's named a slumlord.Do you really think the landlord wants to lose his investment? Do you think the IRS is going to forgive the tax consequence on the mortgage for the landlord?
I know quite a few landlords personally and none of them live in North Oaks or Edina. As a matter of fact, most of them live in St Paul themselves. You are obviously anti landlord. How is that going to help solve anything?
As the City of St Paul continues to over populate the housing market by building more rental housing right now that we don't an haven't need for a long time, you can expect more houses and apartments to continue to go into foreclosure. I suggest that you take a look at Craigslist and rentals.com to see how many properties are not rented right now.
How is it going to benefit property owners living in St Paul neighborhoods when their streets are loaded with more vacant rental properties. The only benefit will be to the City as they steal these homes away from the landlords and hand pick the ones they wish to fire sale to their favorite agencies. Their agenda appears to be to create more code enforcement positions. They add the $1100.00 vacant building fees to each of these vacant foreclosed properties, throw them into a Catagory 3 status so they lose their grandfathered status and charge the banks or new buyers all of the permit fees they make up as they go. There is profit here. How often do they return the huge performance bond that is required to begin repairs on these catagory 3 homes?
You compare a restaurant busines to rental business. The difference is that a person can choose to not eat at a particular restraunt and it has basicallyno impact on their life.
Housing sales are moving at a snails pace. In this market,an owner occupied homeowner who needs to sell his home is going to have to fire sale it to get rid of it if it's on a street that has been boarded up or has the "bright blue tag" that screams "foreclosed house nobody wants to live in this neighborhood" on it.

9:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric,a personal home can be a business. There are several duplexes out there where the owner occupies one of the units. So your personal home can be a business. So by the standards of the St Paul Code Enforcement,probably many of these homes are out of compliance. At least they would be if they were subject to inspection. I bet if they were subject to inspection, that the owners would not appreciate you comparing their homes to a car or a restaraunt business.
I agree that people elect government for oversite. However,I believe as well as many of the other landlords out there that the city of St Paul is overstepping their oversite by using unfair and illegal practices against it's landlords and driving their rental properties into the ground at the cost to the whole community.

"If you were required to have your personal home inspected to the standard that the city inspects rental homes, you would probably be out of compliance."
"Your private home is not a business venture for profit. That's like saying your kitchen at home MUST be up to the code standards that restaurants have to comply by. Or, your vehicle must be up to standards that are put upon car rental agencies. Its a false analogy."
First of all there are several duplexes in St Paul with their owners living in one of the units. They are not required to have a certificate of occupancy nor are they automatically subjected to inpections.
Bottom line is there are some terrible landlords out there but most landlords take their responsibilites seriously and deserve to have fair oversight by their government. Stop over taxing us, stop over building and quit trying to drive us out of business.
That's all we ask for.

10:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric, you appear to have the Chuck mentality. You assume that most St Paul landlords are making a bundle off of their properties.

So, you pulled that from this statement:
You have an interest in making a profit out of your investment, the government's interest must be with the people who utilize that business.
Your comprehension skills leave much to be desired. I know most landlords- MOST, barely break even. The value is in the worth of the property not necessarily what they can make from collecting rent which, again, barely makes the definition of profit.

Do you all sit around all day assuming you know what people think? Is that why you so sure about this case that you've been losing every single step of the way?


If that's true than why have so many of St Paul's rental properties been in foreclosure in the past few years?

Well, you may not have noticed but there has worldwide foreclosure problem. Right before that, they were handing out mortgages and loans to almost anyone with a plan. Landlords like Kelly Brisson who were not experienced and got in over their head bought property they could not afford- as he stated in his court testimony. The property fell into disrepair because he didn't know what he was doing and did nothing.
So, the amateur landlord and short term property flipper wannabes bought up a lot of cheap property and a lot of them failed. They couldn't keep up the basic repairs and properly screen tenants.

Most landlords are OK with the city and still have their property. Most black people who rent are not living in targeted properties.

Do you think a landlord would just walk away from a profitable business?
No. But, then again, that's not scenario now is it?

There seems to be sympathy for the owner occupied homeowner when his home goes into foreclosure but when the landlord is losing his property he's named a slumlord.

Why do you continue to compare a business venture (rental property) with a owner occupied home? Because its convenient for your argument? There are different safeguards for businesses and homes. There are more for businesses. One example is limited liability. You can lose your business without losing your home because of bad or shady business practices. If you lose your home- you're out on the street. Lose your business, you go home, pour yourself a drink and regroup.

The rest of your response is simply repeating the lie that a business investment is equal to home ownership.



Eric

10:33 AM  
Anonymous the other guy said...

Eric

A few issues come to mind with your view of what government is doing for us.

One is the idea that rental houses should be "safer" than owner-occupied houses. This puzzles me why you and the government think that tenants are more valuable to society than are home owners. Why is that? If you don't think that, then why are there two sets of codes? One for tenants and one for owner-occupants?

Another issue is why the City thinks this is okay as a matter of law since the Legislature and Courts have stated clearly that it isn't. I see the continued sense of outrage by landlords when they are expected to provide to tenants housing that exceeds the codes as laid out by the legislature.

Then there is the underlying assumption that the city is acting to protect the public. What proof do you have for that? Because they stated that in the lead-up to passing the myriad rules and regulations (even though they know those same rules and regs violate State law)? If the City is looking out for the people then all the citizens should receive that protection, including the ones who live in a house they own. So apply that same set of "codes" to owner-occupy houses and let's make everyone equally safe. Or better yet, address the greater risks in the city, like vehicles with bad brakes. Why doesn't the city protect us all from the dangerous vehicles out there? If the City is trying to protect us from harm, then start with the greatest risks.

Then there is the insulting attitude that a landlord can afford to "Lose your business, you go home, pour yourself a drink and regroup". Funny that I don't hear that talk about anyone else who loses their livelihood, pension, dreams and life-time investment in one fell swoop. I'm guessing you don't own any rental property, and never have.

There is the assumption that a landlord has some worth in their property that they should be happy for and not expect to make any profit, or even cover expenses as they go month to month under the weight of heavy-handed tactics and unpredictable "code" enforcement. Of course I believe that a person who risks their investment of time, energy and money to own the property should be entitled to receive any benefit of a gain in value, but the tenor of your commments suggests that you differ with me on this issue. I think you are wrong.

The bit about calling the other poster a liar is just childish.

11:54 AM  
Anonymous the other guy said...

So for clarity, the underlying complaint, or at least one of them is: The "code" enforcement that the City claims is for the public good is heavy-handed, it is not reasonably related to the announced need, the announced need is not related at all to reality, other actions of the City are counter-productive (such as when the Council decided to spend over 70 million in tax dollars to build even more housing or the attitudes of the police in withholding information and cooperation), and the "code" itself is whatever the inspector thinks it is.

No matter how well-intentioned the individual inspector may or may not be, the lack of trade experience and PROPER training coupled with the demogoguery of supervisors who are just plain wrong in what they think the code is results in a real, legitimate fear and loathing for what will happen anytime the City sends an inspector out. The "code" as interpreted by the City inspectors is often utterly unpredictable to anyone in the trades or in property ownership. The result is that the landlord is left with the costs of trying to comply with demands for "correction" that are often useless or worse and always expensive in a business that cannot afford the waste. Bad enough to do it after the inspector makes it up, but the landlord is supposed to guess in advance what a poorly- or un- trained inspector might come up with then make those "corrections" in advance of the actual inspection. Then the inspection time arrives, and the inspector cites what the inspector thinks is a violation, which may or may not bear any relation to a real legally adopted code. Frequently the inspector won’t state the “violation” on the spot since the inspectors are well-aware that the landlord will debate the code with them. So the violation letter goes out later instead. Oftentimes the citation letter is loaded with extras, such as cut the weeds, paint the exterior, etc. despite the total absence of any evidence of need for those corrections. The extras are routinely tacked on through laziness (just include everything so that nothing is missed), or more likely through a need to pad the enforcement record to present a pattern of ordering X number of corrections per month. The landlord is in the impossible position of either ignoring the extras since they don't apply (in which case the extras are a permanent record that the landlord had to be ordered to do corrections for problems that didn't exist) or the landlord must appeal the extras (at which point the hearing officer will determine that the extras are reasonable demands if the corrections were needed, but since there is no actual fact-finding there is no way to prove or disprove that the corrections were needed).

11:55 AM  
Anonymous the other guy said...

Most landlords are not demanding there be no code enforcement. Landlords want code enforcement that is predictable in nature, is applied equally across all properties in the City, is based on real codes that were properly and legally adopted by authorities with the expertise and authority to know what is good code and what isn’t. Landlords want the inspections to be conducted by inspectors with proper training and experience to do the job of inspection rather than to conduct an apparently anti-landlord agenda as is taking place now. Landlords want the citation letter, if any, to reflect the true corrections to be made rather than to be a needless slur on the landlord and the property for issues that did not exist. Landlords want the city to stop using the “code” against them while simultaneously subsidizing yet more property to compete against the properties that can’t meet expenses now. Landlords want the city to use the code enforcement tool to protect the public from real hazards in a way that is reasonably designed (and limited) to address the actual need and no more.

The us versus them mentality has not been all from one side or the other. But the good landlords should not be terrorized simply because the City has experienced some landlords who did not run properties to a decent standard. Many landlords are just trying to offer a decent property at a fair price and make a little profit along the way. Some are going farther and are investing into areas that most of us would be afraid to enter, much less invest in.

11:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kelly Brisson was an owner occupied homeowner who was renting out the downstairs of his duplex to a tenant. His mistake... Never buy a home that was previously owned by a targeted landlord unless you are very prepared and well versed in doing so... I believe Brisson didn't have an abundance of money as he had a tow truck and fixed peoples cars to get by. He was proud of his home and it was his dream house. He did many improvements on it himself under the guidance of a remodeling contractor, who by the way, Magner didn't like much. Was his house itself a nuisance to the neighborhood or to his downstairs tenant? Why did the city force the downstairs tenant to move if his apartment wasn't out of compliance? Perhaps Brisson's ugly old towing truck and the other junky items that came and went from his property were unsightly. The city has procedures for removing junk from properties and maybe they could have used them instead of forcing Brisson to lose his house. The question is, Does that give the city (Magner) to conspire and bring Brisson's property up to the "Next Level". Did they have the right to send the DEA into his home on an unfounded and bogas search for drug manufacturing knowing or instructing them to trash his personal apartment unit just so they would wreck it enough to bring it way out of code compliance and then order a secret code compliance inspection at a time they knew the apartment would be out of compliance. Then to top things off they forced his downstairs tenant to move causing even more of a financial loss to Brisson.The rent money was what was making it possible for him to improve the house in the first place. They knew he didn't have much money, they didn't like him, they didn't like some of his friends, and so they destroyed his homeownership because it suited them. That sounds like a conspiracy to me.
I didn't see anything in the transcripts about the downstairs tenant complaining about Kelly's operation of the property. Did I miss that? Or do you assume that tenants are too stupid to know how to report a problem to the code department?

Most landlords are not okay with the code department and know that they seem to make the rules as they go along and never know what the rules truly are. The ones who are okay will not be when the hammer comes down on them. And eventually it will. Most landlords won't speak up about this because they don't want to be retaliated against by code enforcement.
And believe it or not many landlords count on the rent money for profit and to reinvest in their properties. Not every landlord is wealthy and needs enormous losses to put on their tax returns.
Everyone knows foreclosure is a problem everywhere and that brings me back to the issue of the city of St Paul and their practice of over building of rental properties.
What are they thinking?

12:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This puzzles me why you and the government think that tenants are more valuable to society than are home owners. Why is that? If you don't think that, then why are there two sets of codes? One for tenants and one for owner-occupants?

Of course it puzzles you, you have proven yourself to be a bit thickheaded. The government regulates commerce- period. Always have. In that role, it has to set standards through ordinances and laws. legislators/councilors write it up, lawyers and judges check for constitutionality, and the Mayor or Governor signs it into law. You got a problem with that very old Constitutional role? Elect different lawmakers.

There is one code. That code establish standards across the board for that area. ie-All dogs must be licensed in St Paul, dairy must be refrigerated at 36F, speed limit is ___ on ____ street. All things which ensure fairness and standards for the collective.

Before you run out campaigning the public, be prepared to explain to them why some jackoff can let his property fall into disrepair, bring down their property values all around that propert

Then there is the insulting attitude that a landlord can afford to "Lose your business, you go home, pour yourself a drink and regroup". Funny that I don't hear that talk about anyone else who loses their livelihood, pension, dreams and life-time investment in one fell swoop. I'm guessing you don't own any rental property, and never have.

No, but when you lose your business, its a helluva lot less intense than losing your home.
If you put your retirement and everything into it, then its still no different than someone who sinks their savings into a restaurant or consulting business.

However, business and commerce is sink or swim- that's the American way (unless your a big insurance corporation or investment bank then the Republicans can't wait to give you money for bad business decisions or to move your business). You made the choice to do this instead of say opening your own deliver service or computer repair. You chose the rental business, and with that comes risks- just like other choices would have brought risks, albeit different risks.


I did own and rent out a couple of town homes in Maple Grove. It was a nightmare and not something I could handle with a young family and two-career household, so I sold it. In other words, unlike people like Kelly Brisson, I wasn't dumb enough to get in over my head. It's a business and everyone is not cut out for it.


Landlords want the inspections to be conducted by inspectors with proper training and experience to do the job of inspection rather than to conduct an apparently anti-landlord agenda as is taking place now.

How about a little honesty Mr Anonymous?

Start with the fact that 97% of St Paul landlords do not have trouble from the city.

Once you wrap your mind around that, its ridiculous to spew this crap about the city having an 'anti-landlord' attitude. If they did, then more than 3% of the landlords would have problems. And, out of that 3%, its less than a third that are multiple consistent names that own the vast majority of problem properties.

So, how do you explain that its not 90% of the landlords with a problem but a small amount that have a problem with the city- if the city has anti-landlord focus?



Eric

12:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the city's idea is that if we can't get the landlords to pay up, then the city will shut them down and use tax payor funding and bonds to build the rental units to fill up with federally subsidized tenants who's sanitary habits and conduct can be under the control of the likes of PHA, the police and the department of safety and inspections.. In this way, the city has a guarenteed revenue stream instead of having to count on the private landlord who's depleted funds may be to unstable for the city to count on. And, the city can segregate (keep all the low income and minorities in one area) and tear down private properties of who the city feels are disgruntled landlords being a pain in the ass to the city.

The city is seeking to alter the demographics of the city to suit it's needs not taking into account the plight of the poor and of those landlords who provide a service.

It's part of the liberals socialisic egenda





Jeff Matiatos

1:12 PM  
Anonymous sick of the liberal agenda said...

"The city is seeking to alter the demographics of the city to suit it's needs not taking into account the plight of the poor and of those landlords who provide a service.

It's part of the liberals socialisic egenda"

You Think?

There definitely are those in power in St. Paul who believe in a utopian version of the City as the Washington DC of the Midwest. They won't be content so long as one office is filled with other than government employees (or maybe lobbyists, provided they grease the correct skids). They won't rest until every house or apartment is occupied by someone on the dole. It's the way to insure a voter base. It's also the path to the fate of Gary Indiana and Detroit and a few other nice places to fly over.

1:39 PM  
Anonymous East Side Republicans said...

Then do something about it Support Eva's Efforts East Side Republicans This will be a debate between the Senate Candidates in Districts 66 and 67. Please come and Time Monday, October 4 · 6:00pm - 7:30pm

Location 1526 E. 6th St. Saint Paul, MN

Created By East Side Republicans

More Info This will be a debate between the Senate Candidates in Districts 66 and 67. Please come and show your support.
or will DFL Repke censor??
show you· Share · RSVP to this

2:31 PM  
Anonymous City Agenda 6Oct2010 said...

talked to lennie today he stated Harold Robinson Badge354 also retired. Check it out Lennie is on the City Agenda no 83 Wed 6Oct010http://stpaul.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=37&event_id=119

Sharon is challengin the ROW, Water Streetlight FEES

5:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess Mayor Coleman lent a hand helping habitat for humanity paint a house.
Now if we can get Mayor Coleman to lend a hand fixing up some of the landlords properties there would be alot fewer condemnations.

12:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cervantes' salary will be $117,000 a year. Kessler earned $120,500 last year.

These men get paid this much for ruining peoples lives.
Or are they getting paid this much for looking the other way when some property is unsafe but the greed of these city officials over power safe living condistions?


How to Get a Building Condemned

http://www.ehow.com/how_2216277_get-building-condemned.html











/

11:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This must be Sharon's friend Cervantes at city hall, salary at $117,000 a year.
Just more under the table politics
That's how most people feel about this city.
My taxes on my home are higher then I would have ever thought possible, I feel like selling the damn thing and getting a nice three bedroom apartment somewhere out of St.Paul.

11:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's to all the trouble makers in St.Paul.
Their coming to take you away Ha ha, to the funning farm where everything is beautiful all the day longs.
Their coming for you ------!
It will be dirty Bob Fletcher's people knocking at your door, with a strait-jacket just your size.
I like that tune.

6:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think you mean Grace Kelly and her goons. Choi's and Bostrom's goons.

7:04 PM  
Anonymous NonLawyers4MNAG said...

David Hoch4MNag 10 thous reward if proven wrong Please watch Video at www.sharon4anderson.blogspot.com These nonlawyer Candidates for MNAG Bill Dahn and Dave need the Publics help to expose City Hall Corruption

2:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Everyone please vote the way Sharon Anderson wants us to and she ran as a Republican, now she is on a roll over some other parties candidate.
Thank You Sharon for your credible opinion, in the issue of politics.

9:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ouit Picking On Sharon

11:22 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home