Quantcast

Norwalk to decide where on Oak Hills $1.5 million would be spent

State Rep. Larry Cafero (R-137)
State Rep. Larry Cafero (R-137).

NORWALK, Conn. – The State Bond Commission’s apparently imminent $1.5 million gift to Norwalk’s golf course comes at the behest of outgoing state Rep. Larry Cafero (R-142).

Cafero announced this week that the commission will likely vote at its meeting Friday to award Norwalk $1.5 million to support the Oak Hills Park master plan, a surprise to many as the plan has not yet been approved by the Planning Commission and the Common Council and some city officials have expressed concerns about the funding.

Cafero said he had seen the master plan for the course and approached the state to request funds for the 45-year-old course, which he said is in need of refurbishment. “I made a request, they put it on the agenda,” he said.

While Oak Hills Park Authority (OHPA) Ad Hoc Driving Range Committee Chairman Ernie Desrochers was quoted in Cafero’s press release, OHPA member Elsa Peterson Obuchowski said she had been unaware of any possibility of state funding.

Desrochers was on an Alaskan cruise when Cafero made the announcement, but he was quoted in the press release.

Cafero said it’s up to “the local guys” how the money can be spent. He acknowledged that the process of the master plan approval is not complete.

So did Office of Policy and Management Undersecretary for Legislative Affairs Gian-Carl Casa.

“There is a master plan being considered for the golf course,” Casa said. “The funds that would be allocated by the State Bond Commission are only enough to fund some of the projects in the plan.  The decision about which to do will be made locally, by the Authority and city land use commissions – as is appropriate.”

Cafero said he personally would hope the grant would go to refurbishing the course, but “The only string is they have to use it for the golf course,” he said. He said he didn’t think it was necessary for Norwalk to raise the balance of the money needed for the master plan, which is in the neighborhood of $3 million, to spend the grant from the state.

The “Oak Hills Park Golf School,” a.k.a. driving range, is estimated to cost $2.5 million, according to page 56 of the master plan as submitted for public comment. The total cost of the master plan listed on that page is $4.45 million.

Asked about funding for the master plan, Mayor Harry Rilling said “I’m not in favor of taking on more financial obligations for the city at this time.”

These thoughts are echoed by Common Council Finance Committee Chairman Bruce Kimmel (D-At Large).

“My concern as chair of the Finance Committee is whether or not they are taking on too much debt,” Kimmel said. “They have had a lot of trouble in the past dealing with their previous debt, we have reduced to, I think, about $165,000 a year. Our fingers are crossed that they can meet that obligation to the city. By increasing that by about another $243,000 or $244,000 a year, if I remember correctly, I have serious reservations about whether they can handle it. The idea that a driving range is a panacea? Maybe, maybe not.  That’s the problem, and if it’s the ‘maybe not’ the city is stuck again. We will be sitting down and renegotiating once again and I don’t want to be in that position.”

Another problem: “We had been under the impression that the developer of the driving range would be bearing most of the cost and suddenly that seems to be out the window,” Kimmel said. “So the plans are nice – they’re very, very nice, I have no problems with that – but the financials raise serious red flags in my mind.”

Comments

33 responses to “Norwalk to decide where on Oak Hills $1.5 million would be spent”

  1. John Hamlin

    I thought the golf course owed the city money — and this would allow it to pay back the city. Or were those debts forgiven?

  2. DeeeeMoooo

    The golf course’s bonds are still being serviced by the course. The debt was restructured a few years back to reduce the payment, but it has not been forgiven. You might be thinking of the aquarium.

  3. piberman

    Time for Common Council Finance Chair to read the OHA Master Plan prepared by its consultants and articulate which parts of its financial analysis he takes issue with. Maybe other Committee members could also demonstrate that they too have read the report. Hint: the Report has some serious omissions ! Lets see if our Council members can find them.

  4. peter parker

    That $1.5 million could be spent in much better ways than on a driving range that may not prove profitable. i.e. schools, sidewalks, roads, corroded light poles! etc. Waste of money.

  5. What the HELL is happening to Norwalk?

    This is completely despicable.

    Our city schools have such a HORRIBLE reputation and families are moving out of here in DROVES because of our education system.

    Right?

    How come our elected officials aren’t putting the same effort into EDUCATION, as they are with this damn golf course that accommodates a certain group of people for 6 months out of the year?

    Where are our priorities?

    Why are we spending endless money on a leisure hobby for some?

    I’m sick and tired of reading about this ridiculous money pit of Norwalk – and I’m sick of seeing our home values go down because of our reputation.

    DO SOMETHING ELECTED OFFICIALS – DO SOMETHING IMMEDIATELY!

  6. Mea

    I’m really concerned that the proper protocol has not been followed at all in this case. I agree with Peter Parker that the money should be put into our school system.

  7. DeeeeMoooo

    Yes, @peterparker, let’s shut down everything that is not profitable so the money could be used for schools, sidewalks, roads, corroded light poles, etc.

    I’d start with the aquarium: sell that valuable real estate. After all, I’d bet less than 50% of Norwalkers use the aquarium. And can you imagine that they add insult to injury by charging money for admission when it’s our tax dollars that funded the whole venture? $35 million dollars could have funded the Oak Hills Master Plan nine times over! If an aquarium is such a good idea, why don’t people who like fishes privately fund their own?

    And let’s sell the beach. That’s a VERY valuable parcel, and I’d bet less than 50% of Norwalkers use the beach. I don’t have to tell you that the type of sun exposure one gets at a beach is above and beyond what’s healthy – and the city actually wants it’s citizens going there to get skin cancer? Not to mention the sunscreen and trash that ends up in the Sound. Scandal!

    And Taylor Farm Park: I doubt that a majority of Norwalkers walk a dog at that park, let alone own a dog. Plus all of that concentrated dog waste is an ecological disaster waiting to happen. And what does the city do for cat owners? More and more Americans have cats, but the city only makes accommodations for dog owners? Scandal!

    While we’re at it, Veteran’s Park should probably be shut too. A boat slip for the small minority of elitist Norwalkers with boats, and the whole thing is basically a landfill anyhow so it should probably be remediated and returned to its natural state.

    Speaking of parks, I’ve never played softball or baseball. though my father, my brother, and many of my friends do, so you can see I have nothing against the sports. But what’s with all of these ball fields in Norwalk? I’d bet that less than 50% of Norwalkers played in a softball or baseball game last year, yet we maintain a nearly-incalculable number of these fields. It’s high time we did something about all of these “gifts” to the politically-connected baseball/softball clique that is apparently controlling our town despite being a minority.

    Like you, i’m just sick and tired of the favoritism shown in this town to the elite of Norwalk, and their special interests.

  8. One and Done

    The aquarium can’t pay their rent, but they are buying a $3 million boat. Taxpayers have forgiven their $25 million loan plus interest payments over 25 years probably doubling that amount and we still get to pay the same admission rates as non residents. Where is the outrage?

  9. Paul Cantor

    DeeeMooo, Your comments are representative of the comments that many golfers in passionate defense of the 18-hole money-losing golf course have made in the past. Please permit me to reply to them.

    You write: “Yes, @peterparker, let’s shut down everything that is not profitable so the money could be used for schools, sidewalks, roads, corroded light poles, etc.”

    You are right that our local government rightfully uses our taxpayer dollars to fund a wide variety of things that are not profitable (schools, police and fire services, road repair, public parks, etc.). Therefore, you argue it should also help fund an 18-hole golf course whose user fees do not cover its costs? Two reasons why I and others disagree are: 1. The fact that user fees do not cover the costs of the golf course is a reflection of the well-documented decrease in the demand to play 18-holes of golf. 2. A golf course is not a public park. It is an area within a public park that uses an extensive amount of land, a large amount of chemicals, and voluminous amounts of water. In other words it is exceeding costly (in dollar terms and otherwise) to operate and maintain. 3. The golf course benefits a small minority of taxpayers at a high cost to all taxpayers.

    You write: “I’d start with the aquarium: sell that valuable real estate. After all, I’d bet less than 50% of Norwalkers use the aquarium. And can you imagine that they add insult to injury by charging money for admission when it’s our tax dollars that funded the whole venture? $35 million dollars could have funded the Oak Hills Master Plan nine times over! If an aquarium is such a good idea, why don’t people who like fishes privately fund their own?”

    Some people make that argument. Others argue that the benefits of the Aquarium to all the taxpayers of Norwalk far outweigh its costs. As one letter writer put it in The Hour for instance: “The facility attracts annually nearly 500,000 people whose spending generates $25 million annually in economic impact. In addition, the Aquarium is deeply involved in the Norwalk schools, works alongside teachers to improve science education, offers an after-school program for teens, and admits Norwalk school groups free of charge.”

    You write: “And let’s sell the beach. That’s a VERY valuable parcel, and I’d bet less than 50% of Norwalkers use the beach. I don’t have to tell you that the type of sun exposure one gets at a beach is above and beyond what’s healthy – and the city actually wants it’s citizens going there to get skin cancer? Not to mention the sunscreen and trash that ends up in the Sound. Scandal!”

    I don’t think any city has the right to sell its beaches.

    You write: And Taylor Farm Park: I doubt that a majority of Norwalkers walk a dog at that park, let alone own a dog. Plus all of that concentrated dog waste is an ecological disaster waiting to happen. And what does the city do for cat owners? More and more Americans have cats, but the city only makes accommodations for dog owners? Scandal

    And Taylor Farm Park: I doubt that a majority of Norwalkers walk a dog at that park, let alone own a dog. Plus all of that concentrated dog waste is an ecological disaster waiting to happen. And what does the city do for cat owners? More and more Americans have cats, but the city only makes accommodations for dog owners? Scandal!

    Taylor Farm is not costly to maintain. I expect dog owners are required to dispose of their dogs waste so I doubt it is an ecological disaster.

    You write “While we’re at it, Veteran’s Park should probably be shut too. A boat slip for the small minority of elitist Norwalkers with boats, and the whole thing is basically a landfill anyhow so it should probably be remediated and returned to its natural state.”

    Multiple use public parks are pure public goods that benefit all taxpayers. They are goods that are not provided by the private sector. Golf courses and driving ranges are provided by the private sector.

    So the OHPA is under a misapprehension when it writes in its Master Plan “the city of Norwalk is in the recreation business.” The purpose of a public park is not to generate profits. The golf course was never required to generate profits. All the city asked of the OHPA was to see if it could operate the golf course so that user fees covered its operating and maintenance costs. But to reiterate what has been pointed out again and again by golfers and non-golfers alike, due to the well-documented decrease in the demand to play 18-holes of golf it has been unable to do so. And that is the reason it is again coming to the city and state for millions of taxpayer dollars in loans and grants.

    You write: “Speaking of parks, I’ve never played softball or baseball. though my father, my brother, and many of my friends do, so you can see I have nothing against the sports. But what’s with all of these ball fields in Norwalk? I’d bet that less than 50% of Norwalkers played in a softball or baseball game last year, yet we maintain a nearly-incalculable number of these fields. It’s high time we did something about all of these “gifts” to the politically-connected baseball/softball clique that is apparently controlling our town despite being a minority.”

    You sum up by saying: “Like you, i’m just sick and tired of the favoritism shown in this town to the elite of Norwalk, and their special interests.”

    Good. Then you too agree the city should not provide additional subsidies to the 18-hole golf course in Oak Hills. Hence, if use fees cannot cover its costs it should be shut down. I agree with you.

  10. One and Done

    If Paul Cantor gets his wish, he should be prepared for a movement to push for low income housing right across the street from his house in place of what he thinks is his personal natural wildlife preserve.

  11. DeeeeMoooo

    Paul, on the value of an aquarium you quote “one letter writer” as though this constitutes some sort of academic point. Apply the same rigor to your arguments FOR what you want as you employ when arguing AGAINST others’ positions. Other recent example of your tendency to do this:
    .
    * Implying in a comment on a previous article that Elsa’s only information on pesticides and herbicides came from Sav-A-Tree when she went through the trouble of also reaching out to an expert at UConn who was very clearly quoted and attributed in the same article. And suggesting that information on the responsible use of these chemicals from an employee of Sav-A-Tree can have no value because his/her business involves pesticides and herbicides.
    .
    * On the flip side, you recently posted a URL to a registered DC PAC whose stated goal is the elimination of the use of pesticides and herbicides as though it were some widely-held scientific fact. But like Sav-A-Tree, shouldn’t we ignore this source as well since they are “in the business” of doing what their information advocates?
    .
    * Please explain what the provision of golf by the private sector has to do with public parks and recreation? You seemed to be trying to make a point by raising this issue. In our immediate area there are private beaches, private boat slips, private tennis courts, private (NGO-owned) walking trails and nature preserves, private ball fields, private everything! I’ll bet there’s even a private aquarium somewhere with a tank full of red herrings!
    .
    * You repeatedly refuse to address why a multitude of activities enjoyed by a minority of Norwalkers may be funded by the City without any objection from you, but golf requires immediate and drastic action.
    .
    Let’s take a specific example: why is it OK to have walking trails when they a) use large tracts of land that preclude other uses, b) are not used by anywhere near a majority of Norwalkers, and c) are not profitable? When I say “specifically,” I’d like to know what annual cost is acceptable in dollars, what minimum usage in percentage you find acceptable to make the accommodation of an activity acceptable, and what specific percentage of parklands should be allocated to the activity. Maybe with specific examples, I might better understand your argument. To make things easier for you, I’ll acknowledge that walking trails require neither the extensive re-scaping of the land nor the chemicals that are required by a golf course, if you’ll acknowledge that neither an artificial turf ball field nor giant mowed field for dog walking are naturally occurring features.
    .
    Government pays for many things not used by a majority (or whatever minimum percentage is acceptable to you) without requiring profitability, or any return for that matter. But why aren’t you even just a little upset about the aquarium? Or baseball fields? Or bocce courts? Or beaches? Or boat slips? Or dog parks? Or skate parks? Or running tracks? Or artificial turf? Or concerts on the green? Or walking trails? Or any other city-funded endeavor? I find it strange that golf bothers you, but seemingly nothing else.
    .
    The golf course is a public park in the same way any park or park area with a specific purpose is a public park. I can’t play baseball on the beach or have a picnic on a boat slip or skateboard on a tennis court because those areas are set aside for a specific purpose. But that doesn’t mean I have to oppose those other activities, because our park system has something for everyone somewhere within the system. Oak Hills was a golf course when you bought your house, but now the desire of a substantial number of Norwalkers to play a complete round of golf is too much to accommodate when it means your might have to go 10 minutes out of West Norwalk to enjoy any of the activities you’d like to see in the golf course’s place – activities that are ALL accommodated at one or more parks in Norwalk.
    .
    And what exactly is this “high cost to taxpayers.” Be specific please and use numbers that represent dollar-value cost, not just a quote again of the amount serviced debt. You like to conflate two financial events from the past five years – debt restructuring and a short-term bridge loan – with imminent financial failure and the foregone untenability of a municipal golf course. Unlike the debt at the aquarium or the City’s financial obligations from maintaining other parks and services, the debt at the golf course has and is being serviced.
    .
    Seems to me that here, on display, is your singular obsession with golf, which we must all remember (because you’ve made the point several times now) is not an obsession but rather an unassailably-logical opposition, proven by the fact that you know people who play golf.

  12. EveT

    Getting back to the topic of this article, “…it’s up to ‘the local guys’ how the money can be spent. … The decision about which [parts of the master plan to use the money for] will be made locally, by the Authority and city land use commissions….”

    If this is true, then Norwalk residents should be talking to Oak Hills Authority members, Planning Commissioners, Common Council members, and the Mayor about which parts of the master plan they believe would be best served with this $1.5 million. But first they should read the master plan, available for download on the Oak Hills website.

  13. cc-rider

    I would like to send a cold beer to DeeeeMoooo for that last one. Well done.

  14. What the HELL is happening to Norwalk?

    DEEEEEMOOOO….

    Are you on something? LOL

    If so, share and share alike!

    I want to hear about the schools now. Give me your take.

  15. Bobby Badda-Boom

    As a Norwalk taxpayer, every year I download a permit from the Parks and Rec. Dept. that allows me to go FREE OF CHARGE to Calf Pasture Beach, Shady Beach, Taylor Farm, Veteran’s Park, etc. I may not go to these parks on a regular basis, but at least I have the right to enjoy these facilities as I see fit.
    However, if I were to take this permit to Oak Hills Park/GOLF COURSE with the intention of playing a free round of golf, I would probably be told to leave. The problem I’m having is that MY TAX DOLLARS are subsidizing the golfing activity of the inadequate number of golfers who pay a user fee for the privilege of playing golf.
    More to follow.

  16. DeeeeMoooo

    The problem with your argument, Bobby, is that YOUR TAX DOLLARS are subsidizing all of the things you seem to think are FREE OF CHARGE.
    .
    None of those facilities maintain themselves: YOUR TAX DOLLARS pay to keep them up whether you use them or not. YOUR TAX DOLLARS pay for the system from which you download your permit whether you want a permit or not. They’re not FREE OF CHARGE because YOUR TAX DOLLARS pay for everything – the only thing they’re free of is user fees.
    .
    The golf course, on the other hand, subsidizes itself through user fees and, like virtually all other municipal courses (and many large businesses), uses loans for capital improvements. Then it makes payments on those loans. Sometimes (like municipalities and businesses alike) those loans are restructured for terms that are more favorable to the business. However the obligation to pay is not relieved, unless you are an aquarium.

  17. M. Murray’s

    Curious if there has been an analysis on how many use the hiking trails that I keep hearing about. Maybe we could build a teen center there, or some type of facility for teens and give them a place to go at night

  18. Suzanne

    This is about values: whether education or a golf course, city streets or a golf course, small business or a golf course, community centers or a golf course – where do you want your taxpayer dollars to go?
    *
    We do not know that the OHPA is properly servicing their debt – I believe a report is due on this once per month. DeeeMooo, do you know?
    *
    The golf course is not self-supporting through fees although that is what is required of the charter. The OHPA is saying they cannot run it profitably without the new bells and whistles of a driving range.
    *
    Each year in recent years (except for the last where I believe the entire allocation of funds remaining for winter was reported to be, I believe, $60,000) money has been borrowed from the City and the OHPA must,or is supposed to, regularly pay to the City the debt service. *
    Here’s the thing: a rusty pole dropped several signal lights onto main streets in Norwalk due to lack of a thorough inspection. The sidewalks, still being debated as to who is responsible for what, are crumbling. There are questions about the sewage treatment plant and how well it is running. DPW apparently does not have the means to track all of the variables affecting their department, like drains, roadway repair, poles, sidewalks, etc.,with proper GIS software because of budget decisions.
    *
    Then I see the golf course: it is beautiful. A lovely design with challenging, intermediate and beginner play that golfers alone can use. I love golf, I studied course design in college, and appreciate what Norwalk has in Oak Hills.
    *
    I would say, given the problems with infrastructure, however, that Oak Hills needs to “stick to its knitting.” Tend to what they already have and make that successful. Let the 1.5 million repair a few poles and pot holes before someone really gets hurt.

  19. Bobby Badda-Boom

    This comment has been rejected for name-calling.

  20. EveT

    If you look at the minutes from Oak Hills meetings that are on the city website you will see they are servicing their debt. Oak Hills did not take loans from the city year after year to stay afloat. There was a one-time operating loan last year. Oak Hills treasurer is John McKenna. Ask him or the Executive Director, Shelly Guyer.

    Also, it seems that the rationale for wanting to build a driving range has shifted over the past year from “we can’t be profitable without it” to “we’ll be able to be more profitable with it.”

  21. Bobby Badda-Boom

    The debt they are servicing is on my back, the Norwalk taxpayer who doesn’t play golf. Now they want more.
    Get off my back.

  22. Don’t Panic

    @M Murray,
    The park in which the golf course resides must contain only activities that are defined as open space. A teen center is unlikely to meet that requirement, but a ball field for little league play almost certainly would.
    @ Eve T,
    Look a little further than the last 13 months before you state that OHPA is servicing its debt. It still has quite a way to go before it makes up for all the lost ground over the years.
    And it’s going to have a much bigger nut to crack with the loan for the driving range.

  23. LWitherspoon

    Is it a foregone conclusion that City funds will be used for the driving range? With the state providing a grant of $1.5 million, perhaps the developer can now finance the rest himself on more reasonable terms.

    1. Mark Chapman

      @LWitherspoon

      Both the Finance Committee chairman (Bruce Kimmel) and the mayor are on record as saying they don’t think the city should obligate the taxpayers for more money at this point, so I would say it is not a foregone conclusion.

  24. LWitherspoon

    @Mark Chapman
    .
    Thank you. Perhaps a compromise would be to spend $1.25 million on the driving range, with the developer financing the other half and sharing earnings for some period. The other $250,000 of the state grant could be used for non-golf related improvements.
    .
    Must the $1.5 million be spent on an improvement to Oak Hills or could it be used to create an Oak Hills rainy day fund or even pay down debt?
    .
    I agree with those who are bothered that we can get $1.5 million from the state for improving a public golf course, but we can’t seem to get anywhere near that level of increase in state funding for our schools.

  25. Don’t Panic

    @Witherspoon
    Some of us object to the park taking on debt regardless of whether it is state debt or city debt, because in the end, we are still paying for it as tax-payers. But again, there is confusion about the way the finances of the park/golf course are structured because people think it is handled the same way as any other park. It is not because of the setup of the Authority to handle the park.
    .
    The rent OHPA pays to the City is used to pay off the debt service, BUT if the course starts making more money, the city’s share of the Net Operating revenue goes up. At certain thresholds, the city’s share of the marginal revenue is as high as 80%. If the course has to service additional bonds, any profitability that OHPA has brought into this arrangement diverts Norwalk’s share of the upside into debt service. And it’s not entirely clear that the share of revenues from the driving range that are going to the developer shouldn’t properly be going to Norwalk.
    .
    OHPA is already obligated under the lease to have a “rainy day” fund. It’s not clear that they are funding it adequately under the terms of the lease.
    .
    they are also permitted to fund a capital account up to $250k a year before the rent calculation is made. Had they done that for the last six years, they wouldn’t even have to ask to borrow this money, they’d be sitting on $1.5mm and likely the developer could have borrowed the rest. But they didn’t.
    .
    So, while all your suggestions are perfectly reasonable, they aren’t options.
    .
    OHPA means well, but they are asking for an awfully big leap of faith here. If this were a private business and a bank, the state of their finances would land this proposal in the “no” pile. Businesses who try to diversify to cover up structural weaknesses in their operations rarely succeed by taking on more debt. We should not be making that mistake here.

  26. Very Concerned

    The Maritime Aquarium is another avenue for educating Norwalk’s children, as well as the surrounding areas. It continues to receive support, and is run by many professional volunteers and volunteering organizations in the area who care about Norwalk and its children, as opposed to their own self interests.

    The expansion of the golf course is no avenue for the growth of Norwalk. The taxpayers have subsidized the golf course far too long.

  27. LWitherspoon

    @Panic
    .
    Thanks for the explanation of OHPA rent. Note however that the NoN article announcing the state money referred to it as a “grant-in-aid”. I believe “grant-in-aid” means the $1.5 million does not have to be paid back and as such the $1.5 million is not additional debt.
    .
    https://www.nancyonnorwalk.com/2014/07/state-set-to-ok-1-5m-bond-for-oak-hills-project/
    .
    If I am correct, and if it’s true that the driving range costs about $2 million, then privately funding the balance should be easy for the developer. Problem solved?

  28. Suzanne

    L. Witherspoon, I don’t think the problem is getting additional loans/funding for the driving range so much as taking on any additional debt at all. Ostensibly, the Course, by charter, pays for itself with players’ fees. If it is making its budget of debt serving expenses already incurred and successful with this model, why would it need a driving range at all to make it more profitable? The course, already profitable and already beautiful, would not need another source of income to service debt nor maintain it.

  29. Tom Reynolds

    “3. The golf course benefits a small minority of taxpayers at a high cost to all taxpayers.”

    CANTOR – please explain. You constantly make this claim, but you offer no numbers. Oak Hills has LOANS with the city. LOANS that they pay back with interest. INTEREST IS INCOME. How does that COST the taxpayers?

  30. Don’t Panic

    @Witherspoon,

    A bond is a debt vehicle. The state is borrowing money to make that “grant-in-aid”. The golf course will still have to have the city borrow the rest, so it will be taking on new debt…this little maneuver was designed to get the council to vote to approve the whole project, since they hardly ever walk away from “free money” from the state.

    Oh, and ironically enough, six of the other “grants-in-aid” approved at the very same meeting were for school ball fields including artificial turf and lighting. The amounts ranged from $70k to $1,9MM.

  31. Bobby Badda-Boom

    Tom Reynolds states in his most recent comment that OHPA has loans (plural) with the city, “loans that THEY PAY BACK with interest”.
    The problem is that they DON’T PAY BACK the loans. They pay back a PART of the loans and then ask for more money.
    This pattern sounds a lot like the subprime real estate debacle that nearly drove America into the toilet.

Leave a Reply


Recent Comments