Saturday, December 22, 2012

Tax Eureka's Empty Storefronts?

Yet another one of those Craigslist political movements. In this one, local blogger highboldtage seems to think owners of empty commercial buildings in Eureka have an agenda and are ripping off... somebody because their buildings remain empty.

It's their fault those buildings aren't filled with thriving businesses so we should tax them further. He goes on to suggest that those additional tax revenues to the city will "stimulate the local economy", among other things.

Never mind the owners of those empty buildings probably pay fairly hefty property taxes already. They don't have any revenue coming in from those empty buildings to help pay those taxes, either. We should be glad they're able to pay the taxes they can.

I suspect with so many empty buildings in town rent prices for commercial property must be relatively low compared to many areas of the state.

I hardly think those property owners are responsible for the lack of businesses coming to Eureka. You certainly won't find me supporting this idea.


At 8:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll go one further. Owners of retail properties that have properties remaining vacant should be exempt from property taxes if the lull between tenants is significant. The details to negotiate is how long of a lull is required, and what the limit is on the total time allowed for exemption (to avoid abuse).

Likewise, people who own undeveloped land, who choose to keep it undeveloped (and not generate any revenue from it), should be exempt from property taxes. Encourage retention of our natural spaces, which in turn helps commercial property owners who need tenants.

At 9:18 AM, Anonymous Ellin said...

The central core of emptiness in Eureka dates from the time when Caltrans bought or tried to buy all the buildings in a two-block strip to tear them all down to make a freeway down the middle of town! Fortunately that didn't happen, but when I moved up here, 99% of the Eureka Caltans Core storefronts were empty; less than half are now.

Caltrans pretty much nearly killed Eureka for the by-pass. I'm so glad they failed. Whoever it was who was the holdout - praise and blessings on them for saving the town core from being a giant concrete barrier with cars and trucks whizzing by 24/7 at high speeds.

If you've never lived near an elevated freeway, you have no idea of the rumbling, deep earth belly rumbling, the noise that can be heard for five miles and the pollution grains that coat every surface nearby the road.

I am really glad Caltrans failed to kill Eureka. I don't think taxing empty stores or empty land in town is going to fix anything. The amount of tax gained versus the amount of recordkeeping would probably just cancel out.

At 10:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

First off the landlords are able to deduct The Lost rent from there taxes so there is no real advantage to lowering the rent if they have many properties at all is a plus to have a vacant property in the current tax structure I was long time business owner in downtown. I moved my business because of the inflated rents in hindsight and wish I would've moved sooner

At 10:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A large number of Eureka's commercial properties are still taxed at pre-Prop 13 valuation levels. One reason landlords neither sell nor rehab their buildings is because they don't want to trigger a reassessment. Meanwhile, everyone who has purchased property in Eureka since 1978 is getting the short end. Repeal the commercial loophole in Prop. 13 and watch Eureka change for the better...

At 11:00 AM, Anonymous crmartin said...

of course we should raise taxes. can't you see how well it has worked out in todays economy.

At 11:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

When a little shop in Eureka rents for $1500 to $2000 a month what could you sell to make a go of it?


Rents are too high. The free market is being perverted by tax loopholes like prop 13 and tax loss carry forwards.

At 11:54 AM, Blogger Fred Mangels said...

The free market is being perverted by tax loopholes like prop 13 and tax loss carry forwards.

How can you say that? If they reassessed those commercial properties for higher taxes, then it would cost even more to rent or lease them.

At 12:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If there were a true free market then landlords would be lowering their rent until they had tenants. They would not let buildings sit vacant.

The proof that there is no free market is right in front of your eyes.

It is the people who are actually doing business in buildings not prop 13 grandfathered that are paying the brunt of the taxes.

And they are also bearing the burden of having a bunch of empty storefronts around them. Empty storefronts are poison for the retail trade. Having an empty store next door to you makes your store look seedy.

At 5:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Henchman Of Justice" says,

Whaaaaa, tax a building owner more because of vacancy? Unfortunately, Bill does not understand that costs are killing this economy and its effects covers the whole rainbow spectrum. Bill also wants prop 13 reversed too. Unfortunately, when it comes to money for social programs, Bill does not care who pays as long as it is not those who have "made investments" to improve something of tangible value.

Unfortunately in California, people are penalized when making something NICER!

Imagine that, create the garden of Eden and get taxed to all holy hell......let your place delapidate, then taxes are lower.

When taxes are lower and the building is not new, government agencies thoroughly enjoy creating corrupt processes to push-out the owner by making attempts to force money to be spent on the building (tax value taxes) or to have citations laundered so that the fear makes a building owner flinch!

Enough with the stealing and theft from people in the form of taxes. - HOJ

At 5:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Henchman Of Justice" says,

from the fingers of a true social treasonist trying to convince people whom are stupid that they got shafted post 1978....

" Anonymous said...
A large number of Eureka's commercial properties are still taxed at pre-Prop 13 valuation levels. One reason landlords neither sell nor rehab their buildings is because they don't want to trigger a reassessment. Meanwhile, everyone who has purchased property in Eureka since 1978 is getting the short end. Repeal the commercial loophole in Prop. 13 and watch Eureka change for the better..."

My Response: as to reason one --> so, dipshit here wants the tenants to pay more too while taking away opportunities for business to survive. The building is separate from the business, but the connection is "making something nicer costs everyone more money". It is not hard at all to know that prop 13. was circumvented by bureaucrats post 1978!


Easy, through fricken regulation where taxes and other costs and fees become added every purchase (like a VAT scenario) so that the very last cost is to the builder/developer which then all goes into the higher sales price which also makes higher the tax base.

Then, add into the scenario the stupid buyers of these homes and commercial buildings and rentals, etc... who overpay because their too stupid to realize the cost basis problems as they relate to "tax bases" and "massive over-valuations".

Then of course, the fraud that goes on in the county assessors office with appraisers nudging-up values unjustifiably and in double and triple taxation form.

How do the frackers in the assessors office do this?

Simple, they place values on things that don't exist, then, they tax things that they don't put into the calculation forms (descriptive wise), so they can come back the next year to re-tax what they already taxed.

Here is a test to understand how. Construct a storage cabinet that needs no permit because it is exempt. The tax assessor will come in and tax that storage shed, even though it is an illegal tax because the process of prop. 13 is "new construction(permitted) or sales transaction". Now, of course, the tax assessor will say no, it is all structures that get taxed, but state officials and inspectors and college course educators say no, no, no, new costruction is only that which needs a PERMIT!

Another test on the same shed is leave a piece of typar or felt paper on one wall and don't do anything for a few years...the tax assessor will come in and keep taxing the same wall, year after year after year as if it is the first time ever the assessor witnessed the typar/felt paper.

These assessors deserve puishment for their frauds and corruptions they commit; and, if it is Tom Oliphant, he makes shit-up and lies in writing on paper putting words in other people's mouths so as to deceive any on-lookers who come after-the-fact. Tom deserves punishment as well for his deceit and cover-ups. - HOJ

At 5:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Do you believe it is a proper function of government to use its power of taxation to correct problems in the community?

If your answer is "yes" or even "maybe" we can have a dialogue. If your answer is no then we can't.

Consider the tobacco tax....

At 8:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The high_bolt_aged communist plot to take people commercial property for homeless camps won't work, the numbers don't pencil out, unless we pay a $12.50 minimum wage with while providing a minimum weekly pay of 40 hrs./wk. regardless of hours worked. Another alternative is to use our government "police powers" for the public welfare and seize the properties under eminent domain and redistribute them to government pension holders, requiring retired government persons to pay the increased taxes and vesting their interest in the community. I know it sounds confusing, but the bottom line is we need to take property from people who own it and redistribute to those who don't and qualified government workers are the most fair and balanced.

At 9:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

5:42 pm,

"Henchman Of Justice" says,

Insinuating that HOJ is 100% anti-taxation because HOJ explains taxation abuses is a typical insiders "deflection". Now, go back and re-think. - HOJ

At 9:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Ponder this.

This is not a tax that is designed to raise money for the city. At best it would produce a mere trickle of revenue for the city, not enough to build a whole new oppressive bureaucracy. Do the math.

What this tax would do is incentivise the landlords to rent their properties at an affordable rent.

If the tax is successful in doing this then it will produce very little revenue, but then again it is not supposed to.

It is a nuisance tax. The nuisances are empty storefronts.

At 9:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Think this through.

Pretend that you own a storefront in Old Town. It is vacant and you are asking $1,800 a month rent for it. Its been vacant for a year.

Now this vacant storefront tax is passed and you will owe $250 a month to the city unless you rent out your store. You lower your rent to $1,500 and rent it out today. Now you are not going to pay the tax and you are getting an extra $1500 a month income to boot.

How are you being hurt, Jeff?

At 9:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nobody likes the idea of giving a government worker a storefront instead of a pension? What's the difference?

At 6:50 AM, Blogger Fred Mangels said...

"Pretend that you own a storefront in Old Town. It is vacant and you are asking $1,800 a month rent for it. Its been vacant for a year."

There's no doubt in my mind the property owners will do anything they can to rent out their property, including lowering rents, to a point. I'm sure they're already doing that.

I've never understood how businesses could survive with such high overheads to being with. The problem with your proposal is I don't believe I've ever heard of commercial rents (outside of shopping malls) as being the big sticking points for business around here.

If I've heard any complaints about businesses getting started it's been in regards dealing with government permitting agencies.

At 7:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If I wanted to open a book store or a shoe store in Old Town what permits would be required besides a normal business license?

At 7:49 AM, Blogger Fred Mangels said...

I don't know, but probably none.

I do know back when the Jitterbug(?)coffee place set up shop in the CVS parking lot at Myrtle and West in Eureka, it took them two years for the city to approve them. They've since moved.

I know it also took a couple years for a restaurant to open in Henderson Center, although it admittedly had some unusual issues. She didn't last more than a year once she got going.

At 9:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Do you think that the high number of vacant storefronts in Eureka is a problem for the local economy?

Or should we just wait a few more years for something to happen?

At 10:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Henchman Of Justice" says,

Anonymous still suggests "a penalty upon a building owner who has no tenant". That penalty creates a "higher cost upon society".


Answer: The cost will be "forwarded" to society, somehow, someway while government would waste the extorted proceeds only to come back with some other hair-brained idea to tax while attempting to explain the penalty/tax as of no benefit or consequence to any individual not directly the building owner or tenant.

Well, guess what, many Americans have "created higher societal costs" because of tax cost shiftings that seem to nearly always make it to the consumer via the transaction.

Anyhow, empty storefronts means that the building owner is receiving less income. Now, with less income is less income taxes; yet, the building owner may already have enough income and could (COULD) just not be renting out the tenant space because of the heavy tax beared already for the income tax return. Also, it could just be that no tenants can pay the rent per month or that the building owner can't lower the tenant space rents because of historical fixed costs and new taxes and fees recently realized financially.

Personally, HOJ believes many differences exist between building owners as to why they have empty tenant spaces, not to mention a fledgling economy.

Lastly, it is "A RIGHT" to own property, but the idea of government creating "new fees and taxes as penalties" suggests that "ownership of property is what government wants to attack" since government only seems to create debt and deficits.

As HOJ wrote about "takings", California is so deep in debt that it will STEAL ASSETS from the private sector to help it claw outta a financial debt and deficit boondoggle latrine ditch.

How can California officials THIEVE AWAY assets?

Answer: create paper process of penalties and interest upon fees and taxes levied upon property and assets directly.......just like Cal-Fire bullshit that Moonprick Brown (the dicktator) levied by the stroke of his Master Bates "jack-off hand".

As to taxation of structures, it is a farse to add up to 2% COLA.....all a building is is a structure with components that "delapidate over time".....electrical, plumbing, roofing, foundations, sewer, drainage, insects(cockroaches galore), etc... + regulations like earthquake retrofit laws, insurance coverages for personal injury, fire, maybe flood, maybe earthquake, maybe equipment that serves the building, as opposed to serving the business or tenant, etc...

Take a old home for example, after the initial tax base, the yearly tax should be going down per COLA, not upwards.

Think about a fence that gets "taxed" in 2000 but then falls over destroyed in 2010...the fence only wore out and got older to the point of failure. Each year between 2000 and 2010, the fence rotted and got worse in condition, but the tax assessor wants to increase the value of the fence by up to 2% COLA (makes no sense but for extortion and fraud and corruption to launder wealth not the states own). Then, when the fence blows over and is cleaned-up so as to take to the dump or burn as kindeling,


eliminate by "STRIKING OUT" the full base value from 2000 PLUS all the successive ten years of adjusted upward COLA'S?

ANSWER: Nope, fraud continues to cover-up and charge for the cover-ups.

HOJ is hard to win a debate against, very hard!

HOJ apologizes ahead of time to any frail women and children whose eyes are unfit for the "TEXT" HOJ expressed about the top leader in California, but it is DESERVED! - HOJ

At 10:58 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In Arcata,

Julie Fulkerson sold her business, the new peopel who bought the business are struggling (word on the street and other local businesses).

The coffee shop across the street from Hey Juans in Arcata, owner sold and the buyer over-paid and is now struggling due to the economic disasters.

In fact, Arcat is known historically to lose many businesses because they don't last for but a mere 2-3 years as societal costs slam dunk their futile state of mind.

Part of the problem with business is people who think their all this and that in business, but really don't understand much but the greed for money and consumptive items in a materialistic society that wastes so much into landfills, the water supply, the air, etc...

When HOJ was younger, HOJ had many laughs from friends who talked all business, but did not know really a lick financially, but these business buddies learned how to have their cash registers "raided by the state tax collectors"! Plus, many business owners like to "play" rather than "work". The extra costs to that kind of business oversight is greatly increased and causes many businesses to close shop. In construction, too many owners drive around all-day-long trying to look cool and important, but really exhibit stupidity by trying to act like a "cotton field owner with lower slave types working, making the owner feel very controlling and not more down to earth with the employee bases.

HOJ has for decades often spoken and written about business and where business is headed in this country. HOJ has been correct 100% of the time and each and every day that goes by is confirmation of past warnings.

Cry HOJ a river! People who listen are patriots; whereas, people who deny shall experience the life of denial. Oh well, the voters are in control, what is next? - HOJ

At 11:15 AM, Blogger Fred Mangels said...

"Do you think that the high number of vacant storefronts in Eureka is a problem for the local economy?
Or should we just wait a few more years for something to happen?"

Yes. Vacant business buildings are a problem but you're not going to fill them up by trying to force those building owners to rent their buildings. There's nobody to rent them.

As far as I'm concerned there's not really much that can be done about it. There aren't a whole bunch of people just biting at the bit to open businesses here, for whatever reason.

Since commercial building and living costs here are likely lower, if not much lower, than most other parts of the state, you'd think businesses from elsewhere might want to move here but they don't. If they move anywhere, it's likely to another state.

At 11:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


I will try one more time.

Think this through.

Pretend that you own a storefront in Old Town. It is vacant and you are asking $1,800 a month rent for it. Its been vacant for a year.

Now this vacant storefront tax is passed and you will owe $250 a month to the city unless you rent out your store. You lower your rent to $1,500 and rent it out today. Now you are not going to pay the tax and you are getting an extra $1500 a month income to boot.

How are you being hurt, Jeff?

At 11:35 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If buildings are vacant that means the rent is too high. That is basic free market economics. If you deny it then you don't really believe in freedom you believe in a centralized collectivized planned economy.

You are what you fear the most.

At 2:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Too many buildings in Eureka are vacant because the buildings and neighborhoods have gotten ugly for lack of reinvestment. Re-stating Prop. 13 would bring in taxes on a more fair basis, but most importantly it would force "grandfathered" Prop 13 owners to shit or fix up their properties. Then maybe someone would want to move in to Eureka. Until then, the place just gets uglier.

Ironically, many of these same local landlord families were right there with their hands out, taking tax money from the rest of the community through "re-development" all along. Eureka?

At 11:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Henchman Of Justice" says,

Anonymous to whomever this applies since Anonymous can be repetitious......

1) Little Jeffy gets hurt when the business passes along costs that were passed onto the business by the building owner...higher consumer prices

2) Little Jeffy agrees that buildings in Humboldt County (if not new construction) are mostly pieces of shit! Why? Many building owners can't make enough to reinvest back into the building because all associated costs in society keep rising; of course, there exists the sour lemon or few who could lower rents, but don't (yet, this is not indicative of a majority of the buildings owned imo)

3) Little Jeffy understands that the reason longtime businesses have been able to stay afloat (especially in Arcata) IS BECAUSE older buildings exists and cost less to rent BECAUSE the tax base is lower than "new construction where costs are super-inflated". This is not the fault of the building owner; rather, the building owner should be commended for not doing unnecessary improvements that raise taxes on them which results in higher rents to the tenants. HOJ can't remember the name of the Mexican restaraunt that opend about 2 years ago in a newly constructed commercial building in Arcata near that ugly mobile home park a few blocks away from Finish Country Sauna and Hot tubs. That business FAILED BECAUSE the costs of new construction don't allow for many businesses to succeed BECAUSE BUSINESS NEEDS CUSTOMERS who are willing to pay ridiculous prices on the goods and services provided.

Anyhow, HOJ shops less, eats out less, etc... because to live and die in America is to live in a super-inflated cost environment that IS UNSUSTAINABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lastly, most buildings HOJ views that are older merely need some paint prep and paint + landscape maintenances; whereas, the other maintenances have to do with the PUBLIC MAINTAINED delapidated city streets and sidewalks that actually ENHANCE the shitty ass look off the community as a whole.

When the City Of Eureka's leaders come to the conclusion that driving a street sweeper around parked vehicles is a waste of taxpayers revenue and not really doing the intended job, then maybe HOJ will have some interest in government's interest to provide for the benefit of the community in an honorable and sincere fashion. Until then, Eureka is still a shit-hole that needs much public employee improvements! - HOJ

At 12:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Henchman Of Justice" says two more things:

1) Is it not funny how enough people who don't own buildings sure know what is best for the actual building owner (or, was that the community???). Since HOJ does not own to rent a commercial space to a tenant, it would be hard to arrive at what would be accurate data in so far as what the balance sheet of the building owner contains with regard to the owning, operation and sub-letting to another party, arrangement of terms and conditions (which have connected associated costs too), etc... So, to whomever anonymous, HOJ can't answer perfectly a question WHERE data important and beneficiary to the accurate and factual answer you seek is not contained in the question you provided.

Being "forced to lower my rent or pay an extortion fee" when rent price may already be as low as can be "is hurting me" BECAUSE

A. no tenant can afford the lowered rent during a time when costs keep escalating, (thus paying $250 empty fee when BO has a right to "not rent" if BO don't want to rent).

B. especially if by my not renting (and thus not receiving the added income) my overall taxes paid is affected adversely due to "forced renting" which changes the taxing conditions. Sometimes, a person must ensure they don't make income above a certain amount, otherwise steeper income taxes kick-in based upon higher earnings, thus threatening viability to do building maintenances and such, lower rents for future tenants, etc... in AGAIN, an escalating cost environment. If COLA's (as opposed to re-assessments) get "taxed into all property", then why would BO's want to lower their rents?

Again, if property was not taxed, people would have more to work with in maintaining their property (some would cut and run, true); but, for tax assessors, they want the taxes to be higher (lower rents suggest a lower building value too)(is the county assessor willing to devaluate the buildings since they are in worse shape than when the tax base was originally "tax rolled"?) Doubt it, the assessors are already dealing with "upwardly fudged numbers".

2) Also, Owners should be able to "not rent" and "to rent". Sorry, but ownership has its perks. Maybe, the argument gets more steam IF anonymous can relate the situation to the cartel gas suppliers excercising fixed price controls that eliminate competition in the market place, the very competition which lowers costs upon demanding consumers.

* Cal-Fire Fee Hoax update --> the rate of under-returns (those who have not paid the Cal-Fire Hoax fee) is between 25% and 40% (range due to a handfull of county's who received last mailed billings). Never has a "so-called tax" like this had such negative feedback and non-payments. These state elected official weasels involved with the manifestation of this hoax deserve severe punsihment! - HOJ

Happy Holidays, wink wink :-)

At 6:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Happy Holidays to you too Jeff!]

You say "Sometimes, a person must ensure they don't make income above a certain amount, otherwise steeper income taxes kick-in based upon higher earnings, thus threatening viability to do building maintenances and such, lower rents for future tenants, etc."

First of all, you are admitting here that the free market is being perverted by tax law, correct?

Taxing vacant storefronts will correct that perversion.

Secondly you say that the result of "forcing" building owners to rent their buildings will inhibit their ability to do maintenance. How is that possible? How can they maintain a property better with no income coming in?

Lowering rent for actual entrepreneurs (as opposed to keeping rents high and buildings emptey for passive absentee landlorda) will LOWER the cost of doing business. This is econ 101.

Jeff your intentions are good but you are supporting the corrupt good old boys that have been feasting on the rest of us (including you) for years.

At 6:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Henchman Of Justice" says,

Response to first: Sure, if you mean by way of "income taxes", but it does not mean either of us must agree.

Response to first, part B: Only by admitting it is one perversion for another, otherwise the tax is "forcing a building owner to accept less rent"; further, if and when rent restrictions LIKE NYC are put into place, the "tax" would only force the building owner's base rent to be lower, at which point, adjustments to increase rents may take years to get back to where they were dropped by threat of "the $250 tax."

Response to second: Easy, if the business is forced to lower rent by $250, are you suggesting the business will do $250 less in damage per month; or, that the business will change its operation to account for $250 less available to offset the business impacts to that particular building? The business won't change how it damages a building it don't own, especially when a business CAN DUPE the building owner with the business incurred damages to the building.

Sure lowering anything can be construed as lowering the cost of business, but funny thing is, are you willing to have the local tax roll be adjusted downward for that commercial building that is worse than when it was initially buildings only delapidate. Further, the big gap in taxes collected by type has to do with single family and multi family tax roll frauds where regulation was used by bureaucrats year after year to "force-up" prices/costs on single/multi units. So, your ok with raising costs here in the form of "home-buyers" over-paying for super-inflated homes that enough of these buyers have lost because they were too expensive and the mortgages taken out were a sham for the wealthy to crash the market for pennies on the dollar "deals" while government could contain its tax collection debtors for "valuation purposes". All you have opined for is more government spending based from highly rigged cost structures that yields lack of quality and waste of tax revenues while simultaneously taking money out of the pockets of the very small businesses who now have less money to pay for the rent (most business owners seem to own homes too it seems).

Lastly, econ 101 is not being forced to pay a tax in exchange for increasing asset risks to the advantage of the non-asset owner.

You don't know very much except how to take from others to subsidize your wants/needs. The idea of good ole boys feasting on HOJ is true, but it does not mean HOJ must like it, nor that HOJ should "steal" to make amends. HOJ makes amends by voting correctly, not buying goods or services from those connected to the good ole boys, etc... as much as possible and warrnated (So, HOJ is a thinker, oops is it wrong to think about good and bad businesses?).

Lastly, HOJ does not overpay blindly, but researches because HOJ knows and has known for years ever since being 10 years old that the world is a hoax, nothing but deceit for the most part. Thus, HOJ don't trust squat, not even the Pope!

Maybe, these poor and lonely small businesses who are only $250 away from the rent agreement can sign petitions "proving such claims".

Afterall, if building owners see some viable tenants as long-term assets, maybe the trigger gets pulled to lower rent to some degree; and, maybe not because maybe the rent is as low as it can be. One thing is for sure, building owners prefer clean tenants that take care of the building as if it was their own; and, of course a contract is an agreement with terms and conditions not to be dishonored.

Ya, it sucks that the small business is having cost issues, but ya have to admit, HOJ is the first northcoast blogger to discuss the high societal costs as the main reason the economy sux ballz for small businesses!

Maybe we can agree that each building owner is in their own exclusive predicament. What ya think? - HOJ

At 6:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Henchman Of Justice" says,

Oh, so now that HOJ left a response for anonymous, moderation is enabled? WTF? These censorship mechanisms are tacky and disturbing! - HOJ


Post a Comment

<< Home